Life on Land

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Synergies and Trade-Offs Between Ecosystem Services

  • Marije SchaafsmaEmail author
  • Bartosz Bartkowski
Living reference work entry



When multiple ecosystem services (ES) can be, or are, present in a landscape, their relationship becomes important to understand how that landscape can contribute toward sustainability and human well-being. A co-occurrence of ES exists when two ES occur at the same time and place. An ES bundle reflects multiple ES jointly delivered. However, co-occurrence does not provide much information about their relationship. There is a synergy, when an ecosystem is managed such that two ecosystems are present and together create a beneficial effect that is larger than the sum of their individual effects. A win-win situation is when there are two parties that experience (net) benefits, or when one management action or intervention improves two or more ES. A trade-offoccurs where increasing or gaining one ES must come at the expense or decrease of another ES, or when one party...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Adams H, Adger WN, Huq H et al (2013) Wellbeing-ecosystem service links: mechanisms and dynamics in the southwest coastal zone of Bangladesh. ESPA Deltas working paperGoogle Scholar
  2. Albers HJ, Robinson EJ (2011) The trees and the bees: using enforcement and income projects to protect forests and rural livelihoods through spatial joint production. Agric Resour Econ Rev 40(3):424–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arias-Maldonado M (2007) An imaginary solution? The green defence of deliberative democracy. Environ Value 16:233–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron J, Leshner S (2000) How serious are expressions of protected values? J Exp Psychol Appl 6(3):183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton DN, Ring I, Rusch GM (2017) Policy mixes: aligning instruments for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision. Environ Policy Gov 27:397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM et al (2013) Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341(6141):45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A et al (2015) Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berbés-Blázquez M, González JA, Pascual U (2016) Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1(19):134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowen KJ, Cradock-Henry NA, Koch F et al (2017) Implementing the “Sustainable Development Goals”: towards addressing three key governance challenges – collective action, trade-offs, and accountability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1(26):90–96Google Scholar
  10. Brunner SH, Huber R, Grêt-Regamey A (2016) A backcasting approach for matching regional ecosystem services supply and demand. Environ Model Softw 75:439–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell BM, Sayer JA, Walker B (2010) Navigating trade-offs: working for conservation and development outcomes. Ecol Soc 15(2):16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Peterson GD (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol Soc 11(1):29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavender-Bares J, Polasky S, King E et al (2015) A sustainability framework for assessing trade-offs in ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 20(1):17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chilvers J (2009) Deliberative and participatory approaches in environmental geography. In: Castree N, Demeritt D, Liverman D et al (eds) A companion to environmental geography. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester/Malden, pp 400–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cord AF, Bartkowski B, Beckmann M et al (2017) Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst Serv 28C:264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coulthard S (2012) Can we be both resilient and well, and what choices do people have? Incorporating agency into the resilience debate from a fisheries perspective. Ecol Soc 17(1):4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cruz-Garcia GS, Sachet E, Vanegas M et al (2016) Are the major imperatives of food security missing in ecosystem services research? Ecosyst Serv 19:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dade MC, Mitchell MGE, McAlpine CA et al (2019) Assessing ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: the need for a more mechanistic approach. Ambio 48:1116–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S et al (2011) Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ Conserv 38:370–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daw TM, Coulthard S, Cheung WWL et al (2015) Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystems services and human well-being. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:6949–6954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dawson N, Martin A (2015) Assessing the contribution of ecosystem services to human wellbeing: a disaggregated study in western Rwanda. Ecol Econ 117:62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. de Bello F, Lavorel S, Díaz S et al (2010) Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodivers Conserv 19:2873–2893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES et al (2019) Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366:eaax3100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dryzek JS, Pickering J (2019) The politics of the anthropocene. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Ewers RM, Rodrigues AS (2008) Estimates of reserve effectiveness are confounded by leakage. Trends Ecol Evol 23(3):113–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green JM, Fisher B, Green RE et al (2018) Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority. Glob Ecol Conserv 1(14):e00385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gregory RS (2002) Incorporating value trade-offs into community-based environmental risk decisions. Environ Value 11:461–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Halpern BS, Klein CJ, Brown CJ et al (2013) Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(15):6229–6234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanspach J, Abson DJ, French Collier N et al (2017) From trade-offs to synergies in food security and biodiversity conservation. Front Ecol Environ 15(9):489–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howe C, Suich H, Vira B et al (2014) Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Chang 28:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hutton CW, Nicholls RJ, Lázár AN et al (2018) Potential trade-offs between the Sustainable Development Goals in coastal Bangladesh. Sustainability 10:1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kanter DR, Musumba M, Wood SLR et al (2018) Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agric Syst 163:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keane A, Gurd H, Kaelo D et al (2016) Gender differentiated preferences for a community-based conservation initiative. PLoS One 11(3):0152432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. King E, Cavender-Bares J, Balvanera P et al (2015) Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities. Ecol Soc 20(3):25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Law EA, Bryan BA, Meijaard E et al (2017) Mixed policies give more options in multifunctional tropical forest landscapes. J Appl Ecol 54:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee H, Lautenbach S (2016) A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 66:340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lester SE, Costello C, Halpern BS et al (2013) Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 38:80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mace G, Schreckenberg K, Poudyal M (2018) Ecosystem services for human wellbeing: trade-offs and governance. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Maes J, Paracchini ML, Zulian G et al (2012) Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biol Conserv 155:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martinez-Harms MJ, Bryan BA, Balvanera P et al (2015) Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 184:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mavrommati G, Bithas K, Borsuk ME et al (2016) Integration of ecological–biological thresholds in conservation decision making. Conserv Biol 30:1173–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McShane TO, Hirsch PD, Trung TC et al (2011) Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol Conserv 144:966–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mekonnen DK, Spielman DJ, Fonsah EG et al (2015) Innovation systems and technical efficiency in developing-country agriculture. Agric Econ 46:689–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mouchet MA, Paracchini ML, Schulp CJE et al (2017) Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes. Ecol Indic 73:23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nelson GC, Dobermann A, Nakicenovic N et al (2006) Anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem change: an overview. Ecol Soc 11(2):29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nerini FF, Tomei J, To LS et al (2018) Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Energy 3:10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nicholson E, Mace GM, Armsworth PR et al (2009) Priority research areas for ecosystem services in a changing world. J Appl Ecol 46(6):1139–1144Google Scholar
  48. Nilson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016) Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534:320–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Obersteiner M, Walsh B, Frank S et al (2016) Assessing the land resource–food price nexus of the Sustainable Development Goals. Science 2:e1501499Google Scholar
  50. Ostrom E (1991) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Plieninger T, Torralba M, Hartel T et al (2019) Perceived ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs, and bundles in European high nature value farming landscapes. Landsc Ecol 34(7):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:2959–2971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pradhan P, Costa L, Rybski D et al (2017) A systematic study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future 5:1169–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Quintas-Soriano C, Castro AJ, García-Llorente M et al (2014) From supply to social demand: a landscape-scale analysis of the water regulation service. Landsc Ecol 29(6):1069–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rodríguez J, Beard J, Bennett E et al (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 11:28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saltelli A (2019) A short comment on statistical versus mathematical modelling. Nat Commun 10:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scherer L, Behrens P, de Koning A et al (2018) Trade-offs between social and environmental Sustainable Development Goals. Environ Sci Policy 1(90):65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schröter M, Koellner T, Alkemade R et al (2018) Interregional flows of ecosystem services: concepts, typology and four cases. Ecosyst Serv 31:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Seppelt R, Lautenbach S, Volk M (2013) Identifying trade-offs between ecosystem services, land use, and biodiversity: a plea for combining scenario analysis and optimization on different spatial scales. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:458–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shackleton CM, Ruwanza S, Sanni GS et al (2016) Unpacking Pandora’s box: understanding and categorizing ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems 19(4):587–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Singh GG, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Swartz W et al (2018) A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals. Mar Policy 93:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Spake R, Lasseur R, Crouzat E et al (2017) Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: towards predictive mapping of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 47:37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Strauch M, Cord AF, Pätzold C et al (2019) Constraints in multi-objective optimization of land use allocation – repair or penalize? Environ Model Softw 118:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Suich H, Howe C, Mace G (2015) Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: a review of the empirical links. Ecosyst Serv 12:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tetlock PE, Kristel OV, Elson SB et al (2000) The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J Pers Soc Psychol 78(5):853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tinbergen J (1952) On the theory of economic policy. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  67. Turkelboom F, Leone M, Jacobs S et al (2018) When we cannot have it all: ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosyst Serv 29:566–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. United Nations (UN) (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1. UN General Assembly, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM (2013) Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol Complex 15:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH (2015) Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol Indic 55:159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wunder S, Brouwer R, Engel S et al (2018) From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nat Sustain 1:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental StudiesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZLeipzigGermany

Section editors and affiliations

  • Anabela Marisa Azul
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Neuroscience and Cell BiologyUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal