Abstract

Studying the trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services upstream and downstream of dams is of great importance because such studies can help guide the coordinated development of ecosystems. Taking the Danjiangkou dam as an example, we studied the trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services in the river basin upstream and downstream of the dam. First, based on Costanza’s research method, we used the equivalent factor method to revise the equivalent factor of the Hanjiang River Basin. This basin includes the Danjiangkou dam, which provides services for agriculture. On that basis, the spatio-temporal dynamics of ecosystem service values during the period of 1990–2015 for the whole basin were estimated. The relationships among ecosystem services upstream and downstream of the Danjiangkou dam and throughout the basin were then analyzed using correlation analysis. The results demonstrate that the value of ecosystem services for the entire basin steadily increased during the period of 1990–2015. Among all ecosystem services, climate regulation and hydrologic regulation presented the highest ecosystem service values. Clear differences in spatial patterns existed in the two analysis areas. The ecosystem service values upstream of the dam were higher than those downstream of the dam. Approximately 60% of the relationships among the ecosystem services in the whole basin were synergistic, which was the dominant relationship. Synergies were more common upstream of the dam than downstream, and these synergies existed primarily between regulation services and composite services and between regulation services and cultural services. Trade-offs were more common downstream of the dam and existed mainly between supply and regulation services. Upstream food production was involved in significant trade-offs with biodiversity below the dam. Raw material production, gas regulation, climate regulation, soil conservation, and biodiversity above the dam showed significant synergies with gas regulation and climate regulation downstream.

Highlights

  • Ecosystem services are benefits obtained directly or indirectly from ecosystems (Wilson and Matthews 1970; Daily 1997a; Costanza et al 1997) and are closely linked to human wellbeing

  • This paper presented a comprehensive analysis of the trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services from three aspects, considering that demands for the types and quantities of ecosystem services differ among various stakeholders

  • The ecosystem service value of water accounted for approximately 22–24% of the total ecosystem service value

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Ecosystem services are benefits obtained directly or indirectly from ecosystems (Wilson and Matthews 1970; Daily 1997a; Costanza et al 1997) and are closely linked to human wellbeing. With the increase in population and over-urbanization (Worm et al 2006), the demands for ecosystem services by human activity far outstrip the available ecosystem services, which are the capacity of ecosystems to sequester pollutants and provide required natural goods (Guan et al 2016b; Kai and Fan 2017). To meet the growing demands, natural resources are being overly exploited and utilized by humans, and the capacities of basin ecosystems have been exceeded, resulting in a focus on ecosystem service needs at the expense of other services. Demands for the types and quantities of ecosystem services differ, and the corresponding ecosystem service management strategies differ; this relationship makes it difficult to maximize the benefits of ecosystem services and achieve the coordinated development of ecosystem services in different regions of a basin (Raudsepphearne et al 2010). It is necessary to study the relationships among ecosystem services to achieve the coordinated development of the different ecosystem services in different regions, to achieve the maximum benefits for stakeholders and optimize the management of ecosystem services (Daily et al 2009), and to reach win-win goals for regional development and ecological protection (Cao et al 2016; Li et al 2017)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.