Identifying the regional spatial management of ecosystem services from a supply and demand perspective: A case study of Danjiangkou reservoir area, China

• Published in: Ecological indicators Vol. 158; p. 111421
• Main Authors: Zhang, Jian, Guo, Wen, Wang, Yuerong, Tang, Zhiying, Qi, Lianghua
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.01.2024; Elsevier
• Subjects: Driving factors; Matching supply–demand; Scale effect; Spatial control; Trade-offs; Driving factors; Spatial control; Scale effect; Trade-offs; Matching supply–demand
• ISSN: 1470-160X; 1872-7034
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111421

[Display omitted] •Ecosystem services are benefits humans obtain from ecological systems.•Temporal and spatial dynamics and drivers of supply–demand relationships studied.•Multidisciplinary and multi-method approach using multi-data sources.•Supply/demand of eight ESs in the DJKR area have clear spatiotemporal variability.•Spatial guidance and decision-making basis for ES optimization. The supply–demand, spatial matching, trade-offs, and synergies of ecosystem services (ESs) are important foundations for sustainable environmental management. The Danjiangkou Reservoir area (DJKR) is an important water source for the South-to-North Water Diversion Middle Route Project in China. Spatiotemporal dynamics of supply and demand for eight ESs between 2000 and 2020 were studied using the food–energy method, InVEST model, recreation opportunity spectrum, supply–demand matching relationship, and geographically weighted regression. From 2000 to 2020, supply and demand of the eight ESs displayed clear spatiotemporal variability; geographic detector analysis showed that land-use types were strong determinants of supply, with the interactions between each factor stronger than those between single factors. Demand for ESs was limited by natural–social factors. The supply–demand ratios of each indicator varied spatially (at regional, county, and sub-watershed scales) and temporally. Similarly, trade-off synergistic relationships also changed at all three spatial scales. Spatial control areas (levels I–IV) were delineated, and corresponding management programs were proposed. The results of this study strengthen our understanding of the spatiotemporal variation and driving factors in ES supply–demand, and provide technical and theoretical support for spatial management policies for ESs in the DJKR.