Ecosystem service (ES) supply and demand assessment is essential for understanding the inner relationships between ecosystems and humans and is useful when formulating future ecological policies. This study analyses the spatial and temporal variations in key ESs in the Yangtze River Middle Reaches Urban Agglomeration to understand the relationship with human demand. First, the InVEST model is used to quantify the spatial and temporal changes in the key ESs from 2000 to 2019, and a supply–demand index is used to explore the supply–demand relationship at the county scale. Second, ES bundle is applied to analyse the relationships among ESs in different supply–demand balance areas. Finally, different ecological protection scenarios are proposed to simulate the supply–demand relationship in 2040. The results show that (1) the impacts of ecological factors on the ES supply are greater than socioeconomic factors, especially the precipitation and distance from the Yangtze River. (2) Regions of supply–demand imbalance are mainly concentrated in provincial centres and the surrounding cities, especially in the Wuhan city circle. (3) Each ES in regions of balanced supply and demand is well-balanced, and ESs in regions of supply-demand imbalance are dominated by one service. (4) Among the simulated scenarios, the climate regulation protection scenario in 2040 yields the optimal supply–demand result. This study can contribute to future management decision-making regarding the balance between the supply and demand of ecosystem services.
BastianOSyrbeR-URosenbergM, et al. (2013) The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services. Eye Science Electronic Resource4: 15–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.003.
2.
ChenDJiangPLiM (2021) Assessing potential ecosystem service dynamics driven by urbanization in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. Journal of Environmental Management292: 112734. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112734.
3.
ChenJJiangBBaiY, et al. (2019) Quantifying ecosystem services supply and demand shortfalls and mismatches for management optimisation. The Science of the Total Environment650: 1426–1439. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.126.
4.
ChengLGuanDZhouL, et al. (2019) Urban cooling Island effect of main River on a landscape scale in chongqing, China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47: 101501. DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101501.
5.
CostanzaRdArgeRdeGrootR, et al. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature387: 253–260. DOI: 10.1038/387253a0.
6.
DaiXWangLHuangC, et al. (2020) Spatio-temporal variations of ecosystem services in the urban agglomerations in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River, China. Ecological Indicators115: 106394. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106394.
7.
DaiXWangLTaoM, et al. (2021) Assessing the ecological balance between supply and demand of blue-green infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Management288: 112454. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112454.
8.
DengCLiuJLiuY, et al. (2021) Spatiotemporal dislocation of urbanization and ecological construction increased the ecosystem service supply and demand imbalance. Journal of Environmental Management288: 112478. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112478.
9.
DongXWangXWeiH, et al. (2021) Trade-offs between local farmers’ demand for ecosystem services and ecological restoration of the Loess Plateau, China. [Eye Science Electronic Resource]49: 101295. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101295.
10.
FangLWangLChenW, et al. (2021a) Identifying the impacts of natural and human factors on ecosystem service in the Yangtze and Yellow River Basins. Journal of Cleaner Production314: 127995. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127995.
11.
FangLlXuDhWangLc, et al. (2021b) The study of ecosystem services and the comparison of trade-off and synergy in Yangtze River Basin and Yellow River Basin (In Chinese). Geographical Research40: 821–838. DOI: 10.11821/dlyj020200044.
12.
FengZJinXChenT, et al. (2021) Understanding trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services to support the decision-making in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Land Use Policy106: 105446. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105446.
13.
GuptaAKNegiMNandyS, et al. (2019) Assessing the vulnerability of socio-environmental systems to climate change along an altitude gradient in the Indian Himalayas. Ecological Indicators106: 105512. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105512.
14.
HaghighatafsharSNordl€ofBRoldinM, et al. (2018) Efficiency of blue-green stormwater retrofits for flood mitigation - Conclusions drawn from a case study in Malmö, Sweden. Journal of Environmental Management207: 60–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.018.
15.
HuangZZhangYWangF, et al. (2021) Advancing a novel large-scale assessment integrating ecosystem service flows and real human needs: a comparison between China and the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production314: 128022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128022.
16.
KaiXChunfangKGangL, et al. (2010) Changes of urban wetlands in Wuhan, China, from 1987 to 2005. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment34: 207–220. DOI: 10.1177/0309133309360626.
17.
Khosravi MashiziASharafatmandradM (2021) Investigating tradeoffs between supply, use and demand of ecosystem services and their effective drivers for sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management289: 112534. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112534.
18.
LanXTangHLiangH (2017) A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations. [Eye Science Electronic Resource]28: 95–104. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.014.
19.
LiBGasserTCiaisP, et al. (2016a) The contribution of China's emissions to global climate forcing. Nature531: 357–361. DOI: 10.1038/nature17165.
20.
LiCWangRZhangF, et al. (2019) Relationships between Ecosystem Services and Urbanization in Jiangsu Province, Eastern China. Sustainability11: 2073.
21.
LiJJiangHBaiY, et al. (2016b) Indicators for spatial-temporal comparisons of ecosystem service status between regions: a case study of the Taihu River Basin, China. Ecological Indicators60: 1008–1016. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.002.
22.
LiuHHuYLiF, et al. (2018) Associations of multiple ecosystem services and disservices of urban park ecological infrastructure and the linkages with socioeconomic factors. Journal of Cleaner Production174: 868–879. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.139.
23.
LiuHPengJ (2020) Determinants of ecosystem processes and services in the karst critical zone in south-west China. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment45: 3–6. DOI: 10.1177/0309133320977783.
24.
LiuXLiangXLiX, et al. (2017) A future land use simulation model (FLUS) for simulating multiple land use scenarios by coupling human and natural effects. Landscape and Urban Planning168: 94–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.019.
25.
LuoQZhouJLiZ, et al. (2020a) Spatial differences of ecosystem services and their driving factors: a comparation analysis among three urban agglomerations in China’s Yangtze River Economic Belt. The Science of the Total Environment725: 138452. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138452.
26.
LuoQZhouJLiZ, et al. (2020b) Spatial differences of ecosystem services and their driving factors: a comparation analysis among three urban agglomerations in China’s Yangtze River Economic Belt. The Science of the Total Environment725: 138452. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138452.
27.
Martinez-HarmsMJBryanBAFigueroaE, et al (2017) Scenarios for land use and ecosystem services under global change. [Eye Science Electronic Resource]25: 56–68. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.021.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
30.
OuyangXTangLWeiX, et al. (2021) Spatial interaction between urbanization and ecosystem services in Chinese urban agglomerations. Land Use Policy109: 105587. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105587.
31.
PanZHeJLiuD, et al. (2020) Predicting the joint effects of future climate and land use change on ecosystem health in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. Applied Geography124: 102293. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102293.
32.
PengJTianLLiuY, et al. (2017) Ecosystem services response to urbanization in metropolitan areas: thresholds identification. The Science of the Total Environment607-608: 706–714. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.218.
33.
PengJWangXLiuY, et al. (2020) Urbanization impact on the supply-demand budget of ecosystem services: decoupling analysis. [Eye Science Electronic Resource]44. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101139.
34.
PokhriyalPRehmanSAreendranG, et al. (2020) Assessing forest cover vulnerability in Uttarakhand, India using analytical hierarchy process. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment6: 821–831. DOI: 10.1007/s40808-019-00710-y.
35.
PotschinMBHaines-YoungRH (2011) Ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment35: 575–594. DOI: 10.1177/0309133311423172.
36.
QiuSPengJDongJ, et al. (2020) Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and associated social-ecological drivers in a karst region: a case study of Guizhou Province, China. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment45: 98–114. DOI: 10.1177/0309133320933525.
37.
RenardDRhemtullaJMBennettEM (2015) Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112: 13411–13416. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1502565112.
38.
SannigrahiSZhangQPillaF, et al. (2020) Responses of ecosystem services to natural and anthropogenic forcings: a spatial regression based assessment in the world’s largest mangrove ecosystem. The Science of the Total Environment715: 137004. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137004.
39.
ShenJLiSLiuL, et al. (2021) Uncovering the relationships between ecosystem services and social-ecological drivers at different spatial scales in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Journal of Cleaner Production290: 125193. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125193.
40.
SuttonPCAndersonSJCostanzaR, et al. (2016) The ecological economics of land degradation: impacts on ecosystem service values. Ecological Economics129: 182–192. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.016.
41.
WangYHDaiEFYinL, et al (2018) Land use/land cover change and the effects on ecosystem services in the Hengduan Mountain region, China. Eye Science Electronic Resource34: 55–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.09.008.
42.
WeiHFanWDingZ, et al. (2017) Ecosystem services and ecological restoration in the northern shaanxi loess plateau, China, in relation to climate fluctuation and investments in natural capital. Sustainability9: 199.
43.
XiongSwANJqINC (2018) Dynamic evolution of regional landscape ecosystem in the middle reaches of the Yangtze river. Environmental Protection Science44: 30–35.
44.
YangHHuangJLiuD (2020) Linking climate change and socioeconomic development to urban land use simulation: analysis of their concurrent effects on carbon storage. Applied Geography115: 102135. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102135.
45.
ZengYHuangCTangY, et al. (2021) Precipitation variations in the flood seasons of 1910-2019 in Hunan and Its association with the PDO, AMO, and ENSO. Frontiers in Earth Science9. DOI: 10.3389/feart.2021.656594.
46.
ZhangGZhengDXieL, et al. (2021a) Mapping changes in the value of ecosystem services in the Yangtze river middle reaches megalopolis, China. [Eye Science Electronic Resource]48: 101252. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101252.
47.
ZhangZLiuYWangY, et al. (2020) What factors affect the synergy and tradeoff between ecosystem services, and how, from a geospatial perspective?Journal of Cleaner Production257: 120454. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120454.
48.
ZhangZPengJXuZ, et al. (2021b) Ecosystem services supply and demand response to urbanization: a case study of the Pearl river delta, China. [Eye Science Electronic Resource]49: 101274. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101274.
49.
ZhuWPanYZhangJ (2007) Estimation of net primary productivity of chinese terrestrial vegetation based on remote sensing. Journal of Plant Ecology31: 413–424.
