Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead

Relationships Between Ecosystem Services: Comparing Methods for Assessing Tradeoffs and Synergies

“…Both parametric and non-parametric tests of significance can be corrected to take into account spatial autocorrelation (Casalegno et al, 2013;Gos and Lavorel, 2012). Static spatial correlation studies have been criticized because they omit landscape history, an important factor in understanding ES relationships (Tomscha and Gergel, 2016), and because they often present ES spatial correlations as interactions, even when they are not; they are simply evidence of nonrandom associations (Bennett et al, 2009;Cord et al, 2017). Less frequently applied are methods integrating ES temporal dynamics by analyzing historical datasets (Renard et al, 2015;Tomscha and Gergel, 2016;Zheng et al, 2014); as few studies have data on ES over both time and space Dittrich et al, 2017;Locatelli et al, 2017).…”

“…Mouchet et al (2014) observed that the word "tradeoff" should not be used to describe static negative associations between ES (like spatial congruence, spatial concordance, co-occurrence or overlap of ES), but reserved for associations repeated in time and space. Others called for a better distinction between two types of relationships between ES, as defined by Bennett et al (2009) (Birkhofer et al, 2015;Cord et al, 2017;Seppelt et al, 2011). Direct relationships between ES involve causal relationships between ES, while indirect relationships are based on correlations due to biophysical or socioeconomic drivers (Bennett et al, 2009;Birkhofer et al, 2015;Seppelt et al, 2011).…”

Understanding relationships among ecosystem services across spatial scales and over time

“…Hence, it is imperative to understand relationships among ES to sustain multiple services, manage undesirable tradeoffs, and forestall ecological surprises. Prior research has defined types of ES relationships, and elucidated underpinning mechanisms (Rodríguez et al 2006, Bennett et al 2009, Cord et al 2017. Major relationships include: (1) tradeoffs, in which one ES is reduced because of increased use or supply of another; and (2) synergies, where multiple ES are enhanced simultaneously.…”

Balancing tradeoffs: Reconciling multiple environmental goals when ecosystem services vary regionally

“…Yet several realities of modern conservation, and their associated challenges, merit discussion. Conservation strategies and priorities are not determined by a single actor, and instead competing interestsincluding those of farmers, ranchers, corporations, environmentalists, indigenous peoples, and regional and national government agencies-all influence the pattern and rate of agricultural expansion and have different priorities that operate at different scales (Garrett and Rausch 2016, Lenzen et al 2013, Fuchs et al 2011, Soares-Filho et al 2016, Gibbs et al 2015, Cord et al 2017, King et al 2015. Agricultural expansion often follows the spatial configuration of roads or waterways (Soares-Filho et al 2006, Fearnside 2007 or the availability of suitable forestland for conversion, whose suitability depends on the constraints of the agriculturalist and the crop they aim to produce (Ordway et al 2017), which in turn is dependent on local, regional and global market demand for food, fuel and fiber (Pacheco 2012, DeFries et al 2010.…”