TY - JOUR
T1 - Ecosystem services-human wellbeing relationships vary with spatial scales and indicators
T2 - The case of China
AU - Liu, Lumeng
AU - Wu, Jianguo
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank G. Hu, C. Shang, D. Yu, and B. Zhou for helpful discussion on this work. We also greatly appreciate the constructive comments from the anonymous reviewers. This research was supported in part by Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology through the National Basic Research Program of China ( 2014CB954303 , 2014CB954300 ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Ecosystem services (ES) are essential for sustaining human wellbeing (HWB), but empirical studies have shown that the ES-HWB relationship can be positive, negative, or nonexistent. Reconciling these seemingly conflicting results requires better understanding how the ES-HWB relationship varies with scales and indicators. Here we systematically analyzed the ES-HWB relationship between six ES and ten HWB measures in China on three spatial scales (i.e., provincial, prefectural and county scales), using both simple regression and constraint line analyses. Three major results emerged from our analysis: (1) social/economic wellbeing (e.g., HDI and Life Expectancy) were generally positively correlated with provisioning and cultural services at the provincial scale, but the correlative relationships changed to constraint relationships at the prefectural and county scales, suggesting that these services influenced the mean values of HWB on the provincial scale but only the maximum and minimum values of HWB on finer scales; (2) environmental wellbeing (Water Quality and Air Quality) had consistent correlative or constraint relationships with ES across scales – negative correlations with provisioning ES and positive constraint relationships with regulating ES; and (3) socioeconomic wellbeing had no relationships with regulating ES on any scale. The detected scale- and indicator-dependent patterns of the ES-HWB relationship can help better understand the ES-HWB relationship in general and the so-called “Environmentalist's Paradox” in particular. It indicates that a hierarchical, multiscale approach is necessary to study and improve the ES-HWB relationship. For managing ES to improve HWB, for instance, simply extrapolating policies across administrative levels may lead to unintended outcomes.
AB - Ecosystem services (ES) are essential for sustaining human wellbeing (HWB), but empirical studies have shown that the ES-HWB relationship can be positive, negative, or nonexistent. Reconciling these seemingly conflicting results requires better understanding how the ES-HWB relationship varies with scales and indicators. Here we systematically analyzed the ES-HWB relationship between six ES and ten HWB measures in China on three spatial scales (i.e., provincial, prefectural and county scales), using both simple regression and constraint line analyses. Three major results emerged from our analysis: (1) social/economic wellbeing (e.g., HDI and Life Expectancy) were generally positively correlated with provisioning and cultural services at the provincial scale, but the correlative relationships changed to constraint relationships at the prefectural and county scales, suggesting that these services influenced the mean values of HWB on the provincial scale but only the maximum and minimum values of HWB on finer scales; (2) environmental wellbeing (Water Quality and Air Quality) had consistent correlative or constraint relationships with ES across scales – negative correlations with provisioning ES and positive constraint relationships with regulating ES; and (3) socioeconomic wellbeing had no relationships with regulating ES on any scale. The detected scale- and indicator-dependent patterns of the ES-HWB relationship can help better understand the ES-HWB relationship in general and the so-called “Environmentalist's Paradox” in particular. It indicates that a hierarchical, multiscale approach is necessary to study and improve the ES-HWB relationship. For managing ES to improve HWB, for instance, simply extrapolating policies across administrative levels may lead to unintended outcomes.
KW - Constraint lines
KW - Ecosystem services
KW - Human wellbeing
KW - Provisioning services
KW - Scale dependence
KW - Socioeconomic and environmental wellbeing
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85106485704&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85106485704&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105662
DO - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105662
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85106485704
SN - 0921-3449
VL - 172
JO - Resources, Conservation and Recycling
JF - Resources, Conservation and Recycling
M1 - 105662
ER -