applied

sciences
Article
Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review and Future
Dimension in Freshwater Ecosystems
Deeksha and Anoop Kumar Shukla *

Manipal School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal Academy of Higher Education,

Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Ecosystem services are part and parcel of human lives. It is of paramount importance to
understand the interaction between these ecosystem services, as they are directly related to human
life. In the modern era, quantification of ecosystem services (ES) is playing an important role in
the proper understanding and efficient management of social–ecological systems. Even though
a significant amount of literature is available to present on the topic, there is a need to build an
adequate amount of knowledge repository. Hence, a systematic literature review method is used,
in which research question and searching stages are defined. This review study is conducted on
ecosystem services and remote-sensing-related keywords in the Scopus database. After a systematic
analysis of the papers retrieved from the Elsevier, Scopus database, MDPI, and open source, a total of
140 primary articles were categorized according to their relationship with other ecosystem services,
land use, land cover, and planning management. Major issue findings and important aspects have
been analyzed and reported in each category. With this analysis and developments in the existing
literature, we have potential areas for future research. Findings pointed out that regional or local-level
ecosystem services-related work is immensely important, and a hotspot of current research aiming to
understand the variability and spatiotemporal dynamics in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Citation: Deeksha; Shukla, A.K.
Ecosystem Services: A Systematic
Literature Review and Future
Keywords: ecosystem services; provisioning ecosystem services; regulating ecosystem services;
Dimension in Freshwater Ecosystems. cultural ecosystem services; supporting ecosystem services
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518. https://doi.
org/10.3390/app12178518

Academic Editors: Amit Kuma,

1. Introduction
Santosh Subhash Palmate and
Rituraj Shukla The biophysical state of the ecosystem is affected by multiple elements and, simul-
taneously, by humans’ ability to enjoy its services [1]. Furthermore, Anthropogenic and
Received: 11 June 2022 non-anthropogenic interventions can change the biochemical cycles and earth’s energy
Accepted: 11 August 2022
equilibrium, in turn causing global warming, and future climate changes [2]. On the other
Published: 25 August 2022
hand, rapid urbanization degrades ecosystem services [1,3]. Gretchen, in his work, points
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral out that the lifestyle of the people may be hampering the prosperity of ecological biodi-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in versity at the expense of their descendants [4,5]. Talking about ecological biodiversity, the
published maps and institutional affil- term ecosystem services is described by many authors as the process that helps to sustain
iations. human life, with the help of interaction between the natural ecosystem and the species [4,6].
Globally, human systems are supported by nature’s contribution, i.e., ecosystem services,
and [7,8] state that land use and land cover changes (LULC) induced by humans have
increased over the last three decades, leading to changes from a natural setting to human-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
conquered land. Furthermore, according to Gómez-Baggethun & Barton [9] more than
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
50% of the world’s inhabitants reside in urban areas and potentially receive benefits from
This article is an open access article
the ecosystem services; the future projection of people living in urban areas is calculated
distributed under the terms and
to reach 66% by 2050. The main motive for this research is to find a way to conserve the
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
existing ecosystem, with a background of arising global environmental issues.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178518 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 2 of 19

Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem services (ES) are defined as the benefits people obtain from nature [1,4,6]. ES
connects human well-being and natural systems to ecological and economic development to
lay a platform between nature and society [10]. Land use and land cover changes increase the
population rate and have a huge impact on ES, which is leading to its degradation [11–16].
Therefore, evaluation of ES has been the core subject of research in the academic section for
years [17,18], and the recent past interventions also show the readiness of the study to inform
policymakers in undertaking essential decisions in the policy making process along, with
the integration of ecology, geography, and economy [19]. In the study [20], the authors put
forward that the authenticity of the ecosystem cannot be based on human intervention alone;
the same is considered authentic when the researcher considers both pristine and altered
forms of the ecosystem, therefore understanding the change in fundamental characteristics of
the ecosystem.
ES plays a vital part in constituting the well-being of an individual’s life through
security provision, meeting the basic needs for day-to-day life along with health and good
social relationships with each other. Urban ecosystems are still a critical area of ES research,
as half of the world’s population dwells in urban areas. According to MEA, around 60% of
global ES has been threatened or used inappropriately, and the same process is expected
to continue essentially in the first half of the present century [1]. For this reason, recently,
ES is significantly considered one of the vital aspects of land use planning and ecological
environmental planning and management [19–32].
The interaction between the ESs can take place in two ways. The first is trade-offs,
where an increase in the effect of one of the ES results in a decreased effect in other ES. The
second is synergies, where the increase in the effect of one ES also leads to the increased
effect of other ES [23,24]. When these relationships occur again across space and time, they
are called ES bundles [25]. Understanding this relationship is rather critical, as it focuses on
the relationship between ES by concentrating on inherent bundles rather than on discrete
ES [26–28]. Studies by Bennett et al. say that the trade-offs and the synergies are caused by
the interaction among various ecosystems, so the ecosystem services cannot be considered
independent [29]. Braat & de Groot infer that the study of various ES is complex [30].
Ecosystems can be monitored at different levels; they can be studied at a global scale or
regional scale, or local scale. Global-level studies are carried out worldwide, but researchers
suggest studying the services at the local level, which gives us a better understanding of
the situation, helping us to take up appropriate mitigation strategies at a regional level.
This helps us achieve sustainable goals at the global level [28]. Although research studies
by a wide range of scholars have shed light on the interaction of various ecosystem services
in recent years, the amalgamation of our existing knowledge repository and gaps is still
inadequate [31].
Various other frameworks emerged in the recent past for ES studies [33]. To account
for the natural capital, Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES)
integrates different criteria of various ESs. Closely capturing concepts that relate to nature’s
contribution to humans is the framework developed by Inter-governmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). To understand ES, Ref. [1] came
up with a base framework for global ES study; therefore, ES can be classified into four
categories: (i) provisioning ecosystem services, (ii) regulating ecosystem services, (iii)
cultural ecosystem services, and (iv) supporting ecosystem services.
Provisioning ecosystem services (PES) are defined as the goods that can be directly
extracted from nature and consumed, which have a certain market value. Examples of
provisioning ecosystem services are water, food, wood, biofuels, etc. Stating the same, for
the freshwater supply ecosystem service, it is necessary to have an ecosystem that is func-
tioning in a good way [34]. Climatic factors such as precipitation, evaporation, and climate
variability are the important components that control the water yield of the region [34].
Water yield has positive linkage between evapotranspiration and soil conservation [35],
along with other components such as food production, timber, etc.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 3 of 19

Regulating ecosystem services (RES) can be defined as the benefits that are drawn from
the process of the ecosystem that modifies the condition that we are presently experiencing.
Examples of the same will be climate changes, carbon storage, soil fertility, floods, etc. [29].
The study emphasizes the relationship in terms of trade-offs and/or synergies of regulating
ecosystem with other ESs, due to which regulating ESs can be considered as one of the
critical parameters for the assessment of ecological resilience [35]. Managing one ES
parameter will improve synergies among other ES parameters, especially among carbon
storage, low flow, biodiversity, etc. [36]. Carbon (C) storage is a key attribute in regulating
the global service of climate regulation [9]. Practical implementation of C sequestration
knowledge will take a back step in public policymaking due to the lack of effectiveness
in translating scientific criteria [37]. Carbon sequestration acts as an important parameter
in global climatic regulation [33]. Carbon is stored in four different layers in nature,
i.e., aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, soil organic carbon, and dead matter
storage. As carbon is stored (~70%) in the terrestrial ecosystem [38–40], its carbon dynamics
potential could be affected in the future under rising carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon
present in the soil considerably has a huge impact on the spatial and non-spatial data.
Hence, long-and-medium term modeling taking into consideration of different LULC
scenarios is the hotspot of current research, which helps policymakers with the mitigation
strategies framework and decision-making process. This process can be re-scaled globally,
regionally, and locally by co-relating different rationales to economic opportunities and
regulatory policymaking.
Gómez-Baggethun et al. [41] introduced cultural ecosystem services (CES), but MEA
studied and defined them as “the non-material or intangible benefits people obtain from the
ecosystem either spiritually, through cognitive development, recreation, self-reflection or
through experiencing aesthetically” [1]. In this ES, some of the services, such as recreations,
have market value, whereas other services do not have the same. Functions fulfilling
life information functionality are the different ways in which cultural ecosystems are
included in the study [4,6,42]. Additionally, Sen & Guchhait simplify the definition by
correlating humans’ sociocultural practices with psychological development [43]. CES
is also associated with the intangible benefits that people attain from nature due to the
interaction [44,45]. Most of the studies on cultural ecosystem services deal with recreation
services that are nature based and aesthetic [46], whereas not a great amount of study hqw
been carried out on the spiritual value of landscape due to the limitation of modeling [47].
Supporting ecosystem services (SES) are the fundamental process of the ecosystem that
supports life, such as photosynthesis, nutrient cycle, and evolution; this is a vital service
that the ecosystem provides, which allows the rest of the ecosystem services to be delivered.
To achieve sustainable development of the city and conserve the ecosystem, it is neces-
sary to understand each of the abovementioned ecosystem services and their interactions
with the changing LULC [48]. This study can help provide future research perspectives
and proper decision-making strategies. To offer the same, a literature review for each
of the ecosystem services was carried out, providing a global perspective first and then
elaborating on the studies conducted at the national level. It will provide an overview of
the models and methods that are used for the quantitative study of ecosystem services in
the limelight. The publications used various methods of quantitative assessments, such as
spatial mapping, economic valuation, etc. Therefore, the main objective of our paper is to
understand; (i) the global scenario of ES, (ii) where does ES study in India fall? (iii) what
are the research gaps that could be studied, and a way forward in the same area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection
The literature survey was carried out in November 2021, and data were collected
from Science Direct, Scopus, MDPI, official reports, and Wiley. The main strategies of
the basic literature review contained four different phases. First, to understand the
total number of publications present, we used the keyword “Ecosystem services” to
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 4 of 19

understand the pattern of the study on a yearly basis. Second, to understand works
on different types of Ecosystem services, we used the keywords “Ecosystem services
and Provisioning Ecosystem services”. In the next search, using keywords “Ecosystem
services and Regulating Ecosystem services”, similarly, the search was carried out for
cultural ES and supporting ES and their trend of publication for two decades. This was
followed by the search to understand the types of models used to study ES, and also to
figure out the types of models catering to ES. Additionally, a search was carried out to
understand the trends of individual models serving various parameters of ES. Finally,
the investigation was carried out to understand the ES publication in the Indian context
using the search keyword “Ecosystem services and India”.
After collection of the records, the initial step of analysis took place at various levels.
The first step of the selection criteria was to select the papers which spoke about ES
throughout the world. This was followed by the data range strategy of selection, wherein
the collected data were segregated based on types of publication. In this step, most of
the journal articles were selected over the books or conference papers, as the articles are
periodical, and there was a high chance of understanding the current trend of publication.
Books and conference proceedings were negated. The step was followed by the title and
abstract search, wherein the non-related articles were negated after going through the
article abstracts and title. This was followed by the criteria search, which considered
the related variables of the study. As a result of this, 138 articles were extracted for this
review. The assessment parameters for this review are based on the ecosystem services
approach and include the date of publication, the context of the publications, the kind of
data used/analyzed (qualitative or quantitative), as well as the spatial size of the study.
Table 1 gives an insight into the criteria considered for the study.

Table 1. Criteria of Review with Feasible entries.

Criterion Feasible Entry

Source Science Direct database
Paper type Research Paper
Data type Quantitative data, Qualitative data
Spatial measurement scale Local, regional, national, global scale
ES indicators 4 types of ES indicators

2.2. Data Analysis

The data analysis consisted the database of search records that was built from the data
collection process. The study can be considered susceptible given the huge amount of data
resent in the database. To avoid arbitrary comments, a systematic review was carried out
on 140 selected papers that dug deeper to understand the knowledge base of the subject,
which excluded book chapters, student theses, and reports. Regardless, the search output is
considered authenticated and peer reviewed, as it was taken from the distinguished journal
article database. The data were taken as a basis for future study (Figure 1).
Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci.2022, 12,x8518
2022,12, FOR PEER REVIEW 5 5ofof20
19

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Showing
Showingthe
theflow
flowchart
chartof
of the
the data
data analysis
analysis for
for ecosystem
ecosystem services.
services.

3. Results
3. Results
3.1. Mapping of Publication
3.1. Mapping of Publication
Research publications until early 2000 were fewer in number (Figure 2). The reason
Research publications until early 2000 were fewer in number (Figure 2). The reason
was unfamiliarity with the subject; later, the work changed the whole lens on how the
was unfamiliarity with the subject; later, the work changed the whole lens on how the
ecosystem was viewed [4,6]. From 2000 to 2005, we can find approximately two thousand
ecosystem was viewed [4,6]. From 2000 to 2005, we can find approximately two thousand
papers on ecosystem services (Figure 2). Later, once the MEA [1] was published, we found a
papers on ecosystem services (Figure 2). Later, once the MEA [1] was published, we found
sudden rise in the graph, which denotes that universal attention was attained by ecosystem
aservice
suddenresearch.
rise in the graph,
Later on,which
it becamedenotes
one that universal
of the attention
core research was
areas attained
among by ecosys-
academicians
tem service research. Later on, it became one of the core research areas
and scholars. From the years 2005 to 2010, we found publications that provided an among academi-
insight
cians andtrade-off
into the scholars.and
From the years
synergies 2005 the
among to 2010, we found
ecosystem publications
services. FollowingthatMEA,
provided an
in 2010,
insight into the trade-off and synergies among the ecosystem services. Following
TEEB [46] came up with a newer lens of added economic value to the ES. In 2011, CICES [49] MEA, in
2010, TEEB [46] came up with a newer lens of added economic value to
gave common ground for all international works related to ecosystem services. Post-2015 the ES. In 2011,
CICES
marks [49] gave common
a prolific change inground for all international
the number of publicationsworks
on related to ecosystem
ecosystem services, services.
with the
Post-2015
publication of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2030. These are aimed atservices,
marks a prolific change in the number of publications on ecosystem making
with
citiesthe publication
locally of thesustainable
and globally Sustainabledue Development
to the changeGoals (SDG)climatic
in global 2030. These are aimed
aspects.
at making cities locally and globally sustainable due to the change in global climatic as-
pects.
Appl. Sci.Sci.
Appl. 2022, 12, 12,
2022, 8518x FOR PEER REVIEW 66 of
of 19
20

N u m b e r o f p u b l i c a t i o n s o n ES

19,905
NO.OF PUBLICATIONS

15,318
13,093
11,763
10,034
9215
8011
6775
6151
4941
4025
3365
3201
2848
2621
2221
1947
1525
1402
1218
1221
1057

YEAR

Figure
Figure 2. 2. Number
Number ofof publications
publications ononecosystem
ecosystemservices
servicesfor
fortwo
twodecades.
decades.

3.2.
3.2. Chronological
Chronological PublicationononES
Publication ESPapers
Papers
Ecosystemservices
Ecosystem servicespapers
paperspublished
publishedbetween
betweenthe theyears
years 2000
2000 and
and 2005
2005 show
show that
that
awareness
awareness of of
thethe subject
subject waswas limited,
limited, wherein
wherein a critical
a critical understanding
understanding of same
of the the same
was was
not
not present
present (Figure(Figure
3). Post3).MEA,
Post MEA, the publications
the publications on the on the ecosystem
ecosystem servicesservices increased;
increased; today,
wetoday, we find
find 20,000 20,000 publications
publications based on based on ESs (Figure
ESs (Figure 3). Sustainable
3). Sustainable development
development goals
goals gave
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
thegave the necessary
necessary push required
push required for the for theand
study study
to and
make tothe
make themore
cities 7 of MEA
citiessustainable. 20
more sustainable.
MEA formed
formed the ecosystem
the ecosystem framework,
framework, along
along with with
four fourcategories.
major major categories.
The number of papers was classified into four ES categories (Figure 4). Sixteen per-
cent of the papers discuss provisioning ecosystem services, basically focusing on agricul-
tural products, freshwater bodies, Yearlyfood,
ES Publications
etc. (Figure 3). The publication trend of PES is
gradually increasing day by day and is more focused on the water and agriculture-related
2021
aspect,
2020
as it has a significant role to play in every human life today. Regulating ES has 17%
of paper publications, mainly focusing on the vital aspects of the present-day scenario,
2019
i.e.,
2018climatic changes, carbon sequestration, floods, soil erosion, etc. The publication trend
2017
of RES falls in line with the provisioning ecosystem, as we find trade-offs and synergies
2016
among the ESs [29], so it is important to study critical aspects on the same basis (Figure
2015
4).
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

PES RES CES SES

Figure 3. Number of publications on ecosystem services classification—chronology. Where PES in-

Figure 3. Number of publications on ecosystem services classification—chronology. Where PES
dicates provisioning ecosystem services, RES is regulating ecosystem services, CES is cultural eco-
indicates provisioning
system services and SESecosystem services,
is supporting RESservices.
ecosystem is regulating ecosystem services, CES is cultural
ecosystem services and SES is supporting ecosystem services.
 2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 2005 7 of 19
2004
2003
2002
The number of papers was classified into four ES categories (Figure 4). Sixteen percent
2001
of the
2000papers discuss provisioning ecosystem services, basically focusing on agricultural
products,0 freshwater bodies, food, etc. (Figure10,000
5,000 3). The publication trend of PES is gradually
15,000 20,000
increasing day by day and is more focused on the water and agriculture-related aspect, as
it has a significant role to play in every PEShumanRES lifeCEStoday.
SESRegulating ES has 17% of paper
publications, mainly focusing on the vital aspects of the present-day scenario, i.e., climatic
changes,
Figure 3.carbon
Numbersequestration,
of publicationsfloods, soil erosion,
on ecosystem servicesetc. The publication trend Where
classification—chronology. of RESPES
fallsin-
indicates
line with the provisioning
provisioning ecosystem ecosystem,
services, RESasis we find trade-offs
regulating ecosystemand synergies
services, CES isamong
culturalthe
eco-
system
ESs [29],services and SES is supporting
so it is important ecosystem
to study critical services.
aspects on the same basis (Figure 4).

Figure4. 4.Number
Figure Number of of
publications on on
publications ecosystem services
ecosystem classification.
services Where
classification. PES denotes
Where provision-
PES denotes provi-
sioning
ing ecosystem
ecosystem services,
services, RES isRES is regulating
regulating ecosystem
ecosystem services,
services, CES isCES is cultural
cultural ecosystem
ecosystem services,
services, and
andisSES
SES is supporting
supporting ecosystem
ecosystem services.
services.

3.3. Models Used to Access Ecosystem Services

Modeling of the ES helps the researcher to quantify, spatially locate, and potentially
evaluate the economic trends. Daily et al. [19] point out that this information plays a
vital role in the decision making of urban planners, urban designers, and policymakers
attempting to understand the effect of urban expansion on ES. In the present scenario,
there is a proliferation of models and tools that helps us to map and access ES and vice
versa [42,50,51].
Over time, numerous studies tried to simultaneously understand land use changes
and their impact on ES, which helped designers and policymakers take appropriate steps
to overcome the issue. To monitor LULC changes and ES changes, satellite images have
been globally used as the most accurate tool [52,53]. Models are used to investigate
the interactions (such as a trade-off, synergies, bundles/clusters, and flows) of ES, and
deliberately put forward benefits that are enjoyed by humans for their well-being [54–56].
There is much importance given to enhancing ecosystem service management by objectively
quantifying interactions among various ES [57].
Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Trade-offs (InVEST) is a globally
accepted tool that was developed inside the Natural Capital Project [50,54–59]. The In-
VEST model can illustrate a spatially visualized map of the ESs. Comparing the InVEST
model with other models, InVEST does not require any expertise; this model provides a
nearly accurate assessment with limited demand of data input criteria, and is relevant in
understanding the areas dealing with ecological processes [50,51,60]. InVEST model is a
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 8 of 19

useful tool for assessing small-scale and local studies which give relevant and credible
results for LULC and ES [58]. The InVEST toolbox is used to determine nearly 14 ES
for supply changes using user-defined base setups like land use land cover and climatic
changes [61,62].
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is considered universally to simulate
hydrological processes [63]. Further, the model has the flexibility in a spatial discretization
that evaluates the space, locally, regionally, and globally. Like this, a decent number
of models are used to assess ES changes; some of them are ARIES, LUCI, CA- Markov,
SLEUTH, CLUES, etc.
The study of ecosystem services is performed quantitatively using mapping and
modeling techniques. Researchers also have used a combination of models to assess
ES, such as a combination of model mapping ES (such as InVEST, SWAT, ARIES) and
model mapping urban expansion. With the help of the statistical model, the mapping was
carried out. Urban expansion models such as LUSD–urban (Land Use Scenario Dynamics–
urban) [64] help in a multi-scale simulation of urban expansion, LUSD–urban along with
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20
Cellular Automata (CA) and system dynamics models signifies micro-scale evolutionary
factors and macro-scale resource constraints. This model has undergone certain iterations
in recent years, with improved accuracy and an average kappa index [65]. The other models
The models
are SLEUTH used
(slope, landtouse,
access ESs spatiotemporally
exclusion, are InVEST [60],
urban extent, transportation, SWAT
and [61], ARIES
hill shade) [66],
(Artificial
CLUE-S (theIntelligence
Conversion for Ecosystem
of Land Use and Services) [73],
its Effects LUCI,regional
at Small etc. According to the
extent) [67]. publica-
Statistical
tion trend
models suchfrom 2000 till 2021,
as correlation we find
analysis the regression
[13,68], InVEST model is being
analysis [28],used extensively
and root due to
mean square
its input data criteria; it uses open source data that are freely available,
deviation were used [69]. This combination of models is efficient at forming the correlation with a map-
ping/modeling
among scale of
a few variables but30is m
not× considered
30 m. This tomodel helps us to
be functionally accessThe
viable. multiple ecosystem
most celebrated
services,
models are(water
InVEST,quality,
ARIES,soilanderosion,
SWAT. carbon
]. Figuresequestration,
5 gives a briefbiodiversity conservation,
idea of various models used nu-
bytrients, agricultural produce, etc.) [72
researchers.

N u mb e r O f P u b l i c a t i o n s
26,290

1489

561

369

275
204

69
9

INVEST ARIES SWAT CN MIMES ESTA LPT LUCI

Figure5.5.Number
Figure Numberofofpublications
publicationsononassessment
assessmentmodels
modelsofofecosystem
ecosystemservices.
services.

3.4.The
World
mostEScommonly
Publicationused
Status
base data are LULC, soil data, terrain data, and hydrological
data. This gives a whole picture
Ecosystem service study post of different
[1] hascriteria such as habitats,
been proliferated soilrapid
due to types,urbanization,
vegetation
class, and biomes. According to Metzger et al., the above data are used
causing temporal changes such as climatic variation, global warming, etc. We find as ecosystem services
work
indicators [70]. Adding on the same data can be used for valuation and spatial
on ecosystem services is mainly carried out in the developed countries. It is of prime im- estimation
ofportance
ecosystem to services
study the[71]; the other
changing types ofof
trajectory data usedsettings
spatial for ES assessment are census
in developing data;as
countries,
climatic data such
the population as precipitation
increase demands data, which
changes is used
in the landfor
usewater yieldcover
and land assessment;
dynamics. andThe
a
digital elevation model (DEM); this is used for hydrology assessment [72].
interrelation between the ESs and human activities play a critical role in global climatic
The models
conditions. used to trends
Publication access ESs spatiotemporally
in the world ES scenario areisInVEST [60], SWAT
showcased [61],6ARIES
in Figures and 7.
(Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services) [73], LUCI, etc. According
In the present scenario, we find ES studied globally in three ways: (1) estimating to the publi-
the
physical quantity of services provided [74]; this is primary work that is carried out, to
understand the influence of LULC change on ES, as well as its impact on the climatic as-
pect; (2) the economic value [75], which is needed to understand the income that is gener-
ated due to the interaction of ES, and also helps in estimating the economy lost due to the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 9 of 19

cation trend from 2000 till 2021, we find the InVEST model is being used extensively
due to its input data criteria; it uses open source data that are freely available, with a
mapping/modeling scale of 30 m × 30 m. This model helps us to access multiple ecosys-
tem services, (water quality, soil erosion, carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation,
nutrients, agricultural produce, etc.) [72].

3.4. World ES Publication Status

Ecosystem service study post [1] has been proliferated due to rapid urbanization,
causing temporal changes such as climatic variation, global warming, etc. We find work
on ecosystem services is mainly carried out in the developed countries. It is of prime
importance to study the changing trajectory of spatial settings in developing countries, as
the population increase demands changes in the land use and land cover dynamics. The
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20
interrelation between the ESs and human activities play a critical role in global climatic
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20
conditions. Publication trends in the world ES scenario is showcased in Figures 6 and 7.

World’s
World’s ES
ES Publications
Publications
45,000 42,161
42,161
45,000
40,000
40,000
Publications

35,000
No.ofofPublications

35,000
30,000 26,667
26,667
30,000
25,000
25,000
20,000 16,498
16,498
20,000
15,000
15,000
10,000
10,000 4295
No.

5,000 4295
5,000
00
Africa
Africa America
America Asia
Asia Europe
Europe
Continents
Continents

Figure
Figure 6.6.
Figure Trend
6.Trend
Trendofof
of world’s
world’s ecosystem
ecosystem
world’s service
service
ecosystem publications.
publications.
service publications.

Figure
Figure7.7. Trend
7.Trend
Trend of Asia’s ecosystem service publications.
Figure ofof Asia’s
Asia’s ecosystem
ecosystem service
service publications.
publications.
3.5. ES
3.5.In Publication
ESthe
Publication Status
Status of
of India
India
present scenario, we find ES studied globally in three ways: (1) estimating the
physicalThe publication trend of
The publication trend ofprovided
quantity of services ecosystem services
ecosystem[74]; in
this is
services the
the Indian
in primary
Indian context
work thatgives
context us
us aa brief
is carried
gives out,idea
brief to
idea
of
of the present knowledge gap. After the search carried out in the Scopus database, we
the
understandpresent
the knowledge
influence of gap.
LULC After
changethe onsearch
ES, as carried
well as out
its in
impact the Scopus
on the database,
climatic aspect;
we
found
(2) hardly
hardly 200
the economic
found papers
value
200 [75],published
papers on
on ESs
which is needed
published ESs (Figure 8).
8). India
to understand
(Figure Indiatheis aa very
very diverse
is income country
country re-
that is generated
diverse re-
garding
garding itsits spatial,
spatial, temporal,
temporal, andand cultural
cultural aspects.
aspects. It
It will
will bebe of
of prime
prime importance
importance for for the
the
study
study ofof ES
ES to
to bring
bring about
about awareness
awareness of of ESs’
ESs’ influence
influence on on recent
recent global
global temporal
temporal changes.
changes.
India
India is a developing country; hence, it has experienced a lot of spatiotemporal changes
is a developing country; hence, it has experienced a lot of spatiotemporal changes
in
in recent
recent decades.
decades.
India
India isis peninsular;
peninsular; it it is
is surrounded
surrounded by by the
the sea
sea on
on three
three sides.
sides. With
With this
this being
being said,
said,
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 10 of 19

factors, and environmental stress significantly affect the ESs in the Sundarbans region.
The seasonal variation was captured using GHG (Green House Gas) on carbon pools in
the degraded
due Sundarbans
to the interaction of ES, region
and [83]. Talukdar
also helps et al. [84] demonstrated
in estimating the economy the lost relationship
due to the
between LULC
deterioration andand
of ES, changes
(3) theinbasic
ES; later on,transfer
benefit Das et method
al. [85] shed
[6]. light on decreasing eco-
system health in the lower Gangetic Plain region. Stakeholder participation plays a vital
3.5.
roleESin Publication
conservingStatus of India
ES. Sinclair et al. showed the willingness of the stakeholders to maintain
the same [86]. ESs bytrend
The publication the world hotspot region
of ecosystem servicesof Western Ghatscontext
in the Indian played agives
vitalus
role, elab-
a brief
idea of the present knowledge gap. After the search carried out in the
orating on the impact of LULC on the ecological hotspot region and ES of Western Ghats Scopus database,
we found
[87,88]. hardly
Water 200 papers
richness published
and wetland on ESs suitability
habitable (Figure 8). criteria
India isare
a very diversefor
important country
under-
regarding
standing the its spatial,
habitattemporal,
suitabilityand of acultural aspects.
populated It will
region [89].beFurther,
of primethere
importance for the
are stresses re-
study
lated ofto ES
theto bring about
dynamics awareness
of soil carbon in ofalternative
ESs’ influence on recent
cropping global temporal
techniques changes.
[90,91]. Shah et al.
India is a developing
[92] came up with the country;
frameworkhence,toitunderstand
has experienced a lot of spatiotemporal
the ecosystem services withchanges in
a compre-
recent decades.
hensive view of common resources used by policymakers to attain sustainability.

Indian Publication trend on ES

250
205
200

142
Documents

150
117
103
92
100 80
67
54 49
50 31 34
19 25
3 2 6 5 2 5 5 8 7
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Year

Figure 8. Indian Ecosystem service Publication trends.

Figure 8. Indian Ecosystem service Publication trends.

Table 2. Studies
India conducteditonisESs
is peninsular; in India. by the sea on three sides. With this being said,
surrounded
mangrove plays an ESimportant
Categories role in protecting the coastal region. Table 2 gives a brief
Author (s) and Study idea on the studies conducted on ES Number
in India.of Giri et al. studied theMethodology Used to
status of mangrove
Region Studied (P, R, Grain
Year forests in Southeast Asia [76]. Prasad ESet
Assessed
al. [77] studied the rate of degradationAccessofESseagrass
S, C)
impacting regulating ES due to human activities, whereas Edward et al. gave insight
Southinto
Asia, Pakistan,
methods of restoring seagrass [78]. The studyGoa–23.5
conducted m by [79] to understand the
GIS and ERDAS (unsu-
Giri et al. [76] Bangladesh, and Indiadynamics
spatiotemporal S in the mid-sized 1 townSundarbans–30
of Telangana using statistical methods
pervised, ISODATA)
(Goa and Sundarbans) m
showed unsustainable growth trends among LULC variables, making study of the patterns
Semi-arid tropics of
vital. Studies were conducted to understand the degradation and rate of sedimentation
Srinivasarao et al. [91] P, R 2 Survey
India
of wetlands in the Western Himalayan region of Himachal Pradesh, showing a large-scale
Shah & Garg [92] unregulated development causing the damage
Cascading to ES [80]. Furthermore, Sannigrahi et al. [81]
Framework
Sahani & Ra- measured 17 ESs; Sannigrahi et al. [82] showed that climatic factors,GISbiophysical
with LULCfactors,
base
Khammam,
and Telangana stress
environmental P, R, C
significantly 3 the ESsMunicipality
affect in the Sundarbans region. The seasonal
havaswamy [79] and Shannon’s entropy
Ramachandra et al. Western variation
Ghats, was captured using GHG (Green House 160,000
Karna- Gas) onkm carbon
2 pools
GIS withinMarkov
the degraded
Analy-
S 1
Sundarbans region [83]. Talukdar et al. [84] demonstrated the relationship between LULC
[88] taka Mountain sis
and changes in ES; later on, Das et al. [85] shed light on decreasing ecosystem health in the
GIS with Pearson’s cor-
lower Gangetic Plain region. Stakeholder participation 22,292 plays a vital role in conserving ES.
km2 Wet-
Shukla et al. [14] Upper Ganga basin P 1
Sinclair et al. showed the willingness of the stakeholders to maintainrelation
the same and multiple
[86]. ESs by
land
linear regression
the world hotspot region of Western Ghats played a vital role, elaborating on the impact of
LULC on the ecological hotspot region and 330 km2 Wet-
Prasad et al. [77] Palk Bay S 1 ES of Western Ghats [87,88].Sampling
Water richness
designand
land
wetland habitable suitability criteria are important for understanding the habitat suitability
of a populated region [89]. Further, there are stresses related to the dynamics of soil carbon
in alternative cropping techniques [90,91]. Shah et al. [92] came up with the framework to
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 11 of 19

understand the ecosystem services with a comprehensive view of common resources used
by policymakers to attain sustainability.

Table 2. Studies conducted on ESs in India.

ES Categories
Author (s) and Study Number of ES Methodology Used to
Region Studied Grain
Year Assessed Access ES
(P, R, S, C)
South Asia, Pakistan,
GIS and ERDAS
Bangladesh, and Goa–23.5 m
Giri et al. [76] S 1 (unsupervised,
India (Goa and Sundarbans–30 m
ISODATA)
Sundarbans)
Semi-arid tropics of
Srinivasarao et al. [91] P, R 2 Survey
India
Shah & Garg [92] Cascading Framework
Sahani & Khammam, GIS with LULC base and
P, R, C 3 Municipality
Rahavaswamy [79] Telangana Shannon’s entropy
Western Ghats, 160,000 km2 GIS with Markov
Ramachandra et al. [88] S 1
Karnataka Mountain Analysis
GIS with Pearson’s
Shukla et al. [14] Upper Ganga basin P 1 22,292 km2 Wetland correlation and multiple
linear regression
Prasad et al. [77] Palk Bay S 1 330 km2 Wetland Sampling design
GIS and ERDAS Imagine,
Malik & Rai [80] Himachal Pradesh P, R 2 12,562 km2 Wetland Socioecological
interviews
GIS using LULC analysis
Sannigrahi et al. [81] Sundarbans P, R, S, C 17 4264 km2
and ESV
NPP with InVEST and
Sannigrahi et al. [82] Sundarbans P, R, S 5 4264 km2
CA-Markov
Soil and Water
Shukla et al. [13] Upper Ganga basin P 1 22,292 km2 Wetland Assessment Tool (SWAT)
with MANOVA
Padhy et al. [83] Sundarbans R 2 4264 km2 Sampling design
GIS using LULC analysis
Talukdar et al. [84] Lower Gangetic plain P, R, S, C 17
and ESV
Ramachandra & Western Ghats, 160,000 km2 GIS with Markov
P, R, S 3
Bharath [87] Karnataka Mountain Analysis
Artificial Neural Network
Ganges-
Debanshi & Pal [89] P, S 3 6358.21 km2 Wetland (ANN) and Support
Brahmaputra delta
Vector Machine (SVM)
Babu et al. [90] Mizoram R 2 22.0 Mha Sampling design
GIS using LULC analysis
Das et al. [85] Kolkata P, R, S, C 17 Metropolitan area
and EH
Questionnaire and
Ashtamudi lake
Sinclair et al. [86] P, S 3 56 km2 Wetland sampling, econometric
Ramsar, Kerala
model
field survey with
Sen & Guchhait [43] Bardhaman C 5 Municipality semi-structured
questionnaire
mean Lumped Zhang
Pathak et al. [93] Upper Ganga basin P 1 22,292 km2 Wetland
model with InVEST
Where P denotes provisioning ES, R is regulating ES, S is supporting ES, and C is cultural ES.

4. Discussion
4.1. Contribution of ES and Global Issues
According to the study, Millenium Ecosystem Assessment [1] inferred that 15 of
24 ecosystem services had degraded globally. Anthropogenic activities are the main reason
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 12 of 19

for 60% of the deterioration of provisioning ecosystem services [1,94–96]. On a global scale,
we projected the impact of LULC on ecosystem services and concluded that changes in
LULC can deteriorate the ES [97].
Bennett et al. [29] infer that trade-off and/or synergies do take place between regu-
lation ecosystem services and other ESs, considering this the main determinant to access
the ecological changes [35]. In the global scenario of the past five decades, due to an
increase in the population, demand, and usage of water, intensive agricultural produce,
industrialization, and economic growth, Ref. [98] pinpoints that the use of water has tripled.
Studies conducted by [14,99–101] prove that there is a significant role played by LULC
on the water yield. A trade-off relationship between ES was found by Zhang et al. [102]
between provision ES and soil conservation. The study conducted by Yi et al. [103] found
that there is a significant connection between carbon storage and soil sediment retention in
an urban watershed and river basins. However, it was also proved that the synergies and
trade-offs occur in different scenarios [104]. Hence, a study analyzing various ESs is vital
to urban management, planning, and policy decision making [28,105].
Literature proves that there is a direct relationship between the carbon and soil-based
ESs [106–108]; Rodríguez et al. [109] proved the existence of a positive correlation between
aboveground carbon storage with water regulation and supply. However, knowledge
related to the potential of the coastal belt to regulate climate change and emission levels
due to different anthropogenic activities is not available. Nevertheless, it is critical to access
the influence of carbon sequestration on climate changes by different LULC on susceptible
areas that are sensitive to changing processes. Many research scholars have studied the
influence of LULC on carbon stock and climatic changes [110]. Following this study, we
find [111] established the relationship between precipitation variation and LULC and its
influence on ES
The study of soil erosion has caught the attention of researchers recently, and studies
have been conducted globally on various scales [112]. The study conducted by Vaezi
et al. [113] showed the result of ecosystem services hampered due to soil erosion, desertifi-
cation, etc. Additionally, due to the presence of spatial heterogeneity, Ref. [114] explains the
importance of soil-related study at various scale dynamics. This helps us to understand the
effect of soil and its trade-off and/or synergies at various scales, as demonstrated by [115].
The major issue found globally today, as summarized by [116–119], shows that ES
have been critically impacted due to the intense interaction between the ecosystem and
humans at a regional scale, and this has to be looked after with immediate effect. This is
also important according to the study [120], which found that the relationship between ES
is spatially heterogeneous. Some researchers have studied the LULC change on a smaller
scale can transform into synergy in spatiotemporal distribution at a larger scale [121–123].
Sun et al. [104] stated that studies at the future level at a regional scale should be designed to
improve various scenarios in a detailed way to cater to the local situation and policy planning.
Researchers such [82,124,125] found that there was a significant influence of climatic factors on
the ESs variations. Therefore, Refs. [126,127] suggest that the effective planning management
strategy is to incorporate ES bundles and hotspots in the decision-making process.

4.2. Way forward to ES Research in India

Based on the literature review conducted, there is a need to account for ecosystem
services on different LULC in Indian scenarios, varying in urban settings and geolocation
of the urban areas. On a national scale, we have the work of LULC changes giving an
insight into the change dynamics in land use. There is empirical evidence that shows there
are evident changes in the structure of ES due to urban expansion, which will lead to the
degradation of the same [65]. However, little is known about the intensity of ES losses at
a regional scale in the Indian context, due to the influence of LULC. It is also important
to understand the influence of climatic factors on ES at a regional scale, providing better
service to society.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 13 of 19

The reason to select the ESs is that first, ESs such as carbon sequestration, water yield,
and soil retention are the common focus areas for research study, as they represent the ESs
subset [128–130]. Second, the quantitative methods of spatially analyzing the driving forces
of these ESs can be reinforced by the efficient availability of large-scale data [130,131]. Vallet
et al. [132] state that the study of ES interaction is important when it comes to questioning
the usefulness of various criteria to come up with appropriate decision-making needs and
expectations. From the literature survey, it is seen that provision, regulation, and support
of ESs are threatened [27].
Even though there is a prolific amount of research on ES, there must be in-depth
knowledge about the relationship and tradeoff among various ES [27], which should also
be explored in terms of emerging climatic changes [27]. Additionally, Refs. [36,84] suggests
that research should be conducted on every site-specific scenario leading to informed
design management strategies, which in turn elevates ES benefits. The authors of [132]
investigated the relationship between ES and urbanization, and concluded that for LULC,
topography has a greater influence on ESs than urbanization.

5. Conclusions
Understanding the changes in ESs and their relationship with the help of spatially
explicit methods could be helpful for the study to be conducted. In the present review,
research dynamics of ES in the global scenario are given, and are then narrowed down to
the national scale of the Indian scenario between 2000 and 2021. This analysis is based on
138 articles gathered from the databases of Science Direct, etc., with the help of bibliometric
statistics such as keywords, countries, and outcomes. Additionally, ecosystem types,
geographical location of the studies conducted, and assessment and valuation methods are
in the limelight. The number of publications in the Indian context is gradually increasing.
We find a steady increase in the publication trend post-2015. We find publications focusing
on the study of two or more ES categories. Crop production and water yield have focused
on provisioning ecosystem services; carbon sequestration, soil conservation for regulating
ecosystem services; biodiversity conservation, along with the nutrient cycle, for supporting
ecosystem services; psychological behavior, and quality of life in cultural ecosystems. We
find these studies have been completed, since these are considered major determinants
ruling these ESs along with the help of readily available research methodological framework.
On the other hand, due to lack of methods and data, it is difficult to map the remaining
ESs. In the Indian context, water, carbon, and soil play a major role in improving the
socioeconomical aspect of ES.
India is a peninsular country with a wide variety of physical landscapes, including
croplands, woods, grasslands, deserts, rivers, lakes, deltas, shelves, oceans, mountains,
plateaus, basins, and islands. With its existing rapid economic growth and massive ur-
banization, India has become increasingly vulnerable to both natural disasters, such as
droughts and floods, and human-caused ecological disasters, such as deforestation, saliniza-
tion, erosion, and water, air, and soil pollution. The ES transdisciplinary paradigm serves as
a useful framework for analyzing diversified natural assets and addressing environmental
issues through integrated ecosystem management. However, the dataset built in this review
work is not comprehensive; it can serve as a foundation for future studies, with the hope of
creating a complete ES research database at the national level.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D. and A.K.S.; methodology, D. and A.K.S.; validation,

D. and A.K.S.; formal analysis, D. and A.K.S.; writing—original draft preparation, D. and A.K.S.;
writing—review and editing, A.K.S.; supervision, A.K.S. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 14 of 19

Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author, upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments: The authors are thankful to the Scopus database, Science Direct, Web of Science,
and Google Scholar for providing the ecosystem services-related publications. The authors are also
thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions as to how to improve the
quality of the present work.
Conflicts of Interest: This manuscript has not been published or presented elsewhere in part or
entirety and is not under consideration by another journal. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

References
1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA,
2005; ISBN 1597260401.
2. Song, X.-P.; Hansen, M.C.; Stehman, S.V.; Potapov, P.V.; Tyukavina, A.; Vermote, E.F.; Townshend, J.R. Global Land Change from
1982 to 2016. Nature 2018, 560, 639–643. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Barbier, E.B.; Hacker, S.D.; Kennedy, C.; Koch, E.W.; Stier, A.C.; Silliman, B.R. The Value of Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystem
Services. Ecol. Monogr. 2011, 81, 169–193. [CrossRef]
4. Daily, G.C. Daily_1997_Natures-Services-Chapter-1. In Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Daily, G.C., Ed.; Island Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
5. Guo, Z.; Zhang, L.; Li, Y. Increased Dependence of Humans on Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, 13113.
[CrossRef]
6. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al.
The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [CrossRef]
7. Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Başak Dessane, E.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al.
Valuing Nature’s Contributions to People: The IPBES Approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26, 7–16. [CrossRef]
8. Joshi, N.; Baumann, M.; Ehammer, A.; Fensholt, R.; Grogan, K.; Hostert, P.; Jepsen, M.R.; Kuemmerle, T.; Meyfroidt, P.; Mitchard,
E.T.A.; et al. A Review of the Application of Optical and Radar Remote Sensing Data Fusion to Land Use Mapping and Monitoring.
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 70. [CrossRef]
9. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N. Classifying and Valuing Ecosystem Services for Urban Planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 235–245.
[CrossRef]
10. Xue, L.; Zhu, B.; Wu, Y.; Wei, G.; Liao, S.; Yang, C.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Ren, L.; Han, Q. Dynamic Projection of Ecological Risk in
the Manas River Basin Based on Terrain Gradients. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 653, 283–293. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, L.J.; Ma, S.; Zhao, Y.G.; Zhang, J.C. Ecological Restoration Projects Did Not Increase the Value of All Ecosystem Services in
Northeast China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 495, 119340. [CrossRef]
12. Kumar, P.; Thakur, P.K.; Bansod, B.K.S.; Debnath, S.K. Groundwater: A Regional Resource and a Regional Governance. Environ.
Dev. Sustain. 2018, 20, 1133–1151. [CrossRef]
13. Shukla, A.K.; Ojha, C.S.P.; Garg, R.D.; Shukla, S.; Pal, L. Influence of Spatial Urbanization on Hydrological Components of the
Upper Ganga River Basin, India. J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 2020, 24, 04020028. [CrossRef]
14. Shukla, A.K.; Ojha, C.S.P.; Mijic, A.; Buytaert, W.; Pathak, S.; Garg, R.D.; Shukla, S. Population Growth, Land Use and Land
Cover Transformations, and Water Quality Nexus in the Upper Ganga River Basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 4745–4770.
[CrossRef]
15. Peters, M.K.; Hemp, A.; Appelhans, T.; Becker, J.N.; Behler, C.; Classen, A.; Detsch, F.; Ensslin, A.; Ferger, S.W.; Frederiksen, S.B.;
et al. Climate–Land-Use Interactions Shape Tropical Mountain Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions. Nature 2019, 568, 88–92.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Wu, C.; Chen, B.; Huang, X.; Dennis Wei, Y.H. Effect of Land-Use Change and Optimization on the Ecosystem Service Values of
Jiangsu Province, China. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106507. [CrossRef]
17. Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P. Defining and Classifying Ecosystem Services for Decision Making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68,
643–653. [CrossRef]
18. Kragt, M.E.; Robertson, M.J. Quantifying Ecosystem Services Trade-Offs from Agricultural Practices. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 102,
147–157. [CrossRef]
19. Daily, G.C.; Polasky, S.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; Mooney, H.A.; Pejchar, L.; Ricketts, T.H.; Salzman, J.; Shallenberger, R.
Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver—Enhanced Reader. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 21–28. [CrossRef]
20. Xia, M.; Jia, K.; Wang, X.; Bai, X.; Li, C.; Zhao, W.; Hu, X.; Cherubini, F. A Framework for Regional Ecosystem Authenticity
Evaluation—A Case Study on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau of China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 31, e01849. [CrossRef]
21. Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Braat, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Fioramonti, L.; Sutton, P.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M. Twenty Years of Ecosystem
Services: How Far Have We Come and How Far Do We Still Need to Go? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 1–16. [CrossRef]
22. Sattler, C.; Loft, L.; Mann, C.; Meyer, C. Methods in Ecosystem Services Governance Analysis: An Introduction. Ecosyst. Serv.
2018, 34, 155–168. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 15 of 19

23. Han, H.-Q.; Liu, Y.; Gao, H.-J.; Zhang, Y.-J.; Wang, Z.; Chen, X.-Q. Tradeoffs and Synergies between Ecosystem Services: A
Comparison of the Karst and Non-Karst Area. J. Mt. Sci. 2020, 17, 1221–1234. [CrossRef]
24. Dade, M.C.; Mitchell, M.G.E.; McAlpine, C.A.; Rhodes, J.R. Assessing Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs and Synergies: The Need for
a More Mechanistic Approach. Ambio 2019, 48, 1116–1128. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Cord, A.F.; Bartkowski, B.; Beckmann, M.; Dittrich, A.; Hermans-Neumann, K.; Kaim, A.; Lienhoop, N.; Locher-Krause, K.; Priess,
J.; Schröter-Schlaack, C.; et al. Towards Systematic Analyses of Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs and Synergies: Main Concepts,
Methods and the Road Ahead. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 264–272. [CrossRef]
26. Turner, K.G.; Odgaard, M.V.; Bøcher, P.K.; Dalgaard, T.; Svenning, J.C. Bundling Ecosystem Services in Denmark: Trade-Offs and
Synergies in a Cultural Landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 89–104. [CrossRef]
27. Jiang, C.; Zhang, H.; Tang, Z.; Labzovskii, L. Evaluating the Coupling Effects of Climate Variability and Vegetation Restoration on
Ecosystems of the Loess Plateau, China. Land Use Policy 2017, 69, 134–148. [CrossRef]
28. Jia, X.; Fu, B.; Feng, X.; Hou, G.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X. The Tradeoff and Synergy between Ecosystem Services in the Grain-for-Green
Areas in Northern Shaanxi, China. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 43, 103–113. [CrossRef]
29. Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D.; Gordon, L.J. Understanding Relationships among Multiple Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12,
1394–1404. [CrossRef]
30. Braat, L.C.; de Groot, R. The Ecosystem Services Agenda:Bridging the Worlds of Natural Science and Economics, Conservation
and Development, and Public and Private Policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 4–15. [CrossRef]
31. Lee, H.; Lautenbach, S. A Quantitative Review of Relationships between Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 66, 340–351.
[CrossRef]
32. Li, J.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, S. Relative Contributions of Climate and Land-Use Change to Ecosystem Services in Arid Inland Basins.
J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126844. [CrossRef]
33. Zhang, L.; Cheng, L.; Chiew, F.; Fu, B. Understanding the Impacts of Climate and Landuse Change on Water Yield. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. 2018, 33, 167–174. [CrossRef]
34. Abera, W.; Tamene, L.; Kassawmar, T.; Mulatu, K.; Kassa, H.; Verchot, L.; Quintero, M. Impacts of Land Use and Land Cover
Dynamics on Ecosystem Services in the Yayo Coffee Forest Biosphere Reserve, Southwestern Ethiopia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021,
50, 101338. [CrossRef]
35. Bennett, E.M.; Cumming, G.S.; Peterson, G.D. A Systems Model Approach to Determining Resilience Surrogates for Case Studies.
Ecosystems 2005, 8, 945–957. [CrossRef]
36. Carter Berry, Z.; Jones, K.W.; Gomez Aguilar, L.R.; Congalton, R.G.; Holwerda, F.; Kolka, R.; Looker, N.; Lopez Ramirez, S.M.;
Manson, R.; Mayer, A.; et al. Evaluating Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs along a Land-Use Intensification Gradient in Central
Veracruz, Mexico. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 45, 101181. [CrossRef]
37. Garrastazú, M.C.; Mendonça, S.D.; Horokoski, T.T.; Cardoso, D.J.; Rosot, M.A.D.; Nimmo, E.R.; Lacerda, A.E.B. Carbon
Sequestration and Riparian Zones: Assessing the Impacts of Changing Regulatory Practices in Southern Brazil. Land Use Policy
2015, 42, 329–339. [CrossRef]
38. Delibas, M.; Tezer, A.; Kuzniecow Bacchin, T. Towards Embedding Soil Ecosystem Services in Spatial Planning. Cities 2021,
113, 103150. [CrossRef]
39. Kumar, A.; Kumar, M.; Pandey, R.; Yu, Z.G.; Yu, Z.G.; Cabral-Pintod, M. Forest soil nutrient stocks along with an altitudinal range
of Uttarakhand Himalayas: An aid to Nature Based Climate Solutions. CATENA 2021, 207, 105667. [CrossRef]
40. Rai, P.; Vineeta; Shukla, G.; Manohar, A.K.; Bhat, J.A.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, M. Carbon Storage of Single Tree and Mixed Tree
Dominant Species Stands in a Reserve Forest—Case Study of the Eastern Sub-Himalayan Region of India. Land 2021, 10, 435.
[CrossRef]
41. Kumar, A.; Kumar, M. Estimation of Biomass and Soil Carbon Stock in the Hydroelectric Catchment of India and its Implementa-
tion to Climate Change. J. Sustain. For. 2020, 36. [CrossRef]
42. de Groot, R.; Brander, L.; van der Ploeg, S.; Costanza, R.; Bernard, F.; Braat, L.; Christie, M.; Crossman, N.; Ghermandi, A.;
Hein, L.; et al. Global Estimates of the Value of Ecosystems and Their Services in Monetary Units. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 50–61.
[CrossRef]
43. Sen, S.; Guchhait, S.K. Urban Green Space in India: Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Psychology of Situatedness
and Connectedness. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 123, 107338. [CrossRef]
44. Ko, H.; Son, Y. Perceptions of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Urban Green Spaces: A Case Study in Gwacheon, Republic of Korea.
Ecol. Indic. 2018, 91, 299–306. [CrossRef]
45. Chan, K.M.A.; Satterfield, T.; Goldstein, J. Rethinking Ecosystem Services to Better Address and Navigate Cultural Values. Ecol.
Econ. 2012, 74, 8–18. [CrossRef]
46. TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic
Foundations; Kumar, P., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK; Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
47. Nelson, E.; Bhagabati, N.; Ennaanay, D.; Lonsdorf, E.; Pennington, D.; Sharma, M. Modeling Terrestrial Ecosystem Services.
In Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2nd ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 347–361, ISBN 9780123847195.
48. Hasan, S.S.; Zhen, L.; Miah, M.G.; Ahamed, T.; Samie, A. Impact of Land Use Change on Ecosystem Services: A Review. Environ.
Dev. 2020, 34, 100527. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 16 of 19

49. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES); European Environment Agency:
Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011.
50. Signorello, G.; Marzo, A.; Prato, C.; Sturiale, G.; de Salvo, M. Assessing the Hidden Impacts of Hypothetical Eruption Events at
Mount Etna. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2020, 8, 100056. [CrossRef]
51. Bagstad, K.J.; Semmens, D.J.; Winthrop, R. Comparing Approaches to Spatially Explicit Ecosystem Service Modeling: A Case
Study from the San Pedro River, Arizona. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, 40–50. [CrossRef]
52. Verma, P.; Raghubanshi, A.S. Rural Development and Land Use Land Cover Change in a Rapidly Developing Agrarian South
Asian Landscape. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2019, 14, 138–147. [CrossRef]
53. Kam, J.; Jayanthi, S.C.; Raghavswamy, V. Spatio-temporal analysis of land use in urban mumbai-using multi-sensor satellite data
and gis techniques. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2006, 34, 385–396.
54. Posner, S.; Verutes, G.; Koh, I.; Denu, D.; Ricketts, T. Global Use of Ecosystem Service Models. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 17, 131–141.
[CrossRef]
55. Malinga, R.; Gordon, L.J.; Jewitt, G.; Lindborg, R. Mapping Ecosystem Services across Scales and Continents—A Review. Ecosyst.
Serv. 2015, 13, 57–63. [CrossRef]
56. Dang, A.N.; Jackson, B.M.; Benavidez, R.; Tomscha, S.A. Review of Ecosystem Service Assessments: Pathways for Policy
Integration in Southeast Asia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 49, 101266. [CrossRef]
57. Mouchet, M.A.; Lamarque, P.; Martín-López, B.; Crouzat, E.; Gos, P.; Byczek, C.; Lavorel, S. An Interdisciplinary Methodological
Guide for Quantifying Associations between Ecosystem Services. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 28, 298–308. [CrossRef]
58. Bogdan, S.-M.; Pătru-Stupariu, I.; Zaharia, L. The Assessment of Regulatory Ecosystem Services: The Case of the Sediment
Retention Service in a Mountain Landscape in the Southern Romanian Carpathians. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 32, 12–27.
[CrossRef]
59. Tallis, H.; Polasky, S. Mapping and Valuing Ecosystem Services as an Approach for Conservation and Natural-Resource
Management. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 2009, 1162, 265–283. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Bangash, R.F.; Passuello, A.; Sanchez-Canales, M.; Terrado, M.; López, A.; Elorza, F.J.; Ziv, G.; Acuña, V.; Schuhmacher, M.
Ecosystem Services in Mediterranean River Basin: Climate Change Impact on Water Provisioning and Erosion Control. Sci. Total
Environ. 2013, 458–460, 246–255. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Fang, Z.; Bai, Y.; Jiang, B.; Alatalo, J.M.; Liu, G.; Wang, H. Quantifying Variations in Ecosystem Services in Altitude-Associated
Vegetation Types in a Tropical Region of China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 726, 138565. [CrossRef]
62. Sharp, R.; Tallis, H.T.; Ricketts, T.; Guerry, A.D.; Wood, S.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Nelson, E.; Ennaanay, D.; Wolny, S.; Olwero,
N.; et al. InVEST User’s Guide InVEST User’s Guide Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs; The Natural Capital
Project: Stanford, CA, USA, 2014. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=
yPREfmsAAAAJ&citation_for_view=yPREfmsAAAAJ:3fE2CSJIrl8C (accessed on 10 June 2022).
63. Notter, B.; Hurni, H.; Wiesmann, U.; Abbaspour, K.C. Modelling Water Provision as an Ecosystem Service in a Large East African
River Basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 69–86. [CrossRef]
64. He, C.; Okada, N.; Zhang, Q.; Shi, P.; Zhang, J. Modeling Urban Expansion Scenarios by Coupling Cellular Automata Model and
System Dynamic Model in Beijing, China. Appl. Geogr. 2006, 26, 323–345. [CrossRef]
65. Xie, W.; Huang, Q.; He, C.; Zhao, X. Projecting the Impacts of Urban Expansion on Simultaneous Losses of Ecosystem Services: A
Case Study in Beijing, China. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 84, 183–193. [CrossRef]
66. Clarke, K.C.; Hoppen, S.; Gaydos, L. A Self-Modifying Cellular Automaton Model of Historical Urbanization in the San Francisco
Bay Area. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1997, 24, 247–261. [CrossRef]
67. Verburg, P.H.; Soepboer, W.; Veldkamp, A.; Limpiada, R.; Espaldon, V.; Mastura, S.S.A. Modeling the Spatial Dynamics of
Regional Land Use: The CLUE-S Model. Environ. Manag. 2002, 30, 391–405. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Peterson, G.D.; Bennett, E.M. Ecosystem Service Bundles for Analyzing Tradeoffs in Diverse Landscapes.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5242–5247. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Lu, N.; Fu, B.; Jin, T.; Chang, R. Trade-off Analyses of Multiple Ecosystem Services by Plantations along a Precipitation Gradient
across Loess Plateau Landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1697–1708. [CrossRef]
70. Metzger, M.J.; Rounsevell, M.; Acosta-Michlik, L.; Leemans, R.; Schröter, D. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use
change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 114, 69–85. [CrossRef]
71. Sutton, P.C.; Costanza, R. Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover,
and ecosystem service valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 509–527. [CrossRef]
72. Nelson, E.; Mendoza, G.; Regetz, J.; Polasky, S.; Tallis, H.; Cameron, D.; Chan, K.M.; Daily, G.C.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; et al.
Modeling Multiple Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity Conservation, Commodity Production, and Tradeoffs at Landscape Scales.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 4–11. [CrossRef]
73. Villa, F.; Bagstad, K.J.; Voigt, B.; Johnson, G.W.; Portela, R.; Honzák, M.; Batker, D. A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust
EcosystemServices Assessment. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Jiang, C.; Wang, F.; Zhang, H.; Dong, X. Quantifying Changes in Multiple Ecosystem Services during 2000–2012 on the Loess
Plateau, China, as a Result of Climate Variability and Ecological Restoration. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 97, 258–271. [CrossRef]
75. Han, X.; Yu, J.; Shi, L.; Zhao, X.; Wang, J. Spatiotemporal Evolution of Ecosystem Service Values in an Area Dominated by
Vegetation Restoration: Quantification and Mechanisms. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 131, 108191. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 17 of 19

76. Giri, C.; Long, J.; Abbas, S.; Murali, R.M.; Qamer, F.M.; Pengra, B.; Thau, D. Distribution and Dynamics of Mangrove Forests of
South Asia. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 148, 101–111. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Prasad, M.H.K.; Ganguly, D.; Paneerselvam, A.; Ramesh, R.; Purvaja, R. Seagrass Litter Decomposition: An Additional Nutrient
Source to Shallow Coastal Waters. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78. Edward, J.K.P.; Raj, K.D.; Mathews, G.; Kumar, P.D.; Arasamuthu, A.; D’ Souza, N.; Bilgi, D.S. Seagrass Restoration in Gulf of
Mannar, Tamil Nadu, Southeast India: A Viable Management Tool. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 430. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Sahani, S.; Raghavaswamy, V. Analyzing Urban Landscape with City Biodiversity Index for Sustainable Urban Growth. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 471. [CrossRef]
80. Malik, M.; Rai, S.C. Drivers of Land Use/Cover Change and Its Impact on Pong Dam Wetland. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019,
191, 203. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81. Sannigrahi, S.; Chakraborti, S.; Joshi, P.K.; Keesstra, S.; Sen, S.; Paul, S.K.; Kreuter, U.; Sutton, P.C.; Jha, S.; Dang, K.B. Ecosystem
Service Value Assessment of a Natural Reserve Region for Strengthening Protection and Conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2019,
244, 208–227. [CrossRef]
82. Sannigrahi, S.; Zhang, Q.; Pilla, F.; Joshi, P.K.; Basu, B.; Keesstra, S.; Roy, P.S.; Wang, Y.; Sutton, P.C.; Chakraborti, S.; et al.
Responses of Ecosystem Services to Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings: A Spatial Regression Based Assessment in the World’s
Largest Mangrove Ecosystem. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 715, 137004. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Padhy, S.R.; Bhattacharyya, P.; Dash, P.K.; Reddy, C.S.; Chakraborty, A.; Pathak, H. Seasonal Fluctuation in Three Mode of
Greenhouse Gases Emission in Relation to Soil Labile Carbon Pools in Degraded Mangrove, Sundarban, India. Sci. Total Environ.
2020, 705, 135909. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Talukdar, S.; Singha, P.; Shahfahad; Mahato, S.; Praveen, B.; Rahman, A. Dynamics of Ecosystem Services (ESs) in Response to
Land Use Land Cover (LU/LC) Changes in the Lower Gangetic Plain of India. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 112, 106121. [CrossRef]
85. Das, M.; Das, A.; Pereira, P.; Mandal, A. Exploring the Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Health: A Study on a Rapidly
Urbanizing Metropolitan Area of Lower Gangetic Plain, India. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 125, 107584. [CrossRef]
86. Sinclair, M.; Vishnu Sagar, M.K.; Knudsen, C.; Sabu, J.; Ghermandi, A. Economic Appraisal of Ecosystem Services and Restoration
Scenarios in a Tropical Coastal Ramsar Wetland in India. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 47, 101236. [CrossRef]
87. Ramachandra, T.V.; Bharath, S. Carbon Sequestration Potential of the Forest Ecosystems in the Western Ghats, a Global Biodiversity
Hotspot. Nat. Resour. Res. 2020, 29, 2753–2771. [CrossRef]
88. Ramachandra, T.V.; Bharath, S.; Gupta, N. Modelling Landscape Dynamics with LST in Protected Areas of Western Ghats,
Karnataka. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 206, 1253–1262. [CrossRef]
89. Debanshi, S.; Pal, S. Modelling Water Richness and Habitat Suitability of the Wetlands and Measuring Their Spatial Linkages in
Mature Ganges Delta of India. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 271, 110956. [CrossRef]
90. Babu, S.; Singh, R.; Avasthe, R.K.; Yadav, G.S.; Mohapatra, K.P.; Selvan, T.; Das, A.; Singh, V.K.; Valente, D.; Petrosillo, I. Soil
Carbon Dynamics in Indian Himalayan Intensified Organic Rice-Based Cropping Sequences. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 114, 106292.
[CrossRef]
91. Srinivasarao, C.; Lal, R.; Kundu, S.; Babu, M.B.B.P.; Venkateswarlu, B.; Singh, A.K. Soil Carbon Sequestration in Rainfed
Production Systems in the Semiarid Tropics of India. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 487, 587–603. [CrossRef]
92. Shah, A.; Garg, A. Urban Commons Service Generation, Delivery, and Management: A Conceptual Framework. Ecol. Econ. 2017,
135, 280–287. [CrossRef]
93. Pathak, S.; Ojha, C.S.P.; Garg, R.D. Applicability of the InVEST Model for Estimating Water Yield in Upper Ganga Basin. Society
of Earth Scientists Series. In The Ganga River Basin: A Hydrometeorological Approach; Chauhan, M.S., Ojha, C.S.P., Eds.; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 219–231.
94. Yang, Y.; Zheng, H.; Kong, L.; Huang, B.; Xu, W.; Ouyang, Z. Mapping Ecosystem Services Bundles to Detect High- and Low-Value
Ecosystem Services Areas for Land Use Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 11–17. [CrossRef]
95. Jew, E.; Burdekin, O.; Dougill, A.J.; Sallu, S.M. Rapid Land Use Change Threatens Provisioning Ecosystem Services in Miombo
Woodlands. Nat. Resour. Forum 2019, 43, 56–70. [CrossRef]
96. Jopke, C.; Kreyling, J.; Maes, J.; Koellner, T. Interactions among Ecosystem Services across Europe: Bagplots and Cumulative
Correlation Coefficients Reveal Synergies, Trade-Offs, and Regional Patterns. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 49, 46–52. [CrossRef]
97. Nelson, E.; Sander, H.; Hawthorne, P.; Conte, M.; Ennaanay, D.; Wolny, S.; Manson, S.; Polasky, S. Projecting Global Land-Use
Change and Its Effect on Ecosystem Service Provision and Biodiversity with Simple Models. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e14327. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
98. Bennear, L.S.; Olmstead, S.M. The Impacts of the “Right to Know”: Information Disclosure and the Violation of Drinking Water
Standards. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2008, 56, 117–130. [CrossRef]
99. Paudyal, K.; Baral, H.; Bhandari, S.P.; Bhandari, A.; Keenan, R.J. Spatial Assessment of the Impact of Land Use and Land Cover
Change on Supply of Ecosystem Services in Phewa Watershed, Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 36, 100895. [CrossRef]
100. Farley, K.A.; Jobbágy, E.G.; Jackson, R.B. Effects of Afforestation on Water Yield: A Global Synthesis with Implications for Policy.
Glob. Change Biol. 2005, 11, 1565–1576. [CrossRef]
101. Rimal, B.; Sharma, R.; Kunwar, R.; Keshtkar, H.; Stork, N.E.; Rijal, S.; Rahman, S.A.; Baral, H. Effects of Land Use and Land Cover
Change on Ecosystem Services in the Koshi River Basin, Eastern Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 38, 100963. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 18 of 19

102. Zhang, Y.; Lu, X.; Liu, B.; Wu, D.; Fu, G.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, P. Spatial Relationships between Ecosystem Services and Socioecological
Drivers across a Large-Scale Region: A Case Study in the Yellow River Basin. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 766, 142480. [CrossRef]
103. Yi, H.; Güneralp, B.; Kreuter, U.P.; Güneralp, İ.; Filippi, A.M. Spatial and Temporal Changes in Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 619–620, 1259–1271. [CrossRef]
104. Sun, X.; Li, F.; Sun, X.; Li, F. Spatiotemporal Assessment and Trade-Offs of Multiple Ecosystem Services Based on Land Use
Changes in Zengcheng, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 609, 1569–1581. [CrossRef]
105. Feng, Q.; Zhao, W.; Fu, B.; Ding, J.; Wang, S. Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs and Their Influencing Factors: A Case Study in the
Loess Plateau of China. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 607–608, 1250–1263. [CrossRef]
106. Izquierdo, A.E.; Clark, M.L. Spatial Analysis of Conservation Priorities Based on Ecosystem Services in the Atlantic Forest Region
of Misiones, Argentina. Forests 2012, 3, 764–786. [CrossRef]
107. Sahoo, U.K.; Tripathi, O.P.; Nath, A.J.; Deb, S.; Das, D.J.; Gupta, A.; Devi, N.B.; Charturvedi, S.S.; Singh, S.L.; Kumar, A.; et al. Quantifying
tree diversity, carbon stocks and sequestration potential for diverse land-uses in northeast India. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021. [CrossRef]
108. Kumar, M.; Kumar, A.; Thakur, T.K.; Pandey, R.; Shaboo, U.K. Soil Organic Carbon Estimation along an Altitudinal Gradient of
Chir-Pine forests of Garhwal Himalaya, India: A field inventory to remote sensing approach. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022. [CrossRef]
109. Rodríguez, N.; Armenteras, D.; Retana, J. National Ecosystems Services Priorities for Planning Carbon and Water Resource
Management in Colombia. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 609–618. [CrossRef]
110. Tan, Z.; Liu, S.; Tieszen, L.L.; Tachie-Obeng, E. Simulated Dynamics of Carbon Stocks Driven by Changes in Land Use,
Management and Climate in a Tropical Moist Ecosystem of Ghana. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 130, 171–176. [CrossRef]
111. Chiang, L.C.; Lin, Y.P.; Huang, T.; Schmeller, D.S.; Verburg, P.H.; Liu, Y.L.; Ding, T.S. Simulation of Ecosystem Service Responses
to Multiple Disturbances from an Earthquake and Several Typhoons. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 122, 41–55. [CrossRef]
112. Anache, J.A.A.; Flanagan, D.C.; Srivastava, A.; Wendland, E.C. Land Use and Climate Change Impacts on Runoff and Soil Erosion
at the Hillslope Scale in the Brazilian Cerrado. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 622–623, 140–151. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
113. Vaezi, A.R.; Ahmadi, M.; Cerdà, A. Contribution of Raindrop Impact to the Change of Soil Physical Properties and Water Erosion
under Semi-Arid Rainfalls. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 583, 382–392. [CrossRef]
114. Wei, W.; Chen, L.; Yang, L.; Fu, B.; Sun, R. Spatial Scale Effects of Water Erosion Dynamics: Complexities, Variabilities, and
Uncertainties. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2012, 22, 127–143. [CrossRef]
115. Wen, X.; Zhen, L. Soil Erosion Control Practices in the Chinese Loess Plateau: A Systematic Review. Environ. Dev. 2020, 34, 100493.
[CrossRef]
116. Li, J.; Zhou, Z.X. Natural and Human Impacts on Ecosystem Services in Guanzhong—Tianshui Economic Region of China.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 6803–6815. [CrossRef]
117. Liao, C.; Yue, Y.; Wang, K.; Fensholt, R.; Tong, X.; Brandt, M. Ecological Restoration Enhances Ecosystem Health in the Karst
Regions of Southwest China. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 90, 416–425. [CrossRef]
118. Peng, J.; Tian, L.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, M.; Hu, Y.; Wu, J. Ecosystem Services Response to Urbanization in Metropolitan Areas: Thresholds
Identification. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 607–608, 706–714. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
119. Han, R.; Feng, C.C.; Xu, N.; Guo, L. Spatial Heterogeneous Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Human Disturbances:
A Case Study in Chuandong, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 721, 137818. [CrossRef]
120. Zhang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y. What Factors Affect the Synergy and Tradeoff between Ecosystem
Services, and How, from a Geospatial Perspective? J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 257, 120454. [CrossRef]
121. Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Peterson, G.D. Scale and Ecosystem Services: How Do Observation, Management, and Analysis Shift with
Scale—Lessons from Québec. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 16. [CrossRef]
122. de Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services and
Values in Landscape Planning, Management and Decision Making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [CrossRef]
123. Bai, Y.; Chen, Y.; Alatalo, J.M.; Yang, Z.; Jiang, B. Scale Effects on the Relationships between Land Characteristics and Ecosystem
Services- a Case Study in Taihu Lake Basin, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 716, 137083. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
124. Clerici, N.; Cote-Navarro, F.; Escobedo, F.J.; Rubiano, K.; Villegas, J.C. Spatio-Temporal and Cumulative Effects of Land Use-Land
Cover and Climate Change on Two Ecosystem Services in the Colombian Andes. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 685, 1181–1192.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
125. Ma, S.; Wang, L.J.; Jiang, J.; Chu, L.; Zhang, J.C. Threshold Effect of Ecosystem Services in Response to Climate Change and
Vegetation Coverage Change in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau Ecological Shelter. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 318, 128592. [CrossRef]
126. Yohannes, H.; Soromessa, T.; Argaw, M.; Warkineh, B. Spatio-Temporal Changes in Ecosystem Service Bundles and Hotspots
in Beressa Watershed of the Ethiopian Highlands: Implications for Landscape Management. Environ. Chall. 2021, 5, 100324.
[CrossRef]
127. Li, Y.; Zhang, L.; Qiu, J.; Yan, J.; Wan, L.; Wang, P.; Hu, N.; Cheng, W.; Fu, B. Spatially Explicit Quantification of the Interactions
among Ecosystem Services. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 1181–1199. [CrossRef]
128. Jiang, C.; Li, D.; Wang, D.; Zhang, L. Quantification and Assessment of Changes in Ecosystem Service in the Three-River
Headwaters Region, China as a Result of Climate Variability and Land Cover Change. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 66, 199–211. [CrossRef]
129. Khan, M.; Sharma, A.; Goyal, M.K. Assessment of Future Water Provisioning and Sediment Load under Climate and LULC
Change Scenarios in a Peninsular River Basin, India. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2019, 64, 405–419. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8518 19 of 19

130. Jianying, X.; Jixing, C.; Yanxu, L. Partitioned Responses of Ecosystem Services and Their Tradeoffs to Human Activities in the Belt
and Road Region. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123205. [CrossRef]
131. Naidoo, R.; Balmford, A.; Costanza, R.; Fisher, B.; Green, R.E.; Lehner, B.; Malcolm, T.R.; Ricketts, T.H. Global Mapping of
Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9495–9500. [CrossRef]
132. Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chen, Y. On the Spatial Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Urbanization:
A Case Study in Wuhan, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 637–638, 780–790. [CrossRef]