Articles
Trade-offs and Synergistic Optimization of Ecosystem Service Functions in the Upper Fenhe River Basin
Published 2026-09-07
Keywords
- upper Fenhe River Basin,
- ecosystem services,
- trade-offs,
- synergies,
- watershed governance
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract
The upper Fenhe River Basin performs critical ecological functions for central Shanxi, yet it is also subject to urban development, resource exploitation and long-term environmental stress. This paper analyzes the trade-offs and synergies among major ecosystem services in the basin and discusses how these relations can inform more integrated watershed governance. Drawing on ecosystem service theory, landscape planning research and Chinese ecological governance debates, the paper argues that service provision in the upper Fenhe Basin is highly spatially differentiated. Mountain forest and grassland zones play major roles in water conservation, soil retention and habitat maintenance, while valleys, urbanizing areas and resource-extractive landscapes face stronger pressures and service degradation. Service relations are therefore not uniformly positive; they often involve difficult tensions between resource use and ecological maintenance, or between restoration programs and hydrological constraints. The paper proposes zoning-based governance, cross-jurisdictional coordination, ecological compensation and adaptive restoration as pathways toward synergistic optimization. Its broader claim is that effective basin management depends on understanding ecosystem services as a relational territorial system rather than as isolated indicators.References
- 1. Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12(12), 1394-1404.
- 2. Meng, L., Du, Z., Jia, Z., & Cao, L. (2025). Spatial mechanisms and coupling coordination of cultural heritage and tourism along the Jinzhong segment of the Great Tea Road. Heritage, 9(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9010007
- 3. Daily, G. C. (Ed.). (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press.
- 4. Meng, L., Jia, Z., Hu, X., Zhang, B., & Cao, L. (2026a). Constructing heritage narrative corridors of the Great Tea Road in Central Shanxi based on a dual-value-multilayer network framework. npj Heritage Science, 14, 420. https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-026-02646-w
- 5. Meng, L., Zhang, B., & Cao, L. (2026b). Establishing linear cultural heritage corridors by integrating cultural and ecological values: A case study of the Jinzhong section of the Great Tea Road. Land, 15(2), 293. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15020293
- 6. Grêt-Regamey, A., Brunner, S. H., & Kienast, F. (2012). Mountain ecosystem services: who cares? Mountain Research and Development, 32(S1), S23-S34.
- 7. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., & Bennett, E. M. (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(11), 5242-5247.
- 8. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-260.
- 9. de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260-272.
- 10. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17-29.
- 11. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.