Scientifically exploring the decoupling relationship between land use degree and ecosystem service intensity can effectively reveal the interference degree of land use change in the ecosystem, and provide a scientific basis for land use policy-making and ecosystem protection. However, previous studies lack specific research on the decoupling relationship between land use and ecosystem service intensity at the county level in China. In order to make up for this deficiency, combined with the remote sensing monitoring data of China’s land use status from 2000 to 2015 and the vegetation coverage index, the spatial and temporal pattern characteristics of China’s county scale ecosystem service intensity and land use degree from 2000 to 2015 were measured respectively by using the measurement methods of ecosystem service intensity and land use degree, and the decoupling relationship between the two was detected by using the decoupling analysis theoretical framework. The results showed the followings. (1) During the study period, the intensity of ecosystem services in China showed significant spatial heterogeneity, and the intensity of ecosystem services in Southeast China was significantly higher than that in Northwest China; the ecosystem service intensity in plain areas, urban agglomerations and the surrounding areas of big cities is significantly lower than that in mountainous and hilly areas. (2) China’s land use degree continued to increase during the study period. The land use degree in the southeast was significantly higher than that in the northwest. The distribution of land use degree in the southeast was “high and low”, and the distribution of land use degree in the northwest was “low, medium, and high”. (3) The results of the decoupling analysis show that strong decoupling and expanding negative decoupling are the main relationship types between land use and ecosystem service intensity in China. The former is a dilemma, and the latter is a win-win model. The study found that the interference of land use at different stages on the intensity of ecosystem services showed significant differences. The results can provide scientific guidance for the formulation of land use and ecosystem management policies. 

1. Mooney HA, Duraiappah A, Larigauderie A. Evolution of natural and social science interactions in global change research programs. PNAS 2013; 110: 3665–3672.

2. Global Land Project (GLP). Science plan and implementation strategy. IGBP Report No.53/IHDP Report No.19. International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme Secretariat, Stockholm, Sweden; 2005.

3. Xie Y, Zhang S, Lin B, et al. Spatial zoning for land ecological consolidation in Guangxi based on the ecosystem services supply and demand. Journal of Natural Resources 2020; 35(1): 217–229.

4. Sun X, Lu Z Li F, et al. Analyzing spatio-temporal changes and trade-offs to support the supply of multiple ecosystem services in Beijing, China. Ecological Indicators 2018; 94: 117–129.

5. Ma L, Liu H, Peng J, et al. A review of ecosystem services supply and demand. Acta Geographica Sinica 2017; 72(7): 1277–1289.

6. Fu B, Yu D. Trade-off analyses and synthetic integrated method of multiple ecosystem services. Resources Science 2016; 38(1): 1–9.

7. Hang Y, Liu Y, Zhang Y, et al. On the spatial relationship between ecosystem services and urbanization: A case study in Wuhan, China. Science of the Total Environment 2018; 637–638, 780–790.

8. Ouyang Z, Zheng H, Xiao Y, et al. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science 2016; 352(6292): 1455–1459.

9. Ulgiati S, Brown MT. Energy and ecosystem complexity. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 2009; 14(1): 310–321.

10. Koschke L, Fürst C, Frank S, et al. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecological Indicators 2012; 21: 54–66.

11. Hao J, Xiao H, Wu G. Comparison analysis on physical and value assessment methods for ecosystems services. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology 2000; 11(2): 290–292.

12. Hu X, Hong W, Qiu R, et al. Geographic variations of ecosystem service intensity in Fuzhou city, China. Science of the Total Environment 2015; 512–513: 215–226.

13. Costanza R, Darge R, Degroot R, et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997; 387(6630): 253–260.

14. Xie G, Zhen L, Lu C, et al. Expert knowledge based valuation method of ecosystem services in China. Journal of Natural Resources 2008; 23(5): 911–919.

15. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. PNAS 2009; 106(5): 1305–1312.

16. Fu B, Chen L, Ma K, et al. The relationships between land use and soil conditions in the hilly area of the Loess Plateau in Northern Shaanxi, China. Catena 2000; 39(1): 69–78.

17. Song W, Deng X. Land-use/land-cover change and ecosystem service provision in China. Science of the Total Environment 2017; 576: 705–719.

18. Chen W, Li J, Zhu L. Spatial heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis of ecosystem services value in the Middle Yangtze River Region. Journal of Natural Resources 2019; 34(2): 325–337.

19. Hen WX, Chi GQ, Li JF. The spatial association of ecosystem services with land use and land cover change at the county level in China, 1995–2015. Science of the Total Environment 2019; 669: 459–470.

20. Li S, Bing Z, Jin G. Spatially explicit mapping of soil conservation service in monetary units due to land use/cover change for the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Remote Sensing 2019; 11(4): 468. doi: 10.3390/rs11040468.

21. Hu H, Liu H, Hao J, et al. Spatio-temporal variation in the value of ecosystem services and its response to land use intensity in an urbanized watershed. Acta Ecologica Sinica 2013; 33(8): 2565–2576.

22.

23. Gao L, Shi L, Cui S, et al. Response of ecosystem services to land use change in Xiamen Island. Ecological Science 2009; 28(6): 551–556.

24. Shi L, Cui S, Yin K, et al. The impact of land use/cover change on ecosystem service in Xiamen. Acta Geographica Sinica 2010; 65(6): 708–714.

25. Liu J, Zhang Z, Xu X, et al. Spatial patterns and driving forces of land use change in China during the early 21st Century. Journal of Geographical Sciences 2010; 20(4): 483–494.

26. Ning J, Liu J, Kuang W, et al. Spatiotemporal patterns and characteristics of land-use change in China during 2010–2015. Journal of Geographical Sciences 2018; 28(5): 547–562.

27. Xu X. The Annually Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) Spatial Distribution Datasets for China. Beijing: Data Registration and Publishing System of the Resource and Environmental Science Data Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences; 2018.

28. Wang Y, Dai E, Yin L, et al. Land use/land cover change and the effects on ecosystem services in the Hengduan Mountain Region, China. Ecosystem Services 2018; 34: 55–67.

29. Li F, Zhang S, Yang J, et al. Effects of land use change on ecosystem services value in West Jilin since the reform and opening of China. Ecosystem Services 2018; 31: 12–20.

30. Chen W, Zhao H, Li J, et al. Land use transitions and the associated impacts on ecosystem services in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Economic Belt in China based on the geo-informatic Tupu method. Science of the Total Environment 2019; 70: 134690. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134690.

31. Chuai X, Huang X, Wu C, et al. Land use and ecosystems services value changes and ecological land management in Coastal Jiangsu, China. Habitat International 2016; 57: 164–174.

32. Liu J. Land use in Tibet Autonomous Region. Beijing: Science Press; 1992.

33. Tapio P. Towards a theory of decoupling: Degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transport Policy 2005; 12(2): 137–151.

34. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). OECD Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century. Paris: OECD; 2001.

35. Chen W, Li J, Wu K, et al. Model modification and empirical analysis of the relative carrying capacity of resources in Xinjiang. Arid Land Geography 2017; 40(2): 453–461.

36. Gao Z, Liu J, Zhuang D. The relation between ecological environmental background and the used degree of land resources in China. Acta Geographica Sinica 1998; 53(s1): 36–43.

37. Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM, et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decisionmaking: Land use in the United Kingdom. Science 2013; 341(6141): 45–50.

38. Chen W, Ye X, Li J, et al. Analyzing requisition-compensation balance of farmland policy in China through telecoupling: A case study in the Middle Reaches of Yangtze River Urban Agglomerations. Land Use Policy 2019; 83: 134–146.