Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2021) 28:38145–38158

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13217-w

RESEARCH ARTICLE

An analytical approach for assessment of geographical variation

in ecosystem service intensity in Punjab, Pakistan
Mobeen Akhtar 1 & Yuanyuan Zhao 1,2,3 & Guanglei Gao 1,2

Received: 12 October 2020 / Accepted: 25 February 2021 / Published online: 16 March 2021
# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Ecosystem services (ESs) are a diverse range of environmental properties that have significant effects on both landscape
characteristics and human well-being, an understanding of the spatial variation of which is required for effective ecosystem
management and conservation. In this study, we aimed to identify the geographical variation in ESs and examine the factors
impacting ESs in Punjab Province, Pakistan. We evaluated ecosystem service intensity (ESI) by using the benefit transfer method
and investigated the spatial heterogeneity of ESIs at the tehsil level by using an exploratory spatial data analysis (ESDA) model
and semivariance analysis. This analysis indicated that spatial distribution of ESI shows significant and optimal spatial hetero-
geneity of ESs, revealing several hot and cold spots for ESI transformation in the study area. The ESI decreased from east to west
and north to south, with a trough in the metropolitan zones, including Lahore, Sheikhupura, Faisalabad, and Multan, which was in
accordance with the land use/cover pattern. Furthermore, using geographically weighted regression (GWR) analysis, we also
identified geographical clusters within which land use/cover pressure and population growth were significantly positively
associated with ESI across the province, based on a lag distance scale. The findings of this study have functional economic
implications with respect to highlighting areas worthy of conservation and designing ecological corridors to enhance the delivery
of ESs for regional benefits.

Keywords Ecosystem service . Land use/cover . Semivariance analysis . Spatial autocorrelation . Geographically weighted
regression

Introduction deteriorating or being utilized unsustainably (MEA 2005),

Ecosystem services (ESs), the benefits that humans derive
either directly or indirectly from the natural environment, are
essential for human well-being, livelihood, and survival
(Costanza et al. 1997; MEA 2005; De Groot et al. 2012; Xie
et al. 2017). Approximately 60% of ESs are currently
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues
* Yuanyuan Zhao
yuanyuan0402@bjfu.edu.cn
1
Present address: Key Laboratory of State Forestry Administration on
Soil and Water Conservation, Beijing Forestry University,
Beijing 100083, China
2
Yanchi Research Station, School of Soil and Water Conservation,
Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
3
School of Soil and Water Conservation, Beijing Forestry University,
Beijing 100083, China
and during the first half of the twenty-first century, it is pre-
dicted that such deterioration could escalate significantly
(Vihervaara et al. 2010; Hu et al. 2015; Zhai et al. 2020). In
recent years, a growing number of ES studies have been car-
ried out in conjunction with ecosystem degradation and trans-
formation, based on their ability to represent and communi-
cate with human–environmental interactions (Busch et al.
2012; Hu et al. 2015; Huang et al. 2020). The services pro-
vided by ecosystems are neither homogeneous nor consistent
throughout landscapes, often being characterized by spatial
variation (Fisher et al. 2009; Barbier 2012; Wu et al. 2013).
To date, research on ESs has tended to focus on specific eco-
system types, service categories, and geographical areas
(MEA 2005; Syrbe and Walz 2012; Huang et al. 2019; Qi
et al. 2020; Sun et al. 2020). However, the spatial associations
of ESs are frequently assumed rather than being practically
demonstrated, and consequently, our current understanding
regarding the spatial variation in ESs is comparatively limited.
This deficiency in awareness accordingly limits our ability to
38146
undertake the appropriate conservation measures and manage-
ment of ecosystem functioning (Troy and Wilson 2006;
Turner et al. 2007; Hu et al. 2015). A consideration of both
the spatial homogeneity and heterogeneity of ESs is thus es-
sential for the development of effective policies to ensure
maintenance of integrity and rational utilization of these
services.
In terms of examining the spatial variation in ESs, the
quantification of ES represents a vital step, and in this regard,
a group of four approaches have previously been reported,
namely, revealed preference approaches (e.g., market price
and travel cost), stated preference approaches (e.g., contingent
valuation and choice experiments), cost-based approaches
(e.g., avoiding cost and replacement cost), and the benefit
transfer method (Costanza et al. 1997; Talberth 2015;
Arowolo et al. 2018). Of these approaches, the benefit transfer
method, a secondary valuation method, adapts previously
established estimates from (original) primary valuation studies
in one or more locations to other areas assumed to have related
demographic, economic, and ecological characteristics
(Richardson et al. 2015; Yi et al. 2017). Most notable in this
regard is the pioneering study conducted by Costanza et al.
(1997), who used the benefit transfer method to extrapolate
the global economic value of 17 ESs provided by 16 main
biomes. Subsequently, the estimates were updated based on
a larger database of more than 300 case studies worldwide (de
Groot et al. 2012; Costanza et al. 2014). For example, a rela-
tively high value was assigned to the assessment of ecosystem
services with respect to the association between ecosystem
conditions and economic development level in China and
Southern Asia (Xie et al. 2008, 2017).
Scientists have continuously been seeking to develop pre-
cise spatial decision-making methods for managing ecosys-
tem conservation strategies (Nelson et al. 2009). In this regard,
Zawadzki et al. (2005) have illustrated how ecosystem
service-based activities and management can proactively pri-
oritize through mapping of the biophysical and social charac-
teristics of ESs. However, there remains a general lack of
consensus regarding the spatial variation in ESs and the spatial
associations between observed monitoring units and scales.
Certain spatial statistical techniques, particularly exploratory
spatial autocorrelation (ESDA) and semivariance analysis, are
currently considered beneficial in terms of evaluating spatial
characteristics (Webster and Oliver 1990; Zawadzki et al.
2009; Zawadzki and Fabijańczyk 2013). ESDA is a collection
of spatial statistical techniques that can be applied to visualize
spatial aggregation and anomalies and reveal a framework for
the assessment of ESs (McMillen 2010). Semivariance analy-
sis is typically employed for two main purposes, namely,
quantifying the scale of variability shown by natural resource
distribution patterns and identifying the spatiotemporal scale
at which verified variables show maximum variability
(Wallace et al. 2000; He et al. 2007). Consequently, an
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158
appropriate description of the spatial patterns and scales of
ESs may be obtained using a combination of these two
methods. Numerous studies have examined the spatial prop-
erties of process-related landscape modules, such as those of
watercourses, natural habitats, and specific ecosystems (Isbell
et al. 2011; Barbier 2012; Trabucchi et al. 2014). Sometimes,
affected regions are frequently imprecisely designated owing
to contradictions associated with differences between the spa-
tial scale of the method of scrutiny and the scale at which the
census variables are calculated and evaluated (Anselin 2001;
Syrbe and Walz 2012). In this regard, identifying the drivers
of ES variability and evaluating the constant variability range
can contribute to optimizing locations for different objectives
(Pijanowski et al. 2010; Su C-h et al. 2012). In exploratory
studies, the spatial associations between ESs and their causes
within administrative units can thus have significant conse-
quences for appropriate policy-making and implementation.
They are also of scientific value, in that spatial flow strategies
are dependent on the study of spatial correlation at the admin-
istrative unit level (Plummer 2009; Serna-Chavez et al. 2014).
Punjab, the second largest province in Pakistan, is a region
characterized by a distinctive ecosystem that has developed
under the influence of a unique landscape, environment, and
other natural factors that are significant to the ecological sta-
bility of Pakistan (Shedayi et al. 2019). Over the past few
decades, Punjab province has undergone accelerated urbani-
zation concomitant with rapid population growth and eco-
nomic development (Imran et al. 2019), and these develop-
ments have predictably led to extensive changes in land use
and cover, including the conversion of cropland to built-up
areas, and a decline in the area covered by forest (FAO
2015). In the latter regard, Samie et al. (2020) found that only
3% of the total land surface area of Punjab is now forested.
The conversion of forest to barren land or built-up areas, de-
velopment of former cropland, water body shrinkage, and
substantial expansion in the area of built-up land have contrib-
uted to declines in both environmental and ecological sustain-
ability. These changes have alerted the national government to
the necessity to maintain the viability of the region’s environ-
mental and ecological resources. However, beyond analyzing
geographical variations in Punjab, quantitative assessments of
the impacts of these changes on ES evaluation have seldom
been attempted. Indeed, to date, there have been no assess-
ments of these effects at a provisional scale, and only a few
related studies have been conducted at the local scale (Akhtar
et al. 2020). Such quantitative analyses are, nevertheless,
needed on a priority basis, particularly in those areas in which
escalating population growth and the increasing impact of
human activities have resulted in substantial changes in eco-
logical sustainability.
To this end, in the present study, we used a benefit transfer
method to evaluate ESs and subsequently assessed the ecosys-
tem service intensity (ESI) of each administrative unit in
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158
Punjab. Furthermore, we used ESDA and semivariance anal-
yses to examine the geographical variations in ESI.
Specifically, we sought to answer the following scientific
questions: (1) What are the characteristics of the spatial het-
erogeneity of ESs in Punjab? (2) What is the relationship
between ESI and driving factors? (3) What lessons can we
learn with respect to prioritizing areas for development and
conservation and designing ecological corridors to enhance
the distribution of ESs for the benefit of particular areas?
Materials and methods
Study area
This study was conducted in the province of Punjab, which is
located along the northwest frontier of the Indian Plate in South
Asia (Fig. 1). The province comprises nine divisions, 36 districts,
and 137 tehsils, covering a total area of 205,344 km 2
(representing 25.8% of the total area of Pakistan). The topogra-
phy of the region is mostly plains, much of which is covered by
^ ^
^
Fig. 1 A map showing the location of the study area
38147
agricultural land surrounded by river basins, with the Potohar
Plateau in the north, hilly landscapes in the northwest and south-
west, and sandy desert in southeast Cholistan region. The climate
is generally dry, with precipitation varying from 100 mm in the
south to 600 mm in the northwest, although sometimes reaching
1000 mm along the province’s northeastern border.
Approximately three-quarters of the mean annual precipitation
is brought by monsoon rains, which typically last from June to
September, leading to varying degrees of flooding. Temperatures
can reach as low as − 2°C in winter and as high as 47°C in
summer. Punjab has the largest irrigation system in Pakistan,
comprising more than 3000 irrigation channels (canals), which
directly support agricultural production (e.g., vegetables, fruits,
wheat, rice, cotton, and sugarcane) and indirectly contribute to
industrial production (e.g., textiles, cement, sugar mills, and ag-
riculture machinery) (FAO 2015; Samie et al. 2017).
With a total population of 110 million, Punjab is the most
populace province in Pakistan, accounting for 52.92% of the
national population (PBS PBoS 2017). Between 1951 and 1998
and 1998 and 2017, the population of the province increased by
258% and 57%, respectively, with a corresponding increase in
^
±
^
^ ^
^
^
^
^
38148 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158

population density from 100 to 535 individuals per km2 be-
tween 1951 and 2017 (PBS PBoS 2017). Agriculture produc-
tion contributes 76% to the annual food grain requirements
[Bureau of Statistics, Punjab (http://bos.gop.pk/)]. Although
agriculture is the major economy of Punjab, contributing 60%
to the total agricultural production fueling the country’s GDP,
the industrial sector also makes a substantial contribution. The
province makes significant financial contributions to the
economy of the country, and despite the increasing rate of
urbanization, most of the population are still employed in
agricultural activities (Samie et al. 2020). In concert with the
ongoing rapid urbanization and economic growth, there have
been substantial changes in land use and cover, including mas-
sive deforestation and conversion of agricultural land to urban
areas, resulting in excessive exploitation of river waters, envi-
ronmental quality degradation, and threats to food security
(Usman et al. 2015; Samie et al. 2020). Such changes in land
use and cover could have potentially severe consequences with
respect to ESs, particularly in the more heavily populated north-
eastern region, southwestern mountainous areas, and southern
region of the province.
Data collection
A land use/cover dataset with a spatial resolution of approxi-
mately 30 m was obtained in 2020 from the Pakistan Space
and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO).
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), in consultation with SUPARCO and the Crop
Reporting Services of Punjab, has analyzed, interpreted, and
validated land use/cover classes at a scale of 1:25,000 in
SPOT’s high-resolution spatial satellite data (FAO 2015;
Samie et al. 2017). Both land use/cover data and driving factor
data were prepared at a standardized spatial resolution and a
1 km × 1 km projection. The land use/cover dataset based on
13 categories was re-categorized into six categories (Table 1).
Administrative boundary data at the tehsil level were obtained
from The Urban Unit (https://www.urbanunit.gov.pk/).
Demographic and economic data, including indirect
variables for the year 2019 at the tehsil level, were acquired
from the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (http://www.pbs.gov.
pk/). The land use/cover, economic, and demographic datasets
were combined with administrative vector data employing the
ESRI ArcGIS 10.5 platform for subsequent assessment of the
ecosystem services value (ESV) and spatial analysis.
Evaluation of ecosystem service intensity
Using the ESV evaluation method proposed by Costanza et al.
(1997), we initially calculated ESV. In this widely used meth-
od, the global biosphere is categorized into 16 types of
ecosystems and 17 types of ES. Previously, Xie et al. (2008)
have evaluated Chinese ESVs by using the value coefficient
of Chinese terrestrial ESs, which are mainly based on the
global ecosystem weight factor (Xie et al. 2008). For our study
area, we allocated the values of ESs per unit area of each land
use/cover type for the corresponding weighting factors and
standardized the values of ES to a relative scale (0–100 value
points) (Table 2).
The standardized equivalent ESV weighting factor was de-
termined using Eq. (1) as follows:


I−I min
I norm ¼  100 ð1Þ
I max −I min
where lnorm is the standardized equivalent ESV weighting fac-
tor per hectare for a defined land use/cover type, the score of
which is between 0 and 100; I is the determined value of a
given land use/cover type of a specific ecosystem service; and

Table 1 Reclassification of
SUPARCO classification SUPARCO code SUPARCO land/use/cover classification New code Reclassified land
categories use/cover categories

1 Orchard 2 Cropland
2 Crop irrigated 2
3 Crop marginal and irrigated saline 2
4 Crop in flood plain 2
5 Crop rainfed 2
6 Forest 3 Forest
7 Natural vegetation in west areas 4 Grassland
8 Range land-natural Shrubs and herbs 4
9 Built-up area 1 Built-up
10 Bare areas 5 Barren land
11 Bare area with sparse natural vegetation 5
12 Wet areas 6 Water body
13 Snow and glaciers
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158 38149

Table 2 Standardized equivalent weighting factor of ecosystem service value per hectare for different land types

Food Raw material Gas Climate Hydrological Waste Soil formation and Biodiversity and Providing
production production regulation regulation regulation treatment conservation maintenance aesthetic value

Built-up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Forest land 33.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 21.79 11.58 100.00 100.00 46.85
Grassland 43.00 12.08 34.72 38.33 8.10 8.89 55.72 41.46 19.59
Cropland 100.00 13.09 16.67 23.83 4.10 9.36 36.57 22.62 3.83
Water body 53.00 11.74 11.81 50.61 100.00 100.00 10.20 76.05 100.00
Barren land 2.00 1.34 1.39 3.19 0.37 1.75 4.23 8.87 5.41

Imax and Imin correspond to the maximum and minimum
values for all land use/cover types for particular ESs.
The ESs and overall performance values for each tehsil
were calculated using Eqs. (2 and 3) as follows:
n
E i ¼ ∑ wk sik
k¼1
m
wk ¼ ∑ wkj =m
j¼1
where Ei indicates the total score of tehsil i; wk represents the
ESV of land use/cover type k, that is, the cumulative average
weight of all ES types wkj divided by the sum of ES types j (0–
100 value points), as shown in Eq. (3); and Sik indicates the
area of land use/cover type k in tehsil i. The weight wk indi-
cates the relative value of the specific land use/cover category
for ESs, according to Table 2 as shown in Fig. 2. The overall
performance of a tehsil can be measured in terms of ESs by
multiplying the score with the corresponding tehsil for each
land use/cover and adding all services.
ESI was subsequently evaluated to assess the spatial vari-
ation in ESs (Shi et al. 2012). ESI has been used to equate the
role of ESs in one tehsil with that in another tehsil and to
evaluate the spatial heterogeneity throughout the study area.
It represents the average value of ES in each tehsil, which can
be calculated using Eqs. (4 and 5) as follows:
ESI ¼ E i =S i
n
S i ¼ ∑ S ik
k¼1
identifying hot and cold spots, and proposing spatial frame-
works (Anselin 1999; Zhang et al. 2011). In the present study,
we used ESDA to identify the occurrence of spatial ESI auto-
correlation in Punjab. The research concentrated on particular
features of spatial clustering, such as the “local” spatial clus-
ð2Þ tering and the “global” distribution of ESI patterns.
ESI can be measured using global Moran’s Ig based on Eq.
(6) as follows:
ð3Þ
 
∑ ∑ wij ðxi −uÞ x j −u
i j
Ig ¼ N ! ð6Þ
∑ ∑ wij ∑ðxi −uÞ2
i j
where wij is a contiguity matrix standardized in a row, xi and xj
are the ESIs for tehsil i and j, respectively, μ indicates the
average level of ESI, and N indicates the overall number of
tehsils in the study area. Moran’s I g indicates spatial
ð4Þ
ð5Þ

where Si represents the overall area of tehsil I and Sik indicates

the area of land use/cover type k in tehsil i.

Measurement of the geographical variation in

ecosystem services

Identification of the hot and cold spots of ESI

ESDA is a collection of strategies for defining and visualizing Fig. 2 A bar graph showing the scores for each land use/cover type in
spatial distributions, exploring spatial association patterns, terms of ecosystem service intensity
38150
autocorrelation and ranges from − 1 to + 1 (for negative to
positive spatial autocorrelation), respectively, and zero indi-
cates a lack of spatial autocorrelation (Anselin 2003). Given
that Moran’s Ig cannot be used to determine the hot and cold
spots between tehsils, local spatial relationships were deter-
mined using the local indicator of spatial association (LISA) to
demonstrate the importance of hot and cold spots (Yang and
Wong 2013). LISA was expressed using the local Moran’s Il
(Eq. (7).
xi −μ  
Il ¼ 2
∑ wij x j −u ð7Þ
∑ ðxi −uÞ j
i resented by the extrapolated relationship between two param-
Moran’s Il, “local” Moran’s Il, and “global” Moran’s Ig were
assessed using ESRI ArcGIS 10.0. When conducting analyses,
the spatial associations between tehsils were estimated using the
inverse distance weighting method (Lukaszyk 2004). The size of
the neighborhood specifies how many tehsils are included in this
method, and the observation values were taken on a weighted
average within this neighborhood. In this scenario, the neighbor-
hood size was automatically set using a default radius value,
which is a Euclidean distance that ensures at least one neighbor-
hood for each measurement. A cluster map was subsequently
generated that incorporated information on the occurrence of
local spatial trends. Generally, in terms of ESI, the map is pre-
sented using spatial symbology representing five types of tehsil:
(1) high–high (hotspots, positive spatial autocorrelation) indi-
cates tehsils with a high level of ESI correspondence to tehsils
with high ESI rates; (2) low–low (cold spots, positive spatial
autocorrelation) indicates tehsils with a lower level of ESI, which
corresponds to tehsils with low ESI rates; (3) low–high (negative
spatial autocorrelation) indicates tehsils with a low ESI level that
corresponds to tehsils with high ESI rates; (4) high–low (nega-
tive spatial autocorrelation) indicates tehsils with a high level of
ESI that corresponds to tehsils with low ESI rates; and (5) not
significant, indicating tehsils with no spatial autocorrelation.
Spatial heterogeneity of ESI
Semivariance, a fundamental geostatistical method, was used
to calculate the spatial consistency of adjacent measurements
(Zawadzki et al. 2005). The exploratory semivariance value
for a variable is extracted from the calculation of half a mean
square difference for each data pair split by a particular lag
distance of h (Krige 1996a; Chen and Feng 2013).
The standard semivariance is determined using Eq. (8) as
follows:
1 ables at different locations (Fotheringham et al. 2002). The
γ ð hÞ ¼ ½zðxi Þ−zðxi þ hÞ2 ð8Þ
2N ðhÞ
where γ(h) is the estimated semivariance value at distance
interval h, representing the degree of autocorrelation
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158
exhibited; z(xi) is the estimated sample value for tehsil xi;
z(xi + h) represents the sample value (i.e., ESI) for tehsil xi +
h; and N(h) represents the overall number of sample data pairs
split by distance h.
Semivariance functions are generally defined using the fol-
lowing parameters: sill (C0 + C) defines the maximum
semivariance level, the sum of the total variance described
by the Nugget effect and the spatial structure; range (A0) is
the distance where semivariance reaches a peak, or where
datasets are not correlated; the Nugget effect (C0) is the value
of the position at which spatially independent variance is rep-
eters intercepting the axis of the semivariance; the spatially
dependent structural variance (C) is the systematic variation
level of the data, and the ratio of the Nugget effect (C0) to the
sill (C0 + C), which might be an important predictive mea-
surement of variation, signifies the random components in the
proportion of spatial variance (Cambardella et al. 1994; Krige
1996b; Treitz and Howarth 2000; Zawadzki et al. 2005).
Spherical, linear, Gaussian, and exponential models were
used to match the goodness of the experimental semivariance.
The model parameters were determined using GS+ software.
Semivariance models were cross-validated, with cross-
validation root mean square error (RMSECV) and coefficient
of determination (r2) being used to evaluate the goodness of
the models (Davis and Sampson 2002).
Examination of the relationship between ESV and driving
factors
Generally, land use/cover changes and population growth are
key factors affecting ESs (MEA 2005; Vihervaara et al. 2010).
In the present study, we used population density coefficients
to reflect population growth (Fig. 3). The proportions of six
significant types of land use/cover (cropland, forestland,
grassland, water bodies, built-up land, and unused land) were
used to characterize the land use/cover pressures. Values ob-
tained for these variables are listed in Table 3.
The ordinary least squares (OLS) method was initially im-
plemented to determine ESI-related factors. The OLS method
is based on the assumption that anywhere within a specified
geographic range, the association between independent and
dependent variables remains the same. Thus, using this ap-
proach, it is not possible to define the spatial non-stationarity
of the ESI distribution. Consequently, the OLS approach pa-
rameter estimates are probably one-sided and invalid. We then
used a geographically weighted regression model (GWR) that
measures the occurrence of spatial interaction between vari-
regression model for the OLS is defined using Eq. (9) as
follows:
yi ¼ β0 þ ∑β j xi þ ei ð9Þ
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158 38151

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of

population density and land use/ Variables Mean Standard deviation
cover variables
ESI score (ha) 20.68 6.39
Indirect variables Population density (PD) (individuals/ha) 8.30 11.19
Direct Variables Proportion of cropland (%) 74.52 30.03
Proportion of forest land (%) 0.56 1.74
Proportion of grassland (%) 0.39 0.96
Proportion of water bodies (%) 0.77 0.76
Proportion of built-up land (%) 1.72 4.72
Proportion of unused land (%) 22.04 29.82

where yi represents the ESI value for the ith tehsil and xi is the
determining factor of the ith tehsil. β0 is constant, βj is the
estimating determinant coefficient, and ei is the stochastic er-
ror term. The GWR model is an updated version of Eq. (9), as
determined using Eq. (10) as follows:
yi ðui ; vi Þ ¼ β0 ðui ; vi Þ þ ∑β j ðui ; vi Þxi þ ei ðui ; vi Þ
where (ui,vi) describes an observation’s spatial position or
geographical coordinates (i.e., tehsils), with v i and u i
representing the latitudes and longitudes of the ith tehsil’s
centroids, respectively. The GWR model performs well within
the observations grouped near a given tehsil and thus provides
a separate estimate of the parameters for each tehsil.
Furthermore, to measure parameters individually for each ob-
servation, GWR assigns a higher weight to observations (i.e.,
tehsils) closer to the ith tehsil than to those farther away
(Fotheringham et al. 2002).
The determined GWR coefficients are defined using Eq.
(11) as follows:
 −1 0
bðui ; vi Þ ¼ X 0 wðui ; vi ÞX
β X wðui ; vi ÞY ð11Þ
ð10Þ where w(ui,vi) is a diagonal spatial weight matrix that is
specific for any observation (i.e., tehsil). The model is
based on the spatial weight matrix elements, which are
dependent on the spatial position, and the bandwidth is
used to define the spatial location to analyze the non-
stationary features (Poudyal et al. 2012; Yang and Wong
2013). In the present study, both the GWR and OLS
models were run using GS+ software. We used a
Gaussian function for GWR models to allocate a spatial
weight matrix and a cross-validation method to determine
the optimum bandwidth required to reduce the Akaike in-
formation criterion (AICc).

Fig. 3 Spatial distribution of the population density and land use/cover of Punjab
38152 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158

Results
Spatial distribution of ESI
We found that in Punjab, the ESI showed spatial heterogene-
ity, characterized by a gradual reduction from east to west
(Fig. 4). Notably, ESI levels in the extensive northeastern
and central regions were extremely high for tehsil Hazro
(26.97 Â score/ha), followed by Layyah (26.00), Pakpattan
(25.56), Vehari (25.31), and Faisalabad (24.68), with high
ESI levels being detected for Jehlum (23.00), followed by
Mianwali (22.40), Rawalpindi (21.67), Isakhel (20.43), and
Chishtian (19.68). Tehsils in the northwestern and central re-
gions were found to be characterized by moderate ESI levels
for Rahim Yar Khan (19.21), followed by metropolitan
Lahore, the capital of the province (17.91), whereas areas with
a low ESI level included Jampur (13.84 score/ha), followed by
Multan (12.83 score/ha), Darya Khan (11.60), and Rojhan
(10.68). In contrast, ESI values for the northwestern, south-
western, and southeastern parts of the region were found to be
extremely low, with an ESI level of (8.13) for Chaubara,
followed by Chakwal (6.70), Noorpur (5.35), Gujranwala
(5.36), and Kallar Kahar (3.47).
ESI hot and cold spots
The statistical value of Moran’s Ig was 0.419, which was sta-
tistically significant at the 0.05 level, showing a tendency
toward neighboring tehsils with low or high ESI clustering.
A total of 46 tehsils were found to be characterized by positive

Hazro
Kahuta
±
Chakwal
Kallar Kahar Jehlum
Mianwali

Gujranwala

Darya KhanNoorpur
Lahore
Faisalabad

Taunsa Chaubara
Layyah

D G Khan Kot Addu

Pak Pattan
Multan Burewala

Chishtian
Jampur

Ecosystem service intensity (score/ha)

Rojhan Yazman
Extremely low (3.47 - 8.37)
Rahim Yar Khan
Low (8.37 - 14.51)
Moderate (14.5 - 19.68)
High (19.68 - 23.70)
0 50 100 200 Km Extremely high (23.70 - 26.97)

Fig. 4 Spatial distribution of ESI in Punjab, Pakistan, in 2019

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158
spatial autocorrelation (i.e., high–high clusters), and were
mainly located in the northeastern and central parts of the
study area. A total of 18 tehsils, which were primarily located
in the northwestern region, along with small tehsils in the
western region (Fig. 5), were identified as having positive
spatial autocorrelation (i.e., low–low clusters). In contrast,
negative spatial autocorrelation (i.e., low–high clusters or
high–low outliers) were found to be a feature of highly popu-
lated areas (i.e., municipalities) within the study area.
Spatial heterogeneity of ESI
On the basis of linear model analysis, we obtained a C0/(C +
C0) value of 0.79, indicating that there are structural (non-
0 50 100 200 Km
Fig. 5 A cluster map showing the spatial association of ecosystem service intensity
38153
random) factors influencing the level of ESI in the study
area at certain small scales, whereas structural elements
in the study area led to spatial heterogeneity in the ESI.
In contrast, the values obtained based on spherical,
exponential, and Gaussian models were 0.39, 0.10, and 0.14,
respectively, indicating that there were non-structural
(random) factors influencing the level of ESI at the tehsil
level at certain small scales. The ESI fitting model parameters
are listed in Table 4. The r2 and RMSECV values obtained
tended to indicate that the spherical model provided a closer
approximation to the hypothesis of the four models.
Throughout the assessed regions, spatial heterogeneity was
primarily characterized by randomness and autocorrelation
components.
Legend
Not Significant
High-High Cluster
High-Low Outlier
Low-High Outlier
Low-Low Cluster
38154 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158

Table 4 Parameters of spatial

heterogeneity of ESI for different Model C0 C C0 + C A0 C0 / C0 + C r2 Residual SS RMSECV
models
Spherical 45.58 71.60 117.50 1.29 0.39 0.51 609 0.00
Linear 96.60 25.47 122.05 2.61 0.79 0.25 945 0.00
Exponent 12.40 105.80 118.20 1.15 0.10 0.45 697 0.00
Gauss 16.70 99.90 116.60 0.84 0.14 0.45 698 0.00

The driving forces of ESI
The findings of GWR and OLS regressions for ESI are summa-
rized in Table 5. The adjusted R-squared value indicated the
good fit of both models, whereas the residual and AICc values
tended to suggest the better performance of the GWR model,
thereby providing evidence for the greater applicability of the
locally weighted regression model. The individual and combined
effects of driving forces on ESI were analyzed based on GWR at
the tehsil level, as shown in Fig. 6. The interaction effect of
forestland on ESI was found to be the most pronounced, follow-
ed by that of built-up, unused land, and cropland. Additionally,
population density showed a strong interaction effect with ESI
level. Tehsil-level regression coefficients evaluated using GWR
revealed a non-significant relationship between the proportion of
forestland and ESI (Fig. 6a). Figure 6b–d show that for all tehsils,
ESI was significantly associated with the proportions of crop-
land, built-up land, and unused land, whereas Fig. 6c and d
provide evidence of an increasing tendency for cropland and
unused land to influence the ESI of the study region from east
to west. In contrast, built-up area was found to be characterized
by a more significant inverse trend in ESI (Fig. 6c). With respect
to direct factors, we established that 136 tehsils were affected by
forest land, with built-up, crop, and unused land affecting 131,
126, and 82 tehsils, respectively. Contrary to expectations, we
found that for all the tehsils in the study area, grassland, water
bodies, and population density coefficients had no significant
effects on ESI.
Discussion
The problem of scale relating to geographical
variation
The pattern is rooted in spatial heterogeneity, which in turn
stems from spatial dependence variabilities (Wu 2004). Spatial
heterogeneity and dependency at all scales are omnipresent and
provide an essential foundation for ecological hypotheses. For
decades, the association between patterns and scales has been
acknowledged in both ecology and geography (Meentemeyer
1989; Levin 1992; Chave 2013). The dilemma of scale tends
to be associated with different outcomes determined from the
same data, or the fact that patterns may be better described at
certain scales (e.g., degree of the datasets) (Wu 1999; Zawadzki
et al. 2005). Two approaches have been described for elucidat-
ing spatial variability at a landscape scale (i.e., autocorrelation
and semivariance analyses), with a view to identifying the char-
acteristic scales of landscape patterns (Bellehumeur et al. 1997).
Ecological characteristics are also derived from physical features
associated with the inherent nature of spatial sampling (Anselin
2001). Following this approach, our main objective in the pres-
ent study was to identify an analytical approach that would
facilitate the measurement of statistical parameters and spatial
variance characteristics when an ESI study is conducted based
on sampling units of differing size. However, our analysis indi-
cated that most of the statistical parameters and characteristics
showed unpredictable characteristics in response to differences
in sample size. Although prediction error can occur owing to a
deficiency in the statistical validity of the sample size, these
associations [C0 / (C0 + C)] have demonstrated that unsystem-
atic variations in the present study were less significant (Burnett
and Blaschke 2003). Using spherical, linear, exponential, and
Gaussian models, we obtained C0 / (C0 + C) values of 0.39,
0.79, 0.10, and 0.14, respectively. Each of these models indicat-
ed a random pattern influencing the ESI level at small scales.
According to the r2 values obtained, the spherical model, with a
value of 0.51, provided the best fit. Corresponding values for the
linear, exponential, and Gaussian models were 0.25, 0.45, and
0.45, respectively. Given that one of the goals of the present
research was to examine the nature of the drivers of the spatial
tendency, we selected a contrast-sampling configuration (a
tehsil-level administrative unit) to fit the spatial scale for socio-
economic assessments.

Table 5 Parameter estimates based on GWR and OLS regression

Model Constant PD (individuals/ha) PFL (%) PBL (%) PGL (%) PCL (%) Adjusted R-squared AICc

GWR − 2.54 − 2.53 − 0.18 − 1.69 0.22 0.99 281.97

OLS − 2.53 − 2.52 − 0.15 − 1.69 0.20 0.99 296.11
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158 38155

± ±

± ±

Fig. 6 Geographically weighted regression clusters of forestland, cropland, and built-up and unused land

Implications for the flows of ESs
As shown in Fig. 3, we detected substantial differences among
areas in terms of ESI. These observation might indicate that
specific ESs are “provided” by biophysical or anthropogenic
processes from source areas, with flows to those receiving
benefits (Serna-Chavez et al. 2014). In this regard, the spatial
distribution of services needs to be examined with a view
toward the effective design of ES flow (Guariguata and
Balvanera 2009; Wunder 2007). By describing spatial hetero-
geneity and dependency, we can characterize the distribution
of ESs more precisely and specifically than is achievable
based on the conventional use of equity indices and
choropleth mapping (Yang and Wong 2013). Consequently,
the findings of this study have certain policy implications with
respect to prioritizing conservation or development zones and
the construction of ecological corridors to enhance access to
those areas receiving benefits. Studying spatial variations
38156
enables us to take into account threshold distances via spatial
interpolation or precise computation. This provides a verifica-
tion of previous findings relating to the application of geo-
graphical variation analysis (Yang and Wong 2013), which
has indicated that it is possible to gain more accurate details
regarding the distribution of artifacts via such analysis. These
map features illustrate the prospects for better distribution to
areas receiving the benefit of ESs, for example, through the
development of recreational and natural reserve areas and
linking these to those areas receiving benefits. Given the ac-
knowledged variability among ESs, studies focusing on dif-
ferent services are required to promote the study of spatial
service flows.
Proximate forces of ESs
The design of an effective ecosystem service management
scheme necessitates a recognition of the dynamic relationships
between socioecological constraints and ESs (Kremen 2005).
In the present study, we examined the intensity of ESs in
individual tehsils depending primarily on local land use/
cover patterns, that is, the proportions of forestland, cropland,
built-up land, and unused land. Our findings are consistent
with those presented in an earlier review, indicating that the
capacity of natural processes to meet human needs via ESs is
directly influenced by land use and land cover (Vitousek et al.
1997). A finding of the present study that was unpredicted is
that population density and the proportion of water bodies
have non-significant effects on ESI. In contrast, we observed
that for each tehsil in the study area, the proportion of cropland
showed a significantly positive association with ESI, whereas
the proportion of forestland showed a significantly negative
association. Similarly, for all tehsils, the proportion of unused
land was found to be negatively associated with the level of
ESI. Conversely, the proportion of built-up showed both neg-
ative and positive associations, which supports the hypothesis
that population is the primary and significant underlying cause
of global changes in land use and cover (Lambin et al. 2001).
Changes in ESs typically reflect human reactions to economic
opportunities, as interpreted by economic issues (Helfenstein
and Kienast 2014; Li et al. 2010). Although the effect of
population density on ESI was comparatively limited com-
pared with direct local influences (e.g., tehsil), a growing pop-
ulation necessitates an expansion of the area land use/cover
associated with human development (e.g., housing settle-
ments, utilities, industries, and commercial malls), eventually
affecting the extent and quality of ecological land (e.g., crop-
land and forestland) (Liu et al. 2005; Li et al. 2010).
Industrialization has also contributed to an increasing loss of
ecological land (Deng et al. 2008), and consequently, popula-
tion density might represent a key driver in the ongoing dete-
rioration of local ESs.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158
The approach used in the present study represented an ad-
vance in the use of simple regression models, and by intro-
ducing a model with spatially varying parameters, we were
able to effectively detect the variance between variables and
ESI at a local level. The findings of our GWR model analysis
indicated that associations differ on a spatial scale, thereby
indicating that the magnitudes of positive/negative associa-
tions may differ accordingly. However, in the study site, the
transition from east to west across the study site is character-
ized by positive changes in a number of gradients, which are
closely associated with economic factors, urban growth, and
emerging developments. In this regard, identified regions in
which certain factors have detrimental effects with respect to
ESI could potentially be approached by the government to
enforce mitigation measures at the tehsil level, given that these
tehsils are expected to resolve both social and biophysical
issues at the administrative unit level (Poudyal et al. 2012).
Conclusions
This study was conducted to determine the spatial variation and
driving factors of ESI in Punjab. The results indicated signifi-
cant variation in ESI among tehsils, with a decreasing trend
from east to west, north to south, and from metropolitan to more
rural areas. Our analysis also revealed that built-up area and
unused land showed a negative trend, whereas cropland
showed a positive trend. Furthermore, the findings of
semivariance analysis indicated a non-structural patterning of
ESI at the tehsil level. Within the study area, we obtained more
detailed information regarding trends in ESI spatial associations
by using the lag distance range as the neighborhood size rather
than using the default value. Results obtained using a GWR
approach were found to be more rational and appropriate com-
pared with those obtained based on an OLS model when con-
sidering features of the spatial non-stationarity distribution of
ESI. GWR model analysis indicated that for each tehsil, a
change in land use/cover was the principal factor contributing
to a variation in ESI. Consequently, the findings of this study
have certain policy-related implications with respect to the pri-
oritization of sustainability or development areas, as well as the
formation of ecological corridors to enhance distribution to
those areas receiving ES benefits. Given the discrepancies be-
tween ESs, studies focusing on different service are required to
gain a more in-depth insight into spatial service flows.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Editor and anonymous
reviewers for their constructive and valuable remarks, which have en-
abled us to substantially enhance the quality of the paper.
Author contribution MA, YZ, and GG conceived and designed the
study; MA collected the data; MA and YZ analyzed the data; MA wrote
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158
the paper, and YZ and GG provided useful suggestions and modified the
draft. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding Our research was supported by the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2015ZCQ-SB-02).
Data Availability The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
References
Akhtar M, Zhao Y, Gao G, Gulzar Q, Hussain A, Samie A (2020)
Assessment of ecosystem services value in response to prevailing
and future land use/cover changes in Lahore, Pakistan. Regional
Sustain 1:37–47
Anselin L (1999) Interactive techniques and exploratory spatial data anal-
ysis. In: Longley PA, Godchild MF, Maguire DJ (Eds.),
Geographical Information Systems. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, pp. 253–266
Anselin L (2001) Spatial effects in econometric practice in environmental
and resource economics. Am J Agric Econ 83:705–710
Anselin L (2003) GeoDa 0.9 user’s guide. Spatial Analysis Laboratory
(SAL). Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Arowolo AO, Deng X, Olatunji OA, Obayelu AE (2018) Assessing
changes in the value of ecosystem services in response to land-
use/land-cover dynamics in Nigeria. Sci Total Environ 636:597–609
Barbier EB (2012) A spatial model of coastal ecosystem services. Ecol
Econ 78:70–79
Bellehumeur C, Legendre P, Marcotte D (1997) Variance and spatial
scales in a tropical rain forest: changing the size of sampling units.
Plant Ecol 130:89–98
Burnett C, Blaschke T (2003) A multi-scale segmentation/object relation-
ship modelling methodology for landscape analysis. Ecol Model
168:233–249
Busch M, La Notte A, Laporte V, Erhard M (2012) Potentials of quanti-
tative and qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services.
Ecol Indic 21:89–103
Cambardella CA, Moorman TB, Parkin TB, Karlen DL, Novak JM,
Turco RF, Konopka AE (1994) Field-scale variability of soil prop-
erties in central Iowa soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58(5):1501–1511
Chave J (2013) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: what have
we learned in 20 years? Ecol Lett 16:4–16
Chen L, Feng Q (2013) Geostatistical analysis of temporal and spatial
variations in groundwater levels and quality in the Minqin oasis,
Northwest China. Environ Earth Sci 70:1367–1378
Costanza R, d'Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B et al
(1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural
capital. Nature 387:253
Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, Van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ,
Kubiszewski I et al (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem
services. Glob Environ Chang 26:152–158
38157
Davis JC, Sampson RJ (2002) Statistics and data analysis in geology. 3rd
edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York (57–61 pp.)
De Groot R, Brander L, Van Der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L
et al (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their
services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv 1:50–61
Deng X, Huang J, Rozelle S, Uchida E (2008) Growth, population and
industrialization, and urban land expansion of China. J Urban Econ
63:96–115
FAO (2015) The land cover atlas of Pakistan: The Punjab Province.
Available online: http://www.fao.org/geospatial/resources/detail/
en/c/1024589/e
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosys-
tem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653
Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2002) Geographically
weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships:
John Wiley & Sons, New York (27–64 pp.)
Guariguata MR, Balvanera P (2009) Tropical forest service flows:
Improving our understanding of the biophysical dimension of eco-
system services. For Ecol Manag 258:1825–1829
He Z, Zhao W, Chang X (2007) The modifiable areal unit problem of
spatial heterogeneity of plant community in the transitional zone
between oasis and desert using semivariance analysis. Landsc Ecol
22:95–104
Helfenstein J, Kienast F (2014) Ecosystem service state and trends at the
regional to national level: a rapid assessment. Ecol Indic 36:11–18
Hu X, Hong W, Qiu R, Hong T, Chen C, Wu C (2015) Geographic
variations of ecosystem service intensity in Fuzhou City, China.
Sci Total Environ 512:215–226
Huang Q, Zhao X, He C, Yin D, Meng S (2019) Impacts of urban ex-
pansion on wetland ecosystem services in the context of hosting the
Winter Olympics: a scenario simulation in the Guanting reservoir
basin, China. Reg Environ Chang 19:2365–2379
Huang Q, Yin D, He C, Yan J, Liu Z, Meng S, Ren Q, Zhao R, Inostroza
L (2020) Linking ecosystem services and subjective well-being in
rapidly urbanizing watersheds: insights from a multilevel linear
model. Ecosyst Serv 43:101106
Imran M, Sumra K, Abbas N, Majeed I (2019) Spatial distribution and
opportunity mapping: applicability of evidence-based policy impli-
cations in Punjab using remote sensing and global products. Sustain
Cities Soc 50:101652
Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, Connolly J, Harpole WS, Reich PB,
Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmid B, Tilman D, van Ruijven J,
Weigelt A, Wilsey BJ, Zavaleta ES, Loreau M (2011) High plant
diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477:199–
202
Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to
know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479
Krige DG (1996a) A study of gold and uranium distribution patterns in
the Klerksdorp gold field. Geoexploration 4(1):43–53
Krige DG (1996b) Two-dimensional weightedmoving average trend sur-
face for ore evaluation. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 67:13–79
Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen A, Bruce JW,
Coomes OT, Dirzo R, Fischer G, Folke C, George PS, Homewood
K, Imbernon J, Leemans R, Li X, Moran EF, Mortimore M,
Ramakrishnan PS, Richards JF, Skånes H, Steffen W, Stone GD,
Svedin U, Veldkamp TA, Vogel C, Xu J (2001) The causes of land-
use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Glob
Environ Chang 11:261–269
Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert
H. MacArthur award lecture. Ecology 73:1943–1967
Li M, Mao L, Zhou C, Vogelmann JE, Zhu Z (2010) Comparing forest
fragmentation and its drivers in China and the USA with Globcover
v2. 2. J Environ Manag 91:2572–2580
Liu J, Liu M, Tian H, Zhuang D, Zhang Z, Zhang W et al (2005) Spatial
and temporal patterns of China's cropland during 1990–2000: an
38158
analysis based on Landsat TM data. Remote Sens Environ 98:442–
456
Lukaszyk S (2004) A new concept of probability metric and its applica-
tions in approximation of scattered data sets. Comput Mech 33:299–
304
McMillen DP (2010) Issues in spatial data analysis. J Reg Sci 50:119–
141
MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Vol 5. Island press,
Washington, DC
Meentemeyer V (1989) Geographical perspectives of space, time, and
scale. Landsc Ecol 3:163–173
Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron D, Chan
KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R,
Ricketts TH, Shaw MR (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem ser-
vices, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and
tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11
PBS (2018) Pakistan bureau of statistics (online). http://www.pbs.gov.pk/
Accessed 21.03.16
Pijanowski BC, Iverson LR, Drew CA, Bulley HN, Rhemtulla JM,
Wimberly MC et al (2010) Addressing the interplay of poverty
and the ecology of landscapes: a Grand Challenge Topic for land-
scape ecologists? Landsc Ecol 25:5–16
Plummer ML (2009) Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of eco-
system services. Front Ecol Environ 7:38–45
Poudyal NC, Johnson-Gaither C, Goodrick S, Bowker J, Gan J (2012)
Locating spatial variation in the association between wildland fire
risk and social vulnerability across six southern states. Environ
Manag 49:623–635
Qi Y, Lian X, Wang H, Zhang J, Yang R (2020) Dynamic mechanism
between human activities and ecosystem services: a case study of
Qinghai lake watershed, China. Ecol Indicators 117:106528
Richardson L, Loomis J, Kroeger T, Casey F (2015) The role of benefit
transfer in ecosystem service valuation. Ecol Econ 115:51–58
Samie A, Deng X, Jia S, Chen D (2017) Scenario-based simulation on
dynamics of land-use-land-cover change in Punjab Province,
Pakistan. Sustainability 9:1285
Samie A, Abbas A, Azeem MM, Hamid S, Iqbal MA, Hasan SS et al
(2020) Examining the impacts of future land use/land cover changes
on climate in Punjab province, Pakistan: implications for environ-
mental sustainability and economic growth. Environ Sci Pollut Res:
1–19
Serna-Chavez H, Schulp C, Van Bodegom P, Bouten W, Verburg P,
Davidson M (2014) A quantitative framework for assessing spatial
flows of ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 39:24–33
Shedayi A, Xu M, Gonalez-Redin J, Hagist S, Aslam S, Khan N (2019)
Spatiotemporal assessment and valuation of provisioning ecosystem
services of Pakistan. Appl Ecol Environ Res 17:6735–6759
Shi Y, Wang R, Huang J, Yang W (2012) An analysis of the spatial and
temporal changes in Chinese terrestrial ecosystem service functions.
Chin Sci Bull 57:2120–2131
Su C-h FB-J, He C-S, Lü Y-H (2012) Variation of ecosystem services and
human activities: a case study in the Yanhe Watershed of China.
Acta Oecol 44:46–57
Sun X, Tang H, Yang P, Hu G, Liu Z, Wu J (2020) Spatiotemporal
patterns and drivers of ecosystem service supply and demand across
the conterminous United States: a multiscale analysis. Sci Total
Environ 703:135005
Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of eco-
system services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and
landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88
Talberth J (2015) Valuing ecosystem services in the lower mekong basin:
country report for Cambodia. Washington DC: USAID Mekong
ARCC
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:38145–38158
Trabucchi M, O’Farrell PJ, Notivol E, Comín FA (2014) Mapping eco-
logical processes and ecosystem services for prioritizing restoration
efforts in a semi-arid Mediterranean river basin. Environ Manag 53:
1132–1145
Treitz P, Howarth P (2000) High spatial resolution remote sensing data
for forest ecosystem classification: an examination of spatial scale.
Remote Sens Environ 72(3):268–289
Troy A, Wilson MA (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: practical chal-
lenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecol
Econ 60:435–449
Turner WR, Brandon K, Brooks TM, Costanza R, Da Fonseca GA,
Portela R (2007) Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem
services. BioScience 57:868–873
Usman M, Liedl R, Shahid MA, Abbas A (2015) Land use/land cover
classification and its change detection using multi-temporal MODIS
NDVI data. J Geogr Sci 25:1479–1506
Vihervaara P, Rönkä M, Walls M (2010) Trends in ecosystem service
research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio 39:314–324
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human
domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494–499
Wallace CS, Watts JM, Yool SR (2000) Characterizing the spatial struc-
ture of vegetation communities in the Mojave Desert using
geostatistical techniques. Comput Geosci 26:397–410
Webster R, Olivier MA (1990) Statistical methods in soil and land re-
source survey. Oxford University Press New York (316 pp.)
Wu J (1999) Hierarchy and scaling: extrapolating information along a
scaling ladder. Can J Remote Sens 25:367–380
Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis:
scaling relations. Landsc Ecol 19:125–138
Wu J, Feng Z, Gao Y, Peng J (2013) Hotspot and relationship identifica-
tion in multiple landscape services: a case study on an area with
intensive human activities. Ecol Indic 29:529–537
Wunder S (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental services
in tropical conservation. Conserv Biol 21:48–58
Xie G, Zhen L, Lu C-X, Xiao Y, Chen C (2008) Expert knowledge based
valuation method of ecosystem services in China. J Nat Resour 23:
911–919
Xie G, Zhang C, Zhen L, Zhang L (2017) Dynamic changes in the value
of China’s ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 26:146–154
Yang Y, Wong KKF (2013) Spatial distribution of tourist flows to
China's cities. Tour Geogr 15:338–363
Yi H, Güneralp B, Filippi AM, Kreuter UP, Güneralp İ (2017) Impacts of
land change on ecosystem services in the San Antonio River Basin,
Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Ecol Econ 135:125–135
Zawadzki J, Fabijańczyk P (2013) Geostatistical evaluation of lead and
zinc concentration in soils of an old mining area with complex land
management. Int J Environ Sci Technol 10:729–742
Zawadzki J, Cieszewski CJ, Zasada M, Lowe RC (2005) Applying
geostatistics for investigations of forest ecosystems using remote
sensing imagery. Silva Fennica 39:599
Zawadzki J, Magiera T, Fabijańczyk P (2009) Geostatistical evaluation of
magnetic indicators of forest soil contamination with heavy metals.
Stud Geophys Geod 53:133–149
Zhai T, Wang J, Jin Z, Qi Y, Fang Y, Liu J (2020) Did improvements of
ecosystem services supply-demand imbalance change environmen-
tal spatial injustices? Ecol Indic 111:106068
Zhang Y, Xu J-H, Zhuang P-J (2011) The spatial relationship of tourist
distribution in Chinese cities. Tour Geogr 13:75–90
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.