Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Metacoupling supply and demand for soil conservation
service
Wenwu Zhao1,2, Yue Liu1,2, Stefani Daryanto1,2, Bojie Fu1,2,
Shuai Wang1,2 and Yanxu Liu1,2
To date most soil conservation service studies heavily focus on
measuring soil conservation service supply from the natural
system without considering corresponding beneficiaries (i.e.
demand), and feedback from the human system. In this paper,
we presented an updated soil conservation service
assessment framework as a two-way analysis of supply and
demand, identifying the impacts of soil conservation on human-
wellbeing and the feedback of human activities on soil
conservation supply observed at different scales, from local
(intracoupling) to regional (telecoupling). Soil conservation
services supply can be calculated as the maximum allowable
erosion rate minus the current soil erosion rate while soil
conservation demand needs consider targets such as the
Sustainable Development Goals. Because of the disturbance
effect transmutation, ecosystem management may trigger
possible unprecedented negative effects on the target
processes and/or non-target processes. Tradeoff analysis
between soil conservation services and other ecosystems
services at multiple scales are therefore necessary for regional
sustainable development.
Addresses
1
State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource
Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University,
Beijing 100875, China
2
Institute of Land Surface System and Sustainable Development,
Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing
100875, China
Corresponding author: Fu, Bojie (bfu@rcees.ac.cn)
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 33:136–141
This review comes from a themed issue on System dynamics and
sustainability
Edited by Bojie Fu and Yongping Wei
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Available online 1st June 2018
Received: 30 November 2017; Accepted: 12 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.05.011
1877-3435/ã 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Soil erosion has the potential to change soil structure,
negatively affects soil fertility and poses a threat to food
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 33:136–141
security [1]. Because erosion also affects the lateral fluxes
of soil carbon (C) and soil distribution process, it ulti-
mately affects the global C cycle [2]. Although soil erosion
is a natural process, recent evidence has demonstrated
that human activities have accelerated global soil erosion
rates [3,4]. Soil conservation service, defined as the
capacity of ecosystem to prevent soil loss and to store
sediment [5,6], is receiving more and more attention,
including the modeling and mapping of soil conservation
service change, as well as the linking between landscape
structure and soil loss process [7,8].
Soil conservation service is often calculated using the
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) [9],
which provide information on soil conservation capacities
(i.e. how much soil can be conserved by the ecosystem).
However, the challenge for soil conservation service
assessment is on how to measure such service for its
beneficiaries [10]. Therefore, further studies are required
to identify the corresponding beneficiaries or benefiting
areas and to build a feedback between nature and human
system, in order to understand the impacts of changes on
soil conservation supply to human well-being, as well as
on human demand to soil conservation supply. To address
the issues, we proposed a soil conservation service assess-
ment framework that combines supply and demand of the
soil conservation service as an integrated function. Fol-
lowing the framework, we proposed a new method to
quantify soil conservation service supply and provided an
overview about the supply and demand of soil conserva-
tion service from local to regional scale.
A general framework for soil conservation
service assessment
Ecosystem services (ESs) are the ecological characteris-
tics, functions, or processes that directly or indirectly
contribute to human wellbeing [11]. The crucial feature
of ecosystem service concept is the link between ecosys-
tem and human well-being, which considers both the
products/functions provided by ecosystem and the ben-
eficiaries which derive benefits from the ecosystem [12].
Ecosystem conditions and processes only become ser-
vices once they are actually used or consumed by human
beneficiaries [13]. As for soil conservation service, the
ecosystem has the capacity to control erosion and facili-
tate sedimentation, depending on ecosystem structure
and land management, especially the existing vegetation
cover and root system. This capacity should be called the
www.sciencedirect.com

potential soil conservation service supply provided by
ecosystem. Only after people use this service supply to
maintain agricultural productivity or to improve water
quality, we can say that it is the actual soil conservation
service because the soil conservation service provision is
used by beneficiaries to meet people’s demand and to
contribute to human well-being [14
].
Research on soil conservation services is closely related to
soil erosion. There are many studies on soil erosion
evaluation and the benefits gained from soil conservation.
Yet most studies about soil conservation service pay more
attentions on measuring soil conservation service supply,
without considering the corresponding beneficiaries or
benefiting areas. According to a recent review article,
which reviewed 101 soil conservation service research
articles, no measures emerged to quantify either the
ES or the cascading benefits following the most accepted
framework of ‘ecosystem properties-ecosystem functions-
benefits to humans-value’ [15

].
Based on the aforementioned background, we presented
a framework which coupled the service supply from
nature system and demands from human system (Fig-
ure 1), and the work can be divided into three parts: first,
evaluation on soil conservation supply and its benefits;
second, evaluation on soil conservation demand; and
third, analysis of soil conservation supply-demand, and
subsequent measures or policy to improve service supply.
The first step in soil conservation assessment is to connect
the changes in ecosystem structure to soil erosion-trans-
port-export process that provides the soil conservation
Figure 1
Nature System
Potential supply
Land use Erosion prevention
Vegetation cover Sediment retention
Soil property Sediment transport
Ecosystem structure Ecosystem process
and composition and function
Required supply
Work flow
A general framework to couple human–nature systems by soil conservation service assessment.
www.sciencedirect.com
Metacoupling supply and demand Zhao et al. 137
service supply [16], and to evaluate the potential soil
conservation supply. In another word, we need to know
how much soil can be retained by the ecosystem, and to
characterize the benefits from soil conservation supply [17],
such as any increase in food production, extended reservoir
operation period, and improvement on water quality. The
second step is to evaluate and to map the soil conservation
demand by considering, for example, the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) of United Nations Develop-
ment Programme. Based on these goals (e.g. Zero Hunger,
Clean Water, or Life on Land), we need to identify how
much soil erosion should be controlled (total demand of soil
conservation service). In the third step, we can compare soil
conservation service demand and actual soil conservation
service supply, and identify the required supply in areas
with low service provisioning. Then, some appropriate
management measures or policy can be taken or made to
improve the potential service supply which will in turn
improve the actual service supply, meet demand from
human system, and contribute to target (e.g. SDGs). This
framework of soil conservation service provides a mecha-
nism to couple human system and nature system which
includes a two-way (feedback) analysis between soil con-
servation supply and demand.
Rethinking the method of quantifying soil
conservation service supply
According to the framework proposed above, quantifying
soil conservation service supply is the first and an impor-
tant step in providing reliable information on how differ-
ent land use and global change affect the service supply.
In most studies, soil conservation service provision is
described as soil loss prevention by an ecosystem with
Human System
Realized demand
Food production Zero hunger
Reservoir operation period Clean water
Water purification Life on land
Benefits human Sustainable
derived development goals
Total demand
Service flow
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 33:136–141
138 System dynamics and sustainability
current land use/land cover pattern and soil erosion con-
trol practice. Soil retention is the most commonly used
indicator for the soil conservation service supply, which is
calculated as the difference between potential maximum
soil erosion rate (soil loss without vegetation cover and
soil erosion control practice) and the current soil erosion
rate (soil loss with current vegetation cover and erosion
control practice) [18]. However, this method has caused
some controversy related to the use of bare land as the
baseline reference to evaluate soil conservation services.
Bare land has high soil erosion, but rarely exists in reality.
Instead of bare land, we suggested the use of soil loss
tolerance value (T value) as a reference to evaluate soil
conservation services. T value was first defined in 1940s as
‘the amount of soil that could be lost without decline in
fertility, thereby maintaining crop productivity’ [19]. The
definition of T value has evolved in to two themes in the
last several decades [20], one is maintaining the dynamic
equilibrium of soil quantity (mass/volume), the other is
relating soil erosion tolerance to the biomass production
function of soil. Though it may be difficult to give a
uniform definition for T value, T value can be taken as a
good reference to evaluate the soil conservation effects. If
T value is higher than actual soil erosion, it means the soil
conservation function of ecosystem has positive effects on
human demand; while, if T value is lower than actual
erosion, it means the soil conservation function of ecosys-
tem has negative effects on human demand. We therefore
argue that soil retention can be calculated as the maxi-
mum allowable erosion (T value) minus the current soil
erosion. The formula is expressed as:
DE ¼ Emax  Ecur ð1Þ
where Emax is the maximum allowable rate of erosion
(t ha1 y1) that can be expressed as T value, Ecur is the
Figure 2
Maximum allowable
rate of erosion
Minus
Current erosion rate
Pixel soil retention value
Method to quantify the soil conservation service supply.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 33:136–141
current erosion rate (t ha1 y1), and DE is the soil
retention rate (t ha1 y1), which reflects the capacity
of ecosystem to control soil erosion (Fig. 2). When the
current soil erosion rate is less than T value, the value of
DE is positive, indicating a good soil conservation service
supply. If current soil erosion rate is greater than T value,
the value of DE is negative, indicating a decreased erosion
regulation service supply. Considering that there are
different calculation methods for T value [20], more
efforts should be allocated on selecting the most appro-
priate method of T value calculation.
Metacoupling soil conservation service supply
and demand from local to regional scale
Ecosystem service is ‘delivered’ from provisioning to
benefiting areas through either biophysical or anthropo-
genic processes. After quantifying the supply of soil
conservation service, the next crucial step is to character-
ize the demand for the service, which involves three
components: first, identification of the beneficiaries and
their location, second, indicators to measure social-eco-
nomic benefits, and third, link to connect the soil conser-
vation service with social-economic benefits. This link is
crucial to underscore human dependence on ecosystem
for erosion control [21
,22,23].
The metacoupling framework, presented by Liu [24

] in
2017 integrates human–nature interactions within a cou-
pled system (intracoupling) as well as between adjacent
coupled systems (pericoupling) and distant coupled sys-
tems (telecoupling). It also provides a platform to couple
soil conservation service supply and demand across scales.
The demand for erosion control is not only local, coming
from the farming sector at risk of losing productive soils,
but also regional, involving river users who desire clear
water and prolonged reservoir operation period. Soil
Positive
value
Negative
value
Service supply
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
www.sciencedirect.com

Figure 3
Enhance the soil conservation
service Intracoupling
Upstream
Soil erosion
Land productivity
Sediment yield
Reservoirs ,water quality
Metacoupling soil conservation service supply and demand.
conservation service is ‘one directional flow related’ ser-
vice, which is dependent on along a cascading effect [25].
Along the soil erosion-transport-deposition pathway,
upstream, midstream and downstream areas can be
viewed as different human–nature system with the
upstream area as the main service provisioning area.
Therefore, soil erosion control by the ecosystem should
provide multiple benefits from local to regional scale [26].
When the soil conservation service improves at the
upstream area, it should benefit the upstream area (e.g.
better soil fertility and land productivity or intracoupling).
Meanwhile, in the pericoupling or telecoupling process,
the upstream area provides service while midstream area
and downstream area receives services. The upstream
services can impact water quality and the operation
period of reservoir in the mid-stream area (pericoupling),
as well as on land-ocean sediment transfer and global C
budget, respectively (telecoupling) (Figure 3).
Tradeoff analysis between soil conservation
services and other ecosystems services
During the research processes of soil conservation service,
we also need to carry out two-way (feedback) analysis
between human system and nature system. Ecosystem
management from human system will not only affect the
target process, but also trigger possible unprecedented
effects on the target processes and/or non-target pro-
cesses. Taking a restoration project, Grain for Green
project in Loess Plateau of China as a case study, human
influences and multiple ecosystem processes have been
interconnected, and ecosystem management have cascad-
ing impacts at multiscales [27
]. At the local scale, eco-
system restoration can bring positive effect, such as soil
conservation and C fixation [28]. Unfortunately, it also led
to some unprecedented environmental problems, such as
www.sciencedirect.com
Metacoupling supply and demand Zhao et al. 139
Metacoupling
Pericoupling
Midstream Telecoupling
Sediment transport
Carbon cycle
Sediment deposition
Estuary formation
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
dried soil layer and water shortage [29]. If these problems
are prolonged, more negative effects may happen at larger
spatial and time scale, such as vegetation degradation,
regional water shortage, and downstream wetland degra-
dation. The disturbance effects on ecosystem are trans-
muting from one type to another, including to types that
have not been considered.
Based on the case study, we would like to put forward a
new hypothesis of disturbance effect transmutation. The
hypothesis believes that ecosystem management activi-
ties, such as ecosystem restoration project, will not only
alter the target ecological or human process, but also other
ecological or human processes and lead to some other
disturbances on the human–nature coupled ecosystem at
different scales. The disturbance effects can be divided
into three kinds of disturbance effects (Figure 4). First,
Disturbance effect I is the direct impact of disturbance on
the target ecological process in the intra-area: vegetation
restoration in Loess Plateau of China will help for soil
conservation function in the local area. Second, Distur-
bance effect II is the direct impact of disturbance on non-
target ecological processes in the intra-area: vegetation
restoration in Loess Plateau of China will improve C
fixation function, but lead to dried soil layer in the long
run; third, Disturbance effect III it is the indirect effects
of above disturbances on non-target ecological processes
in the peri-area or tele-area: vegetation restoration in
Loess Plateau of China will lead to sediment load
decrease, but water shortage in the midstream or down-
stream area of Yellow River. Only considering the target
ecological process at one scale and ignoring other non-
target processes at multi-scales may generate unexpected
environmental problems. Therefore, ecosystem manage-
ment should include the tradeoff analysis between soil
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 33:136–141
140 System dynamics and sustainability

Figure 4

Local area of Loess Plateau

Dried soil layer Carbon fixation

Direct impact on
non-target processes

Direct impact on Grain for Green Vegetation

Soil conservation
target process in Loess Plateau restoration

Water shortage Sediment load

Indirect impact on Wetland degradation decrease
non-target processes

Disturbance effect transmutation Midstream/Downstream area of Yellow River

Direct impact on target process in the intra-area

Negative effect
Direct impact on non-target process in the intra-area
Indirect impact on non-target process in the peri-or tele-area Positive effect
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Hypothesis of disturbance effect transmutation and application based on a case study in the Loess Plateau of China.

conservation services and other ecosystems services at Conflict of interests

different scales, including the target and non-target The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest
processes. regarding the publication of this article.

Conclusions
The key feature of ecosystem service concept is a linkage
between nature system and human system, as well as the
bi-directional feedback between human and nature sys-
tem via ecosystem service assessment. The framework for
metacoupling soil conservation demand and supply from
local to regional scale in this paper identified and pro-
vided measures to consider the effects of soil conservation
provision on human-wellbeing and the feedback of
human activities at different scales. Soil conservation
services supply can be calculated as the maximum allow-
able erosion rate minus the current soil erosion rate, while
soil conservation demand needs to consider defined tar-
gets such as the SDGs. Ecosystem management, such as
ecosystem restoration project, will not only alter the target
process, but also non-target processes, it may lead to
unprecedented negative at different scales. Therefore,
tradeoff analysis between soil conservation services and
other ecosystems services at multiscales are necessary to
understand the metacoupling soil conservation demand
and supply.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (No.
2017YFA0604704), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
41771197), and State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and
Resource Ecology (No. 2017-FX-01(2)).
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:

of special interest


of outstanding interest
1. Amundson R, Berhe AA, Hopmans JW, Olson C, Sztein AE,
Sparks DL: Soil science. Soil and human security in the 21st
century. Science 2015, 348:1261071.
2. Van Oost K, Verstraeten G, Doetterl S, Notebaert B, Wiaux F,
Broothaerts N, Six J: Legacy of human-induced C erosion and
burial on soil-atmosphere C exchange. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2012, 109:19492-19497.
3. Walling DE: Studying the impact of global change on erosion and
sediment dynamics: current progress and future challenges. Isi
Workshop. 2008.
4. Wall DH, Six J: Give soils their due. Science 2015, 347:695.
5. Kandziora M, Burkhard B: Müller F interactions of ecosystem
properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 33:136–141 www.sciencedirect.com


indicators — a theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol Indic 2013,
28:54-78.
6. Rao E, Ouyang Z, Yu X, Xiao Y: Spatial patterns and impacts of
soil conservation service in China. Geomorphology 2014,
207:64-70.
7. Chiang LC, Lin YP, Huang T, Schmeller DS, Verburg PH:
Simulation of ecosystem service responses to multiple
disturbances from an earthquake and several typhoons.
Landsc Urban Plan 2014, 122:41-45.
8. Fu BJ, Liu Y, Lü YH, He CS, Zeng Y, Wu BF: Assessing the soil
erosion control service of ecosystems change in the Loess
Plateau of China. Ecol Complex 2011, 8:284-293.
9. Hamel P, Chaplin-Kramer R, Sim S, Mueller C: A new approach to
modeling the sediment retention service (InVEST 3.0): case
study of the Cape Fear catchment, North Carolina, USA. Sci
Total Environ 2015, 524–525:166-177.
10. Guerra CA, Pinto-Correia T, Metzger MJ: Mapping soil erosion
prevention using an ecosystem service modeling framework
for integrated land management and policy. Ecosystems 2014,
17:878-889.
11. Costanza R, Groot RD, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L,
Sutton P et al.: 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.
12. Serna-Chavez HM, Schulp CJE, Bodegom PMV, Bouten W,
Verburg PH, Davidson MD: A quantitative framework for
assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 2014,
39:24-33.
13. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P: Defining and classifying
ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 2009,
68:643-653.
14. Jones L, Norton L, Austin Z, Browne AL, Donovan D, Emmett BA

et al.: Stocks and flows of natural and human-derived capital in
ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 2015, 52:151-162.
This paper demonstrates the difference between potential ecosystem
service supply and actual ecosystem service provision
15. Boerema A, Rebelo AJ, Bodi MB, Esler KJ, Meire P: Are


ecosystem services adequately quantified? J Appl Ecol 2017,
54:358-370.
This paper reviewed 405 peer-reviewed ES research papers to address
the question: ‘Is the biophysical and socio-economic reality of ES ade-
quately quantified? And assess which part of the ES cascade was
measured: the ecosystem property, function, service, benefit or value.
The results reveal that no paper quantify the ES part of the cascade.
16. Fu BJ, Wang S, Su CH, Forsius M: Linking ecosystem processes
and ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:4-10.
17. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S et al.: Mapping ecosystem service
supply, demand, and budgets. Ecol Indic 2012, 21:17-29.
18. 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.
www.sciencedirect.com
Metacoupling supply and demand Zhao et al. 141
19. Singh RK, Somasundaram J, Lakaria BL, Mandal D, Sethy BK,
Sinha NK, Lal R: Using credible soil loss tolerance value for
conservation planning and managing diverse physiographic
regions in Rajasthan. Agric Res 2017, 6:169-178.
20. Verheijen FGA, Jones RJA, Rickson RJ, Smith CJ: Tolerable
versus actual soil erosion rates in Europe. Earth Sci Rev 2009,
94:23-38.
21. Arkema KK, Griffin R, Maldonado S, Silver J, Suckale J, Guerry AD:

Linking social, ecological, and physical science to advance
natural and nature-based protection for coastal communities.
Ann NY Acad Sci 2017, 1399:5-26.
The authors develop an ecosystem services framework that propagates
the outcome of a management action through ecosystems to societal
benefits and apply it to two case studies to illustrate how estimates of
multiple benefits and losses can inform restoration and development
decisions
22. Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B et al.: Spatial dynamics of
ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to
quantifying actual services. Ecosyst Serv 2013, 4:117-125.
23. Fang XN, Zhao WW, Fu BJ, Ding JY: Landscape service
capability, landscape service flow and landscape service
demand: a new framework for landscape services and its use
for landscape sustainability assessment. Prog Phys Geog 2015,
39:817-836.
24. Liu J: Integration across a metacoupled world. Ecol Soc 2017,


22:29.
This paper presents a metacoupling framework that integrates human–
nature interactions within a coupled system (intracoupling) as well as
between adjacent coupled systems (pericoupling) and distant coupled
systems (telecoupling) and provides a platform to couple ecosystem
service supply and demand across scales.
25. Costanza R: Ecosystem services: multiple classification
systems are needed. Biol Conserv 2008, 141:350-352.
26. Fu BJ, Zhang LW, Xu ZH, Zhao Y, Wei YP, Skinner D: Ecosystem
services in changing land use. J Soils Sediment 2015, 15:833-
843.
27. Fu BJ, Wang S, Liu Y, Liu JB, Liang W, Miao CY:

Hydrogeomorphic ecosystem responses to natural and
anthropogenic changes in the loess plateau of china. Annu Rev
Earth Plant Sci 2017, 45:223-243.
This paper reveals the implementation of the Grain for-Green Project has
significantly reduced both runoff and sediment from the Loess Plateau,
which has both advantages and disadvantages for the lower Yellow River
and argues that the Current net primary production of vegetation in the
Loess Plateau is approaching the threshold beyond which further regional
water use would be unsustainable.
28. Wang S, Fu B, Piao SL, Lü YH, Ciais P, Feng XM et al.: Reduced
sediment transport in the yellow river due to anthropogenic
changes. Nat Geosci 2015, 9:1-4.
29. Feng XM, Fu BJ, Piao SL, Wang S, Ciais P et al.: Revegetation in
China’s Loess Plateau is approaching sustainable water
resource limits. Nat Clim Change 2016, 6:1019-1022.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 33:136–141