Exploring the scale effects, trade-offs and driving forces of the mismatch of ecosystem services.

• The supply and demand of two ESs was examined at multiple scales. • UDR was proposed to explore the mismatch between supply and demand of both ESs. • The supply-demand mismatch varied with the three examined scales. • The urbanization rate was the dominant factor influencing the mismatch of ESs. • No significant trade-off between two ESs was identified. Ecosystem services (ESs) are produced in a particular social-ecological context, which is significantly affected by the scale. The mismatch between the supply and demand of the ESs is a common phenomenon at a specific scale or during a certain time period. However, systematic research on the supply and demand of ESs and their mismatch at multiple spatial and temporal scales has rarely been reported. In this study, we estimated the supply, demand and mismatch of two ESs, namely, the carbon sequestration and grain provision, for the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomerations (YRDUA) at three different spatial scales, i.e., city, provincial and urban agglomerations. Their temporal dynamics were also examined during the period of 2000–2010. We proposed the indicator of Unsatisfied Demand Rate (UDR) to evaluate the mismatch of the ESs. The results suggested that the spatial pattern of the supply and demand of both ESs had a high level of heterogeneity at the different scales, and relatively stronger dynamics were found at the relatively larger scale. The areas supplying high ESs did not usually overlap those consuming high ESs. We found that the scale effect on the mismatch showed different characteristics for the carbon sequestration and grain provision. Although natural factors increasingly exerted an impact on the mismatch of both ESs, measured by the proposed UDR, during the decade, the socioeconomic factors, especially the urbanization rate, were the dominant influencing factors. In addition, we tested the trade-off between the carbon storage and grain provision, and no significant trade-off or synergy was identified, except for individual cities. The selection of indicators for measuring ecosystem provision might be the major reason influencing trade-offs. This gives a better understanding of the interactions among multiple services. In all, our findings could provide comprehensive information for the management of ESs and decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]