To better understand realized ecosystem services: An integrated analysis framework of supply, demand, flow and use

Delong Li; Kai-Di Liu; Shuyao Wu; Wentao Zhang; Yuehan Dou; Yuqing Chen

arxiv: 2309.15574 · v1 · submitted 2023-09-27 · 💰 econ.GN · q-fin.EC

To better understand realized ecosystem services: An integrated analysis framework of supply, demand, flow and use

Shuyao Wu , Kai-Di Liu , Wentao Zhang , Yuehan Dou , Yuqing Chen , Delong Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 07:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.GN q-fin.EC

keywords ecosystem servicesrealized ecosystem servicessupply-demand-flow-use frameworkurban green parkspollinationrecreationwild berry supplysustainable management

0 comments

The pith

The Supply-Demand-Flow-Use framework measures realized ecosystem services by classifying them as supply-limited, demand-limited, or balanced.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces an integrated framework to analyze realized ecosystem services, which are the actual benefits people obtain from nature rather than unused potential. It combines supply, demand, flow, and use into one structure while separating potential from actual demand and export from import flows. The authors demonstrate the approach on three services in urban green parks to show how it reveals whether realized use is constrained by supply, demand, or neither. This matters because realized services connect more directly to human well-being, so clearer classification can guide more targeted management of nature's benefits.

Core claim

The authors propose a Supply-Demand-Flow-Use (SDFU) framework that integrates the supply, demand, flow, and use of ecosystem services and differentiates these concepts into aspects such as potential versus actual demand and export versus import flows. When applied to wild berry supply, pollination, and recreation in typical urban green parks, the framework assesses actual use and identifies supply-limited, demand-limited, and supply-demand-balanced types of realized ES. It further discusses scaling features, temporal dynamics, and spatial characteristics of realized ES.

What carries the argument

The Supply-Demand-Flow-Use (SDFU) framework, which differentiates supply, demand, flow, and use of ecosystem services into potential and actual components to assess realized services.

If this is right

The framework can assess the actual use of ecosystem services rather than only potential supply or demand.
It identifies three types of realized ES: supply-limited, demand-limited, and supply-demand-balanced.
The approach reveals scaling features, temporal dynamics, and spatial characteristics of realized ES.
Applications to urban green parks illustrate systematic assessment that can inform management for sustainable use.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The classification could guide targeted interventions, such as increasing supply where services are supply-limited or adjusting access where they are demand-limited.
Extending the framework to non-urban settings like forests or farms might show different patterns of limitation across ecosystem types.
Collecting data on actual flows between supply areas and demand areas would allow direct tests of whether the framework's flow distinctions improve accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The distinctions among potential versus actual demand, export versus import flows, and the three types of realized ecosystem services can be operationalized with available data to produce classifications that improve on existing supply-demand assessments.

What would settle it

A case study on the three park services in which the SDFU classifications produce identical management recommendations to a standard supply-demand analysis would show the framework adds no new operational insight.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2309.15574 by Delong Li, Kai-Di Liu, Shuyao Wu, Wentao Zhang, Yuehan Dou, Yuqing Chen.

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Illustrative evaluation and analysis of realized ecosystem services under three scenarios (i.e., Demand-limited, Supply-DemandBalanced, and Supply-limited). SCR: Supply Consumption Rate; DSR: Demand Satisfaction Rate; SDB: Supply-Demand Balance Index. AAS Actual Use (AU) Ecosystem Service Quantity = AD = Actual Use (AU) Ecosystem Service Quantity AD = Supply to Demand Flow Loss (e.g., visual blight in aes… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Schematic demonstrating of possible Area-ES relationships between SSA-Supply and SDA-Demand. 4.2 Temporal Dynamics of Realized ES Since the actual use of ES is determined by all ES supply, demand, and flows, their changes in time could also cause temporal dynamics in realized ES. Multiple applications of the framework during the evaluation period might be necessary to catch such dynamic changes in realized… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Examples of longer-term and shorter-term temporal dynamics in ecosystem service supply and demand changes. Images of examples are drawn by DALL-E. 4.3 Spatial Characteristics of Realized ES The first spatial characteristic we want to discuss is the spatial relationship between SSA and SDA (Fisher et al., 2009; Vrebos et al., 2015). These spatial relationships would determine if flows need to be considered … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Realized ecosystem services (ES) are the actual use of ES by societies, which is more directly linked to human well-being than potential ES. However, there is a lack of a general analysis framework to understand how much ES was realized. In this study, we first proposed a Supply-Demand-Flow-Use (SDFU) framework that integrates the supply, demand, flow, and use of ES and differentiates these concepts into different aspects (e.g., potential vs. actual ES demand, export and import flows of supply, etc.). Then, we applied the framework to three examples of ES that can be found in typical urban green parks (i.e., wild berry supply, pollination, and recreation). We showed how the framework could assess the actual use of ES and identify the supply-limited, demand-limited, and supply-demand-balanced types of realized ES. We also discussed the scaling features, temporal dynamics, and spatial characteristics of realized ES, as well as some critical questions for future studies. Although facing challenges, we believe that the applications of the SDFU framework can provide a systematic way to accurately assess the actual use of ES and better inform management and policy-making for sustainable use of nature's benefits. Therefore, we hope that our study will stimulate more research on realized ES and contribute to a deeper understanding of their roles in enhancing human well-being.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The SDFU framework is a clear conceptual synthesis for realized ecosystem services with useful typology but stays at the level of demonstration without tests or comparisons.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is laying out a Supply-Demand-Flow-Use framework that separates potential supply from actual use and adds a simple three-way split into supply-limited, demand-limited, or balanced cases. They walk through this with three urban park examples—wild berries, pollination, and recreation—and note scaling, time, and space issues. That integration and the explicit typology look like a fresh way to organize ideas that often get blurred in the ecosystem services literature. The examples make the distinctions concrete and show how the pieces connect to policy questions about actual benefits to people. Credit for keeping the writing straightforward and focusing on realized services rather than just potential ones. The soft spots are straightforward. Everything rests on the framework itself and the three illustrations; there is no quantitative check, no head-to-head against existing supply-demand methods, and no discussion of data requirements or measurement error. The claim that the framework can assess actual use therefore stays at the level of showing it can be applied, not showing it improves results. Operationalizing export/import flows or actual versus potential demand could turn out to be the real bottleneck once people try it on new cases. This is for readers already working on ecosystem services assessment, especially in urban settings, who need a better organizing lens. It is not going to shift broader fields. A serious editor should send it to review because the distinctions are coherent and the topic matters for policy, even if the paper will need more on implementation and validation to land well.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Supply-Demand-Flow-Use (SDFU) framework that integrates the supply, demand, flow, and use of ecosystem services (ES), with explicit differentiations such as potential versus actual demand and export/import flows. It applies this framework illustratively to three ES in urban green parks (wild berry supply, pollination, and recreation) to assess actual use and classify realized ES into supply-limited, demand-limited, or supply-demand-balanced types. The manuscript also discusses scaling features, temporal dynamics, and spatial characteristics, concluding that the framework offers a systematic approach to assessing realized ES for better management and policy.

Significance. If the conceptual distinctions prove operationalizable with available data, the SDFU framework could provide a clearer basis for distinguishing realized from potential ES than existing supply-demand approaches, potentially aiding policy by identifying limiting factors. The manuscript's value is primarily in its definitional integration and illustrative cases rather than new empirical results or quantitative validation; it may stimulate further research on realized ES but does not demonstrate superiority or falsifiable predictions.

major comments (1)

[Abstract and application examples] Abstract and the section applying the framework to the three examples: the central claim that the SDFU framework 'can assess the actual use of ES and identify the supply-limited, demand-limited, and supply-demand-balanced types' rests on conceptual description and illustrative cases without quantitative data, error analysis, or comparison to existing methods. This makes the assertion that it provides a 'systematic way to accurately assess' load-bearing but untested.

minor comments (2)

[Application to examples] The manuscript would benefit from explicit discussion of data requirements or proxy variables needed to operationalize the potential/actual demand and flow distinctions in the three examples.
[Framework proposal] Clarify whether the framework introduces any new measurable quantities or remains a reorganization of existing ES concepts; this affects the novelty assessment.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. The feedback correctly identifies that our contribution is conceptual and illustrative rather than empirical. We address the single major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to ensure claims match the scope of the work.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and application examples] Abstract and the section applying the framework to the three examples: the central claim that the SDFU framework 'can assess the actual use of ES and identify the supply-limited, demand-limited, and supply-demand-balanced types' rests on conceptual description and illustrative cases without quantitative data, error analysis, or comparison to existing methods. This makes the assertion that it provides a 'systematic way to accurately assess' load-bearing but untested.

Authors: We agree with the referee that the manuscript is primarily a conceptual proposal supported by illustrative examples rather than quantitative validation, error analysis, or comparative testing. The SDFU framework is intended to provide a systematic conceptual structure for distinguishing realized from potential ES and for classifying realized ES according to limiting factors, as shown through the three urban-park cases. The examples demonstrate how the distinctions (potential vs. actual demand, export/import flows, and the three use types) can be applied in principle; they are not presented as empirical tests. We will revise the abstract and the application section to remove or qualify language implying quantitative accuracy or tested superiority. Specific changes include replacing 'accurately assess' with 'systematically conceptualize and assess' and adding explicit statements that the cases are illustrative and that empirical operationalization and validation remain tasks for future research. These revisions will align the claims more precisely with the manuscript's scope. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework is a definitional proposal

full rationale

The paper proposes the SDFU framework as an integrative conceptual structure that differentiates supply, demand, flow, and use (including potential vs. actual demand and export/import flows) and classifies realized ES into supply-limited, demand-limited, and balanced types. This is presented explicitly as a new definitional tool applied illustratively to three park examples, with no equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations that reduce to the authors' own prior results by construction. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing steps in the abstract or described claims. The central contribution is the framework definition itself, which stands as self-contained conceptual organization rather than a mathematical reduction to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a conceptual framework rather than new data or derivations. No numerical free parameters are introduced. The main domain assumption is that realized ES are more directly linked to human well-being than potential ES. No new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Realized ecosystem services are more directly linked to human well-being than potential ES.
Stated in the opening sentence of the abstract as the motivation for focusing on realized ES.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5795 in / 1493 out tokens · 18653 ms · 2026-05-24T07:02:46.799191+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We first proposed a Supply-Demand-Flow-Use (SDFU) framework that integrates the supply, demand, flow, and use of ES and differentiates these concepts into different aspects... identify the supply-limited, demand-limited, and supply-demand-balanced types of realized ES.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The Actual Use of ES is constrained by either the minimum supply or demand quantity of ES; in other words, it equals the lower value of AAS or AD.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

4 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

One of the features when upscaling the SSA will be that the SDA would overlap more and more with the SSA

Discussion 4.1 Scaling Features of Realized ES Since the provider of ecosystem services can range from individual plants to the whole planet, our proposed SDFU framework could also be used to assess the realized portion of their ES supply capacity at all ranges of spatial scales. One of the features when upscaling the SSA will be that the SDA would overla...

work page
[2]

For a given SSA and ES, there will be at least one size of SDA that can consume all the available actual supplies of the service in the SSA (i.e., an S-D balanced SDA). 2. For a given SDA and ES, there will be at least one size of SSA that can satisfy all the actual demands of the service in the SDA (i.e., an S-D balanced SSA). For example, in different s...

work page 2021
[3]

How to accurately quantify the different components required to calculate the actual use of ES? This question is the most paramount to the proposed framework since it relates to its applicability in the real world. It must be acknowledged that some of the measurements are very hard to acquire, such as the export and import flows of both ES supply and dema...

work page doi:10.1007/s11269-008-9369-y 2023
[4]

Nature 387, 253–260

The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., Grasso, M., 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16. https:...

work page doi:10.1038/387253a0 2017

[1] [1]

One of the features when upscaling the SSA will be that the SDA would overlap more and more with the SSA

Discussion 4.1 Scaling Features of Realized ES Since the provider of ecosystem services can range from individual plants to the whole planet, our proposed SDFU framework could also be used to assess the realized portion of their ES supply capacity at all ranges of spatial scales. One of the features when upscaling the SSA will be that the SDA would overla...

work page

[2] [2]

For a given SSA and ES, there will be at least one size of SDA that can consume all the available actual supplies of the service in the SSA (i.e., an S-D balanced SDA). 2. For a given SDA and ES, there will be at least one size of SSA that can satisfy all the actual demands of the service in the SDA (i.e., an S-D balanced SSA). For example, in different s...

work page 2021

[3] [3]

How to accurately quantify the different components required to calculate the actual use of ES? This question is the most paramount to the proposed framework since it relates to its applicability in the real world. It must be acknowledged that some of the measurements are very hard to acquire, such as the export and import flows of both ES supply and dema...

work page doi:10.1007/s11269-008-9369-y 2023

[4] [4]

Nature 387, 253–260

The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., Grasso, M., 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16. https:...

work page doi:10.1038/387253a0 2017