Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Regulating Ecosystem Services: Assessment Methods, Driving Mechanisms, and Management Applications

Abstract

This article synthesizes current research on the spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services (RES), which include climate regulation, water purification, erosion control, and habitat quality. Targeting researchers, scientists, and environmental professionals, it provides a comprehensive analysis spanning from foundational concepts and quantification methodologies to the analysis of driving mechanisms and management applications. The content explores advanced assessment tools like the InVEST model and geodetector methods, examines trade-offs and synergies among services, and presents spatial optimization strategies for ecological management. By integrating the latest 2025 research findings, this review serves as a critical resource for understanding landscape-scale RES dynamics and offers a scientific basis for enhancing ecological resilience and informing sustainable land-use planning.

Understanding Regulating Ecosystem Services: Concepts, Types, and Global Significance

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES) are the benefits humans derive from the biophysical processes that regulate ecosystem functions [1]. These services are fundamental components of the Earth's life-support system, enabling the continuous provision of other categories of ecosystem services and directly contributing to human security and health [1]. Unlike provisioning services that provide tangible goods, regulating services represent purely public goods without physical form, leading to their frequent oversight in policy and economic valuation despite their immense contribution to human wellbeing [1].

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) established the foundational framework for categorizing ecosystem services, identifying four main types: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services [2]. Within this framework, regulating services encompass processes such as air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural disaster regulation, water regulation, water purification, erosion control, soil formation, pollination, and pest and disease control [1]. In the context of accelerating global climate change and ecological degradation, research on RES has gained critical importance for maintaining ecological security and achieving sustainable development goals [1] [3].

Classification and Key Types of Regulating Services

Comprehensive Taxonomy of Regulating Services

Regulating ecosystem services function across atmospheric, hydrological, geological, and biological domains. The table below systematizes the main types of RES, their mechanisms, and primary benefits.

Table 1: Taxonomy of Regulating Ecosystem Services

Service Category	Specific Service Type	Ecosystem Mechanisms	Human Benefits
Atmospheric Regulation	Air Quality Regulation	Dry deposition of pollutants on leaf surfaces [2] [4]	Reduced respiratory illness, cleaner air [2]
	Climate Regulation	Carbon sequestration, oxygen release [3]	Climate stability, reduced extreme events
Hydrological Regulation	Water Regulation	Storage and release of water resources [1]	Consistent water supply, drought mitigation
	Water Purification	Filtration of contaminants [1]	Access to clean water, reduced treatment costs
Geological & Biological	Erosion Regulation	Soil stabilization by root systems [1]	Protection of agricultural lands, infrastructure
	Pollination	Pollinator habitat provision [1]	Food security, agricultural productivity
	Pest & Disease Control	Natural predator habitat [1]	Reduced pesticide use, crop protection

Quantification of Key Regulating Services

Research employs specific quantitative indicators to measure the output of different regulating services. The following table summarizes common assessment approaches and metrics for four critical RES.

Table 2: Quantitative Assessment Methods for Key Regulating Services

Service	Common Assessment Methods	Key Metrics	Case Study Values
Gas Regulation (CSOR)	Carbon sequestration and oxygen release calculation [3]	CO₂ fixed (1.63 × Bi × Rc × Pc), O₂ released (1.19 × Bi × Po₂) [3]	Poyang Lake Area: Total RESV including CSOR was highest in fringe areas [3]
Climate Regulation	Climate model integration with land cover data	Temperature modulation, carbon storage	Yangtze River Economic Belt: ERSV showed downward trend (2000-2020) [2]
Water Conservation	Water yield models (e.g., InVEST)	Water depth (mm), water volume (m³)	Dongting Lake Basin: Average water yield 797-918mm (1995-2019) [5]
Environmental Purification	Atmospheric dispersion models (e.g., CALPUFF) [4]	Pollutant concentration (μg/m³), deposition rates	CALPUFF modeling: PM2.5 reductions from dry deposition [4]

Research Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Integrated Workflow for RES Assessment

The diagram below illustrates the comprehensive methodological framework for researching regulating ecosystem services, from initial data collection to final application.

Methodological Framework for RES Valuation

RESV Calculation Protocol

The Regulating Ecosystem Service Value (RESV) provides a standardized approach to quantify the economic contribution of regulatory functions. The comprehensive RESV calculation integrates four key components [3]:

• Carbon Sequestration and Oxygen Release (CSOR) Value

  • Equation: ( Z = \sum Si \times (U{ci} + U{o2i}) )
  • Parameters:
    • ( U{ci} = 1.63 \times Bi \times Rc \times Pc ) (CO₂ fixation value)
    • ( U{o2i} = 1.19 \times Bi \times P_{o2} ) (O₂ release value)
  • Variables: ( Bi ) = net primary productivity of land use type i; ( Rc ) = carbon tax rate; ( Pc ) = CO₂ industrial fixation cost; ( P{o2} ) = O₂ industrial production cost; ( S_i ) = area of land use type i [3]

• Climate Regulation Value

  • Calculated based on ecosystem capacity to moderate temperature and humidity through evapotranspiration and heat absorption [3]

• Water Conservation Value

  • Assessed through water yield models quantifying ecosystem role in storing and gradually releasing precipitation [3]

• Environmental Purification Value

  • Evaluated using atmospheric models (e.g., CALPUFF) to quantify pollutant deposition on vegetation surfaces [4]

Advanced Spatial Analysis Techniques

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) has emerged as a powerful statistical approach for analyzing complex driver-response relationships in RES research. In the Poyang Lake Area, SEM revealed distinct regional patterns where population density primarily affected core areas, precipitation mainly influenced fringe areas, and GDP per land most significantly impacted peripheral areas [3].

Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) captures spatial non-stationarity in ecosystem service relationships, allowing researchers to identify how trade-offs and synergies between services vary across landscapes. This approach has been successfully applied in watershed studies including the Qiantang and Fen River basins [5].

Ecosystem Service Bundle (ESB) analysis using Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) clustering identifies consistent co-occurrence patterns of multiple ecosystem services across space and time, providing crucial information for zoning and management interventions [5].

Spatio-Temporal Characteristics and Drivers

Temporal Dynamics and Trajectories

Research across diverse ecosystems reveals concerning trends in regulating services. Analysis of the Yangtze River Economic Belt from 2000-2020 documented a declining trajectory in Ecosystem Regulating Service Value (ERSV), largely attributed to intensive human modification of landscapes [2]. Similarly, the Poyang Lake Area lost approximately 70.5988 billion CNY in RESV between 2000-2020, with the core area experiencing the most significant impacts [3].

The Dongting Lake Basin research demonstrated substantial temporal fluctuations in individual services, with water yield increasing from 797.74 mm to 917.79 mm between 1995-2019, while other services exhibited more complex trajectories influenced by both ecological and socioeconomic factors [5].

Spatial Heterogeneity and Patterns

Spatial analysis consistently reveals strong heterogeneity in RES distribution. Studies in the Poyang Lake Area identified a clear spatial zonation where RESV followed the pattern: fringe area > core area > peripheral area, with lakes serving as crucial determinants of service provision [3]. The RESV per unit area decreased with increasing distance from lakes, demonstrating the distance-decay effect in service provision [3].

In the Yangtze River Economic Belt, higher ERSV concentrations occurred predominantly in mountainous regions (Yunnan, southern Sichuan) while lower values clustered in urbanized and agricultural regions (Jiangsu, Shanghai, Anhui) [2]. This pattern highlights the tension between areas of high service provision and areas of high service consumption.

Key Driving Factors and Mechanisms

The complex interplay of natural and anthropogenic factors shapes RES spatio-temporal dynamics:

Table 3: Key Drivers of Regulating Ecosystem Services

Driver Category	Specific Factors	Impact Mechanism	Spatial Scale of Influence
Climate Factors	Precipitation patterns	Alters water cycles and availability [3]	Regional to local
	Temperature regimes	Affects biochemical process rates [3]	Regional
Anthropogenic Factors	Land use intensity	Directly modifies ecosystem structure [3]	Local to regional
	Population density	Increases pressure on ecosystems [3]	Local
	GDP per land area	Reflects economic development pressure [3]	Regional
Biophysical Factors	Topography (elevation, slope)	Influences erosion, water movement [5]	Local
	Soil properties	Affects water retention, nutrient cycling [3]	Local
	Vegetation type and cover	Determines service production capacity [5]	Local to regional

The Researcher's Toolkit

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 4: Essential Research Toolkit for Regulating Ecosystem Services

Tool Category	Specific Tool/Model	Primary Application	Data Requirements
Remote Sensing Data	Land use/cover classification [3]	Spatial pattern analysis	Multi-temporal satellite imagery
	NDVI products [3]	Vegetation productivity assessment	Spectral reflectance data
Biophysical Models	InVEST (Integrated Valuation)	Water yield, carbon storage, habitat quality	Land cover, precipitation, soil depth
	RUSLE (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation)	Soil erosion regulation	Rainfall, soil, topography, management
Atmospheric Models	CALPUFF Modeling System [4]	Air quality regulation services	Emission data, meteorological data
Statistical Packages	Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) [3]	Causal pathway analysis	Observed variable measurements
	Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) [5]	Spatial non-stationarity analysis	Dependent/independent variable layers
Clustering Algorithms	PAM (Partitioning Around Medoids) [5]	Ecosystem service bundle identification	Multiple ES indicator values

Field Assessment and Monitoring Equipment

• Portable Gas Analyzers: Measure CO₂, O₂, and pollutant flux rates between ecosystems and atmosphere
• Soil Testing Kits: Assess soil composition, organic carbon content, and water retention capacity [3]
• Dendrometer Bands: Monitor tree growth for carbon sequestration calculations
• Automatic Weather Stations: Record microclimatic variables (temperature, humidity, precipitation)
• Water Quality Probes: Measure turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen for water purification assessment

Implications for Conservation and Policy

Understanding the spatio-temporal dynamics of regulating ecosystem services provides critical insights for heritage site management and regional policy development. Karst World Heritage Sites, representing approximately 14% of all World Natural Heritage sites, exemplify the critical importance of RES protection given their disproportionate contribution to global regulating services and exceptional vulnerability to human disturbance [1].

The serviceshed concept—defining areas that provide specific ecosystem services to specific beneficiaries—offers a powerful framework for connecting RES production areas with communities that depend on them [4]. Quantitative serviceshed analysis using atmospheric transport models enables precise mapping of air quality regulation benefits, supporting targeted conservation interventions [4].

Ecosystem service bundle analysis facilitates the identification of trade-offs and synergies between multiple services, informing spatial planning decisions to maximize co-benefits while minimizing conflicts [5]. In the Dongting Lake Basin, research revealed that areas focused on food production showed clear trade-offs with regulating services, suggesting the need for diversified management approaches across different bundle types [5].

The progressive shift in conservation paradigm from "balance between conservation and development" toward "conservation for development" underscores the foundational role of regulating services in sustaining human wellbeing while maintaining ecological integrity [1]. This approach recognizes that protecting RES is not merely an ecological concern but an essential investment in human health, security, and sustainable development.

The Critical Role of RES in Maintaining Ecological Security and Human Well-being

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES) represent the benefits humans obtain from the regulatory functions of ecosystems, including air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural disaster regulation, water purification, erosion control, and pollination [1]. These services are fundamental to maintaining ecological security—the capacity of ecological systems to maintain their essential functions and resilience under environmental change—and supporting human well-being, encompassing physical, psychological, and social health dimensions [6] [7]. Despite their critical importance, RES have often been overlooked in policy decisions due to their non-market, public good characteristics, leading to their widespread degradation globally [1]. Understanding the spatio-temporal characteristics of RES—how they vary across landscapes and change over time—is therefore essential for effective ecosystem management, policy development, and the promotion of sustainable development goals. This review synthesizes current research on RES assessment, their spatio-temporal dynamics, and their integral role in linking ecological security with human well-being, providing a technical foundation for researchers and practitioners working at this critical interface.

Assessment Methods for Regulating Ecosystem Services

Accurately quantifying RES is a fundamental prerequisite for understanding their spatio-temporal dynamics and managing their supply. The assessment approaches can be broadly categorized into model-based simulations, indicator-based evaluations, and economic valuation techniques.

Table 1: Key Methods for Assessing Regulating Ecosystem Services

Assessment Method	Key Characteristics	Applicable RES Types	Scale of Application	Data Requirements
InVEST Model	A suite of spatially explicit models; uses production functions to map ES	Water yield, soil conservation, carbon sequestration [8]	Regional to national [8]	Land use/cover, DEM, soil, climate data [8]
Ecological Process Models	Mechanistic models simulating biophysical processes; high precision	Net primary productivity, soil conservation, sandstorm prevention [9]	Local to national (30m resolution) [9]	Remote sensing, ground monitoring, literature parameters [9]
Value Equivalent Method	Assigns economic values based on ecosystem type and area	General RES valuation [1]	Regional to global	Land use/cover statistics
Indicator System Method	Uses framework models (e.g., DPSIR) with multiple indicators [6]	Comprehensive ecological security assessment [6]	Regional (e.g., watershed)	Socio-economic, environmental monitoring data [6]

Recent advances in data availability and modeling sophistication have significantly enhanced RES assessment capabilities. The development of high-resolution datasets (e.g., 30m resolution for China) enables the identification of site-specific differences at local scales, providing a more detailed and accurate information base for decision-making [9]. Furthermore, integrative frameworks like the Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model help systematically link socioeconomic drivers with environmental pressures, changes in ecosystem state, impacts on human well-being, and societal responses, thereby capturing cross-scale interactions within land systems [6].

Spatio-Temporal Characteristics of RES

Temporal Dynamics

RES exhibit significant temporal variability driven by both natural cycles and anthropogenic influences. Research across diverse ecosystems has revealed important temporal patterns:

• Decadal Trends: In China, net primary productivity, soil conservation, and sandstorm prevention showed a weak increasing trend from 2000 to 2020, while water yield decreased during this period [9]. This suggests that different RES may follow distinct trajectories under global change pressures.
• Seasonal Fluctuations: Forest biodiversity attributes associated with human well-being demonstrate strong seasonality, with species' effect trait richness particularly heterogeneous in autumn, spring, and summer [7]. These temporal variations directly influence the benefits people receive from ecosystems throughout the year.
• Urban Trajectories: In Chengdu City, ecological security values showed a downward then upward trend from 2000 to 2018, reflecting the complex interplay between urbanization pressures and conservation responses [10].

Spatial Patterns

The distribution of RES across landscapes is profoundly heterogeneous, shaped by both natural environmental gradients and human-modified landscapes:

• Watershed Gradients: In the Yangtze River Basin, land ecological security (LES) scores improved from "less safe" to "critical safe" from 2008 to 2023 but exhibited a three-tier spatial pattern: higher in the middle-lower reaches and lower in the upper reaches [6]. This spatial differentiation reflects the varying intensities of human pressure and conservation capacity across the watershed.
• Urban-Rural Gradients: Research on monarch butterflies demonstrates that habitat in rural landscapes subsidizes cultural benefits for urban residents, creating spatial mismatches between where ecosystems are maintained and where benefits are received [11].
• Socioeconomic Correlates: In England and Wales, forests with higher species' effect trait richness and those associated with higher self-reported participant well-being were disproportionately located in areas with the least socio-economic deprivation, highlighting issues of environmental justice in RES distribution [7].

Table 2: Documented Spatio-Temporal Trends of RES in Various Regions

Region	Time Period	Key RES Trends	Primary Drivers
China	2000-2020	NPP, soil conservation, sandstorm prevention: weak increase; Water yield: decrease [9]	Climate change, land use change
Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration	2010-2018	Water conservation, soil conservation, carbon sequestration: fluctuating decrease [8]	Rapid urbanization, human activities
Yangtze River Basin	2008-2023	LES: improved from "less safe" to "critical safe"; three-tier spatial pattern [6]	Economic density, per capita water resources
Chengdu City	2000-2018	Ecological security: downward then upward trend [10]	Urbanization, conservation policies (Park City)
England and Wales Forests	Seasonal analysis	Species' effect trait richness: spatially heterogeneous, highest in summer [7]	Forest type, seasonal phenology, socio-economic factors

RES and Ecological Security

Ecological security depends fundamentally on the sustained provision of RES, which maintain the stability and resilience of ecosystems under stress. The relationship between RES and ecological security can be understood through several key mechanisms:

Maintaining Ecological Stability

RES such as soil retention, water regulation, and climate moderation directly contribute to the stability of ecological systems. In the Karst World Heritage sites, RES including water conservation, soil retention, and climate regulation play crucial roles in maintaining regional ecological balance and security despite the high sensitivity of karst ecosystems to human disturbances [1]. The degradation of these services leads to serious ecological problems including increased soil erosion, reduced biodiversity, and ultimately rocky desertification [1].

Enhancing Landscape Connectivity

The construction of ecological security patterns (ESP) provides a strategic approach to spatial planning that enhances connectivity between areas of high RES supply. In Chengdu City, the ESP identified 140 ecological sources with a total area of 8,819.78 km², connected by 302 ecological corridors covering 456.91 km², along with 61 pinch-points and 17 barrier points [10]. This networked structure facilitates the flows of ecological processes across the landscape, maintaining the functional integrity of ecosystems.

Building System Resilience

RES contribute to ecological resilience—the capacity of systems to absorb disturbances and maintain their fundamental functions. Forests with higher structural complexity and biodiversity typically provide more stable RES flows under climate variability [7]. In the Loess Plateau, the assessment of forest landscape stability integrated structure, function, and resilience to develop a comprehensive Landscape Stability Index (LSI) for guiding management interventions [12].

RES and Human Well-being

The connections between RES and human well-being represent a critical pathway through which ecological conditions influence human outcomes. These relationships operate through multiple dimensions:

Health Pathways

RES directly and indirectly influence human health through multiple pathways. Air quality regulation reduces respiratory illnesses; water purification decreases waterborne diseases; and climate regulation mitigates heat-related mortality [1]. Furthermore, exposure to biodiverse environments has been linked to improved mental health and well-being through psychological mechanisms, with studies using the BIO-WELL scale demonstrating that interactions with forest biodiversity can generate significant positive well-being responses [7].

Material and Economic Benefits

RES underpin essential economic activities and livelihoods through their support of provisioning services. Soil formation and fertility maintenance directly support agricultural productivity; pollination services are essential for crop production; and water regulation maintains supplies for domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses [8] [1]. The deterioration of these services, as observed in the Guanzhong Plain urban agglomeration where water conservation, soil conservation, and carbon sequestration services showed fluctuating downward trends from 2010 to 2018, directly threatens human well-being through impacts on food and water security [8].

Cultural and Psychological Connections

Cultural ecosystem services, which are often supported by regulating services, contribute significantly to human well-being through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, and recreational experiences [7]. Research on monarch butterflies demonstrates how migratory species act as carriers of cultural benefits, delivering well-being flows to people throughout their annual cycle across international borders [11].

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for RES and Ecological Security Assessment

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Characteristics
Ecological Process Models	InVEST Model Suite [8]	Maps and quantifies multiple ES; spatial planning	Modular, spatially explicit, production functions
	Ecological Process Models (30m) [9]	High-resolution ES mapping; trend analysis	High precision (30m), calibrated with monitoring data
Remote Sensing Platforms	TROPOMI BRDF Product [12]	Enhances multispectral surface reflectance	Reconstructs spectral information, narrows spectral gaps
	PS-InSAR/SBAS-InSAR [12]	Deformation monitoring; infrastructure safety	High correlation (0.92), detects mm-scale movements
Statistical Analysis Frameworks	DPSIR Model [6]	Systematic LES assessment; policy analysis	Links socioeconomic drivers with ecological outcomes
	Coupling Coordination Degree [8]	Quantifies ES-human well-being relationships	Reveals coordination state between systems
Biodiversity Assessment Tools	BIO-WELL Scale [7]	Measures biodiversity-well-being relationships	Validated psychometric scale, multidimensional
	Species Distribution Models (SDMs) [7]	Predicts species and effect trait distributions	Spatially explicit, incorporates environmental variables

Research Gaps and Future Directions

Despite significant advances in RES research, critical knowledge gaps remain that limit our ability to effectively manage these services for ecological security and human well-being:

Methodological Challenges

Current research suffers from inconsistent assessment methodologies that hinder cross-study comparability. Thresholds for classifying ecological security levels remain unstandardized, with researchers often categorizing indices into five discrete levels without standardized critical values [6]. Furthermore, the prevalent use of proxy indicators that may not directly capture target variables obscures relevant causal relationships in RES dynamics [6].

Mechanistic Understanding

There is a pressing need to better understand the ecological mechanisms underpinning RES provision, particularly in sensitive ecosystems like karst WNHSs. While some studies have assessed RES values in these systems, research on the ecological processes governing these services remains limited [1]. Understanding how influencing factors such as climate change and tourism development contribute to the spatio-temporal dynamics of RES, as well as the trade-offs and synergies among different RES, is essential for developing scientific conservation planning.

Social-Ecological Integration

Future research should strengthen the integration between ecological and social systems by exploring the coupling relationships between RES and human well-being more comprehensively. Although frameworks have been proposed to connect these domains [8] [1], the precise mechanisms and feedbacks remain inadequately quantified. Furthermore, more attention should be paid to the equitable distribution of RES benefits across different socioeconomic groups to address environmental justice concerns [7].

Regulating Ecosystem Services stand at the critical junction between ecological systems and human societies, maintaining both ecological security and human well-being. The spatio-temporal characteristics of RES—their distribution across landscapes and variation through time—represent essential dimensions for understanding and managing these vital services. Advances in high-resolution data collection, spatially explicit modeling, and integrative analytical frameworks have significantly improved our capacity to quantify and map these services. However, strengthening the mechanistic understanding of RES provision, particularly in vulnerable ecosystems, and more effectively integrating RES considerations into policy and management decisions remains essential. Future research should prioritize developing standardized assessment protocols, elucidating ecological processes underpinning RES, and understanding the complex feedbacks between RES and human well-being across diverse socioeconomic contexts. Such advances will enable more effective conservation strategies that simultaneously maintain ecological security and enhance human well-being in an era of rapid global change.

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES) are critical ecological functions that sustain global material flows and energy cycles, including gas and climate regulation, water purification, and carbon sequestration [3]. Within the context of spatio-temporal characteristics of ecosystem research, understanding the patterns of RES degradation and enhancement is paramount for biodiversity conservation and human well-being. These services are undergoing significant alterations worldwide due to the combined pressures of climate change and anthropogenic activities [13] [3]. The degradation of these services threatens not only ecological stability but also economic security and the achievement of sustainable development goals [3]. This whitepaper provides an in-depth technical analysis of the global and regional trends in RES dynamics, synthesizing quantitative data on degradation thresholds, projecting future scenarios under climate change, and presenting standardized methodologies for assessing RES values and their drivers. By framing these patterns within a spatio-temporal context, this guide aims to equip researchers and environmental professionals with the evidence and tools necessary to inform effective conservation policy and ecosystem management strategies.

Global Patterns of RES Degradation

Critical Thresholds and Climate Projections

Global ecosystems are approaching critical thresholds that signal a transition from sustainable function to irreversible degradation. In coral reef ecosystems, a specific quantitative threshold has been identified: when the annual bleaching rate exceeds 7.9%, the reef system undergoes significant degradation, a point defined as the bleaching rate at which coral cover remains stable (i.e., a zero decline rate) [13]. This threshold is projected to be surpassed across most marine regions under future climate scenarios.

Future projections under Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) emission scenarios reveal a dire outlook for coral reefs, as detailed in Table 1. These projections are derived from a multivariate random forest model integrating the Global Coral-Bleaching Database with CMIP6 climate simulations [13].

Table 1: Projected Coral Bleaching and Degradation under Climate Scenarios

Region	Time Period	SSP1-2.6 (Low Emissions)	SSP2-4.5 (Medium Emissions)	SSP5-8.5 (High Emissions)
Caribbean	2020-2060	Minimal bleaching (<5%); No significant degradation	Low to moderate bleaching	Moderate to high bleaching
	2060-2100	Minimal bleaching (<5%); No significant degradation	Low bleaching	Widespread, severe bleaching (>15%)
South Pacific	2020-2060	Minimal bleaching (<5%); No significant degradation	Low to moderate bleaching	Moderate to high bleaching
	2060-2100	Minimal bleaching (<5%); No significant degradation	Low bleaching	Widespread, severe bleaching (>15%)
Equatorial Pacific & Australia	2020-2060	Highest bleaching rates (>15%)	Highest bleaching rates (>15%)	High bleaching rates
	2060-2100	Highest bleaching rates (>15%)	Highest bleaching rates (>15%)	Widespread, severe bleaching (>15%)
Southern Japan & SE China	2020-2060	Low bleaching	Low bleaching	Low bleaching (5-10%)
	2060-2100	Low bleaching	Low bleaching	Only regions without significant degradation

Alarmingly, even under the most optimistic mitigation pathway (SSP1-2.6), substantial degradation is projected across all major tropical marine regions by the end of the century [13]. Under the high-emission scenario (SSP5-8.5), projections indicate widespread and severe bleaching (>15%) across most regions during 2060-2100, with low bleaching (5-10%) and thus avoidance of significant degradation projected only for southeastern China and southern Japan, where coral survival is at its upper latitudinal limits [13].

Drivers and Interactive Effects

The degradation of RES is not driven by a single factor but by the complex interplay of habitat loss, fragmentation, and habitat degradation. A spatially explicit individual-based model found that the effects of habitat degradation often outweigh those of habitat loss and fragmentation in driving regional population extinction, a key indicator of ecosystem service collapse [14].

The interactive effects between these drivers can be particularly severe. Habitat loss reduces the total amount of suitable habitat, directly decreasing population sizes. When combined with fragmentation—which creates smaller, more isolated patches—it can lead to greater rates of local extinction, especially when habitat is already limiting [14]. Furthermore, habitat degradation, which reduces the quality of the remaining habitat, can interact with habitat loss to produce disproportionately large extinction risks, potentially leading to quality-induced extinction thresholds [14]. This underscores the critical need for conservation strategies that address all three threats simultaneously.

Regional Case Studies and Spatio-Temporal Dynamics

Lake Ecosystems: The Poyang Lake Area

Lake areas are critical for RES provision, and their spatial heterogeneity leads to distinct regional patterns of service delivery. A study of the Poyang Lake Area (PLA) in China from 2000 to 2020 revealed a clear spatial distribution of RESV, with the highest total value found in the fringe area, followed by the core area and the peripheral area [3]. However, when considering RESV per unit area, the core area, directly influenced by the lake, exhibited the highest value, which gradually declined with increasing distance from the lake [3].

Table 2: Spatio-Temporal Dynamics and Drivers in the Poyang Lake Area (2000-2020)

Characteristic	Core Area	Fringe Area	Peripheral Area
Spatial Distribution of Total RESV	Intermediate	Highest	Lowest
RESV per Unit Area	Highest	Intermediate	Lowest
RESV Trend (2000-2020)	Largest loss of RESV (70.5988 billion CNY total for PLA)	Moderate	Moderate
Primary Driver	Population Density	Precipitation	GDP per land area
Key Impact	Direct anthropogenic pressure	Climate-related water cycle changes	Socio-economic development pressure

Over the study period, the PLA lost a total of 70.5988 billion CNY in RESV, with the core area being the most severely affected [3]. The driving mechanisms of RESV changes also showed strong regional differences, as analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Population density was the main driver in the core area, precipitation most strongly affected the fringe area, and GDP per land area was the dominant factor in the peripheral area [3]. This highlights the need for region-specific management policies.

Forest Ecosystems: Global Degradation Trends

Forest degradation is a major global driver of RES loss, diminishing a forest's ability to provide services like carbon storage, water regulation, and soil stability [15]. As of 2019, only 40.5% of forests globally had high integrity, while 25.6% had low integrity, and 33.9% had medium integrity [15]. The vast majority of the world's high-integrity forest is located in boreal and tropical regions.

A key metric is the loss of Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs)—large, contiguous, undisturbed forest areas. From 2000 to 2020, the world lost 155 million hectares of IFLs—a 12% reduction, roughly equivalent to the size of Mongolia [15]. This was primarily driven by fire and deforestation, with Russia experiencing the largest absolute loss (41 Mha).

Furthermore, between 2001 and 2024, 152 million hectares of tree cover were lost due to fire, representing over a quarter of all tree cover loss [15]. While fire is a natural part of boreal and temperate ecosystem dynamics, its increasing prevalence in humid tropical forests, where fires are primarily human-set, represents a significant form of degradation.

Methodologies for RES Assessment

Experimental Protocol: Multivariate Modeling of Coral Bleaching

Objective: To project coral bleaching with enhanced precision and identify critical thresholds by developing a data-driven multivariate model.

Methodology:

• Data Compilation: Leverage the Global Coral-Bleaching Database (GCBD) alongside Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) climate projections [13].
• Model Development: Construct a multivariate random forest model. The optimal combination of hyperparameter settings is selected by a grid search method based on the lowest Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) [13].
• Variable Selection: Incorporate 22-32 environmental indicators. Temperature-related variables (variance of sea surface temperature anomalies - SSTASD, heating weeks of thermal stress anomalies - TSADHW, frequency of sea surface temperature anomalies - SSTA_Frequency) are critical, but geographic location and water depth also contribute significantly [13].
• Model Validation: Validate the final model using a separate validation dataset. The reported high-performance model achieved an RMSE of 10.6% and an R-squared value of 0.83 (p-value < 0.01) [13].
• Projection and Analysis: Apply the model to historical data (1980-2020) and future CMIP6 projections under different SSP scenarios. Examine the relationship between average annual bleaching rate and coral cover decline rate to identify the critical degradation threshold of 7.9% annual bleaching [13].

Experimental Protocol: Quantifying Regulating Ecosystem Service Value (RESV)

Objective: To estimate the spatial and temporal changes in the monetary value of key regulating ecosystem services.

Methodology (as applied in the Poyang Lake Area study) [3]:

• Service Selection: Select four key RES indicators based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Carbon Sequestration and Oxygen Release (CSOR), Climate Regulation, Water Conservation, and Environmental Purification.
• RESV Calculation: Calculate the total RESV using the formula: RESV = Z + V + W + T where Z is the value of CSOR, V is the value of climate regulation, W is the value of water conservation, and T is the value of environmental purification [3].
• Data Sources:
  • Land Use & NDVI: Sourced from the Resource and Environment Science and Data Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (spatial resolution: 30m) [3].
  • Soil Data: Sourced from the World Soil Database China Soil Dataset (V1.1) from the National Tibetan Plateau Science Data Center [3].
  • Meteorological Data: Obtained from the China Meteorological Data Website and interpolated using the inverse distance weight method in ArcGIS [3].
  • Socio-economic Data: GDP per land from the Chinese Academy of Sciences; population density from the WorldPop dataset [3].
• Spatio-Temporal Analysis: Analyze the spatial distribution and temporal trends of RESV across different sub-regions (e.g., core, fringe, and peripheral areas).
• Driver Analysis: Use Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to evaluate the complex interactions and direct/indirect effects of various climatic and anthropogenic driving factors on RESV in different zones [3].

Visualization of RES Dynamics

The following diagram synthesizes the core concepts, key drivers, and outcomes related to RES degradation and enhancement, illustrating their complex interrelationships.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Solutions for RES Assessment

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Technical Application Notes
Global Coral-Bleaching Database (GCBD)	Provides historical, in-situ field observations of coral bleaching events.	Serves as the foundational dataset for training and validating multivariate predictive models of coral bleaching [13].
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) Data	Provides climate projections under various Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios.	Used to project future thermal stress on coral reefs and other ecosystems under different emission futures [13].
Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) Data	Serves as a spatial proxy for human activities and ecosystem type.	Used to calculate land use intensity indices and as a base layer for estimating ecosystem service provision (e.g., carbon sequestration, water conservation) [3].
Net Primary Productivity (NPP) Data	Measures the rate of biomass production in an ecosystem.	A key input for calculating Carbon Sequestration and Oxygen Release (CSOR) value; for each kg of dry matter, 1.63 kg CO₂ is fixed and 1.19 kg O₂ is released [3].
Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent	A diagnostic reagent for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).	Note: While not for ecological fieldwork, this is a critical reagent in medical research on the CNS, illustrating the term "enhancement" in a different scientific context. It highlights areas with increased blood flow or a compromised Blood-Brain Barrier [16].
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Software	A statistical methodology for evaluating complex causal relationships.	Used to analyze the direct and indirect pathways through which socio-ecological drivers (e.g., GDP, population density, precipitation) influence RESV [3].

The spatio-temporal patterns of RES degradation and enhancement reveal a planet under significant stress, with critical thresholds being approached or exceeded in systems ranging from coral reefs to forests and lakes. The evidence is clear: climate change and human activities are driving widespread degradation through interconnected pathways of habitat loss, fragmentation, and quality decline. The identification of a specific 7.9% annual bleaching threshold for coral reefs provides a quantifiable target for conservation, while regional studies like that in the Poyang Lake Area demonstrate that drivers are location-specific, necessitating tailored management policies. While the trends are alarming, the methodologies outlined—from multivariate random forest models to RESV quantification and Structural Equation Modeling—provide researchers with powerful tools to diagnose problems, project future scenarios, and identify key leverage points for intervention. The continued refinement of these techniques, coupled with a commitment to bold and effective global policies, is essential to safeguard the regulating ecosystem services that are the foundation of planetary health and human well-being.

Ecosystem services (ESs) represent the benefits that humans derive directly or indirectly from ecosystems, serving as a crucial bridge between natural and social systems by facilitating material exchanges and information flows [17]. Among these, regulating ecosystem services (RESs)—the benefits derived from the biophysical regulatory processes of ecosystems—are fundamental for maintaining ecological security and human wellbeing [1]. These services include air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural disaster mitigation, water regulation and purification, erosion control, soil formation, and pest regulation [1]. In recent decades, global ecosystem services have undergone significant degradation, with regulating services declining at an accelerated pace due to combined pressures of climate change, ecological degradation, and unsustainable management practices [1].

This technical guide examines the spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services within three critical landscape categories that function as essential ecosystem hotspots: karst regions, coastal zones, and trans-boundary systems. These landscapes represent areas where the interplay between ecological processes and human activities creates unique challenges and opportunities for ecosystem management. Karst ecosystems, characterized by their distinctive hydrological processes and geological foundations, cover approximately 12-15% of the Earth's ice-free land surface yet provide freshwater resources for about 20-25% of the global population [18] [19]. Coastal zones serve as vital interfaces between terrestrial and marine systems, experiencing intense human exploitation while supporting disproportionate biodiversity and ecosystem functions [17]. Trans-boundary landscapes represent interconnected ecological systems that transcend political boundaries, requiring specialized governance approaches to maintain ecological connectivity and functionality [20].

Understanding the spatio-temporal dynamics of regulating ecosystem services within these hotspots is paramount for developing effective conservation strategies, sustainable management practices, and evidence-based policy interventions. This guide synthesizes current research methodologies, key findings, and future directions to provide researchers, scientists, and environmental professionals with a comprehensive technical resource for advancing this critical field of study.

Karst Landscapes: Fragile Regulators with Global Significance

Structural and Functional Characteristics

Karst landscapes develop primarily on carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite) and evaporites, creating distinctive landforms through chemical dissolution processes. These ecosystems exhibit a unique "binary three-dimensional structure" characterized by strong surface-underground connectivity, specialized hydrological processes, and high habitat heterogeneity [21] [19]. The complex structure-function relationships in karst ecosystems create the foundation for their regulating services but also contribute to their pronounced ecological vulnerability [18].

The fragile nature of karst ecosystems stems from several intrinsic factors: shallow soil layers with slow formation rates (approximately 1 cm every 3,000 years), high rates of nutrient loss, and limited environmental carrying capacity [21]. These characteristics make karst systems highly sensitive to anthropogenic disturbances, with recovery processes often requiring decades or centuries. The South China Karst represents one of the most extensive, developed, and representative tropical-subtropical karst regions globally, providing an exemplary case study for understanding karst ecosystem services [18] [19].

Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Regulating Services

Research conducted in the southwest Guangxi Karst-Beibu Gulf, a critical mountain-river-sea transition zone, reveals distinctive spatio-temporal patterns in ecosystem services from 2000-2020. Key regulating services including carbon storage and sequestration, habitat quality, and soil retention (measured through sediment delivery ratio) demonstrated complex trajectories [22]. Food production services declined alongside carbon storage and habitat quality, while sediment delivery ratio initially increased then decreased, and water yield exhibited trends opposite to sediment delivery [22].

Spatial analysis reveals marked heterogeneity in service distribution. Carbon storage and nutrient delivery ratio were typically lower in central regions, while water yield and food production decreased along southeast-northwest gradients [22]. Habitat quality and sediment delivery ratio displayed inverse spatial patterns to water-related services [22]. Vertical stratification also significantly influences service provision, with food production generally decreasing while other ecosystem services increase with elevation [22].

Table 1: Key Regulating Ecosystem Services in Karst Landscapes and Their Spatio-Temporal Characteristics

Ecosystem Service	Temporal Trend (2000-2020)	Spatial Pattern	Primary Influencing Factors
Carbon Storage & Sequestration	Decreasing	Lower in central regions	Vegetation cover, land use intensity, soil depth
Habitat Quality	Decreasing	High in surrounding areas, low in center	Landscape fragmentation, human disturbance, vegetation connectivity
Water Yield	Fluctuating, opposite to sediment ratio	Decreasing SE to NW	Precipitation, evapotranspiration, karst hydrogeology
Soil Retention	Increased then decreased	Inverse to water yield	Slope, vegetation cover, rainfall intensity
Water Purification	Varies by specific nutrient	Lower in central regions	Land use, hydrological connectivity, fertilizer application

Trade-offs and synergies among karst ecosystem services demonstrate distinctive elevational patterns. Ecosystem services in these regions are predominantly synergistic, with trade-offs most frequently observed between food production and carbon storage/sediment delivery/nutrient delivery, particularly within watershed key zones [22]. The intensity of trade-offs and synergies generally decreases with increasing elevation, with the most significant reductions observed in Level-IV areas [22]. These relationships are primarily driven by interactions between precipitation, evapotranspiration, elevation, slope, soil properties, population density, and human activity indices [22].

Karst Desertification: A Critical Management Challenge

Karst desertification (KD) represents the extreme manifestation of ecological degradation in karst regions—an evolutional process characterized by deforestation, soil erosion, bedrock exposure, and substantial loss of land productivity resulting from unsustainable human activities in fragile karst environments [23]. This process creates desert-like landscapes and poses significant challenges to human wellbeing, particularly in impoverished rural communities [23].

Research on KD control has evolved through three distinct phases: initial development (1994-2007), rapid development (2008-2016), and stable development (2017-present) [23]. Current approaches integrate theory development, technological innovation, model construction, application demonstration, and monitoring evaluation [23]. Effective interventions include ecological engineering techniques tailored to karst hydrogeological conditions, sustainable agroforestry systems, and ecological-industrial integration models that balance restoration with livelihood improvement [23].

Coastal Zones: Dynamic Interfaces Under Multiple Pressures

Unique Social-Ecological Contexts

Coastal zones function as critical ecotones between terrestrial and marine systems, simultaneously supporting intense human development and providing invaluable regulating services [17]. The Coastal Zone of China (CZC) represents an exemplary case study, covering approximately 480,000 km² with a coastline exceeding 18,000 km [17]. This region encompasses less than 5% of China's territory yet supports approximately 20% of the population and contributes about one-third of the national GDP [17].

Coastal ecosystems demonstrate distinctive north-south disparities in regulating services, largely driven by climatic and geomorphological gradients. The northern regions (centered on Hangzhou) are predominantly characterized by flat plains, while southern regions feature more rugged, mountainous terrain [17]. This fundamental geomorphological division creates significantly different contexts for ecosystem service provision and management challenges.

Spatio-Temporal Patterns and Drivers

Coastal ecosystem services exhibit a fluctuating but overall increasing trend (k = 0.017, R² = 0.175) from 2000 to 2022, though synergistic effects among services have gradually weakened during this period [17]. Spatial analysis reveals a consistent pattern of higher service levels in southern regions compared to northern areas, with significant north-south disparity [17]. Future projections indicate a slight upward trend (mean Hurst exponent = 0.516), with spatial processes in southern regions expected to remain stronger than in northern regions [17].

Table 2: Primary Drivers of Coastal Ecosystem Service Dynamics

Driver Category	Specific Factors	Influence Type	Relative Importance
Social Factors	Population density, GDP, land use intensity, seaport density, urban land proportion	Strong nonlinear mechanisms, predominantly negative	High
Natural Factors	Precipitation, temperature, elevation, slope, soil texture	Weak positive influence	Moderate to Low
Climatic Extremes	Typhoon landfall frequency, sea surface temperature	Variable, context-dependent	Emerging concern
Land Use	Cropland proportion, landscape diversity	Mixed (positive and negative)	Moderate

Notably, coastal ecosystem services demonstrate stronger influence from social factors compared to natural factors [17]. Natural factors generally exert weak positive influences on services, while social factors typically show negative impacts through nonlinear mechanisms [17]. The spatial processes of ecosystem services exhibit pronounced aggregation patterns, which can inform strategic spatial planning and management interventions [17].

Trans-boundary Landscapes: Governance for Ecological Connectivity

The Importance of Ecological Connectivity

Trans-boundary conservation focuses on maintaining and enhancing habitat connectivity across political boundaries to support ecological processes, species movements, and ecosystem functionality [20]. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 75/271, "Nature knows no borders," explicitly encourages member states to maintain and enhance habitat connectivity through transboundary protected areas and ecological corridors based on the best available scientific data [20].

These initiatives recognize that ecological systems function independently of human-defined political boundaries, requiring coordinated governance approaches to address landscape-scale processes. Trans-boundary conservation directly supports implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) while simultaneously promoting international cooperation, dialogue, and peace among neighboring communities, regions, and countries [20].

Implementation Frameworks and Co-benefits

Effective trans-boundary conservation initiatives integrate several key elements: scientific assessment of connectivity needs, multilevel governance arrangements, stakeholder engagement processes, and adaptive management frameworks [20]. The European Green Belt initiative, spanning the former Iron Curtain, represents a successful example of large-scale trans-boundary cooperation that has created ecological corridors while promoting historical reconciliation and cultural exchange [20].

Emerging research emphasizes the importance of integrating both ecological and cultural connectivity in trans-boundary landscape planning. This approach recognizes that long-term conservation success often depends on engaging local and indigenous communities, respecting traditional knowledge systems, and aligning conservation objectives with cultural values and livelihood needs [20].

Methodological Approaches for Ecosystem Service Assessment

Assessment Frameworks and Models

The InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) model has emerged as a particularly valuable tool for quantifying and mapping ecosystem services across multiple landscape types [21] [17] [24]. This suite of models integrates habitat adaptations and levels of human disturbance, offering advantages of relative simplicity, manageable data requirements, and strong spatial visualization capabilities [21]. The model has been successfully applied across watershed, regional, and global scales, particularly for assessing habitat quality, carbon storage, and soil retention services [21].

Complementary approaches include social assessment methods (monetary valuation and perception-based assessments) and biophysical indicator frameworks [17]. Social assessment effectively captures human dimensions of ecosystem services but may oversimplify ecological heterogeneity, while biophysical indicators provide objective measures but require careful normalization and weighting [17]. The integration of 3S technologies (remote sensing, geographic information systems, and global positioning systems) has dramatically improved capabilities for analyzing ecosystem service dynamics across multiple scales and time series [18] [21].

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

A standardized workflow for assessing regulating ecosystem services typically includes the following key stages:

• Data Collection and Preparation: Acquisition of land use/land cover data, climatic data, topographic data, soil information, and socio-economic datasets from relevant sources (e.g., Resource and Environment Science and Data Center, Geospatial Data Cloud) [21].
• Landscape Pattern Analysis: Calculation of landscape metrics (fragmentation, connectivity, diversity indices) using specialized software such as FRAGSTATS or similar tools [21].
• Ecosystem Service Quantification: Application of biophysical models (e.g., InVEST, SWAT) to estimate service provision based on collected data [21] [17].
• Spatio-Temporal Analysis: Use of spatial statistics (global and local autocorrelation, hot spot analysis) to identify patterns and trends in service distribution [21].
• Driving Force Analysis: Application of statistical methods (correlation analysis, geographical weighted regression, Geodetector) to identify primary factors influencing service dynamics [22] [21].
• Trade-off/Synergy Analysis: Examination of relationships among multiple ecosystem services using correlation analysis, bundle identification, or scenario modeling [22] [24].

Ecosystem Service Assessment Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Tools for Ecosystem Service Assessment

Tool/Solution	Primary Function	Application Context	Key References
InVEST Model Suite	Quantifies and maps multiple ecosystem services	Habitat quality assessment, carbon storage, water yield, sediment retention	[21] [17] [24]
3S Technology Integration	Spatial data acquisition, processing, and analysis	Landscape pattern analysis, change detection, spatial modeling	[18] [21]
Geodetector Method	Identifies driving factors and their interactions	Spatial stratified heterogeneity analysis, factor detection	[21]
Social-Ecological Surveys	Captures human perceptions and preferences	Cultural ecosystem service assessment, stakeholder engagement	[1] [17]
Scenario Modeling Frameworks	Projects future ecosystem service dynamics under alternative pathways	Climate change impact assessment, land use planning	[24]
Systematic Literature Review Protocols	Synthesizes existing knowledge and identifies research gaps	Evidence-based research planning, methodology development	[18] [1] [23]

Karst, coastal, and trans-boundary landscapes represent critical ecosystem hotspots with disproportionate importance for regulating ecosystem services globally. Each landscape exhibits distinctive spatio-temporal patterns, driving mechanisms, and management challenges. Karst systems demonstrate exceptional vulnerability and service degradation under anthropogenic pressure, coastal zones face intense development conflicts and north-south disparities, while trans-boundary landscapes require innovative governance approaches to maintain ecological connectivity.

Future research priorities include: (1) developing integrated assessment frameworks that capture complex social-ecological interactions across multiple scales; (2) advancing process-based understanding of ecosystem service formation and dynamics; (3) improving predictive capabilities through enhanced scenario modeling; (4) strengthening the science-policy interface to support evidence-based decision making; and (5) addressing emerging threats from climate change, land use intensification, and biodiversity loss [18] [1] [24].

Effectively managing these critical ecosystem hotspots requires nuanced understanding of their unique spatio-temporal characteristics, recognition of the trade-offs and synergies among competing services, and implementation of context-specific interventions that balance ecological integrity with human wellbeing. The methodologies, insights, and frameworks presented in this technical guide provide a foundation for researchers and practitioners working to address these complex challenges in an increasingly human-dominated planet.

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES) are the benefits humans obtain from the regulatory functions of ecosystems, including air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural disaster regulation, water purification, erosion control, and pollination [1]. These services are fundamental to maintaining the Earth's life-support systems and form the ecological foundation upon which sustainable development depends. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, provide a shared blueprint for global peace and prosperity [25]. Despite this framework, a significant implementation gap persists because the social-ecological interdependencies between RES and sustainable development remain largely unaccounted for in the SDG's 'decade of action' [26].

Current research demonstrates that RES such as air purification, regional and local climate regulation, water purification, and pollination have declined at an accelerated rate globally, threatening biodiversity and human wellbeing [1]. This degradation poses direct challenges to achieving multiple SDGs, particularly those related to water security (SDG 6), climate action (SDG 13), life below water (SDG 14), and life on land (SDG 15). Understanding the spatio-temporal characteristics of RES is thus critical for formulating evidence-based policies that enhance ecological protection and human development simultaneously [1] [27]. This technical guide explores the theoretical foundations, assessment methodologies, and practical applications for integrating RES into the SDG framework, providing researchers and practitioners with actionable approaches for strengthening the socio-ecological nexus.

Theoretical Foundations: Social-Ecological Interdependencies

The Social-Ecological Systems Framework

Social-ecological systems theory emphasizes that social and economic systems cannot be separated from their environmental contexts, as they exist as complex, adaptive systems with continuous feedback loops [28]. Resilience—the capacity of systems to absorb, adapt, and transform in the face of change—is an emergent property of these linked systems [28]. The theory addresses the surprising dynamism of complex human-natural systems, accounting for their capacity to learn, adapt, and transform while describing non-linear scaling and cross-scale interactions [28].

A key finding of recent ecological studies is that driver-response relationships are not necessarily constant through time but are conditioned by both recent and historical past conditions [29]. This understanding necessitates temporal dynamics analyses that consider hierarchically nested structures of complexity across different ecological scales [29]. The social-ecological interdependencies between RES and sustainable development manifest through several key mechanisms:

• Support System Role: Biodiversity and ecosystem services provide fundamental support for sustainable development outcomes [26]
• Feedback Reinforcement: Social-ecological feedbacks can either reinforce unsustainable outcomes or enable transformations toward sustainability [26]
• Cross-scale Interactions: Local ecosystem services affect regional and global sustainability targets through complex scale interactions [28]
• Non-stationarity: System dynamics change over time, making stationary goal-states impossible to maintain indefinitely [28]

SDG Implementation Gaps in Social-Ecological Context

Analysis of the current SDGs reveals significant strengths and weaknesses from a social-ecological resilience perspective. Environmental-focused goals (SDGs 2, 6, 13, 14, 15) demonstrate the strongest connections to social-ecological resilience yet are consistently under-prioritized in implementation efforts [28]. The SDGs show particular strengths in addressing communication, inclusive decision-making, financial support, regulatory incentives, economic diversity, and transparency in governance and law [28]. However, critical ecological factors of resilience are seriously lacking, particularly regarding scale, cross-scale interactions, and non-stationarity (the understanding that system dynamics change over time) [28].

Table 1: SDGs with Strongest Social-Ecological Interdependencies

SDG Number	SDG Focus Area	Primary RES Linkages	Resilience Factors Addressed
SDG 6	Clean Water and Sanitation	Water regulation, purification, watershed protection	Regulatory incentives, infrastructure diversity
SDG 13	Climate Action	Carbon sequestration, climate regulation, carbon storage	Cross-boundary cooperation, adaptive planning
SDG 14	Life Below Water	Coastal protection, carbon sequestration, water purification	Marine governance, transparency in regulation
SDG 15	Life on Land	Erosion control, pollination, climate regulation, soil formation	Habitat protection, ecological monitoring, connectivity
SDG 2	Zero Hunger	Pollination, natural pest control, climate regulation	Agricultural diversity, traditional knowledge

The compartmentalized structure of the SDGs presents additional challenges, as separate social and ecological targets fail to capture the interconnected nature of social-ecological systems [26]. Research indicates that moving from separate social and ecological targets to integrated social-ecological targets would better account for the support system role of biodiversity and ecosystem services in sustainable development [26]. Furthermore, such integrated targets could more effectively capture social-ecological feedbacks that reinforce unsustainable outcomes and reveal indirect feedbacks hidden by current target systems [26].

Spatio-Temporal Assessment of Regulating Ecosystem Services

Methodological Frameworks for RES Assessment

Understanding the spatio-temporal dynamics of RES requires robust methodological approaches that can quantify and map these services across different scales and time periods. Several established frameworks have emerged for evaluating RES, each with distinct advantages and applications:

Table 2: Primary Methodologies for RES Assessment

Methodology	Key Features	Data Requirements	Spatio-Temporal Applications
InVEST Model	Spatially explicit, modular design, open source	LULC, topography, soil, climate data	Long-term trend analysis (5+ years), scenario projection
Equivalent Factor Method	Standardized coefficients, economic valuation	Land use/cover data, economic parameters	Regional-scale temporal comparisons, economic accounting
Statistical Surveys	Primary data collection, high precision	Field measurements, monitoring stations	Point-based temporal series, validation of model results
Emergy Analysis	Biophysical valuation, energy flows	Resource flow data, transformation coefficients	System efficiency trends, sustainability indices

The Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model has gained particular prominence in RES research due to its simplicity, ease of data acquisition, flexible parameter adjustment, and spatially expressible evaluation results [27]. This model enables researchers to evaluate the biophysical quantity and monetary value of RES across multiple time periods, facilitating the analysis of temporal evolution patterns and spatial distribution [27].

Temporal Dynamics in RES Analysis

Temporal analysis of RES requires careful consideration of time series characteristics and appropriate analytical methods. A comprehensive review of temporal community ecology studies found that most studies have relatively few temporal replicates, with a median of seven time points [30]. Nearly 70% of studies applied more than one analysis method, with descriptive methods such as bar graphs and ordination being the most commonly applied approaches [30].

The temporal dynamics of RES are characterized by several key principles:

• Hierarchical Complexity: Temporal patterns are hierarchically nested, with different patterns observable at different temporal scales [29]
• Time Dependence: Driver-response relationships are temporally variant and dependent on both short- and long-term past conditions [29]
• Non-linear Change: Ecosystem responses to drivers often exhibit non-linear dynamics with thresholds and tipping points [28]

Newer methods using multivariate dissimilarities are growing in popularity for temporal analysis, as many can be applied to time series of any length [30]. These approaches are particularly valuable for detecting nonlinear changes and critical transitions in RES provision.

Spatial Heterogeneity and Scaling

Spatial analysis of RES must account for heterogeneity in ecosystem distribution, function, and service provision. Geospatial analysis using ArcGIS combined with models like InVEST can evaluate RES at multiple spatial scales, from local watersheds to regional and national levels [27]. Spatial clustering effects are common in RES distribution, with measures like Global Moran's Index and Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA) used to identify significant spatial patterns [27].

Research in Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park (HTRNP) demonstrated strong spatial clustering of RES (Moran's I > 0.5, Z > 2.58), with spatial hotspots (H-H) in the eastern and central regions and spatial cold spots (L-L) in the western and northern regions [27]. This pattern was consistent across different years despite fluctuations in overall service provision, indicating persistent spatial structure in RES distribution.

Integrated Methodologies for RES-SDG Nexus Assessment

Protocol for Temporal-Spatial RES Assessment

The following experimental protocol provides a standardized approach for assessing RES in relation to SDG targets, adaptable to various ecological and institutional contexts:

Phase 1: Scoping and Framework Development

• Define Assessment Boundaries: Determine spatial extent (e.g., protected area, watershed, administrative region) and temporal scope (e.g., 10-20 year series with 5-year intervals) based on management needs and data availability [27] [31]
• Select RES Indicators: Choose appropriate RES indicators based on regional relevance and linkage to specific SDG targets. Common indicators include water conservation, soil retention, carbon sequestration, and climate regulation [27]
• Identify Data Sources: Compile required datasets including Land Use Land Cover (LULC), climate data (precipitation, temperature), soil maps, topographic data, and socio-economic indicators [27] [31]

Phase 2: Data Collection and Processing

• LULC Classification: Use remote sensing platforms (e.g., Google Earth Engine) with machine learning algorithms (e.g., Random Forest) to classify historical LULC data for multiple time points [31]
• Climate Data Processing: Collect and interpolate climate data (e.g., annual precipitation, potential evapotranspiration) to create continuous surfaces matching study period [27]
• Field Validation: Conduct ground-truthing surveys to verify LULC classifications and collect primary biophysical data where needed [31]

Phase 3: RES Quantification and Valuation

• Biophysical Modeling: Apply InVEST model modules (SDR, NDR, Carbon) to quantify RES provision in biophysical units for each time period [27] [31]
• Economic Valuation: Calculate monetary values using appropriate methods (market value, shadow engineering, cost avoidance) adjusted for local economic conditions [27] [31]
• Uncertainty Analysis: Assess model uncertainty through sensitivity analysis and validation against empirical measurements [32]

Phase 4: Spatio-Temporal and SDG Linkage Analysis

• Temporal Trend Analysis: Calculate change rates for each RES across time periods and identify significant trends [27]
• Spatial Pattern Analysis: Use spatial statistics (Global Moran's I, LISA) to identify clusters, hotspots, and coldspots of RES provision [27]
• SDG Mapping: Map quantified RES to relevant SDG targets and indicators using explicit linkage framework [26] [28]
• Driver Analysis: Apply machine learning methods (e.g., LightGBM) to identify primary natural and anthropogenic drivers of RES change [27]

Conceptual Framework of RES-SDG Interlinkages

The following diagram illustrates the key feedback mechanisms and interdependencies between RES and SDG achievement:

RES-SDG Feedback Mechanisms

This diagram illustrates the reinforcing feedback loops between specific RES (green), relevant SDGs (blue), socio-political responses (yellow), and ultimate RES enhancement (red). These feedback mechanisms demonstrate how sustainable development investments can generate co-benefits for ecosystem functioning, creating virtuous cycles of improvement.

Case Study: RES Assessment in Protected Area Networks

Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park, China

A comprehensive study of Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park (HTRNP) exemplifies the application of RES assessment methodologies within a protected area context. Researchers evaluated RES from 2000 to 2020 at 5-year intervals, integrating geospatial analysis (ArcGIS) with the InVEST model to examine temporal evolution patterns and spatial distribution [27]. The study focused on five key RES indicators: water conservation, soil retention, carbon sequestration, oxygen release, and climate regulation.

Key Findings:

• Temporal Patterns: RES exhibited significant fluctuations with a trend of "initial decline followed by a subsequent rise" [27]
• Service Proportion: Climate regulation services accounted for the highest proportion at 61.4%, followed by water conservation and soil retention [27]
• Spatial Distribution: RES in the eastern and central regions were slightly higher than in the western region, demonstrating consistency across different years [27]
• Driving Factors: Natural factors (annual precipitation, potential evapotranspiration) and socio-economic factors (LULC, Human Footprint Index) made the highest marginal contributions to RES [27]

The research demonstrated the strongest correlation between RES and LULC, with positive correlations with precipitation and negative correlations with potential evapotranspiration and human footprint index [27]. This case study provides valuable insights for ecological planning and effective management within protected areas, highlighting the importance of continuous RES monitoring for adaptive management.

Ifrane National Park, Morocco

A study focusing on Water-Regulating Ecosystem Services (WRES) in Morocco's Ifrane National Park (INP) examined the impact of protected area establishment on ecosystem service values [31]. The research analyzed historical LULC data from 1992 to 2022 using Google Earth Engine platform and employed InVEST models to quantify impacts of LULC changes on sediment and nutrient retention capacity.

Key Findings:

• Economic Valuation: Following park establishment, the economic value of WRES reached USD 10,000 per year, compared to a decline of USD -7,000 per year prior to creation [31]
• Driver Identification: The positive trend was attributed to forest cover expansion in areas prioritized for reforestation and conservation interventions [31]
• Management Implications: Continuous WRES monitoring provides park managers with robust data to advocate for sustained conservation efforts and increased investment in restoration initiatives [31]

This case demonstrates how economic valuation of RES can inform sustainable conservation planning and policymaking, potentially paving the way for innovative financing mechanisms that align ecological preservation with socio-economic objectives.

Research Tools and Reagents for RES Assessment

Table 3: Essential Research Toolkit for RES-SDG Nexus Studies

Tool Category	Specific Tool/Platform	Primary Application	Technical Requirements
Remote Sensing Platforms	Google Earth Engine, Landsat Series, Sentinel Series	LULC classification, change detection, vegetation monitoring	Programming knowledge (JavaScript, Python), GIS basics
Spatial Modeling Software	InVEST 3.10.2, ArcGIS, QGIS	RES quantification, spatial analysis, mapping	Spatial data management, model parameterization
Statistical Analysis	R Programming, Python (LightGBM), SPSS	Driver analysis, trend detection, predictive modeling	Statistical knowledge, machine learning fundamentals
Economic Valuation	Benefit Transfer, Shadow Pricing, Market Valuation	RES monetary assessment, cost-benefit analysis	Economic principles, local market data
Field Equipment	Soil Sampling Kits, Vegetation Plots, Water Quality Probes	Ground validation, primary data collection	Field research protocols, measurement standardization

The toolkit highlights the interdisciplinary nature of RES-SDG research, requiring integration across ecological, spatial, statistical, and economic methodologies. The InVEST model deserves particular emphasis, as it has become a widely applied tool due to its simplicity, ease of data acquisition, flexible parameter adjustment, and spatially expressible evaluation results [27]. Similarly, Google Earth Engine has revolutionized LULC change analysis by providing access to extensive remote sensing archives and computational power for multi-temporal analyses [31].

The integration of RES assessment within the SDG framework provides a critical pathway for recognizing the fundamental role of ecological processes in sustainable development. Current research demonstrates that moving from separate social and ecological targets to integrated social-ecological targets would better account for the support system role of biodiversity and ecosystem services [26]. The spatio-temporal analysis of RES offers powerful methodologies for quantifying these relationships and identifying effective intervention points.

Priority research directions for advancing the RES-SDG nexus include:

• Developing integrated social-ecological targets that explicitly capture interdependencies between biodiversity, ecosystem services, and sustainable development [26]
• Enhancing understanding of cross-scale interactions and non-stationarity in social-ecological systems [28]
• Improving coverage of biodiversity components (e.g., soils) and non-monetary ecosystem services in conservation planning [33]
• Strengthening analyses of trade-offs and synergies among RES and between RES and other sustainability objectives [1]
• Developing context-specific weighting approaches for balancing biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision in spatial planning [33]

As we approach the post-2030 agenda for sustainable development, building on the strengths of environment-focused SDGs while addressing critical gaps in scale, variability, and feedbacks will be essential [28]. The research methodologies, case studies, and analytical frameworks presented in this technical guide provide a foundation for researchers and practitioners working to strengthen the socio-ecological nexus in sustainability science and policy.

Quantifying Spatio-Temporal Dynamics: Advanced Models and Assessment Techniques

The Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model is a suite of free, open-source software models developed by the Stanford Natural Capital Project to map and value the goods and services from nature that sustain and fulfill human life [34]. This spatially explicit modeling framework enables decision-makers to assess quantified tradeoffs associated with alternative management choices and to identify areas where investment in natural capital can enhance human development and conservation [34]. The toolset includes distinct ecosystem service models designed for terrestrial, freshwater, marine, and coastal ecosystems, providing a powerful approach for analyzing the spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services.

InVEST models operate using production functions that define how changes in an ecosystem's structure and function affect the flows and values of ecosystem services across landscapes or seascapes [34]. These models account for both service supply (e.g., living habitats as buffers for storm waves) and the location and activities of people who benefit from these services [34]. The modular design allows researchers to select specific ecosystem services of interest without running all available models, making it adaptable to diverse research contexts and questions. The models return results in either biophysical terms (e.g., tons of carbon sequestered) or economic terms (e.g., net present value of that sequestered carbon), with flexible spatial resolution that supports analyses at local, regional, or global scales [34].

Core Methodologies for Assessing Regulating Ecosystem Services

Carbon Storage Module

The Carbon Storage module in InVEST estimates the amount of carbon currently stored in a landscape based on land use/land cover (LULC) patterns and carbon pool data. The model calculates carbon storage by summing four fundamental carbon pools: aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, soil organic matter, and dead organic matter [35]. The methodological approach follows a standardized computational framework:

The model operates on the principle that different land use types serve as proxies for varying levels of carbon storage capacity. The core calculation is performed using the following equation [35]:

$$ C{i} = C{i - above} + C{i - below} + C{i - soil} + C_{i - dead} $$

Where:

• $C_{i}$ = total carbon density of land use/land cover type i (t/hm²)
• $C_{i - above}$ = aboveground biomass carbon density (t/hm²)
• $C_{i - below}$ = belowground biomass carbon density (t/hm²)
• $C_{i - soil}$ = soil organic carbon density (t/hm²)
• $C_{i - dead}$ = dead organic matter carbon density (t/hm²)

The total carbon stock across the entire landscape is then calculated as [35]:

$$ C{total} = \mathop \sum \limits{i = 1}^{n} C{i} \times S{i} $$

Where:

• $C_{total}$ = total carbon stock of terrestrial ecosystems (t)
• $S_{i}$ = area of land use/land cover type i (hm²)
• $n$ = number of land use/land cover types

Table 1: Representative Carbon Density Values for Different Land Use Types (t/hm²)

Land Use Type	Aboveground Biomass	Belowground Biomass	Soil Organic Matter	Dead Organic Matter	Total Carbon Density
Forest	90.45	25.10	150.25	15.50	281.30
Grassland	2.85	11.42	125.65	2.15	142.07
Cropland	5.75	1.85	95.45	1.25	104.30
Wetland	25.65	12.35	175.85	8.45	222.30
Water Body	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Construction Land	1.25	0.45	45.25	0.35	47.30
Unutilized Land	0.85	0.35	35.45	0.25	36.90

Source: Adapted from carbon density data used in studies of Hubei Province, China [35]

Recent applications demonstrate the robust capabilities of this module. A 2025 study of Chengdu, China, integrated multi-period remote sensing data from 2000 to 2020 with the InVEST model to quantify carbon stock changes, finding a net decrease of approximately 3.25 × 10⁶ t of carbon stock, primarily due to cropland conversion to built-up areas [36]. Similarly, a study in Shandong Province documented a carbon storage decline of approximately 63 million tons between 2000 and 2020, largely driven by urban expansion [37].

Habitat Quality Module

The Habitat Quality module in InVEST assesses biodiversity support capacity by modeling habitat quality and rarity based on land use patterns and threat sources. The module evaluates the extent and condition of habitats suitable for supporting biodiversity, incorporating the impact of various anthropogenic threats that degrade habitat quality. The model operates through several key computational steps:

First, the model characterizes habitat types based on land cover classes and their relative suitability to support biodiversity. Each habitat type is assigned a suitability score between 0 and 1, where 1 represents optimal habitat conditions. Second, the model identifies threat sources (e.g., urban areas, agricultural land, roads) and quantifies their intensity and spatial impact range. The decay of threat influence can be linear or exponential, depending on the specific threat characteristic.

The core habitat quality score is calculated using the following conceptual framework:

$$ Q{xj} = Hj \left(1 - \frac{D{xj}^z}{D{xj}^z + k^z}\right) $$

Where:

• $Q_{xj}$ = habitat quality of pixel x in land cover type j
• $H_j$ = habitat suitability of land cover type j
• $D_{xj}$ = total threat level at pixel x from all threat sources
• $k$ = half-saturation constant
• $z$ = scaling parameter

The total threat level $D_{xj}$ is derived from:

$$ D{xj} = \sum{r=1}^{R} \sum{y=1}^{Yr} \left( \frac{wr}{\sum{r=1}^{R} wr} \right) ry i{rxy} \betax S_{jr} $$

Where:

• $R$ = number of threat factors
• $w_r$ = weight of threat factor r
• $Y_r$ = number of grid cells of threat factor r
• $r_y$ = stress factor of grid cell y
• $i_{rxy}$ = impact of threat r from grid cell y on grid cell x
• $\beta_x$ = accessibility factor (level of protection) at grid cell x
• $S_{jr}$ = sensitivity of land cover type j to threat r

Table 2: Typical Habitat Quality Parameters for Different Land Cover Types

Land Cover Type	Habitat Suitability (Hj)	Sensitivity to Urban Threat	Sensitivity to Agricultural Threat	Sensitivity to Road Threat
Natural Forest	1.0	0.8	0.6	0.7
Plantation Forest	0.7	0.7	0.5	0.6
Grassland	0.8	0.6	0.7	0.5
Wetland	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.7
Cropland	0.4	0.3	0.1	0.4
Urban Area	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Source: Adapted from InVEST model documentation and applications [37] [38]

A 2025 study in Shandong Province demonstrated the application of this module, revealing a 3.6% decrease in habitat quality between 2000 and 2020, with significant ecological fragmentation identified in central mountainous regions and the Yellow River Delta [37]. The study attributed this degradation to intensified urbanization and agricultural activities, highlighting the value of this module in identifying priority areas for conservation intervention.

Sediment Retention Module (Soil Retention)

The Sediment Retention module (also called the Seasonal Water Yield module) in InVEST quantifies the capacity of vegetation and landscape features to prevent sediment transport to water bodies. This module employs the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) framework to calculate soil erosion and sediment retention potential. The methodology involves several sequential calculations:

First, the model calculates potential soil erosion without vegetation cover using the RUSLE equation:

$$ A_{p} = R \times K \times LS $$

Where:

• $A_{p}$ = potential soil erosion (tons/ha/year)
• $R$ = rainfall erosivity factor (MJ·mm/(ha·hr·year))
• $K$ = soil erodibility factor (ton·hr/(MJ·mm))
• $LS$ = slope length-gradient factor (dimensionless)

Second, the model calculates actual soil erosion with current land cover:

$$ A_{a} = R \times K \times LS \times C \times P $$

Where:

• $A_{a}$ = actual soil erosion (tons/ha/year)
• $C$ = cover-management factor (dimensionless)
• $P$ = support practice factor (dimensionless)

The sediment retention service is then calculated as the difference between potential and actual erosion:

$$ SR = A{p} - A{a} $$

Where:

• $SR$ = sediment retention (tons/ha/year)

For watershed-scale analyses, the model also calculates the sediment delivery ratio (SDR), which represents the fraction of gross erosion that is transported to the stream network. The sediment export is then calculated as:

$$ SE = A_{a} \times SDR $$

Where:

• $SE$ = sediment export (tons/ha/year)

Table 3: Key Parameters for Sediment Retention Modeling

Parameter	Description	Data Sources	Typical Values
Rainfall Erosivity (R)	Measure of precipitation energy and intensity	WorldClim, CHIRPS, local meteorological stations	100-10,000 MJ·mm/(ha·hr·year)
Soil Erodibility (K)	Soil susceptibility to erosion	FAO Soil Grids, local soil surveys	0.01-0.5 ton·hr/(MJ·mm)
Slope Factor (LS)	Combined slope length and steepness factor	Digital Elevation Model (DEM)	0-20 (dimensionless)
Cover-Management (C)	Effect of vegetation and management on erosion	Land cover classification, NDVI	0.001-1 (dimensionless)
Support Practice (P)	Effect of conservation practices	Land management data, expert knowledge	0.1-1 (dimensionless)

Source: Adapted from InVEST documentation and applications [38]

A study in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area utilized this module to analyze soil conservation services, finding that values initially declined and later climbed over the 1990-2020 period, with high-value areas primarily located in the reservoir's central and eastern sections [38]. This demonstrates the module's utility in tracking temporal changes in erosion regulation services.

Integrated Modeling Approaches: Coupling InVEST with Land Use Change Models

A powerful methodological advancement in spatio-temporal analysis of regulating ecosystem services involves coupling InVEST with land use change simulation models, particularly the Patch-generating Land Use Simulation (PLUS) model. This integrated approach allows researchers to project future changes in ecosystem services under different scenarios, providing valuable insights for spatial planning and policy development [36] [37] [35].

The PLUS model overcomes limitations of traditional cellular automaton models by introducing the "Land Expansion Analysis Strategy" (LEAS), which enables more accurate characterization of urban land expansion mechanisms [37]. When integrated with InVEST, this framework dynamically links land pattern changes with ecosystem service responses, creating a powerful tool for scenario analysis. The coupled modeling approach typically follows this workflow:

Diagram 1: Integrated PLUS-InVEST Modeling Workflow

Studies typically implement multiple scenarios to explore alternative development pathways. Common scenarios include [36] [37] [35]:

• Natural Development Scenario (NDS): Continuation of historical land use change trends without policy intervention.
• Ecological Protection Scenario (EPS): Prioritization of ecological conservation with restrictions on conversion of ecological land.
• Cultivated Land Protection Scenario (CPS): Strict protection of farmland with minimized conversion to other uses.
• Urban Development Scenario (UDS): Emphasis on urban expansion and economic development.

A 2025 study of Chengdu demonstrated this approach by simulating land use in 2030 under four scenarios and calculating associated carbon stock changes using InVEST [36]. The results revealed that under the Ecological Protection Scenario, forest area increased to 4035.258 km², achieving the largest carbon stock increase of 8.5853 × 10⁶ t [36]. Similarly, a study on the Wuhan metropolitan area employed the PLUS-InVEST-GeoDetector model to analyze spatiotemporal changes in carbon stock, finding that the ecological protection scenario effectively inhibited carbon stock loss compared to natural development and cultivated land protection scenarios [35].

Technical Implementation and Data Requirements

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Data and Tools

Successful implementation of InVEST models requires carefully prepared input data and computational tools. The following table outlines the essential "research reagents" for implementing the framework:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for InVEST Modeling

Category	Specific Data/Tools	Function/Purpose	Common Sources
Spatial Data	Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) maps	Base layer for ecosystem service assessment	Remote sensing (Landsat, Sentinel), national land cover databases
Biophysical Data	Carbon density values	Parameterization of carbon storage model	Field measurements, published literature, IPCC guidelines
Topographic Data	Digital Elevation Model (DEM)	Slope and flow direction calculation	SRTM, ASTER GDEM, national mapping agencies
Climate Data	Precipitation, temperature	Rainfall erosivity, water yield calculation	WorldClim, local meteorological stations, CHIRPS
Soil Data	Soil texture, organic matter	Soil erodibility factor calculation	FAO Soil Grids, Harmonized World Soil Database
Anthropogenic Data	Population density, road networks	Threat sources for habitat quality model	Census data, OpenStreetMap, national statistics
Software Tools	QGIS, ArcGIS	Spatial data preprocessing and result visualization	Open source (QGIS) or commercial (ArcGIS)
Validation Data	Field measurements, high-resolution imagery	Model validation and accuracy assessment	Field surveys, drone imagery, satellite imagery

Advanced Technical Features: Plugin Development

The InVEST framework now supports plugin development, allowing researchers to create custom models that integrate with the InVEST Workbench [39] [40]. This feature enables scientists to develop specialized ecosystem service models that leverage InVEST's user interface and data validation capabilities without going through the core model approval process [40].

Technically, an InVEST plugin is a Python package that conforms to the natcap.invest plugin API [39]. The plugin must include three key components:

• MODEL_SPEC: An object storing metadata about the model, its inputs, and outputs
• execute function: The function that runs the model logic with user-provided inputs
• validate function: Optional validation for input parameters

This extensibility significantly enhances the framework's adaptability to specific research contexts and emerging modeling approaches while maintaining a consistent user experience across different ecosystem service models.

Diagram 2: InVEST Plugin Architecture

Applications in Spatio-Temporal Research on Regulating Ecosystem Services

The InVEST framework has been extensively applied in research examining the spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services across diverse geographical contexts. These applications demonstrate the framework's versatility in addressing both theoretical and applied research questions.

A systematic review of regulating ecosystem services research highlighted their crucial role in maintaining global material flows and energy cycles, particularly in the context of climate change [1]. The review noted that regulating services such as air purification, climate regulation, water purification, and pollination have declined at the fastest rate among ecosystem service categories, emphasizing the importance of spatio-temporal assessment tools like InVEST [1].

Recent applications reveal several important patterns in regulating ecosystem services:

• Spatial Heterogeneity: Carbon storage typically exhibits distinct spatial patterns. A Chengdu study found a "high in the northwest, low in the center" distribution, with high-value areas concentrated in ecologically preserved mountain regions and low-value areas in urban centers [36].

• Temporal Trends: Most regions show declining trends in ecosystem services due to land use changes. The Shandong Province study documented a 3.6% decrease in habitat quality between 2000 and 2020 [37], while carbon storage in the same region declined by approximately 63 million tons during the same period [37].

• Scenario Dependencies: Future ecosystem service provision strongly depends on development pathways. Multiple studies consistently show that ecological protection scenarios yield significantly better outcomes for carbon storage, habitat quality, and sediment retention compared to business-as-usual or urban development scenarios [36] [37] [35].

• Driving Factors: Land use change emerges as the primary driver of spatial differentiation in carbon storage, followed by topographic factors and vegetation cover [35] [41]. A study of the Wuhan metropolitan area found that the order of importance for factors driving spatial differentiation of carbon stock was: land use > slope > elevation > NDVI [35].

These applications demonstrate how the InVEST framework enables researchers to move beyond static assessments to dynamic analyses of ecosystem service flows, tradeoffs, and drivers—essential insights for designing effective conservation strategies and sustainable land use policies in the context of global environmental change.

The spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services—such as carbon sequestration, water flow regulation, and erosion control—are fundamentally shaped by changes in land use and land cover (LULC) [42]. In the current "Anthropocene" era, land use has undergone unprecedented changes and intensification to meet the demands of a growing population, often resulting in negative impacts including deforestation, land degradation, habitat reduction, and biodiversity loss [42]. Understanding the dynamic interplay between human-modified landscapes and the continuous flow of ecosystem service bundles requires advanced technological frameworks capable of monitoring, quantifying, and predicting these complex relationships across spatial and temporal scales [43].

The integration of Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provides the foundational technology for such investigations, enabling large-scale, real-time, accurate, and consistent ground information collection, computation, and analysis [42]. This technical guide details the methodologies, analytical frameworks, and experimental protocols for employing RS and GIS to map LULC changes and evaluate their consequent effects on ecosystem service bundles, specifically within the context of regulating services research.

Theoretical Framework: From Land Use to Ecosystem Services

Land use change is a primary driver of alterations in ecosystem structure and function. Land cover refers to the biophysical characteristics of the Earth's surface (e.g., vegetation, water, soil), while land use describes how humans utilize and manage the land for economic activities [44]. The conversion between different land use types—Land Use and Land Cover Change (LULCC)—directly impacts ecosystem processes, biological cycles, and biodiversity, thereby modifying the capacity of landscapes to supply regulating services [44] [42].

The concept of ecosystem service bundles refers to sets of services that repeatedly appear together across space or time. RS and GIS facilitate the analysis of these bundles by:

• Identifying Spatio-temporal Patterns: Tracking changes in LULC that directly influence service-providing units.
• Quantifying Service Flows: Modeling the provision of services like water purification or climate regulation based on land cover characteristics.
• Analyzing Trade-offs and Synergies: Revealing the interrelationships between different regulating services resulting from specific land management decisions [42].

Methodologies for Monitoring and Predicting Land Use Change

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

Data Sources:

• Satellite Imagery: Landsat series (e.g., Landsat 5 TM, Landsat 8 OLI), Sentinel-2A MSI, and LISS-3 provide multi-spectral, multi-temporal data essential for historical change analysis [44] [43].
• Topographic Data: ASTER GDEM or ALOS PALSAR DEM offer critical elevation information for understanding terrain influences [44] [45].
• Ancillary Data: Soil samples, climate data, and socio-economic information ground-truth and enrich the remote sensing analysis [45].

Preprocessing Steps: Preprocessing ensures data quality and geometric correctness and is a prerequisite for reliable analysis.

• Radiometric Correction: Compensates for sensor errors and solar illumination differences.
• Atmospheric Correction: Converts raw digital numbers to surface reflectance, removing atmospheric haze effects.
• Geometric Correction & Georeferencing: Aligns imagery to a real-world coordinate system, allowing integration with other geographic data [46].
• Orthorectification: Removes displacement due to sensor tilt and terrain relief using rigorous photogrammetric workflows and elevation models [46].

Land Use and Land Cover Classification

Image classification translates spectral information into thematic LULC maps.

• Classification System: Establish a defined set of LULC classes relevant to the study (e.g., urban, cropland, forest, water, barren land).
• Algorithm Selection:
  • Supervised Classification: Uses user-defined training samples to classify imagery via algorithms like Maximum Likelihood or Support Vector Machines.
  • Machine Learning: Random Forest algorithms, enhanced with variable selection techniques like the Boruta algorithm, have demonstrated high accuracy in predicting soil properties and, by extension, land characteristics from orbital variables [45].
  • Deep Learning: Uses neural networks to detect complex patterns in imagery for feature extraction and classification [46].
• Accuracy Assessment: Validation is conducted using ground-truth data and metrics like the Kappa index to quantify classification reliability. A Kappa value of 0.8128, as achieved in a Jiangle, China case study, indicates a high level of agreement between predicted and actual land use maps [44].

Land Change Modeling and Prediction

The CA-Markov model is a widely used and effective hybrid model for predicting future LULC. It integrates the ability of:

• Markov Chains: To calculate quantitative transition probabilities between LULC classes over a specified period based on historical changes.
• Cellular Automata (CA): To simulate the spatial allocation of these changes by considering local interaction rules and spatial constraints [44].

Table 1: Key Land Change Models for Ecosystem Services Research

Model Name	Core Mechanism	Advantages	Common Use Case
CA-Markov [44]	Markov chain (transition probabilities) + Cellular Automata (spatial simulation)	Dynamic simulation capability; ability to simulate complex patterns; efficient with data scarcity.	Projecting urban expansion and its impact on regional ecosystem services.
Land Change Modeler [43]	Integrated modeling environment within GIS software	User-friendly GUI; direct change analysis and prediction; habitat monitoring tools.	Modeling deforestation trajectories and conservation planning.

Experimental Protocol: CA-Markov Model Application

A standardized protocol for predicting LULC using the CA-Markov model is outlined below, based on established research [44].

• Input Data Preparation: Acquire classified LULC maps for at least two historical dates (e.g., T1: 1992, T2: 2003).
• Transition Area Matrix Generation: Use the Markov chain module in software like IDRISI/TerrSet to analyze the LULC maps from T1 and T2. This generates a matrix quantifying the area that transitioned from one class to another over the time interval.
• Transition Probability Matrix Creation: The software calculates conditional transition probabilities—the likelihood that a pixel of a given class at T1 will transition to another class by T2.
• Suitability Map Collection: Create multi-criteria evaluation maps that define the suitability of various locations for each LULC type. These act as spatial constraints and drivers for the CA model.
• Model Validation: Run the CA-Markov model to predict a LULC map for a known date (e.g., 2014). Compare this prediction to the actual, observed 2014 LULC map using the Kappa index to validate model performance.
• Future Scenario Simulation: Once validated, apply the model using the most recent LULC map as a base to simulate future scenarios (e.g., 2025, 2036) [44].

Quantifying Ecological Effects and Ecosystem Services

With accurate LULC maps and projections, the next step is to quantify the associated ecological effects and ecosystem service bundles.

Quantification of Ecosystem Service Bundles

Different LULC types provide different quantities and combinations of ecosystem services. The following table summarizes common proxies and methods for quantifying key regulating services.

Table 2: Proxy Indicators and Methods for Quantifying Regulating Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem Service	Proxy Indicator / Model Input	RS/GIS Data & Methodology
Carbon Sequestration	Above-ground biomass, LULC class carbon storage coefficients	Vegetation indices (NDVI) from multispectral data; LULC maps combined with look-up tables for carbon stocks [42].
Water Flow Regulation	Curve Number (CN), impervious surface area, soil permeability	LULC maps classified for hydrological soil groups; spectral analysis for impervious surface mapping [43].
Erosion Control	Vegetation cover, topography, soil erodibility	NDVI from RS; slope from DEM; RUSLE model integration in GIS [42].
Water Purification	(Non-Point Source) Pollution risk, vegetative filter strips	LULC maps as a primary input for pollutant loading models; buffer analysis along waterways in GIS [42].

Analyzing Trade-offs, Synergies, and Drivers

• Spatial Statistics: Use GIS-based tools to calculate the spatial correlation between the provision of different services, identifying areas of synergy (e.g., high carbon storage and high erosion control) and trade-offs (e.g., high crop yield but low water quality) [42].
• Driving Mechanism Analysis: Reveal the coupled natural and anthropogenic drivers of LULCC and subsequent service changes by integrating RS-derived LULC data with socio-economic data (e.g., population density, GDP) in statistical models [44] [42].
• Scenario Analysis and Optimization: Simulate LULC under different development scenarios (e.g., business-as-usual, conservation-focused) to project their impacts on ecosystem service bundles. This supports creating adaptation strategies for future challenges [42].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

This section details key software, data, and analytical "reagents" essential for conducting research in this field.

Table 3: Essential Research Toolkit for RS/GIS-based Land Use and Ecosystem Service Analysis

Tool / Solution	Type	Primary Function	Application Example
ArcGIS Pro with Image Analyst Extension [46]	Software Suite	Imagery management, visualization, advanced raster analysis, and classification.	Performing multidimensional analysis, using deep learning for feature extraction, and generating suitability maps.
IDRISI/TerrSet [44]	Software Suite	Land change modeling and analysis.	Implementing the CA-Markov model to generate transition probabilities and future LULC scenarios.
Sentinel-2 & Landsat Imagery [44] [43]	Satellite Data	Multi-spectral surface reflectance data.	Base data for LULC classification and calculation of vegetation indices (NDVI) over time.
ASTER GDEM / ALOS PALSAR DEM [44] [45]	Topographic Data	Digital Elevation Model.	Deriving slope and aspect for erosion modeling and integrating topography as a driver in land change models.
ColorBrewer Schemes [47]	Cartographic Resource	Color-blind safe color schemes for map design.	Ensuring accessibility and clear communication of LULC and ecosystem service maps.
Random Forest Algorithm [45]	Analytical Method	Machine learning classifier and regression tool.	Predicting soil physicochemical properties (e.g., clay, CEC) from a fusion of remote sensing data.

The integration of Remote Sensing and GIS provides an indispensable, powerful framework for deciphering the complex linkages between land use change and the spatio-temporal dynamics of ecosystem service bundles. The methodologies detailed in this guide—from rigorous LULC classification and CA-Markov-based prediction to the quantification of regulating services—provide researchers with a structured approach to inform sustainable land management. By leveraging these technologies and protocols, scientists and policymakers can move beyond simply documenting change towards actively forecasting futures, evaluating trade-offs, and optimizing land-use strategies to enhance ecological resilience and human well-being.

Within the expanding field of spatio-temporal ecosystem services research, quantifying the economic value of regulating services—such as carbon sequestration, water purification, and climate regulation—presents a significant methodological challenge. This technical guide examines two prominent economic valuation methods: the Equivalence Factor Method and the Benefit Transfer Approach [48] [49]. These methods enable researchers to estimate ecosystem service values (ESV) across different temporal and spatial scales, providing critical data for integrating ecological considerations into policy-making, land-use planning, and sustainable development strategies [50]. The ability to track the spatio-temporal dynamics of these values is essential for assessing the impacts of environmental changes, evaluating the effectiveness of conservation policies, and guiding future ecological management [51] [52].

Theoretical Foundations and Definitions

Ecosystem Service Valuation Framework

Ecosystem services are classified into four primary categories: provisioning services (e.g., food, water), regulating services (e.g., climate regulation, water purification), supporting services (e.g., nutrient cycling, soil formation), and cultural services (e.g., recreation, aesthetic values) [52]. Economic valuation assigns monetary values to these services, particularly those not traded in traditional markets, to make their contributions to human welfare explicit in decision-making processes [49].

Valuation methods are broadly categorized into market-based and non-market-based approaches [49]. Market-based methods utilize existing market prices, while non-market methods employ techniques such as stated preference surveys (e.g., contingent valuation) or revealed preference approaches (e.g., travel cost method). Both the Equivalence Factor and Benefit Transfer methods typically rely on data derived from these primary valuation techniques [49] [50].

Role in Spatio-Temporal Research

In spatio-temporal studies of regulating ecosystem services, these valuation methods facilitate:

• Temporal Trend Analysis: Tracking how ecosystem values change over time in response to environmental policies, land use changes, or climate change [52].
• Spatial Heterogeneity Mapping: Identifying geographic variations in ecosystem service values across regions, landscapes, or administrative boundaries [51] [53].
• Policy Impact Assessment: Evaluating the economic benefits of conservation programs, restoration projects, or regulatory interventions [48].
• Trade-off Analysis: Quantifying opportunity costs between different land uses or ecosystem services to inform spatial planning [54].

The Equivalence Factor Method

Conceptual Framework and Methodology

The Equivalence Factor Method, also known as the unit value transfer approach, employs standardized coefficients representing the economic value per unit area of specific ecosystem types [53] [52]. This method was pioneered by Costanza et al. (1997), who established global average unit values for 17 ecosystem services across 16 biomes [52]. Xie Gaodi and colleagues further developed the approach by creating a customized equivalent factor table for Chinese ecosystems, where one equivalent factor represents the economic value of one hectare of average farmland's annual ecosystem service value [55] [52].

The methodological workflow involves identifying relevant ecosystem types, applying appropriate value coefficients, and scaling these values according to the spatial extent of each ecosystem. The fundamental calculation is expressed as:

Where:

• ESV = Total Ecosystem Service Value
• A_i = Area of ecosystem type i
• V_i = Value coefficient for ecosystem type i

Table 1: Standard Equivalent Factors for Key Ecosystem Types (adapted from Xie et al.)

Ecosystem Type	Provisioning Services	Regulating Services	Supporting Services	Cultural Services	Total Equivalent Value
Forest Land	0.33	3.50	2.61	1.28	7.72
Grassland	0.15	1.34	0.92	0.57	2.98
Cropland	0.43	0.72	0.14	0.09	1.38
Wetlands	0.36	3.20	2.31	1.24	7.11
Water Bodies	0.53	2.59	0.35	1.09	4.56
Barren Land	0.00	0.11	0.10	0.05	0.26

Technical Implementation Protocol

Step 1: Land Cover Classification Utilize remote sensing data (e.g., Landsat, Sentinel) classified into standardized ecosystem categories. The European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative Land Cover (ESA CCI-LC) data with 300m resolution is recommended for temporal analyses [52].

Step 2: Equivalent Factor Calibration Adjust standard equivalent factors to reflect local socioeconomic and ecological conditions. The calibration formula is:

Where:

• V_{i,local} = Calibrated value for ecosystem type i in study area
• V_{i,standard} = Standard equivalent factor for ecosystem type i
• NP_{local} = Net profit per unit area of farmland in study area
• NP_{national} = National average net profit per unit area of farmland [55]

Step 3: Spatial Analysis Calculate ecosystem service values using GIS software:

• Convert land cover maps to ecosystem type maps
• Apply value coefficients through raster calculator operations
• Aggregate values by administrative units or watershed boundaries

Step 4: Temporal Analysis Repeat the process for multiple time periods to track changes in ESV. Implement change detection algorithms to identify hotspots of ESV gain or loss [52].

Applications in Spatio-Temporal Research

The Equivalence Factor Method has been extensively applied in China to assess national and regional ecosystem service value dynamics. For instance, one study analyzing changes from 1992 to 2020 revealed that China's total ESV generally decreased before 2015 but stabilized in recent years, with forest land contributing approximately 62.9% of the total ESV [52]. Hotspots with rising ESV were concentrated in western, northern, and southwestern China, while cold spots with declining ESV were found in economically developed eastern and southern regions [52].

In the Upper Minjiang River, researchers combined the Equivalence Factor Method with the InVEST model, finding that ESVs increased by 31.28% from 2000 to 2020, indicating continuously improving ecological quality [53]. Spatial autocorrelation analysis (Moran's I > 0.5) revealed obvious "High-High" and "Low-Low" clustering of ESV, demonstrating distinct geographical variation [53].

The Benefit Transfer Method

Conceptual Framework and Methodology

Benefit Transfer refers to "the use of existing data or information in settings other than for what it was originally collected" [50]. This approach estimates economic values for ecosystem services at a policy site by transferring available value estimates from previously studied sites with similar characteristics [48]. The method is particularly valuable when time and budget constraints prevent original valuation studies [48] [50].

Two primary benefit transfer approaches are commonly employed:

• Unit Value Transfer: Direct application of value estimates from study sites to policy sites with similar contexts [48].
• Function Transfer: Transfer of entire benefit functions that statistically relate willingness-to-pay to characteristics of the ecosystem and affected population [48].

Table 2: Comparison of Benefit Transfer Approaches

Characteristic	Unit Value Transfer	Function Transfer
Data Requirements	Single value or average from existing studies	Complete benefit function with parameter estimates
Analytical Complexity	Low	Moderate to High
Adjustment Flexibility	Limited	Extensive (can adjust for site and population differences)
Accuracy	Lower (unless sites very similar)	Higher (with adequate adjustment variables)
Common Applications	Preliminary assessments, screening analyses	Policy analyses, regulatory impact assessments

Technical Implementation Protocol

Step 1: Identify Existing Studies Conduct systematic literature review to identify relevant primary valuation studies. Key databases include the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD), which contains over 6,700 value records from 950+ studies [52].

Step 2: Assess Transferability Evaluate compatibility between study sites and policy sites using these criteria:

• Ecosystem Comparability: Similar types of sites, quality attributes, and availability of substitutes [48]
• Population Comparability: Similar demographics, preferences, and cultural contexts [48]
• Valuation Context: Similar type and scale of environmental change being valued [50]

Step 3: Evaluate Study Quality Assess methodological rigor of primary studies using criteria such as:

• Sampling strategy and representativeness
• Valuation methodology appropriateness
• Statistical analysis quality
• Peer review status [48]

Step 4: Adjust Values Modify transferred values to account for differences between study and policy sites:

• Income adjustments using elasticity coefficients
• Quantity/quality adjustments based on biophysical data
• Meta-analysis to derive adjusted value functions [50]

Step 5: Aggregate Benefits Calculate total benefits by multiplying adjusted unit values by the relevant population or resource extent:

Where:

• TB = Total Benefits
• UV_{adj} = Adjusted unit value
• P = Affected population
• A = Affected area [48]

Applications in Spatio-Temporal Research

Benefit transfer has supported numerous spatio-temporal analyses of regulating ecosystem services. In a Michigan case study, researchers transferred wetland restoration values from Ohio's Lake Erie coastal wetlands to estimate benefits for protecting and restoring coastal wetlands along Saginaw Bay [48]. The transferred values ranged from $500 to $9,000 per acre for drainage basin residents and $7,200 to $61,000 per acre for state residents, providing crucial data for wetland purchase and restoration decisions [48].

Another application assessed Clean Water Act benefits for the pulp and paper industry, where researchers transferred value estimates from studies of the Charles River and Monongahela River to 68 mill sites [48]. The analysis revealed that benefits ($66 million) reached only two-thirds of compliance costs ($95.5 million), informing regulatory decisions [48].

Recent methodological advancements include spatial benefit transfer techniques that incorporate GIS to map ecosystem service values, addressing the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) and enhancing spatial explicitness in valuation exercises [50].

Comparative Analysis and Integration

Methodological Comparison

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Valuation Methods for Spatio-Temporal Research

Characteristic	Equivalence Factor Method	Benefit Transfer Method
Theoretical Basis	Modified from Costanza et al. (1997) with regional adjustments	Welfare economics; utility theory
Data Requirements	Land cover data; agricultural economic statistics	Existing valuation studies; site characteristic data
Spatial Explicitness	High (GIS-compatible)	Variable (can be enhanced with spatial analysis)
Temporal Flexibility	High (easily applied to multiple time periods)	Moderate (dependent on primary study dates)
Primary Strengths	Standardized application; comprehensive coverage; temporal consistency	Grounded in empirical valuation; handles diverse services
Key Limitations	May not reflect local variations in preferences	Transfer errors; dependent on study availability
Ideal Applications	Regional/national assessments; time series analysis; land use change impact	Policy analysis; regulatory impact assessment; cost-benefit analysis

Integrated Approaches

Leading research increasingly combines these methods with biophysical modeling to enhance spatio-temporal valuation accuracy. The Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model exemplifies this approach, combining spatial biophysical modeling with economic valuation [53]. For example, in the Upper Minjiang River, researchers used InVEST alongside the Equivalence Factor Method, finding complementary results with ESV increases of 31.28% (Equivalence Factor) and 22.47% (InVEST) from 2000 to 2020 [53].

Advanced spatio-temporal analyses also incorporate:

• Spatial autocorrelation (Global and Local Moran's I) to identify ESV clustering patterns [51] [53]
• Geographically weighted regression to explore spatially varying relationships between ESV and driving factors [51] [54]
• Geodetector analysis to identify key factors (e.g., slope, human activity intensity) driving ESV spatial differentiation [53]

Table 4: Essential Resources for Ecosystem Service Valuation Research

Resource/Solution	Function/Application	Data Format/Scale	Source/Access
ESA CCI-LC Data	Provides consistent global land cover data for 1992-2020	300m resolution; annual	ESA Climate Change Initiative
InVEST Model	Spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling and valuation	Variable (typically 100-1000m)	Natural Capital Project
ESVD Database	Repository of ecosystem service value estimates for benefit transfer	Global coverage; multiple services	Foundation for Sustainable Development
Equivalent Factor Tables	Standardized value coefficients for Chinese ecosystems	National/regional coefficients	Literature (Xie et al.)
Spatial Autocorrelation Tools	Analyze clustering patterns of ecosystem service values	GIS-compatible (Global/Local Moran's I)	GeoDa; ArcGIS; R
Geodetector Software	Identify driving factors of ESV spatial differentiation	Statistical analysis package	R; specialized geodetector tools

The Equivalence Factor and Benefit Transfer methods provide complementary approaches for analyzing the spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services. The Equivalence Factor Method offers standardized, reproducible valuation suitable for tracking changes across large spatial and temporal scales, while the Benefit Transfer Approach provides empirically grounded values transferable to policy-relevant contexts. Methodological integration—combining these economic valuation techniques with biophysical modeling, spatial statistics, and temporal trend analysis—represents the cutting edge of ecosystem services research. As these methods continue to evolve with improved spatial explicitness, temporal dynamics, and uncertainty characterization, they will increasingly support evidence-based decisions in territorial spatial planning, ecological compensation mechanisms, and sustainable land management policies.

Time-series trend analysis is a fundamental statistical approach for identifying consistent patterns or directional changes in data collected over time [56]. In the specific context of spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services (ES) research, understanding long-term trends is crucial for assessing ecosystem health, validating climate models, and informing environmental policy [57] [58]. Regulating ecosystem services, which include climate regulation, water purification, flood control, and erosion prevention, exhibit complex temporal dynamics driven by both natural processes and human activities [17].

The Mann-Kendall (MK) test, combined with Sen's slope estimator (often referred to as Sen-MK), has emerged as a particularly valuable methodology for trend analysis in ecological and environmental sciences [57] [58]. This non-parametric approach is robust against non-normally distributed data and missing values, which are common challenges in long-term ecological monitoring datasets [57]. Its application allows researchers to statistically distinguish meaningful environmental trends from random fluctuations, providing critical insights into the persistence and magnitude of changes in ecosystem functioning [59].

This technical guide provides an in-depth examination of the Sen-MK methodology, detailing its theoretical foundation, practical implementation, and specific applications within regulating ecosystem services research. By framing this statistical approach within the context of spatio-temporal ecosystem analysis, we aim to equip researchers and scientists with the necessary tools to effectively quantify and interpret trends in ecosystem service dynamics.

Theoretical Foundation

The Mann-Kendall Test

The Mann-Kendall test is a non-parametric statistical test used to identify monotonic trends in time series data [60]. As a rank-based procedure, it does not require the data to follow a specific distribution, making it particularly suitable for analyzing environmental datasets that often deviate from normality [57].

The test operates by evaluating the null hypothesis (H₀) that there is no trend in the time series against the alternative hypothesis (H₁) that a monotonic trend exists [57]. The test statistic S is calculated as follows:

[S = \sum{i=1}^{n-1} \sum{j=i+1}^{n} \text{sgn}(xj - xi)]

where (xj) and (xi) are sequential data values, (n) is the length of the time series, and the sign function (\text{sgn}()) returns +1 if the argument is positive, -1 if negative, and 0 if zero [60].

For datasets with 10 or more observations, the S statistic is approximately normally distributed, and its variance is calculated accounting for possible ties in the data:

[\text{Var}(S) = \frac{n(n-1)(2n+5) - \sum{k=1}^{m} tk(tk-1)(2tk+5)}{18}]

where (m) is the number of tied groups and (t_k) is the number of observations in the (k)-th tied group [60].

The standardized test statistic Z is then computed as:

[Z = \begin{cases} \frac{S-1}{\sqrt{\text{Var}(S)}} & \text{if } S > 0 \ 0 & \text{if } S = 0 \ \frac{S+1}{\sqrt{\text{Var}(S)}} & \text{if } S < 0 \end{cases}]

This Z statistic follows a standard normal distribution, allowing for significance testing of the observed trend [60].

Sen's Slope Estimator

While the Mann-Kendall test detects whether a significant trend exists, Sen's slope estimator quantifies the magnitude of that trend [57]. This non-parametric method calculates the median slope between all pairs of data points in the time series, making it robust against outliers and missing data.

The slope estimate for each data pair is computed as:

[Qi = \frac{xj - x_k}{j-k} \quad \text{for } i = 1, 2, \dots, N]

where (xj) and (xk) are data values at times (j) and (k) respectively ((j > k)), and (N) is the number of data pairs [57].

Sen's slope estimator is then the median of these N values:

[\beta = \begin{cases} Q{(N+1)/2} & \text{if } N \text{ is odd} \ \frac{Q{N/2} + Q_{(N+2)/2}}{2} & \text{if } N \text{ is even} \end{cases}]

This approach provides a robust estimate of the trend magnitude that is less sensitive to extreme values than ordinary least squares regression [57].

Handling Autocorrelation in Ecological Time Series

A critical assumption of the Mann-Kendall test is that data are serially independent [57]. However, most atmospheric and ecological processes exhibit positive autocorrelation, where consecutive measurements are correlated [57]. When positive autocorrelation is present, the standard Mann-Kendall test tends to increase type 1 errors (false positives) by inflating the significance of trends [57].

Table 1: Approaches for Addressing Autocorrelation in Mann-Kendall Analysis

Method	Description	Advantages	Limitations
Prewhitening (PW)	Removes lag-1 autocorrelation from original data: (Xt^{PW} = Xt - ak1{data}X{t-1}) [57]	Reduces type 1 errors	May increase type 2 errors (false negatives)
Variance Correction	Inflates variance of S statistic to account for number of independent observations [57]	Preserves significance level in absence of trend	Less effective with correlated time series and existing trends
Time Aggregation	Averages data over longer intervals (monthly, seasonal, yearly) [57]	Effectively decreases autocorrelation	Reduces information density and statistical power
3PW Algorithm	Combines three prewhitening methods to maximize test power while minimizing erroneous trends [57]	Handles autocorrelation without decreasing test power	More complex implementation

To address this issue, prewhitening procedures are often applied before trend analysis. These methods remove the autoregressive component from the time series, with the most common approach being the removal of lag-1 autocorrelation [57]. The choice of prewhitening method has significant consequences for both statistical significance and the value of the slope estimate, particularly for time series with strong autocorrelation [57].

Methodological Protocols

Complete Sen-MK Workflow

The implementation of Sen-MK trend analysis follows a systematic workflow that encompasses data preparation, statistical testing, trend quantification, and interpretation. The complete process, including critical decision points for handling autocorrelation, is visualized below:

Python Implementation Code

The following Python code demonstrates the practical implementation of Sen-MK trend analysis with prewhitening for autocorrelation:

Seasonal Mann-Kendall Test

For ecosystem service data with seasonal patterns (e.g., monthly measurements of water yield or carbon sequestration), the seasonal Mann-Kendall test extends the standard approach to account for seasonality [57]. This method computes the Mann-Kendall statistic separately for each season and combines the results:

[S{\text{seasonal}} = \sum{k=1}^{m} S_k]

where (S_k) is the Mann-Kendall statistic for season (k), and (m) is the number of seasons [57]. The variance is similarly aggregated across seasons, providing a more appropriate assessment of trends in seasonal data.

Applications in Regulating Ecosystem Services Research

Case Studies and Quantitative Findings

The Sen-MK methodology has been extensively applied in regulating ecosystem services research to quantify long-term trends and their drivers. The table below summarizes key findings from recent studies:

Table 2: Sen-MK Trend Analysis Applications in Ecosystem Services Research

Ecosystem Service	Study Area	Time Period	Key Findings	Driving Factors
Water Yield [58]	Luo River Basin, China	1999-2020	Average annual growth rate of 4.71% with spatial increase >90%	Precipitation, vegetation coverage (NDVI), slope
Carbon Storage [58]	Luo River Basin, China	1999-2020	Average annual growth rate of 0.05% with spatial increase >90%	Forest expansion from "Grain for Green" program
Soil Retention [58]	Luo River Basin, China	1999-2020	Average annual growth rate of 8.97% with spatial increase >90%	Vegetation coverage, slope, precipitation patterns
Habitat Quality [58]	Luo River Basin, China	1999-2020	Average annual decrease of 0.31% with 39.76% of region declining	Urban expansion, land use transformation
Multiple ES [17]	Coastal Zone of China	2000-2022	Fluctuating growth trend (k=0.017, R²=0.175) with weakening synergistic effects	Social factors (stronger influence) vs. natural factors (weaker influence)

These quantitative findings demonstrate the utility of Sen-MK analysis in detecting subtle but ecologically significant trends in regulating ecosystem services. The method's robustness to non-normal data distributions makes it particularly valuable for environmental datasets that often exhibit skewness and outliers [58].

Spatio-Temporal Pattern Analysis

In the Luo River Basin, a tributary of the Yellow River, Sen-MK analysis revealed distinct spatio-temporal patterns in regulating ecosystem services [58]. The spatial distribution of ecosystem services showed a pattern of "low in the northeast and high in the southwest," closely mirroring forest distribution patterns [58]. This spatial analysis, combined with trend detection, enabled researchers to identify areas of ecosystem service degradation and prioritize conservation interventions.

The integration of Sen-MK trend analysis with spatial statistics like hot and cold spot analysis further enhances the methodology's utility for spatial planning and ecological management [58]. This combined approach allows researchers to identify not only whether ecosystem services are changing but where these changes are most pronounced, supporting targeted governance strategies.

Essential Research Toolkit

Computational Tools and Libraries

Implementing Sen-MK trend analysis requires specialized computational tools and libraries that facilitate statistical analysis and visualization:

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Sen-MK Analysis

Tool/Library	Primary Function	Application in Sen-MK Analysis	Implementation Examples
Python pandas [61]	Data manipulation and analysis	Handling time-series data structures, resampling, rolling window calculations	Data aggregation to address autocorrelation, missing value handling
NumPy [61]	Numerical computations	Mathematical operations for Sen's slope calculation, array manipulations	Computation of pairwise slopes for Sen's estimator
SciPy [60]	Statistical functions	Probability distributions for significance testing, optimization algorithms	Calculation of p-values for Mann-Kendall test statistic
Matplotlib [61]	Data visualization	Creating trend visualizations, time series plots, and result displays	Plotting original data with trend lines and confidence intervals
statsmodels [60]	Statistical modeling	Autocorrelation analysis, advanced time series modeling	Lag-1 autocorrelation testing for prewhitening decisions

Data Requirements and Preparation

Successful application of Sen-MK analysis in ecosystem services research depends on appropriate data collection and preprocessing:

• Temporal Coverage: Long-term time series are essential for reliable trend detection. Studies typically require at least 10-20 years of data for robust analysis [57] [58].

• Data Quality: Addressing missing values, outliers, and measurement errors is crucial before trend analysis. Common approaches include interpolation for missing values and smoothing techniques for noisy data [59].

• Seasonal Adjustment: For data with strong seasonal patterns (e.g., quarterly measurements of water yield), seasonal decomposition methods may be necessary before trend analysis [59].

• Spatial Alignment: When analyzing spatial patterns of ecosystem service trends, consistent spatial units and temporal resolution across datasets are essential for valid comparisons [58].

The Sen-MK methodology provides a robust statistical framework for detecting and quantifying trends in regulating ecosystem services. Its non-parametric nature makes it particularly suitable for ecological datasets that often violate the assumptions of parametric tests. Through proper implementation, including appropriate handling of autocorrelation through prewhitening methods, researchers can obtain reliable insights into long-term ecosystem dynamics.

The application of this methodology across various case studies has demonstrated its value in identifying significant trends in critical regulating services such as water yield, carbon storage, soil retention, and habitat quality. These insights are essential for developing evidence-based environmental policies and spatial management strategies that maintain and enhance ecosystem service provision in the face of environmental change.

As ecosystem services research continues to evolve, the integration of Sen-MK trend analysis with spatial statistics, machine learning approaches, and process-based models will further enhance our ability to understand and predict the complex dynamics of social-ecological systems. This integrated approach will support more effective governance of natural resources and promote the sustainability of essential regulating ecosystem services.

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RESs) are the benefits derived from the regulatory effects of biophysical processes, including air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural disaster regulation, water regulation, water purification, erosion regulation, and pollination [1]. These services play a crucial role in maintaining ecological security and achieving human well-being, yet they have experienced significant global decline over the past 50 years [1]. Understanding the spatio-temporal dynamics of these services, particularly their synergistic and trade-off relationships, represents a critical research frontier in landscape sustainability science [1].

The integration of spatial clustering and hotspot analysis provides powerful methodological approaches for identifying patterns in ecosystem service (ES) provision, characterizing ES bundles (co-occurring suites of services), and uncovering the drivers behind service synergies and trade-offs. These techniques enable researchers to move beyond simple mapping to statistically robust identification of areas where multiple ESs interact in complex ways [62] [27] [58]. For RESs specifically, which include services like water conservation, soil retention, carbon sequestration, and climate regulation, understanding these spatial relationships is essential for effective ecological management and policy development [27].

Theoretical Foundations: ES Bundles, Synergies, and Trade-offs

Defining Ecosystem Service Relationships

Ecosystem services do not occur in isolation but rather form complex networks of interactions characterized by either synergies (where multiple services increase or decrease together) or trade-offs (where one service increases at the expense of another) [62] [63]. These relationships arise from the underlying biophysical and socio-economic processes that link drivers to ES provision [63].

The framework developed by Bennett et al. (2009) outlines four primary mechanistic pathways through which drivers affect ES relationships [63]:

• Direct single effect: A driver affects one ES without impacting another
• Direct with interaction: A driver affects one ES that interacts with another ES
• Independent direct effects: A driver directly affects two independent ESs
• Joint effects with interaction: A driver affects two ESs that also interact with each other

The Significance of ES Bundles

Ecosystem service bundles are defined as "combinations of ecosystem services that occur repeatedly in time or space and are closely related to each other" [58]. Identifying these bundles allows researchers to:

• Recognize consistent patterns of co-occurring services across landscapes
• Understand how social-ecological systems generate multiple ES simultaneously
• Develop targeted management strategies for different bundle types
• Anticipate trade-offs that might result from management interventions aimed at enhancing specific services

Methodological Framework: Spatial Clustering and Hotspot Analysis Techniques

Spatial Autocorrelation and Clustering Fundamentals

Spatial autocorrelation measures the degree to which spatial objects are similar or dissimilar to their neighbors, with positive spatial autocorrelation indicating that similar values tend to cluster together [64]. This fundamental concept underpins all spatial clustering and hotspot analysis methods.

Table 1: Key Spatial Clustering Algorithms and Their Applications in ES Research

Algorithm Type	Key Characteristics	ES Research Applications	Strengths	Limitations
Hierarchical Clustering	Creates tree-like structure (dendrogram) by iteratively merging/splitting clusters	Identifying nested ES patterns at multiple scales	No preset cluster number required; reveals hierarchical structure	Computationally intensive for large datasets [64]
K-means Clustering	Partitional clustering dividing data into predetermined number of clusters	ES bundle identification through spatio-temporal clustering	Computationally efficient; suitable for large datasets	Requires pre-specification of cluster number (k) [64] [58]
Density-based (DBSCAN)	Identifies clusters as dense regions separated by lower density areas	Detecting ES hotspots in heterogeneous landscapes	Finds arbitrarily shaped clusters; robust to noise	Struggles with varying densities [64]
Self-Organizing Maps (SOM)	Unsupervised artificial neural network for dimensionality reduction	Identifying ES bundles with high fault tolerance and stability	Handles nonlinear relationships; good for pattern recognition	Complex implementation and interpretation [58]

Hot Spot Analysis Using Getis-Ord Gi* Statistic

The Getis-Ord Gi* statistic is a local indicator of spatial association (LISA) that measures the degree of spatial clustering of high or low values around a specific location [65] [64]. The statistic is calculated as:

[ Gi^* = \frac{\sum{j}W{ij}Xj}{\sum{j}Xj} ]

Where (W{ij}) represents the spatial weight between features i and j, and (Xj) represents the attribute value for feature j [66]. The resulting z-scores and p-values indicate whether the observed spatial clustering of high or low values is more pronounced than would be expected in a random distribution [65].

Interpretation of Gi* results:

• Statistically significant positive z-scores indicate spatial clustering of high values ("hot spots")
• Statistically significant negative z-scores indicate spatial clustering of low values ("cold spots")
• Z-scores near zero indicate no apparent spatial clustering

The confidence level of hotspots is typically categorized using the Gi_Bin field, where features in the ±3 bins reflect statistical significance with a 99% confidence level, ±2 bins reflect 95% confidence, and ±1 bins reflect 90% confidence [65].

Emerging Hot Spot Analysis (EHSA)

Emerging Hot Spot Analysis combines the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic with the Mann-Kendall trend test to evaluate how hotspots and cold spots change over time [66]. This method:

• Calculates Gi* for each time period
• Treats the series of Gi* values at each location as a time-series
• Evaluates trends using the Mann-Kendall test
• Classifies locations into 17 unique categories based on their hotspot status and temporal trend

The Mann-Kendall test evaluates monotonic trends (consistently increasing or decreasing patterns) and produces a tau statistic ranging from -1 (perfectly decreasing) to 1 (perfectly increasing) along with a p-value indicating statistical significance [66].

Integrated Workflow for Identifying ES Bundles and Synergies

The following workflow diagram illustrates the integrated process for identifying ecosystem service bundles and analyzing service synergies using spatial clustering and hotspot analysis:

Data Preparation and ES Quantification

The initial phase involves quantifying multiple regulating ecosystem services using standardized approaches:

• Water Yield: Calculated using the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model [27] [58]
• Carbon Storage: Estimated through InVEST or based on land use/land cover data [27]
• Soil Retention: Modeled using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) within InVEST [27] [58]
• Habitat Quality: Assessed through InVEST habitat quality module [62] [58]

All ES metrics should be calculated consistently across the study area and normalized to allow comparison. The data are then structured into a spatial grid or analysis units (e.g., watersheds, administrative units) suitable for spatial statistics [62].

Spatial Clustering and Hotspot Detection

This phase implements statistical approaches to identify significant spatial patterns:

• Global Spatial Autocorrelation: Assess overall clustering tendency using Global Moran's I [67] [64]
• Hotspot Analysis: Apply Getis-Ord Gi* to identify statistically significant clusters of high and low ES values [65] [27]
• Spatial Clustering: Use algorithms like K-means or SOM to identify ES bundles based on co-occurrence patterns [58]

Analyzing ES Relationships and Drivers

The final phase focuses on understanding relationships between services and their underlying drivers:

• Trade-off/Synergy Quantification: Calculate correlation coefficients between pairwise ES combinations [62] [63]
• Spatial Regression Modeling: Apply multi-scale geographically weighted regression (MGWR) to understand spatially varying relationships between ES and potential drivers [62] [58]
• Driver Analysis: Use geographical detector methods to identify dominant factors (e.g., precipitation, NDVI, slope, land use) influencing ES patterns and their interactions [58]

Case Study Applications and Findings

Tropical Rainforest National Park Case Study

Research in Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park (HTRNP) demonstrated the practical application of these methods. The study:

• Quantified five RESs (water conservation, soil retention, carbon sequestration, oxygen release, climate regulation) from 2000-2020 using InVEST models [27]
• Identified strong spatial clustering (Moran's I > 0.5, Z > 2.58) with hotspots in eastern/central regions and cold spots in western/northern regions [27]
• Found climate regulation services accounted for the highest proportion (61.4%) of total RES value [27]
• Used LightGBM machine learning to identify annual precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, land use/land cover, and Human Footprint Index as primary drivers [27]

Semi-Arid Region Case Study

In Bairin Left Banner, a semi-arid region in China, researchers:

• Documented significant trade-offs between carbon storage and water yield due to afforestation activities [62]
• Found water yield decreased by up to 50% in some areas despite ecological restoration efforts [62]
• Used geographically weighted regression to reveal spatially heterogeneous relationships between ES trade-offs and their drivers [62]
• Identified that trade-offs between carbon storage-habitat quality and carbon storage-water yield were mainly driven by vegetation and precipitation factors [62]

Table 2: Key Drivers of Ecosystem Service Patterns Identified in Case Studies

Driver Category	Specific Factors	Impact on RESs	Case Study Reference
Climate Factors	Annual precipitation	Positive correlation with water yield and other RESs	[27] [58]
	Annual potential evapotranspiration	Negative correlation with multiple RESs	[27]
Topographic Factors	Slope	Dominant driver of soil retention services	[58]
	Elevation	Influences temperature and precipitation patterns	[58]
Vegetation Factors	NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index)	Key driver of carbon storage and habitat quality	[58]
	Forest coverage	Positive impact on most RESs except potential water yield trade-offs	[62]
Human Activity	Land use/land cover	Highest marginal contribution to RESs patterns	[27]
	Human Footprint Index	Negative correlation with habitat quality and other RESs	[27]
	Distance from water system	Influences water-related ES provision	[58]

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Methods and Reagents

Table 3: Essential Analytical Tools for ES Spatial Analysis

Tool Category	Specific Methods/Software	Primary Application	Technical Considerations
Spatial Statistics Software	ArcGIS Hot Spot Analysis Tool	Getis-Ord Gi* calculation with optimized parameter selection	Requires projected data; chordal distances used for unprojected data [65]
	R packages (sfdep, spatstat)	Open-source spatial clustering and point pattern analysis	Steeper learning curve but greater analytical flexibility [66]
ES Modeling Tools	InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs)	RES quantification (water yield, carbon storage, soil retention)	Relatively simple data requirements; produces spatially explicit outputs [27]
	SOLUS	Land use scenario modeling and ES impact assessment	Useful for exploring future scenarios [1]
Spatial Clustering Algorithms	K-means clustering	Identifying ES bundles through partitional clustering	Requires pre-specification of cluster number k [58]
	Self-Organizing Maps (SOM)	ES bundle identification with high fault tolerance	Unsupervised neural network; handles nonlinear patterns [58]
	DBSCAN	Density-based clustering for irregular ES hotspots	Effective for finding arbitrarily shaped clusters [64]
Statistical Analysis	Multi-scale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR)	Analyzing spatially varying relationships between ES and drivers	Accounts for different spatial scales in various explanatory variables [58]
	Geographical Detector	Identifying driving forces behind ES spatial patterns	Effectively detects interactions between multiple factors [58]
Emerging Hot Spot Analysis	Space-time cube + Mann-Kendall + Getis-Ord Gi*	Analyzing temporal trends in ES hotspots	Requires consistent time-series data across all locations [66]

Spatial clustering and hotspot analysis provide powerful methodological approaches for understanding the complex patterns and relationships among regulating ecosystem services. By integrating these spatial statistical techniques with ES modeling, researchers can:

• Identify meaningful ES bundles that reflect the multidimensional nature of ecosystem service provision
• Quantify trade-offs and synergies between different RES categories
• Reveal the spatially heterogeneous drivers behind these relationships
• Support targeted management interventions based on spatial patterns rather than one-size-fits-all approaches

Future research directions should focus on:

• Developing more process-based models that explicitly link drivers to ES relationships through mechanistic pathways [63]
• Implementing multi-scale analyses that capture the scale-dependent nature of ES interactions [62] [58]
• Applying emerging hot spot analysis to understand how ES bundles and relationships are evolving over time [66]
• Strengthening the integration between spatial analysis and ecological mechanisms to move beyond pattern description toward predictive understanding [1] [63]

As research in this field advances, spatial clustering and hotspot analysis will continue to provide essential tools for managing the complex trade-offs and synergies between regulating ecosystem services in an era of global environmental change.

Drivers, Trade-offs, and Optimization Strategies for RES Management

Understanding the complex interactions between natural and socioeconomic driving forces is fundamental to researching the spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services (RES). These services—including climate regulation, water purification, and erosion control—are essential for maintaining ecological security and human wellbeing [1]. This technical guide provides researchers and scientists with advanced methodological frameworks and experimental protocols for disentangling these driving forces, with direct implications for ecosystem management, conservation planning, and sustainable development policies, particularly within fragile ecological regions.

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES) represent the benefits humans obtain from the regulatory functions of ecosystems, including air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural disaster regulation, water regulation, erosion regulation, and pollution control [1]. The sustainable provision of RES is increasingly critical amid global climate change and anthropogenic pressures, with research indicating that RES have declined at a faster rate than other ecosystem services over the past 50 years [1]. This decline threatens both biodiversity and human wellbeing, creating an urgent need for sophisticated analytical approaches that can identify and quantify the complex interactions between natural and socioeconomic drivers.

The spatio-temporal dynamics of RES emerge from interconnected biophysical and anthropogenic processes. Natural drivers include climatic patterns, geological formations, and ecological succession processes, while socioeconomic drivers encompass land use changes, economic development, demographic shifts, and policy interventions [3] [55]. Understanding the nonlinear relationships, feedback mechanisms, and relative contributions of these drivers requires integrated methodological approaches that bridge ecological and social sciences.

Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Driving Forces

A robust conceptual framework for analyzing driving forces of RES must account for the hierarchical organization of environmental systems, cross-scale interactions, and the complex pathways through which drivers influence service provision. The framework presented here integrates multiple analytical dimensions to capture both direct and indirect effects.

Driver-Response Relationships in RES Dynamics

The fundamental driver-response model in RES research posits that changes in both natural and socioeconomic factors produce measurable responses in ecosystem service provision. These relationships can be characterized as:

• Linear vs. Nonlinear Responses: While some driving factors exhibit proportional relationships with RES, many demonstrate threshold effects, diminishing returns, or exponential changes [3].
• Time-Lagged Effects: The impact of drivers on RES may manifest over different temporal scales, with natural factors often operating over longer timeframes than socioeconomic pressures [55].
• Spatial Heterogeneity: The strength and direction of driver-RES relationships vary across spatial scales and geographic contexts [3].

Hierarchical Organization of Driving Forces

Driving forces operate within a nested hierarchy, with broader-scale factors constraining or enabling more localized processes:

• Macro-Scale Drivers: Climate patterns, biogeographical contexts, and socioeconomic systems establish the broad template for RES provision.
• Meso-Scale Drivers: Landscape configuration, regional economic activities, and governance structures mediate broader drivers.
• Micro-Scale Drivers: Local management practices, disturbance regimes, and biotic interactions fine-tune RES delivery.

Table 1: Hierarchical Organization of Driving Forces in RES Dynamics

Scale Level	Natural Drivers	Socioeconomic Drivers	Characteristic Effects on RES
Macro-Scale (>100 km²)	Climate regime, Geological substrate, Biogeographical region	Economic system, Demographic trends, Policy frameworks	Sets broad limits on RES potential; determines regional baselines
Meso-Scale (1-100 km²)	Topography, Hydrological patterns, Soil types	Land use intensity, Infrastructure development, Regional markets	Modifies macro-scale drivers; creates landscape patterns
Micro-Scale (<1 km²)	Vegetation structure, Microbial communities, Disturbance events	Local management, Access rights, Cultural practices	Fine-tuning of RES delivery; creates local heterogeneity

Methodological Approaches for Driving Force Analysis

Quantitative Assessment of RES

The foundation of driving force analysis lies in accurate quantification of RES. Multiple methodological approaches exist, each with distinct applications and limitations:

Equivalent Factor Method

The equivalent factor method, pioneered by Xie Gaodi and colleagues, standardizes RES valuation through ecosystem service equivalent factors. One equivalent factor represents the economic value of annual natural food production from 1 hectare of cropland [55]. The economic value of one standard unit of ecosystem services can be calibrated regionally; for instance, Lanzhou City established a value of 1,722.32 CNY per hectare based on local productivity [55].

The RES value calculation formula:

Where Ui represents the area of land use type i, and Vij represents the RES value coefficient for land use type i and service type j [55].

Biophysical Modeling

Biophysical approaches model specific regulatory services based on ecosystem processes:

Carbon Sequestration and Oxygen Release (CSOR):

Where Uci denotes CO₂ fixation value, Uo2i denotes oxygen release value, Bi represents net primary productivity of land use type i, Rc represents carbon sequestration rate, Pc represents carbon price, Po2 represents oxygen price, and Si represents area of land use type i [3].

Water Conservation Value:

Where Pi represents precipitation, Ri represents surface runoff, Ei represents evaporation, Si represents area, and Pw represents water price [3].

Table 2: Quantitative Methods for Assessing Key Regulating Ecosystem Services

RES Category	Assessment Method	Key Parameters	Data Requirements	Applications
Gas regulation	CSOR model	Net primary productivity, Carbon price, Oxygen price	Remote sensing data, Economic valuation data	Regional climate regulation assessment
Climate regulation	Energy balance model	Albedo, Evapotranspiration, Surface roughness	Meteorological data, Land surface temperature	Urban heat island mitigation studies
Water conservation	Water balance approach	Precipitation, Runoff, Evapotranspiration, Soil water storage	Hydrological data, Soil properties	Watershed management planning
Environmental purification	Pollution retention model	Pollutant loading, Retention capacity, Damage cost	Water quality data, Emission inventories	Pollution control policy analysis

Statistical Analysis of Driving Factors

Advanced statistical methods enable researchers to disentangle complex driver-RES relationships:

Spatial Regression Models

Spatial regression incorporates autocorrelation structures to address the non-independence of observations in geographical data:

Where ρ represents spatial autocorrelation coefficient, W represents spatial weights matrix, X represents matrix of driving factors, β represents parameter estimates, and ε represents error term [3].

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

SEM tests hypothetical causal pathways among natural and socioeconomic drivers, quantifying both direct and indirect effects. The Poyang Lake Area study implemented SEM to reveal regional differences in driving mechanisms, demonstrating population density primarily affected core areas, precipitation mainly influenced fringe areas, and GDP per land predominantly impacted peripheral areas [3].

Geographic Detector Method

The geographic detector method, applied in Lanzhou City, quantifies the power of determinant (q) for each driving factor:

Where h represents stratification of factor, Nh represents number of units in stratum h, N represents total number of units, σh² represents variance of RESV in stratum h, and σ² represents variance of RESV in entire study area [55]. This method identified NDVI, precipitation, and GDP as pivotal factors influencing ESV spatial differentiation in Lanzhou, with natural and societal elements exerting interactive effects [55].

Experimental Protocols for Driving Force Analysis

Comprehensive Research Workflow

Diagram 1: Comprehensive Research Workflow for RES Driving Force Analysis

Data Collection Protocol

Earth Observation Data

• Land Use/Land Cover Data: Acquire multi-temporal land use classification data (e.g., 2000, 2010, 2020) from platforms such as the Resource and Environment Science and Data Center (RESDC) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, with 30-meter spatial resolution [3] [55]. Reclassify into standardized categories: woodland, grassland, arable land, watersheds, wetlands, construction land, and unutilized land.
• Vegetation Indices: Calculate Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) from satellite imagery (e.g., Landsat, Sentinel) to represent vegetation productivity and cover.
• Climate Data: Obtain precipitation, temperature, and solar radiation data from meteorological stations, interpolated using inverse distance weighting or kriging methods to create continuous raster surfaces [3].
• Topographic Data: Digital Elevation Models (DEM) from ASTER GDEM or similar sources, 30-meter resolution, for deriving slope, aspect, and hydrological parameters [3].

Socioeconomic Data

• Population Distribution: WorldPop dataset or similar for population density mapping [3].
• Economic Indicators: GDP per land area from statistical yearbooks or spatial disaggregation models [3] [55].
• Land Use Intensity: Calculate land use intensity index based on land use type classifications and transformation matrices [3].

Soil and Hydrological Data

• Soil Properties: Soil texture (silt, clay, sand content), organic carbon, and depth from World Soil Database or regional soil surveys [3].
• Hydrological Parameters: Runoff coefficients, water table depth, and infiltration rates from hydrological monitoring networks or modeled datasets.

Laboratory and Field Methods

Soil and Water Sampling

Establish systematic sampling grids across the study area, with stratification by land use type and distance from potential pollution sources. Collect composite soil samples (0-20 cm depth) and water samples from surface and groundwater sources. Analyze for:

• Soil Parameters: Bulk density, organic matter content, texture, pH, cation exchange capacity
• Water Quality Parameters: Nutrient concentrations (N, P), heavy metals, turbidity, biological oxygen demand

Vegetation Surveys

Conduct vegetation transects or quadrat surveys to quantify:

• Species Composition: Richness, diversity indices, indicator species
• Vegetation Structure: Canopy cover, leaf area index, biomass estimates
• Functional Traits: Specific leaf area, wood density, nitrogen fixation capacity

Advanced Analytical Framework for Driver Interactions

Complex Interactions Between Driving Factors

Diagram 2: Interaction Network of Natural and Socioeconomic Drivers

Regional Differentiation Analysis

The Poyang Lake Area case study demonstrates the importance of regional differentiation in driving force analysis, revealing distinct mechanistic pathways across different zones [3]:

• Core Areas: Primarily influenced by population density through direct habitat modification and resource extraction pressures.
• Fringe Areas: Dominated by precipitation patterns through hydrological regulation and vegetation productivity.
• Peripheral Areas: Mainly affected by GDP per land through land transformation and infrastructure development.

This spatial heterogeneity in driver influences underscores the necessity for zone-specific management approaches rather than one-size-fits-all policies.

Temporal Dynamics and Legacy Effects

Driving forces exhibit complex temporal dynamics, including:

• Legacy Effects: Historical land use decisions continue to influence contemporary RES provision, creating time-lagged responses to management interventions.
• Threshold Behaviors: Abrupt changes in RES can occur when driving forces exceed critical levels, creating irreversible regime shifts.
• Cross-Scale Interactions: Macro-scale drivers (e.g., climate change) interact with local management practices to produce emergent RES patterns.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for RES Driving Force Analysis

Category	Specific Tools/Data	Function in Analysis	Data Sources
Remote Sensing Data	Landsat/Sentinel imagery, ASTER GDEM	Land use classification, vegetation monitoring, topographic analysis	USGS EarthExplorer, NASA Earthdata, RESDC
Climate Data	Precipitation, Temperature, Solar radiation	Climate regulation assessment, water balance calculations	National Meteorological Information Center, WorldClim
Socioeconomic Data	Population density, GDP per land, Land use intensity	Quantification of anthropogenic pressures on ecosystems	WorldPop, Statistical Yearbooks, RESDC
Soil and Hydrological Data	Soil texture, Organic carbon, Runoff coefficients	Modeling of erosion regulation, water purification services	World Soil Database, Hydrological monitoring networks
Statistical Software	R, Python, SEM software, Geographic Detector	Statistical modeling, spatial analysis, hypothesis testing	Open-source platforms, Commercial software
Field Equipment	Soil corers, Water samplers, Vegetation survey tools	Ground-truthing, primary data collection, model validation	Scientific suppliers, Custom fabrication

Analyzing the interactions between natural and socioeconomic driving forces requires methodological sophistication and interdisciplinary integration. The frameworks and protocols presented here provide researchers with comprehensive approaches for disentangling these complex relationships across spatial and temporal scales. Future research should prioritize longitudinal studies, experimental manipulations of driver combinations, and development of process-based models that can simulate alternative future scenarios under changing climatic and socioeconomic conditions. The insights generated from such analyses are crucial for designing targeted management interventions that enhance regulating ecosystem services while supporting sustainable development goals.

Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems, ranging from the provision of resources to the regulation of environmental processes [1]. These services are indispensable for human well-being and are broadly categorized into provisioning services (such as food, water, and raw materials), regulating services (including climate regulation, water purification, and erosion control), and cultural services [1]. The sustainable provision of regulating ecosystem services (RESs) is particularly crucial for maintaining ecological security and achieving human well-being [1]. Despite their importance, RESs have no physical form and are purely public, leading policymakers and the scientific community to often focus on direct provisioning benefits and overlook the immense value of RESs in protection and valuation efforts [1].

In the past few decades, ecosystem services have been degraded to varying degrees globally due to climate change, ecological degradation, and irrational management practices [1]. Research demonstrates that increasing demand for ecosystem services has led to a significant decline in many services, with RESs such as air purification, local climate regulation, water purification, and pollination declining at the fastest rates [1]. This degradation creates complex trade-offs and synergies between different service types, particularly between provisioning and regulating services. Understanding these relationships is essential for formulating regional ecological protection and sustainable development policies [1].

This technical guide examines the spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services research, focusing specifically on the trade-offs and synergies with provisioning services. By exploring advanced quantification methodologies, analytical frameworks, and case studies, this work provides researchers and natural resource managers with the tools needed to evaluate these critical relationships in diverse ecological and management contexts.

Quantification Methods for Ecosystem Services

Accurately quantifying ecosystem services is fundamental to understanding their interactions. Several modeling approaches have been developed, ranging from process-based models to integrated valuation frameworks.

Mathematical Indices for Service Quantification

Process-based models like the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) can be used to develop mathematical indices for quantifying specific ecosystem services. These indices comprehensively capture ecosystem functions that contribute to final services while remaining applicable across different watersheds [68]. The methodology involves determining which ecosystem functions contribute to the final ecosystem service and identifying process-based model outputs that capture these functions [68].

Table 1: Mathematical Indices for Quantifying Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem Service	Mathematical Index Formula	Key Components	Application Notes
Fresh Water Provisioning (FWP)	FWPIt = (Qt) * [ (MFt/MFEF) / ((MFt/MFEF) + (qnet/nt)) * (WQIavg,t) / (1 + (et/nt)) ] [68]	Water quantity (Qt), quality (WQI), and evapotranspiration (et)	Considers both quantity and quality of available water [68]
Food Provisioning (FP)	FP = (Yact/Ypot) * (Aharv/Atot) [68]	Actual vs. potential yield (Y), harvested area (Aharv) vs. total area (Atot)	Measures efficiency of food production [68]
Fuel Provisioning (FuP)	FuP = (BEact) * (Aforest/Atot) [68]	Biomass ethanol (BE) production, forest area (Aforest) vs. total area (Atot)	Assesses biofuel production potential [68]
Erosion Regulation (ER)	ER = (SLpot - SLact)/SLpot [68]	Potential soil loss (SLpot) vs. actual soil loss (SLact)	Measures the ecosystem's capacity to reduce soil loss [68]
Flood Regulation (FR)	FR = (Qmax - Qmin)/Qmax [68]	Maximum discharge (Qmax), minimum discharge (Qmin)	Quantifies the ability to mitigate flood peaks [68]

Integrated Modeling Frameworks

The Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model suite is a widely used open-source software for mapping and valuing ecosystem services provided by land and seascapes [69]. InVEST uses GIS data and information tables to explore how changes in ecosystems affect the flow of benefits to people [69]. Key features include:

• Model Variety: Consists of multiple software models (currently 22 as of version 3.9.0) for mapping and valuing different ecosystem services [69]
• Production Function Approach: Derives ecosystem service outputs using information about environmental conditions and processes [69]
• Multi-scale Application: Can be applied at various spatial scales, from local to regional [69]
• Output Formats: Provides results in biophysical terms (quantities) or economic values [69]

The Coastal Ecosystem Services Index (CEI) represents another approach specifically designed for coastal areas. This method scores ecosystem services against reference points, enabling quantification of services difficult to value in economic terms [70]. The CEI methodology involves creating a conceptual model of the relationship between each service and related environmental factors in natural and social systems [70].

Diagram 1: Ecosystem Service Quantification Workflow. This workflow outlines the major steps in quantifying ecosystem services, from data collection through analysis and visualization.

Trade-offs and Synergies Analysis

Conceptual Framework of Relationships

Trade-offs and synergies between provisioning and regulating ecosystem services arise from management practices that prioritize one type of service over another. Understanding these relationships requires analyzing how different services respond to environmental changes and human interventions.

Trade-offs occur when the enhancement of one service leads to the reduction of another. For example, intensive agricultural practices for increased food provision often degrade regulating services such as water quality regulation and erosion control [1]. Synergies occur when multiple services are enhanced simultaneously, such as when forest conservation improves both carbon sequestration (climate regulation) and water purification [71].

Table 2: Documented Trade-offs and Synergies Between Provisioning and Regulating Services

Provisioning Service	Regulating Service	Relationship Type	Mechanism and Context	Key References
Food Provisioning (crop agriculture)	Erosion Regulation	Trade-off	Land clearing and tillage increase soil vulnerability to water and wind erosion [1]	[1]
Food Provisioning (crop agriculture)	Water Quality Regulation	Trade-off	Fertilizer and pesticide runoff leads to nutrient pollution in water bodies [31]	[31]
Reindeer Herding (livestock)	Climate Regulation (via albedo)	Trade-off	Overgrazing reduces lichen cover, decreasing surface albedo and increasing heat absorption [71]	[71]
Forest Products	Carbon Sequestration	Synergy	Sustainable forest management maintains both wood production and carbon storage capacity [71]	[71]
Water Provisioning	Flood Regulation	Synergy	Forested watersheds protect water sources while mitigating flood peaks through infiltration [68]	[68]

Spatio-Temporal Dynamics

Trade-offs and synergies between provisioning and regulating services exhibit significant spatio-temporal variations influenced by both natural environmental gradients and human management decisions. Research in karst World Natural Heritage sites demonstrates that RESs such as water conservation, soil retention, and climate regulation vary significantly across landscapes due to differences in topography, vegetation cover, and human impacts [1].

Temporal dynamics are equally important. A 50-year study of reindeer herding ecosystems revealed that districts with moderate and stable reindeer density achieved nearly double the provisioning services per unit area compared to districts with large population fluctuations [71]. The economic costs from reduced climate-regulating services (due to albedo changes) were 10.5 times higher per unit area in the district with large fluctuations [71]. This demonstrates that temporal stability in management can simultaneously enhance provisioning services while reducing trade-offs with regulating services.

Case Studies and Experimental Evidence

Reindeer Herding in Boreo-Arctic Ecosystems

A comprehensive study investigated the effect of population fluctuations on core provisioning and climate-regulating services in two Sámi reindeer herding districts over 50 years [71]. The methodology compared long-term time series on:

• Herd size and meat production (provisioning services)
• Forage productivity
• Carbon footprint
• CO₂-equivalence metrics for surface albedo change based on the radiative forcing concept (climate-regulating service) [71]

The research employed radiometric forcing measurements to quantify albedo changes, where replacement of high-reflective lichens with low-reflective woody plants due to overgrazing reduced surface reflectivity, increasing heat absorption [71]. Economic valuation combined market prices for meat production with social cost of carbon estimates for climate impacts.

Key Findings:

• Economic benefits from provisioning services exceeded costs from regulating services in both districts
• The district with stable reindeer density gained nearly double the provisioning services per unit area
• Climate regulation costs were 10.5 times higher per unit area in the district with large fluctuations
• Net economic benefits per unit area were 237% higher in the district with stable reindeer density [71]

This case demonstrates that minimizing reindeer population fluctuations and maintaining sustainable densities can significantly reduce trade-offs between local economic benefits from herding and global economic costs from reduced climate-regulating services.

Water-Regulating Services in Ifrane National Park

A study in Morocco's Ifrane National Park employed the InVEST model to quantify water-regulating ecosystem services (WRES) before and after the park's establishment [31]. The methodology included:

• Historical LULC Analysis: Land Use Land Cover data from 1992 to 2022 analyzed using Google Earth Engine with Landsat satellite imagery [31]
• Model Quantification: InVEST's Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) and Nutrient Delivery Ratio (NDR) models quantified the watershed's capacity to retain sediments and nutrients [31]
• Economic Valuation: Damage costs avoided method valued WRES in monetary terms [31]

The Random Forest machine learning algorithm classified LULC into six categories: forests, shrubs, crops, built-up areas, water, and bare soil [31]. Validation used confusion matrices and the Kappa index to ensure classification accuracy.

Key Findings:

• Following park establishment, the economic value of WRES reached USD 10,000 per year
• Before park creation, this service had declined by USD -7,000 per year
• Forest expansion in areas prioritized for reforestation and conservation drove improvements [31]

This case demonstrates how spatial modeling combined with economic valuation can quantify trade-offs between agricultural expansion (provisioning) and water regulation, guiding conservation investments.

Diagram 2: Interaction Pathways Between Services. This diagram shows how management decisions create cascading effects through trade-offs (red) and synergies (green) between service categories.

Research Toolkit and Methodological Guide

Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools and Data Requirements for Ecosystem Services Research

Tool/Data Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application	Data Sources
Process-Based Models	SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool)	Simulates hydrological processes, sediment transport, and nutrient cycling [68]	Model inputs: DEM, soil data, land use, weather [68]
Integrated Valuation Frameworks	InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs)	Maps and values multiple ecosystem services using production functions [69] [31]	GIS data, land use/cover maps, biophysical tables [69]
Remote Sensing Platforms	Google Earth Engine, Landsat Series	Provides historical and current land use/cover data for change analysis [31]	Landsat 5, 7, 8, 9; Sentinel series [31]
Classification Algorithms	Random Forest (RF) Machine Learning	Classifies land use/cover from satellite imagery with high accuracy [31]	Training data from field surveys or high-resolution imagery [31]
Economic Valuation Methods	Damage Cost Avoided, Market Pricing	Assigns monetary values to ecosystem services for policy integration [31]	Market prices, replacement costs, benefit transfer [31]

Methodological Protocols

Protocol 1: Quantifying Services Using Process-Based Models

• Model Setup and Calibration

  • Delineate watershed boundaries using DEM data
  • Define Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs) based on soil, land use, and slope characteristics
  • Calibrate and validate the model using streamflow, sediment, and nutrient data [68]

• Service Quantification

  • Extract relevant model outputs (water yield, sediment load, nutrient loads)
  • Apply mathematical indices to calculate ecosystem service metrics [68]
  • Validate calculated services with field observations where possible

• Scenario Analysis

  • Develop alternative land use and management scenarios
  • Compare ecosystem service provision across scenarios [68]

Protocol 2: Integrated Valuation Using InVEST

• Data Preparation

  • Collect and preprocess required raster and tabular data
  • Ensure consistent spatial resolution and coordinate systems
  • Parameterize models based on local biophysical conditions [31]

• Model Execution

  • Run Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) model to estimate soil retention services
  • Run Nutrient Delivery Ratio (NDR) model to quantify nutrient retention
  • Execute seasonal water yield model for water provision services [31]

• Economic Valuation

  • Apply damage cost avoided method for sediment and nutrient retention
  • Use market prices for provisioned resources
  • Calculate net economic benefits of conservation interventions [31]

Future Research Directions

Significant knowledge gaps remain in understanding trade-offs and synergies between provisioning and regulating ecosystem services. Future research should prioritize:

• Mechanistic Understanding: Clarify the ecological mechanisms behind RES formation and driving factors, particularly in understudied ecosystems like karst landscapes [1]
• Cross-scale Interactions: Investigate how trade-offs and synergies vary across spatial and temporal scales, from local to regional and seasonal to decadal [1]
• Social-Ecological Integration: Better integrate social systems into ecosystem service assessments, particularly the relationship between RES and human well-being [1]
• Dynamic Modeling: Develop models that capture non-linear relationships and threshold effects in ecosystem service provision [68] [1]
• Management Optimization: Identify optimal management strategies that minimize trade-offs and enhance synergies between provisioning and regulating services [71]

Advanced monitoring technologies, including high-resolution remote sensing, environmental DNA, and distributed sensor networks, coupled with emerging modeling approaches like machine learning and complex systems analysis, will enable more precise quantification of spatio-temporal dynamics in ecosystem service relationships.

Landscape fragmentation, the process by which extensive, contiguous natural habitats are dissected into smaller, isolated patches, represents a primary driver of global ecological change [72] [73]. This process, predominantly driven by anthropogenic land conversion for agriculture, urbanization, and infrastructure, alters the fundamental spatio-temporal characteristics of ecosystems [74]. The resulting degradation of regulating ecosystem services—such as climate regulation, water purification, and erosion control—is of critical concern to ecological research and management [72] [75]. When landscapes become fragmented, the ecological connectivity that facilitates species movement, genetic exchange, and nutrient cycling is disrupted [76] [73]. This loss of connectivity not only directly impacts biodiversity but also undermines the ecosystem function that underpins service provision [77] [75]. Understanding the mechanisms through which fragmentation impacts these services is therefore essential for developing effective landscape-scale conservation and restoration strategies, a core focus of contemporary spatio-temporal research in ecology [73].

Quantitative Assessment of Fragmentation and Ecosystem Service Impacts

The impacts of landscape fragmentation on ecosystem services can be quantified through spatio-temporal analysis, revealing significant declines in ecological function. The following table synthesizes findings from multiple studies on the relationship between landscape pattern changes and key regulating services.

Table 1: Documented Impacts of Landscape Fragmentation on Regulating Ecosystem Services

Location	Time Period	Key Fragmentation Trend	Impact on Regulating Ecosystem Service	Reference
Huaihe River Basin, China	1990-2018	Decrease in grassland & farmland; Increase in built-up land	Significant reduction in soil retention, carbon storage, and biodiversity conservation capacity	[75]
Zayanderud Dam Watershed, Iran	1991-2021	Conversion of natural rangelands & forests to agriculture & urban areas	Decrease in mean habitat quality (HQ) from 0.601 to 0.489	[77]
Boma-Gambella Trans-boundary Landscape, Ethiopia/S. Sudan	2009-2020	Conversion and perforation of natural landscapes	Rapid declines in regulating and supporting services; Altered water and nutrient cycles	[72]
Greater Accra Metropolitan Area, Ghana	1991-2022	Vegetation land cover fragmentation	Reduced ecosystem functioning and long-term ecological resilience	[74]

The correlation between specific landscape metrics and habitat quality further elucidates these impacts. Research from the Zayanderud Dam watershed demonstrated that Habitat Quality (HQ), a proxy for biodiversity and ecosystem function, had a significant positive correlation with CONTAG (Contagion Index; R = 0.78), indicating that more connected landscapes support higher quality habitat. Conversely, HQ showed a significant inverse correlation with NP (Number of Patches; R = -0.83) and PD (Patch Density; R = -0.61), confirming that increased fragmentation diminishes ecological function [77].

Methodological Framework: Experimental and Modeling Protocols

Assessing the effects of fragmentation requires a multi-faceted methodological approach, combining empirical field experiments with advanced spatial modeling.

Experimental Corridor Research

The Savannah River Site Corridor Experiment in South Carolina, USA, provides a robust experimental protocol for directly testing how habitat corridors mitigate fragmentation effects [78].

Experimental Design:

• Setup: A large-scale replicated experiment where central habitat patches are connected by corridors to other patches, compared to isolated control patches.
• Measurements: Key response variables include:
  • Plant diversity accumulation: Quantifying species richness and composition in connected vs. unconnected patches over an 18-year period [78].
  • Seed dispersal distance: Measuring how far ants disperse seeds in patches with and without corridors [78].
  • Trophic position shifts: Using stable isotope analysis to assess how corridors alter the trophic position of species like fire ants [78].
  • Niche and food web structure: Examining how fragmentation affects species niches and arthropod food webs [78].

This experimental design provides causal evidence that habitat connectivity promotes biodiversity and alters ecological interactions, offering a template for rigorous field testing of fragmentation hypotheses.

Spatial Modeling of Connectivity and Habitat Quality

For larger spatial scales, integrated modeling workflows are essential. The following diagram illustrates a combined protocol for projecting habitat quality based on landscape changes.

Diagram 1: Integrated workflow for projecting habitat quality based on landscape change.

Detailed Modeling Protocol:

• Land Cover Change Analysis & Projection

  • Data Acquisition: Utilize time-series satellite imagery (e.g., Landsat, 30m resolution) for at least two historical dates (e.g., 1991 and 2021) [77].
  • Classification: Apply supervised classification (e.g., Maximum Likelihood Classification) with ground-truthing for accuracy assessment (overall accuracy > 85%) [77].
  • Change Projection: Use a Land Change Modeler (LCM) with a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) neural network to model transition potentials based on explanatory variables like distance to roads, elevation, and slope. Validate the model against known data before simulating future scenarios (e.g., 2051) [77].

• Habitat Quality Assessment

  • Model Framework: Employ the InVEST Habitat Quality model [77] [75].
  • Inputs:
    • The projected (or historical) land use/cover map.
    • A table of threats to habitat (e.g., urban areas, cropland), each assigned a weight and maximum effective distance.
    • The relative sensitivity of each habitat type to each threat.
  • Output: A spatial map of Habitat Quality (HQ) scores from 0 (low) to 1 (high), indicating the ecosystem's ability to support species [77].

• Landscape Pattern Analysis

  • Software: Use FRAGSTATS 4.2 to compute landscape metrics [72] [75].
  • Key Metrics:
    • Patch Density (PD) & Number of Patches (NP): Measure of landscape subdivision/fragmentation.
    • Contagion (CONTAG): Measures the degree of connectivity and clumping of patches.
    • Edge Density (ED): Quantifies the amount of habitat edge.
    • Shannon's Diversity Index (SHDI): Measures landscape diversity.

• Statistical Integration

  • Perform correlation analysis (e.g., Pearson's) between the computed landscape metrics (NP, PD, CONTAG, SHDI) and the mean HQ scores to quantify the relationship between pattern and function [77].

Table 2: Essential Research Tools and Datasets for Analyzing Fragmentation and Connectivity

Tool/Dataset Category	Specific Example	Function and Application	Reference
Spatial Analysis Software	FRAGSTATS 4.2	Calculates a wide array of landscape metrics (e.g., PD, CONTAG, SHDI) from land cover maps to quantify spatial patterns.	[72] [75]
Ecosystem Service Modeling	InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) Habitat Quality Model	Maps habitat quality and rarity based on land use and threats; assesses biodiversity conservation value.	[77] [75]
Land Change Prediction	Land Change Modeler (LCM) in TerrSet	Models, simulates, and projects land use and cover change using machine learning and Markov chain analysis.	[77]
Remote Sensing Data	Landsat Series (USGS)	Provides freely available, medium-resolution (30m) multispectral imagery for creating historical and current land cover maps.	[72] [77]
Connectivity Analysis	Graph-theoretic approach & Least-cost path analysis	Models functional connectivity between habitat patches, accounting for species-specific dispersal and matrix resistance.	[76]

Synthesis: Implications for Spatio-Temporal Research on Ecosystem Services

The spatio-temporal dynamics of landscape fragmentation present a complex but decipherable template for understanding the degradation of regulating ecosystem services. Research consistently shows that the loss of ecological connectivity is a central mechanism through which fragmentation erodes ecosystem functions like carbon storage, soil retention, and water purification [73] [75]. The "connect to restore, restore to connect" paradigm advocated by the UNCCD underscores that maintaining or enhancing connectivity is crucial for effective restoration and for building ecosystem resilience to stressors like drought and desertification [73].

The interplay between landscape patterns and ecosystem processes is not static but evolves over time and space. For instance, the reduction in landscape connectivity (CONTAG) and the increase in patchiness (NP, PD) have been quantitatively linked to a decline in habitat quality, demonstrating a direct spatio-temporal relationship between a changing landscape structure and a diminished capacity to support biodiversity and ecosystem functions [77] [75]. Effective governance and management, therefore, require a proactive approach that integrates sustainable land management and ecological connectivity into policies across economic sectors, supported by the detailed, data-driven methodologies outlined in this guide [73].

The Geographical Detector (GD) model is a robust statistical method for analyzing spatial stratified heterogeneity (SSH), which quantifies the influence of independent variables (driving factors) on a dependent variable (the geographical phenomenon being studied) by examining the consistency of their spatial distributions [79]. Its core principle is that if an independent factor significantly influences a dependent variable, the spatial distributions of the two will exhibit significant similarity [80]. The traditional model operates through four core detectors: Factor Detector, which identifies the extent to which a factor explains the spatial heterogeneity of the dependent variable (measured by the power of determinant, q); Interaction Detector, which assesses whether the interaction of two factors enhances or weakens their explanatory power; Risk Detector, which identifies the types of areas with significant high or low values of the dependent variable; and Ecological Detector, which determines whether the influences of two factors on the dependent variable are significantly different [80] [81].

Despite its wide application, the traditional Geographical Detector has a significant methodological constraint: it requires all input independent variables to be categorical data types [79]. When continuous numerical variables (e.g., elevation, precipitation, GDP density) are used, they must first be discretized—converted into categorical data by being split into intervals or strata. The traditional approach to this discretization process often relies on subjective user-defined parameters, such as the choice of discretization method (e.g., natural breaks, equal intervals, quantiles) and the number of intervals (bins). This subjectivity introduces uncertainty and potential arbitrariness into the analysis, which can compromise the reliability and reproducibility of the results [80] [79].

The Optimized Parameter-based Geographical Detector (OPGD) model was developed specifically to overcome this critical limitation. Its primary innovation lies in automating the selection of the optimal discretization parameters for each continuous driving factor. By systematically testing different combinations of discretization methods and interval numbers, the OPGD selects the parameter set that yields the highest q-value for each factor [82] [80]. This data-driven optimization process removes subjectivity, enhances the model's ability to uncover true geographical relationships, and ultimately provides a more objective and accurate quantification of the driving forces behind spatial phenomena [79].

Core Methodological Advancements of the OPGD Model

The OPGD model introduces a rigorous, algorithmic approach to parameter selection, which constitutes its core advancement. The optimization process is designed to find the most effective way to express the spatial relationship between each continuous driving factor (X) and the dependent variable (Y).

The Optimization Workflow and Discretization Methods

The model operates on a structured workflow. For each continuous independent variable (X), it iteratively tests a suite of discretization methods (such as Natural Breaks, Quantiles, Equal Intervals, and Geometric Intervals) across a range of interval numbers (e.g., from 3 to 8 classes) [80] [81]. For each combination of method and interval number, it calculates the corresponding q-value using the factor detector. The specific combination that produces the maximum q-value is then identified as the optimal discretization scheme for that particular factor [82]. This process ensures that the spatial stratification of the factor is performed in a way that best explains the spatial heterogeneity of the dependent variable.

Table 1: Common Discretization Methods Evaluated by the OPGD Model

Discretization Method	Core Principle	Best Suited For
Natural Breaks (Jenks)	Minimizes variance within classes and maximizes variance between classes.	Data that is not normally distributed and has inherent groupings.
Quantiles	Assigns an equal number of data points to each class.	Uniformly distributed data; facilitates direct comparison between different factors.
Equal Intervals	Divides the data range into classes of equal size.	Data with a linear distribution and no significant outliers.
Geometric Intervals	Creates class intervals based on a geometric series.	Data that is highly skewed, such as exponential distributions.

Enhanced Interaction Detection

A key strength of both the GD and OPGD models is their ability to assess the interaction between two driving factors—that is, whether the combined influence of factors X1 and X2 on Y is stronger than their individual influences [81]. The OPGD model refines this process by using the optimally discretized factors for interaction testing. The interaction relationship is classified into several types, with the most common outcomes being:

• Nonlinear Weaken: q(X1 ∩ X2) < Min(q(X1), q(X2))
• Univariate Weaken: Min(q(X1), q(X2)) < q(X1 ∩ X2) < Max(q(X1), q(X2))
• Bivariate Enhance: q(X1 ∩ X2) > Max(q(X1), q(X2))
• Independent: q(X1 ∩ X2) = q(X1) + q(X2)
• Nonlinear Enhance: q(X1 ∩ X2) > q(X1) + q(X2)

In applied research, particularly in ecosystem services, the bivariate and nonlinear enhancement effects are frequently observed, indicating that the combined effect of two factors is greater than the sum of their individual parts [83] [81] [84]. For example, in a study on carbon sequestration supply-demand relationships, the interaction between population density and other factors consistently resulted in q-values greater than 0.67, demonstrating a powerful nonlinear amplification [81].

Diagram 1: OPGD Discretization Optimization Workflow. This diagram illustrates the iterative process of testing different discretization parameters to find the combination that maximizes the explanatory power (q-value) of a driving factor.

Application in Regulating Ecosystem Services Research

The OPGD model has become an indispensable tool in the study of regulating ecosystem services (ES) due to its ability to handle the complex, multi-factorial, and spatially heterogeneous nature of these services. Its application provides critical insights for spatial management and policy development.

Quantifying Driving Forces of Ecosystem Services

A primary application is identifying and ranking the key natural and anthropogenic drivers behind the supply, demand, and trade-offs of various regulating ES. For instance:

• Flood Regulation: In Yunnan Province, China, an OPGD-based analysis revealed that geomorphological zoning alone explained 66.1% of the spatial variation in flood disasters, while precipitation-related factors were the most critical drivers [83].
• Carbon Sequestration: Research in the Yellow River Basin used OPGD to demonstrate that CSS supply was predominantly influenced by natural factors like NDVI, whereas demand was driven by socio-economic factors such as population and GDP density. The interaction between temperature and population density exhibited a powerful nonlinear enhancement effect on the carbon sequestration service demand-supply relationship (CSSDR) [81].
• Service Trade-offs: A study on the Beijing Plain employed OPGD to diagnose the drivers of trade-offs between net primary productivity (NPP), soil conservation, water conservation, and habitat quality. It found that land use type was the dominant factor for trade-offs involving habitat quality, while climatic factors like precipitation were key for NPP and soil conservation trade-offs [84].

Table 2: Exemplary OPGD Applications in Regulating Ecosystem Services Studies

Study Region	Ecosystem Service Focus	Key Driving Factors Identified (with q-values)	Notable Interaction Finding	Source
Yunnan Province, China	Flood Disaster Spatial Distribution	Geomorphic Zoning (q=0.661), Precipitation Intensity (SDII)	The OPGD-RFE-LGBM coupled model showed clear advantages in identifying essential drivers.	[83]
Yellow River Basin, China	Carbon Sequestration Service Supply-Demand	Population Density (high q-values >0.67), GDP Density, NDVI	Interactions between factors showed dual-factor enhancement and nonlinear amplification.	[81]
Beijing Plain, China	Trade-offs among NPP, SC, WC, HQ	Land Use Type (primary factor for NPP-HQ, SC-HQ, WC-HQ), Precipitation, Temperature	Trade-off intensity is driven by interactions between services or shared factors, showing high spatial heterogeneity.	[84]
Jinsha River Basin, China	Carbon Storage	Average Annual Temperature (largest single factor), Population	Interaction of temperature and population had a high q-value of 0.84.	[82]

Experimental Protocol for an OPGD-Based Ecosystem Services Study

The following provides a detailed methodological template for a typical study investigating the drivers of regulating ecosystem services using the OPGD model.

1. Problem Definition and Hypothesis Formulation:

• Objective: To identify the key natural and socio-economic drivers of the spatial heterogeneity of soil retention service in a watershed and to quantify their individual and interactive effects.
• Hypothesis: Factors like slope, NDVI, and land use type will be dominant drivers, and their interactions will exhibit nonlinear enhancement.

2. Data Collection and Preprocessing:

• Dependent Variable (Y): Soil Retention Volume. Quantified using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) within a GIS environment or the sediment retention model of the InVEST software suite [5] [58].
• Independent Variables (X): A suite of potential driving factors. This typically includes:
  • Topographic Factors: Elevation, Slope, Aspect (derived from a DEM).
  • Climatic Factors: Annual Precipitation, Precipitation Seasonality, Temperature (from meteorological stations/interpolated data).
  • Vegetation Cover: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) from MODIS or Landsat imagery.
  • Soil Properties: Soil Type, Soil Organic Matter Content (from soil databases like HWSD).
  • Land Use/Land Cover (LUCC): Categorical data (e.g., forest, grassland, cropland, urban).
  • Human Activity: Population Density, GDP Density, Distance to Roads.
• Data Preprocessing: All raster datasets must be resampled to a consistent spatial resolution and projected to the same coordinate system. The dependent variable and all continuous independent factors should be extracted to the same grid of study points or polygons.

3. Implementation of OPGD Analysis:

• Factor Discretization: For all continuous independent variables (e.g., slope, precipitation, NDVI), run the OPGD algorithm to determine their optimal discretization scheme (method and number of intervals) based on the soil retention (Y) data.
• Factor Detection: Execute the Factor Detector using the optimally discretized factors. Record the q-value for each factor to assess its individual explanatory power.
• Interaction Detection: Execute the Interaction Detector for all possible pairs of factors. Classify the type of interaction and note the combined q-value for each pair.

4. Results Interpretation and Zoning Management:

• Rank Drivers: List factors in descending order of their q-values. Factors with q > 0.2 are generally considered to have a substantial influence [80].
• Analyze Interactions: Identify factor pairs with bivariate or nonlinear enhancement effects. These synergistic relationships are often critical for management.
• Spatial Policy Implication: Based on the results, propose spatially explicit management strategies. For example, if the interaction between slope and LUCC is strong, recommend strict conservation measures on steep slopes with certain land cover types.

Diagram 2: OPGD Experimental Workflow in Ecosystem Services Research. This diagram outlines the end-to-end process from data preparation through to management implications, highlighting the role of OPGD.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for OPGD-Based Spatial Analysis

Tool/Reagent	Category	Critical Function in OPGD Analysis
R Statistical Software	Software Platform	The primary environment for running the OPGD model, often using the "GD" package or similar, which includes the optimization algorithms for discretization.
Python (with GD package)	Software Platform	An alternative programming environment for implementing geographical detector analysis, offering flexibility for integration with other spatial libraries.
ArcGIS / QGIS	Geographic Information System (GIS)	Used for core spatial data management, including data collection, reprojection, resampling, layer clipping, and especially for calculating the dependent variable (e.g., with InVEST model).
InVEST Model	Ecosystem Service Model	A suite of models used to quantify and map the supply of specific ecosystem services (e.g., carbon storage, sediment retention, water yield) that serve as the dependent variable (Y) in the OPGD analysis [82] [81].
Landsat / MODIS Imagery	Remote Sensing Data	The primary source for deriving key continuous independent variables like NDVI (vegetation cover) and Land Surface Temperature (LST), and for creating land use/cover maps.
Digital Elevation Model (DEM)	Topographic Data	The foundational dataset for calculating topographic driving factors such as elevation, slope, and aspect.
WorldClim / Meteorological Data	Climatic Data	Provides continuous raster surfaces for climatic driving factors like mean annual precipitation and temperature, which are crucial for most ecosystem service studies.

The Optimized Parameter-based Geographical Detector represents a significant methodological evolution in spatial statistics. By systematically addressing the critical limitation of subjective discretization in the traditional Geographical Detector model, the OPGD framework provides researchers with a more objective, robust, and accurate tool for deciphering the complex drivers of geographical phenomena. Within the context of regulating ecosystem services research, its ability to quantitatively unravel the individual and synergistic effects of natural and anthropogenic factors is invaluable. The insights generated from OPGD analyses, such as identifying dominant drivers and revealing nonlinear interactions between factors like elevation and land use, form a solid scientific foundation for crafting spatially targeted ecological management policies, optimizing ecological zoning, and ultimately promoting sustainable ecosystem management.

Ecosystem services (ESs) form the critical bridge between natural ecosystems and human well-being, providing the material basis and functional regulation necessary for social development [58] [17]. In the context of rapid global urbanization and land use transformation, conflicts between resource consumption, population growth, and environmental protection have become increasingly pronounced, leading to the deterioration of approximately 60% of ESs worldwide [17]. Spatial zoning and ecological management have emerged as powerful tools to address these challenges by providing differentiated and precise control measures that balance resource utilization with conservation objectives [85].

The spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services—including climate regulation, water purification, flood mitigation, and soil retention—represent a crucial research focus within broader ecosystem services studies. These services exhibit significant spatial heterogeneity and non-stationarity under different social-ecological conditions, creating complex management challenges that require spatially explicit solutions [58] [17]. This technical guide establishes a comprehensive framework for spatial zoning and ecological management designed to optimize the supply-demand relationships of regulating ecosystem services while maintaining ecological security and promoting sustainable regional development.

Theoretical Foundations for Spatial Zoning

The Ecological-Production-Living Functions (PLEF) Framework

Land serves as a fundamental carrier for human survival, providing a spectrum of products and services collectively referred to as land use functions (LUFs) [86]. The Ecological-Production-Living (PLEF) framework has gained prominence as a holistic approach to understanding these functions, where:

• Production Function (PF): Capacity of land to provide material goods and economic output, including agricultural production, industrial output, and economic development [86] [87].
• Living Function (LF): Ability to support human settlement, residence, and quality of life, including housing, economic output, security, and recreation [86].
• Ecological Function (EF): Role in maintaining environmental regulation, biodiversity conservation, and ecosystem stability through processes like hydrological regulation, climate moderation, and soil conservation [86] [87].

The interrelationships among these three functions form the theoretical basis for spatial zoning, where the ecological function provides the guarantee for sustainable land use, the production function represents the most basic land use function, and the living function constitutes the ultimate purpose of land use [86].

Ecosystem Services Supply-Demand Relationships

A core principle in spatial zoning involves understanding and quantifying the relationships between ecosystem service supply and demand [88]. The supply of ESs depends on ecosystem structure and function to maximize satisfaction of human demands, while human well-being relies on the consumption of ESs [88]. The spatial mismatch between supply and demand creates management challenges that zoning attempts to address through differentiated strategies.

Table 1: Key Concepts in Ecosystem Services Supply-Demand Relationships

Concept	Definition	Application in Zoning
Supply-Demand Matching	Spatial correspondence between ecosystem service provision and consumption	Identifies areas of surplus and deficit for priority management
Coupling Coordination Degree (CCD)	Level of interdependence and benign interaction between supply and demand systems	Measures sustainability of regional ESs and identifies imbalance types
Vertical Spatial Gradient Effect	Variation in ES relationships across topographic and elevation gradients	Informs mountain-flatland differentiated management strategies

Methodological Framework for Spatial Zoning

Ecosystem Services Assessment Protocols

Quantitative Assessment of Regulating Services

Regulating ecosystem services assessment requires sophisticated modeling approaches that capture biophysical processes. The following protocols represent current best practices:

Water Yield Assessment:

• Model: Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Annual Water Yield Model
• Primary Inputs: Precipitation data, digital elevation model (DEM), land use/land cover (LULC) data, soil depth, plant available water content
• Protocol:
  • Calculate pixel-level annual precipitation using spatial interpolation of meteorological station data
  • Determine reference evapotranspiration using Hargreaves method
  • Calculate plant evapotranspiration coefficient (Kc) based on LULC classification
  • Apply Budyko curve method to compute annual water yield for each pixel
  • Validate with stream gauge measurements at watershed outlets [58] [17]

Carbon Storage Assessment:

• Model: InVEST Carbon Storage and Sequestration Model
• Primary Inputs: LULC data, carbon pool data (aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, soil carbon, dead organic matter)
• Protocol:
  • Assign carbon density values (Mg/ha) to each LULC class based on field measurements or literature review
  • Calculate total carbon storage as sum of four carbon pools for each spatial unit
  • For temporal analysis, incorporate carbon sequestration rates based on vegetation age and type
  • Cross-validate with eddy covariance flux tower measurements where available [58] [17]

Soil Retention Assessment:

• Model: Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)
• Primary Inputs: Rainfall erosivity (R), soil erodibility (K), slope length-steepness (LS), cover-management (C), support practice (P) factors
• Protocol:
  • Calculate rainfall erosivity factor using monthly precipitation data
  • Derive soil erodibility from soil texture and organic matter content
  • Compute LS factor from DEM using flow accumulation algorithms
  • Assign C values based on LULC classification and NDVI analysis
  • Estimate actual soil loss and potential soil loss to derive soil retention [58]

Habitat Quality Assessment:

• Model: InVEST Habitat Quality Model
• Primary Inputs: LULC data, threat sources data (urban areas, roads, agricultural land), threat sensitivity tables
• Protocol:
  • Classify LULC types into habitat and threat categories
  • Parameterize threat sources with weights, maximum influence distances, and decay functions
  • Assign habitat sensitivity to threats for each LULC type
  • Calculate habitat degradation and quality scores for each pixel
  • Correlate with field biodiversity surveys for validation [58] [89]

Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Index (CESI)

To integrate multiple ES assessments, the Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Index (CESI) provides a unified metric:

Figure 1: Workflow for Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Index Calculation

Supply-Demand Relationship Analysis

Quadrant Matching Method

The quadrant matching approach classifies supply-demand relationships into four distinct categories:

• High Supply-High Demand: Areas with strong ecosystem capacity and high human utilization
• High Supply-Low Demand: Ecological reserves with limited human pressure
• Low Supply-High Demand: Critical conflict zones requiring priority intervention
• Low Supply-Low Demand: Areas with limited ecological and socioeconomic activity [88] [85]

Coupling Coordination Degree (CCD) Model

The CCD model quantifies the coordination between ecosystem service supply and demand systems:

Figure 2: Coupling Coordination Degree Model Framework

Table 2: Coupling Coordination Degree Classification System

D Value Range	Coordination Level	Characterization
0.00-0.19	Extreme dissonance	Supply and demand severely unbalanced with strong constraints
0.20-0.39	Moderate dissonance	Supply and demand significantly unbalanced with clear constraints
0.40-0.59	Basic coordination	Supply and demand basically balanced with mild constraints
0.60-0.79	Moderate coordination	Supply and demand relatively balanced with benign interaction
0.80-1.00	High coordination	Supply and demand highly balanced with synergistic reinforcement

Driving Force Analysis and Threshold Detection

Geodetector Method

The Geodetector method identifies driving factors of ecosystem services and their interactions:

• Factor Detection: Quantifies the explanatory power of driving factors using q-statistic: ( q = 1 - \frac{\sum{h=1}^{L} Nh \sigma_h^2}{N\sigma^2} ) where L is number of strata, N is number of units, σ² is variance [58] [89]

• Interaction Detection: Identifies interactions between factors by comparing q(X₁∩X₂) with q(X₁) and q(X₂)

• Ecological Detection: Determines significant differences in the effects of two factors on ES spatial distribution

• Risk Detection: Identifies suitable ranges or types of factors that favor ES provision [58]

Multi-scale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR)

MGWR captures spatial heterogeneity in driving mechanisms by allowing relationship variations across geographic space:

( yi = β0(ui,vi) + ∑{k=1}^{m} βk(ui,vi)x{ik} + εi )

where (ui,vi) denotes coordinates of point i, βk(ui,vi) is the continuous function of βk at point i, and ε_i is the error term [58].

Constraint Line Method for Threshold Detection

The constraint line method identifies critical thresholds in factor-ES relationships:

• Data Collection: Compile paired data for ES indicators and potential driving factors
• Scatterplot Creation: Generate scatterplots between ES and each driving factor
• Boundary Point Identification: Extract upper boundary points using upper decile approach
• Regression Fitting: Apply piecewise regression, sigmoid functions, or other nonlinear models to boundary points
• Threshold Determination: Identify inflection points as critical thresholds [85]

Spatial Zoning Protocol

Multi-level Zoning Framework

A comprehensive spatial zoning framework integrates multiple objectives and hierarchical logic:

Figure 3: Multi-level Spatial Zoning Framework

Zoning Classification System

Table 3: Spatial Zoning Classification and Management Strategies

Zone Type	Supply-Demand Relationship	Coordination Status	Management Strategy
Ecological Conservation Zone	High supply-low demand	Basic to moderate coordination	Strict protection, limited human disturbance, biodiversity priority
Ecological Development Zone	High supply-high demand	Moderate to high coordination	Sustainable utilization, eco-tourism, moderate development
Ecological Improvement Zone	Low supply-high demand	Moderate dissonance	Functional enhancement, ecological engineering, industrial optimization
Ecological Restoration Zone	Low supply-low demand	Extreme to moderate dissonance	Ecosystem reconstruction, habitat restoration, land rehabilitation

Mountain-Flatland Differential Management

Mountainous and flatland regions exhibit distinct ecological characteristics requiring differentiated management:

Mountainous Regions:

• Characterized by higher ecological function values and significant clustering in northwestern regions [87]
• Primary focus: Soil conservation, water retention, biodiversity protection
• Management strategies: Vegetation structure optimization, forest ecosystem protection, GFGP continuation [58] [87]

Flatland Regions:

• Characterized by higher production and living functions with central clustering [87]
• Primary focus: Intensive production, urban development, agricultural modernization
• Management strategies: Curb disorderly urban expansion, enhance green infrastructure, improve resource efficiency [58] [87]

Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Table 4: Essential Research Toolkit for Spatial Zoning and Ecological Management

Category	Tool/Model	Primary Function	Application Context
Remote Sensing Data	Landsat/Sentinel Imagery	Land use/cover classification	Base mapping, change detection, habitat assessment
Biophysical Models	InVEST Suite	Ecosystem service quantification	Spatial explicit ES assessment, scenario analysis
Statistical Analysis	R/Python with spatial packages	Geostatistical analysis	Trend analysis, correlation, driving force detection
Geographic Detector	Geodetector software	Factor influence quantification	Driving mechanism analysis, interaction detection
Spatial Regression	MGWR/GWR	Spatial heterogeneity modeling	Non-stationary relationship analysis
Climate Data	WorldClim/CMIP6	Climate surface generation	Climate factor integration, future projections
Topographic Data	SRTM/ASTER DEM	Terrain analysis	Slope, aspect, elevation gradient effects
Social-Economic Data	Census/Statistical Yearbooks	Human activity quantification	Demand assessment, pressure evaluation

Implementation and Monitoring

Dynamic Zoning Adjustment

Spatial zoning requires periodic revision based on monitoring outcomes and changing conditions:

• Annual Monitoring: Track key indicators of ecosystem services and land use changes
• Five-Year Assessment: Comprehensive evaluation of zoning effectiveness and coordination status
• Decadal Revision: Major adjustment of zoning boundaries and management strategies based on trend analysis [85] [89]

Cross-scale Integration

Effective spatial zoning integrates multiple spatial scales:

• Macro-scale (Regional): Strategic guidance and policy framework
• Meso-scale (Watershed/County): Zonal regulation and coordinated management
• Micro-scale (Parcel/Village): Functional guidance and implementation actions [86] [85]

Stakeholder Engagement

Participatory approaches enhance zoning implementation:

• Expert Workshops: Technical validation of zoning schemes and management strategies
• Stakeholder Consultations: Integration of local knowledge and addressing concerns
• Public Participation: Awareness building and support generation for zoning measures [87] [89]

Spatial zoning and ecological management represents a sophisticated approach to balancing resource use with conservation objectives through spatially differentiated strategies. By integrating the PLEF framework with ecosystem services supply-demand relationships and coupling coordination analysis, this framework enables precise ecological management tailored to regional characteristics. The protocols and methodologies outlined in this technical guide provide researchers and practitioners with comprehensive tools for implementing scientific spatial zoning that addresses the spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services while promoting sustainable regional development.

Case Studies and Validation: From Regional Analyses to Management Outcomes

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RESs) are the benefits humans derive from the regulatory functions of ecosystems, including water purification, climate regulation, soil retention, and erosion control [1]. Understanding the spatio-temporal characteristics of these services is paramount for regional ecological protection, sustainable development, and effective policymaking. This whitepaper provides an in-depth technical analysis of RES dynamics and driving mechanisms across two critical Chinese case studies: the Luo River Basin, a vital tributary of the Yellow River, and the expansive Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB). The Luo River Basin exemplifies challenges of soil erosion and habitat degradation within a smaller watershed context, while the YREB represents a macro-regional scale where urbanization and economic activities intensely interact with ecological systems. By synthesizing cutting-edge research methodologies and findings, this guide serves as a strategic resource for researchers, environmental scientists, and policy professionals engaged in watershed management and ecological conservation.

Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Key Regulating Ecosystem Services

Core Regulating Services and Assessment Metrics

Quantifying RESs requires a robust framework of indicators and models. The following services are consistently prioritized in watershed and regional analyses:

• Water Yield and Regulation: The capacity of an ecosystem to capture, store, and release freshwater, crucial for water supply and flood mitigation.
• Soil Retention and Erosion Control: The ability of vegetation and land cover to prevent soil loss from water and wind erosion, preserving agricultural productivity and water quality.
• Carbon Storage and Sequestration: The long-term storage of carbon in biomass and soils, a key service for climate regulation.
• Habitat Quality: The capacity of an ecosystem to support biodiversity and provide suitable conditions for species persistence.

Case Study 1: The Luo River Basin

The Luo River Basin, covering 18,769 km², is characterized by soil and rocky mountains (45.2%), loess hills (51.3%), and alluvial plains (3.5%), creating a complex terrain for ecosystem service dynamics [58]. Research integrating the Comprehensive Ecosystem Service Index (CESI) and ecosystem service bundles (ES bundles) reveals distinct spatio-temporal patterns from 1999 to 2020 [58].

Table 1: Spatio-Temporal Trends of Key RESs in the Luo River Basin (1999-2020)

Ecosystem Service	Annual Trend	Spatial Change Area	Key Spatial Pattern
Water Yield	+4.71% per year [58]	>90% area increased [58]	General decrease from south to north [90]
Soil Retention	+8.97% per year [58]	>90% area increased [58]	Dispersed distribution of high values [90]
Carbon Storage	+0.05% per year [58]	>90% area increased [58]	West-high, east-low distribution [90]
Habitat Quality	-0.31% per year [58]	39.76% of area declined [58]	West-high, east-low distribution; yearly decline [90]

Spatially, the comprehensive ecosystem service index (CESI) shows a pattern of "low in the northeast and high in the southwest," closely mirroring the distribution of forested areas [58]. Analysis of ES bundles identified two high-supply modes (B2, B3), with upstream ecological benefits generally superior to those downstream [58]. This divergence underscores the tension between upstream conservation efforts and downstream urban expansion.

Case Study 2: The Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB)

The YREB, a massive economic corridor, exhibits different RES dynamics driven heavily by urbanization processes. Studies focusing on the coupling coordination between ecosystem services and new-type urbanization reveal critical interactions.

Table 2: Ecosystem Service and Urbanization Dynamics in the YREB

Aspect	Key Finding	Implication
Coupling Coordination	Fluctuating rise over time; "east high, west low" pattern spatially [91] [92]	Development is uneven, with eastern regions more coordinated.
Lagging Systems	Eastern provinces: Ecology-lagged; Central provinces: Economy-lagged; Western provinces: Energy and Economy-lagged [92]	Tailored regional policies are needed based on the primary lagging system.
Urban-Rural Integration	Rising development level (URIDL) from 2010-2019; high-value areas cluster in the east/north [93]	Spatial imbalances in development influence and are influenced by ES provision.

The spatio-temporal heterogeneity in the YREB highlights the trade-offs between economic development and ecological conservation, necessitating region-specific management strategies.

Advanced Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

This section details the core technical approaches for quantifying RESs and diagnosing their drivers, as applied in the featured case studies.

Ecosystem Service Quantification Protocols

Primary Tool: The InVEST Model Suite The Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) is the preeminent model family for spatially explicit ES quantification due to its accessibility, flexible parameterization, and spatially expressible results [27]. Key modules include:

• Annual Water Yield Module: Calculates the annual average water yield based on the Budyko curve, using inputs of precipitation, evapotranspiration, soil depth, and land use/land cover (LULC) [58] [90].
• Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) Module: Estimates soil loss and retention using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), factoring in rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility, slope length and steepness, cover management, and support practices [31].
• Carbon Storage Module: Quantifies carbon pools in four compartments: aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, soil, and dead organic matter, based on LULC data [58] [90].
• Habitat Quality Module: Assesses habitat degradation and quality based on the intensity of threats from human activities (e.g., urban areas, agriculture) and the sensitivity of LULC types to those threats [90].

Workflow Diagram: RES Assessment using InVEST

Diagnostic Protocols for Driving Factors

Understanding the "why" behind spatio-temporal patterns requires robust statistical diagnostics.

• Optimal Parameter Geographic Detector (OPGD) Model: This model excels at identifying the driving forces behind spatial heterogeneity. Its key power is assessing the influence of a factor (q) and detecting interactions between factors without assuming linearity [58] [90]. The OPGD optimizes the classification of continuous data (e.g., precipitation, slope) to minimize subjectivity. In the Luo River Basin, this model identified precipitation, NDVI, and slope as the dominant drivers of ESs [58].
• Multi-scale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR): While Geodetector identifies key drivers, MGWR reveals how the relationship between a driver (e.g., NDVI) and the ecosystem service varies across space and operates at different spatial scales [58]. This is crucial for formulating location-specific management interventions.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

In this context, "research reagents" refer to the core datasets, software, and analytical tools required to conduct spatio-temporal analysis of RESs.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Watershed ES Analysis

Tool/Solution	Type	Primary Function & Application	Exemplar Use Case
InVEST Model Suite	Software	Quantifies and maps multiple ESs (water yield, carbon, soil retention, habitat) in a spatially explicit manner.	Core analysis engine in both Luo River and Hainan National Park studies [58] [27].
Google Earth Engine (GEE)	Cloud Platform	Provides massive satellite imagery catalog (Landsat, Sentinel) and computational power for LULC classification and change detection.	Used to map historical LULC in Ifrane National Park, Morocco [31].
Optimal Parameter Geodetector (OPGD)	Statistical Model	Detects spatial stratified heterogeneity and quantifies the explanatory power of driving factors.	Identified precipitation and slope as key drivers in the Luo River Basin [58] [90].
Multi-scale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR)	Statistical Model	Models spatial varying relationships, allowing drivers to operate at different bandwidths (scales).	Used to analyze spatial heterogeneity of driving factors in the Luo River Basin [58].
Self-Organizing Map (SOM)	Algorithm (Unsupervised ANN)	Identifies ecosystem service bundles (ES bundles) via robust spatial clustering with high fault tolerance.	Revealed two high-supply ES bundles in the Luo River Basin [58].
Random Forest (RF) Algorithm	Machine Learning	Performs high-accuracy LULC classification from satellite imagery, handling complex, non-linear data.	Classified LULC in the Upper Beht Watershed, Morocco [31].

The spatio-temporal analysis of regulating ecosystem services in the Luo River Basin and the Yangtze River Economic Belt provides a powerful evidence base for moving from generalized conservation to highly targeted, spatially differentiated governance.

The research unequivocally demonstrates that drivers like precipitation, vegetation cover (NDVI), slope, and land use change have non-uniform impacts across space. Consequently, a one-size-fits-all management approach is ineffective. The proposed framework involves ecological zoning based on the specific ES bundles, dominant drivers, and risk profiles of different sub-regions [58] [94]. For the Luo River Basin, this translates to:

• Upstream Zones (High CESI): Focus on optimizing vegetation structure (e.g., species composition for the "Grain for Green" program) to maintain and enhance high soil retention, carbon storage, and water yield [58].
• Downstream Zones (Low CESI, Urban): Prioritize curbing urban sprawl, mitigating habitat fragmentation, and integrating green infrastructure to improve habitat quality and regulate water flow [58].

For macro-regions like the YREB, policy must address the spatial mismatch between economic and ecological systems. The findings advocate for cross-regional ecological compensation mechanisms and policies that are tailored to the specific lagging system in each province—whether it be ecology, economy, or energy [92] [93]. The integrated application of the methodologies outlined in this guide—from InVEST and OPGD to MGWR—provides the scientific rigor required to design these sophisticated, effective, and equitable management strategies for the world's critical watersheds.

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES) represent the benefits derived from the natural regulatory functions of ecosystems, including climate regulation, water purification, flood mitigation, and erosion control [1]. Within the broader research on spatio-temporal characteristics of ecosystem services, understanding RES dynamics along urban-rural gradients has emerged as a critical frontier, particularly in rapidly urbanizing regions. These gradients represent a spatial continuum from dense urban cores through suburban transition zones to rural and natural landscapes, each characterized by distinct ecological structures, functions, and pressures [95] [96].

The theoretical foundation of RES research recognizes that these services are purely public goods with no physical form, leading to their frequent oversight in policy decisions despite their fundamental importance to ecological security and human wellbeing [1]. In rapidly urbanizing regions like eastern Guangdong, the transformation of land use patterns directly alters ecosystem structure and function, creating complex spatio-temporal patterns of RES provision that require sophisticated methodological approaches to quantify and analyze [95].

Theoretical Framework: RES Dynamics Along Urban-Rural Gradients

Conceptual Model of RES Distribution

The provision of RES follows predictable patterns along urban-rural gradients, characterized by increasing service capacity from urban cores to peripheral natural ecosystems. This distribution is not linear but exhibits threshold effects and complex responses to urbanization intensity [95] [96].

Key RES Indicators and Their Spatial Characteristics

Table 1: Key Regulating Ecosystem Services and Their Urban-Rural Gradient Characteristics

RES Category	Key Indicators	Urban Core Pattern	Rural/Peripheral Pattern	Primary Drivers
Climate Regulation	Carbon storage, Urban heat island mitigation	Low carbon storage, Pronounced heat island effect	High carbon storage, Temperature moderation	Vegetation cover, Impervious surface ratio [95] [97]
Hydrological Regulation	Water retention, Runoff regulation	Low infiltration, High runoff	High water retention, Natural flow regulation	Land use type, Soil characteristics, Slope [95] [3]
Erosion Control	Soil retention, Sediment regulation	High erosion risk, Artificial protection	Natural soil stabilization	Vegetation cover, Topography, Land management [95] [98]
Habitat Quality	Biodiversity support, Ecosystem integrity	Fragmented habitats, Low quality	Connected habitats, High quality	Habitat connectivity, Threat proximity [95] [97]

Eastern Guangdong Case Study: Spatio-Temporal RES Dynamics (2000-2020)

Study Area and Regional Context

Eastern Guangdong (22°30′N–25°05′N, 114°50′E–117°20′E) encompasses four prefecture-level cities: Chaozhou, Shantou, Jieyang, and Meizhou, representing a rapidly urbanizing region with distinct urban-rural gradients [95] [99]. The region serves as a critical ecological barrier for Guangdong Province, characterized by mountainous topography in the north and coastal plains in the south, with varying degrees of urbanization pressure across this natural gradient [99].

Quantitative RES Assessment Findings

Table 2: RES Changes in Eastern Guangdong (2000-2020) [95] [99]

RES Indicator	Measurement Method	2000 Value	2020 Value	Change (%)	Spatial Pattern
Carbon Storage (CS)	InVEST Carbon Module	Relatively stable	Relatively stable	-0.2%	Strong north-south gradient, higher in northern mountainous areas
Habitat Quality (HQ)	InVEST Habitat Quality Module	High (0.72 average)	Moderate (0.61 average)	-15.3%	Degradation hotspots in urban peripheries
Soil Retention (SR)	RUSLE-based calculation	125.6 t/ha	96.2 t/ha	-23.4%	Significant decline in urbanizing areas
Water Retention (WR)	Water Yield/Retention Model	285.6 mm	232.4 mm	-18.6%	Decreasing with urbanization intensity
Composite RES Index	Weighted integration	0.745	0.612	-17.9%	General decline with spatial heterogeneity

The research documented a clear north-south gradient in RES capacity, with stronger performance in the mountainous north compared to the rapidly urbanizing southern coastal areas [95]. This spatial pattern reflects the underlying urban-rural gradient, with urbanization drivers progressively transforming the landscape and reducing RES capacity from 2000 to 2020.

Methodological Framework: Integrated RES Assessment Protocol

RES Quantification Experimental Protocols

Carbon Storage Assessment Protocol

Method: Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Carbon Module [95]

Workflow:

• Land Use/Land Cover Classification: Process multi-temporal Landsat imagery to create LULC maps for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020
• Carbon Pool Estimation: Define four carbon pools for each LULC type:
  • Aboveground biomass (Ca)
  • Belowground biomass (Cb)
  • Soil organic carbon (Cs)
  • Dead organic matter (Cd)
• Spatial Calculation: Apply the formula: CT = Ca + Cb + Cs + Cd
• Validation: Compare with field measurements and literature values for regional calibration

Key Parameters: Carbon density values specific to regional vegetation types and soil characteristics [95]

Habitat Quality Assessment Protocol

Method: InVEST Habitat Quality Module [95]

Workflow:

• Habitat Classification: Map natural habitats based on LULC data
• Threat Definition: Identify and map major threats (urban expansion, agriculture, infrastructure)
• Sensitivity Assessment: Assign sensitivity values for each habitat type to each threat
• Quality Calculation: Compute using the equation: Qxj = Hj[1 - Dxjz/(Dxjz + kz)] Where: Qxj = habitat quality, Hj = habitat suitability, Dxj = threat pressure, z = scaling constant (2.5), k = half-saturation constant
• Spatial Explicit Mapping: Generate habitat quality maps across the study area

Key Parameters: Threat weights, decay functions, and habitat sensitivity values calibrated to local conditions [95]

Multi-Scale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR) Analysis

Method: MGWR for Driver Analysis [95]

Workflow:

• Variable Selection: Include natural (NDVI, precipitation, temperature, slope, elevation) and socioeconomic (population density, GDP) factors
• Model Specification: yi = β0(Ui, Vi) + ∑j βj(Ui, Vi)xij + εi Where: yi = RES value at location i, β0 = intercept, βj = spatially varying coefficients, xij = explanatory variables
• Bandwidth Optimization: Allow each variable to operate at its specific spatial scale
• Coefficient Mapping: Visualize spatially varying relationships between drivers and RES

Key Parameters: Optimal bandwidth for each variable, significance testing of local coefficients [95]

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Toolkit for RES Assessment in Urbanizing Regions

Tool/Category	Specific Solution	Function in RES Research	Application Example
Remote Sensing Data	Landsat Series (30m resolution)	Land use/cover classification, Vegetation monitoring	Multi-temporal LULC mapping for RES modeling [95] [99]
Ecosystem Service Models	InVEST Suite (Carbon, Habitat, Water Yield modules)	Quantifying RES spatial distribution	Carbon storage mapping, Habitat quality assessment [95] [97]
Spatial Statistical Tools	MGWR 2.0, ArcGIS Pro	Analyzing spatially varying relationships	Identifying differential driver impacts across urban-rural gradient [95]
Climate Data	Gridded meteorological datasets (Precipitation, Temperature)	Climate driver incorporation in RES models	Water yield calculation, Climate regulation assessment [95] [3]
Socioeconomic Data	Gridded population, GDP datasets	Anthropogenic pressure quantification	Relating economic activity to RES degradation [95] [99]
Clustering Algorithms	SOM-FCM hybrid approach	Ecological zoning based on RES bundles	Delineating management zones with similar RES characteristics [95]

Driver Analysis and Ecological Zoning Applications

Spatially Heterogeneous Drivers of RES Dynamics

The MGWR analysis in eastern Guangdong revealed complex, spatially varying relationships between driving factors and RES [95]:

• NDVI consistently demonstrated the strongest positive influence on RES, particularly in central regions
• Climate factors (precipitation, temperature) showed fluctuating impacts, with sharp variations in northern mountainous areas
• Population pressure effects peaked in northern regions and turned negative in southern urban areas by 2020
• GDP impacts displayed east-west divergence, with positive effects in the east but negative impacts in the west
• Topographic factors (slope, elevation) exerted strongest influences in eastern areas, with the east-west elevation difference effect gradually weakening over time

Ecological Zoning and Management Implications

The SOM-FCM clustering approach identified four distinct ecological zones with specific RES characteristics and management requirements [95] [99]:

• Protection Zones: High RES capacity areas requiring strict conservation
• Conservation Zones: Moderate RES capacity needing ecosystem restoration
• Improvement Zones: Transitional areas requiring ecological connectivity enhancement
• Control Zones: Urban-dominated areas needing compact development strategies

Between 2000 and 2020, Control Zones expanded significantly due to intensified urbanization (increasing from 18.3% to 29.7% of the study area), while the other three zones contracted, demonstrating the progressive encroachment of urbanization on ecological space [95].

The study of RES dynamics along urban-rural gradients in rapidly urbanizing regions like eastern Guangdong provides critical insights for sustainable spatial planning. The integrated methodology combining InVEST modeling, MGWR analysis, and SOM-FCM clustering offers a transferable approach for capturing the spatial heterogeneity of RES and supporting adaptive ecological management [95].

Future research directions should focus on:

• Enhanced integration of cultural ecosystem services into RES assessment frameworks
• Dynamic modeling of RES trade-offs and synergies under different urbanization scenarios
• Development of early warning systems for RES threshold breaches
• Policy mechanism design for RES maintenance in urbanizing landscapes

This research contributes to the broader thesis on spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services by demonstrating the critical importance of urban-rural gradients in understanding RES patterns and designing effective management interventions in an era of rapid global urbanization.

Coastal and wetland ecosystems represent critical interfaces between terrestrial and marine environments, providing indispensable regulating ecosystem services including habitat provision, carbon sequestration, soil conservation, and water purification [100] [101]. In China, these ecosystems face unprecedented threats from rapid urbanization, land reclamation, and climate change, driving significant ecological transformation [102] [103]. This technical guide examines the spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services through focused case studies from Tianjin and broader Chinese coastal regions, providing researchers with advanced methodologies for monitoring, assessment, and analysis of these vital ecosystems.

Study Areas and Datasets

Key Research Sites

Tianjin Coastal Wetlands: Located on the western coast of the Bohai Sea, this region encompasses diverse wetland types including natural and constructed wetlands across the Binhai New Area [102] [103]. The area has experienced substantial changes due to urban expansion and reclamation activities, making it a significant case study for coastal ecosystem transformation.

National Scale Coastal Wetlands: China's coastal wetlands span approximately 5.8 million hectares, providing an estimated $200 billion in ecosystem services annually [101]. These ecosystems have experienced dramatic declines, with tidal marshes and mangroves reduced by 57% and 73% respectively since the mid-20th century [101].

Table 1: Essential Datasets for Coastal Wetland Ecosystem Research

Data Category	Specific Types	Spatial/Temporal Resolution	Primary Applications
Remote Sensing Imagery	Landsat MSS/TM/OLI, Sentinel-2	30m resolution; 1984-present [102]	Land use/cover classification, change detection
Topographic Data	Digital Elevation Models (DEM)	30m resolution [100]	Hydrological modeling, watershed delineation
Climate Data	Precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration	Daily/monthly time series [104]	Water yield modeling, ecosystem productivity
Soil Data	Soil texture, organic matter, depth	Varying resolutions [104]	Carbon storage assessment, erosion modeling
Socioeconomic Data	Population density, GDP, land use policies	County/district level [102] [103]	Driving force analysis, policy impact assessment

Methodological Framework

Core Research Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the integrated methodological framework for studying spatio-temporal characteristics of coastal wetland ecosystem services:

Experimental Protocols

InVEST Model Implementation

The Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model provides a robust framework for quantifying ecosystem services [100] [105]. The implementation protocol involves:

Habitat Quality Assessment:

• Input Requirements: Land use/land cover (LULC) maps, threat source data, threat sensitivity tables [104]
• Processing: Calculate habitat quality index based on land use types, proximity to threats, and vulnerability factors
• Output: Spatial distribution of habitat quality values (0-1 scale) across the study area

Carbon Storage Quantification:

• Input Requirements: LULC maps, carbon pool data (aboveground, belowground, soil, dead organic matter) [104]
• Processing: Assign carbon densities to different land cover classes and calculate total carbon storage
• Output: Spatial carbon storage maps in tons per hectare

Soil Conservation Evaluation:

• Input Requirements: DEM, rainfall erosivity data, soil erodibility data, LULC maps [100]
• Processing: Apply Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) parameters within the InVEST sediment retention module
• Output: Actual and potential soil erosion rates, sediment retention capacity

Land Use Change Detection

• Data Preparation: Multi-temporal Landsat imagery (MSS, TM, OLI) acquired for consistent seasonal periods [103]
• Classification System: Adapt national wetland classification standards (GB/T 24708-2009) categorizing natural wetlands (tidal marshes, mangroves) and constructed wetlands [103]
• Change Detection: Apply Modified Normalized Difference Water Index (MNDWI) for water body extraction combined with supervised classification algorithms [103]
• Accuracy Assessment: Conduct field validation using GPS equipment with minimum 100 random points per time period [102]

Spatio-Temporal Dynamics Analysis

Tianjin Coastal Wetland Changes

Table 2: Spatio-temporal Dynamics of Tianjin Coastal Wetlands (1984-2020)

Time Period	Total Wetland Area (km²)	Natural Wetland Change (%)	Constructed Wetland Change (%)	Primary Driving Factors
1984-1990	2233.59 to 2268.52	+1.2%	+0.8%	Agricultural expansion
1990-2000	2268.52 to 2259.06	-2.1%	+3.5%	Initial urbanization phase
2000-2010	2259.06 to 1978.58	-18.7%	+12.3%	Rapid urban expansion, reclamation
2010-2020	1978.58 to 1742.73	-12.3%	+8.9%	Continued development, policy interventions

Analysis of Tianjin coastal wetlands reveals a consistent decline in natural wetlands alongside an increase in constructed wetlands, with fragmentation patterns intensifying over the study period [102]. The most significant transitions occurred between 2000-2010, coinciding with accelerated economic development in the Bohai Rim region.

Ecosystem Service Trade-offs and Synergies

Research in Tianjin wetland nature reserves demonstrates complex relationships between regulating ecosystem services [100]:

The trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services inform spatial planning decisions, particularly regarding zoning regulations in nature reserves where core and buffer zones typically maintain higher service levels than experimental zones [100].

Policy Impacts and Management Interventions

Reclamation Policy Effectiveness

China's shifting reclamation policies have demonstrated measurable impacts on coastal ecosystem services:

Table 3: Policy Interventions and Ecological Outcomes in China's Coastal Zones

Policy Measure	Implementation Timeline	Key Provisions	Documented Ecological Outcomes
Annual Reclamation Quota Management	2011 onward	Limited annual coastal reclamation areas	Initial suppression of habitat quality decline [105]
Ecological Civilization Construction	2015 onward	Natural coastline reservation targets (≥35%)	Reduced conversion of natural wetlands [106]
Reclamation Moratorium	2018 onward	Suspension of new reclamation projects excluding major infrastructure	Stabilization of carbon storage services, improved material production [105]

Regression discontinuity analysis of Ningbo City demonstrates that the 2011 reclamation policy implementation suppressed downward trends in habitat quality, while the 2017 policies positively impacted carbon storage and material production services [105].

Ecological Restoration Protocols

Coastal wetland restoration in China has employed diverse methodologies:

Mangrove Restoration:

• Implementation: Plant native mangrove species (Kandelia obovata) rather than exotic species
• Success Metrics: Survival rates, natural spread capacity, biodiversity recovery
• Challenges: Exclusion of invasive Sonneratia apetala which shades out native species [101]

Tidal Marsh Rehabilitation:

• Implementation: Topographic transformation, water system construction, vegetation management
• Success Metrics: Waterbird diversity, habitat quality indices, vegetation coverage
• Case Example: Chongming Dongtan restoration increased waterbird diversity through created habitats [101]

The Scientist's Toolkit

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Tools for Coastal Wetland Ecosystem Studies

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Data Requirements
Ecosystem Service Models	InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs)	Quantifying habitat quality, carbon storage, sediment retention [100] [105]	LULC maps, DEM, climate data, soil parameters
Remote Sensing Platforms	Landsat series, Sentinel-2	Multi-temporal land cover mapping, change detection [102] [103]	Satellite imagery across multiple decades
Spatial Analysis Software	ArcGIS, QGIS with specialized plugins	Spatial pattern analysis, fragmentation metrics, map production [102] [104]	Georeferenced datasets, boundary files
Statistical Analysis Tools	R, MATLAB, Python with spatial packages	Trend analysis, correlation assessment, driver identification [102] [104]	Tabular data with spatial references
Field Validation Equipment	High-precision GPS, soil samplers, water quality sensors	Ground truthing, accuracy assessment, parameter calibration [103]	Field sampling plans, calibration standards

The spatio-temporal analysis of regulating ecosystem services in China's coastal wetlands reveals complex dynamics driven by interacting natural and anthropogenic factors. The case studies from Tianjin demonstrate that while significant wetland loss has occurred, targeted policy interventions can stabilize and enhance critical ecosystem services. Future research should prioritize integrated land-sea planning approaches, advanced remote sensing technologies, and standardized monitoring protocols to better inform ecosystem management decisions. The methodologies and findings presented provide researchers with robust technical frameworks for assessing coastal wetland ecosystem services across spatial and temporal scales.

The Boma-Gambella Trans-boundary Landscape represents a critical region for examining the spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services within a fragmented ecological context. This biodiversity-rich protected area, spanning southwest Ethiopia and eastern South Sudan, encompasses Gambella National Park (Ethiopia) and Boma National Park (South Sudan), covering approximately 2.78 million hectares of ecologically significant land [72]. As a single eco-region characterized by shared climatic conditions, hydrologic features, and migratory species patterns, this landscape provides an ideal natural laboratory for studying how political boundaries and landscape fragmentation influence the capacity of ecosystems to deliver essential regulating services including climate regulation, water purification, and flood control [72].

The region exemplifies the complex interplay between ecological connectivity and anthropogenic pressures, where cross-boundary conservation efforts must contend with divergent governance approaches and economic priorities. Understanding the spatio-temporal dynamics of ecosystem services in this context is paramount for developing effective trans-boundary management strategies that can balance ecological integrity with human development needs [72].

Methodological Framework for Cross-Boundary Analysis

Spatial Data Acquisition and Pre-processing

The technical assessment of ecosystem services in the Boma-Gambella landscape employs an integrated spatial modeling approach utilizing remote sensing data and geographic information systems (GIS) to quantify landscape changes and their implications for regulating services [72].

• Satellite Imagery Sources: Landsat 7 ETM+ imagery (2009) and Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS imagery (2020) were acquired from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) at a medium resolution of 30 meters, with panchromatic resolution of 15 meters [72].
• Radiometric and Atmospheric Corrections: Sensor noise, atmospheric interference, and variations in illumination were corrected to ensure accurate representation of the Earth's surface [72].
• Geometric Correction: Distortions were eliminated and images were aligned with geographic coordinates to ensure compatibility with other spatial datasets [72].
• Spectral Band Combinations: False-color composite using near-infrared, red, and green bands highlighted vegetation and other land cover features essential for ecosystem service assessment [72].

Land Use Land Cover (LULC) Classification

The classification of LULC utilizes a hybrid approach combining supervised and unsupervised methods to achieve optimal accuracy in this complex landscape [72] [107]:

• Supervised Classification: Training samples representing different LULC types (forest land, grassland, agricultural land, water bodies, wetlands, bare land, and settlement areas) were identified using maximum likelihood classification algorithms [72].
• Unsupervised Classification: Clustering algorithms grouped pixels into spectrally similar clusters, which were subsequently labeled with LULC types by incorporating spectral characteristics and ground truth data [72].
• Accuracy Assessment: Google Earth Explorer was utilized to randomly select 200 sample training points to assess classification accuracy for both 2009 and 2020 through confusion matrices, overall accuracy, and kappa coefficient calculations [72].

Landscape Fragmentation Analysis

The study employed FRAGSTATS 4.2 to quantify landscape patterns and fragmentation metrics, which directly influence the capacity of ecosystems to provide regulating services [72]. Key metrics include:

• Patch density and size metrics: Measures the fragmentation of natural habitats
• Edge effects: Quantifies the interface between different land cover types
• Connectivity indices: Assesses the functional linkage between habitat patches
• Landscape diversity metrics: Evaluates the heterogeneity of the landscape mosaic

Ecosystem Service Valuation

The Benefit Transfer Approach (BTA) was applied to estimate ecosystem service values (ESV) based on the classified LULC data [72]. This methodology involves:

• Value Transfer: Applying per-hectare ecosystem service values from previous studies in similar ecological contexts
• Spatial Explicit Modeling: Mapping the distribution of ecosystem service values across the landscape
• Temporal Analysis: Comparing ESV changes between 2009 and 2020 to identify trends and trade-offs

Table 1: Core Spatial Analysis Tools and Their Applications

Tool/Software	Primary Function	Application in Boma-Gambella Study
ArcGIS 10.7	Spatial data management and analysis	Geoprocessing, change detection analysis, and map production
FRAGSTATS 4.2	Landscape pattern analysis	Quantification of landscape metrics and fragmentation indices
Google Earth Engine	Training data collection	Accuracy assessment of LULC classifications
Landsat Imagery (USGS)	Land surface monitoring	Multitemporal land cover change detection

Experimental Protocols and Analytical Workflows

Integrated Spatial Modeling Protocol

The research employs a comprehensive analytical workflow to assess the impacts of landscape fragmentation on ecosystem services:

• Land Cover Change Detection

  • Comparative assessment of classified images for 2009 and 2020
  • Calculation of transition matrices between land cover categories
  • Identification of conversion hotspots and trends

• Fragmentation Analysis

  • Computation of landscape metrics at class and landscape levels
  • Analysis of spatial patterns of fragmentation using moving window approaches
  • Identification of fragmentation gradients across the trans-boundary landscape

• Ecosystem Service Valuation

  • Application of standardized value coefficients to land cover classes
  • Spatial modeling of ecosystem service flow distributions
  • Quantification of trade-offs and synergies between service categories

• Cross-boundary Comparison

  • Statistical analysis of landscape and ecosystem service metrics across the border
  • Assessment of governance impacts on landscape patterns
  • Evaluation of differential pressures on regulating services

Stakeholder Analysis and Governance Assessment

Complementing the spatial analysis, the study incorporated social science methodologies to understand the governance context influencing ecosystem services [108]:

• Household Surveys: 222 farm household heads completed questionnaire surveys assessing perceptions of ecosystem sustainability and governance effectiveness [108].
• Stakeholder Interviews: 12 Key Informant Interviews and 8 Focus Group Discussions provided qualitative data on governance mechanisms and conflict resolution [108].
• Statistical Analysis: Ordinal Logistic Regression Model (OLM) was employed to evaluate predictors of ecosystem sustainability perceptions, with governance factors explaining 41% of the variance in outcomes [108].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the integrated methodology for assessing ecosystem services in trans-boundary landscapes:

Diagram 1: Integrated Methodology for Trans-boundary Ecosystem Service Assessment

Key Findings: Spatio-temporal Dynamics of Regulating Services

Landscape Fragmentation and Ecosystem Service Trade-offs

The analysis reveals significant transformations in the Boma-Gambella landscape between 2009 and 2020, with profound implications for regulating ecosystem services:

• Accelerated Fragmentation: The study documented increased fragmentation of natural habitats, resulting in a reduction of ecological land and altered landscape metrics [72]. This fragmentation directly impacts the continuity and functionality of ecosystems providing essential regulating services.
• Service Trade-offs: Research findings indicate "rapid declines in regulating and supporting services, alongside gains in provisioning services that are subject to government and investor interests" [72]. This shift represents a fundamental trade-off where short-term provisioning gains undermine the long-term capacity of ecosystems to provide critical regulating functions.
• Cross-boundary Disparities: The analysis identified significant differences in landscape patterns and fragmentation levels across the Ethiopia-South Sudan border, reflecting divergent land use policies and governance approaches [72].

Governance Effectiveness and Ecological Outcomes

The governance assessment revealed critical insights into the institutional dimensions influencing ecosystem services:

• Inclusive Decision-making: The ordinal logistic regression analysis identified inclusive decision-making as a significant positive predictor of restoration outcomes (Odds Ratio = 1.228, p < 0.05) [108].
• Collaboration Paradox: Counter-intuitively, stakeholder collaboration and coordination indices emerged as significant negative predictors of positive outcomes, attributed to "perceived injustices in conflict resolution and inequitable knowledge sharing among stakeholders" [108].
• Policy Implications: The study concludes that "policy interventions must move beyond fostering mere collaboration and instead prioritize the institutionalization of genuinely inclusive decision-making with explicit equity safeguards" [108].

Table 2: Ecosystem Service Trade-offs in Boma-Gambella Landscape (2009-2020)

Ecosystem Service Category	Trend (2009-2020)	Primary Drivers	Implications for Human Well-being
Regulating Services (climate regulation, water purification, flood control)	Significant Decline	Landscape fragmentation, habitat conversion	Reduced resilience to climate extremes, compromised water quality, increased vulnerability
Supporting Services (nutrient cycling, soil formation)	Significant Decline	Loss of ecological land, fragmentation	Long-term degradation of productive capacity, reduced ecosystem functionality
Provisioning Services (food, water, timber)	Net Increase	Agricultural expansion, resource extraction	Short-term economic benefits favoring specific interests, unsustainable exploitation patterns
Cultural Services (recreation, spiritual values)	Not Assessed	Not Assessed	Not Assessed

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Solutions

Field Data Collection and Validation

• GPS Receivers (Garmin GPSMAP 66sr or equivalent): High-sensitivity receivers for accurate ground control point collection and validation site location. Essential for establishing precise coordinates for training data collection and accuracy assessment [72].
• Field Spectrometers (ASD FieldSpec or similar): Portable spectroradiometers for collecting spectral signatures of different land cover types. Critical for developing specialized spectral libraries for improved classification accuracy [107].
• Digital Cameras with GPS logging: Documentation of ground truth conditions and collection of reference images for visual interpretation of satellite imagery [72].

Spatial Analysis Software Suite

• ArcGIS 10.7/Pro: Comprehensive GIS platform for spatial data management, analysis, and cartographic output. Used for change detection analysis, spatial modeling, and map production in the Boma-Gambella study [72].
• FRAGSTATS 4.2: Specialist software for calculating landscape metrics and quantifying spatial patterns. Essential for analyzing landscape fragmentation and its impacts on ecosystem connectivity [72].
• Google Earth Engine: Cloud-based platform for processing satellite imagery and conducting large-scale spatial analysis. Utilized for accessing archival imagery and conducting preliminary assessments [72].

Ecosystem Service Assessment Tools

• Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD): Publicly available database with standardized monetary values for ecosystem services globally. Contains over 10,800 values standardized in Int$2020/hectare/year, providing crucial reference data for benefit transfer applications [109].
• InVEST Model Suite: Integrated valuation of ecosystem services and tradeoffs, developed by the Natural Capital Project. Provides models for quantifying and valuing multiple ecosystem services, though not explicitly mentioned in the Boma-Gambella studies, represents state-of-the-art in the field.
• R/Python with Spatial Packages: Programming environments with specialized packages (e.g., raster, terra, sf in R; rasterio, geopandas in Python) for custom spatial analysis and model development.

Table 3: Essential Analytical Tools for Trans-boundary Ecosystem Service Research

Tool Category	Specific Tools	Primary Application	Technical Requirements
Remote Sensing Data	Landsat 7 ETM+, Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS, Sentinel-2	Land cover mapping, change detection	USGS EarthExplorer access, basic image processing capability
Spatial Analysis	ArcGIS, QGIS, GRASS GIS	Geoprocessing, spatial modeling, cartography	Advanced GIS skills, spatial statistics knowledge
Landscape Metrics	FRAGSTATS, V-LATE	Quantifying landscape patterns, fragmentation analysis	Understanding of landscape ecology concepts
Statistical Analysis	R, SPSS, Ordinal Logistic Regression	Modeling relationships, hypothesis testing	Statistical expertise, experimental design knowledge
Ecosystem Service Valuation	ESVD, Benefit Transfer Method, InVEST	Quantifying and valuing ecosystem services	Economics background, understanding of valuation methods

Implications for Regulating Ecosystem Services Research

The Boma-Gambella case study offers several critical insights for the broader thesis on spatio-temporal characteristics of regulating ecosystem services research:

Methodological Advancements

The integrated approach demonstrated in this research represents a significant advancement in how regulating ecosystem services can be quantified and analyzed across political boundaries:

• Multitemporal Analysis: The combination of 2009 and 2020 land cover data enables the identification of trends and trajectories in ecosystem service provision, moving beyond static assessments to dynamic understanding of service flows [72].
• Spatially Explicit Modeling: The use of fragmentation metrics and spatial pattern analysis allows for precise identification of degradation hotspots and functional corridors essential for maintaining regulating services [72].
• Mixed-Methods Integration: The combination of biophysical spatial analysis with socio-economic governance assessment provides a more comprehensive understanding of the drivers influencing regulating ecosystem services [108].

Policy and Governance Implications

The findings from the Boma-Gambella landscape highlight several critical considerations for ecosystem service governance:

• Cross-boundary Coordination: The study underscores the necessity of "effective landscape governance to enhance the functioning of multiple ecosystem services, resolve trade-offs, and promote synergies at landscape, regional, and global scales" [72]. This is particularly crucial for regulating services like climate regulation and water purification that transcend political boundaries.
• Equity in Decision-making: The research demonstrates that "inclusive decision-making was a significant positive predictor of restoration outcomes," highlighting the importance of equitable participation in ecosystem management [108].
• Institutional Alignment: The findings suggest that aligning governance structures with ecological boundaries rather than political boundaries is essential for maintaining the integrity of regulating ecosystem services [72].

The following diagram illustrates the complex relationships between landscape fragmentation, ecosystem services, and human well-being in trans-boundary contexts:

Diagram 2: Trans-boundary Landscape Fragmentation and Ecosystem Service Relationships

The Boma-Gambella trans-boundary landscape represents a critical case study in understanding the spatio-temporal dynamics of regulating ecosystem services within fragmented ecological and political contexts. The integrated methodology presented—combining remote sensing, spatial analysis, fragmentation metrics, and stakeholder assessment—provides a robust framework for analyzing how landscape changes influence the capacity of ecosystems to deliver essential regulating services.

The findings highlight an urgent need for governance mechanisms that can effectively address the complex trade-offs between provisioning and regulating services, while recognizing the cross-boundary nature of ecological processes. As anthropogenic pressures continue to transform landscapes globally, the approaches demonstrated in this research offer valuable insights for managing ecosystem services in similarly complex trans-boundary contexts.

Future research in this field should build upon these methodological foundations while addressing emerging challenges such as climate change impacts, the integration of traditional ecological knowledge, and the development of more sophisticated models for predicting ecosystem service trajectories under alternative governance scenarios.

Validating the effectiveness of ecological protection zones and restoration efforts is a critical component of ecosystem management, particularly within the broader context of spatio-temporal research on regulating ecosystem services. Regulating ecosystem services—including carbon sequestration, soil conservation, water retention, and habitat quality—represent nature's regulatory mechanisms that maintain environmental equilibrium and support human wellbeing. As human pressures on ecosystems intensify, and with the increasing allocation of resources toward large-scale restoration programs, the development of robust, scientifically-grounded validation frameworks becomes paramount [110] [111]. This technical guide synthesizes advanced methodologies and empirical findings to establish a comprehensive protocol for assessing the efficacy of protection and restoration interventions, with particular emphasis on their capacity to enhance regulating ecosystem services across temporal and spatial dimensions.

The fundamental challenge in validation stems from the complex, non-linear relationships among ecosystem services and their responses to management actions. As Peng et al. emphasize, ecosystem services frequently exhibit trade-offs (where one service increases at the expense of another) and synergies (where multiple services increase simultaneously) [111]. Furthermore, the outcomes of conservation interventions are often scale-dependent and manifest over extended timeframes, necessitating sophisticated spatio-temporal analytical approaches [111]. This guide addresses these complexities by integrating cutting-edge assessment models, multi-scale indicators, and rigorous experimental protocols to deliver a scientifically robust validation framework tailored for researchers, scientists, and environmental policy professionals.

Quantitative Foundations: Establishing Baselines and Trends

Comprehensive validation begins with quantifying baseline conditions and temporal trajectories of ecosystem services. Recent research across Chinese ecosystems provides substantial empirical data demonstrating measurable outcomes of conservation interventions. The table below synthesizes key findings from large-scale studies, highlighting the quantitative changes in regulating services following implementation of protection and restoration measures.

Table 1: Documented Changes in Ecosystem Services Following Conservation Interventions

Region	Time Period	Assessed Services	Key Quantitative Findings	Reference
Xinjiang Ecological Zones	1992-2018	Habitat support, Carbon storage & sequestration, Soil conservation, Windbreak & sand fixation	Habitat support & carbon storage significantly improved; Soil & sand fixation services declined until 2007 then increased (2007-2018)	[112]
China Terrestrial Ecosystems	2000-2018	NPP, Carbon sequestration, Water retention, Soil retention	NPP: 3.68 Pg C/a; Carbon seq: 0.43 Pg C/a; Water retention: 1015.71 km³/a; Soil retention: 208.18 Gt/a; All services showed increasing trends	[113]
Three Parallel Rivers Region (Protected Areas)	2001-2020	Fractional vegetation coverage, Forest fragmentation, Ecosystem services	48.81% of PA areas showed positive/stable FVC trends; 59.82% showed positive/stable ES trends; 33.03% achieved high integrated conservation effectiveness	[114]
Poyang Lake Area	2000-2020	Regulating Ecosystem Service Value (RESV)	Overall loss of 70.5988 billion CNY in RESV; Core area most affected; Spatial distribution: fringe area > core area > peripheral area	[3]
Dongting Lake Eco-Economic Zone	2000-2020	Crop production, Carbon sequestration, Habitat quality, Forest recreation	Crop production increased; Carbon sequestration, habitat quality, and forest recreation remained stable; Strong trade-offs between crop production and habitat quality	[98]

The data reveal several consistent patterns regarding the efficacy of protection zones. In Xinjiang, the bifurcated trend around 2007 suggests a potential time lag in intervention effectiveness, where significant investment in ecological programs initially manifested only after approximately 15 years [112]. Similarly, the national-scale assessment confirms broad improvements in most regulating services across China's terrestrial ecosystems, indicating potential cumulative benefits of the extensive ecological restoration projects implemented since 2000 [113]. The protected area effectiveness in the Three Parallel Rivers Region demonstrates that while most areas showed improvement in at least one indicator, only one-third achieved high conservation effectiveness across all metrics, highlighting the challenge of simultaneous improvement across multiple services [114].

Methodological Framework: Assessment Protocols and Indicators

Core Assessment Models and Their Applications

Validating management outcomes requires integrated modeling approaches that capture the complex biophysical processes underlying ecosystem services. The following experimental protocols represent state-of-the-art methodologies derived from recent research:

Integrated Ecosystem Service Assessment Protocol (InVEST & RWEQ) Application Context: Regional-scale assessment of multiple ecosystem services, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions. *Data Requirements: Land cover/classification data, meteorological data, watershed data, soil data, digital elevation model (DEM), and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) time series [112]. *Processing Workflow*:

• Data preprocessing and harmonization to consistent spatial and temporal resolutions
• Land use/land cover change analysis using classification algorithms
• Habitat quality assessment using InVEST Habitat Quality module
• Carbon storage estimation based on land cover carbon pool assignments
• Soil conservation calculation using InVEST Sediment Retention Module
• Windbreak and sand fixation services with Revised Wind Erosion Equation (RWEQ)
• Temporal trend analysis using Mann-Kendall test or linear regression
• Service bundle identification through cluster analysis [112] Validation Measures*: Cross-validation with field measurements, sensitivity analysis of key parameters, and comparison with independent remote sensing products.

Process-Based Ecosystem Service Modeling (CEVSA-ES) Application Context: National and regional assessments requiring integration of ecosystem processes and service interactions. *Model Innovations: Integrates remote sensing data with biogeochemical processes; incorporates soil erosion impacts on carbon cycling; improves carbon-water cycle algorithms [113]. *Key Implementation Steps*:

• Driver data preparation: climate, soil, vegetation, and land use data
• Calibration against flux tower measurements and forest inventory data
• Process-based simulation of carbon, water, and nutrient cycles
• Net primary productivity (NPP) calculation based on carbon assimilation and allocation
• Carbon sequestration estimation from net ecosystem productivity
• Water retention modeling based on precipitation partitioning
• Soil retention calculation integrating rainfall erosivity and vegetation cover
• Trade-off and synergy analysis using correlation and regression methods [113] Output Validation*: Comparison with eddy covariance measurements, watershed discharge data, and soil erosion monitoring.

Protected Area Conservation Effectiveness Assessment *Application Context: Evaluating the integrated conservation effectiveness of protected areas in preserving forest ecosystems. *Indicator Framework:

• Fractional vegetation coverage (FVC) as a measure of vegetation vigor
• Forest fragmentation index (FFI) to quantify landscape pattern changes
• Composite ecosystem services index: water retention, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, and habitat quality [114] Analytical Approach*:
• Time-series trend analysis using Theil-Sen median trend and Mann-Kendall significance testing
• Integrated effectiveness classification based on combinations of FVC, FFI, and ES trends
• Driving factor analysis using random forest modeling to identify key influencers
• Effectiveness visualization through spatial mapping and statistical aggregation [114]

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Ecosystem Service Assessment

Research Reagent	Function	Application Examples	Data Sources
Land Use/Land Cover Data	Baseline for ecosystem structure and function	Habitat quality assessment, Change detection	Resource and Environment Science and Data Center (CAS) [3]
Meteorological Data	Driver of ecosystem processes	Modeling productivity, water balance, erosion	China Meteorological Data Service Center [113]
Soil Datasets	Parameterization of hydrological and nutrient cycles	Soil erosion modeling, Carbon pool estimation	World Soil Database, National Tibetan Plateau Data Center [3]
Digital Elevation Model	Topographic characterization	Hydrological modeling, Erosion risk assessment	ASTER GDEM, NASA [3]
NDVI Time Series	Vegetation activity and phenology	Productivity estimation, Habitat condition	MODIS, Landsat, Resource and Environment Data Center [112] [3]
Socioeconomic Data	Anthropogenic pressure assessment	Driver analysis, Ecosystem service demand	GDP per land, Population density datasets [3]

Spatial and Temporal Analysis Techniques

Understanding the spatio-temporal dynamics of ecosystem services is fundamental to validating management outcomes. Advanced analytical approaches include:

Service Bundle Analysis This technique identifies typical combinations of ecosystem services that repeatedly appear together across landscapes. As demonstrated in Shenzhen, service bundles can be tracked over time to understand trajectories of change and identify typical transitions [115]. The methodology involves:

• Standardization of multiple ecosystem service indicators
• Principal component analysis to reduce dimensionality
• Cluster analysis to identify distinct service bundles
• Spatial mapping of bundle distribution
• Transition analysis across time periods [115]

Trade-off and Synergy Analysis Critical for understanding how management interventions affect the relationships between services:

• Correlation analysis to identify significant relationships between service pairs
• Spatial coincidence analysis to map where trade-offs and synergies occur
• Trade-off curve analysis to characterize the shape of relationships
• Scenario analysis to project how management decisions might alter relationships [113] [111]

Structural Equation Modeling for Driver Analysis As applied in the Poyang Lake Area, this approach:

• Tests complex causal relationships between multiple drivers
• Quantifies direct and indirect effects on ecosystem services
• Reveals regional differences in driving mechanisms
• Identifies key leverage points for management intervention [3]

Diagram 1: Ecosystem Service Assessment Workflow. This flowchart illustrates the sequential stages in validating management outcomes, from data collection to management recommendations.

Spatio-temporal Dynamics and Management Implications

Temporal Patterns and Lag Effects

The efficacy of protection zones and restoration efforts often exhibits complex temporal dynamics. Research consistently identifies non-linear responses and time-lag effects in ecosystem service recovery. In Xinjiang ecological zones, soil conservation and windbreak services displayed a distinct inflection point around 2007, with declining trends preceding this point and improvements thereafter [112]. This pattern suggests that ecological restoration programs may require substantial time before demonstrating measurable benefits, highlighting the importance of long-term monitoring frameworks.

National-scale assessments reveal that most regulating services across China increased between 2000 and 2018, with net primary productivity showing the most significant upward trend (42.80 Tg C/a) [113]. These improvements coincide with major ecological restoration initiatives, though attribution requires careful consideration of confounding factors. The temporal sequencing of service recovery appears to follow logical ecological principles, with habitat support and carbon sequestration showing earlier improvements than soil stabilization services [112] [113].

Spatial Heterogeneity in Conservation Effectiveness

Spatial context profoundly influences protection outcomes, with effectiveness varying across geographic gradients and administrative boundaries. The Poyang Lake Area demonstrates distinctive spatial patterns in regulating ecosystem service value (RESV), with the fringe area exhibiting highest overall value, followed by the core area and peripheral area [3]. This distribution reflects the influence of lake proximity on service provision, with RESV per unit area declining with distance from the lake.

Protected area effectiveness in the Three Parallel Rivers Region shows considerable spatial variation, with only 33.03% of areas achieving high integrated conservation effectiveness across all indicators [114]. This spatial heterogeneity underscores the importance of context-specific management approaches rather than one-size-fits-all protection strategies. Furthermore, research in the Dongting Lake Ecological Economic Zone revealed strong spatial trade-offs between crop production and habitat quality, with these competing services dominating in different portions of the landscape [98].

Diagram 2: Spatio-temporal Framework for Management Validation. This diagram illustrates the causal pathway from interventions to human wellbeing impacts, moderated by spatial, temporal, and management factors.

Driving Mechanisms and Regional Variations

Understanding the complex drivers behind ecosystem service changes is essential for designing effective management strategies. Research from multiple regions reveals distinctive driving mechanisms that vary across spatial contexts:

In the Poyang Lake Area, structural equation modeling revealed that different factors drive RESV changes in various zones: population density primarily affects the core area, precipitation mainly influences the fringe area, and GDP per land predominantly impacts the peripheral area [3]. This regional variation in driver importance underscores the need for zone-specific management approaches.

The Dongting Lake Ecological Economic Zone demonstrated that topographic factors primarily drive crop production, carbon sequestration, and habitat quality, while forest recreation is chiefly influenced by landscape configuration factors [98]. Importantly, socioeconomic elements adversely impacted all four ecosystem services directly, yet significantly contributed to crop production and carbon sequestration through suppression effects, revealing the complex dual role of economic development.

In protected areas of the Three Parallel Rivers Region, natural factors and the size of protected areas had the greatest impact on conservation effectiveness [114]. This finding suggests that while designating protected areas is important, their ultimate effectiveness depends on both inherent environmental factors and specific management interventions.

The validation of protection zones and restoration efforts requires sophisticated spatio-temporal approaches that account for the complex, non-linear dynamics of ecosystem services. This technical guide has synthesized current methodologies, empirical findings, and analytical frameworks to establish a comprehensive validation protocol. Key insights emerge regarding the temporal lag in intervention effectiveness, the spatial heterogeneity of outcomes, and the complex drivers influencing success.

Moving forward, several research priorities merit attention: First, developing standardized indicator sets that balance scientific rigor with practical monitoring constraints, as exemplified by efforts in the Gulf of Mexico restoration programs [110]. Second, advancing process-based models that more accurately represent ecosystem service interactions and trade-offs. Third, improving the integration of cultural services and human wellbeing metrics into validation frameworks. Finally, establishing long-term monitoring programs that can capture slow ecological processes and legacy effects.

The empirical evidence presented demonstrates that while protection zones and restoration efforts generally enhance regulating ecosystem services, their effectiveness is contingent on appropriate design, adequate management capacity, and consideration of regional contexts. By adopting the comprehensive validation framework outlined herein, researchers, scientists, and restoration professionals can more accurately assess intervention outcomes, optimize resource allocation, and ultimately enhance the ecological and societal benefits of conservation investments.

Conclusion

The study of spatio-temporal dynamics in regulating ecosystem services reveals consistent patterns of north-south gradients, core-periphery distributions, and significant impacts from landscape fragmentation and urbanization. Methodologically, the integration of tools like the InVEST model, CA-Markov forecasting, and optimized geodetector analysis has significantly advanced our quantification and prediction capabilities. Critically, the research demonstrates that RES are more strongly influenced by socioeconomic factors than previously understood, requiring management strategies that address these complex drivers. Future research should prioritize multi-scale integrated assessments, long-term monitoring, and the development of dynamic models that can simulate feedback between policy interventions and ecosystem responses. For applied outcomes, the findings underscore the necessity of spatially-explicit ecological zoning, cross-boundary collaborative governance, and policies that consciously manage trade-offs to enhance the resilience of social-ecological systems in an era of global change.

References

• 1. Progress in regulating ecosystem services research [https://www.nature.com/articles/s40494-025-01674-2]
• 2. Evidence from the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925525000848]
• 3. Spatio-temporal evolution and driving factors of regulating ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2024.1358822/full]
• 4. Connecting air quality regulating ecosystem services with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212041619306680]
• 5. Spatiotemporal characteristics and drivers of ecosystem ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724021557]
• 6. Spatiotemporal Characteristics of Land Ecological Security ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/11/2179]
• 7. Spatio-temporal variability in forest biodiversity associated ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-025-02765-w]
• 8. Spatiotemporal of the Coupling Relationship between ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9564715/]
• 9. A high spatial resolution dataset of ecosystem services ... [https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2025-107/]
• 10. Constructing ecological security pattern based on spatio ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1415301/full]
• 11. Data release for Quantifying ecosystem service flows at ... [https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/data-release-for-quantifying-ecosystem-service-flows-at-multiple-scales-across-the-range-o]
• 12. Remote Sensing | March-2 2025 - Browse Articles [https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/17/6]
• 13. Inevitable global coral reef decline under climate change ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02790-4]
• 14. Habitat degradation and loss as key drivers of regional ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030438001630179X]
• 15. Forest Degradation - Global Forest Review [https://gfr.wri.org/forest-condition-indicators/forest-degradation]
• 16. What Does Enhancement Mean in an MRI Report ... [https://readmymri.com/blog/what-does-enhancement-mean-in-an-mri-report-understanding-the-basics]
• 17. Spatiotemporal patterns and dynamic mechanisms of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1506136/full]
• 18. The scientometric analysis of Karst ecosystem structure ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s40494-025-01743-6]
• 19. Quantitative research on aesthetic value of the world heritage ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317304]
• 20. Transboundary Conservation Around the World [https://iucncongress2025.org/programme/transboundary-conservation-around-world-ecologically-and-culturally-well-connected]
• 21. Spatio-temporal evolution of habitat quality and its influencing ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314161]
• 22. Study on spatiotemporal changes of ecosystem service ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X24013499]
• 23. The systematic literature review of the karst desertification ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s40494-025-01968-5]
• 24. Understanding the spatio-temporal dynamics of ecosystem ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11442-025-2344-1]
• 25. THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development [http://sdgs.un.org/goals]
• 26. Global targets that reveal the social–ecological ... [https://www.stockholmresilience.org/publications/publications/2021-01-07-global-targets-that-reveal-the-social-ecological-interdependencies-of-sustainable-development.html]
• 27. Temporal-spatial variation of regulating ecosystem ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2025.1449816/full]
• 28. Towards a global sustainable development agenda built ... [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/towards-a-global-sustainable-development-agenda-built-on-socialecological-resilience/00456CED521ED95DFB247D65C4829EEC]
• 29. Basic Principles of Temporal Dynamics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534719300874]
• 30. Changes in the analysis of temporal community dynamics ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8038643/]
• 31. A Case Study of Ifrane National Park [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/4/831]
• 32. Comparing three spatial modeling tools for assessing ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041622000961]
• 33. Integrating ecosystem services within spatial biodiversity ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041620301285]
• 34. InVEST - Stanford Natural Capital Project [https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest]
• 35. Coupling spatial–temporal changes and driving factors of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24820-z]
• 36. Spatio-Temporal Evolution of Land Use and Carbon Stock ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/21/9903]
• 37. Scenario based assessment of carbon storage and habitat ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25097-y]
• 38. The promotion of sustainable land use planning for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11232994/]
• 39. InVEST® Plugins: Developer's Guide [https://invest.readthedocs.io/en/latest/plugins.html]
• 40. New Feature Opens Door to Custom Models for Mapping and ... [https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/news/new-feature-opens-door-custom-models-mapping-and-valuing-natures-benefits]
• 41. Spatio-temporal evolution and prediction of carbon storage ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1449576/full]
• 42. Remote Sensing and GIS for Monitoring Land Use Change and Its Ecological Effects [https://www.mdpi.com/topics/OC4NS9Q0JG]
• 43. Frontiers | Predicting changes in land use and land cover using remote sensing and land change modeler [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1540140/full]
• 44. Monitoring and predicting land use and land cover changes using remote sensing and GIS techniques—A case study of a hilly area, Jiangle, China | PLOS One [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200493]
• 45. Integrating GIS and remote sensing for soil attributes ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950289625000120]
• 46. Imagery and remote sensing in ArcGIS—ArcGIS Pro [https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/help/data/imagery/imagery-and-remote-sensing-in-arcgis.htm]
• 47. Work with color schemes—ArcGIS Pro | Documentation [https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/help/mapping/layer-properties/work-with-color-schemes.htm]
• 48. Benefit Transfer Method [https://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/benefit_transfer.htm]
• 49. Economic valuation methods for ecosystem services (Chapter 6) - Ecosystem Services [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/ecosystem-services/economic-valuation-methods-for-ecosystem-services/D0E528A1CBAB1BED4CCA0319A499950D]
• 50. The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800914000652]
• 51. Revealing the spatio-temporal coupling coordination ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2025.1539909/full]
• 52. Spatiotemporal Changes of Ecosystem Service Values in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7210]
• 53. Spatiotemporal evolution and driving factors of ecosystem ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-74646-4]
• 54. Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Scale Effects of ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/1967]
• 55. Spatiotemporal dynamics and driving factors of ecosystem ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76838-4]
• 56. What Is Trend Analysis? Types & Best Practices [https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/business-strategy/trend-analysis.shtml]
• 57. AMT - Effects of the prewhitening method, the time granularity, and the... [https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/6945/2020/]
• 58. Unveiling spatiotemporal dynamics and drivers of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-03737-7]
• 59. Trend Detection [https://questdb.com/glossary/trend-detection/]
• 60. Statistical test methods to detect trends in time series data [https://medium.com/@snp.kriss/statistical-test-methods-to-detect-trends-in-time-series-data-b361a0ec530b]
• 61. Tools for Working With Time-Series Analysis in Python [https://www.tigerdata.com/learn/tools-for-working-with-time-series-analysis-in-python]
• 62. Modeling the spatially heterogeneous relationships ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969722059332]
• 63. Assessing ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6722157/]
• 64. 8.4 Spatial clustering and hot spot analysis [https://fiveable.me/geospatial-engineering/unit-8/spatial-clustering-hot-spot-analysis/study-guide/JkW0uooxeZwaJDfp]
• 65. Hot Spot Analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) (Spatial Statistics) [https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-statistics/hot-spot-analysis.htm]
• 66. Emerging Hot Spot Analysis - sfdep [https://sfdep.josiahparry.com/articles/understanding-emerging-hotspots.html]
• 67. Hot Spot Spatial Analysis [https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/hot-spot-spatial-analysis]
• 68. A quantitative approach to evaluating ecosystem services [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304380013000902]
• 69. InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and ... [https://ecosystemsknowledge.net/resources/tool-assessor/invest-integrated-valuation-of-ecosystem-services-and-trade-offs/]
• 70. Method for the quantitative evaluation of ecosystem ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6336092/]
• 71. Synergies and trade-offs between provisioning and climate ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38554956/]
• 72. Spatio-temporal dynamics of ecosystem service value ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-025-07082-2]
• 73. GLO Thematic Report Warns Against Loss of Ecological ... [https://sdg.iisd.org/news/glo-thematic-report-warns-against-loss-of-ecological-connectivity/]
• 74. Assessing landscape fragmentation and its implications for ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44274-023-00023-z]
• 75. Spatial and Temporal Changes of Landscape Patterns ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445x/11/4/513]
• 76. Ecological connectivity in fragmented agricultural landscapes ... [https://ecologicalprocesses.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13717-021-00284-7]
• 77. Impacts of spatio-temporal change of landscape patterns ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59407-7]
• 78. Landscape connectivity & fragmentation | Resasco Lab [https://www.colorado.edu/lab/resasco/landscape-connectivity-fragmentation]
• 79. Analysis of Urban Flooding Driving Factors Based on ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13753-025-00628-3]
• 80. Application of the Optimal Parameter Geographic Detector ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1303]
• 81. Investigation into the supply-demand relationship of carbon ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-15298-w]
• 82. Using PLUS-InVEST-OPGD model to explore spatiotemporal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12312689/]
• 83. A comprehensive framework for assessing the spatial ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987124001130]
• 84. Spatiotemporal Effects and Driving Factors of Ecosystem ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/949]
• 85. Delineating multiobjective ecological management zones ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21583-5]
• 86. Quantitative identification and spatial analysis of land use ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0197397519308756]
• 87. Spatiotemporal evolution and Sustainably comprehensive ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10788456/]
• 88. Spatiotemporal assessment of ecosystem services supply ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10098249/]
• 89. Dynamic assessment and zoning strategies for ecosystem ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-05776-6]
• 90. Spatio-temporal Evolution and Driving Factors of ... [https://wepub.org/index.php/IJNRES/article/view/3402]
• 91. A case study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt in China [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X23006775]
• 92. A case study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21000595]
• 93. Urban–rural integration of urban agglomerations in China's ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-cities/articles/10.3389/frsc.2025.1528062/full]
• 94. An integrated approach for evaluating the spatial and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X25001773]
• 95. Spatiotemporal dynamics of ecosystem services and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2025.1593217/full]
• 96. 基于生态系统服务的城市生态管理分区——以深圳市为例 [https://www.ecologica.cn/html/2020/23/stxb202004090852.htm]
• 97. Analysis of interrelated characteristics between ecosystem ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12515847/]
• 98. Spatiotemporal characteristics and socio-ecological drivers ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X24011919]
• 99. 粤东快速城市化区域生态系统服务时空动态与生态分区调控 ... [https://www.ebiotrade.com/newsf/2025-9/20250910001327141.htm]
• 100. Spatiotemporal evolution and trade-offs among ecosystem ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1616057/full]
• 101. Ecological restoration of coastal wetlands in China: Current ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320724000740]
• 102. Spatio-temporal variations and influencing factors analysis ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352485524002809]
• 103. Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Drivers of Coastal Wetlands ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/16/18/2612]
• 104. Research on ecological management zoning in Jilin ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-99942-5]
• 105. How Reclamation Policy Shapes China's Coastal Wetland ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/13/6/431]
• 106. China's practice from coastline management towards sea ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2025.1603839/full]
• 107. Cross-border comparison of land cover and landscape ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003442570600160X]
• 108. a case study of boma-gambella trans-boundary landscape, ... [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5670356]
• 109. Ecosystem Services Valuation Database | Foundation for ... [https://www.esvd.info/]
• 110. Selecting indicators to monitor outcomes across projects ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X18300256]
• 111. 生态系统服务权衡研究进展：从认知到决策 [https://www.progressingeography.com/article/2017/0375-5444/0375-5444-72-6-960.shtml]
• 112. 新疆生态区的生态系统服务的时空变化特征分析 - 大气科学 [http://www.iapjournals.ac.cn/qhhj/article/doi/10.3878/j.issn.1006-9585.2024.23093]
• 113. 基于过程模型的2000-2018年中国陆地生态系统服务时空 ... [https://www.ecologica.cn/html/2023/2/stxb202110112855.htm]
• 114. Assessing the integrated conservation effectiveness of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X25008362]
• 115. 基于生态系统服务簇的深圳市生态系统服务时空演变轨迹研究 [https://www.ecologica.cn/stxb/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?doi=10.5846/stxb201903210530]