Trade-Offs, Synergies, and Driving Factors of Ecosystem Services in the Urban–Rural Fringe of Beijing at Multiple Scales

Urban–rural fringe areas are critical transition zones where ecological functions and human activities interact intensely, often leading to complex spatial patterns and trade-offs among ecosystem services (ESs). Understanding these patterns and their socio-ecological drivers across multiple spatial scales is essential for sustainable land-use planning and ecosystem management. This study, using the urban–rural fringe (URF) of Beijing as an example, quantified eight representative ecosystem services at the 1 km grid, 3 km grid, and township scales. It employed hotspot analysis, Moran’s Index, and the Spearman correlation to analyze trade-offs and synergies (TOSs) among ESs. The study also applied a self-organizing map and the NbClust function to identify and determine the optimal number of ecosystem service bundles (ESBs) for ecological functional zoning. Redundancy analysis was used to explore the impacts of six socio-ecological drivers on the spatial distribution of ESs. The results revealed the following: (1) The spatial distribution of ESs in Beijing’s URF exhibits clustering and cross-scale variations, with spatial clustering intensifying as the scale expands. (2) TOSs among ESs vary in strength and direction across the three spatial scales. (3) The primary drivers of TOSs at all three scales are the normalized vegetation index and annual precipitation. (4) Based on the supply intensity of various ESs, the study area was classified into four types of ESBs across the three scales: ecologically restricted areas, food production areas, ecologically balanced areas, and high-quality ecological areas. The township scale is more conducive to planning and management, while the 1 km and 3 km grid scales are more helpful for understanding the relationship between land use and ESs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Land
Published
2025-05-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/land14051009
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.32

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Trade-Offs, Synergies, and Driving Factors of Ecosystem Services in the Urban–Rural Fringe of Beijing at Multiple Scales

Yunyuan Li, Siyuan Wang, Yilun Cao, Bing Qi et al.
3 citations
Land
Land Use and Ecosystem Services
3.32
article

Trade-Offs, Synergies, and Driving Factors of Ecosystem Services in the Urban–Rural Fringe of Beijing at Multiple Scales

Yunyuan Li, Siyuan Wang, Yilun Cao, Bing Qi, Weiyang Sun, Chuling Jiang, Chang Wang
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Urban–rural fringe areas are critical transition zones where ecological functions and human activities interact intensely, often leading to complex spatial patterns and trade-offs among ecosystem services (ESs). Understanding these patterns and their socio-ecological drivers across multiple spatial scales is essential for sustainable land-use planning and ecosystem management. This study, using the urban–rural fringe (URF) of Beijing as an example, quantified eight representative ecosystem services at the 1 km grid, 3 km grid, and township scales. It employed hotspot analysis, Moran’s Index, and the Spearman correlation to analyze trade-offs and synergies (TOSs) among ESs. The study also applied a self-organizing map and the NbClust function to identify and determine the optimal number of ecosystem service bundles (ESBs) for ecological functional zoning. Redundancy analysis was used to explore the impacts of six socio-ecological drivers on the spatial distribution of ESs. The results revealed the following: (1) The spatial distribution of ESs in Beijing’s URF exhibits clustering and cross-scale variations, with spatial clustering intensifying as the scale expands. (2) TOSs among ESs vary in strength and direction across the three spatial scales. (3) The primary drivers of TOSs at all three scales are the normalized vegetation index and annual precipitation. (4) Based on the supply intensity of various ESs, the study area was classified into four types of ESBs across the three scales: ecologically restricted areas, food production areas, ecologically balanced areas, and high-quality ecological areas. The township scale is more conducive to planning and management, while the 1 km and 3 km grid scales are more helpful for understanding the relationship between land use and ESs.

LandVol. 14(5)
Beijing Forestry University (CN), Southeast University (CN)
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Land Use and Ecosystem Services
3.32
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.