journal article·2026-07Open access

Mapping the “Supply–Demand–Flow” of Ecosystem Services for Ecosystem Management in China

Yikun Zhang, Yadong Yang, Yongsheng Wang, Guirui Yu

Advanced Science· Volume 13· Issue 39

Abstract

ABSTRACT Ecosystem services (ES) link ecosystems and human societies, yet approaches to ecosystem service flow (ESF) are constrained by ambiguous definitions and limited process‐oriented and scale‐sensitive classifications. Here, we developed a “supply–demand–flow” framework distinguishing potential and actual supply and demand, and classifying ESF into in situ, interior, and exterior flows. Integrating multi‐source datasets, biophysical models (InVEST, RUSLE, i‐Tree), and socio‐economic accounting based on population‐consumption dynamics and sectoral statistics, we mapped nine ES across China from 2000 to 2020 at 1 km resolution. Results revealed pronounced ES supply and demand spatio‐temporal heterogeneity. While the national ESF pattern remained stable, most services showed increasing exterior reliance, whereas water yield and tourism recreation became more locally sustained. Using flow balance and demand fulfillment as policy‐proximal indicators, five management zones were delineated: local‐sustained counties dominated southern China (∼30%); local‐pressured types occurred in the Northeast, Qinghai–Tibet, and southwestern areas (∼15%); external‐pressured types occurred in arid northwestern regions (1%–3%); southeastern coasts shifted toward external‐sustained types (∼30%); and dynamic‐transitional counties (∼20%) were scattered nationwide. By decomposing supply‐demand relations into supply realization, spatial reallocation, and demand fulfillment, our framework helps align ecological functions with management priorities and offers insights for reconciling development and conservation in comparable socio‐ecological contexts.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Land Use and Ecosystem Services · Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management · Remote Sensing in Agriculture

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

State Key Laboratory of Efficient Utilization of Arable Land in China Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Beijing China

School of Plant and Environmental Science Virginia Tech Blacksburg Virginia USA

Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China · National Natural Science Foundation of China

References (89)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.geosus.2020.09.00410.1016/j.geosus.2020.09.004 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.10838110.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108381 ↗
3. 10.1038/387253a010.1038/387253a0 ↗
4. 10.1126/science.197.4307.96010.1126/science.197.4307.960 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.10136310.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101363 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.10164910.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101649 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.14259810.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142598 ↗
8. A Review of Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand
9. 10.31497/zrzyxb.2021080110.31497/zrzyxb.20210801 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.ese.2025.10057310.1016/j.ese.2025.100573 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.10315010.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103150 ↗
12. 10.1007/s11269‐020‐02706‐110.1007/s11269‐020‐02706‐1 ↗
13. 10.1029/2024EF00499410.1029/2024EF004994 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.10676710.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106767 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.01210.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.10147910.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101479 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.00310.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.003 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.17109310.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171093 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ufug.2023.12797410.1016/j.ufug.2023.127974 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.10358810.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103588 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.10205110.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102051 ↗
22. 10.1177/030913251773570710.1177/0309132517735707 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.12407710.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124077 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.14902810.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149028 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.16477010.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164770 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.10824810.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108248 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.xinn.2023.10049110.1016/j.xinn.2023.100491 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.09.00810.1016/j.habitatint.2017.09.008 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.geosus.2024.10025410.1016/j.geosus.2024.100254 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.11640610.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116406 ↗
31. 10.1007/s11769‐015‐0776‐810.1007/s11769‐015‐0776‐8 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.eiar.2025.10798610.1016/j.eiar.2025.107986 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.10159710.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101597 ↗
34. 10.1002/pan3.1076210.1002/pan3.10762 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.01210.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.012 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.01210.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.012 ↗
37. 10.5751/ES‐06523‐19026410.5751/ES‐06523‐190264 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.02010.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.01410.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.11297110.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112971 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.12169810.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121698 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.14503910.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145039 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.10295910.1016/j.apgeog.2023.102959 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.eiar.2025.10794210.1016/j.eiar.2025.107942 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.spc.2024.06.02810.1016/j.spc.2024.06.028 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.01510.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.015 ↗
47. 10.1038/s41561‐024‐01540‐z10.1038/s41561‐024‐01540‐z ↗
48. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.13840810.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138408 ↗
49. 10.1007/s12583‐024‐0108‐y10.1007/s12583‐024‐0108‐y ↗
50. 10.1177/004728752094779210.1177/0047287520947792 ↗
51. 10.1088/1748‐9326/abc2f810.1088/1748‐9326/abc2f8 ↗
52. 10.1038/s41598‐024‐64655‐810.1038/s41598‐024‐64655‐8 ↗
53. 10.5751/ES‐09830‐22042910.5751/ES‐09830‐220429 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.16146510.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161465 ↗
55. 10.3390/land1306072210.3390/land13060722 ↗
56. Food Security in a Perfect Storm: Using the Ecosystem Services Framework to Increase Understanding
57. 10.1038/s41598‐019‐43229‐z10.1038/s41598‐019‐43229‐z ↗
58. 10.1002/advs.20250640210.1002/advs.202506402 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.00410.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004 ↗
60. 10.1038/nature1394510.1038/nature13945 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.eiar.2025.10782710.1016/j.eiar.2025.107827 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.00810.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.008 ↗
63. 10.1073/pnas.180702611510.1073/pnas.1807026115 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.14045010.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140450 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.coesh.2023.10051410.1016/j.coesh.2023.100514 ↗
66. 10.1057/s41599‐024‐02849‐110.1057/s41599‐024‐02849‐1 ↗
67. 10.1002/advs.20250648910.1002/advs.202506489 ↗
68. 10.1038/s41467‐021‐21824‐x10.1038/s41467‐021‐21824‐x ↗
69. 10.1016/j.eiar.2023.10706210.1016/j.eiar.2023.107062 ↗
70. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and human Well‐being: Wetlands and Water (World Resources Institute 2005).
71. 10.1073/pnas.191143911710.1073/pnas.1911439117 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.00610.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.006 ↗
73. Conceptual Connotation and Quantification Methods of Ecosystem Service Flows
74. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.16591810.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165918 ↗
75. B.Burkhard C.Guerra andB.Daviosdottir “Expert Meeting on Advancing the Measurement of Ecosystem Services for Ecosystem Accounting ”United Nations Statistics Division Jan 22–24 2019 New York USA 22–24.
76. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.10907210.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109072 ↗
77. 10.1016/j.habitatint.2024.10328210.1016/j.habitatint.2024.103282 ↗
78. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.01910.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019 ↗
79. 10.1111/conl.1209110.1111/conl.12091 ↗
80. 10.1111/gcb.7058310.1111/gcb.70583 ↗
81. 10.1016/j.rse.2012.10.01010.1016/j.rse.2012.10.010 ↗
82. 10.1016/j.agee.2003.09.00810.1016/j.agee.2003.09.008 ↗
83. 10.1080/13658816.2025.246983010.1080/13658816.2025.2469830 ↗
84. Xu X. · 2018
85. Didan K. · 2015 · 10
86. Running S. · 2021
87. 10.1016/j.rse.2020.11213610.1016/j.rse.2020.112136 ↗
88. Peng S. · 2022
89. Xu X. · 2023