Integrating ecosystem service importance and ecological sensitivity to identify priority areas for ecological conservation and restoration in Miyun Reservoir Basin

Figures & data

Figure 1. The location of study area.

Figure 2. Ecological protection and restoration area identification method (WSP-Water Source Protection Zone; RED-Ecological Red Line; NR-Nature Reserves; PDF-Permanent Basic Farmland; WC-Water Conservation; SC-Soil Conservation; CF-Carbon Fixation; BC-Biodiversity Conservation; WS-Windbreak and Sand Fixation; ESI-Ecological Service Importance; EPA-Ecological Protection Area; ES-Ecosystem Stability; EDS-Ecologically Damaged Space; EQD-Ecological Quality degradation; ERA-Ecological Restoration Area; EPRA-Ecological Protection and Restoration Area.).

Table 1. Spatial identification index system for ecological protection and restoration.

Area	Evaluation index system	Identification area
Ecological protection zone	Water source protection zone	Water source protection zone
	Ecological red line	Ecological red line
	Nature reserves	Nature reserves
	Permanent basic farmland	Permanent basic farmland
	Ecosystem services	Extremely important areas for ecosystem services: Water harvesting, soil conservation, carbon fixation, biodiversity maintenance, wind and sand control etc.
Ecological restoration zone	Ecosystem stability	Areas of very low ecosystem stability
	Ecological damage	Ecological space reduction area
	Ecological quality change	Decline in vegetation index, decline in net primary productivity, decline in ecosystem services

Figure 3. Spatial and temporal variation in the importance of ecosystem services in Miyun District (WC- Water Conservation; SC- Soil Conservation; CF- Carbon Fixation; BC-Biodiversity conversation; WS-Windbreak and Sand Fixation; ES- Ecosystem Services. The same below.).

Table 2. Percentage of area of importance of different classes of ecosystem services in 2000–2015 (Unit: %).

ESI	Generally important		Moderately important		Important		Very important
	2000	2015	2000	2015	2000	2015	2000	2015
WC	35.39	32.80	31.48	26.52	19.21	24.29	13.92	16.39
SC	55.63	52.28	23.94	24.78	14.98	17.08	5.45	5.86
CF	40.87	38.22	35.90	19.01	18.42	29.30	4.81	13.47
BC	27.21	10.26	38.29	38.46	30.69	49.78	3.81	1.50
WS	56.73	58.20	40.04	39.06	2.36	1.97	0.87	0.77
ES	16.95	14.30	38.17	34.31	32.97	33.26	11.91	18.13

Table 3. Percentage of area changed by different classes of ecosystem services, 2000–2015 (Unit: %).

Change in ES	Obviously decreased	Slightly decreased	Unchanged	Slightly increased	Obviously increased
WC	1.61	1.94	90.66	3.83	1.96
SC	0.01	7.06	56.94	35.99	0.00
CF	0.11	3.18	37.27	57.71	1.74
BC	3.14	15.95	30.96	39.63	10.32
WS	0.38	6.76	83.57	8.79	0.49
ES	3.14	20.26	16.72	49.20	10.69

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of ecological stability in Miyun District.

Figure 5. System quality degradation evaluation in Miyun District.

Figure 6. Identification of important ecological protection areas in Miyun District (DWSPA- Drinking Water Source Protection Area; ERL-Ecological Red Line; PBF-Permanent Basic Farmland; FP-Forest Park; NR-Nature Reserve; SA-Scenic Area; GP-Geological Park; ESI-Ecosystem Service Importance).

Figure 7. Identification of key areas for ecological restoration in Miyun District.

Figure 8. Key areas of ecological protection and restoration in Miyun District.

Figure 9. Ecological Protection and Restoration Unit in Miyun District ((I) the core area of strategic water source protection; (II) the comprehensive improvement area of the small watershed around the reservoir; (III) the northern forest-nurturing and ecological security barrier belt; (IV) the eastern soil and water conservation and ecological collaboration management area; and (V) the southern farmland quality improvement and village environmental management area.).

Data availability statement

The data supporting the results presented in this study can be obtained from the corresponding author on request.