Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services and Ecological Zoning in Rapidly Urbanizing Eastern Guangdong

Wenkun Wu^1,2,3Huajie Yang²Lisha Wei¹Zhongjian Fang¹Xiaodong Liu^1*

• ¹College of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou, China
• ²Faculty of Innovation and Design, City University of Macau, Taipa, Macao, Macao, SAR China
• ³Guangdong Baiyun University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Ecosystem services (ES) in rapidly urbanizing regions are experiencing significant spatiotemporal changes due to urban sprawl. However, existing studies have insufficiently addressed the spatiotemporal heterogeneity of ES, particularly the dynamic interactions between ecological processes and regional environmental conditions. This study focuses on eastern Guangdong, China, and quantifies four key ES—carbon storage (CS), habitat quality (HQ), soil retention (SR), and water retention (WR)—from 2000 to 2020 using the InVEST model. Spatial heterogeneity of natural and socioeconomic drivers was assessed using a multi-scale geographically weighted regression (MGWR) model. Ecological zones were identified through Self-Organizing Map–Fuzzy C-Means (SOM-FCM) clustering, and zonal statistical analysis was conducted. The results show that ES exhibited a general decline over two decades, with SR and WR decreasing by 23.4% and 18.6%, respectively, and CS and HQ remaining relatively stable. A pronounced north–south gradient was observed, with stronger ES performance in the mountainous north. ES drivers varied spatially，NDVI consistently showed the strongest positive influence in central regions; PRE and TEMP exhibited sharp fluctuations in the north; population pressure peaked in the north and turned negative in the south by 2020; GDP showed a positive effect in the east and a negative effect in the west; the influence of slope was most prominent in eastern areas; and the east–west differences in elevation gradually weakened. Four ecological zones were identified: Ecological Protection, Conservation, Improvement, and Control Zones. From 2000 to 2020, Ecological Control Zones expanded significantly due to intensified urbanization, while the other three zones declined. From 2000 to 2020, Ecological Control Zones expanded significantly due to intensified urbanization, while Protection, Conservation, and Improvement Zones shrank. These results highlight the need for zone-specific strategies: strict conservation in Protection Zones, ecosystem restoration in Conservation Zones, ecological connectivity and low-impact use in Improvement Zones, and compact urban development in Control Zones. The proposed framework captures the spatial dynamics of ES and offers a transferable model for adaptive ecological management in fast-urbanizing regions.