Impact of green and blue spaces on ecosystem services in Beijing: spatiotemporal dynamics and driving mechanisms – Cambridge University Press & Assessment

Report on the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Green and Blue Spaces and Their Contribution to Sustainable Development Goals in Beijing

1.0 Introduction: Urbanization and the Sustainable Development Agenda

Urbanization presents a critical challenge to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The management of Green and Blue Spaces (GBS)—urban ecosystems comprising vegetation and water bodies—is central to this challenge. GBS provide essential Ecosystem Services (ESs) that directly support multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including:

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Through air purification, temperature regulation, and providing spaces for recreation and mental restoration.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): By enhancing urban resilience, sustainability, and livability.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action): Via carbon storage and climate regulation services.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): By conserving biodiversity and maintaining habitat quality.

However, rapid urban expansion often leads to the degradation and fragmentation of GBS, undermining their capacity to deliver these vital services. This report analyzes the spatiotemporal evolution of GBS and ESs in Beijing over two decades to inform urban planning strategies that align with the SDGs. The analysis is guided by three primary objectives:

1. To quantify the spatiotemporal shifts in GBS patterns and their associated ESs.
2. To identify how different phases of urbanization and development strategies have influenced GBS configurations.
3. To determine the key spatial metrics linking GBS dynamics with the provision of ESs crucial for sustainable development.

2.0 Study Area and Methodological Framework

2.1 Study Area: Beijing

Beijing, China, serves as a critical case study for examining the tensions between rapid urbanization and the pursuit of sustainability. As an Alpha+ global city with a high urbanization rate (87.5%) and a population of 21.9 million, Beijing’s development trajectory has placed significant pressure on its natural ecosystems. In response, the municipal government has implemented policies aimed at enhancing its ecological network, reflecting a commitment to sustainable urban development in line with SDG 11 and SDG 15.

2.2 Data and Methods

A multi-source dataset was compiled, including land use, meteorological, soil, and socioeconomic data from 2000 to 2020. The analytical framework was designed to assess changes in GBS and their impact on ESs relevant to the SDGs.

• GBS Composition Analysis: A land use transfer matrix was used to map the conversion between GBS components (farmland, forest, grassland, water) and urban land.
• Driver Analysis: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) were employed to identify the primary socioeconomic and environmental drivers of GBS change.
• Ecosystem Services Assessment: Four critical ESs were evaluated to measure progress toward environmental SDGs:
  • Net Primary Productivity (NPP) & Carbon Storage: Key indicators for SDG 13 (Climate Action).
  • Soil Conservation & Habitat Quality: Key indicators for SDG 15 (Life on Land).
• Landscape Pattern Analysis: FRAGSTATS was used to calculate landscape metrics (e.g., patch density, connectivity) to understand how GBS spatial structure affects ES delivery.

3.0 Results: GBS Dynamics and Ecosystem Service Trends

3.1 Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Drivers of GBS

From 2000 to 2020, Beijing experienced a net loss of approximately 1,200 km² of GBS, primarily due to the conversion of farmland to construction land. This trend poses a direct challenge to achieving SDG 11.3 (inclusive and sustainable urbanization) and SDG 15.1 (conservation of terrestrial ecosystems).

• Key Drivers: PCA-MLR analysis revealed that urban development factors, including socioeconomic indicators (e.g., Consumer Price Index) and green infrastructure metrics, were the dominant drivers of GBS change. Environmental factors like air pollution (SO₂) were negatively correlated with GBS area, highlighting a threat to SDG 3 and SDG 11.
• Policy Inflection Point: The year 2011 marked a significant shift. Prior to 2011, urbanization had a predominantly negative impact on GBS. Post-2011, policy changes promoting ecological civilization began to foster GBS enhancement, demonstrating a strategic pivot toward sustainability, although the overall GBS area continued to decline due to legacy pressures.

3.2 Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services

The provision of ESs showed significant spatial variation, reflecting the impact of land use patterns on environmental sustainability.

• NPP and Carbon Storage (SDG 13): These services were highest in the mountainous regions and showed increases over time due to reforestation efforts. In contrast, the central urban area experienced a decline, indicating that urban expansion compromises climate mitigation capacity.
• Soil Conservation and Habitat Quality (SDG 15): Soil conservation remained stable in mountainous areas but vulnerable to localized pressures. Habitat quality generally improved in suburban plains and semi-mountainous regions, aligning with conservation goals, but degradation persisted in urban-rural transition zones.

3.3 Influence of GBS Patterns on Ecosystem Services

Landscape pattern analysis confirmed that GBS fragmentation negatively impacts ES delivery. Metrics indicating increased fragmentation (e.g., Total Edge, Division Index) were negatively correlated with carbon storage and soil conservation. Conversely, the Patch Cohesion Index (COHESION) was positively correlated with all four ESs. This finding underscores that maintaining large, connected GBS is essential for achieving the environmental benefits required for SDG 13 and SDG 15.

4.0 Discussion: Aligning Urban Planning with Sustainable Development Goals

4.1 Integrating Socioeconomic Policy with Green Infrastructure

The findings confirm that socioeconomic factors and green infrastructure policies are primary determinants of GBS health. To advance the SDGs, urban planning must integrate economic development with ecological conservation. Rising public demand for high-quality living environments, reflected in metrics like the CPI, creates a political mandate for investing in GBS, thereby supporting SDG 3 and SDG 11.

4.2 Strategic GBS Planning to Balance ES Supply and Demand

Beijing’s policy shift after 2011 from rapid expansion to ecological sustainability provides a valuable model for implementing the SDGs. However, continued population growth and urban pressures necessitate a more strategic approach to GBS planning. The following recommendations are proposed to balance ES supply and demand in line with the SDGs:

1. Integrate GBS Planning with Urban Development: Synchronize ecological goals with urbanization patterns through adaptive spatial planning and nature-positive development strategies. This ensures that economic growth (SDG 8) supports, rather than undermines, urban livability (SDG 11) and ecosystem integrity (SDG 15).
2. Prioritize Vegetation Quality for ES Enhancement: Focus on improving vegetation quality (as measured by NDVI) through ecological restoration, sustainable agroecology, and precision resource management. This directly enhances carbon sequestration (SDG 13) and biodiversity (SDG 15).
3. Optimize the Spatial Configuration of GBS: Utilize landscape metrics to guide planning. Prioritize large, connected habitat cores (high LPI and COHESION) to maximize carbon storage and habitat quality. Manage landscape fragmentation to protect soil resources and enhance overall ecosystem resilience.

5.0 Conclusion: GBS as a Foundation for Sustainable Urban Futures

This report provides quantitative evidence that socioeconomic drivers and green infrastructure policies are key levers for managing urban ecosystems. The analysis of Beijing’s development demonstrates that while rapid urbanization poses significant threats to GBS and the ESs they provide, targeted policy interventions can shift development toward a more sustainable trajectory. The increasing fragmentation of GBS remains a critical risk that could undermine progress toward SDG 11, SDG 13, and SDG 15. By adopting integrated spatial planning that optimizes the configuration and quality of GBS, cities can build resilience, enhance human well-being, and make substantial contributions to the global Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article connects green and blue spaces (GBS) directly to human health by listing “air purification, temperature regulation, mental health benefits, and recreational opportunities” as essential ecosystem services crucial for “human well-being.” It also identifies air pollution, specifically the “average daily value of SO2,” as a negative factor, linking environmental quality to health outcomes.

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • This is a central theme of the article, which focuses on “urbanization,” “urban sustainability,” and the role of GBS within Beijing. It discusses challenges like “rapid urban expansion” and solutions involving “urban planning,” “green infrastructure,” and policies to enhance “ecological resilience and livability.” The goal of making cities sustainable is explicitly addressed through the analysis of GBS management.

3. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • The article addresses climate action by discussing “climate change mitigation” and “low-carbon development policies” in China. It quantifies ecosystem services like “carbon storage” and “net primary productivity (NPP),” which are critical for mitigating climate change. The study’s focus on enhancing these services through GBS management directly relates to climate action strategies.

4. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • The article is deeply rooted in this SDG by examining the health of terrestrial ecosystems within an urban context. It discusses the “degradation and fragmentation of GBS,” “GBS conservation,” “biodiversity conservation,” “soil conservation,” and “habitat quality.” The analysis of land use changes, such as the loss of farmland and the expansion of forests, directly pertains to the protection and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.9: Substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from pollution

   • The article relates to this target by highlighting the role of GBS in providing “air purification” and identifying “average daily value of SO2” as a key influencer that “negatively affects both the urban ecosystem and GBS area.” This directly links the quality of the urban environment to health risks associated with air pollution.

2. Target 11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization

   • The study’s core purpose is to analyze the “spatiotemporal evolution of GBS and ESs in Beijing” to offer “practical insights to help balance ecological protection with socioeconomic development.” It examines how different “urban development strategies” have influenced GBS, which is central to achieving sustainable urbanization and planning.

3. Target 11.7: Provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces

   • This target is directly addressed through the focus on “green and blue spaces (GBS),” which provide “recreational opportunities.” The article mentions specific metrics like “area of gardens and green spaces” and notes that by 2021, Beijing’s “per capita public green space reached 16.6 m2, meeting United Nations standards.”

4. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into policies and planning

   • The article points to China’s “ecological civilization and low-carbon development policies” and Beijing’s shift towards “ecologically oriented planning.” The analysis of “carbon storage” as a key ecosystem service and its link to GBS management demonstrates the integration of climate mitigation efforts into urban planning.

5. Target 15.5: Take action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats and halt biodiversity loss

   • The article directly investigates the “widespread degradation and fragmentation of GBS” due to “rapid urbanization.” It assesses “habitat quality” and “biodiversity conservation” as key ecosystem services, analyzing how urban expansion impacts them and how planning can mitigate these effects.

6. Target 15.9: Integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning

   • The entire study is an example of this target in action. It evaluates how “GBS patterns and related ESs shifted over time” and how “development strategies influenced GBS configurations” in Beijing. The goal is to provide insights for “landscape governance with urban sustainability goals,” which is the essence of integrating ecosystem values into planning.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator 3.9.1: Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution

   • This is implied through the measurement of the “average daily value of SO2,” a major air pollutant. The article identifies it as a significant negative factor, suggesting that tracking its levels is a proxy for measuring air quality and its associated health risks.

2. Indicator 11.3.1: Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate

   • The article provides the data points needed to calculate this indicator. It states that “rapid urbanization has led to widespread degradation and fragmentation of GBS” and that “farmland” was converted to “construction land.” It also mentions Beijing’s population growth “from 9.043 million in 2000 to 21.893 million in 2020.” This allows for a direct assessment of land consumption relative to population changes.

3. Indicator 11.7.1: Average share of the built-up area of cities that is open space for public use

   • The article explicitly mentions several metrics that serve as direct measures for this indicator, including “area of gardens and green spaces at year’s end,” “green space area,” and “per capita public green space.” The statement that Beijing reached “16.6 m2” per capita is a direct measurement of progress.

4. Indicator 15.1.1: Forest area as a proportion of total land area

   • This indicator is directly stated in the article. It reports that “by 2020, forest accounted for the dominant land-use category (46%)” and that policies like the Plain Forestation Project helped “forest cover reaching 44%.” These figures provide a clear measure of forest area as a proportion of Beijing’s total land.

5. Implied Indicator: Carbon Sequestration Rate

   • While not an official SDG indicator, the article’s detailed analysis of “carbon storage” (measured in gC m-2) and its changes over time serves as a direct measure of progress towards climate mitigation goals (SDG 13). The study quantifies increases and decreases in carbon storage across different regions of Beijing.

6. Implied Indicator: Habitat Quality Index

   • The article uses “habitat quality” as one of the four key ecosystem services it evaluates. It describes how habitat quality has “improved in plains and semi-mountainous regions” but that “degradation” persists elsewhere. This assessment acts as a direct indicator for measuring progress on halting biodiversity loss and habitat degradation (SDG 15.5).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: cambridge.org