\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Gross ecosystem product (GEP) accounting in Miyun County: supply and use}



\author[1]{Yuqian Shen}%
\author[2]{Yi Xiao}%
\author[2]{Chen Meng}%
\author[3]{Zhiyun Ouyang}%
\affil[1]{Research Centre for Eco-Environmental Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences}%
\affil[2]{Affiliation not available}%
\affil[3]{Chinese Academy of Sciences}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{June 04, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
We aimed to evaluate the supply capacity and use status of the ecosystem
in Miyun County. The potential and actual gross ecosystem products
(GEPs), describing the background condition of an ecosystem and human
demand for ecosystem products, respectively, were estimated. In 2020,
the actual GEP of Miyun County accounted for 21\% of the potential GEP.
Water retention and climate regulation services were the highest in the
potential and actual GEPs, respectively. The contributions of wetlands
and forests were the highest in the potential and actual GEPs. Natural
ecosystem area and vegetation coverage were the main factors affecting
the potential GEP, whereas the actual GEP was mainly affected by gross
domestic product (GDP) and population. Using Miyun County data, we
quantitatively analysed the supply capacity and actual use of ecosystem
products to clarify the interdependence between the ecosystem and human
society to support decisions for regional eco-sustainability.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{1. Introduction}

The term ''ecosystem services'' was formally proposed in the early 1970s
(Ehrlich \& Holder 1974), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA
2005) defined it as the benefits people obtain from the ecosystem (Zhao
et al. 2007). Many studies on ecosystem services have been conducted
since then, and preliminary research results have been documented (Li et
al. 2022). Monetisation and quantification of ecosystem services have
gradually garnered attention to assess the contribution of ecosystems to
human welfare reasonably and guide the application of ecology in
economic decision-making (Bayon 2004; EC 2008; Peterson et al. 2010;
Roces-Diaz et al. 2015). However, because of the complex transfer
process of ecosystem services from natural ecosystems to social and
economic systems, the same terms have often been understood and applied
differently, resulting in ambiguity in the concepts. For one example,
the concept of ecosystem services proposed by Villamagna et al.
distinguishes \textbf{supply} (ability to provide services)
from\textbf{use} (depending on supply and demand) (Villamagna et al.
2013).

On the contrary, the System of Environmental-economic
Accounting---Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) manual equates
the\textbf{supply} of an ecosystem with its \textbf{use} (United Nations
et al. 2021). For another example, Crossman et al. have
mixed-\textbf{use}and \textbf{demand} in the same term (often referred
to as ''demand'') (Crossman et al. 2013). Nevertheless, in mapping and
assessing ecosystems and their services (MAES) action, the European
Union distinguishes between \textbf{use} and \textbf{demand} for
ecosystem services (European Union 2020). Because the definitions in
these studies are cluttered, we have synthesised these concepts into
three categories:\textbf{supply} , \textbf{demand} , and \textbf{use} .
We define the\textbf{supply} of ecosystem services as the ability of the
ecosystem to provide services sustainably under existing ecosystem
status and management conditions, regardless of human needs (Burkhard et
al. 2012; G\selectlanguage{ngerman}ómez-Baggethun et al. 2010; Haines-Young \& Potschin 2010;
Maes et al. 2016, van Oudenhoven et al. 2012), such as the ability of
the ecosystem to provide water retention services. \textbf{Demand}
refers to the number of services that society requires or expects
(Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2019; Fisher et al. 2008; Goldenberg et al. 2017;
Maes et al. 2016; Villamagna et al. 2013), such as the number of water
retention services that society expects. \textbf{Use} was determined
based on the spatial relationship between supply and demand (Maes et al.
2016; Maes et al. 2020; European Union 2020: Vallecillo et al. 2019),
which refers to the amount of services obtained and utilised by human
society from the ecosystem, such as the total amount of water used in
personal or economic activities. The supply of ecosystem services
directly depends on regional ecological integrity, which is influenced
by human actions and decisions such as land cover change, land use, and
technological progress. Similarly, the use of ecosystem services is
influenced by policies, population dynamics, economic factors, cultural
norms, and governance influence. Therefore, the supply and use of
ecosystem services must be distinguished and accounted for to guide the
formulation of relevant policies for ecological restoration and
protection (Curran \& de Sherbinin 2004). Nevertheless, in previous
assessments of ecosystem products, most of them did not distinguish
between supply and use, instead choosing only one or the other in
ecological studies or economic statistics applications (European Union
2020, García-Llamas et al. 2018, McDonald 2009, van Jaarsveld et al.
2005). For example, Song and Ouyang took Qinghai Province as an example
to research potential GEP, accounting for an ecological benefit
assessment (Song \& Ouyang 2020). The United Nations Cooperation
Project, NCAVES, calculated the actual GEP of Guangxi and Guizhou in
China based on the SEEA framework in 2016 (NBS China et al. 2021), while
the EU MAES report accounted for ecosystem products' supply and use
(European Union 2020). However, in its accounting, the functional
quantity index cannot be compared horizontally but only vertically.
However, the supply and use of ecosystem products are interconnected and
interact with each other, just like ecosystems and socioeconomic
systems. We need to link the two for horizontal comparison to reflect
the local ecosystem background and human utilisation of ecosystem
products and formulate reasonable management policies.

The value quantity of ecosystem services is more widely used than the
functional quantity because it converts different types of services into
common weights before measuring them to facilitate horizontal comparison
and comprehensive evaluation. (Boyd \& Banzhaf 2007; Costanza et al.
1997). In 2013, Ouyang et al. from the Chinese Academy of Sciences
proposed the concept of gross ecosystem product (GEP) (Ouyang et al.
2013). In 2021, the United Nations released the first international
standard, the SEEA-EA manual, which cited the concept of GEP at an
international level (United Nations 2021). The following year, the
National Bureau of Statistics of China and the National Development and
Reform Commission jointly issued the Standard for Accounting of the
Total Value of Ecosystem Products (Trial) by referring to the SEEA-EA
manual, emphasising the accounting of ecosystem products used by human
beings (National Development and Reform Commission 2022). The 2013
concept emphasises the supply capacity of ecosystem products, while the
2021 concept emphasises humans' actual utilisation of ecosystem
products. The different emphasis of GEP concepts also reflects the
different focus of people in different fields: supply and use.

In summary, this study selected value indicators to calculate the supply
and use of ecosystem products, namely potential GEP and actual GEP, to
evaluate and compare the supply capacity and actual use of ecosystem
products in Miyun County horizontally. In this study, we aimed to
comprehensively understand the interdependence between the ecosystem and
human society in Miyun County and provide decision support and policy
guidance for ecological protection and sustainable development.

\textbf{2. Materials and methods.}

\emph{2.1. Study area}

Miyun County is located in the Northeast of Beijing, with geographical
coordinates of 116°39\selectlanguage{english}'--117deg30\selectlanguage{english}' E and 40deg13\selectlanguage{english}'--40deg47\selectlanguage{english}' N. It is flanked by
the Pinggu, Shunyi, and Huairou Counties of Beijing in the Southeast to
Northwest regions and Hebei Province in the North and East regions and
has a total area of approximately 2229.45 km\textsuperscript{2}, making
it the largest district in Beijing.

Miyun belongs to the Yanshan Mountains and North China Plain junction,
and mountains surround the terrain of the entire area on three sides
(East, North, and West). The Miyun area has a warm temperate monsoon
continental semi-humid and semi-arid climate with four seasons and
apparent changes in dry, wet, cold, and warm conditions. The annual
average temperature is 6--19 degC; the frost-free period is about 150 d;
sunshine is sufficient; and precipitation is mainly concentrated from
June to August. The precipitation distribution generally decreases from
Southeast to Northwest, giving an average annual of 300--700 mm.

In 2020, the main ecosystem types in Miyun County were forests (41.6\%)
and shrubs (22.9\%), followed by farmlands (21.9\%) and wetlands
(6.6\%). Natural ecosystems (forests, shrubs, grasslands, and wetlands)
account for 72.4\% of the total area of Miyun County. The quality of the
ecosystem in Miyun County is good, and natural resources are abundant.

\emph{2.2. Data sources}

The data from 2020 was used in this study for GEP calculation, and
various data sources, including statistical and geospatial data, were
integrated into this study.

Statistical data were obtained from the statistical survey information
of the Miyun County Ecological Environment Bureau, Water Bureau,
Meteorological Bureau, Cultural and Tourism Bureau, other industry
departments, and the Miyun Statistical Yearbook. Ecosystem
classification, vegetation coverage, biomass, evapotranspiration and
other geospatial data were obtained from the Institute of Remote Sensing
and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, with 10, 250, 250 and
500 m data resolutions. Rainfall data (Peng et al. 2019) were obtained
from the National Earth System Science Data Center
(http://www.geodata.cn) at a resolution of 1 km.

\emph{2.3. Methods}

The GEP accounting of Miyun County includes three categories: material
supply, regulation service, and cultural service. Material supply
includes crop supply products and regulation services with seven types
of products: products for water retention, soil retention, flood
control, carbon sequestration, air purification, water purification, and
climate regulation. Cultural services include nature-based tourism,
recreation, and leisure. For these ten types of products, the potential
(Ouyang~et al. 2013) and actual GEPs (National Development and Reform
Commission 2022) were calculated in this study, and the accounting
indicators are listed in Table 1.

Bivariate correlation analysis was used to assess the degree of
association between pairs of variables. According to the search results
of the Web of Science (WOS), core set = ''ecosystem service*'' and
''driving force*'', the factors with the highest use frequency and no
repetition were selected. Because of minimal spatial variation in
climate factors such as precipitation and temperature in Miyun, these
factors were not included in the analysis. Finally, the natural
ecosystem area, built-up area, vegetation coverage, normalised
difference vegetation Index (NDVI), slope, digital elevation model
(dem), total population, and GDP were selected for the driving force
analysis.

\textbf{3. Results}

In 2020, the potential GEP for Miyun County was 254.32 billion yuan.
Among all kinds of ecosystem products, the water retention service
contributed the highest (119.5 billion yuan), accounting for 47\% of the
potential GEP in Miyun County, followed by natural landscape (52.16
billion yuan). Wetland ecosystems were the main contributors to water
retention services. The value of ecosystem products provided by wetlands
was almost 4.5 times that provided by the other areas (per unit area)
combined.

In 2020, the actual GEP in Miyun County was 53.28 billion yuan. Among
all kinds of ecosystem products, the contribution of climate regulation
service was the highest (17.46 billion yuan), accounting for 32.8\% of
the actual GEP in Miyun County, followed by water retention service
(11.86 billion yuan). Forest ecosystems contributed the most to climate
regulation. The value of ecosystem products contributed by wetlands per
unit area was the highest at 96 yuan/m\textsuperscript{2}.

In 2020, among all types of ecosystems in Miyun County, wetlands
contributed the highest potential GEP (141.92 billion yuan), followed by
forests (61.19 billion yuan) and urban ecosystems (0.4 million yuan).
Forests contributed the highest actual GEP (20.49 billion yuan),
followed by wetlands (14.47 billion yuan). The contribution of the urban
ecosystem was the same as its contribution to potential GEP (0.4 billion
yuan). Although the demand in urban ecosystems was theoretically high,
owing to its low supply capacity, the ecosystem products provided by the
urban ecosystem were utilised by residents and contributed to the actual
GEP. The actual GEP accounted for approximately 21\% of the potential
GEP, indicating that the overall use intensity of ecosystem products in
Miyun County remained low relative to the service supply capacity. The
difference between the potential and actual GEPs shows the scope for
vast exploitable space for water retention and natural landscape
services in Miyun County and that the local government can further
rationally promote local water resource utilisation and tourism
development.

The spatial distribution patterns of potential GEP in Miyun exhibited
apparent spatial heterogeneity. The potential GEP was high in the
Northwestern region and the surrounding areas of the Miyun Reservoir,
mainly distributed in PLT, SC, HWC, and MCY town. Areas with high values
of ecosystem products were affected mainly by the Miyun Reservoir and
Chaobai River systems, with rich vegetation, high water retention and
climate regulation service values, and relatively complete ecological
functions. Therefore, the supply potential was high. The potential GEP
was low in the Southwest region, mainly distributed in KLC, KYC, and MYT
town, and the low-value area is mainly distributed around the economic
centre of Miyun County. Water and vegetation areas were small because of
the extensive distribution of construction land. Therefore, the supply
potential of ecosystem products was low.

The distribution pattern of the actual GEP in the Miyun area also
exhibited obvious spatial heterogeneity. High actual GEP was primarily
associated with the southwest region, such as KLC, KYC, and MYT town,
with rapid economic and social development, high levels of regional
economic development, dense populations, and high intensities of
ecosystem product use. Areas with low actual GEP, such as HCT and PC
towns, were mainly distributed in the Northeast. Owing to their low
degree of development and utilisation, poor regional accessibility, and
low population, the intensity of the use of ecosystem products was low.

The difference between the potential and actual GEPs in Miyun tended to
be lower in the Southern region and higher in the Central and Northern
regions, indicating some imbalance. From the perspective of spatial
distribution, GEP surplus areas were mainly distributed in PLT and SC
towns and other Northwestern regions. In the Southwest regions,
including KLC, KYC, TY, and MYT towns, the regional economic development
speed is fast, the construction land area is large, and the ecological
resource utilisation intensity is high. Consequently, the potential
supply of ecosystem products could not meet the needs of residents, as
reflected in the GEP deficit. In addition, there is a trend of spatial
expansion from the economic centre in the Southwest to the surrounding
SLP, HNC, HTK towns, and other regions. The GEP surplus was high in the
Northwestern region, with an excellent ecological environment and
relatively low population density. The areas centred around the Miyun
Reservoir, such as HWC, MCY, and TCT town, are close to the reservoir,
rich in water resources and fishery products, and have strong climate
regulation ability, which brings high tourism and cultural value. As a
result, the potential GEP of the reservoir around the bank and the
supply potential were high, differing substantially from the
high-deficit areas outside the bank.

For natural ecosystems (forests, shrubs, grasslands, and wetlands), the
potential GEP was positively correlated with the actual GEP
(R\textsuperscript{2} = 0.61). It follows that, within the scope of
natural ecosystems in a region, the greater the supply intensity of
ecosystem products, the higher the use intensity. However, due to human
interference's intensity, farmlands, towns, and bare lands did not show
apparent correlations. Correlation analysis of the driving factors with
potential and actual GEP showed that the natural ecosystem area
(R\textsuperscript{2} = 0.88) and vegetation coverage
(R\textsuperscript{2} = 0.73) were the main driving factors affecting
potential GEP in Miyun County. The GDP (R\textsuperscript{2} = 0.84) and
population (R\textsuperscript{2} = 0.82) were the main driving factors
affecting GEP in Miyun County.

\textbf{4. Discussion}

Taking Miyun County in Beijing as an example, ecosystem products' supply
(potential GEP) and use (actual GEP) were calculated. The results show
that in 2020, the potential GEP of Miyun County was 254.32 billion yuan,
and the actual GEP was 53.28 billion yuan, approximately 21\% of the
potential GEP. Water retention services had a higher supply capacity
among all the ecosystem products, whereas climate regulation services
brought more welfare to human beings. Among all types of ecosystems,
wetlands had the highest supply capacity for ecosystem products, which
reflects the importance of wetland ecosystems in Miyun County,
especially reservoirs, in the supply of ecosystem products. Therefore,
when formulating policies, local governments should focus on
strengthening the protection of the wetland ecological environment and
maintaining its advantages. The actual GEP accounted for only 21\% of
the potential GEP, indicating that the overall intensity of the local
use of ecosystem products is relatively low compared with the potential
service supply. Therefore, local governments can consider further
rational development and utilisation of ecological resources, promote
local economic development under a sustainable model, and achieve a
''win-win situation'' between the social economy and the ecological
environment. The potential GEP in the Miyun area positively correlated
with the actual GEP concerning natural ecosystems, which means the
greater the supply intensity of ecosystem products, the higher the use
intensity. This correlation also suggested that the availability of
ecological products was one of the factors promoting their use. Thus,
increasing the supply of ecosystem goods through increased investment in
protecting and maintaining ecosystems will directly benefit people. This
finding was consistent with Aziz's study (Tariq Aziz, 2023).

The potential GEP depicts the background condition of the ecosystem,
whereas the actual GEP reflects the human demand for ecosystem products.
In previous assessments of ecosystem products, most did not distinguish
between supply and use but only chose one for accounting (European Union
2020, Garcia-Llamas et al. 2018, McDonald 2009, van Jaarsveld et al.
2005). In our study, the supply and use of ecosystem products were
distinguished and compared to fully understand the interdependence
between the ecosystem and economic society in Miyun County.
Simultaneously, value indicators were selected to compare potential and
actual GEPs horizontally to understand the overall supply potential of
ecosystem products and the relative situation of human use in the study
area, providing a reference for decision-making.

This study has some limitations. From the perspective of ecosystem
service flow, three components--supply, flow path, and demand--must be
considered. Research on the framework of ecosystem products is still in
its initial and conceptual stages, and the feedback mechanism between
spatial attribute characteristics and location, such as the spatial flow
path, flow, and degree of ecosystem product use, is still poorly
understood. Although the total value of the supply and use of ecosystem
products in Miyun County was calculated in this study, the spatial flow
path of ecosystem products has not been determined. Therefore, we could
not determine the flow direction of their supply and use and, thus,
could not establish their spatial distribution or connection. Future
studies could further explore the flow paths and ranges of ecosystem
products between regions. Importance should be provided to applied
research on ecosystem service flow, exploring the coupled relationship
between ecosystems and human welfare, and promoting the continuous
improvement of human welfare.

\textbf{5. Acknowledgements}

This work was supported by the Regional Potential and Final Ecosystem
Products Accounting Methods (2022YFF1301802).

\textbf{6. Conflict of interest}

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

\textbf{7. References}

{[}1{]}Holdren, J.P. and Ehrlich, P.R. (1974). Human population and the
global environment\selectlanguage{english}. \emph{Am. Sci.} , 62(3), 282--292.

{[}2{]}Zhao, S.D., Zhang, Y.M., and Lai, P.F. (2007). Millennium
ecosystem assessment report set. Environmental Science Press, Beijing,
China.

{[}3{]}Li, ZY, Li, S.P., Cao, Y.G., Wang, S.F., Liu, S.H., Zhang, Z.J.
(2022). Ecosystem product supply and demand: Basic connotation and
practical application. \emph{J. Agric. Resour. Environ.} , 39(3),
456--466.

{[}4{]}Bayon, R. (2004). Making environmental markets work: Lessons from
early experience with sulfur, carbon, wetlands, and other related
markets. Forest Trends, Katoomba Group Meeting in Locarno, Switzerland,
2003.

{[}5{]}EC and European Commission. (2008). The economics of ecosystems
and biodiversity. European Commission, Brussels.

{[}6{]}Peterson, M.J., Hall, D.M., Feldpausch-Parker, A.M., AM, and
Peterson, T.R. (2010). Obscuring ecosystem function with an application
of the ecosystem services concept. \emph{Conserv. Biol.} , 24(1),
113--119.

{[}7{]}Roces-Diaz, J.V., Diaz-Varela, R.A., Alvarez-Alvarez, P.,
Recondo, C., and Diaz-Varela, E.R. (2015). A multiscale analysis of
ecosystem services supply in the NW Iberian Peninsula from a functional
perspective. \emph{Ecol. Indic.} , 50, 24--34.

{[}8{]}Villamagna, A.M., Angermeier, P.L., and Bennett, E.M. (2013).
Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for
analysing ecosystem service provision and delivery. \emph{Ecol.
Complex.} , 15, 114--121.

{[}9{]}United Nations et al. System of environmental-economic
accounting---Ecosystem accounting (SEEA EA). White cover publication,
preedited text subject to official editing. (2021).

{[}10{]}Crossman, N.D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz,
K., Palomo, I. et al. (2013). A blueprint for mapping and modelling
ecosystem services. \emph{Ecosyst. Serv.} , 4, 4--14.

{[}11{]}European Union. (2020). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and
their services: An EU ecosystem assessment.

{[}12{]}Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., and Muller, F. (2012).
Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. \emph{Ecol.
Indic.} , 21, 17--29.

{[}13{]}Gomez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R.D., Lomas, P.L., and Montes, C.
(2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and
practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. \emph{Ecol.
Econ.} , 69(6), 1209--1218.

{[}14{]}van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., Hein, L., and de
Groot, R.S. (2012). Framework for systematic indicator selection to
assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. \emph{Ecol.
Indic.} , 21, 110--122.

{[}15{]}Maes, J., Crossman, N.D., and Burkhard, B. (2016). Mapping
ecosystem services. In: \emph{(Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem
Services).} \{{[}ed(s).{]} Potschin, P. Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., and
Turner, R.K. Routlegde. London, pp. (188--204).

{[}16{]}Haines-Young, R.H. and Potschin, M.P. (2010). The links between
biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being.
In:\emph{(Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis)} , D. Frid, and C. BES
Ecological Reviews Series, \{{[}ed(s).{]} Raffaelli. (172). CUP,
Cambridge, pp.

{[}17{]}Chaplin-Kramer, R., Sharp, R.P., Weil, C., Bennett, E.M.,
Pascual, U., Arkema, KK.. et al. (2019). Global modelling of nature's
contributions to people. \emph{Science} , 366(6462), 255--258.

{[}18{]}Goldenberg, R., Kalantari, Z., Cvetkovic, V., Mrtberg, U., Deal,
B., and Destouni, G. (2017). Distinction, quantification and mapping of
potential and realised supply-demand of flow-dependent ecosystem
services. \emph{Sci. Total Environ.} , 593--594, 599--609.

{[}19{]}Fisher, B., Costanza, R., Turner, R.K., and Morling, P. (2008)
Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making.
Norwich, UK.

{[}20{]}Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Conde, S., Vallecillo, S.,
Barredo, J.I. et al. (2020). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and
their Services: An EU ecosystem assessment. DOI:\emph{10.2760/757183}.

{[}21{]}Vallecillo, S., La Notte, A., Ferrini, S., and Maes, J. (2019).
How ecosystem services are changing: An accounting application at the EU
level. \emph{Ecosyst. Serv.} , 40, 101044.

{[}22{]}Curran, S.R. and de Sherbinin, A. (2004). Completing the
picture: The challenges of bringing ''consumption'' into the
population-environment equation. \emph{Popul. Environ.} , 26(2),
107--131.

{[}23{]}Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M.,
Hannon, B. et al. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services
and natural capital. \emph{Nature} , 387(6630), 253--260.

{[}24{]}Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services?
The need for standardised environmental accounting units. \emph{Ecol.
Econ.} , 63(2--3), 616--626. DOI:\emph{10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002}.

{[}25{]}Ouyang, Z.Y., Zhu, C.Q., Yang, G.B., et al. (2013). Ecosystem
gross domestic product accounting: Concepts, accounting methods, and
case studies. \emph{J. Ecol.} , 33(21), 6747--6761.

{[}26{]}National Development and Reform Commission and International
Bureau of Statistics Accounting. (2022). Standards for total value of
ecological products. People's Publishing House, Beijing.

{[}27{]}Peng, S., Ding, Y., Liu, W., and Li, Z. (2019). 1\selectlanguage{english} km monthly
temperature and precipitation dataset for China from 1901 to
2017.\emph{Earth Syst. Sci. Data} , 11(4), 1931--1946.
DOI:\emph{10.5194/essd-11-1931-2019}.

{[}28{]}Garcia-Llamas, P., Geijzendorffer, I.R., Garcia-Nieto, A.P.,
Calvo, N., Suarez-Seoane, S., and Cramer, W. (2018). Impact of land
cover change on ecosystem service supply in mountain systems: A case
study in the Cantabrian Mountains (NW of Spain). \emph{Reg. Environ.
Change} . DOI:\emph{10.1007/s10113-018-1419-2}.

{[}29{]}van Jaarsveld, A.S., Biggs, R., Scholes, R.J., Bohensky, E.,
Reyers, B., Lynam, T.. et al. (2005). Measuring conditions and trends in
ecosystem services at multiple scales: The Southern African Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA) experience. \emph{Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
Lond. B Biol. Sci.} , 360(1454), 425--441.

{[}30{]}McDonald, R. (2009). Ecosystem service demand and supply along
the urban-to-rural gradient. \emph{J. Conserv. Plan.} , 5, 1--14.

{[}31{]}Song, C.S. and Ouyang, Z.Y. (2020). Research on GEP accounting
of ecosystem gross domestic product for ecological benefit assessment: a
case study of Qinghai province. \emph{Acta Ecologica Sinica} , 40 (10):
3207-3217. DOI:10.5846/stxb202004260999.

{[}32{]}NBS China UNSD and UNEP. (2021). Ecosystem Accounts for China:
Report of the NCAVES project.

{[}33{]}Millennium ecosystem assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human
well-being: synthesis. Washing DC: Island Press.

{[}34{]} Tariq Aziz. (2023). Terrestrial protected areas: Understanding
the spatial variation of potential and realised ecosystem
services.\emph{Journal of environmental management} , 326: 0301-4797.

DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116803.

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`Figures.docx`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/675245/articles/673314-gross-ecosystem-product-gep-accounting-in-miyun-county-supply-and-use}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`Tables.docx`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/675245/articles/673314-gross-ecosystem-product-gep-accounting-in-miyun-county-supply-and-use}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

