A spatially explicit framework for assessing ecosystem service supply risk under multiple land‐use scenarios in the Xi'an Metropolitan Area of China

Abstract Rapid global urbanization has perturbed ecosystem structures and functions, resulting in ecological risk and threatening sustainable human well‐being and socioeconomic development. However, scientific indicators to analyze ecosystem service (ES) risk patterns need to be explored in detail. In addition, studies on ES supply risk are stagnating on historical or status explorations, especially from the view of disturbance from land‐use changes. This study seeks to develop a framework for modeling past‐future ES supply risk pattern evaluation and probing into ES risk patterns under different future land‐use scenarios. To achieve this objective, the framework integrates the Future Land Use Simulation (FLUS) model, the Intelligent Urban Ecosystem Management System (IUEMS) model, and an established indicator system incorporating ES supply trend, hotspots and coldspots, and ES trade‐offs, and synergies. The results show that: (1) In 2050, the supply of climate regulation in the Xi'an Metropolitan Area (XMA) will increase, while that of carbon sequestration and recreation will decrease. In 2050, the supply of climate regulation is the highest under ecological protection (EP) scenario, while the supply of carbon sequestration and recreation are the highest under cropland protection (CP) scenario. (2) From 2000 to 2050, the hotspots and coldspots of climate regulation increase in both natural development (ND) scenario and CP scenario. Notably, CP scenario experiences the most significant reduction in extremely significant hotspots and coldspots of carbon sequestration. From 2000 to 2050, at the regional and pixel scales, climate regulation and carbon sequestration mainly show trade‐offs, and carbon sequestration and recreation show synergies. (3) ES supply risk in XMA is high in the center and low in the north and south. The ES supply risk from 2000 to 2050 is increasing, with expanding “extremely high risk”, “high risk”, and “extremely safe” areas. ES supply risk management should adhere to more strict land‐use policies and guidelines, management zoning for areas with different levels of ES risk, and an accurate understanding of ES trade‐offs and synergies for scientific risk management. This study could provide theoretical and technical references for ES risk assessment research and promote scientific ecological risk management.