The Ecological Conservation Redline (ECR) of China plays an important role in avoiding ecological space occupancy and maintaining regional ecological security. Anji County in Zhejiang Province is one of the first regions to implement the ECR in China. This paper takes Anji County as an example to analyze the effects of ECR. To do this, we first set up two scenarios with the CLUE-S model: a normal land-use development scenario (NLDS) and an ECR implementation scenario (ECRS); then we compare the land use of 2010 and 2015 under NLDS and ECRS. Land use, ecosystem services value (ESV), landscape metrics, and ecological product outputs were compared between the entire county and the ECR areas. The results revealed the following: (1) From 2000 to 2015, the ecological land in Anji County decreased by 4.03%, while it decreased by 1.17% in the ECR areas. (2) In the ECR areas, there was less arable land and construction land of the ECRS than in the NLDS, which indicates the ECR impeded the expansion of construction land and arable land in the ECR areas. (3) The ECR areas account for 39% of Anji County but contribute more than 80% to the ESV of the whole county. During 2000–2015, the ESV of the entire county decreased while the ESV of the ECR areas increased. (4) From 2000 to 2015, whereas landscape fragmentation of the entire county increased, that of ECR areas decreased. (5) Since the ECR’s implementation, Anji County has vigorously developed the bamboo industry, ecological agriculture, the tourism industry, and achieved rapid economic development via industrial restructuring and transformation. On the whole, the ECR has neither adversely affected land development nor economic development but instead has promoted the optimization of the land’s spatial development pattern.

The unreasonable utilization and trade-offs of the multifunctional landscape is one of the important causes leading to ecological risk. Quantifying the relationship, heterogeneous process and driving mechanism between landscape function and human well-being can provide a scientific basis for achieving a win-win situation of regional development and ecological protection, and it is also an important issue for relevant scientific research. In this paper, we reviewed the current state of knowledge regarding landscape function and ecological risk, identified the feedback mechanisms among landscape change, landscape function, human well-being and ecological risk, constructed the ecological risk assessment framework based on landscape functions, and sorted out the key scientific issues and research trends. The interconnections between the multifunctional landscape, human well-being, and ecological risk comprise an important scientific issue in ecological risk assessment. However, there is a lack of understanding of the spatial-temporal characteristics of landscape function trade-offs, and there is also a lack of systematic and standardized methods for the identification and comprehensive evaluation of landscape functions. Exploring ecological risk management and the methodologies that integrate the two processes of nature and humanity is an inevitable trend for future research. Coupling landscape structure, function and process into ecological risk assessment, as well as focusing on the combination of human well-being, landscape function trade-off and ecological risk control policy design are important issues to be studied.

Farmers' livelihoods and their impacts on the ecosystem are important indicators of human-land relationships. Appropriate livelihood strategies for farmers can meet the needs of human well-being and promote the sustainable use of natural resources, thereby maintaining the health and stability of natural ecosystems. Scholars have carried out a great deal of research on the changes in farmers' livelihoods, as well as the driving mechanisms and ecological effects, but there are still many controversial issues about the ecological effects of farmers' livelihood transformation. On the basis of collecting and sorting out the relevant literature, this paper analyzes the previous research results on the transformation mechanism and ecological effects of farmers' livelihoods, and further explores the coupling relationship. Through the analysis and summary, we find that the choice of farmers' livelihoods is affected by natural factors, subjective willingness and social policies. The transformation of farmers' livelihood changes the ways of production, consumption and resource utilization, which in turn profoundly affects the evolutionary process of the natural ecosystems. This paper establishes a research framework for the livelihood transformation mechanism of farmers and its ecological effect, and finally summarizes two directions that need to be studied further in the future: (1) Exploring the interactions between the driving factors of farmers' livelihood transformation; and (2) Exploring a win-win sustainable mechanism for farmers' livelihood needs and natural resource utilization.

The dominant livelihood types of farm households have become increasingly differentiated in recent years, which has attracted the attention of researchers. Identifying the characteristics and driving factors of household livelihood differentiation is of great significance for revealing man-land relationship and policy making. Based on the interview data of farm households in typical villages in key ecological function areas of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region in China, we analyzed the pattern of the dominant diversified livelihood types and the livelihood characteristics among different farm households. Then we assessed the driving forces of livelihood diversification by optimal scaling regression. The results indicated that: (1) In the study area, the dominant livelihood types show two trends of agriculturally dominant livelihood (accounting for 53.07%) and non-agriculturally dominant livelihood (accounting for 46.93%). Moreover, farm households in the agro-pastoral areas are mainly agriculturally dominated (accounting for 75.68%), while farm households in the mountainous areas are mainly non-agriculturally dominated (accounting for 66.93%). (2) The labor allocation and income source of different types of farm households are consistent with their dominant livelihood types. The farm households with agriculturally dominant livelihoods have more natural resources than those with non-agriculturally dominant livelihoods. In terms of housing conditions, farm households with agriculturally dominant livelihoods are inferior to those with non-agriculturally dominant livelihoods. (3) The farm labor, dependency ratio, agricultural income, supplemental income and locational conditions have negative impacts on the non-agricultural trend of farm household livelihood decisions, while off-farm labor, non-farm income, education level and the per capita amount of compensation have significant positive impacts on it.