Ecological restoration projects (ERPs) are an indispensable component of natural climate solutions and have proven to be very important for reversing environmental degradation in vulnerable regions and enhancing ecosystem services. However, the level of enhancement would be inevitably influenced by global drought and rising CO₂, which remain less investigated. In this study, we took the Beijing‐Tianjin sand source region (which has experienced long‐term ERPs), China, as an example and combined the process‐based Biome‐BGCMuSo model to set multiple scenarios to address this issue. We found ERP‐induced carbon sequestration (CS), water retention (WR), soil retention (SR), and sandstorm prevention (SP) increased by 22.21%, 2.87%, 2.35%, and 28.77%, respectively. Moreover, the ecosystem services promotion from afforestation was greater than that from grassland planting. Approximately 91.41%, 98.13%, and 64.51% of the increased CS, SR, and SP were contributed by afforestation. However, afforestation also caused the WR to decline. Although rising CO₂ amplified ecosystem services contributed by ERPs, it was almost totally offset by drought. The contribution of ERPs to CS, WR, SR, and SP was reduced by 5.74%, 32.62%, 11.74%, and 14.86%, respectively, under combined drought and rising CO₂. Our results confirmed the importance of ERPs in strengthening ecosystem services provision. Furthermore, we provide a quantitative way to understand the influence rate of drought and rising CO₂ on ERP‐induced ecosystem service dynamics. In addition, the considerable negative climate change impact implied that restoration strategies should be optimized to improve ecosystem resilience to better combat negative climate change impacts.

The tradeoffs and synergies of ecosystem services are widely discussed and recognized. However, explicit information for understanding and managing the complex relationships of multiple ecosystem services at regional scales is still lacking, which often leads to the degradation of important ecosystem services due to one ecosystem service being enhanced over another. We assessed the biodiversity and the production of nine ESs (ecosystem services) across 779 counties in the Yangtze River Basin, the largest basin in China. Then, we mapped the distribution of ES for each county and used correlations and “partitioning around medoids” clustering analysis to assess the existence of ES bundles. We found five distinct types of bundles of ecosystem services spatially agglomerated in the landscape, which could be mainly explained by land use, slope and altitude gradients. Our results also show landscape-scale tradeoffs between provisioning and almost all regulating services (and biodiversity), and synergies among almost all regulating services (and biodiversity). Mapping ecosystem service bundles can identify areas in a landscape where ecosystem management has produced exceptionally desirable or undesirable sets of ecosystem services, and can also provide explicit, tailored information on landscape planning for ecosystem service conservation and the design of payment policies for ecosystem services within diverse landscapes at watershed scales.

Ecological compensation is a crucial policy instrument that realigns the benefits of stakeholders to the ecosystem service provision. However, the spatial disconnections between locations where ecosystem services produced and used are common. The supply and demand for ecosystem services are calculated to reflect the status of the districts or counties based on ecosystem service flows. The replacement cost methods provide necessary technical supports for the calculation of compensation funds. The realigning of compensation funds between service-benefiting areas and service-providing areas not only identifies the beneficiaries and suppliers but also realizes the connection between them, which may be a feasible methodology. Fuzhou City is the study area, and two ecosystem services of water conservation and soil retention were taken into consideration. The prioritized development zone, Linchuan, and the key agricultural production zones paid ecological compensation funds. Linchuan paid the highest, 5.76 billion yuan. The key ecological function zones and the key agricultural production zones received the ecological compensation funds, of which Yihuang obtained the highest, 1.66 billion yuan. The realigning of compensation funds between the service benefiting and providing areas addresses the trade-offs between ecosystem services, social development, and ecosystem protection. Embedding the ecosystem service flows into the ecological compensation mechanism can most truly realize the value of ecosystem services, achieve the “beneficiary pays” principle, and be conducive to regional sustainable development.