Developing China’s Ecological Redline Policy using ecosystem services assessments for land use planning

Ecosystems services (ES) assessment is a significant scientific topic recognized for its potential to address sustainability issues. However, there is an absence of science–policy frameworks in land use planning that lead to the ES science being used in policy. China’s Ecological Redline Policy (ERP) is one of the first national policies utilizing multiple ES, but there is no standardized approach for working across the science–policy interface. We propose a transdisciplinary framework to determine ecological redline areas (ERAs) in Shanghai using: ES, biodiversity and ecologically fragile hotspots, landscape structure, and stakeholder opinions. We determine the five criteria to identify ERAs for Shanghai using multi-temporal, high resolution images (0.5 m) and biophysical models. We examine ERP effectiveness by comparing land use scenarios for 2040. Compared to alternative land uses, ES increase significantly under the ERP. The inclusion of ES in spatial planning led stakeholders to increase terrestrial habitat protection by 174% in Shanghai. Our analysis suggests that strategic planning for ES could reduce tradeoffs between environmental quality and development.


Supplementary Figure 6. Land-use and land-cover (LULC) analysis for projecting alternative future scenarios in Shanghai Municipality for 2040
The Markov model was used to forecast the areas of different LULC types, and logistic regression models were used to forecast LULC spatial distributions. The Conversion and Land Use and its Effects at Small regional extent model (CLUE_S) was used to simulate future LULC to generate the LULC maps for each scenario.

Supplementary Tables
Supplementary Table 1     Water scarcity in terms of sustaining water supplies and improving water quality are important human benefits for people who live in Shanghai. Shanghai has access to sufficient water due to its proximity to the Yangtze River. Scholars, however, have conducted a multitude of studies indicating concern about future freshwater supplies due to rapid increases in water demand and poor water management practices 8 . Since 2010 the major freshwater source for Shanghai has been the Qingcaosha Reservoir near the mouth of the Yangtze River, which supplies over 50% of Shanghai's freshwater. Hence stakeholders want the human benefit of continuous water supply from freshwater sources (e.g., Qingcaosha Reservoir and Huangpu River) in Shanghai, therefore they selected water conservation. The major problem causing water scarcity in Shanghai is water pollution leading to poor water quality across Shanghai. In 2015, Shanghai's Environment Monitoring Center tested 100 spots across the city and found only 10% of the waterways were either "excellent" or "good water quality". Over 65% of the freshwater in Shanghai was graded as heavily polluted. Therefore stakeholders are highly concerned about water quality and want to invest in ecosystems to improve water quality, specifically for human benefits of drinking water, recreation, and fisheries. Hence we selected water purification.
Lastly, in Shanghai the land degradation causing the loss of fertile lands is soil erosion.
In China soil erosion is a national dilemma since it is estimated that almost 40 percent of China's territory (over 3.5 million km 2 ) suffers from soil erosion. Soil erosion can be found in almost every river basin and every province in China. Shanghai has a lower soil erosion rate than other portions of China; however the Yangtze River Basin has the largest soil erosion area (approximately 28% of the national total) 9 . Given the national significance as well as high importance of soil erosion in the Yangtze River Basin, stakeholders selected soil erosion control for the human benefits of: fertile soils for agriculture, mitigation of lake/reservoir siltation, food security from soil contamination, and flood control.  Table 6). To facilitate the following analyses, the LULC layers were converted to a grid format at a spatial resolution of 50 m.

Assessment indicators. We use three main indicators to standardize the Ministry of
Environmental Protection (MEP) official criteria for determining the ERAs: (1) ES hotspots, (2) ecologically fragile hotspots, and (3) biodiversity hotspots. Also we use three additional indicators to assess ERAs: (1) ecosystem composition, (2) landscape fragmentation, and (3) landscape connectivity.
Norman Myers developed the term "hotspots" in the 1980s to identify areas of high species richness, endemism and/or threat, which has widely been used to prioritize areas for biodiversity conservation. We extend the "hotspot" concept to ES and ecologically fragile areas.
Studies have suggested that the spatial variation in biodiversity and other ES are not necessarily positively correlated (highly dependent on the ES type) 10 , thus creating distinct criteria for each hotspot can help managers prioritize for these three important (sometimes distinct) aspects of ecosystems. Several studies have used percentages (top 10% or top 20%) of ES production to determine thresholds for ES hotspots to formulate a systematic methodology while also producing feasible areas for protection 11,12 . In South Africa, Egoh et al. 13 examined carbon sequestration, water resources conservation, and soil conservation. They found most of ES production occurred in ecosystem areas representing only 5-10% of South Africa's land area.
Ecologically fragile hotspots are areas that have been highly degraded from stressors, making them very sensitive to "tipping points" where the ecosystem state flips from "desirable state" to an alternative state that is less beneficial to human welfare and biodiversity 14 . In China, major stressors tied to ecosystem management (excluding pollutants and urbanization) causing largescale alterations in ecosystem functionality are: soil erosion, desertification, and salinization 15 .
Biodiversity hotspots have been widely used to help managers identify high concentrations of species richness and endemism that are undergoing high habitat loss. It provides a useful way to identify key ecosystem areas that must be protected to sustain as much biodiversity as possible given financial and space limitations due to competing interests. Myers et al. 16  configuration on the landscape. We measure ecosystem composition as (1) percent area of each land-cover type and (2) total area of each landscape type. We measure ecosystem configuration as (1) landscape connectivity using a connectivity index and (2) landscape fragmentation using a fragmentation index. Landscape connectivity is an index to describe the degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement among resource patches. Landscape connectivity is a function of the percentage of a landscape occupied by that habitat type, and plays a vital role in protecting biodiversity, and maintaining ecosystem stability and integrity 18 . In comparison, landscape fragmentation is an index to describe the degree to which a habitat or LULC type is broken into smaller, disconnected parcels. It reflects pattern changes caused by natural factors or human activities 19 . Inclusion of landscape connectivity and land fragmentation as explicit components of landscape structure are useful for comparing ERP to other land-use scenarios.

Social survey.
No permits were needed to conduct our surveys with human subjects since our surveys were used for non-commercial purposes. Prior to surveying individuals, we provided each person with a clear statement explaining the purpose of the survey and the type of personal information to be collected. We clearly articulated that the personal information would only be used for scientific research, and any personal information would remain confidential. Also we clearly explained that any results from the surveys would be presented in aggregate with no personal identifying information. After clarifying the purpose of the research and the privacy statement we then asked each individual if they would be willing to participate in the survey.
The age make-up of the surveyed population is: (1) (7) full-time students (6%). We also analyzed people's ES preferences in terms of residence. We found that people who lived in the city center were more likely to rank water purification as a priority ES because water quality problems are worse in the city center compared to the suburban and exurban areas. Also people who lived in exurban areas, especially in coastal zones were more aware of the importance of soil control due to their proximity to the coast giving them increased awareness of coastal erosion. Research Institute). During the scoping workshops, spatial maps were first presented to district governments and scientists using powerpoint presentations. They also provided all stakeholders with the data. Stakeholders discussed the spatial distribution of the ERAs, which entailed us educating stakeholders on the scientific criteria, and explaining the analysis. Answering questions on the scientific analysis helped build stakeholder confidence on the credibility of the assessment, and for scientists the scoping workshops helped legitimize the scientific analysis.
B. Public comment. After the district-level consultations, the revised ERAs were posted online to the public. Citizens could freely download this document and provide public comment to help refine the targeted ERAs.
Disagreements stemmed from stakeholders wanting certain areas to be available for future development. District governments outlined the areas of disagreement to the SEPB who then provided the proposed ERA adjustments to the scientists. The scientists examined how the proposed ERA reductions may impact ES, ecologically fragile areas, and biodiversity. We subsequently provided this information on the potential losses to the SEPB. The SEPB weighed any losses on the three ecological criteria relative to stakeholder concerns, and modified the maps accordingly. They sent the modified maps back to the district governments. Finally the SEPB and the district governments had to compromise on certain areas. They built consensus by offering future compensation to impacted stakeholders. Local communities eventually agreed to the majority of ERAs because of its legal importance. Not following the ERAs could be quite risky in terms of higher taxes and future penalties. The Ecological Redline Policy is incredibly important in China, thus local governments know they must strive for strict protection of the identified ecological areas.