Editorial: Gross ecosystem product: valuation of nature’s contribution to human wellbeing

Within a context of rapid urbanization, Wu et al. examined ecosystem service functions in eastern Guangdong. By employing clustering algorithms to delineate distinct ecological zones, the study revealed spatial heterogeneity in service provision. It proposed differentiated management strategies to balance the competing demands of urbanization and ecological conservation, offering a roadmap for sustainable urban expansion in coastal regions.Water resources constitute a vital yet frequently undervalued component of ecosystem services. Zhang et al. developed an innovative framework for the Qinling-Danjiang basin, distinguishing contributions from natural ecosystems and artificial water infrastructure. Their analysis demonstrates that while infrastructure vital for stable supply, natural ecosystems provide the overwhelming majority of raw water volume and purification capacity. These findings underscore the complementary rather than substitutive role of green and grey infrastructure in achieving longterm water security.To address the spatial mismatch between ecological service provision and consumption, Lei et al. mapped service flows within the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Their identification of Jiangxi Province as a primary supplier and Zhejiang Province as a major beneficiary provides robust scientific grounding for establishing cross-boundary ecological compensation mechanisms. This work is pivotal for implementing the polluter-pays principle, ensuring upstream protectors receive equitable compensation from downstream users.Niu et al. further developed compensation mechanisms by proposing the Multifunctional Quantitative Ecological Compensation Standard (MQECS) based on the Human Development Index. Applying this standard to forest ecosystems in Guangdong and Liaoning, they calculated fair payment standards that account for regional development disparities and the multi-functionality of forests, promoting both ecological integrity and socio-economic equity across different developmental stages.The assessment of ecological security and biodiversity remains central to safeguarding longterm human well-being. Wang et al. employed the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) model to evaluate land ecological security in Heilongjiang Province over a 22-year period. Findings indicate that agricultural pressures, particularly excessive fertilizer use and soil degradation, have become primary threats to regional security. This underscores the urgency of implementing sustainable agricultural practices and protecting black soil resources.Lu and Ge utilized the Driving-Pressure-State-Impact-Response-Management (DPSIRM) model to reveal significant spatial disparities in land resource security across North China. They proposed that developing precise provincial strategies tailored to the region's unique ecological vulnerabilities and socio-economic context is crucial for enhancing overall regional security and resource efficiency. Their work emphasizes the need for localized approaches to managing land resource security.Finally, Yu et al. focused on Yunnan Province-a globally renowned biodiversity hotspot. Using the PSR assessment method, they revealed a concerning disconnect between the region's high intrinsic biodiversity value and intensifying pressures from human activities. They urge the adoption of more inclusive and resilient biodiversity governance models in global biodiversity hotspots to bridge the gap between conservation and economic development.In summary, the papers included in this special issue represent a significant leap forward in our understanding of total ecosystem output and its role in promoting human well-being. They advance public recognition that safeguarding natural capital is not an impediment to development, but rather