Rice is one of the world's three major food crops. In China, more than 50% of the population relies on rice as a staple food. Every year, the area under paddy rice cultivation accounts for 18% of the total farmland [30], and rice grain yields account for 32% of total grain production. A paddy field ecosystem (PFE) has both farmland ecosystem and wetland ecosystem functions [31], providing not only food and industrial raw materials (such as straw) to meet human needs for food, but also rich ecological products to improve the living environment [32]. Continued population growth, rapid urbanization and the public perception of paddy fields as tools for only food production, ignoring their high value ES, such as carbon fixation and oxygen release, climate regulation and air purification, result in the continuous reduction of paddy planting area. This reduction not only threatens China's food security, but also has a negative impact on the environment. Therefore, carrying out the evaluation of the ESV of a PFE, comprehensively revealing the ESV of the PFE, changes the public's one-sided understanding of paddy ecosystems. Protecting the healthy development of a PFE can not only effectively ensure national food security but also improve the aesthetic of rural areas. The vast majority of research on ESV evaluation of PFE has focused on Asian countries. There is no unified consensus on the evaluation framework. [PERSON] [33] and [PERSON] [34] separately conducted monetization accounting on the ecological service functions of PFE, such as flood control and gas regulation. [PERSON] [35] pioneered the provision of a comprehensive ESV evaluation framework for paddy ecosystems, which was used by [PERSON] [36], [PERSON] [37] and [PERSON] [38] in the Sichuan Basin, Zhejiang Province and Shanghai, respectively. The PFE was the main emission source of atmospheric greenhouse gases (CH\({}_{4}\), CO\({}_{2}\), N\({}_{2}\)O, etc. ); rice paddy field cropping accounts for about 20% of emitted methane gas [39] and the use of pesticide and fertilizers leads to contamination of soil and water, generating negative ESV. The negative ESV of the PFE was included in the accounting framework to carry out the multifunctional net ESV evaluation. The study found that although intensively managed paddy fields also caused serious negative impacts on biodiversity [40], the number of organisms in paddy fields was still 16 times higher than in drylands [41]. Researchers have reached a consensus on ESV assessment methods. The physical ecological process simulation method combined with the market value method, the alternative cost method and the shadow engineering method have been widely used to account for ESV in PFEs [32; 42; 43; 44], while the EVA method has been used successfully to account for ESV of PFEs [45; 46; 47]. In this study, we investigated the feasibility of multi-source remote sensing data to assess the ESV of PFEs in response to the neglect of habitat differences in the EVA method, the inadequate application of remote sensing techniques for the ESFE method, and the coarse granularity and the low credibility of the ESV evaluation results. The objectives of this study are: (1) to attempt to account for ESV of PFEs from multi-source remote sensing data instead of statistical data, and (2) to spatially map the ESV of PFEs at provincial scale with medium-high spatial resolution and fine grain size. Our study not only provides new ideas for standardizing and automating the evaluation of ESV of different types of terrestrial ecosystems, but also builds a new bridge for sustainable interaction between land use and ecological service functions.