## 3 Results
### Comprehensive Analysis of Conservation Effectiveness  
The weights assigned to each indicator in the study area were determined using the coefficient of variation method, as detailed in Table 10. Figure 9 presents the calculated results of conservation effectiveness for each study area. The proportions of the area corresponding to the three levels of conservation effectiveness in each study area were also computed, as depicted in Figure 10.  
For inside ZINNR, the area characterized by HE gradually increased, whereas the area of ME progressively decreased. The area of LE initially shrank and then increased. The relative proportions of the three conservation effectiveness levels in each period followed the pattern ME > HE > LE. Conversely, outside ZINNR, the area of LE initially increased and then decreased, whereas the areas of both ME and HE first decreased and then increased. The relative proportions of the three conservation effectiveness levels in each period followed the pattern ME > LE > HE. Moreover, the inside had a higher area proportion of HE and ME than the outside each period, whereas LE was the opposite.  
For inside MdfNNR, the area of LE continues to decrease, whereas the area of ME continues to increase, and the area of HE initially increased and then decreased. The relationship between the areas occupied by the three conservation effectiveness levels in each period was ME > LE > HE. Conversely, for outside MdfNNR, the area occupied by LE initially decreased and then increased, whereas the areas occupied by both ME and HE increased and then decreased. The relationship between the areas occupied by the three conservation effectiveness levels in each period was ME > HE > LE. LE areas inside MdfNNR were less than those outside each period, and the ME areas were higher than those outside each period. For HE areas, the difference between the inside and outside of the PAs was minimal.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Primary** \\ **Evaluation Indicators** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Weights of Primary** \\ **Evaluation Indicators** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Secondary** \\ **Evaluation Indicators** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Weights of Secondary**} \\  & & & & **Evaluation Indicators** \\ \cline{2-5}  & **ZINNR** & **MdfNNR** & & **ZINNR** & **MdfNNR** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Land use type} & & & Cropland & 0.0682 & 0.0152 \\  & & & Forest land & 0.1336 & 0.0050 \\  & & & Grassland & 0.0225 & 0.7307 \\  & 0.1691 & 0.4972 & & Wetland & 0.0370 \\  & & & Water & 0.1654 & 0.0532 \\  & & & Impervious & 0.3462 & 0.1959 \\  & & & Barren & 0.2270 \\  & & & PD & 0.2406 & 0.1955 \\  & & & LPI & 0.1366 & 0.0759 \\  & & & MPS & 0.1808 & 0.1401 \\  & 0.6266 & 0.3549 & & ED & 0.2257 & 0.1836 \\  & & & LSI & 0.1147 & 0.0958 \\  & & & CONTAG & 0.0321 & 0.0370 \\  & & & SHDI & 0.0287 & 0.0418 \\  & & & SHEI & 0.0388 & 0.0527 \\ Remote sensing index & 0.2043 & 0.1479 & NDVI & 1.0000 & 1.0000 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: Weights of each evaluation index in ZINNR and MdfNNR.  
Figure 9: The conservation effectiveness of each study area from 2000 to 2020. (**a**) The inside of ZINNR; (**b**) the outside of ZINNR; (**c**) the inside of MdfNNR; (**d**) the outside of MdfNNR.  
Both ZINNR and MdfNNR have served their purpose of protecting vegetation and landscape to a certain extent. As expected, the core zones offer the highest conservation effectiveness, followed by buffer and experimental zones. The areas of HE in ZINNR were more significant than those in MdfNNR in each period, and the areas of ME and LE in ZINNR were smaller than those in MdfNNR in each period. Therefore, the conservation effectiveness of ZINNR was superior to that of MdfNNR.