With the rapid acceleration of China's urbanization process, cities across the country are in a rapid development. According to the data from the National Bureau of Statistics in 2021, China's population urbanization rate reached 64.72%. Large-scale urbanization has led to the expansion of cities, which has put enormous pressure on the ecosystems. The urbanization of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region (BTH) is the epitome and typical example of rapid urbanization development in China. In 2018, the urbanization rate of BTH has reached 65.8%. With the continuous advancement of urbanization, the natural ecosystem of the BTH has undergone a complex change, which posed a severe challenge to the sustainable development of the region. At the same time, the imbalance of regional development in the BTH is very serious. In this study, we analyzed the changes of urbanization and ecosystem services and the relationship between them in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region during 2000-2020. We also explored the scale effects and change patterns of this relationship at the grid scale, county scale, and municipal scale. The four urbanization indicators are nighttime light, urban land proportion, population density and GDP density, while the five ecosystem services indicators are water yield, food provisioning, soil conservation, carbon storage and habitat quality. In this study, the InVEST model was used to quantify the selected ecosystem services indicators, and the results of the four urbanization indicators were obtained by combining statistical data. Based on this, Pearson correlation analysis and geographically weighted regression were applied to test the relationship between them. The results showed that (1) the ecosystem services increased with the urbanization in the BTH, except for carbon storage, which decreased by 0.8%, with habitat quality increased by 0.8%, water yield increased by 68%, soil conservation increased by 35.7%, and food provisioning increased by nearly three times. (2) There was a significant correlation between ecosystem services and urbanization (P< 0.01), and the correlation was the most significant at the county scale. Water yield was positively correlated with the four urbanization indicators, while food provisioning, carbon storage, soil conservation and habitat quality were all negatively correlated with the 4 urbanization indicators. There was also a significant correlation between ecosystem services. Carbon storage, soil conservation and habitat quality showed a trade-off on the three scales. At the same time, this correlation would increase with time. (3) The results of geographically weighted regression showed that the fitting degree of urbanization indicators and ecosystem services was high only on the county scale, and had a clearly spatial agglomeration characteristic. Among them, the fitting degree of urban land proportion, carbon storage and food provisioning was the highest, which were 0.42 and 0.63, respectively. It suggests that using the county scale as the study scale is to some extent a more accurate response to the impact of urbanization on ecosystem services. However, some ecosystem services were more correlated with urbanization indicators at the grid and municipal scales, so different policies needed to be developed for the management of ecosystem services in different regions, and the scales could be adjusted dynamically as appropriate. The article clarified the impact of urbanization on ecosystem services, and focused on the scale effects between urbanization and ecosystem services relationships, providing a reference for ecosystem management in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region.