Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Driving Force of Ecosystem Health in an Important Ecological Function Region in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study Area and Data Source
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Sources
3. Methodology
3.1. Framework of Ecosystem Health Assessment
3.2. Ecosystem Health Evaluation
3.2.1. Evaluation Unit
3.2.2. Construction of the Index System
3.2.3. Processing of Data and Determination of Indicator Weights
3.2.4. Calculation of the Ecosystem Health Index
3.3. Study of the Driving Factors of Ecosystem Health
3.3.1. Factors Influencing Ecosystem Health
3.3.2. Geodetector Model
4. Results
4.1. Spatiotemporal Evolution Characteristics of Ecosystem Health
4.1.1. Spatial Patterns of Ecosystem Health Level
4.1.2. Spatial Change Trend Analysis of Ecosystem Health Level
4.2. Influencing Factors on Ecosystem Health
4.2.1. The Influence of the Detection Factor
4.2.2. Indicative Effect Analysis
4.2.3. Analysis of the Interaction between Factors
5. Discussion
5.1. Comparison with Previous Studies
5.2. Implications for Ecological Conservation
5.3. Limitations and Future Work
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, D.L.; Lu, X.H.; Liu, X.; Wang, X. Measurement of the eco-environmental effects of urban sprawl: Theoretical mechanism and spatiotemporal differentiation. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 105, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, Y.; Zhao, C.L.; Wang, C.X.; Shan, P.; Zhang, Y.J.; Wu, G. Ecosystem health assessment of the Liao River Basin upstream region based on ecosystem services. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2016, 36, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Qi, Z.F.; Ye, X.Y.; Cai, Y.B.; Ma, W.C.; Chen, M.N. Analysis of land use/land cover change, population shift, and their effects on spatiotemporal patterns of urban heat islands in metropolitan Shanghai, China. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 44, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, L.L.; Guo, H.D.; Corbane, C.; Li, Q.T. Urban sprawl in provincial capital cities in China: Evidence from multi-temporal urban land products using Landsat data. Sci. Bull. 2019, 64, 955–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peng, J.F.; Peng, K.Y.; Li, J.B. Climate-Growth response of Chinese white pine (Pinus armandii) at different age groups in the Baiyunshan National Nature Reserve, central China. Dendrochronologia 2018, 49, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, H.M.; Qin, Y.C.; Feng, G.; Meng, Q.M.; Cui, Y.P.; Song, H.Q.; Ouyang, Y.; Liu, G.J. Forest phenology dynamics to climate change and topography in a geographic and climate transition zone: The Qinling Mountains in central China. Forests 2019, 10, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, H.; Ding, J.Q. Global Change Sharpens the Double-Edged Sword Effect of Aquatic Alien Plants in China and Beyond. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rapport, D.J.; Riegier, H.A.; Hutchinson, T.C. Ecosystem behavior under stress. Am. Nat. 1985, 125, 617–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shear, H. The development and use of indicators to assess the state of ecosystem health in the Great Lakes. Ecosyst. Health 1996, 2, 241–258. [Google Scholar]
- Lepold, J.C. Getting a handle on ecosystem health. Science 1997, 276, 887. [Google Scholar]
- Rapport, D.J. What constitutes ecosystem health? Perspect. Biol. Med. 1989, 33, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rapport, D.J. Eco-Cultural health, global health, and sustainability. Ecol. Res. 2011, 26, 1039–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pan, Y.; Xu, Z.R.; Yu, C.Q.; Tu, Y.L.; Li, Y.; Wu, J.X. Spatiotemporal variation of interacting relationships among multiple provisioning and regulating services of Tibet grassland ecosystem. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2013, 33, 5794–5801. [Google Scholar]
- Ou, C.H.; Liu, W.H. Developing a sustainable indicator system based on the pressure-state-response framework for local fisheries: A case study of Gungliau, Taiwan. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2010, 53, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, T.T.; Lin, W.P.; Chen, G.S.; Guo, P.P.; Zeng, Y. Wetland ecosystem health assessment through integrating remote sensing and inventory data with an assessment model for the Hangzhou Bay, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 566, 627–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, D.L.; Hao, S.L. Ecosystem health assessment at county-scale using the pressure-state-response framework on the Loess Plateau, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Costanza, R.; Norton, B.G.; Haskell, B.D. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management; Island Press: California, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, F.; Li, Z. A model of ecosystem health and its application. Ecol. Model. 2003, 170, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaves, H.M.L.; Alipaz, S. An integrated indicator based on basin hydrology, environment, life, and policy: The watershed sustainability index. Water Res. Manag. 2007, 21, 883–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, R.; Liu, Y.; Fei, X.F.; Yu, W.X.; Zhang, Z.H.; Meng, Q.X. Ecosystem health assessment: A comprehensive and detailed analysis of the case study in coastal metropolitan region, eastern China. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 98, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, C.; Deng, X.Z.; Xu, S.; Wang, Y.T.; Cui, J.X. An integrated approach for assessing the urban ecosystem health of megacities in China. Cities 2016, 53, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bebianno, M.J.; Pereira, C.G.; Rey, F.; Cravo, A.; Duarte, D.; D’Errico, G.; Regoli, F. Integrated approach to assess ecosystem health in harbor areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 514, 92–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meng, L.R.; Huang, J.; Dong, J.H. Assessment of rural ecosystem health and type classification in Jiangsu province, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 615, 1218–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, H.K.; Liao, H.P.; Wei, C.F.; Li, T.; Xie, D.T. Health assessment of a land use system used in the ecologically sensitive area of the Three Gorges reservoir area, based on the improved TOPSIS Method. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 8016–8027. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, J.; Liu, Y.X.; Li, T.Y.; Wu, J.S. Regional ecosystem health response to rural land use change: A case study in Lijiang City, China. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, C.C.; Shi, H.H.; Zheng, W.; Ding, D.W. Spatial heterogeneity of ecosystem health and its sensitivity to pressure in the waters of nearshore archipelago. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61, 822–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.C.; Li, P.F.; Wang, H.; Li, G.J. Assessments of integrated ecosystems in mining areas based on energy analysis. Acta Ecol. Sin. 35, 4367–4376.
- Chi, Y.; Zheng, W.; Shi, H.H.; Sun, J.K.; Fu, Z.Y. Spatial heterogeneity of estuarine wetland ecosystem health influenced by complex natural and anthropogenic factors. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 634, 1445–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bae, D.Y.; Kumar, H.K.; Han, J.H.; Kim, J.Y.; Kim, K.W.; Kwon, Y.H.; An, K.G. Integrative ecological health assessments of an acid mine stream and in situ pilot tests for wastewater treatments. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 653–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, X.; Chen, L.D.; Sun, R.H.; Kong, P.R. Land use changes and socio-economic development strongly deteriorate river ecosystem health in one of the largest basins in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616–617, 376–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ye, C.; Li, C.H.; Wang, Q.G.; Chen, X.G. Driving forces analysis for ecosystem health status of littoral zone with dikes: A case study of Lake Taihu. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2012, 32, 3681–3690. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, G.D.; Zhang, C.X.; Zhen, L.; Zhang, L.M. Dynamic changes in the value of China’s ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, J.H.; Pan, Z.Z.; Liu, D.F.; Guo, X.N. Exploring the regional differences of ecosystem health and its driving factors in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 673, 553–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, J.E.; Nogueira, F.; Pires, J.S.; Obara, A.T.; Pires, A.M. The value of the Ecological Station of Jataí’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Braz. J. Biol. 2001, 61, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, M.D.; Li, J.; Peng, J.; Niu, J.; Cao, L. Ecosystem health assessment based on RS and GIS. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2010, 19, 1809–1814. [Google Scholar]
- Chi, Y.; Shi, H.H.; Zheng, W.; Sun, J.K.; Fu, Z.Y. Spatiotemporal characteristics and ecological effects of the human interference index of the Yellow River Delta in the last 30 years. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 89, 880–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, X.P.; Bai, Y.P.; Du, H.B.; Wang, J.B.; Zhou, L. Research on the spatial quantitative evaluation and coupling coordination degree of ecological carrying capacity in Gansu Province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 5861–5870. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, P.P.; Wang, W.; Sun, R.; Yue, B.; Liu, G. Ecosystem Health Assessment of Wetlands in Yangtze River Basin. Met. Environ. Sci. 2018, 41, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, Y.; Hou, K.; Wu, Y.P.; Li, X.X.; Zhang, J.L. A conceptual framework for establishing the index system of ecological environment evaluation–A case study of the upper Hanjiang River, China. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 107, 105568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, P.; Chen, W.P.; Hou, Y.; Li, Y.Z. Linking ecosystem services and ecosystem health to ecological risk assessment: A case study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 1442–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, H.M.; Zhao, J.; Qin, Y.C.; Yang, J.; Cui, Y.P.; Song, H.Q.; Ma, L.Q.; Jin, N.; Meng, Q.M. Changes in Water Surface Area during 1989–2017 in the Huai River Basin using Landsat Data and Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, J.F.; Xu, C.D. Geodetector: Principle and prospective. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2017, 72, 116–134. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.J.; Zhu, W.B.; Zhu, L.Q.; Cui, Y.P.; He, S.S.; Ren, H. Spatial variation of terrain relief and its impacts on population and economy based on raster data in West Henan Mountain Area. J. Geogr. Sci. 2019, 29, 598–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yao, Y.; Wang, S.X.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, R.; Han, X.D. The application of ecological environment index model on the national evaluation of ecological environment quality. Remote Sens. Inf. 2012, 27, 93–98. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.S.; Li, J.T. Geographic detection and optimizing decision of the differentiation mechanism of rural poverty in China. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2017, 72, 161–173. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, W.F.; Kuang, T.T.; Tao, S. Quantifying influences of natural factors on vegetation NDVI changes based on geographical detector in Sichuan, western China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 353–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, X.L.; Wang, L.X.; Ji, S.X.; Chen, Z.X.; Chang, X.L. Assessment of ecosystem health in grassland-desert ecotone in northern Ordos: A case study of Ten Tributaries Basin. J. Desert Res. 2020, 40, 187–194. [Google Scholar]
- Song, W.; Deng, X.Z.; Yuan, Y.W.; Wang, Z.; Li, Z.H. Impacts of land-use change on valued ecosystem service in rapidly urbanized North China Plain. Ecol. Model. 2015, 318, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Q.L.; Zhuo, J.F.; Li, Z.G.; Yu, B.L. Spatial differences of ecosystem services and their driving factors: A comparation analysis among three urban agglomerations in China’s Yangtze River Economic Belt. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 725, 138452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, B.D.; Tang, J.C.; Yu, D.H.; Song, Z.W.; Wang, P.G. Ecosystem health assessment: A PSR analysis combining AHP and FCE methods for Jiaozhou Bay, China. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 168, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, M.G. Landscape ecology: The effect of pattern on process. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1989, 20, 171–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable Name | Data Type | Resolution | Unit | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
Study area boundary | Vector data | - | - | http://www.geodata.cn |
Land use data | Raster data | 1 km | - | http://www.resdc.cn |
Normalized difference vegetation index | Raster data | 1 km | - | http://www.resdc.cn |
Vegetation net primary productivity | Raster data | 1 km | Gram carbon/m2 | http://www.dsac.cn |
Annual average temperature | Raster data | 1 km | mm | http://www.resdc.cn |
Annual average precipitation | Raster data | 1 km | °C | http://www.resdc.cn |
Elevation | Raster data | 1 km | Meter | http://www.resdc.cn |
Slope | Raster data | 1 km | Degree | http://www.resdc.cn |
Soil type | Raster data | 1 km | - | http://www.resdc.cn |
Soil erosion intensity | Raster data | 1 km | t/(km2 × a) | http://www.resdc.cn |
GDP spatial distribution date | Raster data | 1 km | Yuan | http://www.resdc.cn |
Population spatial distribution date | Raster data | 1 km | Person | http://www.resdc.cn |
Landscape Type | Forest Land | Grassland | Farmland | Construction Land | Water Body |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resistance | 1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
Resilience | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.7 |
Object | Criteria Layer | Elements Layer | Indicators Layer | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Criteria | Weight | Elements | Weight | Indicators | Weight | |
Ecosystem | Pressure | 0.3 | Resource pressure | 0.4 | Land reclamation rate | 0.5 |
Per capita cultivated land area | 0.5 | |||||
Population pressure | 0.6 | Population density index | 0.5 | |||
Human disturbance index | 0.5 | |||||
health | State | 0.4 | Vitality | 0.3 | NDVI | 1 |
Organization | 0.4 | Biological abundance index | 1 | |||
Resilience | 0.3 | Ecological elasticity index | 1 | |||
Response | 0.3 | Natural system | 0.4 | Forest land coverage rate | 0.5 | |
Wetland coverage rate | 0.5 | |||||
Human activities | 0.6 | Per capita GDP | 1 |
Influencing Factor | Factors | Code | Indicators |
---|---|---|---|
Natural factors | Climatic conditions | X1 | Annual mean temperature |
X2 | Annual mean precipitation | ||
Topographic and geological conditions | X3 | Elevation | |
X4 | Relief degree of land surface | ||
X5 | Soil type | ||
X6 | Soil erosion intensity | ||
Resource endowments | X7 | NPP | |
X8 | Biodiversity index | ||
Human factors | Human activities | X9 | Human disturbance index |
X10 | Population density |
Factors | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | ||||||||||
X2 | Y | |||||||||
X3 | N | Y | ||||||||
X4 | Y | Y | Y | |||||||
X5 | Y | N | Y | Y | ||||||
X6 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||
X7 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
X8 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
X9 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | ||
X10 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
q statistic | 0.176 | 0.250 | 0.180 | 0.292 | 0.253 | 0.080 | 0.034 | 0.783 | 0.023 | 0.110 |
p value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Code | Indicators | Suitable Types or Range |
---|---|---|
X1 | Annual mean temperature | 0.04–3.67 |
X2 | Annual mean precipitation | 350.78–494.52 |
X3 | Elevation | 2851.18–3953.34 |
X4 | Relief degree of land surface | 1.48–1.92 |
X5 | Soil type | Leaching soil |
X6 | Soil erosion intensity | Mild erosion |
X7 | NPP | 253.68–428.77 |
X8 | Biological abundance index | 0.27–0.49 |
X9 | Human disturbance index | 0–0.03 |
X10 | Population density | 0.06–153.53 |
Interpretation | Interpretation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1∩X2 = 0.500 | >0.426 = X1∩X2 | ↑ | X3∩X10 = 0.204 | <0.290 = X3∩X10 | ↑↑ |
X1∩X3 = 0231 | <0.356 = X1∩X3 | ↑↑ | X4∩X5 = 0.437 | <0.545 = X4∩X5 | ↑↑ |
X1∩X4 = 0.371 | <0.468 = X1∩X4 | ↑↑ | X4∩X6 = 0.350 | <0.372 = X4∩X6 | ↑↑ |
X1∩X5 = 0.408 | <0.429 = X1∩X5 | ↑↑ | X4∩X7 = 0.334 | >0.326 = X4∩X7 | ↑ |
X1∩X6 = 0.308 | >0.256 = X1∩X6 | ↑ | X4∩X8 = 0.792 | <1.075 = X4∩X8 | ↑↑ |
X1∩X7 = 0.243 | >0.210 = X1∩X7 | ↑ | X4∩X9 = 0.303 | <0.315 = X4∩X9 | ↑↑ |
X1∩X8 = 0.802 | <0.959 = X1∩X8 | ↑↑ | X4∩X10 = 0.324 | <0.402 = X4∩X10 | ↑↑ |
X1∩X9 = 0.226 | >0.199 = X1∩X9 | ↑ | X5∩X6 = 0.323 | <0.333 = X5∩X6 | ↑↑ |
X1∩X10 = 0.205 | <0.286 = X1∩X10 | ↑↑ | X5∩X7 = 0.305 | >0.287 = X5∩X7 | ↑ |
X2∩X3 = 0.499 | >0.429 = X2∩X3 | ↑ | X5∩X8 = 0.802 | <1.036 = X5∩X8 | ↑↑ |
X2∩X4=0.525 | <0.542 = X2∩X4 | ↑↑ | X5∩X9 = 0.283 | >0.276 = X5∩X9 | ↑ |
X2∩X5 = 0.474 | <0.503 = X2∩X5 | ↑↑ | X5∩X10 = 0.356 | <0.363 = X5∩X10 | ↑↑ |
X2∩X6 = 0.333 | >0.329 = X2∩X6 | ↑ | X6∩X7 = 0.130 | >0.113 = X6∩X7 | ↑ |
X2∩X7 = 0.306 | >0.286 = X2∩X7 | ↑ | X6∩X8 = 0.789 | <0.863 = X6∩X8 | ↑↑ |
X2∩X8 = 0.814 | <1.033 = X2∩X8 | ↑↑ | X6∩X9 = 0.101 | <0.103 = X6∩X9 | ↑↑ |
X2∩X9 = 0.292 | >0.273 = X2∩X9 | ↑ | X6∩X10 = 0.255 | >0.190 = X6∩X10 | ↑ |
X2∩X10 = 0.456 | >0.360 = X2∩X10 | ↑ | X7∩X8 = 0.787 | <0.817 = X7∩X8 | ↑↑ |
X3∩X4 = 0.371 | <0.472 = X3∩X4 | ↑↑ | X7∩X9 = 0.058 | >0.057 = X7∩X9 | ↑ |
X3∩X5 = 0.399 | <0.433 = X3∩X5 | ↑↑ | X7∩X10 = 0.161 | >0.144 = X7∩X10 | ↑ |
X3∩X6 = 0.302 | >0.259 = X3∩X6 | ↑ | X8∩X9 = 0.801 | <0.806 = X8∩X9 | ↑↑ |
X3∩X7 = 0.259 | >0.213 = X3∩X7 | ↑ | X8∩X10 = 0.791 | <0.893 = X8∩X10 | ↑↑ |
X3∩X8 = 0.803 | <0.963 = X3∩X8 | ↑↑ | X9∩X10 = 0.166 | >0.133 = X9∩X10 | ↑ |
X3∩X9 = 0.226 | >0.203 = X3∩X9 | ↑ |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Shen, W.; Zheng, Z.; Qin, Y.; Li, Y. Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Driving Force of Ecosystem Health in an Important Ecological Function Region in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145075
Shen W, Zheng Z, Qin Y, Li Y. Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Driving Force of Ecosystem Health in an Important Ecological Function Region in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(14):5075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145075
Chicago/Turabian StyleShen, Wei, Zhicheng Zheng, Yaochen Qin, and Yang Li. 2020. "Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Driving Force of Ecosystem Health in an Important Ecological Function Region in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 14: 5075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145075