Construction and Optimization of an Ecological Security Pattern Based on the MCR Model: A Case Study of the Minjiang River Basin in Eastern China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study Area and Data Sources
2.1. Overview of the Study Area
2.2. Data Sources
3. Methods
3.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method
3.2. Eco-Environmental Assessment and Identification of Ecological Source Areas
3.2.1. Selection of Evaluation Factors and Grade Division
3.2.2. Factor Grading Assignment
3.2.3. Spatial Superposition and Source Identification
3.3. Ecological Resistance Analysis
3.3.1. Minimum Cumulative Resistance Model
3.3.2. Index System of Ecological Resistance Factors
3.4. Extraction of Ecological Corridors and Nodes
4. Results
4.1. Eco-Environmental Assessment and Ecological Source Identification
4.1.1. Ecological Environment Assessment
4.1.2. Identification of Ecological Sources
4.2. Construction of the Resistance Surface in the Minjiang River Basin
4.2.1. Resistance Surface Factor
4.2.2. Minimum Cumulative Resistance Surface
4.3. Ecological Corridor and Ecological Node Identification
4.4. Construction and Optimization of Ecological Security Patterns
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
- (1)
- The ecological security network has poor connectivity and low coverage, which only covers the middle and upper reaches of the Minjiang River Basin. The total length of the ecological corridor is 3,732,051.88 km; its shape is similar to a fishing net. The southwest side is dense, and it connects each important ecological source well, but the northeast side of the ecological corridor is singular, slender, and easy for an ecological fracture to occur. The ecological source land area is 523 km2, accounting for 0.6%, which is mainly forested land and cultivated land distributed in the southwest and northwest of the Minjiang River Basin, such as Zhangping. There are 22 important ecological pinch points unevenly distributed in the north and southwest of the basin. There are no ecological sources or corridors in the lower reaches of the basin.
- (2)
- The overall level of ecological security is high, but some problems are prominent. The area with a high level of ecological security accounts for 65.8% of the total land area, and its spatial distribution is relatively uniform. The higher and medium ecological security zones, which account for 27.7% of the country’s land area, are mainly located in the Wuyishan and Jiufeng-Daiyun Mountains. The low ecological safety zone and lower ecological safety zone account for 6.5%, the ecological resistance value is high, the species connectivity is low, and we should adhere to the protection principle; the area is not suitable for large-scale human activities.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- He, C.; Liu, Z.; Tian, J.; Ma, Q. Urban expansion dynamics and natural habitat loss in China: A multiscale landscape perspective. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 2886–2902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adriaensen, F.; Chardon, J.P.; De Blust, G.; Swinnen, E.; Villalba, S.; Gulinck, H.; Matthysen, E. The application of ‘least-cost’modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 64, 233–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palliwoda, J.; Banzhaf, E.; Priess, J.A. How do the green components of urban green infrastructure influence the use of ecosystem services? Examples from Leipzig, Germany. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 1127–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, Q.; Liu, P.H.; Zhu, C.M. Construction of ecological security structure in Fuzhou City based on MCR model. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2022, 42, 9. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, P.; Clark, M.M.; Baral, S.; Koen, E.L.; Bowman, J. Comparison of methods for estimating omnidirectional landscape connectivity. Landsc. Eco. 2021, 36, 1647–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosomtai, G.; Azrag, A.; Babin, R.; Abdel-Rahman, E.M.; Odindi, J.; Mutanga, O.; Tonnang, H.E.Z.; Landmann, T.; David, G. Functional land cover scale for three insect pests with contrasting dispersal strategies in a fragmented coffee-based landscape in Central Kenya. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 319, 107558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, K.J. Security patterns and surface model in landscape ecological planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1996, 36, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, J.Q.; Peng, J.; Liu, Y.X.; Qiu, S.J.; Han, Y.N. Integrating spatial continuous wavelet transform and kernel density estimation to identify ecological corridors in megacities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 199, 103815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Hu, Y.; Zheng, F. Research on recognition and protection of ecological security patterns based on circuit theory: A case study of Jinan City. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 12414–12427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Xiao, W.; Zhao, Y.; Lv, X. Incorporating ecological risk index in the multi-process MCRE model to optimize the ecological security pattern in a semi-arid area with intensive coal mining: A case study in northern China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Pan, J. Building ecological security patterns based on ecosystem services value reconstruction in an arid inland basin: A case study in Ganzhou District, NW China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, J.; Guo, X.N.; Hu, Y.N.; Liu, Y.X. Constructing ecological security patterns in mountain areas based on geological disaster sensitivity: A case study in Yuxi City, Yunnan Province, China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 28, 627–635. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.; Peng, J.; Liu, Y.X.; Yang, Y.; Li, G.C. Construction geological security patterns in Yunfu city based on the framework of importance-sensitivity-connectivity. Geogr. Res. 2017, 36, 471–484. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, B.; Liu, Y. The theories and methods for systematically understanding land resource. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2019, 64, 2172–2179. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, J.; Yang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Du, Y.; Meersmans, J.; Qiu, S. Linking ecosystem services and circuit theory to identify ecological security patterns. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 781–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Peng, J.; Zhao, S.; Dong, J.; Liu, Y.; Meersmans, J.; Li, H.; Wu, J. Applying ant colony algorithm to identify ecological security patterns in megacities. Environ. Model. Softw. 2019, 117, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, Z.L.; Yang, J.Y.; Xie, H.L. Construction optimization and restoration of ecological security pattern in the southern hilly and mountainous region of China: A case study in Ruijin City. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2022, 42, 13. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, J.; Zhao, H.; Liu, Y.; Wu, J. Research progress and prospect on regional ecological security pattern construction. Geogr. Res. 2017, 36, 407–419. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, M.; Wu, C.; Zhou, Z.; Lord, E.; Zheng, Z. Multipurpose greenway planning for changing cities: A framework integrating priorities and a least-cost path mode. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 103, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurrutxaga, M.; Lozano, P.J.; Barrio, G.D. GIS-based approach for incorporating the connectivity of ecological networks into regional planning. J. Nat. Conserv. 2010, 18, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, R.; Wu, T.; Liu, M.R.; Huang, M.S.; Stendardo, L.G.; Zhang, Y.T. The Construction and Optimization of Ecological Security Pattern in the Harbin-Changchun Urban Agglomeration, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhao, X.Q.; Xu, X.H. Research on landscape ecological security pattern in a Eucalyptus introduced region based on biodiversity conservation. Russ. J. Ecol. 2015, 46, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, F.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J.; Dong, J. Scenario-based ecological security patterns to indicate landscape sustainability: A case study on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 36, 2175–2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Du, F.; Zuo, L.; Jiang, Y. Integrating ecosystem services and rocky desertification into identification of karst ecological security pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 36, 2113–2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferretti, V.; Pomarico, S. An integrated approach for studying the land suitability for ecological corridors through spatial multicriteria evaluations. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 859–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.; Wang, J.; Zhang, M.; Li, S. Construction of landscape ecological network based on landscape ecological risk assessment in a large-scale opencast coal mine area. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beier, P.; Noss, R.F. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12, 1241–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, K.Y.; Liu, J.; Huang, W.Y.; Xu, Z.H.; Chen, Z.F. A Study on the Ecological Fragility in Minjiang Watershed Based on GIS Technology. Acta Agric. Univ. Jiangxiensis 2009, 31, 568–573. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, X.N.; Lu, Y.M. Comprehensive evaluation of surface water quality in the Minjiang River Basin based on SOM and PCA. Water Resour. Protec. 2017, 33, 59–67. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, D.X.; Zhong, Z.Q.; Gong, Z.W.; Chen, P.L. Ecological security issues and suggestions in the Minjiang River Basin. J. Beihua Univ. Natur. Sci. E. 2005, 6, 445–448. [Google Scholar]
- Ying, L.X.; Wang, J.; Zhou, Y. Ecological-environmental problems and solutions in the Minjang River Basin, Fujian Province, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 8857–8866. [Google Scholar]
- Lan, Z.C.; Jia, L.; Cheng, Y. The ecosystem services evaluation and trade-off synergy in Min River Basin. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 3909–3920. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, D.C.; Sun, Z.C.; Sun, R.H.; Chen, J.H.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X. Spatial-temporal dynamic evolution of ecosystem service value in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. Ecol. Environ. 2019, 28, 1285–1296. [Google Scholar]
- Tian, Y.; Feng, Q.Y.; Tang, M.F.; Zheng, S.N.; Liu, C.X.; Wu, D.; Wang, L.N. Ecological protection and restoration of forest, wetland, grassland and cropland based on the perspective of ecosystem assessment: A case study in Wuliangsuhai Watershed. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 8826–8836. [Google Scholar]
- Kordi, M.; Brandt, S.A. Effects of increasing fuzziness on analytic hierarchy process for spatial multicriteria decision analysis. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2012, 36, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, C.; Tang, T.; Jia, H.; Xu, M.; Xu, T.; Liu, Z.; Long, Y.; Zhang, R. Benefits of coupled green and grey infrastructure systems: Evidence based on analytic hierarchy process and life cycle costing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation; McGraw-Hill: Basel, Switzerland, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.M.; Meng, Q.Y.; Zhang, L.L.; Hu, D. Evaluation of urban green space in terms of thermal environmental benefits using geographical detector analysis. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2021, 105, 102610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, X.X.; Wei, L.Y.; Wang, Y.; Lu, Y.Q. Construction of ecological security pattern based on the importance of ecosystem service functions and ecological sensitivity assessment: A case study in Fengxian County of Jiangsu Province, China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 563–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, X.K.; Ouyang, Z.Y.; Xiao, H.; Miao, H.; Fu, B.J. Distribution and division of sensitivity to water-caused soil loss in China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2001, 21, 14–19. [Google Scholar]
- Daily, G.C. Nature’s Service: Social Dependence on Natural Ecosystem; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Long, H.L.; Liu, Y.Q.; Li, T.T.; Wan, J. Spatial Interlinking of Land Use Planning and Environmental Protection Planning from the Perspective of Ecological Civilization Construction. Econ. Geogr. 2014, 34, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Kong, L.Q.; Wang, Y.Q.; Zhen, H.; Xiao, Y.; Xu, W.H.; Zhang, L.; Xiao, Y.; Ouyang, Z.Y. A method for evaluating ecological space and ecological conservation red lines in river basins: A case of the Yangtze River Basin. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 835–843. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.M.; Zhu, J. GIS-based sensitivity assessment of regional soil erosion: A case study in Nujiang prefecture. J. Yunnan Univ. Sci. 2017, 39, 98–106. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, J.; Jia, J.L.; Hu, Y.N.; Tian, L.; Li, H.L. Construction of ecological security pattern in the agro-pastoral ecotone based on surface humid index: A case study of Hangjin Banner. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 29, 1990–1998. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, B.T.; Ren, P. Assessment of Ecological Suitability for Rural Residential Land Based on Minimum Cumulative Resistance Model: A Case Study in Dujiangyan City. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin. 2019, 28, 1386–1396. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.P.; Qiao, Q.; Liu, C.L.; Wang, H.H.; Pei, S. Ecological land use planning for Beijing City based on the minimum cumulative resistance model. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 6313–6321. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, K.J. Ecologically strategic points in landscape and surface model. Acta Geogr. Sin. 1998, 53, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
- Niu, X.N.; Ni, H.; Chen, G.C.; Zhang, D.Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Wu, J.Y. Evaluation of ecological conservation importance of Fujian Province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2022, 42, 1130–1141. [Google Scholar]
- Shu, B.; He, Z.L.; Wang, L.; Wang, J.Q.; Li, Y.Z. Study on ecological sensitivity of Leshan area under the influence of ecological service factors. Ecol. Sci. 2020, 39, 184–192. [Google Scholar]
- Duan, Y.; Li, Y.F.; Zhang, Y.Z. Ma, R.X. Study on Cultivated Land Change and Driving Forces in Minjiang River Basin. Areal Res. Dev. 2009, 28, 90–94. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, S.Y.; Liu, S. Spatio-temporal dynamics in the forest loss of the typical nature reserves in the Minjiang River Basin. J. Anhui Agric. Univ. 2020, 47, 949–954. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Yan, Y.L.; Wang, J.M.; Ying, L.X.; Tang, Q. Temporal-spatial variation characteristics and prediction of habitat quality in Min River Basin. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 5837–5848. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, J.; Pan, Y.J.; Liu, Y.X.; Zhao, H.; Wang, Y.L. Linking ecological degradation risk to identify ecological security patterns in a rapidly urbanizing landscape. Habitat Int. 2018, 71, 110–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, Y.N.; Tao, H.; Peng, B.; Wu, S.C.; Liu, J.; Zhao, Y.F.; Li, X.M.; Chen, D.T.; Jiang, C.X. Construction of ecological security patterns in PINGJIANG county based on the model of minimum cumulative coefficient. J. Nat. Sci. Hunan Normal Univ. 2022, 45, 110–119. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.C.; Zhao, Z.Q.; Wang, Y.L. Urbanization process and effects of natural resource and environment in China: Research trends and future directions. Prog. Geogr. 2009, 28, 63–70. [Google Scholar]
- Hobson, K.A. Tracing Origins and Migration of Wildlife Using Stable Isotopes: A Review. Oecologia 1999, 120, 314–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factors | Low Sensitivity | Lower Sensitivity | Medium Sensitivity | Higher Sensitivity | High Sensitivity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
R | <532 | 532–560 | 560–583 | 583–604 | >604 |
LS | <70 | 70–123 | 123–178 | 178–248 | >248 |
C | >0.95 | 0.85–0.95 | 0.75–0.85 | 0.55–0.75 | <0.55 |
Soil texture | Silty soil | Sandy loam, loamy sandy soil, clay loam, silt (sand) clay loam, silt (sand) loam | Sandpaper clay, loam, (Sandy) loam | Sand, clay | Gravel |
I | <0.55 | 0.55–0.65 | 0.65–0.75 | 0.75–0.85 | >0.85 |
W | <100 | 100–140 | 140–190 | 190–250 | >250 |
Hierarchical assignment | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 |
Resistance Factor | Weight | Resistance Grade | Resistance Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Natural disturbance | Land use type (C1) | 0.095 | Forest and grassland | 20 |
Water | 40 | |||
Cultivated land | 60 | |||
Bare land | 80 | |||
Construction land | 100 | |||
Vegetation coverage/(%) (C2) | 0.213 | >0.65 | 20 | |
0.50–0.65 | 40 | |||
0.35–0.50 | 60 | |||
0.15–0.35 | 80 | |||
<0.15 | 100 | |||
Slope/(%) (C3) | 0.236 | <5° | 20 | |
5–15° | 40 | |||
15–25° | 60 | |||
25–35° | 80 | |||
>35° | 100 | |||
Human disturbance | Distance from county road/m (C4) | 0.118 | 0–150 | 20 |
150–300 | 40 | |||
300–450 | 60 | |||
450–600 | 80 | |||
600–800 | 100 | |||
>800 | 1 | |||
Distance from highway/m (C5) | 0.173 | 0–400 | 20 | |
400–800 | 40 | |||
800–1200 | 60 | |||
1200–1600 | 80 | |||
1600–2000 | 100 | |||
>2000 | 1 |
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 1 | 1/5 | 1/6 | 1/3 | 1/4 |
C2 | 5 | 1 | 1/2 | 4 | 3 |
C3 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
C4 | 3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1 | 1/2 |
C5 | 4 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 2 | 1 |
Generally Important/Low Sensitivity/(%) | Relatively Important/Lower Sensitivity/(%) | Moderately Important/Medium Sensitivity/(%) | Highly Important/Higher Sensitivity/(%) | Extremely Important/High Sensitivity/(%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SSWL | 10.3 | 30.8 | 33.4 | 20.7 | 4.7 |
SSE | 0.2 | 5.9 | 32.0 | 49.5 | 12.3 |
SLD | 28.9 | 37.9 | 22.6 | 9.5 | 1.1 |
WR | 17.3 | 29.3 | 26.1 | 19.0 | 8.4 |
Spro | 72.8 | 19.3 | 7.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
Sbio | 20.9 | 31.2 | 23.2 | 16.7 | 7.9 |
Comprehensive assessment of the ecological sensitivity | 13.1 | 19.7 | 33.7 | 18.9 | 14.6 |
Comprehensive assessment of the importance of ecosystem function | 33.7 | 28.8 | 14.8 | 14.1 | 8.6 |
Comprehensive assessment of the ecological environment | 47.7 | 12.3 | 19.0 | 16.2 | 4.8 |
Land Use | Area/(km2) | Proportion/(%) |
---|---|---|
Cultivated land | 83 | 15.87 |
Forest and grassland | 428 | 81.83 |
Water | 2 | 0.38 |
Construction land | 10 | 1.91 |
Resistance Factor | Resistance Grade | Proportion of Area/(%) |
---|---|---|
Land use type | Forest and grassland | 80.13 |
Water | 1.41 | |
Cultivated land | 2.85 | |
Bare land | 0.11 | |
Construction land | 2.85 | |
Vegetation coverage/(%) | >0.65 | 96.99 |
0.50–0.65 | 1.75 | |
0.35–0.50 | 0.89 | |
0.15–0.35 | 0.34 | |
<0.15 | 0.04 | |
Slope/(%) | <5° | 0.12 |
5–15° | 0.38 | |
15–25° | 0.33 | |
25–35° | 0.14 | |
>35° | 0.03 | |
Distance from county road/m | 0–150 | 1.58 |
150–300 | 1.20 | |
300–450 | 1.21 | |
450–600 | 1.25 | |
600–800 | 1.35 | |
>800 | 93.41 | |
Distance from highway/m | 0–400 | 1.32 |
400–800 | 1.34 | |
800–1200 | 1.37 | |
1200–1600 | 1.40 | |
1600–2000 | 1.47 | |
>2000 | 93.10 |
Ecological Safety Zone | Area/(km2) | Proportion/(%) |
---|---|---|
High ecological safety zone | 53,288.148 | 65.77 |
Higher ecological safety zone | 16,858.311 km | 20.81 |
Medium ecological safety zone | 5608.967 | 6.92 |
Lower ecological safety zone | 2269.87 | 2.80 |
Low ecological safety zone | 3000.19 | 3.70 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, X.; Xie, X.; Wang, Z.; Lin, H.; Liu, Y.; Xie, H.; Liu, X. Construction and Optimization of an Ecological Security Pattern Based on the MCR Model: A Case Study of the Minjiang River Basin in Eastern China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8370. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148370
Wang X, Xie X, Wang Z, Lin H, Liu Y, Xie H, Liu X. Construction and Optimization of an Ecological Security Pattern Based on the MCR Model: A Case Study of the Minjiang River Basin in Eastern China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(14):8370. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148370
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Xinke, Xiangqun Xie, Zhenfeng Wang, Hong Lin, Yan Liu, Huili Xie, and Xingzhao Liu. 2022. "Construction and Optimization of an Ecological Security Pattern Based on the MCR Model: A Case Study of the Minjiang River Basin in Eastern China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 14: 8370. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148370