A Gateway to Successful River Restorations: A Pre-Assessment Framework on the River Ecosystem in Northeast China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Pre-Assessment Framework
2.3. Methodology
2.3.1. Variable Fuzzy Sets and Variable Fuzzy Assessment Model
2.3.2. Modified Nightingale Rose Diagram
2.4. Riverine Social Ecosystem Indicators
3. Results
3.1. Weight
3.2. River Social Ecosystem Assessment
4. Discussion
4.1. Deficiencies Analysis in Different Sections
4.1.1. Upper Section
4.1.2. Middle Section
4.1.3. Lower Section
4.2. Goals Prioritization
4.3. Preliminary Restoration Recommendations
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Brookes, A.; Shields, F.D. River Channel Restoration: Guiding Principles for Sustainable Projects; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez, C.M.; Pérez-Blanco, C.D.; Batalla, R.J. Tradeoffs in river restoration: Flushing flows vs. hydropower generation in the Lower Ebro River, Spain. J. Hydrol. 2014, 518, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pander, J.; Geist, J. Ecological indicators for stream restoration success. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 30, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naiman, R.J. Socio-ecological complexity and the restoration of river ecosystems. Inland Waters 2013, 3, 391–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernhardt, E.S.; Palmer, M.A. River restoration: The fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 1926–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, J.; Dong, Z.R.; Sun, D.Y.; Wang, J.N. Complete river health assessment index system based on eco-regional method according to dominant ecological functions. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2010, 41, 883–892. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, C.P.; Amoros, C. Restoration ecology of riverine wetlands: I. A scientific base. Environ. Manag. 1995, 19, 891–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, M.A.; Hondula, K.L.; Koch, B.J. Ecological Restoration of Streams and Rivers: Shifting Strategies and Shifting Goals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evolu. Syst. 2014, 45, 247–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, M.A.; Bernhardt, E.S.; Allan, J.D.; Lake, P.S.; Alexander, G.; Brooks, S.; Carr, J.; Clayton, S.; Dahm, C.N.; Follstad-Shah, J.; et al. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, F.J.; Wu, T.C.; Tsai, W.P.; Herricks, E.E. Defining the ecological hydrology of Taiwan Rivers using multivariate statistical methods. J. Hydrol. 2009, 376, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehr, C.; Pöschke, F.; Lewandowski, J.; Lischeid, G. A novel method to evaluate the effect of a stream restoration on the spatial pattern of hydraulic connection of stream and groundwater. J. Hydrol. 2015, 527, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladson, A.R.; White, L.J.; Doolan, J.A.; Finlayson, B.L.; Hart, B.; Lake, P.S.; Tilleard, J.W. Development and testing of an Index of Stream Condition for waterway management in Australia. Freshw. Biol. 1999, 41, 453–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbour, M.T.; Gerritsen, J.; Snyder, B.D.; Stribling, J.B. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, 2nd ed.; US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
- Raven, P.J.; Holmes, N.T.H.; Dawson, F.H.; Fox, P.J.A.; Everard, M.; Fozzard, I.R. River Habitat Quality: The Physical Character of Rivers and Streams in the UK and Isle of Man; Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Bain, M.B.; Harig, A.L.; Loucks, D.P.; Goforth, R.R.; Mills, K.E. Aquatic ecosystem protection and restoration: Advances in methods for assessment and evaluation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2000, 3, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Parliament. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Boulton, A.J. An overview of river health assessment: Philosophies, practice, problems and prognosis. Freshw. Biol. 1999, 41, 469–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, S.H.; Tu, X.M.; Sun, R.; Zhang, A. Combining scientific and social methods in river restoration: An interview with G. Mathias Kondolf. Landsc. Architect. Front. 2017, 5, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karr, J.R. Defining and measuring river health. Freshw. Biol. 1999, 41, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norris, R.H.; Thoms, M.C. What is river health? Freshw. Biol. 1999, 41, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, F.B.; Han, Q.W.; Xu, J.X.; Hu, C.H.; Chen, J.Y.; Li, G.Y.; Dong, Z.R.; Wang, G.Q. Definition and Connotation of River Health. Adv. Water Sci. 2007, 18, 140–150. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, X.J.; Xu, Y.P.; Han, L.F.; Yu, Z.H.; Yang, M.N.; Pan, G. Assessment of river health based on an improved entropy-based fuzzy matter-element model in the Taihu Plain, China. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karmakar, S.; Mujumdar, P.P. Grey fuzzy optimization model for water quality management of a river system. Adv. Water Resour. 2006, 29, 1088–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Güler, C.; Kurt, M.A.; Alpaslan, M.; Akbulut, C. Assessment of the impact of anthropogenic activities on the groundwater hydrology and chemistry in Tarsus coastal plain (Mersin, SE Turkey) using fuzzy clustering, multivariate statistics and GIS techniques. J. Hydrol. 2012, 414, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, X.; Xu, S.G.; Liu, Y.Y.; Wang, X.D. River ecosystem assessment and application in ecological restorations: A mathematical approach based on evaluating its structure and function. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 76, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermoso, V.; Pantus, F.; Olley, J.; Linke, S.; Mugodo, J.; Lea, P. Systematic planning for river rehabilitation: Integrating multiple ecological and economic objectives in complex decisions. Freshw. Biol. 2012, 57, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beechie, T.; Pess, G.; Roni, P.; Giannico, G. Setting river restoration priorities: A review of approaches and a general protocol for identifying and prioritizing actions. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2008, 28, 891–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernhardt, E.S.; Palmer, M.A.; Allan, J.D.; Alexander, G.; Barnas, K.; Brooks, S.; Carr, J.; Clayton, S.; Dahm, C.; Follstad-Shah, J.; et al. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 2005, 308, 636–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gilvear, D.J.; Casas-Mulet, R.; Spray, C.J. Trends and issues in delivery of integrated catchment scale river restoration: Lessons learned from a national river restoration survey within Scotland. River Res. Appl. 2012, 28, 234–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Donnell, T.K.; Galat, D.L. River enhancement in the upper Mississippi River basin: Approaches based on river uses, alterations, and management agencies. Restor. Ecol. 2007, 15, 538–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaquette, C.; Wohl, E.; Cooper, D. Establishing a context for river rehabilitation, North Fork Gunnison River, Colorado. Environ. Manag. 2005, 35, 593–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seidl, R.; Stauffacher, M. Evaluation of river restoration by local residents. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49, 7077–7087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laub, B.G.; Jimenez, J.; Budy, P. Application of Science-Based Restoration Planning to a Desert River System. Environ. Manag. 2015, 55, 1246–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hostmann, M.; Borsuk, M.; Reichert, P.; Truffer, B. Stakeholder values in decision support for river rehabilitation. Large Rivers 2005, 15, 491–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woolsey, S.; Capelli, F.; Gonser, T.O.M.; Hoehn, E.; Hostmann, M.; Junker, B.; Paetzold, A.; Roulier, C.; Schweizer, S.; Tiegs, S.D.; et al. A strategy to assess river restoration success. Freshw. Biol. 2007, 52, 752–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernhardt, E.S.; Sudduth, E.B.; Palmer, M.A.; Allan, J.D.; Meyer, J.L.; Alexander, G.; Follstad-Shah, J.; Hasset, B.; Jenkinson, R.; Lave, R.; et al. Restoring rivers one reach at a time: Results from a survey of US river restoration practitioners. Restor. Ecol. 2007, 15, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sethi, S.A.; O’Hanley, J.R.; Gerken, J.; Ashline, J.; Bradley, C. High value of ecological information for river connectivity restoration. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 2327–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szałkiewicz, E.; Jusik, S.; Grygoruk, M. Status of and Perspectives on River Restoration in Europe: 310,000 Euros per Hectare of Restored River. Sustainability 2018, 10, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.Y. Theory and Model of Variable Fuzzy Sets and Its Application; Dalian University of Technology Press: Dalian, China, 2009. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S.Y.; Xue, Z.C.; Li, M.; Zhu, X.P. Variable sets method for urban flood vulnerability assessment. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2013, 56, 3129–3136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brasseur, L. Florence nightingale’s visual rhetoric in the rose diagrams. Tech. Commun. Q. 2005, 14, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.C.; Liu, X.Q.; Zhang, J.H. Evaluate method and classification standard on lake eutrophication. Environ. Monit. China 2002, 18, 47–49. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Gao, Z.J. The preliminary study on the diversity and community structure of the fish in Xiquanyan Reservoir. Chin. J. Fish. 2012, 25, 19–24. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.J. Study on the Ecology of Macro-Benthos in Xiquanyan Reservoir. Master’s Thesis, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China, 2012. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Liu, M.H. The Ecological Monitoring and Health Assessment Based on Aquatic Animals in Hulan Estuary Natural Reserves and the Surrounding Waters. Ph.D. Thesis, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China, 2012. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Xue, D.; Yan, C.; Jia, M.; Liu, M. Macrobenthos Community Structure and Environmental Factors in Summer in Different Segment of Ashihe River. J. Northeast For. Univ. 2016, 44, 90–93. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, X.; Xu, S.G.; Lian, J.J.; Meng, Q.G. Analysis and Calculation of Dynamic Water Environmental Capacity of Rivers in North China. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 2013, 29, 409–414. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, W. Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—A literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008, 186, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- China EPA. Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water (GB3838-2002); China Environmental Science Press: Beijing, China, 2002.
- Osmundson, D.B.; Ryel, R.J.; Lamarra, V.L.; Pitlick, J. Flow-sediment-biota relations: Implications for river regulation effects on native fish abundance. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12, 1719–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- China EPA. Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standard (GB 8978-1996); China Environmental Science Press: Beijing, China, 1996.
- Merritt, D.M.; Poff, N.L.R. Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along gradients of flow alteration in western North American rivers. Ecol. Appl. 2010, 20, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hladyz, S.; Åbjörnsson, K.; Giller, P.S.; Woodward, G. Impacts of an aggressive riparian invader on community structure and ecosystem functioning in stream food webs. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 443–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koebel, J.W.; Bousquin, S.G. The Kissimmee River Restoration Project and Evaluation Program, Florida, U.S.A. Restor. Ecol. 2014, 22, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gumiero, B.; Mant, J.; Hein, T.; Elso, J.; Boz, B. Linking the restoration of rivers and riparian zones/wetlands in Europe: Sharing knowledge through case studies. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 56, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, C.P.; Amoros, C.; Roset, N. Restoration ecology of riverine wetlands: A 5-year post-operation survey on the Rhône River, France. Ecol. Eng. 2002, 18, 543–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rejmankova, E. The role of macrophytes in wetland ecosystems. J. Ecol. Field Biol. 2011, 34, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, S.G.; Gao, Y.M.; Liu, Y.F. Planning and Construction of Modern Riverbank: Creating Harmonious Riverside Environment between Human and Nature; China Water Power Press: Beijing, China, 2006. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Bednarek, A.T. Undamming rivers: A review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environ. Manag. 2001, 27, 803–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belder, P.; Bouman, B.A.M.; Cabangon, R.; Guoan, L.; Quilang, E.J.P.; Yuanhua, L.; Spiertz, J.H.J.; Tuong, T.P. Effect of water-saving irrigation on rice yield and water use in typical lowland conditions in Asia. Agric. Water Manag. 2004, 65, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevens, L.E.; Ayers, T.J.; Bennett, J.B.; Christensen, K.; Kearsley, M.J.; Meretsky, V.J.; Phillips, A.M.; Parnell, R.A.; Spence, J.; Sogge, M.K.; et al. Planned flooding and Colorado River riparian trade-offs downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. Ecol. Appl. 2001, 11, 701–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, C.T.; Uehlinger, U. Using artificial floods for restoring river integrity. Aquat. Sci. 2003, 65, 181–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, C.; Chen, Z.; Wang, J.; Huang, M.; Qian, C.; Liu, L. Review of sediment ecological dredging in urban black-odors river treatment. Nat. Sci. 2011, 1, 32–42. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- France, R.L. Wetland Design: Principles and Practices for Landscape Architects and Land-Use Planners; W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2003; ISBN 0393730735. [Google Scholar]
- Kondolf, G.M.; Angermeier, P.L.; Cummins, K.; Dunne, T.; Healey, M.; Kimmerer, W.; Moyle, P.B.; Murphy, D.; Patten, D.; Railsback, S.; et al. Projecting cumulative benefits of multiple river restoration projects: An example from the Sacramento-San Joaquin river system in California. Environ. Manag. 2008, 42, 933–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hobbs, R.J.; Hallett, L.M.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Mooney, H.A. Intervention ecology: Applying ecological science in the twenty-first century. BioScience 2011, 61, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | Indicator, Unit (Xi), and Description | Note |
---|---|---|
Ecosystem Structures | ||
Watershed | Mean runoff depth (mm; X1): the average runoff of a square kilometre catchment indicates the abundance of water resources. | Y |
Exploitation rate of groundwater (%; X2): the percentage of exploited water to available groundwater. | Y | |
Fraction of vegetation cover (%; X3): the fraction of ground covered by vegetation. | Y | |
Reach Corridor | Bank stability (X4): the eroded and vegetative condition of both sides of the river banks. | N |
Riparian buffer zone width (m; X5): the width of natural vegetation from the edge of the stream bank out through the riparian zone. | Y | |
Channel connectivity (X6): the number of barrages per hundred kilometres indicates the habitat status of fishes. | Y | |
Sinuosity (X7): an increase in the stream length longer than in a straight line indicates the diversity of habitat and fauna. | Y | |
Flow Regime | Velocity/Depth (X8): patterns of velocity and depth indicate habitat diversity. | N |
Deviation of runoff distribution (X9): the difference in runoff distribution before and after water projects indicates the influence of aquatic organisms. | Y | |
Satisfaction of ecological flow (%; X10): the days exceeding ecological water demand measured by Tennant method indicates the habitat status. | Y | |
Water Quality | Water quality level (X11): water quality classified by comprehensive assessment. | Y |
Eutrophication index (X12): characteristics of eutrophication including TP, TN, Chl-α, CODMn, and SD. | Y | |
Surplus pollutant (X13): the total pollution load accounts for Total Maximum Daily Loads. We used COD as a calculated parameter. | Y | |
Aquatic Life | Species loss (%; X14): the loss in recorded species of fishes compared to the past. | Y |
Index of biodiversity (X15): the biodiversity measured by Shannon index. | Y | |
Index of biotic integrity (X16): the relationship between anthropologic activities and aquatic organisms, such as fish or benthic invertebrates. | Y | |
Social Functions | ||
Water Supply | Water resources per capita (m3; X17): the ratio of total available water resources to the population of the catchment. | Y |
Water consumption per GDP (Ұ ×104; X18): lower water consumption indicates higher water use efficiency. | Y | |
Water resources development degree (%; X19): the ratio of exploitation and use amount to total available water resources. | Y | |
Lack rate of water consumption (%; X20): the ratio of the difference between water requirement and water supply. | Y | |
Irrigation | Scale of efficient irrigation (%; X21): the ratio of water-efficient irrigation projects to total ploughland. | Y |
Irrigation efficiency (%; X22): the ratio of water output to water input. | Y | |
Water Purification | Water quality reaching standard (%; X23): the frequency of water analysis results meeting the functional target of the water function zone. | Y |
Wastewater treatment (%; X24): the ratio of treated wastewater to total wastewater in urban areas. | Y | |
Flood Regulation | Reservoir storage (X25): the ratio of flood regulation capacity of existing reservoirs to the average upstream runoff. | Y |
Levee status (X26): whether or not the designed high water levels of levees meet the requirements. | N | |
Aquatic Production/Navigation/Hydropower | Total pisciculture area (X27): the total fishing culture area of the catchment. | Y |
Navigation capacity (X28): the frequency of days deeper than the allowed water depth. | Y | |
Hydropower exploitation rate (X29): the portion of hydropower generation under environmental safety. | Y | |
Aesthetics/Recreation | Comfortable degree of the landscape (X30): the landscape structure of the river includes trash absence, vegetative conditions, and other aesthetic indicators. | N |
Satisfaction of closeness to water (X31): whether the existing entertainment near rivers such as wetland parks, platforms, and other water-loving facilities are sufficient. | N |
X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | X11 | X12 | X13 | X14 | X15 | X16 | |
U | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.15 | - | 0.07 | - | 0.15 | 0.07 | - | 0.12 | 0.12 |
M | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.07 | - | 0.15 | - | 0.07 | 0.12 | - | 0.12 |
L | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.15 | - | 0.07 | 0.15 | - | 0.07 | 0.12 | - | 0.12 |
X17 | X18 | X19 | X20 | X21 | X22 | X23 | X24 | X25 | X26 | X27 | X28 | X29 | X30 | X31 | ||
U | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.1 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.04 | - | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.06 | |
M | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.23 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.03 | - | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.06 | |
L | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.19 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.02 | - | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.21 |
Restoration Goal | Upper Section | Middle Section | Lower Section |
---|---|---|---|
Stakeholder Interest | Irrigation improvement Flood protection | Irrigation improvement Water quality management | Aesthetics/Recreation Water quality management Flood protection |
Vegetation Improvement | L | H | L |
Channel reconnection | L | H | L |
Riparian management | L | M | H |
Floodplain reconnection | L | H | H |
Bank stabilization | L | L | H |
Flow modification | L | H | M |
Water quality management | H | H | H |
Fish passage | L | M | L |
Instream species management | M | M | M |
Irrigation improvement | H | H | L |
Flood protection | H | M | L |
Aesthetics/ Recreation | L | M | H |
Action | Total Cost | Response Time | Duration | Suitability | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
U | M | L | ||||
Riparian comprehensive system | Medium | Slow | Long | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Riverine wetland | Medium | Slow | Medium | Yes | Yes | |
River cleaning | Low | Quick | Short | Yes | ||
Ecological embankment | Medium | Medium | Medium | Yes | Yes | |
Dam removal or retrofit | Low | Quick | Long | Yes | ||
Sewage treatment | High | Medium | Long | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Wetland park | High | Medium | Medium | Yes | Yes | |
Artificial flood | Low | Quick | Short | Yes | ||
Irrigation water-saving projects | High | Slow | Medium | Yes | Yes |
© 2018 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
Jiang, X.; Liu, Y.; Xu, S.; Qi, W. A Gateway to Successful River Restorations: A Pre-Assessment Framework on the River Ecosystem in Northeast China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041029
Jiang X, Liu Y, Xu S, Qi W. A Gateway to Successful River Restorations: A Pre-Assessment Framework on the River Ecosystem in Northeast China. Sustainability. 2018; 10(4):1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041029
Chicago/Turabian StyleJiang, Xin, Yuyu Liu, Shiguo Xu, and Wei Qi. 2018. "A Gateway to Successful River Restorations: A Pre-Assessment Framework on the River Ecosystem in Northeast China" Sustainability 10, no. 4: 1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041029