| Literature DB >> 32013019 |
Yi Xiao1, Luo Guo1, Weiguo Sang1.
Abstract
Accelerated urbanization has changed land use patterns, leading to the deterioration of ecosystems. Assessments of ecosystem health (ESH) during the urbanization process are used to determine the reasons and mechanism for this, and to uncover negative factors. In this study, we assessed the ESH of Qiannan prefecture, in Guizhou Province, China, based on the ecosystem services value. We selected a series of indicators, including natural, social, and economic aspects, to detect the impact of urbanization on ecosystem services in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The results show that ESH in Qiannan declined from 1990 to 2015, especially in the eastern and northern regions. Further, the results indicate that urbanization had a negative impact on ESH, of which the dominant factor was the proportion of construction land from 1990 to 2005. After 2005, moreover, the dominant factor was the gross domestic product. The impact of urbanization on EHS had spatial differences, however. The most significant negative impact was found in the east and north. After 2010, the western and central regions of Qiannan showed an urbanization trend in favor of ecosystem health. We recommend ecological restoration in regions with weak and relatively weak ESH levels to achieve sustainable development.Entities:
Keywords: GIS; comprehensive indicators; ecosystem health; spatial correlation; urbanization
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32013019 PMCID: PMC7036921 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17030826
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The studying location of Qiannan Prefecture in North of Guozhong Province and China (red box area).
Weight of factors measuring organization.
| Indicator | Factor | Weight | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | PD | Patch Density | 0.2 |
| SHDI | Shannon’s Diversity Index | 0.3 | |
| AWMPFD | Area-Weighted Patch Fractal Dimension | 0.1 | |
| COHESION | Patch Cohesion Index | 0.1 | |
| CONTAG | Contagion Index | 0.1 | |
| CONNECT | Connectance Index | 0.1 | |
| IIC | Integral Index of Connectivity | 0.1 | |
Notes: PD- Patch Density in landscape; SHDI- Shannon’s Diversity Index in landscape; AWMPFD-he Area-Weighted Patch Fractal Dimension in landscape; CONNECT- Connectance Index in landscape; CONTAG- Contagion Index in landscape; IIC- Integral Index of Connectivity in landscape.
Ecosystem resilience coefficient of land use type [52,53].
| Ecosystem Type | Forest | Grass | Water | Farmland | Desert |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
Values per unit area of ecosystem services in China [53] Unit: yuan hm −2 yr −1.
| Ecosystem Services | Forest | Grassland | Water | Farmland | Desert | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provisioning service | Food production | 148.20 | 193.11 | 449.10 | 238.02 | 8.98 |
| Raw materials | 1338.32 | 161.68 | 175.15 | 157.19 | 17.96 | |
| Regulating service | Gas regulation | 1940.11 | 673.65 | 323.35 | 229.04 | 26.95 |
| Climate regulation | 1827.84 | 700.60 | 435.63 | 925.15 | 58.38 | |
| Water regulation | 1836.82 | 682.63 | 345.81 | 8429.61 | 31.44 | |
| Waste treatment | 772.45 | 592.81 | 624.25 | 6669.14 | 116.77 | |
| Supporting service | Soil formation & protection | 1805.38 | 1,005.98 | 660.18 | 184.13 | 76.35 |
| Biodiversity maintenance | 2025.44 | 839.82 | 458.08 | 1540.41 | 179.64 | |
| Cultural service | Recreation & aesthetic value | 934.13 | 390.72 | 76.35 | 1,994.00 | 107.78 |
| total | 12,628.69 | 5241.00 | 3547.89 | 20,366.69 | 624.25 | |
Figure 2Proportion of areas with different ecosystem health (ESH) levels from 1990 to 2015.
Figure 3Spatial patterns of ESH from 1990 to 2015.
Figure 4Dynamics of spatial patterns of urbanization in Qiannan’s ethnic districts (GDP: GDP density; CLP: Construction land proportion; POP: Population density).
Bivariate Moran’s I between ESH and economic urbanization, population urbanization, and land urbanization.
| Factors | Year | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GDP 1 | Moran’s | −0.068 | −0.071 | −0.068 | −0.077 | −0.13 | −0.11 |
| −72.56 | −71.74 | −63.40 | −72.82 | −116.36 | −97.56 | ||
| 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||
| POP 1 | Moran’s | −0.052 | −0.042 | −0.035 | −0.036 | −0.082 | −0.067 |
| −48.21 | −37.22 | −32.40 | −35.26 | −80.56 | −67.35 | ||
| 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||
| CLP 1 | Moran’s | −0.072 | −0.074 | −0.074 | −0.076 | −0.083 | −0.085 |
| −83.20 | −76.34 | −73.22 | −66.13 | −74.67 | −77.29 | ||
| 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
1 Statistical significance at the 1% level.
Figure 5LISA (local indicators of spatial association) cluster maps between ESH and urbanization level. (GDP: GDP urbanization; CLP: Construction land proportion; POP: Population urbanization; HH: High ESH and high urbanization; HL: High ESH and low urbanization; LH: Low ESH and high urbanization; LL: Low ESH and low urbanization).