| Literature DB >> 35627835 |
Jinzhao Chen1, Zhixiong Mei1, Bin Wang1, Junchao Wei1.
Abstract
Against the background of China's advocating ecological civilisation construction, an urgent task and a major challenge are to identify key places for ecological protection and restoration and then propose optimisation strategies for future land use, especially in the Pearl River Delta (PRD), one of the regions in China that has the highest urbanisation level. In this study, we find the key places by constructing ecological security patterns and proposing optimisation strategies for future land use by analysing land-use status. We also propose a source identification method based on the resistance distance principle. Results show that forty-six sources were mainly distributed in the mountainous areas surrounding PRD but were less distributed along both sides of the Pearl River estuary. The difference in the spatial distribution of sources is remarkable. Eighty-four corridors generally had spider-like shapes. In the central plain of PRD, corridors were relatively long and narrow. Ninety pinch points were concentrated on existing rivers. Three barriers were located in the corridors between adjacent sources. Two artificial corridors were proposed to be established, which can improve the ecological network connectivity. The method for extracting sources based on the resistance distance principle is proven to be advantageous for improving the integrity of source extraction results and making ecological security patterns more reasonable.Entities:
Keywords: Pearl River Delta; circuit theory; ecological security patterns; resistance distance
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35627835 PMCID: PMC9140524 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19106298
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Location and land uses of the study area in 2020.
Information of basic data.
| Data Category | Data name | Time | Resolution | Data Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remote sensing data | Landsat8 | 2020 | 30 m | Google Earth Engine |
| Basic geographic data | Administrative boundary | 2015 | - | National Catalogue Service for Geographic Information ( |
| Road | 2020 | - | OpenStreetMap ( | |
| Railway | 2020 | - | ||
| Natural environment data | DEM | 2009 | 30 m | Geospatial Data Cloud ( |
| Soil erodibility factor | 2020 | 30 m | National Earth System Science Data Center, National Science and Technology Infrastructure of China ( | |
| NPP | 2020 | 500 m | United States Geological Survey ( | |
| Meteorological data | Precipitation data of meteorological stations | 1981–2010 | - | China Meteorological data service center ( |
Figure 2Framework for identifying ecological security patterns.
C and P factor of different land-use types.
| Land-Use Types | C | P |
|---|---|---|
| Arable | 0.12 | 0.15 |
| Garden | 0.15 | 0.15 |
| Woodland | 0.02 | 1 |
| Grassland | 0.15 | 1 |
| Construction | 0 | 0 |
| Other Type | 0 | 1 |
| Water Area | 0 | 0 |
Threat factor parameter settings.
| Threat | Max Distance | Weight | Decay Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arable | 6 | 0.7 | Exponential |
| Garden | 8 | 0.8 | Exponential |
| Construction | 11 | 0.95 | Exponential |
| Other Type | 3 | 0.4 | Linear |
| Railway | 9 | 0.9 | Exponential |
| Motorway | 10 | 1 | Exponential |
| Primary-highway | 8 | 1 | Linear |
| Secondary-highway | 5 | 0.75 | Linear |
Habitat suitability of each land use/land cover type.
| Land-Use Types | Arable | Garden | Woodland | Grassland | Construction | Other Type | Water Area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat Score | 0.5 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.55 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.9 |
Sensitivity score of habitat types to threat factors.
| Land-Use Types | Threat Factors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arable | Garden | Construction | Other Type | Railway | Motorway | Primary-Highway | Secondary-Highway | |
| Arable | 0.3 | 0.35 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.22 |
| Garden | 0.35 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.2 |
| Woodland | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.12 | 0.18 |
| Grassland | 0.35 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.29 |
| Construction | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.32 | 0.31 |
| Other Type | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Water Area | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.35 | 0.3 |
Figure 3Spatial distribution of ecosystem service values and preselection ecological sources.
Figure 4Resistance surface.
Figure 5Spatial distribution of ecological sources.
Figure 6Ecological security patterns in the PRD region.
Figure 7Ecological security patterns and ecological network planning map in key areas.
Figure 8Example of identification results based on RDP and eight-neighbourhood principles.