Spatial Differentiation Pattern of Habitat Quality and Mechanism of Factors Influencing in Resource-based Cities: A Case Study of Tangshan City, China

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.05.007

Abstract

Abstract:

The degradation of the eco-environment has been a challenge for sustainability in resource-based cities around the world. Although much attention has been drawn to this issue, few insights have been acquired regarding the spatial differentiation and mechanism of the factors influencing habitat quality in resource-based cities from the perspective of the interactions of natural and human factors. Using Tangshan City as a case study, this paper evaluates habitat quality by integrating Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and the InVEST-HQ model, identifies the spatial distribution of Tangshan’s habitat quality with spatial auto-correlation, and explores the influencing factors and their mechanism of influence on the spatial differentiation with the geographical detector model and Space production theory. The results show that: (1) The total value of the habitat quality in Tangshan City in 2019 was 3.45×10 ¹⁰ yuan, and the habitat quality value was 24435.05 yuan ha ^?1. The habitat quality value presents a clustered distribution pattern of “hot in the north and the south, cold from the center to the west”. (2) On the county scale, Qianxi County had the best habitat quality and Lubei District had the worst habitat quality; Shangying Township had the highest average habitat quality and Kaiping Street had the lowest average habitat quality in the township unit. (3) The results of geographical detectors show that natural environmental conditions are the important basic factors affecting the spatial differentiation of habitat quality in Tangshan City, while urbanization and industrialization factors are the most important external forces driving the spatial differentiation of habitat quality. The contributions of average elevation, average slope, raw material industrial density, and population density to the spatial differentiation of habitat quality are all above 0.40. The interactions of any two factors on habitat quality are enhanced. Areas with concentrated populations, rich industrial resources, and convenient transportation become low-value habitat quality areas; while areas with beautiful landscape patterns, abundant precipitation, and a comfortable climate become high-value habitat quality areas. Space production theory can be used to explain the mechanism of the formation of the spatial differentiation of habitat quality.

Key words: habitat quality, spatial differentiation pattern, mechanism of influence, geographical detector, resource-based city

CHENG Peng, MIN Min, ZHAO Wei, ZHAO Ke. Spatial Differentiation Pattern of Habitat Quality and Mechanism of Factors Influencing in Resource-based Cities: A Case Study of Tangshan City, China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(5): 636-649.

Figures/Tables 11

References 53

[1]	Arkema K, Bernhardt J, Bierbower W. 2019. InVEST user guide.http://releases.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest-userguide/latest/# .
[2]	Bai L M, Feng X H, Sun R F, et al. 2020. Spatial and temporal responses of habitat quality to urbanization: A case study of Changchun City, Jilin Province, China. Journal of Applied Ecology, 31(4): 1267‒1277. (in Chinese)
[3]	Bai L M, Xiu C L, Feng X H, et al. 2019a. Influence of urbanization on regional habitat quality: A case study of Changchun City. Habitat International, 93:102042. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.102042.
[4]	Bai L, Jiang L, Yang D Y, et al. 2019b. Quantifying the spatial heterogeneity influences of natural and socioeconomic factors and their interactions on air pollution using the geographical detector method: A case study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232: 692‒704.
[5]	Chang J, Zhang H, Ji M, et al. 2009. Case study on the redevelopment of industrial wasteland in resource-exhausted mining area. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, 1(1): 1140‒1146.
[6]	Costanza R, dArge R, deGroot R, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630):253-260.
[7]	Dai L M, Li S L, Lewis B J, et al. 2019. The influence of land use change on the spatial-temporal variability of habitat quality between 1990 and 2010 in Northeast China. Journal of Forestry Research, 30(6): 2227-2236.
[8]	Falcucci A, Maiorano L, Boitani L. 2007. Changes in land-use/land-cover patterns in Italy and their implications for biodiversity conservation. Landscape Ecology, 22(4): 617-631
[9]	Foley J A, Defries R, Asner G P, et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734): 570-574.
[10]	Forman R T T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology, 14(1): 31-35.
[11]	Getis A, Ord J K 1992. The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geographical Analysis, 24(3): 189-206
[12]	Han Y W, Kang W M, Thorne J, et al. 2019. Modeling the effects of landscape patterns of current forests on the habitat quality of historical remnants in a highly urbanized area. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 41:354-363.
[13]	He J H, Huang J L, Li C. 2017a. The evaluation for the impact of land use change on habitat quality: A joint contribution of cellular automata scenario simulation and habitat quality assessment model. Ecological Modelling, 366:58-67.
[14]	He S Y, Lee J, Zhou T, et al. 2017 b. Shrinking cities and resource-based economy: The economic restructuring in China’s mining cities. Cities, 60:75-83.
[15]	He Y F, Xie H L. 2019. Exploring the spatiotemporal changes of ecological carrying capacity for regional sustainable development based on GIS: A case study of Nanchang City. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148:119720. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119720.
[16]	Hooper D U, Chapin F S, Ewel J J, et al. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75(1): 3‒35.
[17]	Johnson M D. 2007. Measuring habitat quality: A review. The Condor, 109(3): 489-504
[18]	Jorgensen J C, Honea J M, McClure M M, et al. 2009. Linking landscape-level change to habitat quality: An evaluation of restoration actions on the freshwater habitat of spring-run Chinook salmon. Freshwater Biology, 54(7): 1560-1575.
[19]	Kempton R A. 1979. The structure of species abundance and measurement of diversity. Biometrics, 351: 307-321
[20]	Lefebvre H. 1991. The production of space. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1-40.
[21]	Li H J, Long R Y, Chen H. 2013. Economic transition policies in Chinese resource-based cities: An overview of government efforts. Energy Policy, 55: 251‒260.
[22]	Liu B, Wang J M, Jing Z R, et al. 2020. Measurement of sustainable transformation capability of resource-based cities based on fuzzy membership function: A case study of Shanxi Province, China. Resources Policy, 68:101739. DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101739.
[23]	Liu C F, Wang C, Liu L. 2018. Spatio-temporal variation on habitat quality and its mechanism within the transitional area of the Three Natural Zones: A case study in Yuzhong County. Geographical Research, 37(2): 419-432. (in Chinese)
[24]	Liu X, Andris C, Rahimi S. 2019. Place niche and its regional variability: Measuring spatial context patterns for points of interest with representation learning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 75: 146‒160.
[25]	Liu Y G. 2009. The functional classification and the characteristics of functional transition of Chinese resource-based cities. Geographical Research, 28(1): 153-160. (in Chinese)
[26]	Liu Y L, Chen Y Y, Wu Z H, et al. 2021a. Geographical detector-based stratified regression kriging strategy for mapping soil organic carbon with high spatial heterogeneity. CATENA, 196:104953. DOI: 10.1016/j.cate na.2020.104953.
[27]	Liu Z H, Huang Q D, Yang H Y. 2021b. Supply-demand spatial patterns of park cultural services in megalopolis area of Shenzhen, China. Ecological Indicators, 121:107066. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107066.
[28]	Min M, Lin C, Duan X J, et al. 2019. Spatial distribution and driving force analysis of urban heat island effect based on raster data: A case study of the Nanjing Metropolitan Area, China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50:101637. DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101637.
[29]	Moreira M, Fonseca C, Vergílio M, et al. 2018. Spatial assessment of habitat conservation status in a Macaronesian island based on the InVEST model: A case study of Pico Island (Azores, Portugal). Land Use Policy, 78:637-649.
[30]	People’s Government of Tangshan City. 2011. Tangshan City Land Use Master Plan(2006-2020). http://ts.hebgt.gov.cn/ts/xxgk/ghtj/gtgh/101 460187729959.html .
[31]	Romero-Calcerrada R, Luque S. 2006. Habitat quality assessment using Weights-of-Evidence based GIS modelling: The case of Picoides tridactylus as species indicator of the biodiversity value of the Finnish forest. Ecological Modelling, 196(1-2):62-76.
[32]	Ruan F L, Yan L, Wang D. 2020. The complexity for the resource-based cities in China on creating sustainable development. Cities, 97:102571. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102571.
[33]	Sallustio L, De Toni A, Strollo A, et al. 2017. Assessing habitat quality in relation to the spatial distribution of protected areas in Italy. Journal of Environmental Management, 201: 129‒137.
[34]	Sun X Y, Jiang Z, Liu F, et al. 2019. Monitoring spatio-temporal dynamics of habitat quality in Nansihu Lake basin, Eastern China, from 1980 to 2015. Ecological Indicators, 102:716-723.
[35]	Tang Q, Wang J M, Jing Z R. 2021. Tempo-spatial changes of ecological vulnerability in resource-based urban based on genetic projection pursuit model. Ecological Indicators, 121:107059. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107059.
[36]	Terrado M, Sabater S, Chaplin-Kramer B, et al. 2016. Model development for the assessment of terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality in conservation planning. Science of the Total Environment, 540: 63‒70.
[37]	Vanhorne B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management, 474: 893-901
[38]	Wan L, Ye X, Lee J, et al. 2015. Effects of urbanization on ecosystem service values in a mineral resource-based city. Habitat International,46: 54-63.
[39]	Wang J F, Xu C. 2017. Geodetector: Principle and prospective. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(1): 116-134. (in Chinese)
[40]	Wang Y, Li X, Zhang F, et al. 2020. Effects of rapid urbanization on ecological functional vulnerability of the land system in Wuhan, China: A flow and stock perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248:119284. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119284.
[41]	Wu J S, Cao Q W, Shi S Q, et al. 2015. Spatio-temporal variability of habitat quality in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Area based on land use change. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 26(11): 3457‒3466. (in Chinese)
[42]	Wu J, Bai Z K, Zhao X J. 2020a. Research on the urbanization process of resource-based cities and the ecological risks of land use. China Mining Magazine, 29(8): 60-68. (in Chinese)
[43]	Wu J, Mao J, Lin Q, et al. 2017. Urban growth boundary based on the evaluation of habitat quality: Taking the Yangtze River Delta as an example. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 37(1): 28-36. (in Chinese)
[44]	Wu X, Zhang J J, Geng X L, et al. 2020b. Increasing green infrastructure-based ecological resilience in urban systems: A perspective from locating ecological and disturbance sources in a resource-based city. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61:102354. DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102354.
[45]	Wu Y X, Deng N. 2019. Resource-based city ecological security early warning based on RBF Neural Network Model—Taking Yulin City as an example. Ecological Economy, 35(5): 111-118. (in Chinese)
[46]	Xie G D, Zhen L, Lu C X, et al. 2008. Expert knowledge based valuation method of ecosystem services in China. Journal of Natural Resources, 23(5): 911-919. (in Chinese)
[47]	Yan D, Kong Y, Ye B, et al. 2019. Spatial variation of energy efficiency based on a Super-Slack-Based Measure: Evidence from 104 resource- based cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240:117669. DOI: 10.101 6/j.jclepro.2019.117669.
[48]	Yi P T, Li W W, Zhang D N. 2021. Sustainability assessment and key factors identification of first-tier cities in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125369.
[49]	Zeng L J, Wang J F, Zhang J S, et al. 2020. New urbanization paths in mineral resource abundant regions in China: A three-dimensional cube framework. Resources Policy, 68:101709. DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101709.
[50]	Zhai T L, Wang J, Fang Y, et al. 2020. Assessing ecological risks caused by human activities in rapid urbanization coastal areas: Towards an integrated approach to determining key areas of terrestrial-oceanic ecosystems preservation and restoration. Science of the Total Environment, 708:135153. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135153.
[51]	Zhang H, Zhang C, Hu T, et al. 2020a. Exploration of roadway factors and habitat quality using InVEST. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87:102551. DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102551.
[52]	Zhang X R, Song W, Lang Y Q, et al. 2020b. Land use changes in the coastal zone of China’s Hebei Province and the corresponding impacts on habitat quality. Land Use Policy, 99:104957. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104957.
[53]	Zhu C M, Zhang X L, Zhou M M, et al. 2020. Impacts of urbanization and landscape pattern on habitat quality using OLS and GWR models in Hangzhou, China. Ecological Indicators, 117:106654. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106654.

Raw material industrial habitat quality level	Ⅰ (0-0.057)		Ⅱ (0.057-0.170)		Ⅲ (0.170-0.402)		Ⅳ (0.402-0.747)		Ⅴ (0.747-1.205)
Raw material industrial habitat quality level	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)
Lower	1390.73	13.22	900.96	34.58	427.10	57.46	126.50	85.72	72.96	75.73
Low	1965.27	18.69	602.80	23.14	201.38	27.09	21.07	14.28	23.39	24.27
Medium	1981.13	18.84	720.93	27.67	100.73	13.55	0	0	0	0
High	2569.29	24.43	217.90	8.36	14.12	1.90	0	0	0	0
Higher	2611.45	24.83	162.86	6.25	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total area	10517.87	74.54	2605.45	18.46	743.34	5.27	147.57	1.05	96.35	0.68
Average (pixel)	2648.24		1082.31		410.39		200.81		243.16

Raw material industrial habitat quality level	Ⅰ (0-0.057)		Ⅱ (0.057-0.170)		Ⅲ (0.170-0.402)		Ⅳ (0.402-0.747)		Ⅴ (0.747-1.205)
Raw material industrial habitat quality level	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)
Lower	1390.73	13.22	900.96	34.58	427.10	57.46	126.50	85.72	72.96	75.73
Low	1965.27	18.69	602.80	23.14	201.38	27.09	21.07	14.28	23.39	24.27
Medium	1981.13	18.84	720.93	27.67	100.73	13.55	0	0	0	0
High	2569.29	24.43	217.90	8.36	14.12	1.90	0	0	0	0
Higher	2611.45	24.83	162.86	6.25	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total area	10517.87	74.54	2605.45	18.46	743.34	5.27	147.57	1.05	96.35	0.68
Average (pixel)	2648.24		1082.31		410.39		200.81		243.16

Extractive industrial habitat quality level	Ⅰ(0-0.006)		Ⅱ(0.006-0.015)		Ⅲ (0.015-0.029)		Ⅳ (0.029-0.051)		Ⅴ (0.051-0.088)
Extractive industrial habitat quality level	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)
Lower	1163.89	14.93	874.95	24.89	510.37	30.52	304.39	36.14	64.65	22.86
Low	1240.45	15.91	728.72	20.73	488.64	29.22	269.35	31.98	86.75	30.67
Medium	1763.92	22.62	727.22	20.68	255.43	15.27	30.39	3.61	25.82	9.13
High	2251.62	28.88	284.45	8.10	82.63	4.90	80.51	9.56	102.10	36.10
Higher	1377.44	17.67	900.51	25.61	335.31	20.05	157.54	18.71	3.51	1.24
Total area	7797.33	55.26	3515.85	24.92	1672.39	11.85	842.19	5.97	282.82	2.00
Average (pixel)	2343.80		2266.33		1904.45		1522.98		1132.91

Extractive industrial habitat quality level	Ⅰ(0-0.006)		Ⅱ(0.006-0.015)		Ⅲ (0.015-0.029)		Ⅳ (0.029-0.051)		Ⅴ (0.051-0.088)
Extractive industrial habitat quality level	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)
Lower	1163.89	14.93	874.95	24.89	510.37	30.52	304.39	36.14	64.65	22.86
Low	1240.45	15.91	728.72	20.73	488.64	29.22	269.35	31.98	86.75	30.67
Medium	1763.92	22.62	727.22	20.68	255.43	15.27	30.39	3.61	25.82	9.13
High	2251.62	28.88	284.45	8.10	82.63	4.90	80.51	9.56	102.10	36.10
Higher	1377.44	17.67	900.51	25.61	335.31	20.05	157.54	18.71	3.51	1.24
Total area	7797.33	55.26	3515.85	24.92	1672.39	11.85	842.19	5.97	282.82	2.00
Average (pixel)	2343.80		2266.33		1904.45		1522.98		1132.91

Construction industrial habitat quality level	Ⅰ (0-0.098)		Ⅱ (0.098-0.322)		Ⅲ (0.322-0.743)		Ⅳ (0.743-1.415)		Ⅴ (1.415-2.283)
Construction industrial habitat quality level	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)	Area (km²)	Proportion (%)
Lower	2092.35	17.84	444.94	30.51	212.52	30.23	91.59	65.87	76.85	93.96
Low	2250.63	19.19	326.83	22.41	184.05	26.18	47.46	34.13	4.94	6.04
Medium	2284.39	19.48	392.21	26.89	126.20	17.95	0	0	0	0
High	2552.11	21.76	181.91	12.47	67.30	9.57	0	0	0	0
Higher	2548.99	21.73	112.44	7.71	112.87	16.06	0	0	0	0
Total area	11728.47	83.12	1458.33	10.33	702.94	4.98	139.06	0.99	81.79	0.58
Average (pixel)	2397.44		1321.68		1333.54		239.38		184.80