Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2021, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (6): 757-765.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.06.004
• Ecosystem Assessment in Altay Region • Previous Articles Next Articles
YE Hui1,2,3(), BAI Die4, TAN Shucheng4, SHAO Dajiang1,2,3, WANG Jinliang1,2,3,*(
)
Received:
2021-04-15
Accepted:
2021-06-11
Online:
2021-11-30
Published:
2022-01-30
Contact:
WANG Jinliang
About author:
YE Hui, E-mail: xiaohuihui_ye@foxmail.com
Supported by:
YE Hui, BAI Die, TAN Shucheng, SHAO Dajiang, WANG Jinliang. Evaluating the Ecological Security of Land Resources based on Multi-source Data in the Altay Region of China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(6): 757-765.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.06.004
Serial number | Category | Source name | Specifications | Data source |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Geological | Geological map of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region | 1:500000 | National Geological Data Center ( |
2 | Geological structure distribution map of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region | 1:500000 | ||
3 | Regional geomorphologic map of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region | 1:500000 | ||
4 | Regional geology of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region | 1:500000 | ||
5 | Remote sensing data | Landsat 8 remote sensing data | Spatial resolution 30 m | Geospatial data cloud ( |
6 | NDVI (Vegetation coverage) | Spatial resolution 30 m | ||
7 | Geographic data | DEM (Digital elevation) | Spatial resolution 30 m | |
8 | Slope | Spatial resolution 30 m | ||
9 | Types of land use | Spatial resolution 30 m | ||
10 | Basic geography of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region | Vector data | ||
11 | Statistical data | Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region statistical yearbook | Released in 2019 | Bureau of Statistics, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region ( |
Table 1 Basic data for the study area
Serial number | Category | Source name | Specifications | Data source |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Geological | Geological map of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region | 1:500000 | National Geological Data Center ( |
2 | Geological structure distribution map of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region | 1:500000 | ||
3 | Regional geomorphologic map of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region | 1:500000 | ||
4 | Regional geology of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region | 1:500000 | ||
5 | Remote sensing data | Landsat 8 remote sensing data | Spatial resolution 30 m | Geospatial data cloud ( |
6 | NDVI (Vegetation coverage) | Spatial resolution 30 m | ||
7 | Geographic data | DEM (Digital elevation) | Spatial resolution 30 m | |
8 | Slope | Spatial resolution 30 m | ||
9 | Types of land use | Spatial resolution 30 m | ||
10 | Basic geography of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region | Vector data | ||
11 | Statistical data | Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region statistical yearbook | Released in 2019 | Bureau of Statistics, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region ( |
Target layer | Criterion layer | Element layer | Index layer | Index orientation | Entropy method weight | AHP weight | Comprehensive weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evaluation index system of ecological security | Driving force (D) | Environmental driving force (D1) | Proportion of construction land area (D11) | ‒ | 0.0362 | 0.0318 | 0.034 |
Density of road network (D12) | ‒ | 0.0336 | 0.0335 | 0.03355 | |||
Economic driving force (D2) | Per capital GDP (D21) | + | 0.0335 | 0.0336 | 0.03355 | ||
Per capita disposable income (D22) | + | 0.0385 | 0.0326 | 0.03555 | |||
Social driving force (D3) | Population density (D31) | ‒ | 0.0357 | 0.0335 | 0.0346 | ||
Pressure (P) | Environmental pressure (P1) | Geological hazard density (P11) | ‒ | 0.0358 | 0.0312 | 0.0335 | |
Cultivated land area above slope of 25 (P12) | ‒ | 0.036 | 0.0401 | 0.03805 | |||
Economic pressure (P2) | Growth rate of investment in fixed assets (P21) | ‒ | 0.0368 | 0.0297 | 0.03325 | ||
Environmental capacity (P22) | + | 0.0389 | 0.0395 | 0.0392 | |||
Social pressure (P3) | Residential density (P31) | ‒ | 0.0458 | 0.0365 | 0.04115 | ||
State (S) | Environmental state (S1) | Geological structure (S11) | ‒ | 0.0377 | 0.0365 | 0.0371 | |
Rock character (S12) | ‒ | 0.0385 | 0.0379 | 0.0382 | |||
Topographic slope (S13) | ‒ | 0.0431 | 0.0368 | 0.03995 | |||
Economic state (S2) | Amount of land resources (S21) | ‒ | 0.0362 | 0.0313 | 0.03375 | ||
Social state (S3) | Vegetation coverage index (S31) | + | 0.0379 | 0.0357 | 0.0368 | ||
Green coverage rate (S32) | + | 0.0438 | 0.0317 | 0.03775 | |||
Impact (I) | Environmental influence (I1) | Distance from water system (I11) | + | 0.0515 | 0.0253 | 0.0384 | |
Distance from road (I12) | + | 0.0392 | 0.0316 | 0.0354 | |||
Economic influence (I2) | Year-end deposits of residents (I21) | + | 0.0357 | 0.0426 | 0.03915 | ||
Electric energy production (I22) | - | 0.0399 | 0.0338 | 0.03685 | |||
Social influence (I3) | Forest and grassland area (I31) | + | 0.0395 | 0.0446 | 0.04205 | ||
Per capita cultivated land area (I32) | + | 0.0385 | 0.0377 | 0.0381 | |||
Response (R) | Environmental response (R1) | Annual rainfall (R11) | + | 0.0395 | 0.0376 | 0.03855 | |
Annual average temperature (R12) | + | 0.0402 | 0.0341 | 0.03715 | |||
Land use type (R13) | + | 0.0395 | 0.0401 | 0.0398 | |||
Economic response (R2) | Public budget expenditure (R21) | + | 0.0416 | 0.0308 | 0.0362 | ||
Social response (R3) | Available water resources (R31) | + | 0.0357 | 0.0411 | 0.0384 |
Table 2 Evaluation index system for ecological security in Altay area
Target layer | Criterion layer | Element layer | Index layer | Index orientation | Entropy method weight | AHP weight | Comprehensive weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evaluation index system of ecological security | Driving force (D) | Environmental driving force (D1) | Proportion of construction land area (D11) | ‒ | 0.0362 | 0.0318 | 0.034 |
Density of road network (D12) | ‒ | 0.0336 | 0.0335 | 0.03355 | |||
Economic driving force (D2) | Per capital GDP (D21) | + | 0.0335 | 0.0336 | 0.03355 | ||
Per capita disposable income (D22) | + | 0.0385 | 0.0326 | 0.03555 | |||
Social driving force (D3) | Population density (D31) | ‒ | 0.0357 | 0.0335 | 0.0346 | ||
Pressure (P) | Environmental pressure (P1) | Geological hazard density (P11) | ‒ | 0.0358 | 0.0312 | 0.0335 | |
Cultivated land area above slope of 25 (P12) | ‒ | 0.036 | 0.0401 | 0.03805 | |||
Economic pressure (P2) | Growth rate of investment in fixed assets (P21) | ‒ | 0.0368 | 0.0297 | 0.03325 | ||
Environmental capacity (P22) | + | 0.0389 | 0.0395 | 0.0392 | |||
Social pressure (P3) | Residential density (P31) | ‒ | 0.0458 | 0.0365 | 0.04115 | ||
State (S) | Environmental state (S1) | Geological structure (S11) | ‒ | 0.0377 | 0.0365 | 0.0371 | |
Rock character (S12) | ‒ | 0.0385 | 0.0379 | 0.0382 | |||
Topographic slope (S13) | ‒ | 0.0431 | 0.0368 | 0.03995 | |||
Economic state (S2) | Amount of land resources (S21) | ‒ | 0.0362 | 0.0313 | 0.03375 | ||
Social state (S3) | Vegetation coverage index (S31) | + | 0.0379 | 0.0357 | 0.0368 | ||
Green coverage rate (S32) | + | 0.0438 | 0.0317 | 0.03775 | |||
Impact (I) | Environmental influence (I1) | Distance from water system (I11) | + | 0.0515 | 0.0253 | 0.0384 | |
Distance from road (I12) | + | 0.0392 | 0.0316 | 0.0354 | |||
Economic influence (I2) | Year-end deposits of residents (I21) | + | 0.0357 | 0.0426 | 0.03915 | ||
Electric energy production (I22) | - | 0.0399 | 0.0338 | 0.03685 | |||
Social influence (I3) | Forest and grassland area (I31) | + | 0.0395 | 0.0446 | 0.04205 | ||
Per capita cultivated land area (I32) | + | 0.0385 | 0.0377 | 0.0381 | |||
Response (R) | Environmental response (R1) | Annual rainfall (R11) | + | 0.0395 | 0.0376 | 0.03855 | |
Annual average temperature (R12) | + | 0.0402 | 0.0341 | 0.03715 | |||
Land use type (R13) | + | 0.0395 | 0.0401 | 0.0398 | |||
Economic response (R2) | Public budget expenditure (R21) | + | 0.0416 | 0.0308 | 0.0362 | ||
Social response (R3) | Available water resources (R31) | + | 0.0357 | 0.0411 | 0.0384 |
[1] |
Atici C. 2010. Carbon emissions in Central and Eastern Europe: Environmental Kuznets curve and implications for sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 17(3): 155-160.
DOI URL |
[2] | Chen Z, Xia X Q, Chen J P. 2021. Study on remote sensing evaluation model and main controlling factors of land ecological quality: Taking Guang’an City as an example. Remote Sensing for Land and Resources, 33(1): 201-208. (in Chinese) |
[3] | Cui X Y, Fang L, Wang X R, et al. 2021. Ecological security evaluation of urban agglomeration in the Yangtze River Delta based on DPSIR model. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41(1): 302-319. (in Chinese) |
[4] | FAO. 1997. Land quality indicators and their use in sustainable agriculture and rural development. Rome, Italy: Proceedings of the Workshop Organized by the Land and Water Development Division FAO Agriculture Department, 1: 5-10. |
[5] | Fu J X, Zheng M S. 2020. Evaluation of the development level of rural ecological environment in Shandong Province based on comprehensive index method. Ecological Economy, 36(12): 200-205. (in Chinese) |
[6] |
Gao X Y, Cheng W N, Wang N, et al. 2019. Spatiotemporal changes of cultivated land in China from 1990 to 2015 based on geomorphic regionalization. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 29(2): 180-196.
DOI URL |
[7] | Guo L G, Feng Z Z, Liu G, et al. 2020. Evaluation of land ecological security in Fenhe River Basin based on Matter-Element Model. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 39(6): 2061-2069. (in Chinese) |
[8] |
Karr J R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries, 6(6): 21-27.
DOI URL |
[9] | Li H X, Wan H W, Sun L, et al. 2021. Remote sensing assessment and key driving factors of ecosystem health in Xinjiang. Arid Land Geography, 44(2): 460-470. (in Chinese) |
[10] | Li S H, Ma Q F. 2012. Research progress of regional land use ecological security. Land and Natural Resources Research, (2): 41-44. (in Chinese) |
[11] | Lu W, Zhao Y, Feng X L, et al. 2016. A review on ecological security of land resources. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 32(32): 88-93. (in Chinese) |
[12] | Pang Y S, Wang L. 2014. A review of regional ecological security assessment methods. China Population, Resources and Environment, 24(S1): 340-344. (in Chinese) |
[13] |
Singh R K, Murty H R, Gupta S K, et al. 2012. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15(1): 281-299.
DOI URL |
[14] | Sun T, Bao Y Q, Li W Y. 2020. Development strategy of grassland husbandry based on sustainable utilization of grassland resources in arid and semi-arid regions—A case study of Altay, Xinjiang. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 39(10): 3509-3520. (in Chinese) |
[15] | Yang L. 2020. Driving mechanism and repair strategy of grassland ecological degradation in Altay Region. Diss., Urumqi, China: Xinjiang University, 4: 59-85. (in Chinese) |
[16] |
Ye H, Ma Y, Dong L M. 2011. Land ecological security assessment for Bai Autonomous Prefecture of Dali based using PSR Model—With data in 2009 as case. Energy Procedia, 5: 2172-2177.
DOI URL |
[17] | Yeernaer H H, Xu X H, Dilinuer T L W B, et al. 2019. Response of vegetation coverage to climate change in Altai Mountain Forest and Grassland Ecological Function Area in Xinjiang, China. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 35(3): 307-315. |
[18] | Zhang Y M, Cheng W M, Zheng Y J. 2017. Analysis of cultivated land change and its driving forces in Henan Province based on RS and GIS. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 58(5): 873-877. (in Chinese) |
[1] | WANG Baixue, CHENG Weiming, LAN Shengxin. Impact of Land Use Changes on Habitat Quality in Altay Region [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(6): 715-728. |
[2] | LI Yi, LIU Yujie, ZHANG Qiang, ZHU Sufeng, LIU Hao, LIU Shufang. Research on Ecological Protection and Restoration Measures in Altay Region based on the Coupling Perspective of the Mountains-Rivers-Forests-Farmlands-Lakes-Grasslands System [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(6): 791-800. |
[3] | LIU Li, CHANG Qian, JIANG Zhide. Study on Identification Methods for Ecological Technologies [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017, 8(4): 332-340. |
[4] | FENG Wei, YANG Yunfen, ZHAO Yongjun, DI Baofeng, MA Changchen. The Implementation Effects of a Nationwide Sloping Farmland Soil Erosion Control Project in China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017, 8(4): 341-351. |
[5] | LI Yanmei, LI Zhongyuan, YOU He. The Circular Economic Development Level of Beijing’s Service Sector Based on AHP Modeling [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2016, 7(6): 480-485. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||