Evolution of Landscape Pattern and Tourism Service Value in Zhangjiakou City

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.06.014

Abstract

Abstract:

Zhangjiakou is a northern Chinese city that hosted the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games. As an important ice and snow tourist destination, it is essential to investigate Zhangjiakou's rate of landscape pattern change, the landscape ecological security level, and ecosystem service value, particularly the tourism ecological service value during its construction. With land use data from 2000 to 2020, this study comprehensively analyzed the dynamic changes in Zhangjiakou, including land use dynamics, the land use transfer matrix, landscape vulnerability, landscape disturbance, ecosystem service value, tourism ecological service value, and other aspects. The results show that the landscape pattern in Zhangjiakou was greatly disturbed from 2015 to 2018, and the landscape ecological security was threatened in the process of landscape pattern adjustment. By 2020, after the landscape pattern was adjusted and stabilized, the landscape ecological security was restored, and the ecosystem service value was significantly improved, especially the tourism ecological service value. The results of this study will play an important role in promoting the optimization of Zhangjiakou's ice and snow landscape pattern and the improvement of tourism ecological value. In addition, it provides important lessons for the development of other ice and snow tourist destinations.

Key words: ice and snow tourist destination, landscape pattern, landscape ecological security, tourism leisure value, Zhangjiakou City

LI Ying, DAI Yuexingtong, HAN Jingting, ZOU Tongqian. Evolution of Landscape Pattern and Tourism Service Value in Zhangjiakou City[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022, 13(6): 1098-1108.

Figures/Tables 10

References 30

[1]	Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, et al. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630): 253-260. DOI URL
[2]	Du J P, Shao J G, Zhou C R, et al. 2018. Study on reclamation decision of coal mine temporary construction land based on ecological suitability and triangle model. Journal of Natural Resources, 33(11): 1872-1885. (in Chinese) DOI URL
[3]	Fang Y, Wang J, Huang L Y, et al. 2020. Diagnosis and identification of key areas of ecological protection and restoration in territorial space based on ecological security pattern: A case study of Yantai. Journal of Natural Resources, 35(1): 190-203. (in Chinese) DOI URL
[4]	Goepel K D. 2018. Implementation of an online software tool for the analytic hierarchy Process (AHP-OS). International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 10(3): 69928136. DOI: 10.13033/ijahp.v10i3.590. DOI
[5]	Han Z H, Li J D, Yin H, et al. 2010. Ecological security analysis of Liaohe Delta wetland based on landscape pattern. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 19(3): 701-705. (in Chinese)
[6]	Hao C L, Wang Y, Xiao W H, et al. 2012. Ecological security analysis of Wulie River Basin in Chengde based on landscape pattern. South-to-North Water Transfers and Water Science & Technology, 10(5): 67-71. (in Chinese)
[7]	Kiker G A, Bridges T S, Varghese A, et al. 2005. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(2): 95-108. PMID
[8]	Li S C, Xiao W, Zhao Y L, et al. 2020. Incorporating ecological risk index in the multi-process MCRE model to optimize the ecological security pattern in a semi-arid area with intensive coal mining: A case study in northern China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247: 119143. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119143. DOI URL
[9]	Li X Y, Zhang S W. 2005. Dynamic analysis of ecological security in western Jilin based on landscape structure. Arid Zone Research, 22(1): 57-62. (in Chinese)
[10]	Li Y, Wu L Y, Han Q, et al. 2021. Estimation of remote sensing based ecological index along the Grand Canal based on PCA-AHP-TOPSIS methodology. Ecological Indicators, 122: 107214. DOI: 10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2020.107214. DOI URL
[11]	Lin M Z, Xu Y P, Xie H Y, et al. 2010. Evaluation of ecological security in Zhongshan based on PSR-AHP method. Journal of South China Normal University (Natural Science Edition), (4): 107-111. (in Chinese)
[12]	Liu M Z, Zhang H J, Pei H W. 2020. Analysis of land use change and driving force in Chongli Area based on principal component analysis. Journal of Hebei Institute of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 38(2): 70-75. (in Chinese)
[13]	Liu P, Zhang X Y, Ma C, et al. 2021. Ecological security assessment based on remote sensing and landscape ecology model. Journal of Sensors, 2021: 6684435. DOI: 10.1155/2021/6684435. DOI
[14]	Pei H, Wei Y, Wang X Y, et al. 2014. Method of cultivated land landscape ecological security evaluation and its application. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 30(9): 212-219. (in Chinese)
[15]	Rao K S, Pant R. 2001. Land use dynamics and landscape change pattern in a typical micro watershed in the mid elevation zone of central Himalaya, India. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 86(2): 113-124. DOI URL
[16]	Wang C X, Yu C Y, Chen T Q, et al. 2020. Can the establishment of ecological security patterns improve ecological protection? An example of Nanchang, China. Science of the Total Environment, 740: 140051. DOI: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.140051. DOI URL
[17]	Wang G, Wang L, Wu W. 2007. Recognition on regional ecological security definition and assessment system. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 27(4): 1627-1637. (in Chinese)
[18]	Wang P, Wang Y J, Liu X P, et al. 2018. Analysis of land use landscape pattern change of ecological migration in arid region: A case study of Hongsibu District, Ningxia. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 32(12): 69-74. (in Chinese)
[19]	Wang Q, Wang X N, Mou W Y, et al. 2019a. Study on land use landscape pattern change in Huangshi. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 35(9): 81-85. (in Chinese)
[20]	Wang S D, Zhang X Y, Wu T X, et al. 2019b. The evolution of landscape ecological security in Beijing under the influence of different policies in recent decades. Science of the Total Environment, 646: 49-57. DOI URL
[21]	Wang S J, Xu X W, Deng J, et al. 2017. Chinese skiing-tourism destination: Spatial patterns, existing problems and development countermeasures. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 39(4): 902-909. (in Chinese)
[22]	Wang W, Feng Q S, Guo N, et al. 2015. Dynamic monitoring of vegetation coverage based on long time-series NDVI data sets in northwest arid region of China. Pratacultural Science, 32(12): 1969-1979. (in Chinese)
[23]	Wu J S, Zhang P H. 2017. Impact of urban landscape pattern on urban waterlogging: A case study of Shenzhen. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(3): 444-456. (in Chinese)
[24]	Xie H L. 2011. Spatial characteristic analysis of land use eco-risk based on landscape structure: A case study in the Xingguo County, Jiangxi Province. China Environmental Science, 31(4): 688-695. (in Chinese)
[25]	Xu W X, Wang J M, Zhang M, et al. 2021. Construction of landscape ecological network based on landscape ecological risk assessment in a large-scale opencast coal mine area. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286: 125523. DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.125523. DOI URL
[26]	Xu X L, Pang Z G, Yu X F. 2014. Spatial-temporal pattern analysis of land use/cover change:Methods & applications. Beijing, China: Science and Technology Literature Press: 90-108. (in Chinese)
[27]	Yue C J, Wu Z W, Zhen T X, et al. 2010. Evaluation of tourism competitiveness of coastal cities. Journal of Natural Resources, 25(5): 795-801. (in Chinese)
[28]	Zhang D, Wang X R, Qu L P, et al. 2020. Land use/cover predictions incorporating ecological security for the Yangtze River Delta region, China. Ecological Indicators, 119: 106841. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106841. DOI URL
[29]	Zhao D, Li F, Wang R S. 2013. Effects of land use change on ecosystem service value: A case study in Huaibei City, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33(8): 2343-2349. (in Chinese) DOI URL
[30]	Zhu Y N, Pu C L. 2020. Analysis on landscape pattern change and ecological security of land use in Urumqi. Ecological Science, 39(2): 133-144. (in Chinese)

Code	Land use types
1	Arable land	Paddy field
2	Arable land	Dry land
3	Woodland	Woodland
4		Shrubwood
5		Open woodland
6		Other woodlands
7	Grassland	High coverage grassland
8		Medium coverage grassland
9		Low coverage grassland
10	Waters	River
11		Lake
12		Reservoir pit
13		Beach land
14	Construction land	Urban area
15		Rural residential area
16		Other construction land
17	Unused land	Sand
18		Saline alkali land
19		Swamp
20		Bare land
21		Bare rock

Code	Land use types
1	Arable land	Paddy field
2	Arable land	Dry land
3	Woodland	Woodland
4		Shrubwood
5		Open woodland
6		Other woodlands
7	Grassland	High coverage grassland
8		Medium coverage grassland
9		Low coverage grassland
10	Waters	River
11		Lake
12		Reservoir pit
13		Beach land
14	Construction land	Urban area
15		Rural residential area
16		Other construction land
17	Unused land	Sand
18		Saline alkali land
19		Swamp
20		Bare land
21		Bare rock

Land use type	Ecosystem service value coefficient (10⁴ yuan km^-2)	Tourism ecological service value coefficient (10⁴ yuan km^-2)
Arable land	62.03	0.09
Woodland	196.13	11.33
Grassland	64.98	0.35
Waters	487.77	43.76
Construction land	0	0
Unused land	3.71	0.09

Land use type	Ecosystem service value coefficient (10⁴ yuan km^-2)	Tourism ecological service value coefficient (10⁴ yuan km^-2)
Arable land	62.03	0.09
Woodland	196.13	11.33
Grassland	64.98	0.35
Waters	487.77	43.76
Construction land	0	0
Unused land	3.71	0.09

Period	Type	Arable land	Woodland	Grassland	Waters	Construction land	Unused land
	Arable land	17627.05	1.00	1.00	5.97	29.87	4.98
	Woodland	6.97	6919.19			1.00
2000-2005	Grassland	68.70		9691.24		1.99
	Waters	22.90	1.00	1.99	568.55		6.97
	Construction land					792.58
	Unused land	3.98			1.00		871.25
	Arable land	17701.72	5.97		1.00	20.91
	Woodland		6917.19			3.98
2005-2010	Grassland			9679.29	2.99	11.95
	Waters				575.52
	Construction land					825.44
	Unused land	18.92			3.98		860.29
	Arable land	17700.73	1.00		1.00	17.92
	Woodland	2.99	6917.19			2.99
2010-2015	Grassland			9672.32	1.00	5.97
	Waters				583.49
	Construction land					862.28
	Unused land	2.99				1.99	855.31
	Arable land	11966.44	1221.74	2852.71	231.00	1085.32	279.79
	Woodland	1000.69	4633.04	1142.08	23.90	85.63	7.97
2015-2018	Grassland	2731.23	1763.40	4701.74	80.65	249.92	113.51
	Waters	246.94	41.82	69.70	163.30	31.86	30.87
	Construction land	492.88	28.88	101.56	9.96	233.99	18.92
	Unused land	388.33	25.89	85.63	27.88	36.84	283.78
	Arable land	16903.17				14.94
	Woodland	1.00	7816.32		28.88	1.99
2018-2020	Grassland	2.99		9012.17	1.00	11.95
	Waters	1.00			537.68	1.00	1.00
	Construction land	23.90	4.98	2.99	4.98	1692.71	1.99
	Unused land	8.96			1.99	10.95	716.91