Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Earth Science

ISSN 2095-0195

ISSN 2095-0209(Online)

CN 11-5982/P

Postal Subscription Code 80-963

2018 Impact Factor: 1.205

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Earth Sci.    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (2) : 385-397    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-018-0726-8
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Ecological vulnerability analysis of Beidagang National Park, China
Xue YU, Yue LI, Min XI(), Fanlong KONG(), Mingyue PANG, Zhengda YU
College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China
 Download: PDF(1494 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Ecological vulnerability analysis (EVA) is vital for ecological protection, restoration, and management of wetland-type national parks. In this study, we assessed the ecological vulnerability of Beidagang National Park based upon remote sensing (RS) and geographic information system (GIS) technologies. To quantify the ecological vulnerability, 10 indices were collected by the ‘exposure-sensitivity-adaptive capacity’ model and spatial principal component analysis (SPCA) was then applied to calculate the ecological vulnerability degree (EVD). Based on the numerical values, EVD of the study area was classified into five levels: moderate, light, medium, strong, and extreme. Results showed that the average EVD value was approximately 0.39, indicating overall good ecological vulnerability in Beidagang National Park. To be specific, 80.42% of the whole area was assigned to a moderate level of EVD with the highest being the tourism developed areas and the lowest being the reservoirs and offshore areas. Ecological vulnerability of the region was determined to be affected by the natural environment and anthropogenic disturbance jointly. The primary factors included tourism disturbance, traffic interference, exotic species invasion, land use/land cover, and soil salinization. We expected to provide some insights of the sustainable development of Beidagang National Park and would like to extend the results to other wetland-type national parks in the future.
Keywords Beidagang National Park      ecological vulnerability degree      exposure-sensitivity-adaptive capacity      spatial principal component analysis     
Corresponding Author(s): Min XI,Fanlong KONG   
Just Accepted Date: 09 November 2018   Online First Date: 11 December 2018    Issue Date: 16 May 2019
 Cite this article:   
Xue YU,Yue LI,Min XI, et al. Ecological vulnerability analysis of Beidagang National Park, China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(2): 385-397.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-018-0726-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2019/V13/I2/385
Fig.1  Location of the study area.
Fig.2  Ecological vulnerability evaluation model in Beidagang National Park.
Type Indicator Source
Remote sensing Land use/land cover Forest, grassland, water, mudflat, rearing pond, agricultural land, constructed land
NDVI Eq. (1)
Landscape fragmentation Eq. (2)
Monitoring data Average temperature Chinese Meteorological Data Sharing Service System (http://cdc.cma.gov.cn)
Average precipitation Chinese Meteorological Data Sharing Service System (http://cdc.cma.gov.cn)
Water pollution Water monitoring data
Socio economic survey data Traffic interference Social and economic investigation
Tourism disturbance Wetland ecotourism investigation
Wetland survey data Exotic species invasion Wild plant investigation
Soil salinization Wetland soil survey
Tab.1  Indicator’s classification and source
Standardized value 2 4 6 8 10
Land use/land cover Forest, grassland,
water		 Mudflat Rearing pond Agricultural land Constructed land
Traffic interference >4000 3000–4000 2000–3000 1000–2000 0–1000
Tourism disturbance >4000 3000–4000 2000–3000 1000–2000 0–1000
Exotic species invasion >6000 3000–6000 1500–3000 500–1500 0–500
Tab.2  Grade-weighted method
EVD Range
Moderate <0.42
Light 0.42–0.51
Medium 0.51–0.60
Strong 0.60–0.69
Extreme >0.69
Tab.3  Classification of EVD
Principle component Aspects
Ecological vulnerability Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive capacity
PC1 Eigenvalue 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.02
Contribution ratio/% 37.73 59.55 50.43 58.32
Cumulative contribution/% 37.73 59.55 50.43 58.32
PC2 Eigenvalue 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01
Contribution ratio/% 20.72 17.30 37.74 26.54
Cumulative contribution/% 58.45 76.85 88.17 84.86
PC3 Eigenvalue 0.03 0.01
Contribution ratio/% 17.21 12.97
Cumulative contribution/% 75.66 89.82
PC4 Eigenvalue 0.01
Contribution ratio/% 7.03
Cumulative contribution/% 82.69
PC5 Eigenvalue 0.01
Contribution ratio/% 5.37
Cumulative contribution/% 88.06
Tab.4  The eigenvalue and contribution ratio of each PC
Item PC1 PC2 PC3
Tourism disturbance 0.61 −0.07 0.79
Exotic species invasion 0.28 −0.50 −0.21
Traffic interference 0.54 −0.39 −0.49
Land use/land cover 0.51 0.77 −0.31
Tab.5  The detailed loading of exposure
Item PC1 PC2
Landscape fragmentation −0.26 −0.85
Soil salinization 0.92 −0.07
Water pollution −0.30 0.52
Tab.6  The detailed loading of sensitivity
Item PC1 PC2
Average temperature −0.78 0.56
Average precipitation 0.52 0.32
NDVI 0.36 0.76
Tab.7  The detailed loading of adaptive capacity
Item PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 Weight
Landscape fragmentation 0.23 −0.23 −0.47 −0.01 0.27 0.08
Tourism disturbance 0.53 0.25 0.15 0.78 −0.14 0.20
Exotic species invasion 0.17 0.42 0.10 −0.10 0.71 0.14
Traffic interference 0.43 0.38 0.24 −0.57 −0.44 0.18
Land use/land cover 0.53 −0.04 −0.44 −0.21 0.17 0.11
Soil salinization −0.26 0.57 −0.32 0.07 −0.11 0.10
Water pollution 0.05 −0.01 0.48 −0.08 0.30 0.07
Average temperature 0.15 −0.41 0.30 0.01 0.03 0.06
Average precipitation −0.24 0.22 −0.11 0.07 0.03 0.02
NDVI −0.17 0.17 0.25 −0.01 0.27 0.04
Tab.8  The eigenvalue and weight of each factor
Fig.3  The distribution of (a) land use/land cover, (b) traffic interference, (c) tourism disturbance, (d) exotic species invasion, (e) exposure index.
Item Evaluation index
EVD Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive capacity
Moderate Areas/km2 961.64
Percent/% 80.42
Light Areas/km2 97.62
Percent/% 8.16
Medium Areas/km2 68.94
Percent/% 5.77
Strong Areas/km2 47.21
Percent/% 3.95
Extreme Areas/km2 20.34
Percent/% 1.70
I Areas/km2 804.10 976.13 23.91
Percent/% 66.82 81.12 1.97
II Areas/km2 319.43 69.76 157.23
Percent/% 26.55 5.80 12.96
III Areas/km2 67.72 55.39 419.43
Percent/% 5.63 4.60 34.59
IV Areas/km2 5.40 58.77 270.88
Percent/% 0.45 4.88 22.34
V Areas/km2 6.70 73.21 341.26
Percent/% 0.56 6.08 28.14
Tab.9  The areas of each degree of exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability
Fig.4  The distribution of (a) landscape fragmentation, (b) soil salinization, (c) water pollution, (d) sensitivity index.
Fig.5  The distribution of (a) average temperature, (b) average precipitation, (c) NDVI, and (d) adaptive capacity.
Fig.6  The spatial distribution of EVD.
1 RAretano, T Semeraro, IPetrosillo, ADe Marco, M RPasimeni, GZurlini (2015). Mapping ecological vulnerability to fire for effective conservation management of natural protected areas. Ecol Modell, 295: 163–175
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.09.017
2 MArianoutsou, S Koukoulas, DKazanis (2011). Evaluating post-fire forest resilience using GIS and multi-criteria analysis: an example from Cape Sounion National Park, Greece. Environ Manage, 47(3): 384–397
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9614-7
3 M SBoori, V E Amaro (2011). Natural and eco-environmental vulnerability assessment through multi-temporal satellite data sets in Apodi valley region, Northeast Brazil. J Geogr Reg Plan, 4: 216–230
4 P CBuotte, D L Peterson, K S Mckelvey, J A Hicke (2016). Capturing subregional variability in regional-scale climate change vulnerability assessments of natural resources. J Environ Manage, 169: 313–318
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.12.017
5 YChen, L Fang, JYang (2014). The cropland pollution in China: status and countermeasures. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 35: 1–5 (in Chinese)
6 MCórdoba, C Bruno, J LCosta, MBalzarini (2013). Subfield management class delineation using cluster analysis from spatial principal components of soil variables. Comput Electron Agric, 97: 6–14
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.05.009
7 SDžeroski (2001). Applications of symbolic machine learning to ecological modelling. Ecol Modell, 146(1–3): 263–273
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00312-X
8 N LEngle (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Glob Environ Change, 21(2): 647–656
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.019
9 BFu, Q Jiang, CRen, ZXie (2011). Ecological vulnerability assessment of wetland based on neural network. Journal of Northeast Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 43: 140–143 (in Chinese)
10 AGavioli, de E G D Souza, C L Bazzi, L P C Guedes, K Schenatto (2016). Optimization of management zone delineation by using spatial principal components. Comput Electron Agric, 127: 302–310
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.06.029
11 LGong, R Zhang, RLi, FShi (2016). Study on community dynamics of Spartina alterniflora at the intertidal zone in Tianjin. Acta Sci Natur Univ Nankaiensis, 49: 43–51
12 TGuo, X Zhang, TCheng (2011). Evaluation of wetland ecological restoration project based on SD: a case study on Qilihai wetland in Tianjin. Procedia Environ Sci, 10: 2587–2593
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2011.09.402
13 A JHansen, N Piekielek, CDavis, JHaas, D M Theobald, J E Gross, W B Monahan, T Olliff, S WRunning (2014). Exposure of U.S. National Parks to land use and climate change 1900‒2100. Ecol Appl, 24(3): 484–502
https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0905.1
14 J DHerman, J B Kollat, P M Reed, T Wagener (2013). From maps to movies: high-resolution time-varying sensitivity analysis for spatially distributed watershed models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 17(12): 5109–5125
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-5109-2013
15 WHong, R Jiang, CYang, FZhang, MSu, Q Liao (2016). Establishing an ecological vulnerability assessment indicator system for spatial recognition and management of ecologically vulnerable areas in highly urbanized regions: a case study of Shenzhen, China. Ecol Indic, 69: 540–547
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.028
16 BHuang, Z Ouyang, HZhang, LZhang, HZheng (2009). Assessment of eco-environmental vulnerability of Hainan Island, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 20: 639–646 (in Chinese)
17 RJanssen, H Goosen, M LVerhoeven, J T AVerhoeven, A QOmtzigt, EMaltby (2005). Decision support for integrated wetland management. Environ Model Softw, 20(2): 215–229
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.12.020
18 YJin, J Meng (2011). Assessment and forecast of ecological vulnerability: a review. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 30: 2646–2652 (in Chinese)
19 BLei, F Jiao, ZWang, YLiu, L Zhu (2013). Eco-environment vulnerability evaluation and characteristics analysis in Yanhe river watershed. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 28: 161–167 (in Chinese)
https://doi.org/10.3969/i.issn.1001-7461.2013.03.31
20 BLi, L Tong (2008). Vulnerability and sustainable development mode of coal cities in Northeast China. Chin Geogr Sci, 18(2): 119–126
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-008-0119-0
21 LLi, Z Shi, WYin, DZhu, S L Ng, C Cai, ALei (2009). A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to eco-environmental vulnerability assessment for the Danjiangkou reservoir area, China. Ecol Modell, 220(23): 3439–3447
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.09.005
22 XLi (2014). Ecosystem health assessment in Tianjin coastal wetland based on the ‘PSR’ model. Ocean Development and Management, (4): 39–43 (in Chinese)
23 YLi, Y Tian, CLi (2011). Comparison study on ways of ecological vulnerability assessment- A case study in the Hengyang Basin. Procedia Environ Sci, 10: 2067–2074
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2011.09.323
24 DLiu, C Cao, ODubovyk, RTian, W Chen, QZhuang, YZhao, G Menz (2017). Using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for spatio-temporal analysis of eco-environmental vulnerability change during 1990–2010 in Sanjiangyuan region, China. Ecol Indic, 73: 612–625
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.031
25 SLiu, L Zhu, YFeng (2002). Biodiversity evaluation on wetland- A case study form Paleocoast and Wetland Nature Reserve Zone in Tianjin. Chin J Eco Agric, 10: 76–78
26 A LLuers, D B Lobell, L S Sklar, C L Addams, P A Matson (2003). A method for quantifying vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Glob Environ Change, 13(4): 255–267
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(03)00054-2
27 CMa, G Zhang, XZhang, YZhao, H Li (2012). Application of Markov model in wetland change dynamics in Tianjin Coastal Area, China. Procedia Environ Sci, 13: 252–262
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.024
28 JMa (2014). Dynamic evaluation of ecological vulnerability in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region in Chongqing section, China. Dissertation for Master degree. Chongqing: Southwest University, 1–66
29 JMa, C Li, HWei, PMa, Y Yang, QRen, WZhang (2015). Dynamic evaluation of ecological vulnerability in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region in Chongqing Municipality, China. Acta Ecol Sin, 35: 7117–7129
30 AMukti, L B Prasetyo, S B Rushayati (2016). Mapping of fire vulnerability in Alas Purwo National Park. Procedia Environ Sci, 33: 290–304
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.080
31 SNandy, C Singh, K KDas, N CKingma, S P SKushwaha (2015). Environmental vulnerability assessment of eco-development zone of Great Himalayan National Park, Himachal Pradesh, India. Ecol Indic, 57: 182–195
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.024
32 S LOzesmi, M E Bauer (2002). Satellite remote sensing of wetlands. Wetlands Ecol Manage, 10(5): 381–402
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020908432489
33 CPolsky, R Neff, BYarnal (2007). Building comparable global change vulnerability assessments: the vulnerability scoping diagram. Glob Environ Change, 17(3–4): 472–485
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.005
34 LQin, F Han, GSong, LLi, Z Wang, BZhang, SJiang (2013). EVA of Qilihai wetland based on the ‘PSR’ model. Soil and Water Conservation in China, (5): 59–72 (in Chinese)
https://doi.org/10.14123/j.cnki.swcc.2013.05.003
35 PQiu, S Xu, GXie, BTang, H Bi, LYu (2007). Analysis on the ecological vulnerability of the western Hainan Island based on its landscape pattern and ecosystem sensitivity. Acta Ecol Sin, 27(4): 1257–1264
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2032(07)60026-2
36 MSano, J Gainza, SBaum, D LChoy, SNeumann, RTomlinson (2015). Coastal vulnerability and progress in climate change adaptation: an Australian case study. Reg Stud Mar Sci, 2: 113–123
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2015.08.015
37 SStevenazzi, M Bonfanti, MMasetti, S VNghiem, ASorichetta (2017). A versatile method for groundwater vulnerability projections in future scenarios. J Environ Manage, 187: 365–374
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.057
38 STakane (2016). Effect of domain selection for compact representation of spatial variation of head-related transfer function in all directions based on Spatial Principal Components Analysis. Appl Acoust, 101: 64–77
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2015.07.018
39 BWang, Z Cao, ZZhang (2008). Ecological environment evaluation on Beidagang Wetland Nature Reserve. Environmental Science and Management, 33: 181–184 (in Chinese)
40 SWang, G Wang, ZChen (2004). Eco-environmental evaluation and changes in Yellow River Basin. Journal of Mountain Research, 22: 133–139 (in Chinese)
41 WWang, G Li, JHou, YLiu (2015). Salinization characteristics of soil profile in coastal areas of Tianjin and its affecting factors. Geophys Geochem Explor, 39: 172–179
https://doi.org/10.11720/wtyht.2015.1.28
42 XWang, X Cai, ZWang, TSun (2018). Factors and countermeasures of wetland pollution in China. Applied Chemical Industry, 47: 399–403 (in Chinese)
43 MXi, F Kong, YLi, XYu (2016). Analysis on characteristics of soil salinization in coastal wetlands of Jiaozhou Bay.Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 36: 288–292
44 LXiao, L Zhong, RZhou, HYu (2017). Review of international research on national parks as an evolving knowledge domain in recent 30 years. Progress in Geography, 36: 244–255 (in Chinese)
https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.02.010
45 WYou, D He, LLin, RWang, J Cai, PWang, ZZhang, SXiao, X Zheng (2013). Dynamics assessment on ecological vulnerability of coastal wetland in eastern Fujian Province. Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, 42: 649–653 (in Chinese)
46 HZhai (2014). Perspectives on establishment of national parks system in China. China Forest Products Industry, 41: 11–16
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-5299.2014.06.003
47 HZhang, P Liu, DHu, JSui (2010). Influence of ecotourism disturbance on habitation and survival of Black Stork in Shidu Nature Reserve. Chinese Journal of Wildlife, 31: 13–16 (in Chinese)
48 XZhang, K Wang, WZhang, HChen, X He (2009). The quantitative assessment of eco-environment vulnerability in karst regions of Northwest Guangxi. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29: 749–757
49 DZhuang, D Ding, XRen (2003). Research on ecological tourism resources protection and exploitation of the wetland resources in China. Econ Geogr, 23: 554–557
50 TZou, K Yoshino (2017). Environmental vulnerability evaluation using a spatial principal components approach in the Daxing’anling region, China. Ecol Indic, 78: 405–415
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.039
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed