IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v131y2023ics0264837723001953.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delimiting supervision zones to inform the revision of land reclamation management modes in coal mining areas: A perspective from the succession characteristics of rehabilitated vegetation

Author

Listed:
  • Guan, Yanjun
  • Wang, Juan
  • Zhou, Wei
  • Bai, Zhongke
  • Cao, Yingui

Abstract

The rational delimitation of supervision zones is an important means of regional management that can effectively solve the problem of unbalanced development among reclaimed coal mine areas. In this study, 32 years of vegetation fractional coverage (VFC) series data from 1989 to 2020 were obtained for the area around the Pingshuo opencast coal mine. Then, the S-logistic function was applied to fit the VFC series data for each reclamation dump unit. Combined with the recognition results of coal mining and land reclamation years and by setting three delimitation criteria, the supervision zones of land reclamation that need to be better managed in the reclaimed dump sites were delimited. Finally, optimization revisions of the land reclamation management mode were proposed. The results showed that the effective reclamation zones of land reclamation occupied most of the study area, especially in the early reclaimed west dump, south dump and inner dump I areas of the Antaibao coal mine. The level one supervision zones, which were delineated as the general management zones, were mainly concentrated in the Anjialing inner dump, Nansigou dump, east dump, and west dump. The level two supervision zones, which were delineated as special management zones, were mainly concentrated in the Anjialing Nansigou dump site. Moreover, the Pingshuo coal mine dump sites were divided into four mode areas, namely, ecological conservation, ecological monitoring, ecological restoration, and ecological reconstruction, for the revision of land reclamation management. The proportion of area corresponding to each management mode was 49 %, 23 %, 24 % and 4 %, respectively. The management modes applicable to different reclaimed dump sites differed, and the specific management measures to be adopted depend on the succession pattern of the whole processes of rehabilitated vegetation. This study provides a new approach for delimitating the supervision zones of land reclamation and proposes revision management modes for the precise implementation of land reclamation development plans in coal mining areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Guan, Yanjun & Wang, Juan & Zhou, Wei & Bai, Zhongke & Cao, Yingui, 2023. "Delimiting supervision zones to inform the revision of land reclamation management modes in coal mining areas: A perspective from the succession characteristics of rehabilitated vegetation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:131:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723001953
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837723001953
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106729?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etter, Andrés & Andrade, Angela & Nelson, Cara R. & Cortés, Juliana & Saavedra, Kelly, 2020. "Assessing restoration priorities for high-risk ecosystems: An application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Cao, Yingui & Dallimer, Martin & Stringer, Lindsay C. & Bai, Zhongke & Siu, Yim Ling, 2018. "Land expropriation compensation among multiple stakeholders in a mining area: Explaining “skeleton house” compensation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 97-110.
    3. Juan Robalino & Catalina Sandoval & David N Barton & Adriana Chacon & Alexander Pfaff, 2015. "Evaluating Interactions of Forest Conservation Policies on Avoided Deforestation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Huping Hou & Chen Wang & Zhongyi Ding & Shaoliang Zhang & Yongjun Yang & Jing Ma & Fu Chen & Jinrong Li, 2018. "Variation in the Soil Microbial Community of Reclaimed Land over Different Reclamation Periods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Wen Song & Wei Song & Haihong Gu & Fuping Li, 2020. "Progress in the Remote Sensing Monitoring of the Ecological Environment in Mining Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-17, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tianyuan Zhu & Shuming Zhang & Yubo Wang & Cuiping Wang & Haowei Wang, 2023. "Integrated Assessment and Restoration Pathways for Holistic Ecosystem Health in Anxi County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-22, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M., 2017. "Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 8-28.
    2. Wang, Dazhe & Qian, Wenrong & Guo, Xiaolin, 2019. "Gains and losses: Does farmland acquisition harm farmers’ welfare?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 78-90.
    3. Miguel Cantillo, 2015. "Dynamic Investment with Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard," Working Papers 201501, Universidad de Costa Rica, revised Mar 2015.
    4. Gwenolé Le Velly & Céline Dutilly, 2016. "Evaluating Payments for Environmental Services: Methodological Challenges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Vélez, Maria Alejandra & Robalino, Juan & Cardenas, Juan Camilo & Paz, Andrea & Pacay, Eduardo, 2020. "Is collective titling enough to protect forests? Evidence from Afro-descendant communities in the Colombian Pacific region," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    6. Dong Zhao & Huping Hou & Haiya Liu & Chen Wang & Zhongyi Ding & Jinting Xiong, 2023. "Microbial Community Structure and Predictive Functional Analysis in Reclaimed Soil with Different Vegetation Types: The Example of the Xiaoyi Mine Waste Dump in Shanxi," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, February.
    7. Ghulam Dastgir KHAN & Pinar TEMOCIN, 2022. "Human Right-based Understanding of Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement: A Review of the Literature and Synthesis," RAIS Journal for Social Sciences, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 6(2), pages 20-29, November.
    8. Riyadh Mundher & Shamsul Abu Bakar & Suhardi Maulan & Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof & Syuhaily Osman & Ammar Al-Sharaa & Hangyu Gao, 2022. "Exploring Awareness and Public Perception towards the Importance of Visual Aesthetics for Preservation of Permanent Forest Reserve (PFR) in Malaysia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, August.
    9. Archana Sinha & Bibhas Chandra & Arvind Kumar Mishra & Shubham Goswami, 2023. "An Assessment on Quality of Life and Happiness Indices of Project Affected People in Indian Coalfields," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-24, June.
    10. Chenxi Li & Jingyao Wu & Zenglei Xi & Weiqiang Zhang, 2021. "Farmers’ Satisfaction with Land Expropriation System Reform: A Case Study in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    11. Admasu, Wubante Fetene & Van Passel, Steven & Minale, Amare Sewnet & Tsegaye, Enyew Adgo & Azadi, Hossein & Nyssen, Jan, 2019. "Take out the farmer: An economic assessment of land expropriation for urban expansion in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    12. He Gao & Wei Song, 2022. "Assessing the Landscape Ecological Risks of Land-Use Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-25, October.
    13. Xieao Chen & Ping Huang & Zhenhong Xiao, 2022. "Uncovering the verticality and temporality of environmental policy mixes: The case of agricultural residue recycling in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(5), pages 632-653, September.
    14. Beygi Heidarlou, Hadi & Banj Shafiei, Abbas & Erfanian, Mahdi & Tayyebi, Amin & Alijanpour, Ahmad, 2019. "Effects of preservation policy on land use changes in Iranian Northern Zagros forests," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 76-90.
    15. Lei Zhang & Wei Song & Wen Song, 2020. "Assessment of Agricultural Drought Risk in the Lancang-Mekong Region, South East Asia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-24, August.
    16. Haikola, Simon & Anshelm, Jonas, 2020. "Evolutionary governance in mining: Boom and bust in peripheral communities in Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    17. Alice Nikuze & Richard Sliuzas & Johannes Flacke, 2020. "From Closed to Claimed Spaces for Participation: Contestation in Urban Redevelopment Induced-Displacements and Resettlement in Kigali, Rwanda," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, July.
    18. Etchart, Nicolle & Freire, José Luis & Holland, Margaret B. & Jones, Kelly W. & Naughton-Treves, Lisa, 2020. "What happens when the money runs out? Forest outcomes and equity concerns following Ecuador’s suspension of conservation payments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    19. Adrian C. Newton, 2021. "Strengthening the Scientific Basis of Ecosystem Collapse Risk Assessments," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    20. Francisco Torres-Romero & Julio César Acosta-Prado, 2022. "Knowledge Management Practices and Ecological Restoration of the Tropical Dry Forest in Colombia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:131:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723001953. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.