IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i4p2792-d1058035.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating Landscape Ecological Risks and Ecosystem Service Values into the Ecological Security Pattern Identification of Wuhan Urban Agglomeration

Author

Listed:
  • Haojun Xiong

    (College of Horticulture & Forestry Sciences, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Haozhi Hu

    (College of Horticulture & Forestry Sciences, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Pingyang Han

    (College of Horticulture & Forestry Sciences, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Min Wang

    (Key Laboratory of Urban Agriculture in Central China, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Wuhan 430070, China)

Abstract

Urban agglomerations are the main form of China’s future promotion of new urbanization development. Nevertheless, their accelerated expansion and development are increasingly threatening the security of regional ecosystems. The identification and optimization of ecological safety patterns (ESPs) is the fundamental spatial way to guarantee the ecological safety of urban circles and realize the sustainable development of the socio-economic and ecological environment. Nevertheless, from the perspective of urban green, low-carbon, and ecological restoration, regional safety evaluation still lacks a complete framework integrating ecological elements and social and natural indicators. Moreover, the evaluation method of ESPs also has a lack of judgment on the long-term change dynamics of regional landscape ecological risks and ecosystem service values. Thus, we proposed a new regional ecological security evaluation system based on ecosystem service value (ESV) and landscape ecological risk (LER), using the Wuhan urban agglomeration (WUA) as the research object. This study analyzed LER and ESV’s spatial and temporal changes over nearly 40 years from 1980 to 2020. LER and LSV were used as ecological elements combined with natural and human-social elements to jointly model the resistance surface of the landscape pattern. Applying the minimum cumulative resistance model (MCR), we identified green ecological corridors, constructed the ESPs of WUA, and proposed optimization measures. Our results show that: (1) The proportion of higher- and high-ecological-risk areas in WUA has decreased from 19.30% to 13.51% over the past 40 years. Over time, a “low–high–low” hierarchical distribution characteristic centered on Wuhan city was gradually formed in the east, south, and north; the total value of ecosystem services increased from CNY1110.998 billion to CNY1160.698 billion. The ESV was higher in the northeastern, southern, and central parts of the area. (2) This study selected 30 ecological source areas with a total area of about 14,374 km 2 and constructed and identified 24 ecological corridors and 42 ecological nodes, forming a multi-level ecological network optimization pattern with intertwined points, lines, and surfaces, increasing the connectivity of the ecological network and improving the ecological security level of the study area to a large extent, which is of great significance to promote the ecological priority and green-rise strategy of WUA and the high-quality development path of the green ecological shelter.

Suggested Citation

  • Haojun Xiong & Haozhi Hu & Pingyang Han & Min Wang, 2023. "Integrating Landscape Ecological Risks and Ecosystem Service Values into the Ecological Security Pattern Identification of Wuhan Urban Agglomeration," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-21, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:2792-:d:1058035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/2792/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/2792/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yanyan Jia & Xiaolan Tang & Wei Liu, 2020. "Spatial–Temporal Evolution and Correlation Analysis of Ecosystem Service Value and Landscape Ecological Risk in Wuhu City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    3. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2006. "What Are Ecosystem Services?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-02, Resources for the Future.
    4. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    5. Jiahui Fan & Ya Wang & Zhen Zhou & Nanshan You & Jijun Meng, 2016. "Dynamic Ecological Risk Assessment and Management of Land Use in the Middle Reaches of the Heihe River Based on Landscape Patterns and Spatial Statistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-15, June.
    6. Hualin Xie & Peng Wang & Hongsheng Huang, 2013. "Ecological Risk Assessment of Land Use Change in the Poyang Lake Eco-economic Zone, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    7. Zhou, Peng & Zhang, Haijie & Huang, Bei & Ji, Yongli & Peng, Shaolin & Zhou, Ting, 2022. "Are productivity and biodiversity adequate predictors for rapid assessment of forest ecosystem services values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    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. Weiwei Zhang & Wanqian Zhang & Jianwan Ji & Chao Chen, 2024. "Urban Ecological Quality Assessment Based on Google Earth Engine and Driving Factors Analysis: A Case Study of Wuhan City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-23, April.

    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. Ingraham, Molly W. & Foster, Shonda Gilliland, 2008. "The value of ecosystem services provided by the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System in the contiguous U.S," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 608-618, November.
    2. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    3. Marshall, Liz, 2007. "Carving Out Policy Space for Sustainability in Biofuel Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 183-196, October.
    4. Tanaka, K., 2018. "Do Bonus Payments Enhance Agri-environmental Payments? Empirical Findings from Rice Farming in Japan," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277343, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21, April.
    6. Egoh, Benis & Rouget, Mathieu & Reyers, Belinda & Knight, Andrew T. & Cowling, Richard M. & van Jaarsveld, Albert S. & Welz, Adam, 2007. "Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 714-721, September.
    7. Patrick POINT, 2012. "Valuation of wetland ecosystems services. Some methodological principles (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2012-19, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    8. Ruijs, A. & Wossink, A. & Kortelainen, M. & Alkemade, R. & Schulp, C.J.E., 2013. "Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in Eastern Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 82-94.
    9. Watson, Stephen C.L. & Paterson, David M. & Queirós, Ana M. & Rees, Andrew P. & Stephens, Nicholas & Widdicombe, Stephen & Beaumont, Nicola J., 2016. "A conceptual framework for assessing the ecosystem service of waste remediation: In the marine environment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 69-81.
    10. Moore, Rebecca & Williams, Tiffany & Rodriguez, Eduardo, 2011. "Valuing Ecosystem Services from Private Forests," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Yanping Lan & Jianjun Chen & Yanping Yang & Ming Ling & Haotian You & Xiaowen Han, 2023. "Landscape Pattern and Ecological Risk Assessment in Guilin Based on Land Use Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-19, January.
    12. Doyle, Martin W. & Yates, Andrew J., 2010. "Stream ecosystem service markets under no-net-loss regulation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 820-827, February.
    13. Ribaudo, Marc & Hansen, LeRoy T. & Hellerstein, Daniel & Greene, Catherine R., 2008. "The Use of Markets To Increase Private Investment in Environmental Stewardship," Economic Research Report 56473, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2007. "An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 321-332, December.
    15. Wainger, Lisa A. & Van Houtven, George & Loomis, Ross & Messer, Jay & Beach, Robert & Deerhake, Marion, 2013. "Tradeoffs among Ecosystem Services, Performance Certainty, and Cost-efficiency in Implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 196-224, April.
    16. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    17. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2010. "Agro-Ecosystem Services – Governance Needs and Efficiency," MPRA Paper 25978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Giani GRADINARU, 2013. "Methods And Techniques For Quantifying The Value Of Ecosystem Services," Romanian Statistical Review, Romanian Statistical Review, vol. 61(5), pages 29-44, June.
    19. Moore, Rebecca, 2013. "Prioritizing Ecosystem Service Protection and Conservation Efforts in the Forest Plantations of the Red Hills," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-26, April.
    20. Xueqing Wang & Zhongyi Ding & Shaoliang Zhang & Huping Hou & Zanxu Chen & Qinyu Wu, 2022. "Spatial–Temporal Multivariate Correlation Analysis of Ecosystem Services and Ecological Risk in Areas of Overlapped Cropland and Coal Resources in the Eastern Plains, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:2792-:d:1058035. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.