IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i6p1131-d1156525.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Quality Assessment and Ecological Restoration in Fragile Zone of Loess Plateau: A Case Study of Suide County, China

Author

Listed:
  • Jiayu Xia

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Duyuzheng Ren

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Xuhui Wang

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Bo Xu

    (Shaanxi Forestry Survey & Planning Institute, Xi’an 710127, China)

  • Xingyao Zhong

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Yajiang Fan

    (Xi’an Urban Planning & Design Institute, Xi’an 710127, China)

Abstract

The Loess Plateau is the world’s largest loess landform region, characterized by a fragile ecosystem and frequent natural disasters that render it highly susceptible to ecological damage, highlighting urgent ecological restoration. We constructed a “Pattern-Service-Stress Ecosystem Quality Assessment Model” based on the connotation of ecosystem quality and the ArcGIS platform, then applied it to Suide County, a representative area of the Loess Plateau, as the research object. Next, using the dispersal ecology theory and the MCR model, we constructed an ideal ecological network. According to the quality assessment and ecological network analysis, we selected areas with low ecosystem quality within the scope of an ecological corridor as key areas for restoration. Finally, we proposed restoration strategies using regional ecological techniques. This study yielded the following results: The spatial pattern of ecosystem quality in Suide County exhibited a “high in the south and low in the north” pattern, with a high-value area of 823.87 km 2 , and a low-value area of 509.31 km 2 , accounting for 44.45% and 27.48% of the total area, respectively. In Suide County’s ecological network, the spatial distribution of ecological sources and corridors is dense in the south and sparse in the north, with a significant amount of path overlap within ecological corridors. Located on the southern ecological corridor of Suide County, forty-five key areas for restoration were classified into seven types. Eight problems were identified in the key areas, and twenty-three targeted restoration measures were proposed. These measures can result in 6.44 km 2 of forest land and 5.26 km 2 of grassland, improving the ecosystem quality of the key areas and even the entirety of Suide County. This study guides Suide County’s ecological restoration work and provides a paradigm for ecosystem quality assessment and ecological restoration on the Loess Plateau, pointing out directions. It has a certain radiation-driven effect and an important reference significance for ecological restoration in ecologically fragile areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiayu Xia & Duyuzheng Ren & Xuhui Wang & Bo Xu & Xingyao Zhong & Yajiang Fan, 2023. "Ecosystem Quality Assessment and Ecological Restoration in Fragile Zone of Loess Plateau: A Case Study of Suide County, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-32, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:6:p:1131-:d:1156525
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/6/1131/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/6/1131/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    2. Xingtao Wei & Oliver Valentine Eboy & Lu Xu & Di Yu, 2023. "Ecological Sensitivity of Urban Agglomeration in the Guanzhong Plain, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Qun Zhang & Cifang Wu, 2022. "Optimization Model of Permanent Basic Farmland Indicators Distribution from the Perspective of Equity: A Case from W County, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-13, August.
    4. Zeke Lian & Huichao Hao & Jing Zhao & Kaizhong Cao & Hesong Wang & Zhechen He, 2022. "Evaluation of Remote Sensing Ecological Index Based on Soil and Water Conservation on the Effectiveness of Management of Abandoned Mine Landscaping Transformation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-15, August.
    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. Ming Shi & Fei Lin & Xia Jing & Bingyu Li & Yang Shi & Yimin Hu, 2023. "Ecological Environment Quality Assessment of Arid Areas Based on Improved Remote Sensing Ecological Index—A Case Study of the Loess Plateau," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-25, September.

    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. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    2. Wang, Han & Tian, Fuan & Wu, Jianxian & Nie, Xin, 2023. "Is China forest landscape restoration (FLR) worth it? A cost-benefit analysis and non-equilibrium ecological view," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago & Conceição, Pedro & Belbute, José, 2005. "Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 382-396, September.
    4. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. "Biodiversity: Economic perspectives," Serie Research Memoranda 0002, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    6. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    7. repec:dgr:rugcds:200218 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    9. 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.
    10. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    11. Shrestha, Ram K. & Seidl, Andrew F. & Moraes, Andre S., 2002. "Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 289-299, August.
    12. Meng Luo & Shengwei Zhang & Lei Huang & Zhiqiang Liu & Lin Yang & Ruishen Li & Xi Lin, 2022. "Temporal and Spatial Changes of Ecological Environment Quality Based on RSEI: A Case Study in Ulan Mulun River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-19, October.
    13. Tiantian Ma & Qingbai Hu & Changle Wang & Jungang Lv & Changhong Mi & Rongguang Shi & Xiaoli Wang & Yanying Yang & Wenhao Wu, 2022. "Exploring the Relationship between Ecosystem Services under Different Socio-Economic Driving Degrees," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Oksana Logvinenko, 2020. "A New Look at the Natural Capital Concept: Approaches, Structure, and Evaluation Procedure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, November.
    15. Zeynep Altinay & Eric Rittmeyer & Lauren L. Morris & Margaret A. Reams, 2021. "Public risk salience of sea level rise in Louisiana, United States," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(4), pages 523-536, December.
    16. Kumar, Pavan & Singh, S.S. & Pandey, A.K. & Singh, Ram Kumar & Srivastava, Prashant Kumar & Kumar, Manoj & Dubey, Shantanu Kumar & Sah, Uma & Nandan, Rajiv & Singh, Susheel Kumar & Agrawal, Priyanshi , 2021. "Multi-level impacts of the COVID-19 lockdown on agricultural systems in India: The case of Uttar Pradesh," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    17. Shuping Zhang & Xuehui Sun & Kun Zhang & Xiaozheng Zhang & Renqing Wang & Jian Liu & Shuping Zhang, 2021. "An Attempt To Identify Cultural Ecosystem Services And Related Land Use Types In Rural Areas Under Urbanization," Environment & Ecosystem Science (EES), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 121-128, September.
    18. Jonathan M. Harris, 2016. "Population, resources and energy in the global economy: a vindication of Herman Daly’s vision," Chapters, in: Joshua Farley & Deepak Malghan (ed.), Beyond Uneconomic Growth, chapter 4, pages 65-82, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Hendriksen, Astrid & Jouanneau, Charlène & Koss, Rebecca & Raakjaer, Jesper, 2014. "Fishing for opinions: Stakeholder views on MSFD implementation in European Seas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PB), pages 353-363.
    20. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    21. Cong Xu & Shixin Wang & Yi Zhou & Litao Wang & Wenliang Liu, 2016. "A Comprehensive Quantitative Evaluation of New Sustainable Urbanization Level in 20 Chinese Urban Agglomerations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, January.

    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:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:6:p:1131-:d:1156525. 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.