IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i8p1336-d1461993.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Health Assessment of the Manas River Basin: Application of the CC-PSR Model Improved by Coupling Coordination Degree

Author

Listed:
  • Ruiming Xiao

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Yuxuan Qiao

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Xiaobin Dong

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Huize Ren

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Xuechao Wang

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Peng Zhang

    (China Land Surveying and Planning Institute, No. 37, Guanyingyuan West, Xicheng District, Beijing 100035, China)

  • Qiaoru Ye

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Xiaomin Xiao

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100875, China)

Abstract

In the context of high-quality development, scientifically and objectively assessing regional ecosystem health (EH) is important for ecological civilization. However, the commonly used EH assessment framework typically neglects intrinsic connections, mutual adaptability, and coordination among interrelated indicators. The coupling coordination model was utilized to improve the classic pressure–state–response assessment (PSR) model. The carbon footprint, water footprint, landscape pattern, and response status of the Manas River Basin were used to construct a medium-scale regional EH assessment framework linking natural ecosystems with human socioeconomic elements. A quantitative assessment was conducted on the EH conditions of the Manas River Basin from 2000 to 2020. Over the past 21 years, the EH conditions of the Manas River Basin have fluctuated upward. The ecosystem health index (EHI) increased from 0.18 to 0.37. Compared with the conventional PSR model, the coupling coordination pressure–state–response model (CC–PSR) better reflected the fluctuations in EH conditions caused by “pressure”, “state”, and “response” level changes. In the early stage (2000–2006), increasing human activity strongly pressured the regional ecosystem, limiting EH improvements. The increase in “pressure” was reflected in the increasing trends of the water footprint, carbon footprint, and ecological footprint. During the middle to late period (2009–2020), as the “response” level improved, the regional EH condition continued to increase, and the EHI stabilized between 0.29 and 0.38. Ecosystem resilience improvements and human afforestation projects enhanced the “response” level, but their impacts were noticeably delayed. Over the past 21 years, regional landscape diversity, landscape connectance, and landscape contagion have remained high. The well-maintained landscape pattern has laid the foundation for consolidating and improving the regional EH. The EHI is increasing; its fluctuations stem from periodic fluctuations in the regional water yield and carbon sequestration capacity, which are constrained by the basin climate and vegetation coverage. This study provides a scientific model for basin EH assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruiming Xiao & Yuxuan Qiao & Xiaobin Dong & Huize Ren & Xuechao Wang & Peng Zhang & Qiaoru Ye & Xiaomin Xiao, 2024. "Ecosystem Health Assessment of the Manas River Basin: Application of the CC-PSR Model Improved by Coupling Coordination Degree," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-25, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:8:p:1336-:d:1461993
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/8/1336/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/8/1336/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wei, Hejie & Liu, Huiming & Xu, Zihan & Ren, Jiahui & Lu, Nachuan & Fan, Weiguo & Zhang, Peng & Dong, Xiaobin, 2018. "Linking ecosystem services supply, social demand and human well-being in a typical mountain–oasis–desert area, Xinjiang, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 44-57.
    2. Adison Altamirano & Carolina Gonzalez-Suhr & Caroline Marien & Germán Catalán & Alejandro Miranda & Marco Prado & Laurent Tits & Lorena Vieli & Paula Meli, 2020. "Landscape Disturbance Gradients: The Importance of the Type of Scene When Evaluating Landscape Preferences and Perceptions," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-23, September.
    3. Li, Jiasheng & Guo, Xiaomin & Chuai, Xiaowei & Xie, Fangjian & Yang, Feng & Gao, Runyi & Ji, Xuepeng, 2021. "Reexamine China’s terrestrial ecosystem carbon balance under land use-type and climate change," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    4. Wackernagel, Mathis & Onisto, Larry & Bello, Patricia & Callejas Linares, Alejandro & Susana Lopez Falfan, Ina & Mendez Garcia, Jesus & Isabel Suarez Guerrero, Ana & Guadalupe Suarez Guerrero, Ma., 1999. "National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 375-390, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lu Wang & Bonoua Faye & Quanfeng Li & Yunkai Li, 2023. "A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of the Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land in Northeast China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Li, Shuoshuo & Liu, Yaobin & Wei, Guoen & Bi, Mo & He, Bao-Jie, 2024. "Carbon surplus or carbon deficit under land use transformation in China?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    3. Alvarez-Herranz, Agustin & Balsalobre-Lorente, Daniel & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Cantos, José María, 2017. "Energy innovation and renewable energy consumption in the correction of air pollution levels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 386-397.
    4. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q., 2007. "Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy--a case study of the Chinese society 1981-2001," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 355-376, March.
    5. Qing Liu & Dongdong Yang & Lei Cao & Bruce Anderson, 2022. "Assessment and Prediction of Carbon Storage Based on Land Use/Land Cover Dynamics in the Tropics: A Case Study of Hainan Island, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-24, February.
    6. Benjamin Leard, 2011. "Joan Martinez-Alier and Ingo Ropke (eds.): Recent developments in ecological economics (2 vols.)," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 161-178, July.
    7. Maria Serena Mancini & Mikel Evans & Katsunori Iha & Carla Danelutti & Alessandro Galli, 2018. "Assessing the Ecological Footprint of Ecotourism Packages: A Methodological Proposition," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-37, June.
    8. Ella Furness & Harry Nelson, 2016. "Are human values and community participation key to climate adaptation? The case of community forest organisations in British Columbia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 243-259, March.
    9. Małgorzata Stachowiak & Jerzy Śleszyński, 2002. "How Big Is Ecological Footprint of the Polish Economy?," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 8.
    10. Kolcava, Dennis & Nguyen, Quynh & Bernauer, Thomas, 2019. "Does trade liberalization lead to environmental burden shifting in the global economy?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 98-112.
    11. Jia, Junsong & Deng, Hongbing & Duan, Jing & Zhao, Jingzhu, 2009. "Analysis of the major drivers of the ecological footprint using the STIRPAT model and the PLS method--A case study in Henan Province, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2818-2824, September.
    12. Hua Liu & Dan-Yang Li & Rong Ma & Ming Ma, 2022. "Assessing the Ecological Risks Based on the Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model in Gansu Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Herendeen, Robert A. & Wildermuth, Todd, 2002. "Resource-based sustainability indicators: Chase County, Kansas, as example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 243-257, August.
    14. Fuyuan Wang & Kaiyong Wang, 2017. "Assessing the Effect of Eco-City Practices on Urban Sustainability Using an Extended Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    15. Aibin Wu & Yanxia Zhao & Yanjie Qin & Xin Liu & Huitao Shen, 2023. "Analysis of Ecological Environment Quality and Its Driving Factors in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-21, May.
    16. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Franco, Carol & Lawn, Philip & Talberth, John & Jackson, Tim & Aylmer, Camille, 2013. "Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 57-68.
    17. Warren-Rhodes, Kimberley & Koenig, Albert, 2001. "Ecosystem appropriation by Hong Kong and its implications for sustainable development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 347-359, December.
    18. Xiaowei Yao & Zhanqi Wang & Hongwei Zhang, 2016. "Dynamic Changes of the Ecological Footprint and Its Component Analysis Response to Land Use in Wuhan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-14, April.
    19. Gao, Chengkang & Zhu, Sulong & An, Nan & Na, Hongming & You, Huan & Gao, Chengbo, 2021. "Comprehensive comparison of multiple renewable power generation methods: A combination analysis of life cycle assessment and ecological footprint," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    20. Comte, Adrien & Sylvie Campagne, C. & Lange, Sabine & Bruzón, Adrián García & Hein, Lars & Santos-Martín, Fernando & Levrel, Harold, 2022. "Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).

    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:13:y:2024:i:8:p:1336-:d:1461993. 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.