IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i20p13155-d941507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban Lake Scenic Protected Area Zoning Based on Ecological Sensitivity Analysis and Remote Sensing: A Case Study of Chaohu Lake Basin, China

Author

Listed:
  • Guoyi Wei

    (Department of Ornamental Horticulture, School of Horticulture, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Zhao Yang

    (Department of Ornamental Horticulture, School of Horticulture, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Chaozhong Liang

    (Department of Ornamental Horticulture, School of Horticulture, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Xuewei Yang

    (Department of Ornamental Horticulture, School of Horticulture, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Shuiming Zhang

    (Department of Ornamental Horticulture, School of Horticulture, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

Abstract

The protection of urban lakes is important for the construction and development of the city and the eco-environment. Affected by urban expansion, most urban lake scenic areas have suffered from a reduction in area and ecological degradation. Protecting and restoring urban lake scenic areas has been a hot topic among the public. Given this background information, we analyzed the ecological problems and contradictions from the perspective of landscape ecology. This study evaluated the landscape pattern and ecological sensitivity in the Chaohu Lake Basin, China. The proposed method was based on the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and geographical information system (GIS). The results showed that the ecological sensitivity map was divided into four sensitivity levels consisting of level 1, level 3, level 5, and level 7, which represent 65%, 27%, 5%, and 2% of the study area. It was found that highly sensitive areas existed primarily in the highlands, where the natural conditions were poorer than in other areas and human activities have been developing rapidly. Additionally, the medium sensitive levels occurred in the low lands, probably in response to agricultural practices. Based on our results, three ecological zones were proposed, which require different protection and utilization solutions in order to restore the local ecological environment in terms of sustainable development.

Suggested Citation

  • Guoyi Wei & Zhao Yang & Chaozhong Liang & Xuewei Yang & Shuiming Zhang, 2022. "Urban Lake Scenic Protected Area Zoning Based on Ecological Sensitivity Analysis and Remote Sensing: A Case Study of Chaohu Lake Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:20:p:13155-:d:941507
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/20/13155/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/20/13155/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jingjing Yan & Wei Shi & Fei Li, 2018. "Evaluation and Countermeasures of the Implementation of the Lake Protection and Governance System in Wuhan City, Middle China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Lai, Vincent S. & Wong, Bo K. & Cheung, Waiman, 2002. "Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 134-144, February.
    3. Stein, William E. & Mizzi, Philip J., 2007. "The harmonic consistency index for the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 488-497, February.
    4. Navid Khademi & Kambiz Behnia & Ramin Saedi, 2014. "Using Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process (AHP/ANP) in Developing Countries: Shortcomings and Suggestions," The Engineering Economist, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(1), pages 2-29, January.
    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. Tianshu Liu & Xiangbin Peng & Junjie Li, 2024. "Evaluation of Ecological Sensitivity and Spatial Correlation Analysis of Landscape Patterns in Sanjiangyuan National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Jinyan Liu & Junyi Li & Daoyuan Chen & Linye Guo & Guochang Ding & Jianwen Dong, 2024. "Differential Analysis of Island Mountain Plant Community Characteristics: Ecological Sensitivity Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-25, February.

    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. Karami, Ezatollah, 2006. "Appropriateness of farmers' adoption of irrigation methods: The application of the AHP model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 101-119, January.
    2. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Ruan, Da, 2008. "Evaluation of software development projects using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 77(5), pages 464-475.
    3. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Fatih Topaloğlu, 2024. "Development of a new hybrid method for multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach: a case study for facility location selection," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Saeed Nosratabadi & Gergo Pinter & Amir Mosavi & Sandor Semperger, 2020. "Sustainable Banking; Evaluation of the European Business Models," Papers 2003.13423, arXiv.org.
    6. Guangquan Zhang & Jie Lu, 2003. "An Integrated Group Decision-Making Method Dealing with Fuzzy Preferences for Alternatives and Individual Judgments for Selection Criteria," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(6), pages 501-515, November.
    7. Sangeeta Pant & Anuj Kumar & Mangey Ram & Yury Klochkov & Hitesh Kumar Sharma, 2022. "Consistency Indices in Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Review," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    9. Zhang, Bowen & Dong, Yucheng & Zhang, Hengjie & Pedrycz, Witold, 2020. "Consensus mechanism with maximum-return modifications and minimum-cost feedback: A perspective of game theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(2), pages 546-559.
    10. Emre Çalişkan & Erdem Aksakal & Saliha Çetinyokuş & Tahsin Çetinyokuş, 2019. "Hybrid Use of Likert Scale-Based AHP and PROMETHEE Methods for Hazard Analysis and Consequence Modeling (HACM) Software Selection," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(05), pages 1689-1715, September.
    11. Rudimar Caricimi & Géremi Gilson Dranka & Dalmarino Setti & Paula Ferreira, 2022. "Reframing the Selection of Hydraulic Turbines Integrating Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy VIKOR Multi-Criteria Methods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-26, October.
    12. Mingtao Ding & Fangqiang Wei & Kaiheng Hu, 2012. "Property insurance against debris-flow disasters based on risk assessment and the principal–agent theory," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 60(3), pages 801-817, February.
    13. Wen‐Hsien Tsai & Yu‐Wei Chou & Kuen‐Chang Lee & Wan‐Rung Lin & Elliott T.Y. Hwang, 2013. "Combining Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory with Analytic Network Process to Perform an Investigation of Information Technology Auditing and Risk Control in an Enterprise Resource Planni," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 176-193, March.
    14. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    15. Ioanna Andreoulaki & Aikaterini Papapostolou & Vangelis Marinakis, 2024. "Evaluating the Barriers to Blockchain Adoption in the Energy Sector: A Multicriteria Approach Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for Group Decision Making," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-27, March.
    16. Saad Saleem Bhatti & Nitin Kumar Tripathi & Masahiko Nagai & Vilas Nitivattananon, 2017. "Spatial Interrelationships of Quality of Life with Land Use/Land Cover, Demography and Urbanization," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 1193-1216, July.
    17. S. Vijayakumar Bharathi, 2017. "Prioritizing and Ranking the Big Data Information Security Risk Spectrum," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 18(3), pages 183-201, September.
    18. Jia Tao & Meng Yang & Jing Wu, 2022. "Coupling Coordination Evaluation of Lakefront Landscape Spatial Quality and Public Sentiment," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-29, June.
    19. József Temesi, 2011. "Pairwise comparison matrices and the error-free property of the decision maker," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 19(2), pages 239-249, June.
    20. Saeed Nosratabadi & Gergo Pinter & Amir Mosavi & Sandor Semperger, 2020. "Sustainable Banking; Evaluation of the European Business Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, March.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:20:p:13155-:d:941507. 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.