IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i9p5384-d805763.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regional Ecological Security Pattern Construction Based on Ecological Barriers: A Case Study of the Bohai Bay Terrestrial Ecosystem

Author

Listed:
  • Jinxin Zhang

    (College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, #38 Tongyan Road, Haihe Education Park, Jinnan District, Tianjin 300350, China)

  • Yunmeng Cao

    (College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, #38 Tongyan Road, Haihe Education Park, Jinnan District, Tianjin 300350, China)

  • Fanshu Ding

    (College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, #38 Tongyan Road, Haihe Education Park, Jinnan District, Tianjin 300350, China)

  • Jing Wu

    (College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, #38 Tongyan Road, Haihe Education Park, Jinnan District, Tianjin 300350, China)

  • I-Shin Chang

    (School of Ecology and Environment, Inner Mongolia University, #235 University West Street, Saihan District, Huhhot 010021, China)

Abstract

The construction of ecological barriers and ecological security patterns is an important way of maintaining regional ecological security in landscape ecology. However, there is still no consensus on the concept and connotation of ecological barriers, and the zoning and adaptive management of ecological sources are rarely considered in the construction of ecological security patterns. This study uses the terrestrial ecosystem of Bohai Bay, China as a study area, and the identification and zoning of ecological sources in the ecological security pattern are achieved by combining an ecosystem service assessment with an ecological risk assessment, and on this basis, ecological barriers are identified to optimize the structure and function of ecological sources. The minimum cumulative resistance model is used to identify ecological corridors and ecological strategic nodes and to construct an ecological security pattern based on the modified ecological sources. The results demonstrate that firstly, 2873.25 km 2 was identified as the ecological source, accounting for 14.28% of the total. Secondly, there are three large ecological barrier zones and nine ecological barrier cells with a total area of 1173.06 km 2 , accounting for 40.83% of the ecological sources. Thirdly, a total of 35 ecological corridors were extracted, and 32 ecological strategic nodes were marked, mainly distributed at the intersection and branches of important ecological corridors. An ecological security pattern construction system was formed with the collection of ecological source selection, ecological barrier identification, ecological resistance surface construction, and ecological corridor extraction. Fourthly, the concept and connotation of ecological barriers was analyzed, and the complementary relationship between ecological barriers and ecological security patterns in terms of structure and function is discussed. This study enriches the definition and connotation of ecological barriers, provides a new framework for identifying the ecological security patterns, and provides scientific guidance for ecological protection and management in coastal areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinxin Zhang & Yunmeng Cao & Fanshu Ding & Jing Wu & I-Shin Chang, 2022. "Regional Ecological Security Pattern Construction Based on Ecological Barriers: A Case Study of the Bohai Bay Terrestrial Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5384-:d:805763
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5384/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5384/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanessa Assumma & Marta Bottero & Caterina Caprioli & Giulia Datola & Giulio Mondini, 2022. "Evaluation of Ecosystem Services in Mining Basins: An Application in the Piedmont Region (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    3. Qian Lin & Jiaying Mao & Jiansheng Wu & Weifeng Li & Jian Yang, 2016. "Ecological Security Pattern Analysis Based on InVEST and Least-Cost Path Model: A Case Study of Dongguan Water Village," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Zhang, Xueru & Song, Wei & Lang, Yanqing & Feng, Xiaomiao & Yuan, Quanzhi & Wang, Jingtao, 2020. "Land use changes in the coastal zone of China’s Hebei Province and the corresponding impacts on habitat quality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(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. Xiangshou Dong & Quanzhi Yuan & Yaowen Kou & Shujun Li & Ping Ren, 2023. "Distribution and Ecological Network Construction of National Natural Protected Areas in the Upper Reaches of Yangtze River," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Xiangnan Fan & Yuning Cheng & Fangqi Tan & Tianyi Zhao, 2022. "Construction and Optimization of the Ecological Security Pattern in Liyang, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-28, September.
    3. Junyuan Zhao & Hui Guo, 2022. "Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Tourism Ecological Security in the Old Revolutionary Region of the Dabie Mountains from 2001 to 2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Jia Xu & Dawei Xu & Chen Qu, 2022. "Construction of Ecological Security Pattern and Identification of Ecological Restoration Zones in the City of Changchun, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Xue Miao & Congbin Leng & Shiyu Dai & Jing Jin & Jiansong Peng, 2023. "Construction of Multi-Level Ecological Security Pattern for World Natural Heritage Sites from the Perspective of Coupling and Coordination between Humans and Nature: A Case Study of Shilin Yi Autonomo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-20, October.
    6. Bo Li & Hao Ouyang & Tong Wang & Tian Dong, 2023. "Coupling Relationship between Rural Settlement Patterns and Landscape Fragmentation in Woodlands and Biological Reserves—A Case of Nanshan National Park," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, March.
    7. Jinfeng Wang & Ya Li & Sheng Wang & Qing Li & Lingfeng Li & Xiaoling Liu, 2023. "Assessment of Multiple Ecosystem Services and Ecological Security Pattern in Shanxi Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-18, March.

    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. Yiming Liu & Nan Cui & Rui Han & Luo Guo, 2020. "Establishing Ecological Security Patterns Based on Reconstructed Ecosystem Services Value in Rapidly Urbanizing Areas: A Case Study in Zhuhai City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    3. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    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. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    6. Robbie Maris & Mark Holmes, 2023. "Economic Growth Theory and Natural Resource Constraints: A Stocktake and Critical Assessment," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 56(2), pages 255-268, June.
    7. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    8. Joel C. Creed & Laura Sol Aranda & Júlia Gomes de Sousa & Caio Barros Brito do Bem & Beatriz Sant’Anna Vasconcelos Marafiga Dutra & Marianna Lanari & Virgínia Eduarda de Sousa & Karine M. Magalhães & , 2023. "A Synthesis of Provision and Impact in Seagrass Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Southwest Atlantic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Wanxu Chen & Guangqing Chi & Jiangfeng Li, 2020. "Ecosystem Services and Their Driving Forces in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomerations, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-19, May.
    10. O'Sullivan, Jane N., 2020. "The social and environmental influences of population growth rate and demographic pressure deserve greater attention in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    11. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    12. Moreno-Llorca, R. & Vaz, A.S. & Herrero, J. & Millares, A. & Bonet-García, F.J. & Alcaraz-Segura, D., 2020. "Multi-scale evolution of ecosystem services’ supply in Sierra Nevada (Spain): An assessment over the last half-century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    13. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    14. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    15. Lau, Jacqueline D. & Hicks, Christina C. & Gurney, Georgina G. & Cinner, Joshua E., 2018. "Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, and education," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 91-98.
    16. Shujun Liu & Xinzhuan Yao & Degang Zhao & Litang Lu, 2021. "Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7140-7155, May.
    17. Dai, Xuhuan & Li, Bo & Zheng, Hua & Yang, Yanzheng & Yang, Zihan & Peng, Chenchen, 2023. "Can sedentarization decrease the dependence of pastoral livelihoods on ecosystem services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    18. Egor Selivanov & Petra Hlaváčková, 2021. "Methods for monetary valuation of ecosystem services: A scoping review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(11), pages 499-511.
    19. Wei Jiang & Rainer Marggraf, 2021. "Making Intangibles Tangible: Identifying Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in a Cultural Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Xinxin Fu & Xiaofeng Wang & Jitao Zhou & Jiahao Ma, 2021. "Optimizing the Production-Living-Ecological Space for Reducing the Ecosystem Services Deficit," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.

    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:9:p:5384-:d:805763. 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.