Coupling Coordination Analysis and Prediction of Landscape Ecological Risks and Ecosystem Services in the Min River Basin

Abstract

Watershed landscape ecological security and ecosystem service functions are the material basis and environmental guarantee for promoting socioeconomic development. Analyzing the spatiotemporal characteristics of landscape ecological risks (LERs) and ecosystem services (ESs) and exploring the coupling coordination relationship between the two are of great significance for promoting the construction of ecological civilization and achieving sustainable development in the watershed. With the Min River Basin as the study area, the landscape ecological risk assessment, Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST), and Carnegie Ames–Stanford Approach (CASA) models were used to evaluate the LERs and ESs based on the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), and the patch-generating land use simulation (PLUS) model was used to predict the land use distribution of the Min River Basin in 2030. On this basis, the coupling coordination degree model was used to explore the coupling coordination relationship between the LERs and ESs. The results show that, from 2000 to 2020, the LER of the Min River Basin gradually decreased, and the overall spatial distribution pattern was “high in the north and low in the south”. The ES of the Min River Basin initially decreased and then increased, showing a spatial distribution pattern of “low in the south and high in the north”. Among the SSPs in 2030, the LER is the largest under the SSP3 scenario and the smallest under the SSP4 scenario. The ES improvement is the most significant under the SSP1 scenario and the lowest under the SSP3 scenario. From 2000 to 2030, the coupling coordination degree of the Min River Basin first decreased and then increased, showing a spatial distribution pattern of “high in the south and low in the north”. Among the five SSPs, the coupling coordination degree was the highest under SSP1. The spatial distribution of urban area is the main driving factor affecting the coupling coordination relationship between the LER and ES, and the development of social and economy is the beginning of landscape pattern optimization.

Blackland Conservation and Utilization, Carbon Storage and Ecological Risk in Green Space: A Case Study from Heilongjiang Province in China

“…In this study, the CS and LER of green space within HLJP showed an excellent coupling and coordination relationship (D > 0.8), but continued urbanization will result in a minor decrease in coupling synergy in the future, which is similar to the findings of Zhang et al [ 16 ]. The BCU policy will encourage the execution of projects, such as black land preparation and resource exploitation, the efficiency of intensive land use will be enhanced, intensifying landscape disturbance, and the relationship between CS and LER will be strengthened.…”

“…The quantitative and spatial–temporal connections between ecosystem services and landscape ecological risks vary substantially between regions [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 68 ]. There is no lack of research on the relationship between the two variables at the provincial scale; for instance, ecosystem services and landscape ecological risk in Fujian Province exhibited a significant negative correlation, with the value of regulatory service functions bearing the greatest impact intensity [ 69 , 70 ].…”

“…In the formula, is the carbon storage of green space, is the landscape ecological risk of green space, represents the coupling degree of carbon storage and landscape ecological risk of green space, represents the evaluation index of coupled and coordinated development, and are both coefficients to be determined, and the study considers CS and LER as equally important research categories [ 21 ]; and are assigned a value of 0.5, and D is the coupling coordination degree. To exclude the influence of D and on the dimensional, the data were normalized to the interval [0, 1] using the polar difference standardization method [ 16 ].…”

“…However, the mechanisms tying ecosystem services and ecological risks together are unclear, because this approach focuses on identifying pertinent ecological risks. On the other hand, the relationship between ES and LER is investigated, including the application of the coupling coordination model [ 16 ], the gray correlation analysis model [ 17 ], and spatial correlation [ 18 , 19 , 20 ], in order to evaluate the correlation and level of interaction between the two. For instance, Gong et al regard CS measurement and LER evaluation to be equally important study areas and offer a fresh viewpoint to merge the two [ 21 ].…”

“…This one-sided cognition prevents us from fully describing the intrinsic correlation properties of ecological processes and landscape structure. However, future scenario predictions are limited and rarely capture probable trends and outcomes for ecosystems [ 16 ].…”