Regional ecosystem health assessment based on landscape patterns and ecosystem services approach

Hasani, Mohammad; Pielesiak, Iwona; Mahiny, Abdolrassoul Salman; Mikaeili, Alireza

doi:10.1016/j.chnaes.2021.11.004

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, the weights were set as 0.35 [45,63]. However, landscape morphology plays a comparatively lesser role; thus, its weight was set to 0.3 [78,81]. SHDI and CONTAG are more important than MSIDI and DI because they can determine whether or not the landscape is clustered or fragmented.…”

Section: Ecosystem Health Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal Variation in Ecosystem Health and Its Driving Factors in Guizhou Province

Yang

Zhou

2023

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Healthy ecosystems are crucial for sustainable regional development. The lack of spatial distribution patterns and driving factors of ecosystem health limited ecosystem management and urban planning. Understanding the spatiotemporal variation characteristics of ecosystem health and its driving factors can contribute to ecosystem management. Based on the “vigor–organization–resilience” (VOR) framework, this paper focuses on increasing ESs and forming an improved “vigor–organization–resilience–ecosystem services (VORS)” framework to evaluate the ecosystem health of Guizhou Province in 2010 and 2020. At the same time, we used the geographic detector model to investigate the driving factors of ecosystem health in the region. The results revealed the following: (1) The areas of forest land accounted for more than 52%. Simultaneously, farmland and forest land decreased, while construction land increased from 2010 to 2020. Construction land was mainly converted from forest land, grassland and farmland. (2) The level of ecosystem health in Guizhou Province spatially increased from northwest to southeast, with the central part exhibiting the lowest health level. The ecosystem health index (EHI) was mainly moderate, accounting for 78.32% and 83.80% in 2010 and 2020, respectively. (3) Among the 11 selected driving factors, the gross domestic product (GDP), general public budget revenue, annual average temperature, average annual precipitation, and night light index significantly affected ecosystem health. Our research refines ecosystem health research and the results will contribute to effective and precise decision-making in ecosystem management and the implementation of land use policies.

show abstract

Section: Ecosystem Health Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal Variation in Ecosystem Health and Its Driving Factors in Guizhou Province

Yang

Zhou

2023

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, linkages between ecosystems and ESs must be established [52,53]. While various ES research methods are gradually gaining attention, researchers are also adopting the relevant ES indicators as an important part of the indicator system [54]. Meanwhile, some researchers have developed a "vigororganisation-resilience" framework that incorporates ES factors to more comprehensively assess ecosystem health [18].…”

Section: Integrated Ecosystem Health Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Assessment and Restoration Pathways for Holistic Ecosystem Health in Anxi County, China

Zhu,

Zhang,

Wang

et al. 2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different types of ecosystems form a complex community of life. Hence, ecosystem protection and restoration should not focus solely on a single ecosystem. Ecosystem health assessments should consider the integrity and systematicity of interrelated ecosystems to inform rational environmental planning and management. In this study, the key characteristic indicators of major ecosystems (mountain, water, forest, and cropland) and ecosystem service capacity indicators in Anxi County, China, were selected to construct an integrated assessment system of ecosystem health that led to integrated ecosystem restoration pathways that addressed the county’s ecological problems. The results revealed that ecosystem health was higher in the western and lower in the eastern parts of the county. Throughout the county, “medium” and “poor” ecosystem health levels predominated, revealing that overall ecosystem sustainability was weak. Ecosystem restoration programmes should be tailored to each health level. Where there was “excellent” and “good” ecosystem health ratings, those healthy ecosystem functions should be strengthened and maintained. In the “medium” health areas, the control and prevention of ecological problems should be strengthened. “Poor” health areas require immediate integrated ecological restoration projects that ensure the connectivity and coordination of restoration tasks in fragile ecosystems. This then will enhance holistic ecosystem stability and sustainability.

show abstract

“…Ecosystem health is a guarantee of ecosystem security, which represents the physical condition of the ecosystem, and the ability to maintain ecosystem spatial organization and ecosystem quality under external interference (Hasani et al, 2021; Rapport et al, 1998). Healthy ecosystems can remain relatively intact under certain stresses and have the ability to adjust and recover.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating ecosystem organization, quality and services indicators in the ecological security assessment

Wang

Peng

et al. 2023

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological security is a vital component of regional security and significantly influences regional sustainable development. The assessment of ecological security is the cornerstone of relative research to coordinate ecological protection and economic developments. However, a framework that enables systematic assessment of the ecological security still needs further exploration. A framework that includes ecosystem organization (O), quality (Q), and services (S) was proposed to evaluate the ecological security in southeast Qinghai‐Tibet Plateau (QTP) in this study. Results showed that: (1) From 2000 to 2020, ecosystem organization in the study area showed an improving trend, with 61.33% of counties experiencing an increase in O value; (2) The ecosystem quality showed an increasing trend, with the proportion of increased areas amounting to 54.46%, and the significantly increased area occupied 3.38% of the study area; (3) The total trend of ecosystem services decreased, among them, habitat provision and soil conservation both presented an increasing trend, while water yield performed a decreased trend; (4) The ecological security in the southeast of QTP has been improved, which increased in north of the study area and decreased in south part. Overall, our study provided a novel view to characterize the physical status of the natural environment and enriched the methodology of ecological security assessment. More attention should be received by the different roles of ecosystem organization, quality, and services in ecological security in future studies, which is helpful to reflect the current situation and changing trends of regional ecological security more reasonably and comprehensively.

show abstract

Regional ecosystem health assessment based on landscape patterns and ecosystem services approach

Cited by 10 publications

References 42 publications

Spatiotemporal Variation in Ecosystem Health and Its Driving Factors in Guizhou Province

Spatiotemporal Variation in Ecosystem Health and Its Driving Factors in Guizhou Province

Integrated Assessment and Restoration Pathways for Holistic Ecosystem Health in Anxi County, China

Integrating ecosystem organization, quality and services indicators in the ecological security assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About