Spatial identification of conservation priority areas for urban ecological land: An approach based on water ecosystem services

Abstract

How to effectively prevent land degradation and ecosystem deterioration in the process of urbanization has been the focus of land degradation researches in urban areas. Urban ecological land can be defined as the natural base on which a city relies to ecologically survive. It closely links the social economy with the natural eco‐environment, providing an important integrated approach to resolve the contradiction between urban expansion and natural ecosystems conservation in the process of urbanization. The research question addressed in this study is how to accurately identify the conservation priority areas for urban ecological land. Taking Zhuhai City, located in China, as an example, an approach based on seven kinds of water ecosystem services was put forward, combining social demand and natural supply for the services to determine service targets and conservation priority areas. The results showed that the conservation priority areas in Zhuhai City covered 868 km2, accounting for 51.03% of the total land area, which were mainly covered by woodlands or paddy fields and fish ponds. In addition, by synthesizing ecological importance and ecological sensitivity, management zones for urban ecological land were delineated, including 510 km2 of primary control areas and 358 km2 of secondary control areas. In the supply and demand view of water ecosystem services, this study put forward an integrated ecosystem‐based approach for conservation priority area identification of urban ecological land, aiming to prevent land degradation and achieve urban ecological sustainability.

Integrating a mixed‐cell cellular automata model and Bayesian belief network for ecosystem services optimization to guide ecological restoration and conservation

“…According to the proportion of the total land area under three scenarios corresponding to subsets I, II, III, and IV (Figure 10), the EPS was selected as a reference to facilitate the regional sustainable development. Under EPS, the ecological restoration areas and ecological conservation priority areas were identified based on the supply capacity of ecosystem services (Figure 11), and then some suggestions on the implementation of ecological conservation and restoration in the key ecological areas have been put (Bi et al, 2020;Hu et al, 2018;Peng, Wang, et al, 2019), in this study, the effects of changes in the state combina- In general, this method can serve as a decision support tool to identify land ecological importance under uncertain land development and support stakeholders to make scientific ecological restoration and conservation decisions.…”

“…(3) Determine the optimal scenario. services (Peng, Wang, et al, 2019). Hence, partition management to optimize ecosystem services could be conducted.…”

Identification of Priority Conservation Areas for Natural Heritage Sites Integrating Landscape Ecological Risks and Ecosystem Services: A Case Study in the Bogda, China

“…With the growing understanding of the conservation objectives of protected areas, from the initial focus on wildlife conservation, protected areas are now more concerned with the conservation of natural, socioeconomic objectives [ 6 ]. There have been studies to identify priority conservation areas in areas such as cities, watersheds, and mountains based on species diversity, ecosystem services, and socioeconomic costs [ 7 , 8 , 9 ], but there is a lack of studies to identify priority conservation areas in natural heritage sites. Most studies have adopted methods such as overlay analysis and multicriteria decision making, among others [ 8 , 10 , 11 ].…”

Degradation of Visible Autumn Icons and Conservation Opportunities: Trends in Deciduous Forest Loss in the Contiguous US

“…The science makes clear that transformative action is needed to address the threats to nature, with major initiatives being developed at national and international levels (e.g., Convention on Biological Diversit 2020; Udall 2020). In addition to preservation and restoration strategies (e.g., Scolozzi et al 2014;Minin et al 2017;Dinerstein et al 2019;Peng et al 2019;Clancy et al 2020;Dinerstein et al 2020), approaches to addressing these crises also focus on increasing opportunities for people to experience natural environments: when people experience and connect with nature they are also more likely to act in ways that benefit the Earth (Ives et al 2016). Axiological relationships are often tied to feelings of duty and stewardship and previous research suggests a similar connection between a person's bond with nature and the probability of them taking conservation action (Cooper et al 2016).…”