IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i1p412-d474806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delineating an Integrated Ecological and Cultural Corridor Network: A Case Study in Beijing, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yanyan Li

    (School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China)

  • Xinhao Wang

    (School of Planning, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA)

  • Xiaofeng Dong

    (College of Architecture & Design, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China)

Abstract

This study shows that an integrated ecological and cultural corridor network can help guide city development strategies to better preserve ecological and cultural assets. Traditionally, protection zones and suitable development areas are often identified by separately considering natural elements of the ecosystem and elements of cultural significance. To achieve the purpose of cohesively protecting areas of ecological and/or cultural significance, we have developed a corridor-based spatial framework by integrating ecological and cultural assets. Ecological sources are identified by combining protection prioritization, nature reserves, and water bodies. Ecological corridors are delineated by using the minimum cumulative resistance (MCR) model on a resistance surface constructed from land-use data to connect ecological sources. Ecologically important areas are then delineated by creating a 5-km buffer zone from ecological sources and ecological corridors. Cultural corridors are historical routes and rivers surrounded by abundant cultural nodes. Like ecologically important areas, culturally important areas are delineated by creating a 5-km buffer zone from cultural corridors. Comprehensive regions are the overlap of ecologically and culturally important areas. Finally, the integrated network connects all comprehensive regions following ecological corridors and cultural corridors in such a way that the largest number of ecological sources and cultural nodes are reached. We applied this framework in Beijing, China, and the results show that there are 2011 km 2 of ecological sources, 30 ecological corridors, 423 cultural nodes, seven cultural corridors, and 10 comprehensive regions covering 2916 km 2 in the integrated network. The framework adds new insights to the methodology of considering ecological and cultural assets together in developing protection and development strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanyan Li & Xinhao Wang & Xiaofeng Dong, 2021. "Delineating an Integrated Ecological and Cultural Corridor Network: A Case Study in Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:1:p:412-:d:474806
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/412/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/412/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hui Ye & Zhaoping Yang & Xiaoliang Xu, 2020. "Ecological Corridors Analysis Based on MSPA and MCR Model—A Case Study of the Tomur World Natural Heritage Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Jung A Lee & Jinhyung Chon & Changwoo Ahn, 2014. "Planning Landscape Corridors in Ecological Infrastructure Using Least-Cost Path Methods Based on the Value of Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Luminda Gunawardhana & So Kazama & Saeki Kawagoe, 2011. "Impact of Urbanization and Climate Change on Aquifer Thermal Regimes," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(13), pages 3247-3276, October.
    4. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    5. Nahlik, Amanda M. & Kentula, Mary E. & Fennessy, M. Siobhan & Landers, Dixon H., 2012. "Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 27-35.
    6. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Anderson, Sharolyn & Sutton, Paul, 2017. "The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 289-301.
    7. Haiyun Xu & Tobias Plieninger & Jørgen Primdahl, 2019. "A Systematic Comparison of Cultural and Ecological Landscape Corridors in Europe," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-32, February.
    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. Yi-Xuan Liang & Da-Fang Wu & Zhao-Jun Wu & Yue Xu & Zi-Wen Zhu & Yu-Cheng Zhang & Hong Zhu, 2023. "Construction of Ecological Corridors in Karst Areas Based on Ecological Sensitivity and Ecological Service Value," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Qidi Dong & Linjia Wu & Jun Cai & Di Li & Qibing Chen, 2022. "Construction of Ecological and Recreation Patterns in Rural Landscape Space: A Case Study of the Dujiangyan Irrigation District in Chengdu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Edi Santosa & Anas Dinurrohman Susila & Winarso Drajad Widodo & Nizar Nasrullah & Ismi Puji Ruwaida & Rismita Sari, 2021. "Exploring Fruit Tree Species as Multifunctional Greenery: A Case of Its Distribution in Indonesian Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-23, July.

    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. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    2. Steger, Cara & Hirsch, Shana & Evers, Cody & Branoff, Benjamin & Petrova, Maria & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Wardropper, Chloe & van Riper, Carena J., 2018. "Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 153-160.
    3. 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.
    4. Bull, J.W. & Jobstvogt, N. & Böhnke-Henrichs, A. & Mascarenhas, A. & Sitas, N. & Baulcomb, C. & Lambini, C.K. & Rawlins, M. & Baral, H. & Zähringer, J. & Carter-Silk, E. & Balzan, M.V. & Kenter, J.O, 2016. "Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 99-111.
    5. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    6. Larson, Lincoln R. & Keith, Samuel J. & Fernandez, Mariela & Hallo, Jeffrey C. & Shafer, C. Scott & Jennings, Viniece, 2016. "Ecosystem services and urban greenways: What's the public's perspective?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 111-116.
    7. Ishfaq Ahmad Sheergojri & Irfan Rashid & Ishfaq ul Rehman, 2024. "Systematic review of wetland ecosystem services valuation in India: assessing economic approaches, knowledge gaps, and management implications," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(1), pages 167-179, March.
    8. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    9. Gashaw, Temesgen & Tulu, Taffa & Argaw, Mekuria & Worqlul, Abeyou W. & Tolessa, Terefe & Kindu, Mengistie, 2018. "Estimating the impacts of land use/land cover changes on Ecosystem Service Values: The case of the Andassa watershed in the Upper Blue Nile basin of Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 219-228.
    10. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 40-50.
    11. Santos-Martín, F. & Zorrilla-Miras, P. & Palomo, I. & Montes, C. & Benayas, J. & Maes, J., 2019. "Protecting nature is necessary but not sufficient for conserving ecosystem services: A comprehensive assessment along a gradient of land-use intensity in Spain," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 43-51.
    12. Stephen ES Crook & Arielle Levine & David Lopez-Carr, 2021. "Perceptions and Application of the Ecosystem Services Approach among Pacific Northwest National Forest Managers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, January.
    13. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    14. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    16. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    17. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    18. 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).
    19. Saner, Marc A. & Bordt, Michael, 2016. "Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 74-81.
    20. Hendrawan, Dienda C P & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Oil Palm Smallholder Farmers' Livelihood Resilience and Decision Making in Replanting," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322441, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:13:y:2021:i:1:p:412-:d:474806. 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.