IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i7p8312-8334d51818.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Landscape Ecological Risk in a Mining City: A Case Study in Liaoyuan City, China

Author

Listed:
  • Jian Peng

    (Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Minli Zong

    (Key Laboratory for Environmental and Urban Sciences, School of Urban Planning and Design, Shenzhen Graduate School, Peking University, Shenzhen 518055, China
    Shanghai Urban Planning and Design Research Institute, Shanghai 200040, China)

  • Yi'na Hu

    (Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Yanxu Liu

    (Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Jiansheng Wu

    (Key Laboratory for Environmental and Urban Sciences, School of Urban Planning and Design, Shenzhen Graduate School, Peking University, Shenzhen 518055, China)

Abstract

Landscape ecological risk assessment can effectively identify key elements for landscape sustainability, which directly improves human wellbeing. However, previous research has tended to apply risk probability, measured by overlaying landscape metrics to evaluate risk, generally lacking a quantitative assessment of loss and uncertainty of risk. This study, taking Liaoyuan City as a case area, explores landscape ecological risk assessment associated with mining cities, based on probability of risk and potential ecological loss. The assessment results show landscape ecological risk is lower in highly urbanized areas than those rural areas, suggesting that not only cities but also natural and semi-natural areas contribute to overall landscape-scale ecological risk. Our comparison of potential ecological risk in 58 watersheds in the region shows that ecological loss are moderate or high in the 10 high-risk watersheds. The 35 moderate-risk watersheds contain a large proportion of farmland, and the 13 low-risk watersheds are mainly distributed in flat terrain areas. Our uncertainty analyses result in a close range between simulated and calculated values, suggesting that our model is generally applicable. Our analysis has good potential in the fields of resource development, landscape planning and ecological restoration, and provides a quantitative method for achieving landscape sustainability in a mining city.

Suggested Citation

  • Jian Peng & Minli Zong & Yi'na Hu & Yanxu Liu & Jiansheng Wu, 2015. "Assessing Landscape Ecological Risk in a Mining City: A Case Study in Liaoyuan City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-23, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:7:p:8312-8334:d:51818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/7/8312/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/7/8312/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    2. Li, Yangfan & Sun, Xiang & Zhu, Xiaodong & Cao, Huhua, 2010. "An early warning method of landscape ecological security in rapid urbanizing coastal areas and its application in Xiamen, China," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(19), pages 2251-2260.
    3. Xiaoteng Cen & Cifang Wu & Xiaoshi Xing & Ming Fang & Zhuoma Garang & Yizhou Wu, 2015. "Coupling Intensive Land Use and Landscape Ecological Security for Urban Sustainability: An Integrated Socioeconomic Data and Spatial Metrics Analysis in Hangzhou City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Andrej Lange & Rosemarie Siebert & Tim Barkmann, 2015. "Sustainability in Land Management: An Analysis of Stakeholder Perceptions in Rural Northern Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, January.
    5. Matthew Himley, 2010. "Global Mining and the Uneasy Neoliberalization of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(10), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Lee Liu & Jie Liu & Zhenguo Zhang, 2014. "Environmental Justice and Sustainability Impact Assessment: In Search of Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts Caused by Coal Mining in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-19, December.
    7. Brian Deal & Varkki Pallathucheril, 2009. "Sustainability and Urban Dynamics: Assessing Future Impacts on Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Paul F. Hessburg & Keith M. Reynolds & R. Brion Salter & James D. Dickinson & William L. Gaines & Richy J. Harrod, 2013. "Landscape Evaluation for Restoration Planning on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-36, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yi Lu & Xiangrong Wang & Yujing Xie & Kun Li & Yiyang Xu, 2016. "Integrating Future Land Use Scenarios to Evaluate the Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Landscape Ecological Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Fei Wang & Ning Gu, 2021. "Impact of ecological security on urban sustainability in Western China—A case study of Xi’an," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(5), pages 1314-1339, June.
    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. Jiaxing Cui & Xuesong Kong & Jing Chen & Jianwei Sun & Yuanyuan Zhu, 2021. "Spatially Explicit Evaluation and Driving Factor Identification of Land Use Conflict in Yangtze River Economic Belt," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Dan Yu & Dongyan Wang & Wenbo Li & Shuhan Liu & Yuanli Zhu & Wenjun Wu & Yongheng Zhou, 2018. "Decreased Landscape Ecological Security of Peri-Urban Cultivated Land Following Rapid Urbanization: An Impediment to Sustainable Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, February.
    6. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    7. Nils Droste & Bartosz Bartkowski, 2018. "Ecosystem Service Valuation for National Accounting: A Reply to Obst, Hein and Edens (2016)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 205-215, September.
    8. Admiraal, Jeroen F. & Wossink, Ada & de Groot, Wouter T. & de Snoo, Geert R., 2013. "More than total economic value: How to combine economic valuation of biodiversity with ecological resilience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 115-122.
    9. Kaiping Wang & Weiqi Wang & Niyi Zha & Yue Feng & Chenlan Qiu & Yunlu Zhang & Jia Ma & Rui Zhang, 2022. "Spatially Heterogeneity Response of Critical Ecosystem Service Capacity to Address Regional Development Risks to Rapid Urbanization: The Case of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, June.
    10. Obst, Carl & Eigenraam, Mark, 2016. "Using the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting framework to advance I-O and CGE integrated environmental-economic modelling," Conference papers 332733, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. 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.
    12. Sponagel, Christian & Bendel, Daniela & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Weber, Tobias Karl David & Gayler, Sebastian & Streck, Thilo & Bahrs, Enno, 2022. "Integrated assessment of regional approaches for biodiversity offsetting in urban-rural areas – A future based case study from Germany using arable land as an example," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Bing Xue & Mario Tobias, 2015. "Sustainability in China: Bridging Global Knowledge with Local Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-7, March.
    14. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Seyed Mostafa Hedayatnezhad Kashi & Saba Baharvandi, 2022. "The Assessment of Ecological Livability for Agricultural, Pasture, Forestry, Residential, and Tourism Activities; Study Area: North of Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-26, October.
    15. Carl Obst & Lars Hein & Bram Edens, 2016. "National Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Assets and Their Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(1), pages 1-23, May.
    16. Ian Avery Bick & Ronita Bardhan & Terry Beaubois, 2018. "Applying fuzzy logic to open data for sustainable development decision-making: a case study of the planned city Amaravati," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 91(3), pages 1317-1339, April.
    17. Yanli Gao & Hongbo Li & Yan Song, 2021. "Interaction Relationship between Urbanization and Land Use Multifunctionality: Evidence from Han River Basin, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    18. Chun-rong Zhao & Bo Zhou & Xin Su, 2014. "Evaluation of Urban Eco-Security—A Case Study of Mianyang City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-19, April.
    19. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    20. Tianyue Ma & Jing Li & Shuang Bai & Fangzhe Chang & Zhai Jiang & Xingguang Yan & Jiahao Shao, 2022. "Optimization and Construction of Ecological Security Patterns Based on Natural and Cultivated Land Disturbance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.

    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:7:y:2015:i:7:p:8312-8334:d:51818. 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.