WANG Min, RUAN Junjie, WANG Qing, et al. Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment and Its Spatiotemporal Variation in Rapid Urbanization Areas-A Case Study at Qingpu District, Shanghai City[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2016, 36(5): 185-190.
DOI:
WANG Min, RUAN Junjie, WANG Qing, et al. Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment and Its Spatiotemporal Variation in Rapid Urbanization Areas-A Case Study at Qingpu District, Shanghai City[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2016, 36(5): 185-190. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2016.05.037.
Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment and Its Spatiotemporal Variation in Rapid Urbanization Areas-A Case Study at Qingpu District, Shanghai City
[Objective] The aim of this study is to reveal the spatial and temporal variation of regional ecological risk in rapid urbanization areas(Qingpu District of Shanghai City)
in order to provide technical support for regional ecological planning and construction.[Methods] With the employment of GIS technology
the regional integrated ecological risk assessment model was constructed based on landscape pattern index. Spatial distribution of ecological risk in the study area was analyzed by spatial autocorrelation.[Results] The land use in the study area changed greatly from 2000 to 2013. The area of forest and urban increased gradually while the area of farmland decreased
wetland remained stable. The spatial variation of ecological risk in the study area was significant. The ecological risk of the area in the eastern was higher than that of the area located in the west
and the expansion speed of ecological risk in the east was higher than that in the west. Urbanization had a significantly impact on ecological risk.[Conclusion] Regional ecological risk has significant spatial agglomeration characteristics
and its ecological risk value represents a significant positive correlation. These changes are closely related to ecosystem change and human activities.
关键词
Keywords
references
Skinner M W, Kuhn R G, Joseph A E. Agricultural land protection in China:A case study of local governance in Zhejiang Province[J]. Land Use Policy, 2001,18(4):329-340.
Lu Xinhai, Huang Shanlin. Barriers and solutions to China's cultivated land protection[J]. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 2010,67(2):223-232.
Bergstrom J C, Ready R. What have we learned from Over 20 years of farmland amenity valuation research in North America?[J]. Review of Agricultural Economics, 2009,31(1):21-49.
Wiggering H, Dalchow C, Glemnitz M, et al. Indicators for multifunctional land use:Linking socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2006,6(1):238-249.
Jin Jianjun, Jiang Chong, Truong D T, et al. Public preferences for cultivated land protection in Wenling City, China:A choice experiment study[J]. Land Use Policy, 2013,30(1):337-343.
Dachary-Bernard J, Rambonilaza T. Choice experiment, multiple programmes contingent valuation and landscape preferences:How can we support the land use decision making process?[J]. Land Use Policy, 2012, 29(4):846-854.
United Nations. Millennium Eeosystem Assessment[R]. Geneva:United Nations, 2005.
Aizaki H, Sato K, Osari H. Contingent valuation approach in measuring the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas in Japan[J]. Paddy Water Environment, 2006,4(4):217-222.
Swinton S M, Lupi F, Robertson G P, et al. Ecosystem services and agriculture:Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits[J]. Ecological Economics, 2007,64(2):245-252.
Ma Shan, Swinton S M. Hedonic valuation of farmland using sale prices versus appraised values[J]. Land Economics, 2012,88(1):1-15.
McFadden D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior[M]//Zarembkaed P, Frontiers in Econometrics. New York:Academic Press, 1973.
Travisi C M, Nijkamp P. Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture:A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy[J]. Ecological Economics, 2008,67(4):598-607.
Rambonilaza M, Dachary B J. Land-use planning and public preferences:What can we learn from choice experiment method[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007,83(4):318-326.
Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1966,74(2):132-157.
Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1994,26(3):271-292.
McIntosh E, Ryan M. Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery:Implications of discontinuous preferences[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2002,23(3):367-382.
Colombo S, Calatrava R J, Hanley N. Analysing the social benets of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods[J]. Ecological Economics, 2006, 58(4):850-861.