Evaluation of ecosystem health for regional development in the southwestern Beijing, China

Abstract

Ecosystem health assessment is one of the most important issues in regional ecological quality and safety studies. It also has a great significance to ecological conservation and regional development. This study focused on assessing the health status of forest, agriculture and urban ecosystems in the southwestern Beijing, China, including the Fangshan and Fengtai Districts. Based on field surveys and data collection, an assessment index system containing the vigor, organization and resilience factors was developed to measure the ecosystem health. Each index was scored from 1 to 5, representing five levels that contribute to the whole ecosystem health. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method was used to measure the weights of each index and three factors, and thus an overall score for a certain ecosystem was calculated. The results show that the forest ecosystem in the Fangshan District had higher health value than the Fengtai District, while the urban ecosystem had a slightly lower value in the Fangshan District than the Fengtai District. Both districts show lower resilience values in forest and urban ecosystems. Maintaining the ecosystem health will definitely benefit the long-term development of two districts. This study suggested that an approach for assessing the regional ecosystem health could be further developed to address spatial and synergy relationships between ecosystems and the three health factors.

References

1. Hutton J, Edin M D F R S . Theory of the earth; Or aninvestigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution,and restoration of land upon the globe. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1788
2. National ResearchCouncil (NRC). . Alternative Agriculture. Washington D. C., USA: NationalAcademy Press, 1989, 448
3. Edwards C A, Lal R, Madden P, Miller R H, House G, eds. Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Ankeny, USA: Soil and Water ConservationSociety, 1990, 696
4. Zeng D H, Jiang F Q, Fan Z P, Du X J . Ecosystemhealth and sustainable development for human. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 1999, 10(6): 751–756 (in Chinese)
5. Ren H, Wu J G, Peng S L . Evaluation and monitoring of ecosystem health. Tropical Geography, 2000, 20(4): 310–316 (in Chinese)
6. Li J, An S Q, Cheng X L, Wang Y J, Zhuo Y W, Qin F F . Advances in assessment of ecosystem health. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 2001, 25(6): 641–647 (in Chinese)
7. Costanza R, Bryan G N, Benjamin D H . Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Washington D.C., USA: Island Press, 1992
8. Mageau M T, Costanza R, Ulanowicz R E . The development and initial testing of a quantitativeassessment of ecosystem health. EcosystemHealth, 1995, 1: 201–213
9. Rapport D J . What constitutes ecosystem health. Perspectivesin Biology and Medicine, 1989, 33: 120–132
10. Rapport D J, Costanza R, McMichael A J . Assessing ecosystem health. TREE, 1998, 13(10): 397–402
11. Steiner F . Urbanhuman ecology. Urban Ecosystems, 2004, 7: 179–197. doi:10.1023/B:UECO.0000044035.22316.d1
12. Mcintyre N E, Knowles-Yanez K, Hope D . Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: Differencesin the use of “urban” between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosystems, 2001, (4): 5–24
13. Fu B J, Liu S L, Ma K M . The contents and methods of integrated ecosystem assessment(IEA). Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2001, 21(11): 1885–1892 (in Chinese)
14. Ma K M, Kong H M, Guan W B, Fu B J . Ecosystemhealth assessment: Methods and directions. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2001, 21(12): 2106–2116 (in Chinese)
15. Nancy B G . Approaches to the study of urban ecosystems: The case study of CentralArizona Phoenix. Urban Ecosystems, 2004, (7): 199–213
16. Wu L F, Ouyang Z, Tang D Y . The quantitative assessment of agro-ecosystem healthon a regional dimension. Acta EcologicaSinica, 2004, 24(12): 2740–2748 (in Chinese)
17. Xiao F J, Ouyang H, Sun J H, Zhang Z C . Forest ecosystemhealth assessment indicators and methods. Forest Resources Management, 2004, (1): 27–30 (in Chinese)
18. Yu X F, Fu D . Review of multi-index assessmentmethod. Statistics and Decision, 2004, (11): 119–121 (in Chinese)