4.6 Article

Ecosystem Health Assessment of World Natural Heritage Sites Based on Remote Sensing and Field Sampling Verification: Bayanbulak as Case Study

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su12072610

Keywords

world natural heritage conservation; heritage monitoring; spatial autocorrelation; field vegetation verification; VORS model

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC0503306]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41971192]
  3. Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region [2019D01A96]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Monitoring the ecosystem health for world natural heritage sites is essential for protecting them and benefits the formulation of more targeted protection policies. This study used Bayanbulak world natural heritage site as a case, established a framework for assessing the ecosystem health through remote sensing based on the parameters of ecosystem vigour, organization, resilience, and services. Then, we verified the obtained results through field sampling. The results show that the ecosystem health in the overall study area had declined over time, however, the health within the property zone remained at high levels and stable. The area proportion of low health was low and primarily distributed in the buffer zone. Thus, in general, the ecosystem in the study area was healthy. Besides, the ecosystem health exhibited distinct spatial agglomeration characteristics, and the degree of agglomeration enhanced over time. In addition, the field vegetation samplings were consistent with the changes in the ecosystem health levels, therefore, the result of RS monitoring of ecosystem health were credible. Thus, this study provides a scientific basis for heritage managers to formulate suitable ecological protection policies and should aid further research on the ecological monitoring of heritage sites.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available