4.6 Article

Effectiveness of the Qilian Mountain Nature Reserve of China in Reducing Human Impacts

期刊

LAND
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land11071071

关键词

human impacts; protected areas; evaluation; Qilian Mountain; road distribution; night light; land use; population density

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41971245]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for National University, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) [CUGDCJJ202223]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The management effectiveness of Qilian Mountain Nature Reserve in reducing human footprint was evaluated. The results showed that the management effectiveness was partial, with better results in the north part of the reserve and poorer results at both ends. The reserve was effective in controlling population density and land use, but ineffective in reducing road construction, mining, and construction of hydropower facilities.
The management effectiveness of protected areas plays a key role in biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation. We evaluated the effectiveness of Qilian Mountain Nature Reserve (QMNR) in reducing human footprint (HF). Four dominant human activity factors, including population density, land use, road distribution, and night light, were incorporated for HF mapping. Comparisons of the HF value between inside and outside QMNR and its four functional zones were conducted. The results show that both the HF inside and outside of QMNR were increasing, but the difference between them was increasing, indicating partial management effectiveness. The north part of the central reserve has a good effect in reducing human impacts, while the effectiveness was poor at both ends of the reserve. The HF value of the most strictly managed core and buffer zones increased by 10.50 and 6.68%, respectively, for 2010-2020. The QMNR was effective in controlling population density and land use, but ineffective in reducing road construction, mining, and construction of hydropower facilities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据