4.7 Article

Method for evaluating ecological vulnerability under climate change based on remote sensing: A case study

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 85, 期 -, 页码 479-486

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.044

关键词

Vulnerability; Exposure; Sensitivity; Climate drought; Remote sensing; IPCC framework

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41371232, 41271110]
  2. Meteorological Research in the Public Interest of China [GYHY201506016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ecological vulnerability assessment is essential to environmental and resource management, especially given recent global warming concerns. However, evaluation of ecological vulnerability over large areas is difficult and complex because it is affected by many variables, including natural factors and human activities. Here, we propose a novel method to evaluate the vulnerability of an eco-environment with a typical ecologically fragile region, the northern and southern foothills of the Yinshan Mountains of Inner Mongolia, China (NSFYM), as a case study. The proposed method is based on the definition of the IPCC framework and remote sensing. The results showed that the ecological vulnerability in the NSFYM was moderate or high and had distinct regional variations in spatial distribution. Overall, 29% of the seriously and highly vulnerable areas appeared mainly in the highlands, where the natural conditions are poor and human activities have been developing rapidly. Additionally, 31% of the medium vulnerable levels occurred in the low lands, probably in response to agricultural practices. The areas that were found to have high ecological vulnerability exhibited high degrees of exposure and sensitivity and weak adaptive capacity and vice versa, consistent with the current understanding of the characteristics of ecological vulnerability. The integrated method proposed here will be useful for protection of eco-environments under climate change and proper planning for land use in the future.

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

4.7
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