乌鲁木齐市土地生态安全综合评价

doi:10.12118/j.issn.1000–6060.2021.02.14

干旱区地理 ›› 2021, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (2): 427-440.doi: 10.12118/j.issn.1000–6060.2021.02.14

乌鲁木齐市土地生态安全综合评价

王一山^1,²(),张飞^1,^2,³(),陈瑞^1,²,齐亚霄^1,²,刘长江^1,²

1.新疆大学资源与环境科学学院智慧城市与环境建模普通高校重点实验室,新疆乌鲁木齐 830046
2.新疆大学绿洲生态教育部重点实验室,新疆乌鲁木齐 830046
3.中亚地理信息开发利用国家测绘地理信息局工程技术研究中心,新疆乌鲁木齐 830002

收稿日期:2020-01-05 修回日期:2020-07-06 出版日期:2021-03-25 发布日期:2021-04-14
通讯作者: 张飞
作者简介:王一山（1995-）,男,硕士研究生,研究方向为城市生态环境遥感研究. E-mail:wangyishan639@163.com
基金资助:
中国科学院战略性先导科技专项资助(XDA20040400)

Comprehensive ecological security assessment: A case study of Urumqi City

WANG Yishan^1,²(),ZHANG Fei^1,^2,³(),CHEN Rui^1,²,QI Yaxiao^1,²,LIU Changjiang^1,²

1. Key Laboratory of Smart City and Environment Modeling, Resources and Environmental Science College, Xinjiang University,Urumqi 830046, Xinjiang, China
2. Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, Xinjiang, China
3. Engineering Research Center of Central Asia Geoinformation Development and Utilization, National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation, Urumqi 830002, Xinjiang, China

Received:2020-01-05 Revised:2020-07-06 Online:2021-03-25 Published:2021-04-14
Contact: Fei ZHANG

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

土地生态环境是人类生产生活的重要场所,其安全状况与人类社会的可持续发展息息相关。通过选取干旱区城市乌鲁木齐市为研究对象,针对乌鲁木齐市2017年土地生态环境现状,应用生态系统服务价值（ESV）评估、景观生态安全指数（LES）、压力-状态-响应（PSR）模型共同构建乌鲁木齐市土地生态安全评价体系。结果表明：（1） 2017年乌鲁木齐市ESV为220.70×10⁸元,97.48%的区域为中低ESV区域,ESV最重要的贡献来源是林草地,最主要的贡献区域是乌鲁木齐县和达坂城区,不同区域ESV差异明显。（2）乌鲁木齐市具备典型的干旱区城市景观特征,景观整体分布相对协调,但具备生态优势的景观分布还较少。景观生态安全（LES）指数从空间上表现为“西低东高”,且总体水平偏低,同时各区域的LES指数还有一定的分类组团特征,高值区域集中在达坂城区、乌鲁木齐县、米东区等边缘区域,中心城区的LES指数普遍较差,受人类活动影响深刻。（3）乌鲁木齐市各区域土地生态安全主要分布在敏感级和相对安全级之间,整体处于中等水平,边缘区域普遍高于中心区域,边缘区域中乌鲁木齐县的土地生态安全水平最高,中心区域中高新区土地生态安全水平最高。随着城市扩张和人口增长,土地侵占、资源消耗等矛盾加剧,部分区域的土地生态安全已经受到一定程度的破坏,能够维持现有水平,主要凭借乌鲁木齐市各区域的自然本底（状态）,人类活动的恶劣影响（压力）和积极改善作用（响应）尚不明显。

关键词: 压力-状态-响应（PSR）模型, 生态系统服务价值, 景观生态安全, 土地生态安全评价, 乌鲁木齐

Abstract:

For this study, we select the city of Urumqi, which is located in an arid region of China, as the research area and take 2017 as the time node. Then, we select 20 indicators in three aspects of nature, society, and economy to comprehensively characterize the level of LES in Urumqi. Combined with ecosystem services and landscape perspectives, spatial characteristics are described. The results show the following: (1) In 2017, the ESV in Urumqi was 22.07 billion yuan and 97.48% of its area was in the low-to-medium ESV domain. The most important source of ESV contribution were forest-grasslands, and the main contributing area was Urumqi County and Dabancheng District. Obvious differences were observed in the regional ESVs. (2) Urumqi has urban landscape characteristics that are typical of arid areas, and the overall distribution of its landscape is relatively coordinated. However, the landscape distribution having ecological advantages is currently small. The LES is spatially expressed as “west low and east high”, and the overall level is relatively low. Meanwhile, the LESs in various regions exhibit certain classification features. High-value areas are concentrated in edge areas such as Dabancheng District, Urumqi County, and Midong District. In the marginal areas, the LES in the central urban area is generally poor and is deeply affected by human activities. (3) The land ecological security of the various regions of Urumqi City is mainly distributed between the sensitive and relative security levels. Overall ecological security of the city is at a medium level; the edge areas generally exhibited a higher level of ecological security than that exhibited by the central areas. Urumqi County has the highest land ecological security level in the edge area, and high-tech zones have the highest level of land ecological security. With urban expansion and population growth, land encroachment and resource consumption and other similar parameters have intensified. Moreover, the land ecological security in some regions has been destroyed to a certain extent; and it can maintain the current level mainly relying on the natural background (state) of each region in Urumqi. The adverse effects (stress) and positive improvement (response) of human activities are not yet obvious. At present, there is much room for improving the level of land ecological security in Urumqi. Areas with low levels of land ecological security are still concentrated in areas with frequent human activities. Unused land occupies a large proportion in the study area. The desertification situation of Urumqi is still very serious. Forest-grasslands and land covered by water are important to maintain the ecological safety of the land in this area. However, the landscape conditions are relatively poor. In the future, we must pay attention to the land use and environmental protection planning in the study area, especially the protection of forest-grassland and land covered by water. Simultaneously, to avoid the continued deterioration of the land ecological security level, a long-term dynamic monitoring mechanism for the land ecological environment should be established to strengthen the control of land development.

Key words: PSR model, ecosystem service value, landscape ecological security, land ecological security assessment, Urumqi City

王一山,张飞,陈瑞,齐亚霄,刘长江. 乌鲁木齐市土地生态安全综合评价[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(2): 427-440.

WANG Yishan,ZHANG Fei,CHEN Rui,QI Yaxiao,LIU Changjiang. Comprehensive ecological security assessment: A case study of Urumqi City[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2021, 44(2): 427-440.

图/表 12

图1

表1

数据类型及来源"

数据类型	时间	数据精度	数据来源	用途
土地利用类型	2017年7月	30 m×30 m	Landsat 8 OLI影像;地理空间数据云平台(http://www.gscloud.cn)和Google Earth影像的人工目视解译成果	生态系统服务价值（ESV）、景观格局分析基础数据
数字高程数据	2017年	30 m×30 m	地理空间数据云平台(http://www.gscloud.cn)	高程、坡度计算
中国年度植被覆盖数据	2017年	250 m×250 m	中国科学院资源环境科学数据中心	评价指标核算
气象数据	2017年	-	中国气象科学数据共享服务网中国地面气候资料数据集（包含降雨量、气温、蒸散发等）来源于中国气象科学数据共享服务网（http://data.cma.cn/）	评价指标核算
土壤数据	第二次全国土地调查	1 $∶$ 1000000	全球土壤属性数据库中的中国土壤数据集来源于“黑河计划数据管理中心”(http://westdc.westgis.ac.cn)	评价指标核算
水系、交通路网数据	2017年7月	-	公开街道地图（https://www.openstreetmap.org）	评价指标核算
人口、经济等数据	2017年	-	《2017年乌鲁木齐市统计年鉴》	评价指标核算

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

图2

表6

表7

表8

图3

图4

参考文献 42

[1]	张利, 陈影, 王树涛, 等. 滨海快速城市化地区土地生态安全评价与预警——以曹妃甸新区为例[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015,26(8):2445-2454.
	[ Zhang Li, Chen Ying, Wang Shutao, et al. Assessment and early warning of land ecological security in rapidly urbanizing coastal area: A case study of Caofeidian new district, Hebei, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2015,26(8):2445-2454. ]
[2]	李明月, 赖笑娟. 基于BP神经网络方法的城市土地生态安全评价——以广州市为例[J]. 经济地理, 2011,31(2):289-293.
	[ Li Mingyue, Lai Xiaojuan. Evaluation on ecological security of urban land based on BP neural network: A case study of Guangzhou[J]. Economic Geography, 2011,31(2):289-293. ]
[3]	张小虎, 雷国平, 袁磊, 等. 黑龙江省土地生态安全评价[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2009,19(1):88-93.
	[ Zhang Xiaohu, Lei Guoping, Yuan Lei, et al. Evaluation on ecological security of land based on entropy weight and matter-element model: A case study of Heilongjiang Province[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2009,19(1):88-93. ]
[4]	刘时栋, 徐丽萍, 张婕. 新疆土地生态安全时空变化[J]. 生态学报, 2019,39(11):3871-3884.
	[ Liu Shidong, Xu Liping, Zhang Jie. Spatiotemporal change of land ecological security in Xinjiang[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019,39(11):3871-3884. ]
[5]	马轩凯, 高敏华. 西北干旱地区绿洲城市土地生态安全动态评价——以新疆库尔勒市为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2017,40(1):172-180.
	[ Ma Xuankai, Gao Minhua. Dynamic evaluation of land ecological security in oasis cities in northwest arid areas: Taking Korla City, Xinjiang as an example[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2017,40(1):172-180. ]
[6]	熊建华, 唐将伟. 广州市土地生态安全与社会经济发展耦合协调研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2019,19(2):615-620.
	[ Xiong Jianhua, Tang Jiangwei. On the coupling harmonic coordination between the land ecological security and the social economic development:A case sampling study of Guangzhou[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2019,19(2):615-620. ]
[7]	于潇, 吕春艳, 郭旭东, 等. 京津冀城市群地区土地生态状况评估[J]. 中国土地科学, 2018,32(4):89-96.
	[ Yu Xiao, Lyu Chunyan, Guo Xudong, et al. Assessment on the status of land ecosystem in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region[J]. China Land Science, 2018,32(4):89-96. ]
[8]	窦学诚, 付滨. 基于PSR模型的河西制种基地耕地生态安全物元分析评价[J]. 西南农业学报, 2018,31(9):1919-1926.
	[ Dou Xuecheng, Fu Bin. Analysis and evaluation of Hexi seed production base of cultivated land ecological security element based on PSR model[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2018,31(9):1919-1926. ]
[9]	卢晓宁, 洪佳, 王玲玲. 洪泽湖湿地区土地生态安全评价[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2015,37(3):145-150.
	[ Lu Xiaoning, Hong Jia, Wang Lingling. Evaluation of land ecological security in Hongze Lake Wetland[J]. Journal of Southwest University(Natural Science Edition), 2015,37(3):145-150. ]
[10]	马世五, 谢德体, 张孝成, 等. 三峡库区生态敏感区土地生态安全预警测度与时空演变——以重庆市万州区为例[J]. 生态学报, 2017,37(24):8227-8240.
	[ Ma Shiwu, Xie Deti, Zhang Xiaocheng, et al. Measures of land ecological security early warning and its spatial-temporal evolution in the ecologically sensitive area of the Three Gorges reservoir area: A case study of Wanzhou District, Chongqing City[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017,37(24):8227-8240. ]
[11]	周迎雪, 李贻学, 孙仪阳, 等. 基于PSR-TOPSIS模型的山东省土地生态安全评价[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2016,33(4):320-326.
	[ Zhou Yingxue, Li Yixue, Sun Yiyang, et al. Evaluation of land ecological security in Shandong Province based on PSR-TOPSIS model[J]. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment, 2016,33(4):320-326. ]
[12]	田丰收, 刘新平, 原伟鹏. 新疆和田地区耕地面源污染生态风险评价[J]. 干旱区地理, 2019,42(2):295-304.
	[ Tian Fengshou, Liu Xinping, Yuan Weipeng. Ecological risk assessment of cultivated ground source pollution in Hotan Region of Xinjiang[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2019,42(2):295-304. ]
[13]	陈伊多, 杨庆媛, 杨人豪, 等. 基于熵权物元模型的土地生态安全评价——重庆市江津区实证[J]. 干旱区地理, 2018,41(1):185-194.
	[ Chen Yiduo, Yang Qingyuan, Yang Renhao, et al. Evaluation of land ecological security based on entropy weight matter-element model: An empirical study of Jiangjin District in Chongqing[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2018,41(1):185-194. ]
[14]	彭云飞, 杨芳玲, 任福, 等. 大都市区土地利用与土地生态安全关系的计量分析——以深圳市为例[J]. 国土与自然资源研究, 2019(1):6-10.
	[ Peng Yunfei, Yang Fangling, Ren Fu, et al. Quantitative analysis of the relationship between land use and land ecological security in metropolitan areas: A case study of Shenzhen City[J]. Territory & Natural Resources Study, 2019(1):6-10. ]
[15]	于海洋, 张飞, 曹雷, 等. 基于乡镇尺度的土地生态安全时空格局评价研究——以博尔塔拉蒙古自治州为例[J]. 生态学报, 2017,37(19):6355-6369.
	[ Yu Haiyang, Zhang Fei, Cao Lei, et al. Spatial-temporal pattern of land ecological security at a township scale in the Bortala Mongolian Autonomous Prefecture[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017,37(19):6355-6369. ]
[16]	赵领娣, 李莎莎, 赵志博, 等. 干旱半干旱区城市生态效率时空演变及区域差异分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2020,43(2):449-457.
	[ Zhao Lingdi, Li Shasha, Zhao Zhibo, et al. Spatio-temporal evolution and regional differences of urban ecological efficiency in arid and semi-arid areas[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2020,43(2):449-457. ]
[17]	Zhang P, Deng M, Long A, et al. Coupling analysis of social-economic water consumption and its effects on the arid environments in Xinjiang of China based on the water and ecological footprints[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020,12(1):73-89.
[18]	Zhou K, Liu Y, Tan R, et al. Urban dynamics, landscape ecological security, and policy implications: A case study from the Wuhan area of central China[J]. Cities, 2014,41:141-153.
[19]	何珍珍, 王宏卫, 杨胜天, 等. 渭干河—库车河绿洲景观生态安全时空分异及格局优化[J]. 生态学报, 2019,39(15):5473-5482.
	[ He Zhenzhen, Wang Hongwei, Yang Shengtian, et al. Spatial-temporal differentiation and pattern optimization of landscape ecological security in the Ugan-Kuqa River oasis[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019,39(15):5473-5482. ]
[20]	张崇淼, 李森, 张力喆, 等. 基于PSR模型的城市生态安全评价与贡献度研究——以铜川市为例[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2019,19(3):1049-1056.
	[ Zhang Chongmiao, Li Sen, Zhang Lizhe, et al. Urban ecological security evaluation and contribution analysis by PSR model: A case study of Tongchuan City, Shaanxi[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2019,19(3):1049-1056. ]
[21]	刘志有, 徐馨怡, 李慧, 等. 西部干旱绿洲区城市土地生态风险预警及管控研究——以新疆乌鲁木齐市为例[J]. 国土资源科技管理, 2018,35(1):11-21.
	[ Liu Zhiyou, Xu Xinyi, Li Hui, et al. On early warning and control of urban land ecological risk of oasis in western arid region: A case study of Urumqi City of Xinjiang[J]. Scientific and Technological Management of Land and Resources, 2018,35(1):11-21. ]
[22]	布美热木·克力木, 张凯, 朱平, 等. 熵权法在城市经济与环境耦合协调发展评价中的应用[J]. 环境科学导刊, 2019,38(5):79-84.
	[ Bumayram Kirem, Zhang Kai, Zhu Ping, et al. Application of entropy weight method to evaluate coordinated development of urban economy and environment[J]. Environmental Science Survey, 2019,38(5):79-84. ]
[23]	凡宸, 夏北成, 秦建桥. 基于RS和GIS的县域生态环境质量综合评价模型——以惠东县为例[J]. 生态学杂志, 2013,32(3):719-725.
	[ Fan Chen, Xia Beicheng, Qin Jianqiao. An integrated assessment model of county level eco-environmental quality based on RS and GIS: A case study of Huidong County, Guangdong Province of south China[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2013,32(3):719-725. ]
[24]	Robert Costanza. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Nature, 1997,387:253-260.
[25]	谢高地, 甄霖, 鲁春霞, 等. 一个基于专家知识的生态系统服务价值化方法[J]. 自然资源学报, 2008,23(5):911-919.
	[ Xie Gaodi, Zhen Lin, Lu Chunxia, et al. Expert knowledge based valuation method of ecosystem services in China[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2008,23(5):911-919. ]
[26]	谢高地, 肖玉, 甄霖, 等. 我国粮食生产的生态服务价值研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2005,13(3):10-13.
	[ Xie Gaodi, Xiao Yu, Zhen Lin, et al. Study on ecosystem services value of food production in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2005,13(3):10-13. ]
[27]	谢高地, 张彩霞, 张雷明, 等. 基于单位面积价值当量因子的生态系统服务价值化方法改进[J]. 自然资源学报, 2015,30(8):1243-1254.
	[ Xie Gaodi, Zhang Caixia, Zhang Leiming, et al. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2015,30(8):1243-1254. ]
[28]	李秀珍, 布仁仓, 常禹, 等. 景观格局指标对不同景观格局的反应[J]. 生态学报, 2004,24(1):123-134.
	[ Li Xiuzhen, Bu Rencang, Chang Yu, et al. The response of landscape metrics against pattern scenarios[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2004,24(1):123-134. ]
[29]	何珍珍. 基于景观格局的塔里木盆地北缘绿洲生态安全研究[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆大学, 2018.
	[ He Zhenzhen. Based on the landscape pattern of northern Tarim Basin oasis ecology security studies[D]. Urumqi: Xinjiang University, 2018. ]
[30]	张月, 张飞, 王娟, 等. 近40年艾比湖湿地自然保护区生态干扰度时空动态及景观格局变化[J]. 生态学报, 2017,37(21):7082-7097.
	[ Zhang Yue, Zhang Fei, Wang Juan, et al. Analysis of the temporal and spatial dynamics of landscape patterns and hemeroby index of the Ebinur Lake Wetland Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, over the last 40 years[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017,37(21):7082-7097. ]
[31]	李青圃, 张正栋, 万露文, 等. 基于景观生态风险评价的宁江流域景观格局优化[J]. 地理学报, 2019,74(7):1420-1437.
	[ Li Qingpu, Zhang Zhengdong, Wan Luwen, et al. Landscape pattern optimization in Ningjiang River Basin based on landscape ecological risk assessment[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019,74(7):1420-1437. ]
[32]	马彩虹, 任志远, 李小燕. 黄土台塬区土地利用转移流及空间集聚特征分析[J]. 地理学报, 2013,68(2):257-267.
	[ Ma Caihong, Ren Zhiyuan, Li Xiaoyan. Land use change flow and its spatial agglomeration in the Loess platform region[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2013,68(2):257-267. ]
[33]	蒙吉军, 赵春红, 刘明达. 基于土地利用变化的区域生态安全评价——以鄂尔多斯市为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2011,26(4):578-590.
	[ Meng Jijun, Zhao Chunhong, Liu Mingda. Regional ecological security assessment based on land-use change: A case study in Ordos City[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2011,26(4):578-590. ]
[34]	Ye Hua. Land ecological security assessment for bai autonomous prefecture of Dali based using PSR model: With data in 2009 as case[J]. Energy Procedia, 2011,5(22):2172-2177.
[35]	Han B L, Liu H X, Wang R S. Urban ecological security assessment for cities in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei metropolitan region based on fuzzy and entropy methods[J]. Ecological Modelling, 2015,318:217-225.
[36]	谢余初, 巩杰, 张玲玲. 基于PSR模型的白龙江流域景观生态安全时空变化[J]. 地理科学, 2015,35(6):790-797.
	[ Xie Yuchu, Gong Jie, Zhang Lingling. Dynamics of landscape ecological security based on PSR model in the Bailongjiang River Watershed[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2015,35(6):790-797. ]
[37]	王涛, 张超, 于晓童, 等. 洱海流域土地利用变化及其对景观生态风险的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2017,36(7):2003-2009.
	[ Wang Tao, Zhang Chao, Yu Xiaotong, et al. Effect of land use change on landscape ecological security in Erhai Basin[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2017,36(7):2003-2009. ]
[38]	于海洋, 张飞, 曹雷. 精河县土地利用/覆被变化及土地生态安全研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017,24(6):348-353.
	[ Yu Haiyang, Zhang Fei, Cao Lei. Research of land use/cover change and land ecological security in Jinghe County[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017,24(6):348-353. ]
[39]	Xu Linyu. Land ecological security evaluation of Guangzhou, China[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public, 2014,11(10):10537-10558.
[40]	韩逸, 郭熙, 江叶枫, 等. 南方丘陵区耕地景观生态安全影响因素及其空间差异[J]. 生态学报, 2019,39(17):6522-6533.
	[ Han Yi, Guo Xi, Jiang Yefeng, et al. Cultivated land landscape ecological security: Influencing factors and spatial differences in the hilly region of south China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019,39(17):6522-6533. ]
[41]	朱亚楠, 闫志明, 蒲春玲, 等. 乌鲁木齐市土地利用/覆被变化及生态安全评价[J]. 林业资源管理, 2020(1):79-91.
	[ Zhu Yanan, Yan Zhiming, Pu Chunling, et al. Land use/cover change and ecological safety assessment in Urumqi[J]. Forest Resources Management, 2020(1):79-91. ]
[42]	朱亚楠, 蒲春玲. 乌鲁木齐市土地利用景观格局变化及生态安全分析[J]. 生态科学, 2020,39(2):133-144.
	[ Zhu Yanan, Pu Chunling. Analysis on landscape pattern change and ecological security of land use in Urumqi[J]. Ecological Science, 2020,39(2):133-144. ]

服务类型		建设用地	水体	耕地	林草地	裸地
一级类型	二级类型	建设用地	水体	耕地	林草地	裸地
调节服务	气体调节	0.00	1538.54	1185.54	2877.25	0.00
	气候调节	0.00	4575.63	619.41	8152.21	0.00
	水文调节	0.00	299907.30	2923.59	7167.20	0.00
	净化环境	151.02	11089.40	179.83	2470.97	15.31
支持服务	土壤保持	0.00	162.89	60.72	307.08	30.80
	生物多样性保护	0.00	5095.13	226.55	3183.63	523.39
	营养物循环	0.00	139.86	206.47	266.41	0.00
供给服务	食物供应	143.73	1598.48	1471.93	459.56	15.31
	原材料	0.00	459.56	326.36	845.86	0.00
	水资源供给	452.91	24317.61	-2552.03	664.90	46.11
文化服务	娱乐文化	143.73	3776.39	99.91	1398.57	15.31
	总计	891.39	352660.80	4748.25	27793.64	646.24

目标层	准则层	要素层	指标层	指标来源	指标权重	标准值		标准来源	指标方向
目标层	准则层	要素层		指标来源	指标权重	安全值	不安全值	标准来源	指标方向
	压力	社会压力		人口密度/人·hm^-2	统计年鉴	0.023	-	-	极差标准化	-
乌鲁木齐市土地生态安全	压力			自然增长率/%	统计年鉴	0.027	-	-	极差标准化	-
	经济密度/10⁸元·km^-2		统计年鉴	0.051	-	-	极差标准化	+
	资源压力		人均水资源量/m³·人^-1	统计年鉴	0.075	-	1000	国家标准	+
	资源压力	人均耕地面积 /hm²·人^-1	统计年鉴	0.081	0.08	0.02	国家标准	+
	状态	地形条件	坡度/°	DEM数据	0.069	-	-	极差标准化	-
		植被条件	NDVI	专题数据	0.033	-	-	极差标准化	+
		植被条件	森林覆盖率/%	专题数据	0.037	-	-	极差标准化	+
		水文条件	水网密度/km·km^-2	专题数据	0.024	-	-	极差标准化	+
		土壤条件	土壤质地	专题数据	0.019	-	-	极差标准化	+
		景观条件	LES	遥感数据	0.054	-	-	极差标准化	+
		降水	年均降水/mm	气象数据	0.061	800	-	国家标准	+
	响应	自然响应	ESV/10⁸元	遥感数据	0.074	-	-	极差标准化	+
		人文响应	耕地面积比重/%	遥感数据	0.052	-	-	极差标准化	-
			耕地灌溉比率/%	统计年鉴	0.085	-	-	评分后赋值	+
			路网密度/km·km^-2	专题数据	0.046	-	-	极差标准化	+
			人均GDP/10⁴元	统计年鉴	0.054	2.5	0.5	国家标准	+
		社会响应	第三产业比重/%	统计年鉴	0.034	-	-	极差标准化	+
			城市化水平/%	统计年鉴	0.049	-	-	国家标准	+
			灯光密度	遥感数据	0.053	-	-	国家标准	+

ESI指数	安全等级	安全状态	状态说明
0.00≤ESI≤0.20	Ⅰ	危险级	区域土地生态安全已破坏到难以恢复状态,生态环境不完整,功能缺失,难以满足生态系统发展需要。
0.20<ESI≤0.35	Ⅱ	敏感级	区域生态安全已遭到严重破坏,生态敏感性强,生态功能退化严重,生态压力较大。
0.35<ESI≤0.45	Ⅲ	临界安全级	生态安全受到一定影响,生态结构完整但存在一定生态异常现象,有一定生态压力。
0.45<ESI≤0.75	Ⅳ	相对安全级	区域土地生态安全受自然及人类活动影响轻微,生态结构较为合理,整体生态系统较为健康,有轻微生态压力。
0.75<ESI≤1.00	Ⅴ	安全级	区域土地生态安全几乎未受影响,整体生态功能完善,生态结构完整,适宜区域生态系统可持续发展,无生态压力。

服务类型	合计	天山区	沙依巴克区	高新区	水磨沟区	头屯河区	米东区	达坂城区	乌鲁木齐县
调节服务	175.08	4.23	2.79	3.79	3.09	23.60	3.51	62.85	71.21
支持服务	22.39	0.31	0.31	0.67	0.49	3.40	0.37	6.63	10.21
供给服务	15.87	0.36	0.18	0.36	0.32	2.16	0.31	5.67	6.50
文化服务	7.36	0.12	0.12	0.24	0.16	0.88	0.15	2.05	3.63
合计	220.70	5.03	3.40	5.06	4.07	30.06	4.34	77.20	91.54

土地利用类型	CA/hm²	NP	LPI/%	LSI	ENN_MN	IJL	SPLIT	AI
裸地	778378.86	21237.00	27.03	104.85	124.20	57.12	10.31	96.47
建设用地	76228.74	21599.00	0.76	167.08	157.01	77.72	10677.22	81.93
水域	25889.76	4267.00	0.32	57.62	275.53	83.11	64886.64	89.42
林草地	436582.53	27098.00	16.85	170.34	111.95	74.75	32.29	92.31
耕地	58977.45	14435.00	0.48	119.61	180.66	51.67	25097.90	85.32

乌鲁木齐市土地生态安全综合评价

Comprehensive ecological security assessment: A case study of Urumqi City

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 12

参考文献 42

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

地区	NP	PAFRAC	CONTAG	IJL	COHESION	SPLIT	SHEI	SHDI
乌鲁木齐市	88636.00	1.35	58.45	69.81	99.79	7.81	0.66	1.06
达坂城区	24672.00	1.34	67.08	52.26	99.85	2.68	0.81	0.50
高新区	5584.00	1.37	38.36	68.58	98.19	23.92	1.36	0.84
米东区	18567.00	1.36	65.99	76.19	99.47	2.64	0.88	0.55
水磨沟区	3636.00	1.36	53.73	69.43	99.06	5.57	1.06	0.66
沙依巴克区	5635.00	1.37	46.62	70.13	98.67	12.71	1.24	0.77
天山区	2752.00	1.34	42.24	73.22	98.75	9.88	1.34	0.84
头屯河区	4622.00	1.35	40.15	75.54	98.21	26.15	1.38	0.86
乌鲁木齐县	24361.00	1.33	62.01	63.15	99.87	3.09	0.97	0.60

地区	景观干扰度指数	景观脆弱度指数	LES指数
达坂城区	1.63	0.39	0.69
米东区	1.40	0.28	0.48
沙依巴克区	0.30	0.03	0.22
水磨沟区	0.32	0.01	0.16
天山区	0.31	0.01	0.11
头屯河区	1.03	0.02	0.20
乌鲁木齐县	1.40	0.25	0.59
高新区	1.01	0.01	0.12

[1]	彭娅, 王娟娟, 王珊珊, 田柳兰, 刘婕, 毋兆鹏. 生态安全视角下乌鲁木齐市土地利用冲突时空格局演变分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2024, 47(1): 81-92.
[2]	田柳兰, 王珊珊, 毋兆鹏. 基于多时相遥感数据的乌鲁木齐市生态安全格局构建[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(7): 1155-1165.
[3]	马丽娜, 张飞云, 翟玉鑫, 滕伦, 康建国. 1980—2020年新疆土地利用变化下生态系统服务价值时空演变分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(2): 253-263.
[4]	梁樑, 郭晓淞, 陈汉杰, 徐皓帆, 周衍波, 谢邵文, 杨芬, 韦朝阳. 乌鲁木齐市核心城区绿地土壤重金属累积特征及生态风险[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(11): 1868-1878.
[5]	隋露, 蒲春玲, 刘志有, 柏鹏飞, 刘涛. 基于PLUS模型的乌鲁木齐市生态服务价值权衡协同探究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(1): 159-168.
[6]	魏娟娟,李娜,万瑜,芒苏尔·艾热提,施俊杰. 乌鲁木齐典型暴雪天气机理及成因分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(5): 1381-1391.
[7]	张凯莉,冯荣荣,刘潭,张志成,韩佳宁,刘康. 黄河流域城市化与生态系统服务价值协调性及障碍因素研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(4): 1254-1267.
[8]	李桉孛,万瑜,张俊,李如琦,芒苏尔·艾热提,李娜. 1961—2019年乌鲁木齐市暴雪环流分型及其成因分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(2): 379-388.
[9]	赵克明,李娜,李霞,孙鸣婧,施俊杰,安大维,蒲洁,郑博华. 乌鲁木齐冬季焚风天气过程大气扩散条件特征分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(6): 1534-1544.
[10]	赵永玉,阿里木江·卡斯木,高鹏文,梁洪武. 基于地理探测器的乌鲁木齐市城区扩展及影响因素分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(6): 1729-1739.
[11]	安斯文,马彩虹,袁倩颖,滑雨琪. 生态移民区“三生”用地变化对生态系统服务的影响——以宁夏红寺堡区为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(6): 1836-1846.
[12]	苗运玲,宫恒瑞,王健,葛怡成,李如琦. 2012-2019年乌鲁木齐市夏季降水日变化特征[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(5): 1222-1230.
[13]	张帅,汪洋,夏婷婷,常雪儿,李稚. 塔里木河生态输水条件下土地利用/覆被变化对生态系统服务价值的影响[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(3): 739-749.
[14]	石天戈,时卉. 基于地理探测器的乌鲁木齐城市扩张特征与时空驱动因素分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(3): 867-876.
[15]	杨霞,赵逸舟,蔡梅,张超. 乌鲁木齐市主城区气温日变化特征分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(2): 360-368.