基于格网GIS的黄河流域土地生态质量综合评价

doi:10.12118/j.issn.1000–6060.2021.127

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以8 km×8 km的格网为评价单元,从土地生态系统的景观特征、生境质量抗干扰能力、生态系统服务价值、社会经济效益4个角度构建土地生态质量评价体系,利用层次分析法和熵值法确定权重,通过空间自相关、冷热点分析和障碍度诊断模型,探究了黄河流域土地生态质量的空间分异规律。结果表明：（1）黄河流域土地生态质量空间上呈中部及西南部较高、东南和东北部中等、西北质量较低的态势,土地生态质量总体较低,临界安全及危险区域分别占31.4%、27.7%。（2）黄河流域土地生态质量的空间自相关程度高,热点主要分布于治理强度较高的黄土高原、毛乌素沙地生态保护区,冷点分布于流域西北部,应适当加强上游区域土地生态的治理,消除极端冷点。（3）黄河流域土地生态质量主要障碍因子为经济密度、土地利用结构多样性、离生态保护区距离、离水域距离,应立足区域自然基础和资源禀赋状况,加快绿色创新驱动,将丰富的自然资源、生物资源和历史文化资源转化为市场价值,在生态修复和改造时,合理配置人工生态系统结构,必要时可增设自然保护区。

关键词: Fragstats, 格网GIS, 土地生态质量, 黄河流域

Abstract:

The Yellow River Basin plays a key role in China’s social and economic development and the construction of ecological security patterns. The high-quality development of this basin has become a major national strategy. Assessing the land ecological quality objectively and quantitatively is crucial for comprehensive land management and policymaking in Yellow River Basin. To understand the land ecological quality of Yellow River Basin and its spatial variation characteristics in 2018, four factors were chosen to construct a comprehensive evaluation model of the ecological quality of land: landscape pattern properties of land ecosystem, the anti-interference ability of habitat, ecosystem service value, and socioeconomic benefits. Improved entropy was used as an indicator of weight, and spatial autocorrelation, hot and cold spot analysis, and obstacle diagnosis model were used to explore the spatial characteristics of the land ecological quality. In this study, we take the landscape pattern properties of land ecosystem and ecosystem service value into consideration and use 8 km rasters as the evaluation unit to obtain more accurate results than the traditional administrative evaluation units. Results show the following: (1) The land ecological quality of Yellow River Basin is spatially expressed as “northwest low and middle part high, moderate in the southeast and northeast”. The overall land ecological quality is relatively low, and four safety grades from dangerous, critical safety, sub-safe, to safe accounted for 27.7%, 31.4%, 28.5%, and 12.4% of the total area, respectively. (2) The land ecological quality passed significant tests and showed a positive autocorrelation with a strong clustering pattern. The hot spots are mainly distributed in the Loess Plateau and Maowusu Ecological Reserve with strong ecological protection measures, and the cold spots are distributed in the northwest Yellow River Basin (the upper reaches), especially in southeast Qinghai, north Ningxia, and central Gansu. Therefore, the management of land ecology in the upper reaches should be properly strengthened to eliminate extreme cold points. (3) The main obstacles to the ecological quality of land in Yellow River Basin were economic density, diversity of land use structure, proximity to ecological protection area, and proximity to water. The government should focus on regional natural resources, encourage green innovation, convert rich natural resources, biological resources, historical and cultural resources into economic value, rationally allocate artificial ecosystems’ structure during ecological restoration and transformation, and add nature reserves when necessary.

Key words: Fragstats, Grid-GIS, land ecological quality, Yellow River Basin

奥勇,蒋嶺峰,白召弟,杨潇,张乐艺. 基于格网GIS的黄河流域土地生态质量综合评价[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(1): 164-175.

AO Yong,JIANG Lingfeng,BAI Zhaodi,YANG Xiao,ZHANG Leyi. Comprehensive evaluation of land ecological quality in the Yellow River Basin based on Grid-GIS[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2022, 45(1): 164-175.

图/表 9

图1

表1

黄河流域土地生态质量综合评价指标体系"

目标层	准则层（权重）	指标层（权重）	指标计算	性质	参考文献
黄河流域土地生态质量综合评价	景观特征（0.140）	景观形状指数（0.224）	$LSI = 0.25 L / A$ 式中：LSI为景观形状指数;L为斑块周长（m）;A为斑块面积（m²）。	负	[2,16]
		最大斑块指数（0.173）	$LPI = Max a 1, a 2, …, a n A$ 式中：LPI为最大斑块指数; $a n$ 为斑块n的面积（m²）;A为景观总面积（m²）。	正	[2,16]
		香农多样性指数（0.267）	$SHDI = - ∑ i = 1 m (P i ln P i)$ 式中：SHDI为香农多样性指数; $P i$ 为斑块类型i占景观总面积的比例;m为斑块类型总数。	正	[2,16]
		景观蔓延度（0.336）	$CONTAG = 1 + ∑ i = 1 m ∑ k = 1 m P i g ik ∑ k = 1 m g ik ln P i g ik ∑ k = 1 m g ik 2 ln m$ 式中：CONTAG为景观蔓延度;p_i为i类型景观占总景观比例; $g ik$ 为i和k类型相邻的斑块数;m为类似的景观总数。	正	[2,16]
	生境质量抗干扰能力（0.408）	归一化植被指数（0.046）	$NDVI = (NIR - R) / (NIR + R)$ 式中：NDVI为归一化植被指数;NIR为近红外波段;R为红波段。	正	[8,26]
		高程（0.084）	由数字高程模型（DEM）得到	负	[8]
		坡度（0.091）	由DEM得到	负	[8,10]
		离生态保护区距离（0.291）	保护区数据缓冲区分析得到	正	[2]
		土地利用结构多样性（0.233）	$C = - ∑ i = 1 n C i ln C i$ 式中： $C$ 为土地利用结构多样性指数;C_i为第i种土地利用类型面积（m²）;n为土地利用类型的数量。	正	[2]
		离水域距离（0.145）	由水系数据缓冲区分析得到	正	[8,26]
		离道路距离（0.110）	由道路数据缓冲区分析得到	负	[8,26]
	土地利用社会经济效益（0.292）	人口密度（0.010）	空间化人口密度数据	负	[2,10]
		人均粮食产量（0.186）	各市粮食总产量/常住人口	正	[2]
		人均收入水平（0.285）	各市生产总值/常住人口	正	[2,10]
		经济密度（0.519）	各市生产总值/土地面积	正	[2,10]
	土地生态系统服务价值（0.160）	生态系统供给服务价值（0.285）	依据中国生态系统服务价值当量因子表修正后计算得到	正	[16,27]
		生态系统调节服务价值（0.187）	依据中国生态系统服务价值当量因子表修正后计算得到	正	[16,27]
		生态系统支持服务价值（0.367）	依据中国生态系统服务价值当量因子表修正后计算得到	正	[16,27]
		生态系统文化服务价值（0.161）	依据中国生态系统服务价值当量因子表修正后计算得到	正	[16,27]

表1

表2

表3

图2

图3

图4

图5

表4

参考文献 41

[1]	傅伯杰. 土地资源系统认知与国土生态安全格局[J]. 中国土地, 2019(12):9-11.
	[Fu Bojie. The cognition of land resource system and the pattern of land ecological security[J]. China Land, 2019(12):9-11. ]
[2]	于婧, 陈艳红, 彭婕, 等. 基于GIS和Fragstats的土地生态质量综合评价——以湖北省仙桃市为例[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(9):2932-2943.
	[Yu Jing, Chen Yanhong, Peng Jie, et al. Comprehensive evaluation on land ecological quality based on GIS and Fragstats: A case study in Xiantao City, Hubei Province[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(9):2932-2943. ]
[3]	王根绪, 程国栋, 钱鞠. 生态安全评价研究中的若干问题[J]. 应用生态学报, 2003, 14(9):1551-1556.
	[Wang Genxu, Cheng Guodong, Qian Ju. Several problems in ecological security assessment research[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2003, 14(9):1551-1556. ]
[4]	Thomsen M, Faber J H, Sorensen P B. Soil ecosystem health and services: Evaluation of ecological indicators susceptible to chemical stressors[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2012, 16:67-75. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.05.012
[5]	Villa F, McLeod H. Environmental vulnerability indicators for environmental planning and decision-making: Guidelines and applications[J]. Environmental Management, 2002, 29(3):335-348. doi: 10.1007/s00267-001-0030-2
[6]	De Lange H J, Sala S, Vighi M, et al. Ecological vulnerability in risk assessment: A review and perspectives[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2010, 408(18):3871-3879. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.11.009
[7]	刘焱序, 王仰麟, 彭建, 等. 耦合恢复力的林区土地生态适宜性评价——以吉林省汪清县为例[J]. 地理学报, 2015, 70(3):476-487. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201503010
	[Liu Yanxu, Wang Yanglin, Peng Jian, et al. Land ecological suitability assessment for forest coupled with the resilience perspective: A case study in Wangqing County, Jilin Province, China[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(3):476-487. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201503010
[8]	史娜娜, 全占军, 韩煜, 等. 基于生态敏感性评价的乌海市土地资源承载力分析[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017, 24(1):239-243.
	[Shi Nana, Quan Zhanjun, Han Yu, et al. Analysis of land resources carrying capacity in Wuhai City based on ecological sensitivity[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017, 24(1):239-243. ]
[9]	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. ]
[10]	王一山, 张飞, 陈瑞, 等. 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, et al. Comprehensive ecological security assessment: A case study of Urumqi City[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2021, 44(2):427-440. ]
[11]	郑岚, 张志斌, 笪晓军, 等. 嘉峪关市土地生态安全动态评价及影响因素分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(1):289-298.
	[Zheng Lan, Zhang Zhibin, Da Xiaojun, et al. Dynamic evaluation and influencing factors of land ecological security in Jiayuguan City[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2021, 44(1):289-298. ]
[12]	吴景全, 吴铭婉, 臧传富. 西北诸河流域土地利用变化及土地生态安全评估[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(5):1471-1482.
	[Wu Jingquan, Wu Mingwan, Zang Chuanfu. Land use change and land ecological security assessment in the river basins of northwestern China[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2021, 44(5):1471-1482. ]
[13]	Peng J, Liu Y, Li T, et al. Regional ecosystem health response to rural land use change: A case study in Lijiang City, China[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2017, 72:399-410. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.024
[14]	吴滢滢, 吴绍华, 周生路, 等. 昆山市土地生态质量空间分异及其对土地利用程度的响应[J]. 水土保持研究, 2015, 22(4):201-205, 209.
	[Wu Yingying, Wu Shaohua, Zhou Shenglu, et al. Distribution of land ecological environment and its response to landuse intensity in Kunshan County[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 22(4):201-205, 209. ]
[15]	肖姚, 朱凤武, 周生路, 等. 经济发达地区影响土地生态质量的关键景观格局因子研究——以江苏省昆山市为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(10):1731-1743.
	[Xiao Yao, Zhu Fengwu, Zhou Shenglu, et al. Key landscape pattern factors affecting land ecological quality in developed areas: A case study of Kunshan City in Jiangsu Province[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2017, 32(10):1731-1743. ]
[16]	徐昌瑜, 陈健, 孟爱农, 等. 基于FRAGSTATS的区域土地生态质量综合评价研究——以江苏省宜兴市为例[J]. 土壤, 2013, 45(2):1355-1360.
	[Xu Changyu, Chen Jian, Meng Ainong, et al. Study on evaluation of land ecological quality based on FRAGSTATS: A case of Yixing, Jiangsu Province[J]. Soils, 2013, 45(2):1355-1360. ]
[17]	Messing I, Fagerstrom M H H, Chen L D, et al. Criteria for land suitability evaluation in a small catchment on the Loess Plateau in China[J]. Catena, 2003, 54(1-2):215-234. doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00066-3
[18]	张军以, 苏维词, 张凤太. 基于PSR模型的三峡库区生态经济区土地生态安全评价[J]. 中国环境科学, 2011, 31(6):1039-1044.
	[Zhang Junyi, Su Weici, Zhang Fengtai. Regional land ecological security evaluation in the case of Chongqing Three Gorges Reservoir ecological economy area based on the PSR model[J]. China Environmental Science, 2011, 31(6):1039-1044. ]
[19]	Paracchini M L, Pacini C, Jones M L M, et al. An aggregation framework to link indicators associated with multifunctional land use to the stakeholder evaluation of policy options[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2011, 11(1):71-80. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.04.006
[20]	彭建, 党威雄, 刘焱序, 等. 景观生态风险评价研究进展与展望[J]. 地理学报, 2015, 70(4):664-677. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201504013
	[Peng Jian, Dang Weixiong, Liu Yanxu, et al. Review on landscape ecological risk assessment[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(4):664-677. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201504013
[21]	陆大道, 孙东琪. 黄河流域的综合治理与可持续发展[J]. 地理学报, 2019, 74(12):2431-2436. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201912001
	[Lu Dadao, Sun Dongqi. Development and management tasks of the Yellow River Basin: A preliminary understanding and suggestion[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019, 74(12):2431-2436. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201912001
[22]	岳德鹏, 王计平, 刘永兵, 等. GIS与RS技术支持下的北京西北地区景观格局优化[J]. 地理学报, 2007, 62(11):1223-1231.
	[Yue Depeng, Wang Jiping, Liu Yongbing, et al. Landscape pattern optimization based on RS and GIS in northwest of Beijing[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2007, 62(11):1223-1231. ]
[23]	傅伯杰, 刘焱序. 系统认知土地资源的理论与方法[J]. 科学通报, 2019, 64(21):2172-2179.
	[Fu Bojie, Liu Yanxu. The theories and methods for systematically understanding land resource[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2019, 64(21):2172-2179. ]
[24]	马琳, 刘浩, 彭建, 等. 生态系统服务供给和需求研究进展[J]. 地理学报, 2017, 72(7):1277-1289. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201707012
	[Ma Lin, Liu Hao, Peng Jian, et al. A review of ecosystem services supply and demand[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017, 72(7):1277-1289. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201707012
[25]	陈利顶, 傅伯杰. 黄河三角洲地区人类活动对景观结构的影响分析──以山东省东营市为例[J]. 生态学报, 1996, 16(4):337-344.
	[Chen Liding, Fu Bojie. Analysis of impact of human activity on landscape structure in Yellow River Delta: A case study of Dongying region[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 1996, 16(4):337-344. ]
[26]	甘琳, 陈颖彪, 吴志峰, 等. 近20年粤港澳大湾区生态敏感性变化[J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(8):2453-2462.
	[Gan Lin, Chen Yingbiao, Wu Zhifeng, et al. The variation of ecological sensitivity in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area in recent 20 years[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2018, 37(8):2453-2462. ]
[27]	谢高地, 张彩霞, 张昌顺, 等. 中国生态系统服务的价值[J]. 资源科学, 2015, 37(9):1740-1746.
	[Xie Gaodi, Zhang Caixia, Zhang Changshun, et al. The value of ecosystem services in China[J]. Resources Science, 2015, 37(9):1740-1746. ]
[28]	巩杰, 赵彩霞, 谢余初, 等. 基于景观格局的甘肃白龙江流域生态风险评价与管理[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(7):2041-2048.
	[Gong Jie, Zhao Caixia, Xie Yuchu, et al. Ecological risk assessment and its management of Bailongjiang watershed, southern Gansu based on landscape pattern[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25(7):2041-2048. ]
[29]	周小平, 冯宇晴, 罗维, 等. 两种生态系统服务价值评估方法比较研究——以四川省金堂县三星镇土地整治工程为例[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(5):1799-1809.
	[Zhou Xiaoping, Feng Yuqing, Luo Wei, et al. Comparing two ecosystem service evaluation methods of the ecological benefits from a land consolidation project at a township level: A case study in Sanxing Town, Jintang County of Sichuan Province[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(5):1799-1809. ]
[30]	李敏. 基于土地利用变化的生态系统服务价值研究[D]. 合肥: 合肥工业大学, 2015.
	[Li Min. Study on ecosystem services value based on land use change[D]. Hefei: Hefei University of Technology, 2015. ]
[31]	徐少癸, 左逸帆, 章牧. 基于模糊物元模型的中国旅游生态安全评价及障碍因子诊断研究[J]. 地理科学, 2021, 41(1):33-43. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2021.01.004
	[Xu Shaogui, Zuo Yifan, Zhang Mu. Evaluation of tourism ecological security and diagnosis of obstacle factors in China based on fuzzy object element model[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2021, 41(1):33-43. ] doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2021.01.004
[32]	纪学朋, 黄贤金, 陈逸, 等. 基于陆海统筹视角的国土空间开发建设适宜性评价——以辽宁省为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(3):451-463.
	[Ji Xuepeng, Huang Xianjin, Chen Yi, et al. Comprehensive suitability evaluation of spatial development and construction land in the perspective of land-ocean co-ordination: A case study of Liaoning Province, China[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2019, 34(3):451-463. ]
[33]	杨开忠, 苏悦, 顾芸. 新世纪以来黄河流域经济兴衰的原因初探——基于偏离-份额分析法[J]. 经济地理, 2021, 41(1):10-20.
	[Yang Kaizhong, Su Yue, Gu Yun. Causes of economic rise and fall in the Yellow River Basin after 2000: Based on the shift-share analysis method[J]. Economic Geography, 2021, 41(1):10-20. ]
[34]	刘琳轲, 梁流涛, 高攀, 等. 黄河流域生态保护与高质量发展的耦合关系及交互响应[J]. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(1):176-195.
	[Liu Linke, Liang Liutao, Gao Pan, et al. Coupling relationship and interactive response between ecological protection and high quality development in the Yellow River Basin[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2021, 36(1):176-195. ]
[35]	姚文艺, 刘国彬. 新时期黄河流域水土保持战略目标的转变与发展对策[J]. 水土保持通报, 2020, 40(5):333-340.
	[Yao Wenyi, Liu Guobin. Strategic goal change and development countermeasures of soil and water conservation in Yellow River Basin in new period[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2020, 40(5):333-340. ]
[36]	张振东, 常军. 2001—2018年黄河流域植被NPP的时空分异及生态经济协调性分析[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2021, 40(2):166-177.
	[Zhang Zhendong, Chang Jun. Spatial-temporal differentiation and eco-economic coordination of vegetation NPP in the Yellow River Basin from 2001 to 2018[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2021, 40(2):166-177. ]
[37]	郭利刚, 冯珍珍, 刘庚, 等. 基于物元模型的汾河流域土地生态安全评价[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(6):2061-2069.
	[Guo Ligang, Feng Zhenzhen, Liu Gen, et al. Evaluation of land eco-security in Fenhe River Basin based on matter-element model[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2020, 39(6):2061-2069. ]
[38]	任保平, 杜宇翔. 黄河流域经济增长-产业发展-生态环境的耦合协同关系[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2021, 31(2):119-129.
	[Ren Baoping, Du Yuxiang. Coupling coordination of economic growth, industrial development and ecology in the Yellow River Basin[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2021, 31(2):119-129. ]
[39]	王思远, 王光谦, 陈志祥. 黄河流域生态环境综合评价及其演变[J]. 山地学报, 2004, 22(2):133-139.
	[Wang Siyuan, Wang Guangqian, Chen Zhixiang. Eco-environmental evaluation and changes in Yellow River Basin[J]. Mountain Research, 2004, 22(2):133-139. ]
[40]	李达, 林龙圳, 林震, 等. 黄河流域生态保护和高质量发展的EKC检验[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(10):3965-3974.
	[Li Da, Lin Longzhen, Lin Zhen, et al. EKC test of ecological protection and high-quality development in the Yellow River Basin[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(10):3965-3974. ]
[41]	熊建华. 土地生态安全评价研究回顾、难点与思考[J]. 地理与地理信息科学, 2018, 34(6):71-76.
	[Xiong Jianhua. Review, difficulties and thinking of land ecological security evaluation[J]. Geography and Geo-Information Science, 2018, 34(6):71-76. ]

指标	分级标准	评价值	指标	分级标准	评价值
高程/m	[0,1000] (1000,2000] (2000,3000] >3000	1 3 5 7	离一级水系距离/m	[0,1000] (1000,2000] (2000,3000] (3000,5000] >5000	9 7 5 3 1
坡度/(°)	[0,5] (5,15] (15,25] >25	1 3 5 7	离二级水系距离/m	[0,500] (500,1000] (1000,1500] (1500,2500] >2500	9 7 5 3 1
离生态保护区距离/m	保护区内保护区外	7 1	离三级水系距离/m	[0,500] (500,1000] (1000,1500] >2500	7 5 3 1
离道路距离/m	[0,1000] (1000,2000] (2000,3000] >3000	7 5 3 1

一级类型	二级类型	森林	草地	农田	湿地	水域	荒漠	建设用地
供给服务	食物生产	1056.70	1376.91	3202.11	1152.76	1697.12	64.04	0.00
供给服务	原材料生产	9542.29	1152.76	1248.82	768.51	1120.74	128.08	1120.74
调节服务	气体调节	13833.12	4803.17	2305.52	7717.09	1633.08	192.13	0.00
	气候调节	13032.59	4995.29	3106.05	43388.59	6596.35	416.27	0.00
	水源涵养	13096.63	4867.21	2465.62	43036.36	60103.60	224.15	-49408.56
	净化环境	5507.63	4226.79	4450.93	46110.38	47551.33	832.55	-10342.82
支持服务	保持土壤	12872.48	7172.73	4707.10	6372.20	1312.87	544.36	0.00
支持服务	维持生物多样性	14441.52	5987.95	3266.15	11815.79	10983.24	1280.84	0.00
文化服务	提供美学景观	6660.39	2785.84	544.36	15017.90	14217.37	768.51	0.00

准则层及指标	指标障碍度/%
准则层及指标	危险区	临界安全区	较安全区	安全区
景观特征	11.482	11.873	13.127	15.716
生境质量抗干扰能力	47.342	46.346	39.508	34.547
土地利用社会经济效益	39.925	40.371	45.863	47.990
土地生态系统服务价值	1.250	1.410	1.502	1.747
景观形状指数	2.807	2.867	3.007	3.839
最大斑块指数	1.351	1.295	1.261	1.832
香农多样性指数	2.740	3.092	3.808	3.839
景观蔓延度	4.584	4.619	5.051	6.206
归一化植被指数	0.617	0.891	0.820	0.956
高程	3.194	1.829	3.396	2.669
坡度	3.014	2.294	2.637	2.922
离生态保护区距离	16.621	17.121	7.314	1.226
土地利用结构多样性	12.554	13.325	14.390	15.344
离水域距离	7.563	8.004	8.759	10.073
离道路距离	3.780	2.883	2.191	1.357
人口密度	0.003	0.003	0.002	0.002
人均粮食产量	6.479	5.988	7.292	8.085
人均收入水平	8.166	7.247	8.760	8.284
经济密度	25.277	27.133	29.810	31.618