An integrated approach for assessing the urban ecosystem health of megacities in China

被引:45
作者
Zeng, Chen [1 ,2 ]
Deng, Xiangzheng [2 ]
Xu, Shan [3 ]
Wang, Yiting [1 ]
Cui, Jiaxing [3 ]
机构
[1] Huazhong Agr Univ, Dept Land Management, Wuhan 430070, Peoples R China
[2] Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Geog Sci & Nat Resources Res, Beijing 100101, Peoples R China
[3] Wuhan Univ, Sch Resource & Environm Sci, Wuhan 430079, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Urban ecosystem health; Megacities; Indicator; TOPSIS; Assessment; LAND-USE CHANGE; DRIVING FORCES; TOPSIS; EMISSIONS; PATTERNS; SERVICES; CITIES;
D O I
10.1016/j.cities.2016.01.010
中图分类号
TU98 [区域规划、城乡规划];
学科分类号
0814 ; 082803 ; 0833 ;
摘要
In 2014, China adjusted its "city categorization standard." The newly defined megalopolises and metropolises are under unprecedented pressure from various eco-environmental problems, making them suitable representatives for exploring the state of urban ecosystem health. In this study, we establish a two-layer indicator system to assess the urban ecosystem health and choose 33 indicators grouped into social, economic, transportation, facility, land, and management subsystems, with the aim of correlating human activities with the structure, vigor, resilience, and health of the urban ecosystem. We integrate subjective and objective methods to determine weights at different levels through the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), the analytic hierarchy process, and information entropy. In particular, we develop a spatial TOPSIS technique by introducing a Euclidean-distance-based weight to rank the health of the cities' ecosystem in terms of the spatial effects among these cities. The results reveal that megalopolises such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou have superior social and economic subsystems, whereas other megacities have advantages in transportation, facility, land, and management subsystems. From 2005 to 2010, the gaps among these cities in terms of urban ecosystem health significantly reduced regardless of the weight determination method. Not all indicators involved can help realize a better urban ecosystem. Nevertheless, they provide a reference point for making specific regulations to control human activity and improve eco-environmental management. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:110 / 119
页数:10
相关论文
共 44 条
[2]   Reconnecting Cities to the Biosphere: Stewardship of Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem Services [J].
Andersson, Erik ;
Barthel, Stephan ;
Borgstrom, Sara ;
Colding, Johan ;
Elmqvist, Thomas ;
Folke, Carl ;
Gren, Asa .
AMBIO, 2014, 43 (04) :445-453
[3]  
[Anonymous], EARTH SCI RES
[4]  
[Anonymous], ENTROPY
[5]  
[Anonymous], APPL GEOGRAPHY
[6]  
[Anonymous], LECT NOTES EC MATH S
[7]  
[Anonymous], STOCHASTIC ENV RES R
[8]  
[Anonymous], P 14 IPHS C
[9]  
Chambers N., 2014, Sharing Nature's Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability
[10]   Integrated ecological indicators for sustainable urban ecosystem evaluation and management [J].
Chen, Bin ;
Wang, Rusong .
ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2014, 47 :1-4