Frontiers of Earth Science

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 385–397 | Cite as

Ecological vulnerability analysis of Beidagang National Park, China

  • Xue Yu
  • Yue Li
  • Min XiEmail author
  • Fanlong KongEmail author
  • Mingyue Pang
  • Zhengda Yu
Research Article


Ecological vulnerability analysis (EVA) is vital for ecological protection, restoration, and management of wetland-type national parks. In this study, we assessed the ecological vulnerability of Beidagang National Park based upon remote sensing (RS) and geographic information system (GIS) technologies. To quantify the ecological vulnerability, 10 indices were collected by the ‘exposure-sensitivity-adaptive capacity’ model and spatial principal component analysis (SPCA) was then applied to calculate the ecological vulnerability degree (EVD). Based on the numerical values, EVD of the study area was classified into five levels: moderate, light, medium, strong, and extreme. Results showed that the average EVD value was approximately 0.39, indicating overall good ecological vulnerability in Beidagang National Park. To be specific, 80.42% of the whole area was assigned to a moderate level of EVD with the highest being the tourism developed areas and the lowest being the reservoirs and offshore areas. Ecological vulnerability of the region was determined to be affected by the natural environment and anthropogenic disturbance jointly. The primary factors included tourism disturbance, traffic interference, exotic species invasion, land use/land cover, and soil salinization. We expected to provide some insights of the sustainable development of Beidagang National Park and would like to extend the results to other wetland-type national parks in the future.


Beidagang National Park ecological vulnerability degree exposure-sensitivity-adaptive capacity spatial principal component analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors greatly appreciate the State Forestry Administration of the People’s Republic of China for providing basic data and investigation reports. This work is financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41771098) and Shandong Natural Science Foundation (Nos. ZR2014DQ028 and ZR2015DM004).


  1. Aretano R, Semeraro T, Petrosillo I, De Marco A, Pasimeni MR, Zurlini G (2015). Mapping ecological vulnerability to fire for effective conservation management of natural protected areas. Ecol Modell, 295: 163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arianoutsou M, Koukoulas S, Kazanis D (2011). Evaluating post-fire forest resilience using GIS and multi-criteria analysis: an example from Cape Sounion National Park, Greece. Environ Manage, 47(3): 384–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boori M S, Amaro V E (2011). Natural and eco-environmental vulnerability assessment through multi-temporal satellite data sets in Apodi valley region, Northeast Brazil. J Geogr Reg Plan, 4: 216–230Google Scholar
  4. Buotte P C, Peterson D L, Mckelvey K S, Hicke J A (2016). Capturing subregional variability in regional-scale climate change vulnerability assessments of natural resources. J Environ Manage, 169: 313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen Y, Fang L, Yang J (2014). The cropland pollution in China: status and countermeasures. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 35: 1–5 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  6. Córdoba M, Bruno C, Costa J L, Balzarini M (2013). Subfield management class delineation using cluster analysis from spatial principal components of soil variables. Comput Electron Agric, 97: 6–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Džeroski S (2001). Applications of symbolic machine learning to ecological modelling. Ecol Modell, 146(1–3): 263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engle N L (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Glob Environ Change, 21(2): 647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fu B, Jiang Q, Ren C, Xie Z (2011). Ecological vulnerability assessment of wetland based on neural network. Journal of Northeast Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 43: 140–143 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  10. Gavioli A, de Souza E G D, Bazzi C L, Guedes L P C, Schenatto K (2016). Optimization of management zone delineation by using spatial principal components. Comput Electron Agric, 127: 302–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gong L, Zhang R, Li R, Shi F (2016). Study on community dynamics of Spartina alterniflora at the intertidal zone in Tianjin. Acta Sci Natur Univ Nankaiensis, 49: 43–51Google Scholar
  12. Guo T, Zhang X, Cheng T (2011). Evaluation of wetland ecological restoration project based on SD: a case study on Qilihai wetland in Tianjin. Procedia Environ Sci, 10: 2587–2593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen A J, Piekielek N, Davis C, Haas J, Theobald D M, Gross J E, Monahan W B, Olliff T, Running S W (2014). Exposure of U.S. National Parks to land use and climate change 1900–2100. Ecol Appl, 24(3): 484–502Google Scholar
  14. Herman J D, Kollat J B, Reed P M, Wagener T (2013). From maps to movies: high-resolution time-varying sensitivity analysis for spatially distributed watershed models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 17(12): 5109–5125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hong W, Jiang R, Yang C, Zhang F, Su M, Liao Q (2016). Establishing an ecological vulnerability assessment indicator system for spatial recognition and management of ecologically vulnerable areas in highly urbanized regions: a case study of Shenzhen, China. Ecol Indic, 69: 540–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang B, Ouyang Z, Zhang H, Zhang L, Zheng H (2009). Assessment of eco-environmental vulnerability of Hainan Island, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 20: 639–646 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  17. Janssen R, Goosen H, Verhoeven M L, Verhoeven J T A, Omtzigt A Q, Maltby E (2005). Decision support for integrated wetland management. Environ Model Softw, 20(2): 215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jin Y, Meng J (2011). Assessment and forecast of ecological vulnerability: a review. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 30: 2646–2652 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  19. Lei B, Jiao F, Wang Z, Liu Y, Zhu L (2013). Eco-environment vulnerability evaluation and characteristics analysis in Yanhe river watershed. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 28: 161–167 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  20. Li B, Tong L (2008). Vulnerability and sustainable development mode of coal cities in Northeast China. Chin Geogr Sci, 18(2): 119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li L, Shi Z, Yin W, Zhu D, Ng S L, Cai C, Lei A (2009). A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to eco-environmental vulnerability assessment for the Danjiangkou reservoir area, China. Ecol Modell, 220(23): 3439–3447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li X (2014). Ecosystem health assessment in Tianjin coastal wetland based on the ‘PSR’ model. Ocean Development and Management, (4): 39–43 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  23. Li Y, Tian Y, Li C (2011). Comparison study on ways of ecological vulnerability assessment—a case study in the Hengyang Basin. Procedia Environ Sci, 10: 2067–2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu D, Cao C, Dubovyk O, Tian R, Chen W, Zhuang Q, Zhao Y, Menz G (2017). Using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for spatio-temporal analysis of eco-environmental vulnerability change during 1990–2010 in Sanjiangyuan region, China. Ecol Indic, 73: 612–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu S, Zhu L, Feng Y (2002). Biodiversity evaluation on wetland—a case study form Paleocoast and Wetland Nature Reserve Zone in Tianjin. Chin J Eco Agric, 10: 76–78Google Scholar
  26. Luers A L, Lobell D B, Sklar L S, Addams C L, Matson P A (2003). A method for quantifying vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Glob Environ Change, 13(4): 255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ma C, Zhang G, Zhang X, Zhao Y, Li H (2012). Application of Markov model in wetland change dynamics in Tianjin Coastal Area, China. Procedia Environ Sci, 13: 252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ma J (2014). Dynamic evaluation of ecological vulnerability in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region in Chongqing section, China. Dissertation for Master degree. Chongqing: Southwest University, 1–66Google Scholar
  29. Ma J, Li C, Wei H, Ma P, Yang Y, Ren Q, Zhang W (2015). Dynamic evaluation of ecological vulnerability in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region in Chongqing Municipality, China. Acta Ecol Sin, 35: 7117–7129Google Scholar
  30. Mukti A, Prasetyo L B, Rushayati S B (2016). Mapping of fire vulnerability in Alas Purwo National Park. Procedia Environ Sci, 33: 290–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nandy S, Singh C, Das K K, Kingma N C, Kushwaha S P S (2015). Environmental vulnerability assessment of eco-development zone of Great Himalayan National Park, Himachal Pradesh, India. Ecol Indic, 57: 182–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ozesmi S L, Bauer M E (2002). Satellite remote sensing of wetlands. Wetlands Ecol Manage, 10(5): 381–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Polsky C, Neff R, Yarnal B (2007). Building comparable global change vulnerability assessments: the vulnerability scoping diagram. Glob Environ Change, 17(3–4): 472–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Qin L, Han F, Song G, Li L, Wang Z, Zhang B, Jiang S (2013). EVA of Qilihai wetland based on the ‘PSR’ model. Soil and Water Conservation in China, (5): 59–72 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  35. Qiu P, Xu S, Xie G, Tang B, Bi H, Yu L (2007). Analysis on the ecological vulnerability of the western Hainan Island based on its landscape pattern and ecosystem sensitivity. Acta Ecol Sin, 27(4): 1257–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sano M, Gainza J, Baum S, Choy D L, Neumann S, Tomlinson R (2015). Coastal vulnerability and progress in climate change adaptation: an Australian case study. Reg Stud Mar Sci, 2: 113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stevenazzi S, Bonfanti M, Masetti M, Nghiem S V, Sorichetta A (2017). A versatile method for groundwater vulnerability projections in future scenarios. J Environ Manage, 187: 365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Takane S (2016). Effect of domain selection for compact representation of spatial variation of head-related transfer function in all directions based on Spatial Principal Components Analysis. Appl Acoust, 101: 64–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang B, Cao Z, Zhang Z (2008). Ecological environment evaluation on Beidagang Wetland Nature Reserve. Environmental Science and Management, 33: 181–184 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  40. Wang S, Wang G, Chen Z (2004). Eco-environmental evaluation and changes in Yellow River Basin. Journal of Mountain Research, 22: 133–139 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  41. Wang W, Li G, Hou J, Liu Y (2015). Salinization characteristics of soil profile in coastal areas of Tianjin and its affecting factors. Geophys Geochem Explor, 39: 172–179Google Scholar
  42. Wang X, Cai X, Wang Z, Sun T (2018). Factors and countermeasures of wetland pollution in China. Applied Chemical Industry, 47: 399–403 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  43. Xi M, Kong F, Li Y, Yu X (2016). Analysis on characteristics of soil salinization in coastal wetlands of Jiaozhou Bay. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 36: 288–292Google Scholar
  44. Xiao L, Zhong L, Zhou R, Yu H (2017). Review of international research on national parks as an evolving knowledge domain in recent 30 years. Progress in Geography, 36: 244–255 (in Chinese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. You W, He D, Lin L,Wang R, Cai J,Wang P, Zhang Z, Xiao S, Zheng X (2013). Dynamics assessment on ecological vulnerability of coastal wetland in eastern Fujian Province. Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, 42: 649–653 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  46. Zhai H (2014). Perspectives on establishment of national parks system in China. China Forest Products Industry, 41: 11–16Google Scholar
  47. Zhang H, Liu P, Hu D, Sui J (2010). Influence of ecotourism disturbance on habitation and survival of Black Stork in Shidu Nature Reserve. Chinese Journal of Wildlife, 31: 13–16 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  48. Zhang X, Wang K, Zhang W, Chen H, He X (2009). The quantitative assessment of eco-environment vulnerability in karst regions of Northwest Guangxi. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29: 749–757Google Scholar
  49. Zhuang D, Ding D, Ren X (2003). Research on ecological tourism resources protection and exploitation of the wetland resources in China. Econ Geogr, 23: 554–557Google Scholar
  50. Zou T, Yoshino K (2017). Environmental vulnerability evaluation using a spatial principal components approach in the Daxing’anling region, China. Ecol Indic, 78: 405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Environmental Science and EngineeringQingdao UniversityQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations