Ecological health assessment based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Liziping National Nature Reserve

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202306028

JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2025, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (2): 212-220.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202306028

Ecological health assessment based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Liziping National Nature Reserve

FENG Tingting¹(), ZHENG Yang²^,³^,⁴, LUO Wei²^,³^,⁴, DAI Qinlong²^,³^,⁴, LI Jianwei²^,³^,⁴, WANG Fei¹, TUO Yunfei¹^,^*()

1. College of Ecology and Environment, Southwest Forestry University, Kunming 650224, China
2. Sichuan Liziping National Nature Reserve Administration, Shimian 625400, China
3. Open Laboratory of Shimian Research Center of Giant Panda Small Population Conservation and Rejuvenation, Shimian 625400, China
4. Liziping Giant Panda’s Ecology and Conservation Observation and Research Station of Sichuan Province, Shimian 625400, China

Received:2023-06-28 Accepted:2024-05-08 Online:2025-03-30 Published:2025-03-28
Contact: TUO Yunfei E-mail:ftingting@163.com;tyunfei@163.com

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】The critical challenges in ecological health assessment involve establishing a comprehensive assessment system and selecting appropriate indicators. This study aims to evaluate the ecological health status of nature reserves to provide a scientific basis for improving the regional ecological environment. 【Method】This study established a comprehensive ecological health evaluation index system for the Sichuan Liziping National Nature Reserve. The system encompasses five criteria: natural resource characteristics, river ecological resources, social value, service management system, and ecological environment conditions, further subdivided into 31 specific indicators. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model was employed to evaluate the reserve’s ecological health. 【Result】The evaluation revealed the relative weights of the criteria as follows: natural resource characteristics (0.157), river ecological resources (0.277), social value (0.124), service management system (0.073), and ecological environment conditions (0.370). The maximum eigenvalue and consistency index were calculated as 5.158 and 0.040. Membership scores for natural resources, social value, and ecological environment conditions in “healthy” and “sub-healthy” states were 0.687 and 0.218, 0.504 and 0.373, 0.608 and 0.212, respectively. River ecological resources showed membership scores of 0.509 in “high quality” and 0.275 in “sub-healthy” states, while the service management system exhibited a “healthy” state membership score of 0.394. Overall, the ecological health evaluation yielded scores for “high quality” (0.232), “healthy” (0.452), “sub-healthy” (0.255), “unhealthy” (0.061), and “sick” (0) membership states. The comprehensive membership score was 0.452, categorizing the reserve’s ecological health as “healthy.” 【Conclusion】 This study offers a scientific foundation and technical guidance for ecological conservation and the integrated management of the ecological environment in the Liziping National Nature Reserve.

Key words: ecological health, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, membership degree, Liziping National Nature Reserve

CLC Number:

TU985

FENG Tingting, ZHENG Yang, LUO Wei, DAI Qinlong, LI Jianwei, WANG Fei, TUO Yunfei. Ecological health assessment based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Liziping National Nature Reserve[J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2025, 49(2): 212-220.

Figures/Tables 5

Table 1

Ecological health evaluation indices system and standard of Liziping National Nature Reserve"

目标层A target layer	准则层B criterion layer	指标层C indicator layer	评价标准evaluation standard
目标层A target layer	准则层B criterion layer	指标层C indicator layer	优质 high- quality	健康 healthy	亚健康 subhealthy	不健康 unhealthy	病态 morbidity
A生态健康综合评价 comprehensive evaluation of ecological health	B₁自然资源特性	C₁水域面积/km²	≥400	[300,400)	[200,300)	(100,200)	≤100
		C₂降水量/mm	≥100	[80,100)	[60,80)	(40,60)	≤40
		C₃蒸发量/mm	<100	[100,170)	[170,240)	[240,310]	>310
		C₄河流长度/km	≥300	[250,300)	[200,250)	(150,200)	≤150
		C₅河流蜿蜒度	≥5	[3.4,5)	[2.2,3.4)	(1.6,2.2)	≤1.6
	B₂河流生态资源	C₆河岸土地利用方式	林地	草地	荒草地	裸地	沙地
		C₇河流水质	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ(含劣Ⅴ类)
		C₈河流数/条	≥10	[8,10)	[6,8)	(4,6)	≤4
		C₉河岸缓冲区宽度/m	≥30	[21,30)	[12,21)	[3,12)	<3
		C₁₀河岸植被覆盖度	≥1	[0.7,1)	[0.5,0.7)	(0.3,0.5)	≤0.3
		C₁₁鱼类生物多样性	≥35	[25,35)	[15,25)	(5,15)	≤5
		C₁₂生态环境用水量/m³	>8	[6,8]	[4,6)	[2,4)	<2
	B₃社会价值	C₁₃人口自然增长率/‰	≤-9.9	(-9.9,-3.1]	(-3.1,3.8]	(3.8,10.6)	≥10.6
		C₁₄人口密度/(人·km^-2)	≤20	(20,100]	(100,200]	(200,400)	≥400
		C₁₅地区生产总值/亿元	≥200	(150,200)	(100,150]	(50,100]	≤50
		C₁₆人均GDP/万元	≥14.4	(11.7,14.4)	(7.7,11.7]	(4.4,7.7]	≤4.4
		C₁₇万元GDP用水量/m³	<50	[50,130]	(130,210]	(210,300]	>300
		C₁₈人均水资源量/m³	>40 000	[20 000,40 000]	[10 000,20 000)	[5 000,10 000)	<5 000
		C₁₉粮食作物总产量/t	>40 000	[20 000,40 000]	[10 000,20 000)	[5 000,10 000)	<5 000
	B₄服务管理体系	C₂₀区内管理人员数/人	≥43	32~42	21~31	11~20	≤10
		C₂₁区内人员业务素质	≥88	[76,88)	[64,76)	(52,64)	≤52
		C₂₂区内管理情况	≥88	[76,88)	[64,76)	(52,64)	≤52
	B₅区内生态环境特性	C₂₃土壤渗透速率/(mm·min^-1)	≥0.6	[0.5,0.6)	[0.4,0.5)	(0.3,0.4)	≤0.3
		C₂₄土壤含水率/%	≤0.3	(0.3,0.4]	(0.4,0.5]	(0.5,0.6)	≥0.6
		C₂₅土壤孔隙度/%	≥77	[65,77)	[53,65)	(40,53)	≤40
		C₂₆土壤全氮量/(g·kg^-1)	≥2	[1.5,2.0)	[1.0,1.5)	[0.75,1.0)	<0.75
		C₂₇土壤全磷量/(g·kg^-1)	≥2	[1.6,2.0)	[1.2,1.6)	[0.8,1.2)	<0.8
		C₂₈土壤有机碳含量/(g·kg^-1)	≥40	[30,40)	[20,30)	[10,20)	<10
		C₂₉植物多样性指数	≥1.83	[1.57,1.82)	[1.11,1.56)	(0.72,1.10)	≤0.72
		C₃₀动物多样性指数	≥2.5	[1.9,2.5)	[1.3,1.9)	[0.7,1.3)	≤0.7
		C₃₁生物多样性完整性	丰富	较丰富	一般	单一	匮乏

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Fig. 2

References 39

[1]	刘春青, 张韬, 刘佳慧, 等. 辉腾锡勒风电场草地生态系统健康评价[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2019, 34(2):213-221.
	LIU C Q, ZHANG T, LIU J H, et al. Ecosystem health evaluation for Huitengxile wind farm grassland[J]. J Northwest For Univ, 2019, 34(2):213-221.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7461.2019.02.32.
[2]	易浪, 孙颖, 尹少华, 等. 生态安全格局构建:概念、框架与展望[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(4):845-856.
	YI L, SUN Y, YIN S H, et al. Construction of ecological security pattern:concept,framework and prospect[J]. Ecol Environ Sci, 2022, 31(4):845-856.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2022.04.023.
[3]	樊贤璐, 徐国宾. 基于生态—社会服务功能协调发展度的湖泊健康评价方法[J]. 湖泊科学, 2018, 30(5):1225-1234.
	FAN X L, XU G B. Lake health assessment method based on the coordinated development degree of ecology and social service function[J]. J Lake Sci, 2018, 30(5):1225-1234.DOI: 10.18307/2018.0506.
[4]	游清徽, 刘玲玲, 方娜, 等. 基于大型底栖无脊椎动物完整性指数的鄱阳湖湿地生态健康评价[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(18):6631-6641.
	YOU Q H, LIU L L, FANG N, et al. Assessing ecological health of Poyang Lake wetland,using benthic macroinvertebrate-based index of biotic integrity (B-IBI)[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2019, 39(18):6631-6641.DOI: 10.5846/stxb201508181720.
[5]	徐菲, 王永刚, 张楠, 等. 北京市白河和潮河流域生态健康评价[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(3):932-942.
	XU F, WANG Y G, ZHANG N, et al. Health assessment of watershed ecosystems:the Chao River and Bai River basins as a case study[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2017, 37(3):932-942.DOI: 10.5846/stxb201508181720.
[6]	燕琳, 马岚, 潘成忠, 等. 基于模糊综合评价与灰色关联分析的河流自然性评价[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2020, 37(3):480-488.
	YAN L, MA L, PAN C Z, et al. Naturalness evaluation of rivers based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and the grey correlation analysis[J]. J Zhejiang A F Univ, 2020, 37(3):480-488.DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2020.20190485.
[7]	李勇, 丛怡, 贾佳. 基于熵权法的汾渭平原城市空气质量模糊综合评价[J]. 环境工程, 2020, 38(8):236-243,206.
	LI Y, CONG Y, JIA J. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of urban air quality in Fenwei Plain based on entropy weight method[J]. Environ Eng, 2020, 38(8):236-243,206.DOI: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202008039.
[8]	ZHONG C H, YANG Q C, LIANG J, et al. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation with AHP and entropy methods and health risk assessment of groundwater in Yinchuan basin,northwest China[J]. Environ Res, 2022, 204(Pt A):111956.DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111956.
[9]	朱佳玮, 孙文章, 岳秀峰. 基于滨海环境资源特点的大连旅游承载状态评价[J]. 地理科学, 2021, 41(4):664-673.
	ZHU J W, SUN W Z, YUE X F. Evaluation of tourism carrying capacity in Dalian based on characteristics of coastal environmental resources[J]. Sci Geogr Sin, 2021, 41(4):664-673.DOI: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2021.04.013.
[10]	王慧杰, 毕粉粉, 董战峰. 基于AHP-模糊综合评价法的新安江流域生态补偿政策绩效评估[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(20):7493-7506.
	WANG H J, BI F F, DONG Z F. Evaluation of ecological compensation policy for Xin’an River basin based on AHP-fuzzy comprehensive method[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2020, 40(20):7493-7506.DOI: 10.5846/stxb201907311613.
[11]	王晓艳, 章四龙, 刘磊. 基于AHP-熵权法的水环境承载力模糊综合评价[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2021, 44(9):206-212.
	WANG X Y, ZHANG S L, LIU L. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of water environmental carrying capacity based on AHP-entropy method[J]. Environ Sci Technol, 2021, 44(9):206-212.DOI: 10.19672/j.cnki.1003-6504.0922.21.338.
[12]	MARZIN A, DELAIGUE O, LOGEZ M, et al. Uncertainty associated with river health assessment in a varying environment:the case of a predictive fish-based index in France[J]. Ecol Indic, 2014, 43:195-204.DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.011.
[13]	HARA J, MAMUN M, AN K G. Ecological river health assessments using chemical parameter model and the index of biological integrity model[J]. Water, 2019, 11(8):1729.DOI: 10.3390/w11081729.
[14]	PANDEY V, VENKATNARAYANAN S, KUMAR P S, et al. Assessment of ecological health of Swarnamukhi River estuary,southeast coast of India,through AMBI indices and multivariate tools[J]. Mar Pollut Bull, 2021,164:112031.DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112031.
[15]	RAI S P, SHARMA N, LOHANI A K. Risk assessment for transboundary rivers using fuzzy synthetic evaluation technique[J]. J Hydrol, 2014, 519:1551-1559.DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.08.060.
[16]	席健, 朱玉东, 何可, 等. 四川栗子坪国家级自然保护区林麝野化培训个体的生境选择[J]. 四川林业科技, 2023, 44(2):51-57.
	XI J, ZHU Y D, HE K, et al. Habitat selection of wild training Moschus berezovskill individuals in Liziping National Nature Reserve,Sichuan Province[J]. J Sichuan For Sci Technol, 2023, 44(2):51-57.DOI: 10.12172/202211090003.
[17]	王大勇, 李华静, 刘翠, 等. 冶勒自然保护区大熊猫及其栖息地保护现状与管理对策[J]. 四川林业科技, 2011, 32(6):113-115.
	WANG D Y, LI H J, LIU C, et al. Conservation status and management countermeasures of giant panda and its habitat in Yele Nature Reserve[J]. J Sichuan For Sci Technol, 2011, 32(6):113-115. DOI:10.16779/j.cnki.1003-5508.2011.06.023.
[18]	王秋燕, 陈鹏飞, 李学东, 等. 森林健康评价方法综述[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 42(2):177-183.
	WANG Q Y, CHEN P F, LI X D, et al. Review of forest health assessment methods[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2018, 42(2):177-183.DOI:10.3969/.issn.1000-2006.201703105.
[19]	康文辉. 永定河上游太子城河流域土壤养分空间分布及其影响因素[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2021.
	KANG W H. Spatial Distribution of soil nutrients and its influencing factors in taizicheng River basin of the upper reaches of Yongding River[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2021.
[20]	陈红. 小相岭山系大中型兽类多样性调查评估[D]. 南充: 西华师范大学, 2021.
	CHEN H. Survey and evaluation of large and medium-sizes mammals diversity in the Xiaoxiangling Mountains[D]. Nanchong: China West Normal University, 2021.
[21]	燕琳. 河流自然性评价指标体系与评价方法研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2020.
	YAN L. Research on river naturalness evaluation index system and evaluation method[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2020.
[22]	徐香勤, 蔡文倩, 雷坤, 等. 天津市河流生态完整性评价[J]. 环境科学研究, 2020, 33(10):2308-2317.
	XU X Q, CAI W Q, LEI K, et al. Assessment of ecological integrity of rivers in Tianjin City[J]. Res Environ Sci, 2020, 33(10):2308-2317.DOI: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2020.05.35.
[23]	苏辉东, 贾仰文, 牛存稳, 等. 河流健康评价指标与权重分配的统计分析[J]. 水资源保护, 2019, 35(6):138-144.
	SU H D, JIA Y W, NIU C W, et al. Statistical analysis of river health assessment indicators and weight distribution[J]. Water Resour Prot, 2019, 35(6):138-144.DOI: 10.3880/j.issn.1004-6933.2019.06.021.
[24]	PAN Z Z, HE J H, LIU D F, et al. Ecosystem health assessment based on ecological integrity and ecosystem services demand in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River Economic Belt,China[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2021,774:144837.DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144837.
[25]	CHENG W J, XI H Y, SINDIKUBWABO C, et al. Ecosystem health assessment of desert nature reserve with entropy weight and fuzzy mathematics methods:a case study of Badain Jaran Desert[J]. Ecol Indic, 2020,119:106843.DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106843.
[26]	CHEN W, CAO C X, LIU D, et al. An evaluating system for wetland ecological health:case study on nineteen major wetlands in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region,China[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2019, 666:1080-1088.DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.325.
[27]	TANG D H, LIU X J, ZOU X Q. An improved method for integrated ecosystem health assessments based on the structure and function of coastal ecosystems:a case study of the Jiangsu coastal area,China[J]. Ecol Indic, 2018, 84:82-95.DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.08.031.
[28]	WU X L, HU F. Analysis of ecological carrying capacity using a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method[J]. Ecol Indic, 2020,113:106243.DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106243.
[29]	ZHAO R, GUAN Q Y, LUO H P, et al. Fuzzy synthetic evaluation and health risk assessment quantification of heavy metals in Zhangye agricultural soil from the perspective of sources[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2019,697:134126.DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134126.
[30]	CHEN T, JIN Y Y, QIU X P, et al. A hybrid fuzzy evaluation method for safety assessment of food-waste feed based on entropy and the analytic hierarchy process methods[J]. Expert Syst Appl, 2014, 41(16):7328-7337.DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.06.006.
[31]	王同达, 曹锦雪, 赵永华, 等. 基于PSR模型的陕西省土地生态系统健康评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(5):1563-1572.
	WANG T D, CAO J X, ZHAO Y H, et al. Evaluation of land ecosystem health in Shaanxi Province,northwest China based on PSR model[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2021, 32(5):1563-1572.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202105.013.
[32]	陈歆, 靳甜甜, 苏辉东, 等. 拉萨河河流健康评价指标体系构建及应用[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(3):799-809.
	CHEN X, JIN T T, SU H D, et al. Construction and application of health assessment index system for Lhasa River[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2019, 39(3):799-809.DOI: 10.5846/stxb201809071919.
[33]	张月琪, 张志, 江鎞倩, 等. 城市红树林生态系统健康评价与管理对策:以粤港澳大湾区为例[J]. 中国环境科学, 2022, 42(5):2352-2369.
	ZHANG Y Q, ZHANG Z, JIANG B Q, et al. Ecosystem health assessment and management strategies of urban mangrove:a case study of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area[J]. China Environ Sci, 2022, 42(5):2352-2369.DOI: 10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.2022.0117.
[34]	曹小玉, 赵文菲, 李际平, 等. 中亚热带几种典型森林土壤养分含量分析及综合评价[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(9):3525-3535.
	CAO X Y, ZHAO W F, LI J P, et al. A comprehensive evaluation of soil nutrients in main typical forests in central-subtropical China[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2022, 42(9):3525-3535.DOI: 10.5846/stxb202101130130.
[35]	舒远琴, 宋维峰, 马建刚. 哈尼梯田湿地生态系统健康评价指标体系构建[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(23):9292-9304.
	SHU Y Q, SONG W F, MA J G. Establishment of health evaluation index system of Hani terrace wetland ecosystem[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2021, 41(23):9292-9304.DOI: 10.5846/stxb202010222696.
[36]	田耀武, 黄志霖, 肖文发, 等. 基于物元模型和小班尺度的兰陵溪流域森林生态系统健康评价[J]. 生态学杂志, 2017, 36(5):1458-1464.
	TIAN Y W, HUANG Z L, XIAO W F, et al. Assessment on forest ecosystem health of Lanlingxi watershed based on matter-element model and subcompartment scale[J]. Chin J Ecol, 2017, 36(5):1458-1464.DOI: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.201705.026.
[37]	袁瑞强, 钟钰翔, 龙西亭. 洞庭湖上游平原浅层地下水水质综合评价[J]. 水资源保护, 2021, 37(6):121-127.
	YUAN R Q, ZHONG Y X, LONG X T. Comprehensive evaluation of shallow groundwater quality in upper plain of Dongting Lake[J]. Water Resour Prot, 2021, 37(6):121-127.DOI: 10.3880/j.issn.1004-6933.2021.06.018.
[38]	胡威, 李卫明, 王丽, 等. 基于GA-BP优化模型的中小河流健康评价研究[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(5):1786-1797.
	HU W, LI W M, WANG L, et al. Health assessment of small and medium rivers based on GA-BP optimization model[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2021, 41(5):1786-1797.DOI: 10.5846/stxb202003070437.
[39]	罗腾峰, 叶茂, 殷锡凯, 等. 人为干扰对阿尔泰山林地和草地生态系统健康影响分析[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2022, 37(6):18-25.
	LUO T F, YE M, YIN X K, et al. Impact of the disturbance of human activities on the health of forest and grassland ecosystems in the Altai Mountains[J]. J Northwest For Univ, 2022, 37(6):18-25.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7461.2022.06.03.

Metrics

Comments

www.nldxb.njfu.edu.cn

Edited ＆ Published by Editorial Department of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition)
Address： No.159 Longpan Road,Nanjing 210037 Jiangsu,P.R.China
E-mail ：xuebao@njfu.edu.cn , xuebao@njfu.com.cn
Telephone +86-25-85428247,85427076
Distributed by China International Book Trading Corporation P.O. Box 399, Beijing ,P.R. China

准则层 criterion layer	指标层 indicator layer	权重weights
准则层 criterion layer	指标层 indicator layer	准则层 criterion layer	指标层相对准则层 indicator layer to criterion layer	指标层相对目标层 indicator layer to target layer
	C₁		0.226	0.035
	C₂		0.196	0.031
B₁	C₃	0.157	0.125	0.020
	C₄		0.362	0.057
	C₅		0.091	0.014
	C₆		0.070	0.019
	C₇		0.350	0.097
	C₈		0.032	0.009
B₂	C₉	0.277	0.159	0.044
	C₁₀		0.106	0.029
	C₁₁		0.237	0.066
	C₁₂		0.046	0.013
	C₁₃	0.124	0.171	0.021
	C₁₄		0.123	0.015
	C₁₅		0.073	0.009
B₃	C₁₆		0.044	0.005
	C₁₇		0.210	0.026
	C₁₈		0.285	0.035
	C₁₉		0.094	0.012
	C₂₀		0.164	0.012
B₄	C₂₁	0.073	0.297	0.022
	C₂₂		0.539	0.039
	C₂₃		0.096	0.035
	C₂₄		0.071	0.026
	C₂₅		0.137	0.051
	C₂₆		0.045	0.017
B₅	C₂₇	0.370	0.032	0.012
	C₂₈		0.023	0.009
	C₂₉		0.187	0.069
	C₃₀		0.162	0.060
	C₃₁		0.246	0.091

指标层 indicator layer	区内现状值 current value in the area	隶属度membership degree
指标层 indicator layer	区内现状值 current value in the area	优质 high-quality	健康 healthy	亚健康 sub healthy	不健康 unhealthy	病态 morbidity
C₁水域面积	392.1 km²	0.421	0.579	0	0	0
C₂降水量	78.325 mm	0	0	1	0	0
C₃蒸发量	156.85 mm	0	0.688	0.312	0	0
C₄河流长度	272.3 km	0	0.946	0.054	0	0
C₅河流蜿蜒度	3.41	0	0.506	0.494	0	0
C₆河岸土地利用方式	草地	0	1	0	0	0
C₇河流水质	Ⅰ类	1	0	0	0	0
C₈河流数	7条	0	0	1	0	0
C₉河岸缓冲区宽度	30 m	1	0	0	0	0
C₁₀河岸植被覆盖度	0.62	0	0.250	0.750	0	0
C₁₁鱼类生物多样性	15种	0	0	0.500	0.500	0
C₁₂生态环境用水量	5 060 000 m³	0	0.030	0.970	0	0
C₁₃人口自然增长率	-0.13 ‰	0	0.070	0.930	0	0
C₁₄人口密度	42.6人/km²	0.218	0.783	0	0	0
C₁₅地区生产总值	102.38亿元	0	0	0.548	0.452	0
C₁₆人均GDP	89 023元	0	0	0.801	0.199	0
C₁₇万元GDP用水量	72.13 m³	0.259	0.741	0	0	0
C₁₈人均水资源量	23 099.3 m³	0	0.655	0.345	0	0
C₁₉粮食作物总产量	21 489 t	0	0.574	0.426	0	0
C₂₀区内管理人员人数	33人	0	0.591	0.409	0	0
C₂₁区内人员业务素质	82	0	1	0	0	0
C₂₂区内管理情况	78	0	0	0.417	0.583	0
C₂₃土壤渗透速率	0.49 mm/min	0	0.400	0.600	0	0
C₂₄土壤含水率	0.32%	0.300	0.700	0	0	0
C₂₅土壤孔隙度	66.66%	0	0.638	0.362	0	0
C₂₆土壤全氮量	6.13 g/kg	1	0	0	0	0
C₂₇土壤全磷量	2.08 g/kg	1	0	0	0	0
C₂₈土壤有机碳含量	42.22 g/kg	1	0	0	0	0
C₂₉植物多样性指数	1.78	0.308	0.692	0	0	0
C₃₀动物多样性指数	1.98	0	0.367	0.633	0	0
C₃₁生物多样性完整性	较丰富	0	1	0	0	0

Ecological health assessment based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Liziping National Nature Reserve

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 5

References 39

Related Articles 2

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

Author

Reader

Reviewer

评语隶属度 rating affiliation	优质 high- quality	健康 healthy	亚健康 subhealthy	不健康 unhealthy	病态 morbidity
R₁	0.75	0.25	0	0	0
R₂	0.25	0.50	0.25	0	0
R₃	0	0.25	0.50	0.25	0
R₄	0	0	0.25	0.50	0.25
R₅	0	0	0	0.25	0.75

[1]	SONG Shuang, XU Dawei, SHI Mengxi, HU Shanshan. Spatial and temporal evolution of landscape ecological health in Naolihe Basin [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2021, 45(2): 177-186.
[2]	WANG Qian, WANG Cheng^{2 Symbolj@@}, DU Wanguang, XU Chao, GUO Junqi. Exploring the ecological healthy function of Phyllostachys pubescens forest in Qishan Park of Fuzhou in summer [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2018, 42(02): 120-126.