| 三江并流区景观生态风险时空演变及驱动因素 |
| 摘要点击 214 全文点击 4 投稿时间：2025-05-29 修订日期：2025-08-01 |
| 查看HTML全文
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 中文关键词 景观生态风险评价 空间分异 地理探测器 局部高风险 三江并流区 |
| 英文关键词 assessment of landscape ecological risk spatial differentiation Geodetector local high risk the Three Parallel Rivers Region |
| DOI 10.13227/j.hjkx.202505333 |
|
| 中文摘要 |
| 厘清三江并流区景观生态风险特征对促进流域高质量发展和筑牢西南生态安全屏障具有重要意义. 基于2000~2020年土地利用数据，构建景观生态风险评价体系，探究滇西北三江并流区景观生态风险的时空分异特征，使用地理探测器从自然、区域可达性和社会经济这3个维度深入探讨驱动因素. 结果表明：①林地与草地交错分布，是研究区的主要景观，林地占比超过60%，草地占比约为26%，且草地和林地的相互流转是主要的景观变动类型；建设用地在研究区的分布较为集中且扩张较为明显，20 a间面积增长率为245.58%；耕地、水域和其他用地占比较小. ②研究区的景观生态风险整体处于较低风险水平，低风险区域面积2020年占比为48.96%，高风险区域占比较小，主要集中在怒江下游地区、城镇中心和旅游资源较为丰富的区域，且研究区的风险水平常呈现出以高风险区为中心，风险水平由内向外逐级递减的环状分布状态. ③全局看，自然因素对研究区景观生态风险的驱动影响力较大，各因子的交互作用力均呈现出双因子增强和非线性增强的效果. ④局部区域单因子探测中，城镇建成区的社会经济因素对景观生态风险的解释力占据主导地位；旅游资源密集区和景观生态风险突变区的自然因素和社会经济因素驱动力均显著；对于局部区域因子交互探测中，区域可达性因素的因子交互作用显著提升. 研究区的景观生态风险整体处于低风险水平，但高风险面积持续增加，全域景观生态风险受到自然因素的驱动力较大，局部均受到社会经济因素驱动. |
| 英文摘要 |
| Clarifying the characteristics of landscape ecological risks in the Three Parallel Rivers Region is of great significance for promoting high-quality development and strengthening the ecological security barrier in Southwest China. Based on the land use data from 2000 to 2020， a landscape ecological risk assessment system was constructed to explore the spatial-temporal differentiation of landscape ecological risks in the Three Parallel Rivers Region of Northwest Yunnan. Additionally， the Geodetector was used to deeply investigate the driving factors from three dimensions： natural， regional accessibility， and social-economic factors. The findings indicated that： ① Forest and grassland were interspersed and were the main land types in the study area. Forest accounted for over 60%， while grassland made up approximately 26%. The mutual transformation between grassland and forest was the main type of landscape change. Construction land was distributed concentrated in the study area and had expanded significantly. The area growth rate was 245.58% during the past 20 years. Cultivated land， water bodies， and other land uses accounted for a relatively small proportion. ② The overall landscape ecological risk in the study area was at a relatively low level， and the area of low-risk regions accounted for 48.96% in 2020. The proportion of high-risk areas was small， and the high-risk areas were mainly concentrated in the lower reaches of the Nu River， urban centers， and areas with rich tourism resources. The risk level in the study area showed a ring-shaped distribution pattern with high-risk areas at the center and the risk level decreasing gradually from the inside out. ③ From a global perspective， natural factors had a significant driving influence on the landscape ecological risk in the study area. The interaction effects of each factor all exhibited a double-factor enhancement and nonlinear enhancement effect. ④ In the single-factor detection of local areas， the social and economic factors of the urban built-up area had the dominant explanatory power for the landscape ecological risk. The tourism resource-intensive areas and the areas with sudden changes in landscape ecological risk were driven more by natural factors and social economic factors. For the factor interaction detection in local areas， the interaction effect of regional accessibility factors was significantly enhanced. The overall landscape ecological risk in the study area was at a low level， but the high-risk area was continuously expanding. The landscape ecological risk of the entire region was mainly driven by natural factors， while the local areas were driven by socio-economic factors. |
