Ecological Risk Assessment and Protection Zone Identification for Linear Cultural Heritage: A Case Study of the Ming Great Wall
Ecological risk assessment is an important part of the sustainable development of World Heritage. The Ming Great Wall Heritage (MGWH) plays an important role in World Heritage conservation as a representative of large linear heritage, yet its ecological risks have not received much attention. This s...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
MDPI AG
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/65da2ddd8a584a088366246b0a107d8d |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Ecological risk assessment is an important part of the sustainable development of World Heritage. The Ming Great Wall Heritage (MGWH) plays an important role in World Heritage conservation as a representative of large linear heritage, yet its ecological risks have not received much attention. This study assessed the ecological risk of MGWH based on simultaneous consideration of spatial heterogeneity and autocorrelation of geographic factors, and four protection zones were further identified from the perspective of preservation status and risk by using GeoDetector, principal component analysis and bivariate autocorrelation. The results showed that there were statistically significant differences in the preservation status of MGWH at different elevations. Based on this assessed ecological risk, it was found that 63.49% of MGWH grids were in the low to medium risk, while the highest risk areas (16.61%) were mainly concentrated in lower (200–500 m) and medium (500–1000 m) elevation. As elevation increased, the dominant factor of ecological risk shifted from human factors to natural factors and the main ecological risk showed a trend of increasing and then decreasing with increasing elevation. In addition, four types of risk protection zones (i.e., Protection—Restricted, Restoration—Moderate exploited, Restoration—Restricted and Protection—Moderate exploited) and policy suggestions were identified in this study from the perspectives of conservation, restoration and development, respectively. Future ecological protection of the MGWH should be based on the principle of “cultural heritage protection first”, with restricted development and use (e.g., tourism and education) and enhanced ecological restoration and environmental management of the surrounding area. This study provides references for the risk assessment of the cultural heritage at a large spatial scale, which is conducive to the maintenance and improvement of heritage value. |
|---|