Spatial Heterogeneity of Ecological Security of Samian Watershed, Ardabil Province

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Rangeland and Watershed Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Member of Water Management Research Center, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.

2 Ph.D. Student, Watershed Management Engineering and Sciences, Faculty of Natural Resources, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.

3 Former M.Sc. Student, Watershed Management Engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Ardabil, Iran.

4 Ph.D., Senior Expert, Water Studies Section of National Agriculture and Water Strategic Research Center, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The ecological security of the watershed depends on the land capacity and the level of demand expected to ensure the survival of the population living in it and and its regional assessment is necessary to advance the strategic planning and poliy-making. Towards this, the aim of this study was to analyze the heterogeneity of ecological security of the Samian Watershed located in the center of Ardabil Province. Accordingly, a comprehensive evaluation method based on the analysis of various dimensions of supply and demand of material and spiritual security for 27 sub-watersheds was conceptualized and implemented. It was found that the mean value of both supply and demand indicators of ecological security in the whole watershed are equal to 0.53. In general, this watershed has marginal security. However, in terms of spatial heterogeneity, the maximum value of the ecological security index (0.49) was allocated to sub-watershed 22 located in the central part of the watershed. One of the general features of this sub-watershed is the existence of the irrigated agriculture, which has caused the region to be at a high level in terms of ecological security and supplied the demands of region population. Also, the minimum value of this index (-0.43) is related to sub-watershed 27 located in the northwest. The Ardabil City, the capital of Ardabil Province, is located in this sub-watershed, and the urban nature and lack of agriculture, forest, and garden land use are among the characteristics of this sub-watershed, which has led to the sub-watershed being in an unsafe situation. The spatial distribution of the ecological security index showed that 12, 51, 33, and 4% of the region, respectively characterized by security, marginal security, marginal insecurity, and insecurity states cover.

Keywords


  • Alaei, N., Babaei, L., Hazbavi, Z., Mostafazadeh, R. (2019). Determining and comparing the values of ecological security index of land appearance in Bilehedargh sub watershed, Ardabil. The First International Conference and the Fourth National Conference on the Protection of Natural Resources and the Environment. 1-12 (In Persian).
  • Albers, H.J., Goldbach, M.J. (2000). Irreversible ecosystem change, species competition, and shifting cultivation. Resour. Energy Economics, 22, 261–280.
  • Amiri, A., Amouzegar, S., Arefei, M. (2021). Explaning the relationship between development and security in Iran’s Provices. Regional Planning, 10(40), 15-34 (In Persian).
  • Asadolahi, Z., Mobaraghi, N., Keshtkar, M. (2019). Clarifying the ecosystem services concept: a solution to avoid double counting in the valuation of ecosystem services. Journal of Environment and Development, 9 (18), 103-93 (In Persian).
  • Aspinall, R., Pearson, D. (2000). Integrated geographical assessment of environmental condition in water catchments: Linking landscape ecology, environmental modelling and GIS. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(4), 299–319.
  • Z., Mansouri, M. (2017). Determining the ecological sustainability of Kalshor watershed using ecological footprint. Environmental Science, 42(3), 635-625 (In Persian).
  • Dai, F., Nan, L., Liu, G. (2010). Assessment of regional ecological security based on ecological footprint and influential factors analysis: a case study of Chongqing Municipality, China. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 390-400.
  • Du, P., Xia, J., Du, Q., Luo, Y., Tan, K. (2013). Evaluation of the spatio-temporal pattern of urban ecological security using remote sensing and GIS. International of Journal of Remote Sensing, 34, 848–863.
  • Gao, Y., Wu, Z., Lou, Q., Huang, H., Cheng, J., Chen, Z. (2012). Landscape ecological security assessment based on projection pursuit in Pearl River Delta. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184(4), 2307–2319.
  • Glenn, J.C., Gordon, T.J., Perelet. R. (1998). Defining environmental security: implications for the U.S. Army. Editor: Molly Landholm. AEPI-IFP-1298.
  • Guo, Sh., Wang, X. (2019). Ecological security assessment based on ecological footprint approach in hulunbeir grassland, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4805.
  • Hazbavi, Z., Parchami, N., Alaei, N., Babaei, L. (2020). Assessment and analysis of the KoozehTopraghi Watershed health status, Ardabil Province, Iran. Journal of Soil and Water Resources Conservation, 9(3), 121-142 (In Persian).
  • Huang, C.L., Vause, J., Ma, H.w., Yu, Ch.P. (2012). Using material/substance flow analysis to support sustainable development assessment: A literature review and outlook. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 68, 104-116.
  • Jin, x., Wei. L., Wang. Y., Lu, Y. (2021). Construction of ecological security pattern based on the importance of ecosystem service functions and ecological sensitivity assessment: a case study in Fengxian County of Jiangsu Province, China. Environment, Development and Sustainability, Springer, 23(1), 563-590.
  • Kavianirad, M. (2010). The spatial analysis of the environmental risks and ecological crises in Iran. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 13(2), 33-57.
  • Kavianirad, M. (2011). Assessment of the relations between security and ecology. Geopolitical Quarterly, 7 (3), 80-100 (In Persian).
  • Kuchma, T., Tarariko, O., Syrotenko, O. (2013). Landscape diversity indexes application for agricultural land use optimization. Procedia Technol., 8, 566–569.
  • Liu, P., Jia. Sh., Han, R. Zhang, H. (2018). Landscape pattern and ecological security assessment and prediction using remote sensing approach. Journal of Sensor, 1058513.
  • Lotfi, S., Mahdi, A., Mohammadpour, S. (2014). The survey distribution, standards and measuring green space per capita based on bahram soltani's model case study: Qom City, district no.1. Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement, 4 (10), 1-18 (In Persian).
  • Mohammadi, N., Shayesteh, K., Ildermi, A.S., Molhosseini Darani, K. (2015). Assessment of urban carrying capacity and ecological security of Sanandaj using ecological footprint method. Geography and Environmental Sustainability, 6 (4), 67-79 (In Persian).
  • Soheily Najafabadi, S., Keshishiyan Siraki, G., Ghaedi, M., Simbar, R. (2020). The survey of economic development effects on environment security of Persian Gulf regional. Regional Planning, 10 (39), 187-200 (In Persian).
  • Su, Sh., Li, D., Yu, X., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Q., Xiao, R., Zhi, J., Wu, J. (2011). Assessing land ecological security in Shanghai (China) based on catastrophe theory. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 25, 737–746.
  • Taghilo, A., Bahrami jaf, S., Alizadeh, F., Shahbazi, M. (2021). Analyzing adaptability of farmers with drought in Urmia Lake (Bakeshlochay village, Urmia city). Regional Planning, 10(40), 117-132 (In Persian).
  • Tian, G., Gang, G. (2012). Research on regional ecological security assessment. Energy Procedia, 16, 1180–1186.
  • Wang, F., Gu, N. (2020). Impact of ecological security on urban sustainability in Western China-A case study of Xi’an. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 239980832093186.
  • Wang, Sh., Zhang, X., Yang, Y. 2019. The evolution of landscape ecological security in Beijing under the influence of different policies in recent decades. Science of the Total Environment 646, 49–57.
  • Wen, M., Zhang, T., Li, L., Chen. L., Hu, S., Wang, J., Liu. W., Zhang, Y., Yuan, L. (2021). Assessment of land ecological security and analysis of influencing factors in Chaohu Lake basin, China from 1998–2018. Sustainability, 13(1), 1-1.
  • Xu, C., Pu, L., Zhu, M., Li, J., Chen, X., Wang, X., Xie, X. (2016). Ecological security and ecosystem services in response to land use change in the coastal area of Jiangsu, China. Sustainability, 8, 816.
  • Xu, L., Yin, H., Li, Z., Li, Sh. (2014). Land ecological security evaluation of Guangzhou, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11, 10537-10558.
  • Yang, Y., Hu, D. (2018). Natural capital utilization based on a three-dimensional ecological footprint model: A case study in northern Shaanxi, China. Ecological Indicators, 87, 178–188.
  • Yarmohammadi, K., Khodabakhshi, Z., Nazarpour, A. (2019). Evaluating ecological capability for urban development using multi-criteria decision making models (Case Study: Ardabil Province). Geography and Environmental Studies, 7 (28), 61-74 (In Persian).
  • Yu, D., Wang, D., Li, W., Liu, Sh., Zhu,Y., Wu, W., Zhou, Y. (2018). Decreased landscape ecological security of peri-urban cultivated land following rapid urbanization: an impediment to sustainable agriculture. Sustainability, 10 (394), 1-16.
  • Zareie, Sh. (2020). Determination and comparison of watershed vulnerability degree of Samian Sub-watersheds in Ardebil Province. M.Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Department of Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, 104 p (In Persian).
  • Zareie, Sh., Hazbavi, Z., Mostafazadeh, R., Esmaeli Ouri, A. (2020). Vulnerability comparison of Samian Sub-watersheds based on climate change components. Physical Geography Research, 52(2), 217-236 (In Persian).
  • Zhang, Z., Liu, Sh., Dong, Sh. (2010). Ecological security assessment of Yuan river watershed based on landscape pattern and soil erosion. Procardia Environmental Sciences, 2, 613–618.