Ecological Risk Assessment and Protection Zone Identification for Linear Cultural Heritage: A Case Study of the Ming Great Wall

Li Li, Rundong Feng and Jianchao Xi
Additional contact information
Li Li: Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
Rundong Feng: Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
Jianchao Xi: Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 21, 1-18

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: ecological risk assessment; protection zoning; line-shape cultural heritage; the Ming Great Wall; driving mechanism (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11605/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11605/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11605-:d:672324

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().