Journal of Geographical Sciences >
A Bayesian belief network approach for mapping water conservation ecosystem service optimization region
Author: Zeng Li (1993-), Master, specialized in resources and environment remote sensing and GIS.E-mail: zengli@snnu.edu.cn
Received date: 2018-10-15
Accepted date: 2018-12-21
Online published: 2019-06-25
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.41771198, No.41771576
The Fundamental Research Funds For the Central Universities, Shaanxi Normal University, No.2017CSY011
Copyright
Water conservation is one of the most important ecosystem services of terrestrial ecosystems. Identifying the optimization regions of water conservation using Bayesian belief networks not only helps develop a better understanding of water conservation processes but also increases the rationality of scenario design and pattern optimization. This study establishes a water conservation network model. The model, based on Bayesian belief networks, forecasts the distribution probability of the water conservation projected under different land use scenarios for the year 2050 with the CA-Markov model. A key variable subset method is proposed to optimize the spatial pattern of the water conservation. Three key findings were obtained. First, among the three scenarios, the probability of high water conservation value was the largest under the protection scenario, and the design of this scenario was conducive to the formulation of future land use policies. Second, the key influencing factors impacting the water conservation included precipitation, evapotranspiration and land use, and the state set corresponding to the highest state of water conservation was mainly distributed in areas with high annual average rainfall and evapotranspiration and high vegetation coverage. Third, the regions suitable for optimizing water conservation were mainly distributed in the southern part of Maiji District in Tianshui, southwest of Longxian and south of Weibin District in Baoji, northeast of Xunyi County and northwest of Yongshou County in Xianyang, and west of Yaozhou District in Tongchuan.
ZENG Li , LI Jing . A Bayesian belief network approach for mapping water conservation ecosystem service optimization region[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019 , 29(6) : 1021 -1038 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-019-1642-x
Figure 1 Administrative map of the study area |
Table 1 Conditional probability table for the evapotranspiration node |
Vegetation Type | Precipitation | Evapotranspiration | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Highest | High | Medium | Low | ||
Highest | Highest | 0.0647 | 52.15 | 38.991 | 8.794 |
Highest | High | 0.104 | 55.123 | 37.712 | 7.061 |
Highest | Medium | 0.16 | 58.139 | 35.251 | 6.451 |
Highest | Low | 0.314 | 80.038 | 19.586 | 0.0628 |
High | Highest | 1.036 | 48.705 | 26.425 | 23.834 |
High | High | 1.104 | 25.153 | 49.202 | 24.54 |
High | Medium | 1.139 | 22.322 | 47.41 | 29.129 |
High | Low | 0.704 | 48.415 | 50.792 | 0.088 |
Medium | Highest | 0.813 | 0.675 | 12.462 | 86.049 |
Medium | High | 3.265 | 2.664 | 41.71 | 52.36 |
Medium | Medium | 2.248 | 5.154 | 34.65 | 57.948 |
Medium | Low | 1.249 | 8.005 | 90.68 | 0.0662 |
Low | Highest | 4.66 | 1.553 | 9.709 | 84.078 |
Low | High | 32.642 | 2.554 | 26.257 | 38.547 |
Low | Medium | 15.281 | 2.488 | 23.099 | 59.133 |
Low | Low | 17.687 | 4.082 | 77.751 | 0.68 |
Figure 2 Schematic diagram of BBN construction for water conservation |
Table 2 State classification of water conservation factors |
No. | Variables | State | Rank of state | Range |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Precipitation (mm/a) | Highest | 1 | 817-996 |
High | 2 | 681-817 | ||
Medium | 3 | 529-681 | ||
Low | 4 | 0-529 | ||
2 | Vegetation type | Highest | 1 | Evergreen broad-leaved forest, evergreen coniferous forest, deciduous broad-leaved forest, deciduous coniferous forest, arbor garden, sparse forest, mixed coniferous and broad-leaved forest |
High | 2 | Shrubs, deciduous broad-leaved shrubs, arbors, sparse shrubs | ||
Medium | 3 | Herbaceous green space, herbaceous marsh, grass, dry land, paddy field, sparse grassland, grassland | ||
Low | 4 | Mining, industrial land, rivers, lakes, transportation, residential, open ground, bare soil, bare rock, reservoirs, canals, desert / sandy land | ||
3 | Land use | Cropland | 1 | Cropland |
Forest | 2 | Forest | ||
Grassland | 3 | Grassland | ||
Water area | 4 | Water area | ||
Urban land | 5 | Urban land | ||
Unused land | 6 | Unused land | ||
4 | Soil type | Highest | 1 | Swampy soil, paddy soil, silted black soil, tidal soil, gray-brown soil type silt, cinnamon soil type silt, slightly salinized silt |
High | 2 | Subalpine meadow soil, mountain brown soil, mountain leached cinnamon soil, dark brown soil, brown soil, mountain grassland soil, coarse bone soil, cinnamon soil, yellow-brown soil, mountain meadow grassland soil | ||
Medium | 3 | Cultivation of mountain leached cinnamon soil, cultivation of mountain cinnamon soil, cultivation of mountain carbonate cinnamon soil, cultivation of mountain meadow grassland soil, cultivation of mountain cinnamon soil, cultivation of mountain carbonate | ||
Low | 4 | Alluvial soil, new soil, purple soil, red soil, aeolian sand, yellow cinnamon soil, lithic soil, loessial soil, limestone soil | ||
5 | Evapotranspiration (mm/a) | Highest | 1 | 10913-65535 |
High | 2 | 6003-10913 | ||
Medium | 3 | 4668-6003 | ||
Low | 4 | 1765-4668 | ||
6 | Surface runoff (mm/a) | Highest | 1 | 59-89 |
High | 2 | 34-59 | ||
Medium | 3 | 15-34 | ||
Low | 4 | 0-15 | ||
7 | Water conservation (t/ha·a) | Highest | 1 | 1103-1468 |
High | 2 | 917-1103 | ||
Medium | 3 | 163-917 | ||
Low | 4 | 0-163 |
Table 3 Social and economic statistics and scenario design in the study area |
Region | GDP growth rate (%) | Growth rate of permanent population (%) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015 | Planning | Protection | Development | 2015 | Planning | Protection | Development | |
Xi’an | 11.53 | 12 | 10 | 15 | 4.64 | 6 | 4.5 | 8 |
Weinan | 7.71 | 7.5 | 6 | 9 | 3.46 | 4 | 3.5 | 6 |
Baoji | 6.27 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 8 | 3.55 | 4 | 3.5 | 6 |
Tongchuan | 0.65 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1 | 3.79 | 4 | 3.8 | 4.5 |
Xianyang | 12.08 | 13 | 11 | 15 | 3.98 | 5 | 4.0 | 6 |
Yangling | 13.57 | 14 | 10 | 15 | 4.93 | 6 | 5.0 | 6.5 |
Tianshui | 8.9 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 0.35 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.6 |
Figure 3 Prediction and optimization principle of the water conservation service function |
Figure 4 Bayesian network of water conservation in 2010 |
Table 4 Error matrix of water conservation suitability prediction |
Predicted results of water conservation | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual results of water conservation | Highest | High | Medium | Low | Sum of rows |
Highest | 92 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 101 |
High | 38 | 59 | 0 | 0 | 97 |
Medium | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Low | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sum of column | 131 | 69 | 0 | 0 | 200 |
Overall accuracy | 75.5% |
Table 5 Land use change in the study area |
The rate of land use change | Protection (%) | Planning (%) | Development (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Cropland | -13.22 | -8.42 | -11.52 |
Forest | 18.12 | 13.07 | 13.27 |
Grassland | 0.73 | -1.00 | -0.94 |
Water area | -5.08 | -5.05 | -5.00 |
Urban land | 0.38 | 2.25 | 5.04 |
Unused land | -0.92 | -0.85 | -0.85 |
Figure 5 Land use map of the study area |
Table 6 Sensitivity of water conservation services to each node |
Node name | Variance reduction | Relative percentage |
---|---|---|
Water conservation | 1.49285 | 100 |
Precipitation | 0.53235 | 35.7 |
Evapotranspiration | 0.11014 | 7.38 |
Land use (2010) | 0.10628 | 7.12 |
Surface runoff | 0.05903 | 3.95 |
Vegetation type | 0.02189 | 1.47 |
Soil type | 0.00015 | 0.00975 |
Figure 6 The key state subset distribution of key variables in water conservation services under different scenarios |
Figure 7 The optimized region of water conservation service |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |