Unlocking Ecosystem Potential: Analyzing Geological Environment Carrying Capacity through Cloud Models and Geodetector Techniques

Understanding the Evaluation Index Weights of EGECC

In 2022, we developed a three-part evaluation system that includes geological, ecological, and social aspects. A map displays how 18 different evaluation indicators are spread out across these areas. Moving forward, we will continue to use a similar approach for future years without repeating ourselves.

Utilizing the G1-IEW-GT model, we calculated the weight of each evaluation indicator. Here’s what we found: the geological subsystem has the highest weight at 0.433, followed by the ecological environment at 0.359, and finally, the social environment at 0.208. Specifically, NDVI (X10) and population density (X16) are the most important metrics, with weights of 0.148 and 0.119, respectively.

Analyzing Changes in EGECC Over Time

Using the normal cloud model we created, we evaluated the EGECC and its subsystems from 2000 to 2022. We categorized the results from these years into five grades: good, better, medium, worse, and bad, using ArcGIS tools for spatial analysis.

Carrying Capacity of Each Subsystem

Let’s break down how each subsystem changed from 2000 to 2022:

1. 1.

   Geological Environmental Carrying Capacity (GECC).

   From 2000 to 2022, the GECC experienced fluctuations, first deteriorating and then improving. Initially, areas with poor geological environments were scattered, but natural disasters and human activity led to a larger degraded area by 2011. Thanks to green mining practices and ecological restoration projects, these damaged areas began to recover significantly by 2022.

2. 2.

   Ecological Environmental Carrying Capacity (EECC).

   The EECC in the study area stayed relatively stable across the years. Poor EECC areas mostly exist in central urban regions, owing to rapid urbanization that disrupted natural ecosystems. Conversely, regions with rich nature reserves have good EECC, thanks to their healthier ecosystems and well-developed water systems.

3. 3.

   Social Environmental Carrying Capacity (SECC).

   Luoyang City saw a rise in SECC due to economic growth. From 2000 to 2022, the GDP rose significantly, reflecting an increase in both economic and population capacity. The growth was largely driven by industrial optimization and the development of high-tech industries.

Despite overall improvements, some regions, particularly in the northeast and east, displayed much higher SECC levels compared to others. This imbalance points to a need for better resource allocation and coordinated development across all regions.

Changes in Overall EGECC Levels

Figures show that the EGECC in Luoyang fluctuated from 2000 to 2022, with an initial decline followed by recovery. Areas rated as ‘good’ increased significantly, while those categorized as ‘medium’ or worse decreased over time. The decline was largely attributed to geological and ecological factors across higher elevations, which were often affected by mining.

From 2011 onwards, various ecological restoration projects led to a substantial increase in EGECC. These projects aimed at addressing historical environmental damage from mining and enhancing the area’s ecological quality through protective measures and restoration efforts.

Driving Forces Behind EGECC Changes

Key Factors Impacting EGECC

We identified key factors impacting EGECC using a geographical detector model. The most significant drivers were geomorphic type, elevation, human impact index, geology, and population density. Each of these had a considerable effect on EGECC levels, indicating their crucial role in shaping the ecological and geological environment.

Interactions Among Driving Factors

We also explored how these factors interact with one another. The results showed strong interactions between geomorphic types and other factors. Notably, elevation and geology showed significant coupling effects, stressing the importance of natural features in driving EGECC changes.

Spatial Differences in Driving Mechanisms

Lastly, we examined spatial variability in how these driving factors affect EGECC. Higher elevations tended to have a negative impact on EGECC, mainly due to issues like soil erosion caused by steep terrain and mining activities. In contrast, lower-altitude areas benefited from their flat landscapes, supporting more stable ecological environments.

Understanding these elements helps us recognize the complex interplay between natural features and human activities, aiding in better resource management and conservation efforts in the future.