Next Article in Journal
An Evaluation on Wind Energy Potential Using Multi-Objective Optimization Based Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm III
Next Article in Special Issue
Diversity of Carbon Storage Economics in Fertile Boreal Spruce (Picea Abies) Estates
Previous Article in Journal
Identification and Prediction of Wetland Ecological Risk in Key Cities of the Yangtze River Economic Belt: From the Perspective of Land Development
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biostimulation of Microbial Communities from Malaysian Agricultural Soil for Detoxification of Metanil Yellow Dye; a Response Surface Methodological Approach
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Delineating an Integrated Ecological and Cultural Corridor Network: A Case Study in Beijing, China

1
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
2
School of Planning, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA
3
College of Architecture & Design, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(1), 412; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13010412
Submission received: 21 November 2020 / Revised: 30 December 2020 / Accepted: 31 December 2020 / Published: 5 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Sustainable Integrated Clean Environment for Human & Nature)

Abstract

:
This study shows that an integrated ecological and cultural corridor network can help guide city development strategies to better preserve ecological and cultural assets. Traditionally, protection zones and suitable development areas are often identified by separately considering natural elements of the ecosystem and elements of cultural significance. To achieve the purpose of cohesively protecting areas of ecological and/or cultural significance, we have developed a corridor-based spatial framework by integrating ecological and cultural assets. Ecological sources are identified by combining protection prioritization, nature reserves, and water bodies. Ecological corridors are delineated by using the minimum cumulative resistance (MCR) model on a resistance surface constructed from land-use data to connect ecological sources. Ecologically important areas are then delineated by creating a 5-km buffer zone from ecological sources and ecological corridors. Cultural corridors are historical routes and rivers surrounded by abundant cultural nodes. Like ecologically important areas, culturally important areas are delineated by creating a 5-km buffer zone from cultural corridors. Comprehensive regions are the overlap of ecologically and culturally important areas. Finally, the integrated network connects all comprehensive regions following ecological corridors and cultural corridors in such a way that the largest number of ecological sources and cultural nodes are reached. We applied this framework in Beijing, China, and the results show that there are 2011 km2 of ecological sources, 30 ecological corridors, 423 cultural nodes, seven cultural corridors, and 10 comprehensive regions covering 2916 km2 in the integrated network. The framework adds new insights to the methodology of considering ecological and cultural assets together in developing protection and development strategies.

1. Introduction

Human settlements have evolved from a cluster of cities to metropolitan areas, metropolitan area belts, large metropolitan belts, and megalopolises [1]. The world population has increased exponentially under this massive urbanization. In 2019, the United Nations predicted that the world population will have increased to 9.7 billion by 2050 and 66% of the population will reside in urban areas [2]. The conflicts between economic development and ecological protection have been seriously exacerbated by the rapid and intense changes in the structure and function of the landscape [3,4]. The rapid influx of popular culture from developed countries into developing countries and the widespread homogeneity of cultural practices have marginalized or even led to the disappearance of many indigenous cultures. These factors are the cause of many serious problems in the world today, such as air and water pollution, cultural invasion, biodiversity loss, food insecurity, and rising crime rates. Some scholars have pointed out that the world and its constituent landscapes are on an unsustainable trajectory. The question of how to reduce the effects of urbanization on the ecosystem in order to achieve urban sustainability has become an important focal point in the field of landscape ecology [5,6,7,8]. Sustainable development is a necessity, not a choice [9].
To achieve sustainable development, human beings must be in harmony with the environment in which they live. Ecosystem services are one of the important factors determining landscape sustainability. Among various definitions of ecosystem services [10,11,12,13], the most widely accepted is from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. Ecosystem services have been increasingly considered a crucial bridge between the environment and society, which also safeguard the natural capital for future generations and highlight the contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing [14,15,16]. Although ecosystem service evaluation has received increasing attention over the years [17], most studies still use biodiversity conservation, ecological importance, ecological risk evaluation, and resilience assessment to recognize ecological sources when delineating ecological corridors [18,19].
Similar to how modern material civilization comes at the expense of biological diversity, modern spiritual civilization comes at the expense of cultural diversity. With industrialization and human expansion, the earth is losing its biological and cultural diversity. The influence of foreign cultures, the transformation of traditional lifestyles, the mobility of the population, and the over-exploitation of tourism have destroyed various intangible cultural heritage resources. Many cultural heritage resources are the products of the long-term interaction between human beings and the natural environment in indigenous societies, which can enable people to recover the memory of the past and to build new perspectives [20]. However, many ancient buildings, bridges, and other facilities are gradually being replaced by works of modern engineering, and numerous excellent cultural heritage sites are scattered and lack contact with each other, which causes them to disappear over time. It is extremely urgent to establish an integrated conservation strategy to breathe new life into these precious assets.
As for the protection of ecological and cultural resources, inclined research on ecological/cultural conservation strategies focused on the establishment and application of corridors system to solve the relationship between protection and development comprehensively and efficiently [20,21,22,23,24,25]. In fact, Lewis (1964) put forward the linear concept of “environmental corridor” earlier, which contains surfaces, slopes, rims, and adjacent lands paralleling the corridor. The author also pointed out that the protection of environmental corridor qualities needs the joint efforts of better guidelines, legislation, and volunteered participation, and these corridors can serve as a landscape foil to an ever-advancing urban landscape [26]. Nevertheless, ecological or cultural corridors were always concerned separately rather than simultaneously. The aim of most ecological corridors is to maximize the value of regulating ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation by enhancing the connectivity among landscape elements [27,28], while recreation and tourism, sense of place, and heritage protection are the main functions of cultural corridors [23,29]. The aims, problems addressed, managing approaches, and spatial scale of these two aspects all have significant differences, and the scientific research, management practice and political discourses of ecological conservation and cultural heritage protection have largely been isolated from each other [30]. The participation of local residents is far lower than that of government decision-makers in the planning and management of both ecological corridors and cultural corridors, but the stakeholders and participation manners involved are quite different [30,31]. The combination of ecological corridors and cultural corridors is quite necessary to enrich the study framework and improve spatial integrity.
In this study, we address a few important gaps in the knowledge: (1) in the context of rapid urbanization, which leads to the disappearance of indigenous cultures and ecologically sensitive areas, comprehensive research on the combination of the ecological corridor and cultural corridor is not enough, and (2) current protection studies and practices of ecologically sensitive sites and cultural sites are not linked. We have designed this study to: (1) construct an integrated ecological and cultural corridor-based framework, (2) establish protection priorities by integrating protection values and protection costs, and (3) provide a scientific reference for optimizing the ecological spatial structure and promoting regional sustainable development. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe the study area and our integrated framework. The application of the framework is presented in Section 3. In Section 4, we discuss our findings, and in Section 5, we summarize our conclusions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study region, i.e., the city of Beijing (16,410 km2), is located in Northern China and is characterized by a variety of landforms and a rich cultural history. The terrain of Beijing slopes downwards from the northwest to the southeast (Figure 1). The city’s average population density was 1313 person/km2, and the population density of the central urban area was 8929 person/km2 in 2018. Along with rapid urbanization, the area of developed land dramatically increased from 485 km2 in 1990 to 1525 km2 in 2018. As a famous historical and cultural city, Beijing has hundreds of key cultural relic protection units, including 6 world heritage sites, such as the Great Wall and the Forbidden City.

2.2. Data and Data Sources

The data used in this research include: (1) digital elevation model (DEM) data with a spatial resolution of 30 m, (2) land cover raster data with a spatial resolution of 30 m, which is reclassified into 6 types: developed land, forest land, farmland, grassland, water bodies, and unused land, (3) railroads, highways, and national roads in vector data format, (4) water bodies including rivers, lakes, and reservoirs in vector data format, (5) normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) raster data with a spatial resolution of 1 km, which is resampled to 30 m, (6) the monthly and annual average precipitation of 18 weather stations from 1980 to 2012 in tabular data format, and among these weather stations, there are 6 in Beijing and 12 around Beijing, which can increase the accuracy of created raster in edge area, (7) soil composition and soil texture raster data with a spatial resolution of 1 km, which is resampled to 30 m, (8) nature reserves in vector data format, and (9) cultural heritage in vector data format. The spatial resolution of 30 m is used in all the raster calculations and outcomes. Appendix A Table A1 lists the data and data sources.

2.3. Methodological Framework

Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual framework of delineating the integrated network from ecological corridors and cultural corridors. Identifying ecological sources is the first step in delineating ecological corridors. Ecological sources consist of nature reserves, water bodies, and areas of high protection priority. Factors affecting the protection priority can be grouped into protection values and protection costs. Protection values reflect health and vulnerability, ecological importance, and the existing protection status of the targets [32,33]. Land use types, soil properties, and surface environment affect the ability to maintain biological resources and protection value. In this study, these factors were used in the process of deriving protection values from the amount of soil conservation. All protection interventions have associated costs, which include acquisition costs, management costs, transaction costs, damage costs, and opportunity costs, and protection costs are affected by many factors [34,35,36,37]. In this study, we included elevation (ELE), proximity to settlements (PSE), proximity to roads (PRO), and proximity to water bodies (PWA) in calculating the protection costs. Then, taking the protection costs as the resistance surface, paths connecting ecological sources were delineated as ecological corridors using the minimum cumulative resistance (MCR) model. When delineating cultural corridors, we considered designated cultural heritage sites to be cultural nodes. Since many cultural nodes are located along rivers and historical routes, we derived cultural corridors from the spatial distribution characteristics of cultural nodes and historical routes and rivers that have cultural and historical significance. Through a buffer analysis of the ecological sources and ecological corridors, ecologically important areas were obtained. Culturally important areas were acquired through a buffer analysis of cultural corridors. Then, ecologically important areas and culturally important areas were superimposed to obtain the comprehensive regions. Finally, the integrated network was delineated to connect the ecological sources, cultural nodes, ecological corridors, cultural corridors, and comprehensive regions.

2.4. Delineation of Ecological Corridors

2.4.1. Identification of Ecological Sources

We derived protection values from the amount of soil conservation. The function of soil conservation is mainly related to climate, soil characteristics, topography, and vegetation. We used the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) to calculate the amount of soil conservation in this study. RUSLE, proposed by Renard, is the most frequently used model [34,38]. It provides an ideal framework for assessing soil erosion and a clear perspective for understanding the interaction between erosion and its contributing factors. The model and its parameters are illustrated below.
A = A 0 A 1 ,
A 0 = R · K · L · S ,
A 1 = R · K · L · S · C · P ,
where A is the amount of soil conservation (t∙ha−1∙year−1), A0 is the amount of potential soil loss, and A1 is the amount of actual soil erosion loss. Other factors are explained as below:
(1)
R represents the erosivity factor (MJ∙mm∙ha−1∙h−1∙year−1), which is calculated by monthly precipitation and annual precipitation.
R = i = 1 12 ( 1.735 × 10 ( 1.5 × l g P i 2 P 0.08188 ) ) ,
where Pi (mm) is the average precipitation of month i and P (mm) represents the multi-year average precipitation. We converted punctuated weather station data into raster data using the inverse distance weighted (IDW) tool in ArcGIS 10.5.
(2)
K represents the soil erodibility factor calculated from the soil content (t∙h∙MJ−1∙mm−1).
K = { 0.2 + 0.3 e x p [ 0.0256 S A N ( 1 S I L / 100 ) ] } × [ S I L ( C L A + S I L ) ] 0.3 × { 1.0 0.25 o r g C [ o r g C + exp ( 3.72 2.95 o r g C ) ] } × [ 1.0 0.7 S N 1 S N 1 + exp ( 5.51 + 22.9 S N 1 ) ] ,
where SAN, SIL, CLA, and orgC represent the proportion of sand, silt, clay, and organic carbon in the soil respectively, SN1 = 1 − SAN/100.
(3)
L represents the slope length factor.
L = ( λ / 22.13 ) m ,
m = β / ( 1 + β ) ,
β = ( sin θ / 0.0896 ) / [ 3.0 ( sin θ ) 0.8 + 0.56 ] ,
where λ is slope length, m is slope length index, and θ is slope measured in percentage.
(4)
S represents the slope steepness factor.
S = { 10.8 sin θ + 0.03   ( θ < 9 % ) 16.8 sin θ 0.50   ( θ 9 % ) ,
(5)
C is the vegetation cover management factor.
C = 0.6508 0.3436 log 10 c ,
c = N D V I N D V I s o i l N D V I v e g N D V I s o i l ,
where c is vegetation coverage, and NDVIsoil and NDVIveg are the values of NDVI when the confidence level is 5% and 95%, respectively.
(6)
P is the support practices factor, which is a ratio of the soil loss with a conservation practice to soil loss from straight-row farming up and down the slope [39]. We used a P factor value of 1 in the study.
We normalized A into five classes using the Jenks Natural Breaks Classification method. The five class values represent the protection value (Pv). A Pv of “5” indicates the highest protection value and “1” the lowest. We derived the composite protection costs from elevation (ELE), proximity to settlements (PSE), proximity to roads (PRO), and proximity to water bodies (PWA). In China, land is state-owned or collective owned, and there are 2 types of costs due to conservation: the management cost of direct investment in the establishment and management of protection facilities, and the opportunity cost of abandoning the potential value of land economic use [40]. Management cost is mainly related to the type, area and local economic factors of the reserves [41]. Therefore, the 4 indicators related to elevation and distance in our study mainly affect the opportunity cost. Land in higher elevation areas is less desirable for development and less likely to be used for other economic purposes. Therefore, the opportunity cost is lower. The edge of settlements has a high probability of being used to build housing or other developments, so the opportunity cost lost due to conservation measures decreases as the distance to settlements increases. Roads can cause habitat fragmentation and ecosystem degradation, and land proximity to roads means it is potentially valuable for other economic use, so the opportunity cost is high near roads and decreases as the distance increases from roads. Considering the isolation effect of roads on ecological space, we selected the highways, national roads, and railroads in this study. Surface water bodies have a function of conserving water sources, but waterfronts are usually places of human activity. Therefore, the larger the distance from water bodies, the lower the opportunity cost. We used the “Euclidean Distance” tool in ArcGIS 10.5 to obtain the PSE, PRO, and PWR, then we reclassified these indicators to values from “1” to “5” and calculated the protection cost (Pc) as the weighted sum of them (the natural breakpoint method was used to perform the reclassification in this paper). The weights of ELE, PSE, PRO, and PWA are 0.3564, 0.3257, 0.1986, 0.1243 respectively, according to the research of Tao [42]. The protection cost, Pc, was reclassified to five discrete values, with “5” indicating the lowest protection cost and “1” the highest protection cost.
The protection priority was obtained by averaging the protection value and protection cost. In other words, high protection priority areas should have both high protection values and low protection costs. Protection priorities were calculated with the following formula:
P r = P v + P c 2
where Pv is the protection value, Pc is the protection cost, and Pr is the protection priority, with a reclassified value from “1” to “5”. Areas with a Pr value of “5” have the highest protection priority level and areas with “1” the lowest.
Finally, ecological sources were determined as areas with priority value of “5”, and areas with the priority value of “4” that are located in nature reserves (see details of nature reserves from Appendix A Table A2) and water bodies. Nature reserves consist of wetlands and forests, which can reduce soil erosion, conserve water, adjust the local ecosystem, and provide habitats for rare animals, birds, plants, and aquatic wildlife. Water bodies (such as lakes and reservoirs) play an important role in flood prevention and the propagation of aquatic organisms.

2.4.2. Delineation of Ecological Corridors

The MCR model is excellent in terms of expressing the interaction between landscape patterns and ecological processes [43,44]. The first step in the MCR model is to create a resistance surface according to land-use type [45]. Different land-use types have diverse impacts on the ecological resistance coefficient. Distance from developed land partially reflects the impact of human activities on the ecosystem [18]. Opinion on the resistance coefficient is consistent among researchers: the highest resistance coefficient is associated with developed land and decreases as distance to developed land increases [46,47]. We compiled resistance coefficients from the literature, as shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
We calculated the resistance surface using the following formula:
R w = R l + R d 2 ,
where Rw is the weighted resistance, Rl is the resistance coefficient of different land-use types, and Rd is the resistance coefficient of different distances from developed land. For example, the weighted resistance value of a grassland grid (Ri = 10) that is 600 m from developed land (Rd = 30) is 20 (= (10 + 30)/2). To improve the accuracy of ecological corridor identification at the boundary, the scope of analysis of the resistance surface is larger than Beijing’s administrative boundary.
The second step is to calculate the cost distance to ecological sources through the weighted resistance surface. This process was implemented with the “Cost Distance” tool in ArcGIS 10.5. The input source data raster layer is ecological sources and the input cost raster layer is the weighted resistance surface. The third step is to identify the least-cost paths from any ecological source to other ecological sources using the “Cost Path” tool in ArcGIS 10.5, and this step gives several different paths near ecological sources. Lastly, the paths with the fewest intersections with roads between two sources were selected as ecological corridors.

2.5. Delineation of Cultural Corridors

2.5.1. Identification of Cultural Nodes

People tend to choose cultural spots and scenic spots for social interaction, relaxation, education, and inspiration. There are often rich cultural heritage sites in urban and surrounding areas that have a long history, including material cultural heritage: that of historical, artistic, and scientific value, and intangible cultural heritage: traditional cultures that are related to life in an immaterial form. Material cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage are always accompanied in space [48]. However, these cultural heritage sites are under pressure from urbanization and tourism development, which threaten their original authenticity and integrity. In this study, we selected the national and municipal cultural heritage sites designated by the State Council of China as cultural nodes. These cultural heritage sites include ancient ruins, historic buildings, ancient tombs, lithoglyphs, historical and cultural towns/villages, etc., of significant historical and cultural value.

2.5.2. Delineation of Cultural Corridors

Cultural corridors are important bonds that link cultural nodes with human activities. They play an important role in tourism development, cultural heritage conservation, and the promotion of a sense of place [22,49,50]. The definition of a cultural corridor in this paper emphasizes its function of connectivity and inheritance. First of all, we identified the areas where cultural nodes are concentrated according to their distribution characteristics. Then, we delineated the routes and rivers that have important historical and cultural significance. We combined these two aspects to obtain the cultural corridors; in other words, the cultural corridors were determined according to whether a route or river has historical and cultural significance and whether there are a large number of cultural nodes around it. That is to say, cultural corridors are historical routes and rivers surrounded by abundant cultural nodes.

2.6. Delineation of the Integrated Network

The width of an ecological corridor has an important impact on the ecological function of the corridor. Some researchers believe that although different edge effects correspond to different corridor widths, generally speaking, the wider the ecological corridor, the better its ecological function [51,52]. On the basis of these research findings, we defined a 5 km buffer zone around ecological sources and ecological corridors as ecologically important areas. Herein, 5 km is a distance for future conservation planning and is not used as the actual corridor width. Similarly, we defined a buffer zone around cultural corridors as culturally important areas. Some researchers believe that the cultural corridor is an integrative concept with the purpose of integrating the conservation of cultural and natural resources [22,53]. Whether it is a corridor along a river valley, the Grand Canal corridor, or China’s ancient Silk Road corridor, the conceptual scope is determined according to the objects to be protected [22,54]. Therefore, the buffer distance for cultural corridors in our study was determined by the distribution characteristics of cultural nodes. Comprehensive regions are the overlapping areas of ecologically and culturally important areas, which represent the areas with both ecological and cultural importance. The integrated network was then established by connecting ecological sources, cultural nodes, ecological corridors, cultural corridors, and comprehensive regions.

3. Results

3.1. Ecological Sources and Ecological Corridors

3.1.1. Ecological Sources

As illustrated in Figure 3, we drew out protection prioritization (Figure 3c) based on the protection value (Figure 3a) and protection cost (Figure 3b). The “priority 5” patches, which cover about 4.9% of the study area, are mainly located in the north and the southwest. There are 22 ecological sources after combining “priority 5” patches and “priority 4” patches in nature reserves and water bodies (Figure 3d). The total area of these ecological sources is 2011 km2: about 12.3% of the study area. The vast majority of ecological sources are located in the northwest and the southwest. The largest ecological source (1150 km2) is located in the northwest mountainous area and accounts for 57.2% of the ecological sources.

3.1.2. Ecological Corridors

We can see from Figure 4 that ecological corridors connect all ecological sources together and interweave into an ecological network in space. There are 30 ecological corridors with a total length of 228 km, 6 of which extend to the central urban area, and another 7 to Hebei province. The connection to the central urban area encourages greenway construction in the central area of Beijing, and the ecological corridors extending to Hebei province can play an active role in regional collaboration. Hebei province may take these ecological corridors as a reference when they delineate their ecological corridors.

3.2. Cultural Nodes and Cultural Corridors

3.2.1. Cultural Nodes

Figure 5 illustrates the 423 cultural nodes. More than half are in the central urban area and the rest are scattered in the peripheral area (see Appendix A Table A3 for details). More cultural nodes are in the southwest and fewer in the northeast. Six historical and cultural towns/villages are all in peripheral areas with lower levels of urbanization, where many high-value historical buildings and ancient features are completely preserved. For example, Lingshui village has extremely rich cultural deposits that originated from the Ming Dynasty. In the north of Beijing, the Great Wall extends from the west to the northeast, along which there are many famous historical relics, such as Badaling, which is famous for its magnificent scenery, facilities, and profound history.
After observations and trials, we found that a total of 83% of the cultural nodes are within 5 km of the cultural corridors, and these cultural nodes show significant spatial agglomeration characteristics. Therefore, 5 km is an appropriate width to conduct a buffer analysis of cultural nodes in order to delineate the culturally important areas.

3.2.2. Cultural Corridors

Figure 5 presents the cultural corridors in Beijing. The total length of these cultural corridors is 851 km. They are listed below:
(1)
The central district cultural corridor is bounded by the second ring road, which encloses 32.93% of Beijing’s cultural heritage. There are many cultural nodes in the area along the corridor, which has a large population. Visits to the heritage sites are more frequent than in other cultural corridor areas. At the same time, the impact from outside is greater and protection is more difficult.
(2)
The Great Wall cultural corridor extends along the ridgeline of the northern exurbs from west to northeast and covers famous heritage sites such as Badaling, Juyong Pass, Mutianyu, and Simatai. The development of the related cultural industry has promoted economic development and environmental protection in the area.
(3)
The Yongding-Qingshui River cultural corridor is mainly in the Mentougou District, extending from the south to the source of the Yongding River and its tributary, Qingshui River. The rich history in this corridor has led to numerous ancient villages and buildings being located there. The cultural corridor plays an important role in promoting the ancient capital, improving the ecological environment, and providing recreational space.
(4)
The Grand Canal cultural corridor extends from the city center to Hebei province, along which there are Huitong River, Tonghui River, Wanning bridge, and Dongbuya bridge. As the longest canal in the world, the Grand Canal has played an important role in the cultural and economic development and exchange between the north and the south of China. It was granted World Heritage site status in 2014.
(5)
The Beijing–Guangzhou line cultural corridor along the Beijing–Guangzhou railroad to Hebei province begins in the city center. It is an ancient recreational route. There are numerous cultural nodes in the vicinity of the corridor, such as Lugou bridge, Liangxiang tower, and Liuli River bridge.
(6)
The Beijing–Taiyuan line cultural corridor along the Beijing–Taiyuan railroad to Hebei province also originates in the city center. It is an ancient recreational route. Famous heritage sites along the cultural corridor include the Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian, Tantuo temple, and Yao Guangxiao grave.
(7)
The Beijing–Baotou line cultural corridor is one of the imperial roads from the Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty. It starts from the city center and extends along the Beijing–Baotou railroad to the Badaling Great Wall and Ming Tombs. Famous heritage sites along the cultural corridor include the Beijing–Zhangjiakou Railway and Juyong Pass.

3.3. The Integrated Network

As illustrated in Figure 6, the integrated network visually reveals the relationships between ecological sources, cultural nodes, ecological corridors, and cultural corridors. Ecological sources are mainly distributed in exurbs, while cultural nodes are mainly located in central urban areas. However, the suburbs where ecological sources and cultural nodes coexist, such as Badaling Great Wall, Lingshui village, and Gubei town, are often the most popular tourist destinations, because they have multiple functions including leisure, experiencing traditional culture, and acquiring knowledge. Ecological corridors connecting all ecological sources interweave into a network in the exurbs, while cultural corridors radiate outward from the central urban area. At the same time, ecological corridors and cultural corridors share some intersection areas in the suburbs, which provide convenient positions for us to identify comprehensive regions.
The comprehensive regions that have both ecological and cultural importance cover an area of 2916 km2, and are mainly distributed in forestland. We numbered these regions from 1 to 10, as illustrated in Figure 6. The Great Wall landscape and the Great Wall culture are the outstanding features of Numbers 1–4. Number 5, a famous tourist destination, is a region with a concentrated distribution of historical and cultural heritage, characterized by royal gardens from the Qing Dynasty. There is a tremendous legacy and beautiful scenery along the Yongding river in Numbers 6–7. Historical and cultural villages and ancient buildings are concentrated in Number 8. There are a lot of celebrated cultural heritage sites in Number 9, such as the Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site, the Jin mausoleum site, etc. Number 10 is located in the famous Juma River scenic spot. In these regions, rich ecological assets and cultural nodes blend well in space, and ecological corridors coexist with cultural corridors. The integration of mountains and cultural heritage is the prominent feature of Chinese mountain culture.

4. Discussion

The coordination between protection and development is a vital basis for regional planning. Extreme protection or development can lead to unsustainable regional development [3]. Identifying ecological sources based on their protection priority is an effective way to build a smart protection plan. Special guidelines for protection and development can be formulated according to the different characteristics of priority levels, which is also beneficial in terms of the efficient use of funds. Areas in the most urgent state should receive the earliest attention, and urban construction and other development activities should be strictly restricted in these areas. In the case study of Beijing, ecological sources and cultural nodes have shown distinct spatial distribution characteristics. Ecological sources are mainly located in a mountainous region with a large area of forestland and grassland. Cultural nodes are concentrated in the built-up areas, and they are greatly and easily affected by human development activities. However, human beings have been seeking ways to organically integrate with the natural environment. For example, many temples, relics, and traditional villages are integrated into the natural environment, which attracts a large number of tourists every year and provides people with places for leisure activities.
The protection and construction of ecological corridors is still problematic because both ecological benefits and economic development are important for urbanized areas [55]. In the ecosystem, the barrier effect of road networks on biological pathways cannot be ignored. Unlike ecological corridors, cultural corridors in this paper are delineated according to the distribution features of cultural heritage, rivers, and historical routes, which is a subjective process. Although the size and influence radius of cultural heritage have not been taken into account, cultural corridor buffers reveal priority protection areas and systematize the protection of cultural heritage. These culturally important areas deserve priority heritage protection and strict construction control in order for them to retain their local cultural atmosphere.
In the comprehensive regions, in which ecological assets and cultural nodes coexist harmoniously in space, heritage protection, ecological protection, and landscape renovation are the main tasks. These comprehensive regions hold great importance in landscape planning and cultural heritage protection for decision-makers and planners. It is extremely necessary to apply strict and effective measures to reduce the destruction of natural ecology and cultural heritage as a result of human development activities. Some regions have done better in this regard, such as comprehensive region Number 8, and the ecological environment and historical and cultural villages all have been well protected. However, in some other regions, like Number 10, ecological problems such as habitat degradation and water quality deterioration have emerged due to the over-exploitation of tourism activities. In a nutshell, what these regions need is more systematic policies and management strategies. Some engineering and cultural heritage protection measures should be taken into consideration, such as building underground passages, overpasses, cultural squares, relic parks, and cultural attractions. Construction activities should be strictly controlled, and landscape renovation should be carried out in existing construction areas.
The heritage datasets used in our study are the list from official heritage discourse, which is reliant on the knowledge claims of technical and aesthetic experts, and institutionalized in state cultural agencies and amenity societies [56]. Previous studies have shown that public participation can be an effective tool in landscape planning and management [31], but the expression of subaltern discourses of community participation in heritage management and conservation processes in our study is insufficient. In order to reveal the potential elements, participatory strategies and field investigation should be included in future research, and experts involved in research, management, and marketing of cultural heritage as well as local residents should be involved in this process.
Although there are distinctive differences between ecological corridors and cultural ecological corridors, some potential similarities remain. For example, some researchers focused on the topics of cultural heritage, tourism, ecosystem services in landscape corridor study at the same time [57,58,59]. However, so far, the study of cultural corridors remains relatively weak compared to that of ecological corridors [18,30], and there has not been a systematic methodology framework to combine ecological corridors and cultural corridors in the same context. Therefore, it is quite necessary to enrich the research of corridor framework by combining ecological corridor with cultural corridor. Ecological protection is not a local or personal matter, but one that needs the collaboration of experts from different disciplines and policymakers from different regions. The protection of cultural relics is not only a matter for cultural relic workers but also planners and decision-makers. The integrated analysis of ecological corridors and cultural corridors is significant for the implementation of an integrated protection strategy.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we presented a method to delineate an integrated network that combines ecological corridors and cultural corridors. Along the integrated framework, we located many cultural heritage sites in areas that would be considered suitable for development using the traditional method, which only considers ecological elements when defining protection zones. We identified these areas as not being suitable for large-scale development, as it will lead to the destruction or even disappearance of local traditional features. Ecological and cultural corridors perform different functions, but they serve the same purpose of improving the quality of life. By considering them together, we can demonstrate the integral connection between them and cohesively protect areas of ecological and/or cultural significance. The integrated network can provide more reasonable suggestions for the optimization of the urban spatial structure. Different well-directed protection strategies can be adopted for three types of regions: ecologically important areas, culturally important areas, and ecologically and culturally important areas (comprehensive regions), which were obtained by buffer analysis and superposition analysis of ecological sources, ecological corridors, and cultural corridors.
This research method has no strict limit in terms of study scale, so it can be applied on larger (urban agglomeration) and smaller (county) scales as long as the data accuracy is acceptable, making it easy for decision-makers to implement at different levels. Our framework on the integrated network combines ecological corridors and cultural corridors in the same context, which makes the research on the two no longer isolated. Based on the result, we promote coordination of diversified aims, such as ecosystem services evaluation, biodiversity conservation, recreation and ecotourism, and heritage protection.
There is still room for improvement in our integrated network. Because the ecological corridors identified in our study are lines, we plan to explore practical quantitative methods to determine the width of corridors to guide the construction of an ecological network in the future. We also plan to include more views of local communities in the next phase of the study. The current setting of cultural corridor buffer distance is uniformly applied to all corridors. We realize that the influence radii of different cultural heritage sites can be quite different and plan to further explore more suitable methods for delineating variable cultural corridor buffer distances, which could be a combination of quantitative methods and qualitative methods to incorporate site specific information. In addition, we plan to collect local input of cultural sites to complement the heritage datasets. Finally, comprehensive regions are currently delineated from overlay analysis. We plan to enhance the method with stakeholder input and field investigation. We anticipate that accurate and practical delineation of the integrated network will support sustainable development goals.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.W., Y.L., and X.D.; methodology, Y.L. and X.W.; formal analysis, X.W. and Y.L.; investigation, Y.L.; data curation, Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, X.W.; visualization, Y.L.; supervision, X.D.; project administration, X.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Fundamental Funds for Humanities and Social Sciences of Beijing Jiaotong University (2016jdzd02).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be provided upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors also acknowledge with gratitude Liam Foley and Yanyan Zhu for their advice in editing this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Data sources in this study.
Table A1. Data sources in this study.
Data NameData Source
Digital Elevation Model (DEM)Geospatial Data Cloud site, Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences. (http://www.gscloud.cn)
Land cover data (2018)
Roads (2018)
Water bodies (2018)
NDVI (2018)
International Scientific & Technical Data Mirror Site, Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences. (http://www.resdc.cn)
Monthly average meteorological data (1980–2017)China Meteorological Administration (http://cdc.nmic.cn/home.do)
Soil dataCold and Arid Regions Sciences Data Center at Lanzhou (http://westdc.westgis.ac.cn)
Nature reserves (to 2017)Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau (http://www.bjepb.gov.cn/bjhrb/index/index.html)
Cultural heritages (to 2019)State Administration of Cultural Heritage (http://www.sach.gov.cn/)
Table A2. Nature reserves in Beijing (to 2017).
Table A2. Nature reserves in Beijing (to 2017).
NameMain Protection ObjectsType
Song mountainWild animals, such as golden eagle, natural oil pine forestForest ecosystem
Baihua MountainTemperate secondary forest, such as brown eared pheasant, arethusa and Dahurian larchForest ecosystem
LabagoumenNatural secondary forestForest ecosystem
Wild duck lakeWetland and migratory birdWetland
Yunmeng MountainSecondary forestForest ecosystem
Yunfeng MountainSecondary Pinus TabulaeformisForest ecosystem
Wuling mountainValuable and rare animals and plants, natural secondary forests and typical forest ecosystems.Forest ecosystem
SizuolouNatural secondary forest and national protected plants (wild soybean, Amur corktree, tilia amurensis and Acanthopanax)Forest ecosystem
Yudu mountainForest and wild animals and plantsForest ecosystem
Lianhua mountainWild animals and plantsForest ecosystem
DatanNatural secondary forest and wild animals and plantsForest ecosystem
Jinniu lakeWetlandWetland
BaihebaoWater conservation forestForest ecosystem
Taian mountainForest and wild animals and plantsForest ecosystem
ShuitouForest and wild animals and plantsForest ecosystem
PuwaForest ecosystemForest ecosystem
HanshiqiaoWetland and migratory birdWetland
Juma riverAquatic wildlife, such as Giant salamanderWetland
Huaisha and Huaijiu riverAquatic wildlife, such as Giant salamander, needle-mackerel and mandarin duckWetland
ShihuadongKarst cavernsGeological heritage
Chaoyang templeFossil woodGeological heritage
Table A3. List of Cultural Heritage Sites in Beijing.
Table A3. List of Cultural Heritage Sites in Beijing.
NumberNameLevel
1Ancient Cliff Dwelling SiteBeijing Municipal
2Anti-Japanese War Sites of Yuzi MountainBeijing Municipal
3Architectural Heritage of Beijing Normal UniversityBeijing Municipal
4Architectural Heritage of Leshan ParkBeijing Municipal
5Architecture Remains of Daci Yanfu PalaceBeijing Municipal
6Architecture Remains of Nations’ Affairs OfficeBeijing Municipal
7Back Hall of Capital City TempleBeijing Municipal
8Bai Yihua Martyr CemeteryBeijing Municipal
9Baipu TempleBeijing Municipal
10Baoguo Temple and Gu Tinglin TempleBeijing Municipal
11Beiguan Dragon TempleBeijing Municipal
12Beihai, TuanchengBeijing Municipal
13Beijia ParkBeijing Municipal
14Beijing Babaoshan Revolutionary CemeteryBeijing Municipal
15Beijng Newspaper MuseumBeijing Municipal
16Bi Xia Yuanjun Temple Site of Yahuan MountainBeijing Municipal
17Cai Yuanpei’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
18Changxindian “Twenty-seven” Revolutionary SitesBeijing Municipal
19Chaozhong BridgeBeijing Municipal
20Charity TempleBeijing Municipal
21Chen Duxiu’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
22Cheng Yanqiu’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
23Chengze ParkBeijing Municipal
24Chinese Episcopal ChurchBeijing Municipal
25Church of St. MichaelBeijing Municipal
26Clay City Site at CaizhuangBeijing Municipal
27Coloured Glaze Factory of the Ministry of Works of Qing DynastyBeijing Municipal
28Confucius TempleBeijing Municipal
29Congress of the Republic of ChinaBeijing Municipal
30Cross-Street Building of Sanguan PavilionBeijing Municipal
31Cuandixia Ancient Residential villageBeijing Municipal
32Da ParkBeijing Municipal
33De Shoutang PharmacyBeijing Municipal
34Diaoyutai and Yangyuan TempleBeijing Municipal
35Dinghui TempleBeijing Municipal
36Dongsi Mosque Beijing Municipal
37DongYue TempleBeijing Municipal
38Dongyue Temple, ShangzhuangBeijing Municipal
39Doudian Clay CityBeijing Municipal
40Drama Stage of Anhui Guide HallBeijing Municipal
41Drama Stage of Yangping Guide HallBeijing Municipal
42Early Buildings of Beijing HotelBeijing Municipal
43Eight Sites of Xishan MountainBeijing Municipal
44Fanzi Stone InscriptionBeijing Municipal
45Female Normal College of Former National Beiping UniversityBeijing Municipal
46Fire God Temple of HuashiBeijing Municipal
47Fomer Site of Continential Bank (Beijing)Beijing Municipal
48Forked Road CityBeijing Municipal
49Former Furen UniveisityBeijing Municipal
50Former Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijing Municipal
51Former Sino-France UniversityBeijing Municipal
52Former Site of American EmbassyBeijing Municipal
53Former Site of Austrian EmbassyBeijing Municipal
54Former Site of Bank of CommunicationsBeijing Municipal
55Former Site of Bank of GoldBeijing Municipal
56Former Site of Banque Indosuez (Beijing)Beijing Municipal
57Former Site of Baoshang BankBeijing Municipal
58Former Site of BazaarBeijing Municipal
59Former Site of Beijing OriginBeijing Municipal
60Former Site of Belgian EmbassyBeijing Municipal
61Former Site of Branch College of Beijing Normal UniversityBeijing Municipal
62Former Site of British EmbassyBeijing Municipal
63Former Site of Central BankBeijing Municipal
64Former site of China Geology Investigation InstituteBeijing Municipal
65Former Site of Chinese Bible SocietyBeijing Municipal
66Former Site of CitibankBeijing Municipal
67Former Site of Duan Qirui GovernmentBeijing Municipal
68Former Site of Dutch EmbassyBeijing Municipal
69Former Site of Exhibition Hall of Geology, Beijing UniversityBeijing Municipal
70Former Site of French EmbassyBeijing Municipal
71Former Site of French Post OfficeBeijing Municipal
72Former Site of General Post Office of the Qing DynastyBeijing Municipal
73Former Site of Japanese EmbassyBeijing Municipal
74Former Site of Jiaoshi Building and Baiyou Building of Fuyu Female SchoolBeijing Municipal
75Former Site of Nanyuan Army HeadquartersBeijing Municipal
76Former Site of North Telephone Subexchang of Beiping Beijing Municipal
77Former Site of Notre Dame French SchoolBeijing Municipal
78Former Site of Salt Industry BankBeijing Municipal
79Former Site of Tongzhou ArmyBeijing Municipal
80Former site of work study program in France in Chang XindianBeijing Municipal
81Former Site of Zhengyangmen East Station of Beijing Fengtian RailwayBeijing Municipal
82Former Teaching Building of Luhe Middle SchoolBeijing Municipal
83Fuguo Street Quadrangle, Xicheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
84Fusheng TempleBeijing Municipal
85Fuyou TempleBeijing Municipal
86Girderless PavilionBeijing Municipal
87Glacial StriaeBeijing Municipal
88Gold Hall of Huguo TempleBeijing Municipal
89Gonghua CityBeijing Municipal
90Gonghua PalaceBeijing Municipal
91Gongjian Ice CellarBeijing Municipal
92Great Hall of Lingyan TempleBeijing Municipal
93Guangfu TempleBeijing Municipal
94Guanghua TempleBeijing Municipal
95Guangji BridgeBeijing Municipal
96Heilong Pool and Longwang TempleBeijing Municipal
97Heping TempleBeijing Municipal
98Hongluo TempleBeijing Municipal
99House at East Imperial Root South Street, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
100House at North Buzong Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
101House at Weijia Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
102Huguang Guide HallBeijing Municipal
103Huixian HallBeijing Municipal
104Hunan Guide HallBeijing Municipal
105Huoshen TempleBeijing Municipal
106Imperial Ancestral TempleBeijing Municipal
107Imperial City Wall SiteBeijing Municipal
108Imperial College StreetBeijing Municipal
109Jade Emperor TowerBeijing Municipal
110Ji Xiaolan’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
111Jiaolao TaiBeijing Municipal
112Jiemin HallBeijing Municipal
113Jinghua Publishing HouseBeijing Municipal
114Jingming ParkBeijing Municipal
115Jingyi Park (Xiangshan Moutain)Beijing Municipal
116Jintai AcademyBeijing Municipal
117Jiufeng Seismic StationBeijing Municipal
118Juesheng TempleBeijing Municipal
119Kang Youwei’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
120Lao She’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
121Lejia GardenBeijing Municipal
122Li Dazhao’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
123Liangxiang TowerBeijing Municipal
124Lingzhao TempleBeijing Municipal
125Liuyang Guide HallBeijing Municipal
126Long’an TempleBeijing Municipal
127Longquan Temple of Bailong PoolBeijing Municipal
128Lotus PoolBeijing Municipal
129Lu Xun’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
130Lumi WarehouseBeijing Municipal
131Lvzu PavilionBeijing Municipal
132Main Building of Beijng LibraryBeijing Municipal
133Main Building of Italian Embassy SiteBeijing Municipal
134Mansion of Beile TaoBeijing Municipal
135Mansion of Crown Prince of Ning CountyBeijing Municipal
136Mansion of Crown Prince of Shuncheng CountyBeijing Municipal
137Mansion of King ChunBeijing Municipal
138Mansion of King FuBeijing Municipal
139Mansion of King HengBeijing Municipal
140Mansion of King LiBeijing Municipal
141Mansion of King QingBeijing Municipal
142Mansion of King SengBeijing Municipal
143Mansion of King ZhengBeijing Municipal
144Mansion of Princess HejingBeijing Municipal
145Mao Dun’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
146Martyr Li Dazhao cemeteryBeijing Municipal
147Mei Lanfang’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
148Memorial of Sun Yat Sen’s DeathBeijing Municipal
149Monument to the Luanzhou UprisingBeijing Municipal
150Monument to the Martyrs who Died in the Anti-Japanese War in Wanping CountyBeijing Municipal
151Nangangwa BridgeBeijing Municipal
152Niangniang Temple of North PeakBeijing Municipal
153Nianhua TempleBeijing Municipal
154Ninghe TempleBeijing Municipal
155Niujie Street Mosque Beijing Municipal
156No.36 Fuxue Hutong, Dongcheng District Beijing Municipal
157No.63–65 Quadrangle, Dongsiliutiao, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
158North Guide Hall of Tingzhou, FujianBeijing Municipal
159North New WarehouseBeijing Municipal
160Old MessuageBeijing Municipal
161Old Style ShopsBeijing Municipal
162Public Elder Longevity TowerBeijing Municipal
163Publishing Factory Site of Ministry of Finance of the Republic of ChinaBeijing Municipal
164Puzhao TempleBeijing Municipal
165Qi Baishi’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
166Qinghe Hancheng SiteBeijing Municipal
167Qingyin Pavilion of Yunhui Building Beijing Municipal
168Randeng TowerBeijing Municipal
169Remains of Mansion of ZhaohuiBeijing Municipal
170Remains of the School Department in Qing DynastyBeijing Municipal
171Residence Group of Union HospitalBeijing Municipal
172Riverside City and Enemy PlatformBeijing Municipal
173Rong Tomb Site at Yuhuangmiao MountainBeijing Municipal
174Ruins of Shang, Zhou Dynasty at Liu LiheBeijing Municipal
175Sansheng TempleBeijing Municipal
176Shangzhai Cultural SiteBeijing Municipal
177Shaoxing Guide HallBeijing Municipal
178Sheng Pingshu Drama StageBeijing Municipal
179Shifang Buddists TowerBeijing Municipal
180Shijia Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
181Shuanglin TempleBeijing Municipal
182Shuiguan Great WallBeijing Municipal
183Shuntian State-run SchoolBeijing Municipal
184Shuqu Square Stele of Zhengyang BridgeBeijing Municipal
185Sibei Temple, Tao rantingBeijing Municipal
186No.11 Quadrangle, Neiwubu Street, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
187No.11 Quadrangle, Xisibei 3, Xicheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
188No.129 Quadrangle, Lishi Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
189No.13,15 Quadrangle, Fangjia Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
190No.15 Quadrangle, Qian Gongyong Hutong, Xicheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
191No.19 Quadrangle, Xisibei 3, Xicheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
192No.2 Quadrangle, Guoxiang Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
193No.20 Quadrangle, Xinkai Road, Chongwen DistrictBeijing Municipal
194No.23 Quadrangle, Xisibei Avenue 6, Xicheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
195No.7,9 Quadrangle, Back Yuan’en Temple Street, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
196No.15 Quadrangle and its Tile Carving, Dongmianhua Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
197No.25 Quadrangle, Art Museum East Street, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
198No.153 Quadrangle, Di’anmenxi Avenue, Xicheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
199No.93 Quadrangle, Fuchengmennei Street, Xicheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
200No.255 Quadrangle, Gulou East Avenue, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
201No.13 Quadrangle, Heizhima Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
202No.5 Quadrangle, Maoer Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
203No.7,9 Quadrangle, Qiangulouyuan Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
204No.7,9 Quadrangle, Qianyongkang Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
205No.15 Quadrangle, Shajing Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
206Quadrangle, Xijiaominxiang Street 87, Beixinhua Street 112, Xicheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
207No.25–37 Quadrangle, Xitangzi Hutong, Dongcheng DistrictBeijing Municipal
208Site of Chinese Communist Delegation of the Ministry of Military Transfer in 1946Beijing Municipal
209Site of European and American students’ AssociationBeijing Municipal
210Site of Hebei-Rehe-Chahaer Advance Army Commander’s Headquarter of Eight Route ArmyBeijing Municipal
211Site of Taiye Pool at the Mid-capital of the Kin Dynasty Beijing Municipal
212Site of the Farmer and Worker Bank of ChinaBeijing Municipal
213Site of Tuanhe PalaceBeijing Municipal
214Site of Xizhi Men Station of PingsuiBeijing Municipal
215Sites of Bai FuquanBeijing Municipal
216Sites of Da Baotai Tombs of Western Han DynastyBeijing Municipal
217Songzhu Temple and Zhizhu TempleBeijing Municipal
218South Mansion of King ChunBeijing Municipal
219South New WarehouseBeijing Municipal
220Southeastern Corner Tower of the CityBeijing Municipal
221Stage and Guandi Temple at Huapen VillageBeijing Municipal
222Stone Buddha in Baishui TempleBeijing Municipal
223Stone Sculptures of Yi SangaBeijing Municipal
224Temple of Empress of FengtaiBeijing Municipal
225Temples and Yunshui Cave at Shangfang MoutainBeijing Municipal
226The Bell TowerBeijing Municipal
227The Chairman Mao Memorial HallBeijing Municipal
228The Drum TowerBeijing Municipal
229The Former Chartered BankBeijing Municipal
230The Front of Former Site of Qian Xiangyi Beijing Municipal
231The Front of Former Site of Rui Fuxiang Beijing Municipal
232The Front of Quanjude Roast DuckBeijing Municipal
233The Great Hall of Pudu TempleBeijing Municipal
234The Great Hall of Shuntian MansionBeijing Municipal
235The Interior Office of Inspecting the Imperial Government in Qing DynastyBeijing Municipal
236The Land Altar (Zhongshan Park)Beijing Municipal
237The Remains of Beijing City Wall in Ming DynastyBeijing Municipal
238The statue of Wei TaiheBeijing Municipal
239The Tenth Hotel at Grain Shop StreetBeijing Municipal
240Three Eighteen Martyr MonumentBeijing Municipal
241Tianli Coal Factory SiteBeijing Municipal
242Tiewa TempleBeijing Municipal
243Tomb of Crown Prince of Fu CountyBeijing Municipal
244Tomb of Laoshan of Han DynastyBeijing Municipal
245Tomb of Li ZhuowuBeijing Municipal
246Tomb of Liang QichaoBeijing Municipal
247Tomb of SunyueBeijing Municipal
248Tomb of TianyiBeijing Municipal
249Tomb, Stele and Status of Zhan TianyouBeijing Municipal
250Tombs of Lu Huixiang’s FamilyBeijing Municipal
251Tombs of Soldiers and Men Killed in the Battle of GubeikouBeijing Municipal
252Tongyun Bridge and Remains of Zhang Jiawan City Wall Beijing Municipal
253Tongzhou MosqueBeijing Municipal
254Tower of Zen Master WuaiBeijing Municipal
255Tuancheng FortressBeijing Municipal
256TuchengBeijing Municipal
257Wanning BridgeBeijing Municipal
258Waterworks of Qing DynastyBeijing Municipal
259Weiming Lake District, Former Yanjing UniversityBeijing Municipal
260Wofo TempleBeijing Municipal
261Wuta TowerBeijing Municipal
262Xianliang TempleBeijing Municipal
263Xianying TempleBeijing Municipal
264Xihuang TempleBeijing Municipal
265Xishiku ChurchBeijing Municipal
266Xiuyun TempleBeijing Municipal
267Xuanren TempleBeijing Municipal
268Xuechi Ice CellarBeijing Municipal
269Xuhua Pavilion and Song HallBeijing Municipal
270YandunBeijing Municipal
271Yang Jiaoshan TempleBeijing Municipal
272Yaowang Temple of FengtaiBeijing Municipal
273Yinshan TowerBeijing Municipal
274Yiyuan ParkBeijing Municipal
275Yongning Catholic ChurchBeijing Municipal
276Yuansheng PalaceBeijing Municipal
277Yun TaiBeijing Municipal
278Yuqian TempleBeijing Municipal
279Zhao TowerBeijing Municipal
280Zhaoxian TempleBeijing Municipal
281Zhengyang Gate and Arrow towerBeijing Municipal
282Zhengyi TempleBeijing Municipal
283Zhongshan Guide HallBeijing Municipal
284Zhou Jixiang TowerBeijing Municipal
285Zhu Yizhun’s Former ResidenceBeijing Municipal
286Cuandixia Village, Zhaitang TownNational
287Gubeikou TownNational
288Jiaozhuanghu Village, Longwantun TownNational
289Lingshui Village, Zhaitang TownNational
290Liuliqu Village, Longquan TownNational
291Shuiyu Village, Nanjiao TownNational
292Ancient Building Group in Cuandixia VillageNational
293Ancient Cliff Dwelling in YanqingNational
294Ancient Weather StationNational
295Anhui Guide HallNational
296Badaling Great WallNational
297Baiyun TempleNational
298Baoguo TempleNational
299Beihai and TuanchengNational
300Beijing Bell Tower, Drum TowerNational
301Beijing City Walls of the Ming DynastyNational
302Beijing Huguang Guide Hall National
303Biyun TempleNational
304Bolin TempleNational
305Bridge of Liuli RiverNational
306Buddists Hall, Stone Inscription and Tower of Kongshui CaveNational
307Changchun TempleNational
308Cheng’en TempleNational
309Chinese Episcopal ChurchNational
310Chongli ResidenceNational
311Church of Xi ShikuNational
312Cishou Temple TowerNational
313Commerce Building in Dashila AreaNational
314Confucius TempleNational
315Da Gaoxuan HallNational
316Dahui TempleNational
317Dajue TempleNational
318Desheng Gate Archery TowerNational
319Dongyue Temple, Beijing National
320Duobao Buddist Tower of Liangxiang National
321Early Architectures inTshinghua UniveisityNational
322East HallNational
323Embassy Architecture Group of Dongjiaominxiang National
324Fahai TempleNational
325Fayuan TempleNational
326Former Site of Agricultural Experimental Farm of Qing DynastyNational
327Former Site of Beijing Branch of China Bible Church National
328Former Site of Beijing Female Normal CollegeNational
329Former Site of Beijing ParliamentNational
330Former Site of Beiping LibraryNational
331Former Site of Branch College of Beijing Normal UniversityNational
332Former Site of Exhibition Hall of Geology, Beijing UniversityNational
333Former Site of Main Campus of Furen UniversityNational
334Former Site of National Mongolian Tibetan SchoolNational
335Former Site of Peking Union Medical CollegeNational
336Former Site of Radio 491 National
337Former Sites of Shengxin Middle School and Youzhen Female Middle SchoolNational
338Former Sites of the Army and Navy Departments of the Qing DynastyNational
339Gate of Heavenly PeaceNational
340Guangji TempleNational
341Guanyue TempleNational
342Guide Hall of Sun Yat-senNational
343Guo Moruo’s Former ResidenceNational
344Imperial Ancestral TempleNational
345Imperial ArchivesNational
346Imperial CollegeNational
347Jianruiying Martial Arts HallNational
348Jiaozhuanghu Tunnel Battle SiteNational
349Jietai TempleNational
350Jingming ParkNational
351Juesheng TempleNational
352Ke ParkNational
353Li Dazhao’s Former ResidenceNational
354Lingyue Temple National
355Lu Xun’s Former Residence in BeijingNational
356Lugou BridgeNational
357Mansion of Crown Prince of Keqin CountyNational
358Mansion of King ChunNational
359Mansion of King FuNational
360Mei Lanfang’s Former ResidenceNational
361Memorial Park of Luanzhou Uprising of Xinhai Year National
362Modern Bank Building Group in Xijiaominxiang National
363Modern School Buildings Group in TongzhouNational
364Moke TempleNational
365Mout JingNational
366Nankou-Badaling Section of Jing-Zhang RaiwayNational
367Niujie Street MosqueNational
368Peking Man Site at ZhoukoudianNational
369Prince Gong’s Mansion and ParkNational
370Publishing House Site of Ministry of Finance of the Republic of ChinaNational
371Pudu TempleNational
372Qingjinghuacheng TowerNational
373Red Building in Peking UniversityNational
374Remains of Great-Capital City Wall of Yuan DynastyNational
375Shangzhai SiteNational
376Shifang Pujue TempleNational
377Shuangqing VillaNational
378Shuiguan Site of the Mid-Capital of the Kin DynastyNational
379Simatai Section of Great WallNational
380Site of JinlingNational
381Site of Liuli RiverNational
382Site of Old Summer PalaceNational
383Site of Shizi TempleNational
384Song Qingling Children’s Science and Technology MuseumNational
385Song Qingling’s Former Residence in BeijingNational
386South HallNational
387Southeastern Corner Tower of the Beijing CityNational
388Staiton Building of Beijng Railway StationNational
389Summer PalaceNational
390Tantuo TempleNational
391Temple of HeavenNational
392Temple of the MoonNational
393Temple of the Past-Ages EmperorsNational
394Temple of Wen Tianxiang National
395The Altar to the SunNational
396The Forbidden CityNational
397The Lama TempleNational
398The Land AltarNational
399The Ming Tombs National
400The Site of Atomic EnergyNational
401The Site of the Two-Seven Strike in ChangxindianNational
402The Monument to the People’s HeroesNational
403Tianning Temple TowerNational
404Tomb and Temple of Yuan ChonghuanNational
405Tomb of JingtaiNational
406Tomb of King ChunNational
407Tombs of Matteo Ricci and Foreign Missionaries of Ming, Qing DynastiesNational
408Wanshou TempleNational
409Wansong Elder TowerNational
410White Tower of Miaoying TempleNational
411Wuta Temple TowerNational
412Xiannong AltarNational
413Yanyuan Buildings of Weiming LakeNational
414Yao Guangxiao Tomb TowerNational
415Yasili HallNational
416Yinshan Forest of PagodasNational
417Yun Terrace in Juyong PassNational
418Yunju Temple Tower and Stone Scripture of FangshanNational
419Zhengang TowerNational
420Zhengyang GateNational
421Zhihua TempleNational
422Zhizhu TempleNational
423Zhong Nan HaiNational

References

  1. Fang, C.; Yu, D. Urban agglomeration: An evolving concept of an emerging phenomenon. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 162, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nations, U. Growing at a Slower Pace, World Population is Expected to Reach 9.7 Billion in 2050 and Could Peak at Nearly 11 Billion around 2100. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html (accessed on 23 March 2020).
  3. Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Shi, Y.; Zhu, X. Investigation of a coupling model of coordination between urbanization and the environment. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 98, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gunawardhana, L.N.; Kazama, S.; Kawagoe, S. Impact of Urbanization and Climate Change on Aquifer Thermal Regimes. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 3247–3276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Breuste, J.; Qureshi, S.; Li, J. Applied urban ecology for sustainable urban environment. Urban Ecosyst. 2013, 16, 675–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Taylor, L.; Hochuli, D.F. Creating better cities: How biodiversity and ecosystem functioning enhance urban residents’ wellbeing. Urban Ecosyst. 2015, 18, 747–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Breuste, J.; Qureshi, S. Urban sustainability, urban ecology and the Society for Urban Ecology (SURE). Urban Ecosyst. 2011, 14, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wu, J. Urban sustainability: An inevitable goal of landscape research. Landsc. Ecol. 2010, 25, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 999–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Assessment, M.E. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  11. Daily, G.C. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  12. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nahlik, A.M.; Kentula, M.E.; Fennessy, M.S.; Landers, D.H. Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 77, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kubiszewski, I.; Costanza, R.; Anderson, S.; Sutton, P. The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Braat, L.C.; de Groot, R. The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A Hum. Policy Dimens. 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wolff, S.; Schulp, C.J.E.; Verburg, P.H. Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 55, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, L.; Peng, J.; Liu, Y.; Wu, J. Coupling ecosystem services supply and human ecological demand to identify landscape ecological security pattern: A case study in Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region, China. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 701–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Xie, H.; Yao, G.; Liu, G. Spatial evaluation of the ecological importance based on GIS for environmental management: A case study in Xingguo county of China. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 51, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Campolo, D.; Bombino, G.; Meduri, T. Cultural Landscape and Cultural Routes: Infrastructure Role and Indigenous Knowledge for a Sustainable Development of Inland Areas. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 223, 576–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Liang, J.; He, X.; Zeng, G.; Zhong, M.; Gao, X.; Li, X.; Li, X.; Wu, H.; Feng, C.; Xing, W.; et al. Integrating priority areas and ecological corridors into national network for conservation planning in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hoppert, M.; Bahn, B.; Bergmeier, E.; Deutsch, M.; Epperlein, K.; Hallmann, C.; Mller, A.; Platz, T.V.; Reeh, T.; Stck, H.; et al. The Saale-Unstrut cultural landscape corridor. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Oikonomopoulou, E.a.; Delegou, E.T.A.; Sayas, J.B.; Moropoulou, A.A. An innovative approach to the protection of cultural heritage: The case of cultural routes in Chios Island, Greece. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2017, 14, 742–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pierik, M.; Dell’Acqua, M.; Confalonieri, R.; Bocchi, S.; Gomarasca, S. Designing ecological corridors in a fragmented landscape: A fuzzy approach to circuit connectivity analysis. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 67, 807–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ye, H.; Yang, Z.; Xu, X. Ecological Corridors Analysis Based on MSPA and MCR Model—A Case Study of the Tomur World Natural Heritage Region. Sustainability 2020, 12, 959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Lewis, P.H. Landscape Resources. In The Wisconsin Blue Book; Rupert, T.H., Ed.; Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau: Madison, WI, USA, 1964; pp. 130–142. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee, J.A.; Chon, J.; Ahn, C. Planning Landscape Corridors in Ecological Infrastructure Using Least-Cost Path Methods Based on the Value of Ecosystem Services. Sustainability 2014, 6, 7564–7585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Mossman, H.L.; Panter, C.J.; Dolman, P.M. Modelling biodiversity distribution in agricultural landscapes to support ecological network planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 141, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Shishmanova, M.V. Cultural Tourism in Cultural Corridors, Itineraries, Areas and Cores Networked. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 188, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Xu, H.; Plieninger, T.; Primdahl, J. A Systematic Comparison of Cultural and Ecological Landscape Corridors in Europe. Land 2019, 8, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Eiter, S.; Vik, M.L. Public participation in landscape planning: Effective methods for implementing the European Landscape Convention in Norway. Land Use Policy 2015, 44, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ahn, S.; Kim, S. Assessment of watershed health, vulnerability and resilience for determining protection and restoration Priorities. Environ. Model. Softw. 2019, 122, 103926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Opdam, P.; Steingröver, E.; Rooij, S.V. Ecological networks: A spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Naidoo, R.; Balmford, A.; Ferraro, P.J.; Polasky, S.; Ricketts, T.H.; Rouget, M. Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2006, 21, 681–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Prahl, B.F.; Boettle, M.; Costa, L.; Kropp, J.P.; Rybski, D. Damage and protection cost curves for coastal floods within the 600 largest European cities. Sci. Data 2018, 5, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhu, M.; Xi, X.; Hoctor, T.S.; Volk, M. Integrating conservation costs into sea level rise adaptive conservation prioritization. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2015, 4, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Manhães, A.P.; Loyola, R.; Mazzochini, G.G.; Ganade, G.; Oliveira-Filho, A.T.; Carvalho, A.R. Low-cost strategies for protecting ecosystem services and biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 217, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alexakis, D.D.; Hadjimitsis, D.G.; Agapiou, A. Integrated use of remote sensing, GIS and precipitation data for the assessment of soil erosion rate in the catchment area of “Yialias” in Cyprus. Atmos. Res. 2013, 131, 108–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Renard, K.G.; Foster, F.G.; Weesies, G.A.; McCool, K.K.; Yoder, D.C. Predicting Soil Loss Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE); US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
  40. Yang, Z.; Wu, J. Conservation cost of China’s nature reserves and its regional distribution. J. Nat. Resour. 2019, 34, 839–852. [Google Scholar]
  41. Armsworth, P.R.; Cantú-Salazar, L.; Parnell, M.; Davies, Z.G.; Stoneman, R. Management costs for small protected areas and economies of scale in habitat conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Tao, G.; Ou, X.; Guo, Y.; Xu, Q.; Yu, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, C. Priority area identification for vegetation in northwest Yunnan, based on protection value and protection cost. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2016, 36, 5777–5789. [Google Scholar]
  43. Huck, M.; Jędrzejewski, W.; Borowik, T.; Jędrzejewska, B.; Nowak, S.; Mysłajek, R.W. Analyses of least cost paths for determining effects of habitat types on landscape permeability: Wolves in Poland. Acta Theriol. 2011, 56, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Knaapen, J.P.; Scheffer, M.; Harms, B. Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1992, 23, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gurrutxaga, M.; Rubio, L.; Saura, S. Key connectors in protected forest area networks and the impact of highways: A transnational case study from the Cantabrian Range to the Western Alps (SW Europe). Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 101, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hepcan, C.C.; Ozkan, M.B. Establishing ecological networks for habitat conservation in the case of Çeşme-Urla Peninsula, Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 174, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Yu, K.; Wang, S.; Li, D. Regional Ecological Security Patterns: The Beijing Case. Beijing: China; Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  48. UNESCO. What is Intangible Cultural Heritage? Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003/ (accessed on 15 November 2020).
  49. Bozic, S.; Tomic, N. Developing the Cultural Route Evaluation Model (CREM) and its application on the Trail of Roman Emperors. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016, 17, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Xu, H.; Zhao, G.; Fagerholm, N.; Primdahl, J.; Plieninger, T. Participatory mapping of cultural ecosystem services for landscape corridor planning: A case study of the Silk Roads corridor in Zhangye, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 264, 110458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Zhu, Q.; Yu, K.; Li, D. The width of ecological corridor in landscape planning. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2005, 25, 2406–2412. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wu, J.; Li, X.; Long, N.; Xiao, J. Ecological Corridor Network Planning for Dense City Areas: A Case Study of Guangzhou Metropolitan Area. Mod. Urban Res. 2017, 2017, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fabos, J.G. Introduction and overview: The greenway movement, uses and potentials of greenways. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 33, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, L.; Shao, M.; Wang, S.; Li, Z. Preservation of earthen heritage sites on the Silk Road, northwest China from the impact of the environment. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 64, 1625–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Peng, J.; Zhao, H.; Liu, Y. Urban ecological corridors construction: A review. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Smith, L. Uses of Heritage; Routeledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  57. Von Haaren, C.; Reich, M. The German way to greenways and habitat networks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 76, 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Manton, R.; Clifford, E. Identification and classification of factors affecting route selection of cycling routes in Ireland. Cycl. Res. Int. 2012, 3, 136–153. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ottomano Palmisano, G.; Loisi, R.V.; Ruggiero, G.; Rocchi, L.; Boggia, A.; Roma, R.; Dal Sasso, P. Using Analytic Network Process and Dominance-based Rough Set Approach for sustainable requalification of traditional farm buildings in Southern Italy. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Location of Beijing and its Digital Elevation Model (DEM).
Figure 1. Location of Beijing and its Digital Elevation Model (DEM).
Sustainability 13 00412 g001
Figure 2. The framework for developing the integrated network.
Figure 2. The framework for developing the integrated network.
Sustainability 13 00412 g002
Figure 3. (a) Protection values, (b) protection costs, (c) protection prioritization, and (d) ecological sources.
Figure 3. (a) Protection values, (b) protection costs, (c) protection prioritization, and (d) ecological sources.
Sustainability 13 00412 g003
Figure 4. Ecological corridors.
Figure 4. Ecological corridors.
Sustainability 13 00412 g004
Figure 5. Cultural nodes and cultural corridors.
Figure 5. Cultural nodes and cultural corridors.
Sustainability 13 00412 g005
Figure 6. Integrated network.
Figure 6. Integrated network.
Sustainability 13 00412 g006
Table 1. Resistance coefficients of different land-use types (Rl, a higher value means higher resistance).
Table 1. Resistance coefficients of different land-use types (Rl, a higher value means higher resistance).
Land-Use TypeResistance Coefficient (Rl)
Forest land1
Grassland10
Rivers and wetland20
Reservoir30
Farmland50
Other land types80
Developed land100
Table 2. Resistance coefficients of different distances from developed land (Rd, a higher value means higher resistance).
Table 2. Resistance coefficients of different distances from developed land (Rd, a higher value means higher resistance).
Distance From Developed Land (m)Resistance Coefficient (Rd)
0~100100
100~20070
200~30060
300~50040
500~100030
1000~300010
3000~50005
>50001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Y.; Wang, X.; Dong, X. Delineating an Integrated Ecological and Cultural Corridor Network: A Case Study in Beijing, China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 412. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13010412

AMA Style

Li Y, Wang X, Dong X. Delineating an Integrated Ecological and Cultural Corridor Network: A Case Study in Beijing, China. Sustainability. 2021; 13(1):412. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13010412

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Yanyan, Xinhao Wang, and Xiaofeng Dong. 2021. "Delineating an Integrated Ecological and Cultural Corridor Network: A Case Study in Beijing, China" Sustainability 13, no. 1: 412. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13010412

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop