World Natural Heritage sites are shared assets of humanity; therefore, assessing and analyzing their ecological environments is crucial for informed decision-making and providing a basis for ecological risk control and security measures. This study utilizes GIS spatial analysis and a comprehensive ecological risk evaluation method, based on LUCC, NDVI, and DEM, to investigate trends in ecological risk changes within the Karst World Natural Heritage site. Additionally, a geographical detector model is introduced to quantitatively analyze influencing factors. Furthermore, simulations are conducted to predict the evolution of ecological sensitivity over the next twenty years. The results indicate that: (1) In the single-factor sensitivity evaluation, NDVI exhibits the highest influence (0.36), whereas the aspect factor demonstrates the lowest (0.08). (2) The ecological sensitivity of the study area is predominantly classified as medium–high across all stages. The proportion of areas with medium sensitivity decreased from 39.57% in 2000 to 35.02% in 2020, while other sensitivity levels remained relatively stable. The spatial distribution of comprehensive ecological sensitivity exhibits a positive correlation, displaying an aggregated pattern with a tendency towards homogeneity over time. High ecological sensitivity areas tend to aggregate in the north, while low-value areas aggregate in the south. (3) NDVI and land use demonstrate significant explanatory power for the spatial differentiation of ecological sensitivity, with land use serving as the dominant factor in the Shibing Karst. The strongest interaction exists between NDVI and land use, with explanatory powers of 0.906 and 0.889, respectively. (4) Finally, the CA–Markov model was employed to simulate ecological sensitivity from 2030 to 2040. It was predicted that overall ecological sensitivity will increase in the future, particularly within the northern buffer zone, which is in urgent need of improvement. Overall, the ecological sensitivity of the Shibing Karst is moderate. Heritage management must prioritize ecological protection to promote the conservation of the World Natural Heritage site. Management authorities should pay greater attention to ecological conservation to foster the sustainable development of natural World Heritage sites, providing scientific references for the preservation of other World Heritage sites.
Song et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: