Analysis reveals a coupled relationship between habitat quality and human footprint, indicating trends in driving factors.
Human activities inevitably lead to drastic transformations in land use, thereby significantly impacting natural ecosystems. As a crucial indicator of ecosystem health, habitat quality (HQ) provides appropriate conditions for human survival and development. Elucidating the relationships between human activities and HQ can offer scientific insights into the sustainability of socioeconomic development and ecological environmental protection. Although numerous studies have focused on the correlations between human activities and HQ at various scales, analysis on the interactive coercive relationship between human activities and HQ at the county level in China remains limited. Therefore, we employed the human footprint (HFP) to characterize human activities and the InVEST model to assess HQ, then applied the coupling coordination degree (CCD) model and GeoDetector to identify their interactive coercive relationship and driving factors in China. The results show that the average HQ in China was 0.555, 0.551, 0.547, 0.538, and 0.531 in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively, showing a declining trend. Furthermore, the average HFP during the same period was 18.3, 18.9, 19.3, 20.1, and 21.6, reflecting an opposite trend. The CCD between HQ and HFP increased continuously from 0.644 in 2000 to 0.659 in 2020 at the county level in China, indicating a highly coupled state with an improving trend. In terms of driving factors, land use intensity was the primary driver of the CCD between HQ and HFP, followed by precipitation, temperature, and night-time light. Notably, the driving force of natural environmental factors showed a declining trend while that of socioeconomic factors increased, and the interaction between natural and socioeconomic factors strengthened. These findings provide important scientific guidance for county-level economic development and ecological environmental protection in China.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: