Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Study on hierarchical transformation mechanisms of regional ecological T

vulnerability and its applicability
Kang Houa, Wendong Taob, , Liming Wanga, Xuxiang Lic
⁎

a
School of Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Xi'an Polytechnic University, Xi'an 710048, China
b
Department of Environmental Resources Engineering, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210,
USA
c
School of Human Settlements and Civil Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710049, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study analyzed hierarchical change patterns of regional ecological vulnerability by coupling GIS data and
Ecological vulnerability classification fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. It identified the spatiotemporal features of eco-environment and major en-
Ecological vulnerability index vironmental problems in Weihe Plain, a typical urban agglomeration in China. Previous studies on regional
Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process ecological vulnerability have been focusing on evaluating ecological vulnerability status and developing as-
Spatial distribution
sessment methods, while ignoring the mechanisms of vulnerability transformation from one to another level.
Vulnerability level transformation
Weihe Plain
This study further proposed a subjective evaluation model for ecological vulnerability classification and trans-
formation analysis in a multi-index hierarchical evaluation system. The results indicated that ecological vul-
nerability index was higher in the urban areas than the surrounding counties from 2000 to 2012, which had a
great relationship with the impacts of urbanization on ecological vulnerability. The light ecological vulnerability
level was found to be relatively variable over the years and have the greatest impact on the change of regional
ecological environment. Analysis with the transformation matrix model found that the degree of regional eco-
logical environment stability was regulated by two mechanisms: 1) The proportion of the constant ecological
vulnerability level is essential for maintaining the stability of ecological environment; and 2) the difference
between the area percentages of decreased and increased vulnerability determines the trend of ecological vul-
nerability changes. As verified by applications to two nearby regions, this ecological vulnerability transforma-
tion model can be used to monitor the dynamics of ecological vulnerability and identify the leading ecological
vulnerability level in other large geographical areas.

1. Introduction ecologically vulnerable areas can affect regional human socio-economic

Ecological vulnerability is a specific attribute of ecosystems, which
indicates the resistance and resilience of an ecosystem to external dis-
turbances within a certain region (Beroya-Eitner, 2016). Due to the
differences in the degree of internal material, overall structure and
external interference of ecosystems, there are certain differences in the
characteristics of regional ecological vulnerability (Song et al., 2010).
Ecological vulnerability assessment is a necessary means to present the
differences. It can not only master the vulnerable state and spatial
distribution characteristics of regional habitats, but also promote ef-
fective utilization of resources, which is pragmatic for maintaining
sustainable development of ecosystems. The evolution of ecological
vulnerability directly affects the stability of regional ecological en-
vironment and is important for sustainable development (Holden and
Linnerud, 2007; Barbier and Burgess, 2017). Therefore, delineation of
activities and ecological environment restoration processes through
environmental policies (Hou et al., 2016b).
With population increase and accelerated urbanization, the resource
and environmental carrying capacities of ecologically vulnerable areas
are approaching their limits. The Weihe Plain is a typical, ecologically
vulnerable area in northern China. From 2000 to 2012, the urbaniza-
tion rate increased from 49.56% in 2000 to 50.02% in 2012, during
which the highest urbanization rate reached 53.47% (Shaanxi
Provincial Bureau of Statistics, http://www.shaanxitj.gov.cn/). It is one
of the areas that suffer severe soil erosion in the Loess Plateau.
Subsequently, the stability of its ecological environment is susceptible
to social and economic activities. Rapid urbanization is encroaching the
natural environment and disrupting the balance of the ecosystem itself
(Wei and Ye, 2014). Because of the frequent interactions between
human and land, it is necessary to monitor spatiotemporal variations of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wtao@esf.edu (W. Tao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106343
Received 15 December 2018; Received in revised form 9 June 2019; Accepted 24 March 2020
1470-160X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Hou, et al.
Fig. 1. Location and elevation change of the study area.
ecological vulnerability classification in the Weihe Plain so as to pro-
vide guidance for ecological environmental protection and governance.
However, the patterns of ecological vulnerability transformation from
one to another level and its mechanisms have not been addressed.
Ecological vulnerability assessment has mainly focused on either
subjective or objective evaluation models (De Lange et al., 2010). Be-
cause an objective evaluation model can eliminate the influence of
human sensory preference on evaluation weights, objective evaluation
models are currently adopted by most researchers (Ge and Hokao,
2004). Among them, principal component analysis, spatial principal
component analysis and entropy method are the most common models
used in ecological vulnerability assessment. Abson et al. (2012) used
the principal component analysis method to establish a complex spatial
social ecological vulnerability composite index. With the rapid devel-
opment of space technology, remote sensing and geographic informa-
tion system (GIS) as tools for extraction and analysis of spatial data can
effectively express the spatial attributes of ecological vulnerability
index (Demsar et al., 2013). Due to this reason, spatial principal com-
ponent analysis has been adopted. The ecological vulnerability index of
Minjiang river basin in southwestern China (Li et al., 2006), Qinling
Mountains in western China (Hou et al., 2018), and Loess Plateau in
northern China (Hou et al., 2015) have been analyzed with spatial
principal component analysis. Zhao et al. (2018) used the entropy
method to analyze the temporal and spatial dynamics of ecological
vulnerability in different regions of China.
Objective evaluation methods have the disadvantages of compres-
sing indicators and neglecting the influences of human and policy fac-
tors. On the contrary, subjective evaluation models have certain ad-
vantages in data processing and operation, and thus being widely used
in ecological vulnerability evaluation in areas with severe human
2
Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343
activities. Subjective models break decision-making related elements
down to target, criterion and scheme layers, and sort out the advantages
and disadvantages of a decision-making scheme through people's
judgment based on qualitative and quantitative analyses. Since it makes
full use of the preferred information given by decision makers in pair-
wise comparisons for analysis and decision support, a subjective model
not only effectively absorbs the results of qualitative analysis, but also
holds the advantages of quantitative analysis so that the decision-
making process is highly organized and scientific.
Hou et al. (2016a) and Sahoo et al. (2016) analyzed the spatial and
temporal distributions of ecological vulnerability in energy-rich areas
using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Although these areas have a
small population, the interaction between human and land is strong due
to changes in energy extraction and land use. Both Liou et al. (2017)
and Nguyen et al. (2016) used AHP to analyze the ecological vulner-
ability assessment index of a region with high population flow and large
land use change from different perspectives.
When there are four or more indicators at a given level of a hier-
archy, it becomes difficult to maintain consistency of thinking. In such
circumstances, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) can be
employed. FAHP combines the advantages of fuzzy and AHP. In AHP, a
judgment consistency matrix is established by pairwise comparison of
elements. In FAHP, a fuzzy consistent judgment matrix is established by
elemental comparison. FAHP gives a fuzzy complementary judgment
matrix that compares two-two decision schemes, while AHP gives a
fuzzy reciprocal matrix (Kabir and Hasin, 2011). Moreover, FAHP is a
reasonable and feasible evaluation method that combines qualitative
and quantitative information by disintegrating major problems into
different systematic hierarchies (Chen et al., 2008). As a result, the
FAHP has advantages in a multi-index evaluation model with GIS (Li
K. Hou, et al. Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343

et al., 2009; Vahidnia et al., 2008). This presents an effective tool that
can analyze numerous spatial parameters involved in ecological vul-
nerability (Le et al., 2008; Li and Damen, 2010). Therefore, this study
adopted the FAHP method for ecological vulnerability evaluation in the
Weihe Plain.
Research to date has been focusing on case-by-case assessment of
ecological vulnerability status and development of assessment methods.
Although temporal variations of ecological vulnerability have been
monitored, it lacks exploration into the mechanisms of ecological vul-
nerability transformation from one to another level over years, espe-
cially in ecologically vulnerable areas. Exploring hierarchical transfor-
mation mechanism is an essential means to determine the evolution of
ecological vulnerability in a region of concern. Therefore, this paper
presents a subjective evaluation method to analyze the mechanisms of
ecological vulnerability transformation. It uses a quantitative, rational
ecological vulnerability transformation model to monitor the temporal
changes of ecological vulnerability. The model can be used to carry out
dynamic monitoring of vulnerability changes in large areas subjected to
Thematic mapper images were used to obtain elevation, normalized
difference vegetation index (NDVI), and land use data. The NDVI values
were acquired by band operation as shown in Equation (1). Land use
was interpreted by the maximum likelihood method in supervised
classification. Natural population growth rate, population density,
agricultural and industrial output, and per capita gross domestic pro-
duct (GDP) were acquired from local statistical yearbooks (Xi'an, Baoji,
Xianyang, Weinan, and Tongchuan). Annual rainfall, average tem-
perature, annual evaporation, and annual sunshine time were provided
by local meteorological departments. These indicator values have no
specific dates associated. Rather, they represent the annual averages of
individual counties and cities. The study area was divided into grids of
100 by 100 m. These data were used to generate interpolation maps.
Based on the interpolation maps, values were assigned to these grids to
form raster maps for operation.
NIR R
NDVI =
+ (1)
NIR R

ecological instability.
2. Study area and data
2.1 Description of study area
Weihe Plain is located in the central part of Shaanxi Province at
33°34′-35°52′ N and 106°181′-110°38′ E, between the Qinling
Mountains and the Beishan Mountains (Fig. 1). It is about 360 km from
east to west and 170 km from north to south, having a total area of
about 55,600 square kilometers. Its altitude is about 323–800 m above
sea level. It has a continental climate with an annual temperature of
6–13 °C. The annual precipitation is 500 to 800 mm, of which 60% is in
June-September (Yin et al., 2005; Kimura and Takayama, 2014). Most
of the precipitation is in short heavy rainfalls, with less precipitation in
winter and spring and frequent spring droughts.
The Weihe Plain covers 27 counties and 4 cities (Xi'an, Baoji,
Xianyang and Weinan) (Fig. 1), amounting to about 15% of the pro-
vince's total land area. This area is the main grain production base of
Shaanxi Province. It is a densely populated area and well developed in
industry and agriculture. It is one of the four major plains of China (Yin
et al., 2005). As the core area of the newly established China's ninth
largest National City Cluster, it is an important gateway to the eastern
and central parts of western China and the second largest urban ag-
glomeration in western China. As a result, urbanization in the region is
prominent although the regional ecological environment is relatively
fragile and resources are scarce (Yin et al., 2005).
where ρNIR is the reflectance value in the near-infrared band; ρR is the
reflectance value of the red band.
2.3 Data processing
Since the dimensions and magnitudes of the indicators are often
different, the evaluation sample matrix was standardized in order to
eliminate the influence of such differences on the evaluation results.
The standardization process is to use certain mathematical transfor-
mation to convert the index values of different dimensions and prop-
erties into quantifiable values that can be comprehensively processed.
Under normal circumstances, the index values are uniformly trans-
formed into values in the range of 0 to 1. Hou et al. (2018) and Zhao
et al. (2018) used the Min - Max range normalization method to pre-
process multiple indicators of ecological vulnerability, which could
reflect the correlations between indicators and ecological vulnerability.
The indicators that are positively related to ecological vulnerability
include annual evaporation, reclamation rate, natural population
growth rate, population density, agricultural and industrial output, and
per capita GDP. The indicators that are negatively related to ecological
vulnerability include elevation, annual rainfall, temperature, NDVI, and
annual sunshine time. The original values were standardized in Eq. (2)
for the positive correlations and Eq. (3) for the negative correlations.
z i zmin
zi =
zmax zmin (2)
zmax z i
zi =
zmax zmin (3)

2.2. Data acquisition where z' is the normalized value; i the evaluation unit; zi the original
value of i; and z max and zmin the maximum and minimum values of i.
The original data for ecological vulnerability assessment mainly
included remote sensing data, meteorological data and socio-economic 3. Methodology
data. The remote sensing data (Table 1) were obtained from the
Geospatial Data Cloud (http://www.gscloud.cn/). Like the past studies, this study established an ecological vulner-
ability evaluation index system, acquired remote sensing data and so-
Table 1 cial-economic statistics data, and processed the data in GIS (Fig. 2).
List of required remote sensing data. However, for the first time, we explored the mechanisms of vulner-
Row number Time Type ability level transformation.

126 35 2000.06.13; 2006.06.15; 2012.06.30 TM5; TM5; ETM

3.1. Establishment of ecological vulnerability index system
126 36 2000.06.30; 2006.05.30; 2012.08.10 TM5; TM5; ETM
126 37 2000.05.20; 2006.06.30; 2012.06.23 TM5; TM5; ETM
127 35 2000.05.20; 2004.07.24; 2012.06.14 TM5; TM5; ETM It is important to select the evaluation criteria in an evaluation
127 36 2000.05.20; 2004.07.24; 2012.05.29 TM5; TM5; ETM system. Selection of the criteria should be based on representativeness
127 37 2000.05.20; 2006.07.24; 2012.06.14 TM5; TM5; ETM and operability. Although various factors can affect the ecological
128 35 2000.07.30; 2006.05.28; 2012.06.21 TM5; TM5; ETM
vulnerability in different regions, selecting criteria should not be ex-
128 36 2000.07.30; 2006.05.28; 2012.06.21 TM5; TM5; ETM
128 37 2000.07.30; 2004.07.15; 2011.08.06 TM5; TM5; ETM haustive. Based on previous quantitative analysis of environmental
features in the study area (Wang et al., 2005), we considered all

3
K. Hou, et al. Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343

Fig. 2. Roadmap of ecological vulnerability assessment integrating remote sensing and GIS.

possible environmental variables for the present assessment. Natural
factors included elevation, rainfall, temperature, NDVI, annual eva-
poration and annual sunshine time (Li et al., 2006; Tran et al., 2002;
Wang et al., 2008; Zou et al., 2002). The regional ecological vulner-
ability is also strongly related to local human activities that can greatly
influence the evolution of numerous environmental characteristics (Mi
et al., 2017). Social demographic factors included reclamation rate,
natural population growth rate, and population density (Zhao et al.,
2018). Economic factors included agricultural and industrial output and
per capita GDP (Hou et al., 2016a).
3.2. Ecological vulnerability evaluation model
The FAHP method converts these evaluations to numerical values
that can be processed. A numerical weight is derived for each element
of the hierarchy, and often incommensurable elements can be com-
pared to one another in a rational and consistent way. Determining the
weights of evaluation factors plays a key role in the FAHP method. As it
disintegrates the complex problem to some layers and factors, the
complex and multi-index system can be quantitatively analyzed and
treated by the FAHP method (Kumar et al., 2016; Tirkey et al., 2013).
Because it can assign proper weights to various factors, an ecological
evaluation system is suitable for the use of the FAHP method (Li et al.,
2009; Wang et al., 2003). This study used the FAHP method to de-
termine the weight of each factor, based on the Delphi expert advice
system (Dorey, 2000). The major considerations in the analytic process
were as follows:
• The weights between the various indicator levels were determined
in the consistent matrix method that was based on the AHP pro-
posed by Saaty (1977, 1990, 2000, 2008).
• When two or more comparisons between two factors were judged in
the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, one factor was quantitatively
expressed in comparison to the importance of the other factors, and
the obtained fuzzy judgment matrix was A as in Eq. (4):
A = (aij )nn (4)
The judgment matrix has the following characteristics:
aij = 0.5
aij + aji = 1

Table 2
Scale of binary comparison (Feng et al., 2012).
Degree of importance Definition

0.5 Equal importance of two elements

0.6 Weak importance of an element in comparison to the other one
0.7 Strong importance of an element in comparison to the other one
0.8 Certified importance of an element in comparison to the other one
0.9 Absolute importance of an element in comparison to the other one
0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4 If element i and element j are compared with each other to obtain aij, the judgment of elements j and i is 1 - aij.

4
K. Hou, et al. Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343

aij 0 vulnerability levels at the beginning and end of a certain period. It not
only includes the areas of ecological vulnerability levels at a certain
where ∀i ∈ n, ∀j ∈ n, i ≠ j.
time for a given location, but also contains information about the
The judgment basis of the scale is shown in Table 2. It was con-
transformation of the vulnerability levels from the beginning to the end
sidered that the pairwise comparison should not exceed 9 factors, that
of a period. The general form of the ecological vulnerability transfor-
is, each layer should not have more than 9 evaluation indicators, and
mation matrix is:
such evaluation scores must be distinguishable. Using this scoring
method, the importance degree of different factors in the same layer f11 f12 f1x
can be judged. To calculate the weight of each index, however, it is f21 f22 f2x
necessary to perform some transformation on the evaluation score Pij = f31 f32 f3x
matrix to obtain the result.
Eq. (5) was used to solve the weight of the judgment matrix.
fx 1 fx 2 fxx (9)
n n
j=1
aij + 2
1
Ri = ,i N where f represents area; x the number of ecological vulnerability levels;
n (n 1) (5)
i and j the levels of ecological vulnerability before and after the trans-
A fuzzy judgment matrix was used to test the consistency of the formation, respectively; and Pij the areas of the vulnerability levels over
weight values obtained by Eq. (5). The inspection steps were as follows: a transformation period.
The elements in each row of the matrix represent the flow in-
• Calculating the feature matrix of fuzzy judgment matrix A formation of each ecological vulnerability classification over the
transformation of the ith vulnerability level. The elements in each
R = (Rij )n× n (6) column of the matrix represent the areas of the vulnerability classifi-
cation over the transformation.
• Verifying the consistency of the fuzzy judgment matrix and the For convenience, the same classification system is usually used be-
feature matrix. fore and after the transformation so that the matrix has the same
n n numbers of rows and columns, which is an N-order square matrix. The
1
I (A , W ) = |aij + Rji 1| ecological vulnerability transformation matrix contains rich informa-
n2 (7)
i=1 j=1 tion on the mutual transformation between the vulnerability levels at
Under the premise that the consistency meets the requirements, the beginning and end of a study period and is rich in statistical sig-
according to the calculated weight value of each index, ecological nificance.
vulnerability index (EVI) was calculated in Eq. (8).
12
4. Results
EVI = Ri zi
i=1 (8) 4.1. Weights in ecological vulnerability assessment

where EVI is the ecological vulnerability index; Ri the weight of factor i;

This study attained a consistency (I) of 0.08, which is acceptable.
and z'i the normalized value of factor i.
The weights determined for all the factors are given in Table 3. In this
multi-index evaluation system, values of all factors were overlaid and
3.3. Classification of ecological vulnerability the comprehensive evaluation value was used to reflect the degree of
ecological vulnerability. Therefore, the comprehensive evaluation value
In order to evaluate the different EVI values, it was classified into was the sum of the corresponding weight values of all selected factors
several levels. Based on the histogram valleys of index values, the by using Eq. (10).
natural breaks classification (NBC) method is an objective and rational
measure to explore the statistical distribution of the classes and clusters EVI
in the attribute space. It can identify discontinuities by picking the class = 0.0137C1 + 0.1231C2 + 0.0518C3 + 0.0761C4 + 0.0326C5 + 0.0222
breaks that group similar values and maximize the differences in classes
C6 + 0.1558C7 + 0.0402C8 + 0.03265C9 + 0.0915C10 + 0.0305C11
using ArcGIS 9.3 software (Apan, 1997; Hou et al., 2018). In this study,
the NBC method was used to classify the computed results by analyzing (10)
the histogram of ecological vulnerability index distribution (Kumar where EVI is the ecological vulnerability index; constant xi the weight
et al., 2016, 2017). The results of ecological vulnerability assessment
were divided into five levels: potential vulnerability at EVI not greater Table 3
than 0.5541, slight vulnerability at 0.5541 < EVI ≤ 0.6519, light Weights of factors for ecological vulnerability evaluation in the Weihe Plain.
vulnerability at 0.6519 < EVI ≤ 0.7485, moderate vulnerability at First level Second level Third level
0.7485 < EVI ≤ 0.8335, and heavy vulnerability at EVI greater
than 0.8335. Factor Weight Factor Weight

EVI Environmental 0.3196 C1-elevation 0.0137

3.4. Matrix model of ecological vulnerability level transformation topographical C2-annual rainfall 0.1231
C3-temperature 0.0518
The ecological vulnerability transformation matrix can quantita- C4-NDVI 0.0761
C5-annual evaporation 0.0326
tively describe the specific quantity of an ecological vulnerability level
C6-annual sunshine time 0.0222
to other ecological vulnerability levels in a region and the proportional Social demographic 0.5584 C7-reclamation rate 0.1558
relationships between different levels. It has positive significance for C8-natural population 0.0402
comparing the transitions between levels in each period. The ecological growth rate
vulnerability level transformation matrix can be calculated in the layer C9-population density 0.3625
Economic 0.1220 C10-agricultural and 0.0915
of ArcGIS software.
industrial output
The transformation matrix of ecological vulnerability reflects the C11-per capita GDP 0.0305
dynamic process of the mutual transformation between ecological

5
K. Hou, et al. Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343

Table 4 light vulnerability. The area proportion of heavy vulnerability re-

Percentage of area occupied by each ecological vulnerability level in the Weihe mained minimal.
Plain. From 2000 to 2012, the vulnerability levels that had areas increased
Vulnerability level Year 2000 Year 2006 Year 2012 included potential, heavy, and slight vulnerability levels. The potential
ecological vulnerability level had the largest rate of area change, with
Potential 8.29% 14.68% 12.86% an increase of 55.13%. The area percentage of the heavy vulnerability
Slight 25.51% 26.58% 33.87%
level had increased by 52.57%. The area percentage of the slight vul-
Light 34.89% 31.51% 30.67%
Moderate 26.25% 21.53% 14.88% nerability level increased gradually by 32.77%. The area percentages of
Heavy 5.06% 5.70% 7.72% the light and moderate vulnerability levels decreased by 12.10% and
43.31%, respectively. The area proportion of both the potential and
slight vulnerability levels increased by 38.25%, while the area pro-
of factor i; and Ci the normalized value of factor i. The higher an EVI portion of the moderate and heavy vulnerability levels decreased by
value is, the more vulnerable the ecological environment is. 27.82%. These changes showed that the ecological vulnerability of this
region became less severe or moved towards ecologically stable con-
ditions.
4.2. Temporal changes of ecological vulnerability

The assessment and grading results could reflect the local actual
ecological situation by using the ArcGIS9.3 software. Multi-year as-
sessments of the ecological vulnerability index were shown in Table 4.
In 2000, the light vulnerability level had the largest area, followed by
moderate and slight vulnerability levels. The area proportions of po-
tential and heavy vulnerability levels were small. Heavy vulnerability
covered the smallest area. In 2006, the light vulnerability level still had
the largest area, followed by slight and moderate vulnerability. The
area of the potential vulnerability level accounted for 14.86%, an in-
crease of 77.08% relative to 2000. The area of the heavy vulnerability
level was still the smallest. In 2012, the slight vulnerability level cov-
ered the largest area. The vulnerability level with the largest area
proportion had changed from light to slight vulnerability. The moderate
and potential vulnerability levels had area proportions smaller than
4.3. Spatial distribution of ecological vulnerability levels
As can be seen from Table 4 and Figs. 3–5, the total area proportion
of the potential, slight and light vulnerability levels increased from
2000 to 2005, while the total proportion of the moderate and heavy
levels decreased, indicating a gradual decrease of ecological vulner-
ability or a gradual increase of ecological security in the Weihe Plain.
The main reason was that the policy of returning farmland to forests
improved the ecological environment (Jianjun et al., 2005). From 2005
to 2011, the total area proportion of the potential and slight vulner-
ability levels increased, and the total proportion of the moderate and
heavy vulnerability levels increased as well. Although the policy of
returning farmland to forests continued to play a significant role in
areas far away from central cities, large-scale construction projects and

Fig. 3. Distribution of ecological vulnerability index in the Weihe Plain in 2000.

6
K. Hou, et al.
Fig. 4. Distribution of ecological vulnerability index in the Weihe Plain in 2006.
development projects (such as Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Belt,
National Xixian New District, etc.) had emerged, leading to further
urbanization. The ecological vulnerability of the city centers and sur-
rounding areas had increased, and the area proportions of the strong
and heavy vulnerability levels increased.
In 2000, the urban area of Xi'an had heavy ecological vulnerability
(Fig. 3), mainly because Xi'an was one of the mega-cities with a solid
industrial foundation and diverse industrial sectors, serving as the po-
litical, economic and cultural center of Shaanxi province. Urbanization
of Xi'an directly affected the trend of the regional ecological vulner-
ability. Another area with a high degree of ecological vulnerability was
Baoji municipal district, which also had heavy ecological vulnerability
due to its strong industrial base and industrial expansion. The areas
with heavy ecological vulnerability were mainly distributed in the
urban areas of Xi'an, Yanliang, Xianyang City, Suihua County, Jintai
District, and Baobin District of Baoji City. Except for Chunhua County,
these areas had the same characteristics in spatial distribution, that is,
the closer to the city, the greater the ecological vulnerability. This
meant that if an area had high ecological vulnerability, the ecological
environment of the area adjacent to it would have similar character-
istics. Ecological vulnerability was also affected by agriculture-domi-
nated areas in Weinan and Tongchuan. Most of the districts and
counties were basically at a moderate to potential level of vulnerability,
indicating that the impact of agriculture on the ecological environment
was smaller than that of industry at the time.
In 2006, ecological vulnerability was heavy in Xi'an, Xianyang City,
and Baoji City. As can be seen from Fig. 4, the area of the heavy vul-
nerability level in 2006 became smaller than that in 2000. Since the
country implemented the policy of returning farmland to forests in
1999, the level of ecological vulnerability had been improved. The
7
Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343
areas with light vulnerability were in Chang'an County, Hu County,
Jintai District and Baoji County of Baoji City, and Suihua County of
Xianyang City. The areas with moderate and below vulnerability levels
were increasing, and concentrated in Weinan City, the districts and
counties in the eastern Baoji, the districts and counties in the west of
Xianyang, and Tongchuan City.
In 2012, the ecological vulnerability level continued to increase
(Fig. 5), mainly reflected by the vulnerability degree of surrounding
counties, with Xi'an, Xianyang and Baoji as the main districts, which
gradually changed from light to heavy vulnerability, and the associated
areas increased. The main reason was the large number of large-scale
construction and development projects in the region (such as the de-
velopment and construction of Guanzhong-Tianshui economic belt,
Xixian economic integration, etc.). To a certain extent, it laid a foun-
dation for urbanization, while making a greater impact on the ecolo-
gical vulnerability. However, the degree of ecological vulnerability in
Weinan had significantly decreased, and most districts and counties had
become slight vulnerability.
5. Discussion
5.1. Spatial patterns of ecological vulnerability changes
From 2000 to 2006, the ecological vulnerability index in the region
between the Qindu district of Xianyang and the urban area of Xi'an
increased by about 0.16, which was the largest change in the whole
Weihe Plain (Fig. 6). The ecological vulnerability indexes of Ganxian
County, Baoji Jintai District, Weinan Huazhou District, and Hancheng
City increased as well, but at smaller rates than Xixian New District. The
ecological vulnerability index had not changed during this period in
K. Hou, et al.
Fig. 5. Distribution of ecological vulnerability index in the Weihe Plain in 2012.
Fengxian County, Huxian County, and other urban and rural areas.
Conversely, the ecological vulnerability indexes of Changwu, Binxian,
Xunyi, Chang'an, and Lantian counties decreased, with a maximum
decrease of 0.14.
The above results showed that the regions with increased ecological
vulnerability were all economically developed and relatively densely
populated. Human factors had become the major driver of the increase
in ecological vulnerability. The regions with reduced ecological vul-
nerability had underdeveloped economy and diverse terrains. In this
period, the ecological vulnerability was mainly caused by the promoted
urbanization (Shaanxi Provincial Bureau of Statistics, http://www.
shaanxitj.gov.cn/), which was characterized by the obvious increase
of ecological vulnerability index around the developed urban areas and
the decrease of ecological environment stability (He et al., 2016).
In 2006–2012, ecological vulnerability index increased in most of
the study areas. These areas were distributed mainly in the central and
western parts of the study area, except for Longxian, Qianyang and
Central Weinan (Fig. 7). The ecological vulnerability indexes of Gaoling
District, Bin County, Baoji Weibin District, Zhouzhi, and Hancheng City
increased, with the largest increase by about 0.12. There was no change
of ecological vulnerability index in the zone between the Yintai district,
Linwei district and Huzhou district. Meanwhile, the ecological vulner-
ability indexes of most districts and counties in Weinan, Longxian and
Qianyang decreased gradually, among which Longxian decreased the
most, by about 0.09.
From 2000 to 2012, the increases in ecological vulnerability index
were similar to those in the previous period, both of which took place in
the economically developed and relatively densely populated areas, i.e.,
heavy industry areas and regions with rapid urbanization, such as Baoji
city, Xianyang city and Xi'an city. However, such changes in this period
8
Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343
occurred in larger areas, and socio-economic factors were the main
driving force for the changes. Moreover, with the implementation of the
Xianxian New District in response to the influence of national policy
factors, the ecological vulnerability index around this region had in-
creased significantly. The ecological vulnerability index of Weinan City,
which was dominated by agriculture, had decreased, and the stability of
the ecological environment had increased.
From 2000 to 2012, most of the ecological vulnerability indexes
increased gradually (Fig. 8). The ecological vulnerability indexes of
Qindu District, Baoji south, Zhouzhi and Hancheng increased gradually.
Qindu District had the largest change in ecological vulnerability index,
being about 0.20. At the same time, Tongguan had the largest decrease,
by about 0.12.
Throughout the period, the ecological vulnerability indexes in-
creased in the southern region, as the region was economically devel-
oped and relatively densely populated. Human and policy factors were
the main drivers of the increases in ecological vulnerability. Relatively
speaking, the area where the ecological vulnerability index decreased
was significantly larger than the area where the index increased.
Since the environmental topographical factor contains six sub-in-
dicators in this study (Table 3), the FAHP that combines the advantages
of fuzzy and analytic hierarchy processes can reveal ecological vul-
nerability well (Wu et al., 2018; Sahoo et al., 2016). Moreover, the
evaluation index system can be better preserved by FAHP to overcome
the defects of index compression. Furthermore, FAHP is able to high-
light the roles of social and economic factors for intense human activ-
ities. Therefore, this study adopted FAHP. Using FAHP for ecological
vulnerability assessment, however, has been focused in large time and
space dimensions either for the improvement of an evaluation index
system or the construction of an evaluation model. There is a lack of
K. Hou, et al.
Fig. 6. Changes in ecological vulnerability index from 2000 to 2006.
quantitative monitoring of the transformation process among ecological
vulnerability levels. Hereinafter, this study further discusses the trans-
formation process of ecological vulnerability levels. The transformation
model can provide reference to set up priority for monitoring and
protection of regional ecological environment.
5.2. Characteristics of ecological vulnerability transformation matrix
The transformation matrix of ecological vulnerability in the Weihe
Plain was calculated for three periods, 2000–2006, 2006–2012 and
2000–2012. The transformation matrix reflected the mutual transfor-
mation relationships of ecological vulnerability levels in the region over
a period of time, that is, the area changes of the vulnerability levels. In
the following three two-dimensional matrixes (Tables 5–7), the areas
where a vulnerability level did not change in a time period have been
removed in order to clearly show the specific changes at each level of
vulnerability.
From 2000 to 2006, ecological vulnerability transformed from po-
tential to slight vulnerability level in 290.60 square kilometers
(Table 5). 3000.79 square kilometers of the slightly vulnerable areas
transformed into potentially vulnerable areas, while 816.73, 2.04 and
127.45 square kilometers of the slightly vulnerable areas transformed
into light, moderate and heavy vulnerability areas, respectively. The
light level transformed into slight, moderate, potential and heavy levels
in 4113.21, 1818.11, 834.06 and 286.52 square kilometers, respec-
tively. The moderate vulnerability level transformed into slight, light,
and heavy levels in 166.20, 4435.79, and 624.02 square kilometers,
respectively. The heavy vulnerability level became moderate in 700.49
square kilometers. Similarly, Tables 6 and 7 present the transformations
in the periods of 2006–2012 and 2000–2012, respectively.
9
Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343
5.3. Mechanisms of ecological vulnerability transformation
From 2000 to 2006, as shown in Fig. 9, the areas remaining un-
changed in the ecological vulnerability classification amounted to
69.10% of the total area, while the areas with decreased and increased
vulnerability levels accounted for 23.75% and 7.15% of the total area,
respectively. Therefore, the overall ecological vulnerability of the study
area during this period had decreased gradually, and the ecological
environment was developing steadily. Among the internal changes of
different vulnerability levels, the light vulnerability level had the lar-
gest portion that had not changed, about 22.24%. At the same time, the
light vulnerability areas were subjected to a decrease and increase in
ecological vulnerability at 8.92% and 3.80% of the total area, respec-
tively. Therefore, the changes within the light vulnerability level were
the largest. Changes in this vulnerability level would lead to un-
certainties in the ecological environment of the entire region. The light
vulnerability level was, hence, worthy of special attention in the eco-
logical environment of the entire study area.
From 2006 to 2012, as shown in Fig. 9, 61.74%, 21.70% and
16.56% of the total area had not changed, decreased and increased
vulnerability, respectively. Because of the larger percentage of de-
creased vulnerability, the ecological vulnerability of the entire study
area decreased gradually and the ecological environment was
strengthened gradually during this period. The light vulnerability level
had the largest percentages that were subjected to unchanged and de-
creased vulnerability. Compared with the 2000–2006 period, however,
the percentages of the unchanged and decreased ecological vulner-
ability areas were significantly smaller, and the percentage of increased
vulnerability was significantly greater. The potential vulnerability level
had the largest percentage that was subjected to increased
K. Hou, et al. Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343

Fig. 7. Changes in ecological vulnerability index from 2006 to 2012.

vulnerability. Therefore, the regional ecological vulnerability in this should pay attention to the vulnerability level that leads the changes so
period had increased significantly and the stability of the ecological as to set priority of prevention and control efforts. This method can be
environment had decreased compared with the first period. used as a reference for the study of regional ecological environment
From 2000 to 2012, the internal transformation of ecological vul- change in large multi-index space.
nerability levels were similar to the changes in the first period (Fig. 9).
The areas with unchanged level amounted to approximately 54.82% of
5.4. Transferability of ecological vulnerability transformation mechanisms
the total area, and the areas with decreased vulnerability took up
33.50% of the total area. The areas with increased vulnerability took
To prove the transferability of the ecological vulnerability trans-
11.68% of the total area. During the entire period, the area having
formation mechanisms identified in Section 5.3, this study assessed its
decreased ecological vulnerability was still greater than that having
applicability for two nearby regions that are different from this study
increased ecological vulnerability. Therefore, the ecological vulner-
area in geography, climate and human characteristics. Hou et al.
ability of the study area decreased gradually and the stability of eco-
(2016a) evaluated ecological vulnerability in Yan'an, which is a typical
logical environment was gradually improved. However, compared with
soil erosion area in the hinterland of the Loess Plateau. Their results
the first and second periods individually, the proportion of areas with
showed that the ecological vulnerability of that region decreased. Using
constant levels was significantly lower. As a result, the ecological vul-
the ecological vulnerability transformation model established in this
nerability of the study area increased significantly compared with the
study, we established an ecological vulnerability transformation matrix
first period and decreased compared with the second period.
for Yan'an in the period from 1997 to 2011. Subsequently, it was found
Similar to the change in the first period, the light vulnerability level
that the areas with constant ecological vulnerability accounted for the
had the greatest area proportion among all the levels in 2000–2012,
largest proportion, and the proportion of areas with decreased vulner-
including 17.34% without a level change, 13.59% with decreased vul-
ability was larger than that of areas with increased vulnerability
nerability and 4.00% with increased vulnerability. Therefore, it con-
(Fig. 10). Therefore, the ecological environment got better during that
firmed that the change of the light vulnerability level regulated the
period. The overall conclusion was consistent with that reported by Hou
development of regional ecological stability.
et al. (2016a), though our model quantified the mechanisms of ecolo-
From this case analysis, it can be seen that the degree of regional
gical vulnerability in Yan'an.
ecological stability is regulated by two mechanisms: 1) The proportion
Hou et al. (2018) assessed ecological vulnerability and identified the
of the constant ecological vulnerability level is essential for maintaining
driving forces of vulnerability changes in Qinling Mountains in
the stability of the ecological environment; and 2) the difference be-
southern Shaanxi. They found increasing ecological vulnerability. Si-
tween the area percentages of decreased and increased vulnerability
milarly, by applying the ecological vulnerability transformation model,
determines the trend of ecological vulnerability changes. Therefore, to
we found that the areas with constant ecological vulnerability ac-
study the change of ecological vulnerability in a certain region, we
counted for the largest proportion and the proportion of the areas with

10
K. Hou, et al. Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343

Fig. 8. Changes in ecological vulnerability index from 2000 to 2012.

Table 5
Ecological vulnerability transformation matrix in 2000–2006.
2000 2006

Potential level Slight level Light level Moderate level Heavy level

Potential level / 290.60 0.00 0.00 0.00

Slight level 3000.79 / 816.73 2.04 127.45
Light level 834.06 4113.21 / 1818.01 286.52
Moderate level 0.00 166.20 4350.79 / 624.02
Heavy level 0.00 0.00 0.00 700.49 /

Table 6
Ecological vulnerability transformation matrix in 2006–2012.
2006 2012

Potential level Slight level Light level Moderate level Heavy level

Potential level / 3387.43 7.14 0.00 0.00

Slight level 1972.26 / 2736.48 13.26 0.00
Light level 381.60 5148.49 / 1817.18 8.16
Moderate level 4.08 328.54 4095.53 / 1215.19
Heavy level 0.00 0.00 0.00 104.07 /

increased vulnerability was larger than that with decreased vulner-
ability (Fig. 10). The results of ecological vulnerability transformation
modeling were consistent with the results of Hou et al. (2018).
The Weihe Plain, Yan'an in the Loess Plateau, and Qinling
Mountains in southern Shaanxi represent different ecological environ-
ments, climates and human activities. However, the differences in cli-
matic conditions, environmental factors and socio-economic factors
among these areas did not affect the hierarchical transformation me-
chanisms. Therefore, the mechanisms of regional ecological vulner-
ability transformation identified in this study can be applied to other
regions for study of a wide range of ecological vulnerability trends.
The common characteristics of the three regions (Weihe Plain,
Yan’an and Qinling Mountains) are that soil erosion has occurred and
human activities are frequent, resulting in ecological vulnerability. The

11
K. Hou, et al. Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343

Table 7
Ecological vulnerability transformation matrix in 2000–2012.
2000 2012

Potential level Slight level Light level Moderate level Heavy level

Potential level / 1119.32 0.00 0.00 0.00

Slight level 3276.63 / 1420.25 2.03 131.15
Light level 308.04 7227.30 / 1895.02 320.24
Moderate level 72.18 1168.12 5962.60 / 1586.98
Heavy level 0.00 0.00 0.00 558.14 /

Fig. 9. Internal changes of ecological vulnerability grading in different periods.

50%
Decreased level Constant level Increased level

40% Yan'an Qinling Mountains

Area proportion

30%

20%

10%

0%
Potential Slight Light Moderate Heavy I II III IV V
Ecological vulnerability level at the beginning of a period
Fig. 10. Internal changes of ecological vulnerability levels in Yan'an from 1997 to 2011 and Qinling Mountains from 2000 to 2011. Vulnerability increases from Level
I to Level V as classified by Hou et al. (2018).

mechanisms identified in this study can be applied to monitor the
change of ecological vulnerability in such ecologically vulnerable re-
gions. Nevertheless, its applicability needs to be verified in the future
for ecologically less vulnerable areas.
6. Conclusions
Coupling the FAHP process with GIS data is an effective method to
evaluate regional ecological vulnerability in a multi-index hierarchy.
The hierarchical transformation model proposed in this study could
closely reflect the real changes of ecological vulnerability in the hilly-
gully Weihe Plain and can be transferred to other similar regions for
monitoring ecological vulnerability. The identified mechanisms can be
used as a reference to study regional ecological environment change.
The analysis of ecological vulnerability in the Weihe Plain can be
concluded as follows:
• From 2000 to 2012, the urban ecological vulnerability indexes were
higher than those of the surrounding counties, which had a great
relationship with the impact of urbanization on ecological vulner-
ability. The heavy vulnerability levels were mainly distributed in
Xi'an City, Xianyang City and Baoji City. The cities had a fast de-
velopment speed and a strong industrial base, which consequently
had a great impact on the ecological environment.
• From 2000 to 2006, ecological vulnerability decreased gradually
and ecological security increased gradually, mainly because the
policy of returning farmland to forests played a role in improving
ecological environment. From 2006 to 2012, the degree of regional
vulnerability did not continue to decrease as in 2000–2006. The
ecological environment of Xi'an, Xianyang and Baoji was highly

12
K. Hou, et al.
vulnerable and became worse. The ecological vulnerability of
Weinan and Tongchuan showed a gradual improvement.
•
Based on the ecological vulnerability transformation model, the
light ecological vulnerability level led the changes in ecological
vulnerability classification, and had the greatest impact on the
change of regional ecological environment.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Dr Zhfu Mi at University College London for
the constructive comments on this manuscript.
References
Abson, D.J., Dougill, A.J., Stringer, L.C., 2012. Using principal component analysis for
information-rich socio-ecological vulnerability mapping in Southern Africa. Appl.
Geogr. 35, 515–524.
Apan, A.A., 1997. Land cover mapping for tropical forest rehabilitation planning using
remotely-sensed data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 18, 1029–1049.
Beroya-Eitner, M.A., 2016. Ecological vulnerability indicators. Ecol. Indic. 60, 329–334.
Barbier E. B., Burgess J. C. 2017. The Sustainable Development Goals and the systems
approach to sustainability. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-
Journal, 11(2017-28), 1-23.
Chen, M.F., Tzeng, G.H., Ding, C.G., 2008. Combining fuzzy AHP with MDS in identifying
the preference similarity of alternatives. Appl. Soft Comput. 8, 110–117.
De Lange, H.J., Sala, S., Vighi, M., Faber, J.H., 2010. Ecological vulnerability in risk
assessment—a review and perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 3871–3879.
Demsar, U., Harris, P., Brunsdon, C., Fotheringham, A.S., McLoone, S., 2013. Principal
component analysis on spatial data: an overview. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103,
106–128.
Dorey, G., 2000. Physiotherapy for the relief of male lower urinary tract symptoms: A
Delphi study. Physiotherapy 86, 413–426.
Feng S., Gao H., Yang C., He Y. 2012. Study on the Location of Emergency Resources
Distribution Center Based on FAHP. 2011 International Conference on Information
Management and Engineering. IACSIT Press, Singapore. Doi: 10.7763/IPCSIT.2012.
V52.72.
Ge, J., Hokao, K., 2004. Residential environment index system and evaluation model
established by subjective and objective methods. J. Zhejiang University-Sc. A 5,
1028–1034.
He, Y., Huang, X., Zhai, L., 2016. Assessment and influencing factors of social vulner-
ability to rapid urbanization in urban fringe, A case study of Xi’an. Acta Geog. Sinica
71, 1315–1328 (In Chinese).
Holden, E., Linnerud, K., 2007. The sustainable development area: satisfying basic needs
and safeguarding ecological sustainability. Sustainable Development 15, 174–187.
Hou, K., Li, X., Wang, J., Zhang, J., 2016a. Evaluating ecological vulnerability using the
GIS and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method in Yan'an, China. Polish J.
Environ. Stud. 25, 599–605.
Hou, K., Li, X., Wang, J., Zhang, J., 2016b. An analysis of the impact on land use and
ecological vulnerability of the policy of returning farmland to forest in Yan’an, China.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23, 4670–4680.
Hou, K., Li, X., Zhang, J., 2015. GIS analysis of changes in ecological vulnerability using a
SPCA Model in the Loess Plateau of Northern Shaanxi, China. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 12, 4292–4305.
Hou, K., Tao, W., Chang, Y., Zhang, Y., Xuxiang, L., Chen, P., 2018. A feasible method for
the division of ecological vulnerability and its driving forces in Southern Shaanxi. J.
Cleaner Prod. 205, 619–628.
Jianjun, J., Jie, Z., Hong’an, W., Li, A.I., Hailong, Z., Li, Z., Jun, X.U., 2005. Land cover
changes in the rural-urban interaction of Xi’an region using Landsat TM/ETM data. J.
Geographical Sci. 15, 423.
Kimura, R., Takayama, N. 2014. Climate of the loess plateau [M]. Restoration and
Development of the Degraded Loess Plateau, China. Springer, Tokyo: 23-33.
Kabir, G., Hasin, M.A.A., 2011. Comparative analysis of AHP and fuzzy AHP models for
multicriteria inventory classification. Int. J. Fuzzy Logic Syst. 1, 1–16.
Kumar, P., Thakur, P.K., Bansod, B.K., Debnath, S.K., 2017. Multi-criteria evaluation of
13
Ecological Indicators 114 (2020) 106343
hydro-geological and anthropogenic parameters for the groundwater vulnerability
assessment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 189, 564.
Kumar, P., Thakur, P.K., Bansod, B.K., Debnath, S.K., 2016. Groundwater vulnerability
assessment of Fatehgarh Sahib district, Punjab, India. In: Proceedings of India in-
ternational science festival (IISF)—young scientists’ conclave (YSC), pp. 8–11.
Le, Q.B., Park, S.J., Vlek, P.L., Cremers, A.B., 2008. Land-use dynamic simulator (LUDAS):
A multi-agent system model for simulating spatio-temporal dynamics of coupled
human–landscape system. I. Structure and theoretical specification. Ecol. Inf. 3,
135–153.
Li, A., Wang, A., Liang, S., Zhou, W., 2006. Ecological vulnerability evaluation in
mountainous region using remote sensing and GIS − a case study in the upper
reaches of Minjiang River, China. Ecol. Model. 192, 175–187.
Li, L., Shi, Z.H., Yin, W., Zhu, D., Ng, S.L., Cai, C.F., Lei, A.L., 2009. A fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to eco-environmental vulnerability assessment
for the Danjiangkou reservoir area, China. Ecol. Model. 220, 3439–3447.
Li, X., Damen, M.C.J., 2010. Coastline change detection with satellite remote sensing for
environmental management of the Pearl River Estuary, China. J. Mar. Syst. 82,
S54–S61.
Liou, Y.A., Nguyen, A.K., Li, M.H., 2017. Assessing spatiotemporal eco-environmental
vulnerability by Landsat data. Ecol. Ind. 80, 52–65.
Mi, Z., Wei, Y.M., Wang, B., Meng, J., Liu, Z., Shan, Y., Guan, D., 2017. Socioeconomic
impact assessment of China's CO2 emissions peak prior to 2030. J. Cleaner Prod. 142,
2227–2236.
Nguyen, A.K., Liou, Y.A., Li, M.H., Tran, T.A., 2016. Zoning eco-environmental vulner-
ability for environmental management and protection. Ecol. Ind. 69, 100–117.
Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math.
Psychol. 15, 234–281.
Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 48, 9–26.
Saaty T.L. 2000. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic
hierarchy process (Vol. 6). RWS publications.
Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Ser. Sci. 1,
83–98.
Sahoo, S., Dhar, A., Kar, A., 2016. Environmental vulnerability assessment using Grey
Analytic Hierarchy Process based model. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 56, 145–154.
Song, G., Chen, Y., Tian, M., Lv, S., Zhang, S., Liu, S., 2010. The ecological vulnerability
evaluation in southwestern mountain region of China based on GIS and AHP method.
Procedia Environ. Sci. 2, 465–475.
Tran, L.T., Knight, C.G., O’Neill, R.V., Smith, E.R., Riitters, K.H., Wickham, J., 2002.
Fuzzy decision analysis for integrated environmental vulnerability assessment of the
Mid-Atlantic region. Environ. Manage. 29, 845–859.
Tirkey, P., Gorai, A.K., Iqbal, J., 2013. AHP-GIS based DRASTIC model for groundwater
vulnerability to pollution assessment: a case study of Hazaribag district, Jharkhand,
India. Int. J. Environ. Prot. 3, 20.
Vahidnia, M.H., Alesheikh, A., Alimohammadi, A., Bassiri, A., 2008. Fuzzy analytical
hierarchy process in GIS application. The International Archives of the
Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 37 (B2),
593–596.
Wang, X., Ning, L., Hu, W., 2003. Application of analytic hierarchy process to assessing
the ecological vulnerability of wetlands in the Jianghan Plain. Chin. Geograph. Sci.
13, 272–276.
Wang, X.D., Zhong, X.H., Fan, J.R., 2005. Spatial distribution of soil erosion sensitivity in
the Tibet Plateau. Pedosphere 15, 465–472.
Wang, X.D., Zhong, X.H., Liu, S.Z., Liu, J.G., Wang, Z.Y., Li, M.H., 2008. Regional as-
sessment of environmental vulnerability in the Tibetan Plateau: Development and
application of a new method. J. Arid Environ. 72, 1929–1939.
Wei, Y.D., Ye, X., 2014. Urbanization, urban land expansion and environmental change in
China. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk Assess. 28, 757–765.
Wu, C., Liu, G., Huang, C., Liu, Q., Guan, X., 2018. Ecological vulnerability assessment
based on fuzzy analytical method and analytic hierarchy process in yellow river delta.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 855.
Yin, S., Huang, C., Li, X., 2005. Historical drought and water disasters in the Weihe Plain.
J. Geog. Sci. 15, 97–105.
Zhao, J., Ji, G., Tian, Y., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., 2018. Environmental vulnerability assess-
ment for mainland China based on entropy method. Ecol. Ind. 91, 410–422.
Zou, X.Y., Li, S., Zhang, C.L., Dong, G.R., Dong, Y.X., Yan, P., 2002. Desertification and
control plan in the Tibet Autonomous Region of China. J. Arid Environ. 51, 183–198.