Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Informatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolinf

Construction of landscape eco-geological risk assessment framework in coal

mining area using multi-source remote sensing data
Xiaoya Zhu a, b, Peixian Li a, c, *, Bing Wang a, Sihai Zhao a, Tao Zhang a, Qingyue Yao a
a
College of Geoscience and Surveying Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology - Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
b
Key Laboratory of Mine Geological Hazards Mechanism and Control Ministry of Natural Resources, Xi’an 710054, China
c
Research Center of Eco-Geological Environment & Remote Sensing Big Data, Inner Mongolia Research Institute of China University of Mining and Technology-Beijing,
Ordos 010300, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: High-intensity and large-scale mining activities have aggravated regional eco-geological risk. Therefore, it is
Landscape eco-geological risk significantly essential to conduct an assessment of the eco-geological risk of mining areas. Although some
Landscape loss index progress has been achieved in ecological risk assessment studies, existing approaches are not entirely suitable for
Multiscale geographically weighted regression
coal bases with high landscape fragmentation and dense coal mining activities. Here, we developed a novel
Shenfu mining area
landscape ecological and geological risk (LEGR) assessment framework based on theories that include landscape
ecological risk and eco-geological risk. The framework selected 10 indicators, including slope, fluctuation,
lithological hardness, soil type, FVC, RSEI, precipitation, biological abundance, distance to road and subsidence
rate, and calculated the weights of indicators by introducing the AHP-CRITIC coupled weighting model. Then,
the impact of landscape disturbances on eco-geological risk is quantified by measuring landscape losses. This
framework was applied to the Shenfu mining area (SFMA), a typical coal base in northwest China. The results
indicated the LEGR was moderate in the SFMA whose spatial distribution exhibited an increasing trend from
southwest to northeast. Besides, the high LEGR was mainly in the aggregated mining area with high subsidence.
For the eco-geological environment monitoring at the mine scale, a multiscale geographically weighted
regression (MGWR) model was utilized for analyzing the relationship between indicators and LEGR within the
disturbed range of coal mining. It provided valuable insights for the formulation of environmental protection
policies in the mining area.

1. Introduction Trofimov proposed the concept of ecological geology (Trofimov,

Coal is the main source of energy in China. Coal mining activities
have promoted the development of the local economy, but they have
also inevitably caused a series of eco-geological environmental problems
(Zhu et al., 2022). These problems mainly include land subsidence,
vegetation decline, and self-burning coal waste pile (Jin et al., 2021;
Zhang et al., 2023a). The eco-geological environment of mining areas in
northwest China is affected by the dual pressures of inherent ecological
vulnerability and the large-scale exploitation of coal resources (Li et al.,
2018b). Consequently, it is crucial for accurately obtaining detailed
information about environmental disturbance to conduct an assessment
on eco-geological risk of mining areas caused by mining activities. This
will help decision-makers to implement new strategies for balancing
economic activities and ecological development.
2008). Eco-geological risk (EGR) refers to the potential threats or harms
to ecosystems caused by geological processes resulting from human
activities or natural factors. The EGR assessment can reflect the spatial
distribution of regional risk (Huang et al., 2022), and help relevant
decision-makers to formulate regional eco-environmental protection
measures or strategies for coordinating social development. The EGR
assessment needs to integrate the principles of multi-level and multi-
perspective for designing a comprehensive assessment framework, and
the significant components include dividing assessment units, quanti­
fying impact indicators, establishing an assessment model, and selecting
a grading method. (Xu et al., 2023a) considered mineral development
activities as sources of ecological risk, characterized the ecological
pressure resulting from mining development through water conserva­
tion stress and ecosystem service functions, and established a

* Corresponding author at: College of Geoscience and Surveying Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology - Beijing, Beijing 100083, China.
E-mail address: lipx@cumtb.edu.cn (P. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102635
Received 15 January 2024; Received in revised form 6 May 2024; Accepted 6 May 2024
Available online 8 May 2024
1574-9541/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
X. Zhu et al.
comprehensive evaluation framework for quantitative analysis of min­
ing area ecological risk. By analyzing the uncertainty of the mining
technical parameters of 13,960 mines and the environmental detri­
mental extent caused by surrounding economic activities, (Dou et al.,
2023) constructed an ecological risk framework suitable for the mine
scale, which helped to understand the degree of ecological threats from
mining activities. Despite the aforementioned studies have enriched the
theoretical system of EGR assessment in mining areas, its application
only focused on weighting models and indicators selection, ignoring the
impact of landscape spatial patterns on the eco-geological environment.
In the mining scenarios, the activities of underground mining and open-
pit mining destroy the original overburden structure, leading to the
fragmentation of landscape type patches (Shang et al., 2022). In addi­
tion, the self-burning coal waste pile can produce gas emissions and
change the landscape structure, posing a serious threat to the sur­
rounding environment and human health (Teodoro et al., 2021).
Therefore, we incorporated the impact of landscape patch discretization
into the eco-geological risk framework. Landscape ecological risk is the
adverse result due to interaction between landscape pattern and
ecological process, which can display the spatial heterogeneity of
regional ecological risk degree (Cao et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2024). The
loss degree and risk probability of landscape types were used to
construct the LEGR index to reflect the disturbance and vulnerability of
external threats to landscape pattern (Xu et al., 2021a).
The weighting methods for ecological risk assessment indicators
include Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Kucuker and Cedano Gir­
aldo, 2022), Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (Chen et al., 2022),
Entropy Weight Method (EWM) (Wang et al., 2024). Compared with the
single weighting method, the coupled subjective and objective weight­
ing model has complementary advantages, and the indicators weight
can be determined more reliably. The typical subjective weighting
method AHP transforms complex problems into a systematic hierarchy
and its calculation process is simple. In addition, the CRITIC method
takes into account the degree of variability of the indicators and the
correlation between different indicators. Therefore, this study inte­
grated AHP and CRITIC methods to determine the comprehensive
weights of eco-geological risk indicators, reducing the subjectivity of
artificial weighting and improving the reliability of indicators weight.
Traditional EGR assessments mostly rely on field surveys and utilize
discrete data, making regional monitoring challenging. Multi-source
remote sensing data has great potential in spatiotemporal ecological
quality assessment. At present, optical satellites provide a wealth of
images for the retrieval of eco-environment parameters. These param­
eters include remote sensing ecological indices, vegetation cover, and
net primary productivity (Li et al., 2020b; Xu et al., 2023b; Zhang et al.,
2023b). (Guo et al., 2023) proposed a new framework for overcoming
the uncertainty of multi-source remote sensing inversion of surface
feature parameters, adopted three objective methods to calculate
weights of indicators of four ecological pressure dimensions and
analyzed the influence of the spatial scale effect of remote sensing im­
ages on the assessment results. Time-series images from the Sentinel-1
SAR satellite can derive the status of ground subsidence over a certain
period, providing an opportunity for regional geological environmental
monitoring. We calculated the subsidence rate of the SFMA in 2022
using the SBAS-InSAR technique to reflect the influence of mining ac­
tivities and groundwater engineering on regional geological conditions.
The eco-geological environmental problems caused by coal mining in
the fragile areas of northwest China are attracting the attention of
decision-makers. Here, we constructed a landscape eco-geological risk
assessment framework by integrating multi-source remote sensing data
and a subjective-objective coupled weighting model and applied it to the
SFMA. The research purposes are as follows: (1) constructing a land­
scape eco-geological risk assessment framework; (2) calculating the
landscape eco-geological risk index (LEGRI) for the SFMA and validating
its reliability; (3) analyzing the spatial distribution characteristics of
LEGRI to provide auxiliary suggestions for regional coordinated
2
Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635
development; (4) proposing an eco-geological risk monitoring plan for
mining areas based on the MGWR model.
2. Study area and data
2.1. Study area
The SFMA is located in the northern part of Yulin City, Shaanxi
Province, China (Fig. 1). It lies at the southern edge of the Mu Us Desert
and the northern boundary of the Loess Plateau, with an area of 6211.14
km2 (Liu and Li, 2019). The study area has a temperate semi-arid con­
tinental monsoon climate, featuring an annual average precipitation
ranging from 396 mm to 650 mm and an average temperature between
6.6 and 8.5 ◦ C (Yang et al., 2019). The predominant soil types are
aeolian sandy soil and loess soil, characterized by coarse texture and
poor resistance to erosion. Multiple factors contribute to the vulnera­
bility of the eco-geological environment in this region, leading to serious
land desertification and soil erosion. The confirmed coal reserves in
Shenmu City and Fugu County are 56 billion tons and 18.3 billion tons,
respectively. Their coal reserves account for 43.13% of the total coal
reserves in Shaanxi Province. (http://www.sxsm.gov.cn/). In 2020, the
coal production in Shenmu City and Fugu County was 2.67 billion tons
and 0.91 billion tons, respectively (http://www.fg.gov.cn/). The type of
coal mining in the region is dominated by underground mining, with 49
underground mines concentrated in the northeast of the SFMA.
2.2. Assessment indicators
The internal characteristics of the natural environment and external
disturbances from human activities lead to changes in the eco-geological
risk (Li et al., 2022b). The research objective was the assessment of
LEGR in arid and semi-arid mining areas, which was decomposed into
the background characteristics of the eco-geological environment and
the sources of risk pressure. Among these, background characteristics
reflect the environmental and geological condition of SFMA. The risk
pressure refers to the disturbance of human activities. Based on field
surveys, the background characteristics consisted of four indicators
related to topographical and geological conditions (i.e., slope, fluctua­
tion, lithological hardness, and soil type) and three indicators related to
ecological conditions (i.e., fractional vegetation cover (FVC), remote
sensing ecological index (RSEI), precipitation). Risk pressure includes
three indicators influenced by human activities (i.e., biological abun­
dance, distance to road, and subsidence rate). The sources and de­
scriptions for selected indicators are listed in Table 1.
2.3. Data processing
Firstly, we screened and processed the Landsat 8 SR and Sentinel-2
MSI images by the Google Earth Engine platform (GEE). The spectral
indices were then calculated using Sentinel-2 MSI image to construct the
feature space. A classifier was constructed using a random forest algo­
rithm. Finally, we split the real samples into 70% for model training and
30% for model validation. The overall accuracy and Kappa coefficient of
the SFMA classification results were 77.9% and 0.72, meeting the re­
quirements for calculating biological abundance and landscape vulner­
ability indices. Additionally, the Dimidiate Pixel Model and Principal
Component Analysis based on Landsat 8 SR images were used to
calculate FVC and RSEI. All Sentinel-1 SAR images in 2022 were
collected in batches, and then the subsidence rate of SFMA was calcu­
lated by integrating the ISCE-2 and the StaMAP software with SBAS-
InSAR technology, and the gap value was filled by the Kriging Interpo­
lation method. This result was in good agreement with the mining po­
sition of the working face and the regional distribution of groundwater
subsidence for many years (Fan et al., 2018). In addition, the rest of the
data products were quantified via thematic maps with different spatial
resolutions. Finally, all the data were down scaled to 30 m by the
X. Zhu et al. Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635

Fig. 1. Overview of the study area.

bilinear interpolation method to unify the spatial resolution of the data. is the weight of the j th index.
The spatial distribution of eco-geological risk assessment indicators in The testing formulas are as follows:
the SFMA is shown in Fig. 2.
CI
CR = (2)
RI
3. Methodology
λmax − n
CI = (3)
The overview of the methodology is illustrated in Fig. 3. Specifically, n− 1
(Step1) The thematic data, SAR images, and multi-source remote sensing
images were integrated to quantify risk assessment indicators. (Step2) A where, CI and RI are the consistency index and average random con­
comprehensive weighting method that coupled the AHP and the CRITIC sistency index of the judgment matrix; λmax is the maximum eigenvalue
methods was used to calculate the weights of assessment indicators of of the consistency matrix; n is the number of compared factors.
the eco-geological risk index (EGRI). (Step3) The landscape loss index The other detailed implementation method of AHP can be found in
was calculated by using the land classification data, and then combined Appendix A.
it with eco-geological risk index to construct LEGRI. (Step4) Frequency
ratio and frequency ratio accuracy were utilized to verify the consis­ 3.1.2. CRITIC
tency and reliability of the evaluation results for EGRI and LEGRI. The CRITIC is an objective weighting method put forward by Dia­
(Step5) The Moran’s I index was employed to analyze the spatial dis­ koulaki (Diakoulaki et al., 1995). This method determines the weight
tribution and clustering characteristics of LEGRI. Additionally, the based on the information of indicators and the correlation between in­
MGWR model parameters were determined to design an eco-geological dicators (Yang et al., 2023c). The objective weights are calculated using
risk monitoring plan at the mine scale. Eqs. (4)–(6).
Cj
w2j = ∑
3.1. Eco-geological environment risk assessment m
(4)
Ck
k=1
3.1.1. AHP √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
The AHP is a subjective weighting method based on expert scoring √∑
√n ( )2
√ x − xj
and widely applied in risk assessment (Kokangül et al., 2017). The √i=1 i,j (5)
comparison matrix was constructed according to the importance of in­ σj =
n− 1
dicators and then tested whether it passed the random consistency rate
(CR). If CR > 0.1, adjust the judgment matrix; If CR ≤ 0.1, calculate the ∑
m
( )
subjective weight by the eigenvectors corresponding to the maximum Cj = σj 1 − rjk (6)
eigenvalue of the matrix. The subjective weights are calculated using Eq.
k=1

(1). where, σj and Cj represent the standard deviation and information en­
vj tropy of indicator j, respectively. rjk denotes the correlation coefficient
w1j =∑ (1)
m
vk between indicators j and k. n and m are the sample size and the number
k=1 of indicators, respectively. xj and xk indicate the sample means of the j-
th and k-th indicators, respectively.
where, vj is the eigenvector corresponding to the j largest eigenvalue, w1j

3
X. Zhu et al. Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635

Table 1 formula is as follows:

The sources and descriptions of indicators.
LEGRI = 0.5R + 0.5EGRI (8)
Factor Indicator Description and data source

Slope has a significant influence on soil 3.2.2. Landscape loss index

erosion, vegetation distribution and
Slope The landscape loss index represents the extent of ecological loss for
ecosystem stability (Löbmann et al., 2020).
https://www.gscloud.cn/
each landscape type when subjected to disturbance. Referring to rele­
Topographic fluctuation reflects the vant research results, the key parameter of landscape sample area should
topographic fluctuation of the ground surface reach 2–5 times of corresponding the landscape patch area, ensuring the
Fluctuation and affects the occurrence of geological sample can reflect the landscape pattern information around the sam­
disasters (Oh and Pradhan, 2011). https
Geological pling point (O’Neill et al., 1996). The average patch area of the study
://www.gscloud.cn/
condition
The physical and chemical characteristics of area was 0.013 km2. Considering the issues of calculation intensity and
different lithological types affect the stability. accuracy, the landscape of the SFMA was divided into a cell grid of 250
Lithological
hardness
Geological hazard potential is closely related m × 250 m, with a total of 100,589 sampling areas. The landscape loss
to lithological hardness (Wang et al., 2021b).
index can be calculated by Eq. 9 and Eq. 10.
https://www.resdc.cn/
Soil types are closely related to soil erosion ∑N Aki
Soil type and land desertification (An et al., 2019; R= i=1 A
Ri (9)
k
Sharma et al., 2012). https://www.resdc.cn/
FVC is the proportion of green vegetation per
unit area, which can measure the vegetation Ri = Ei × Fi (10)
FVC
condition (Chen et al., 2017). https://code.
earthengine.google.com/ where, N is the total number of landscape types. Ak is the area of the
The RSEI couples four ecological indicators assessment unit; Aki is the area of landscape type i in evaluation unit k; Ri
Ecological via the PCA method to comprehensively refers to the loss index of landscape type i; Ei and Fi are the landscape
condition RSEI portray the regional ecological quality (Zheng
et al., 2022). https://code.earthengine.goo
disturbance index and landscape vulnerability index of type i;
gle.com/
Ei = aCi + bNi + cDi (11)
Extreme rainfall events may lead to soil
Precipitation erosion, floods and other natural disasters (
Zhao et al., 2018). https://engine.piesat.cn/ where, according to its importance: a = 0.5, b = 0.3 and c = 0.2 (Li et al.,
Biological abundance refers to the 2018a).
measurement of biodiversity in a certain Landscape fragmentation Ci , landscape separation Ni and landscape
Biological period in a specific ecosystem, which is dominance Di are calculated by the following formulas:
abundance usually expressed as the diversity and richness
of biological species (Nicholson et al., 2021). ni
https://code.earthengine.google.com/
Ci = (12)
Ai
The construction of the road interferes with
the original topography and destroys the rock √̅̅̅̅
A ni
Human factor Distance to road
mass structure. The closer it is to the road, the Ni = (13)
easier it is to induce landslides and collapses ( 2Ai A
Shi et al., 2018; Tesfa and Woldearegay,
2021). https://www.dsac.cn/ 1 (ni mi ) Ai
Di = + + (14)
The subsidence rate refers to the rate of land 4 N M 2A
subsidence per unit time caused by mining
activities (Tang et al., 2022). Rapid where, ni is the number of patches for landscape type i; Ai is the total
Subsidence rate
subsidence rate can trigger ground cracking
area of landscape type i; A is the total landscape area; N is the total
and building damage (Zhao et al., 2023).
https://search.asf.alaska.edu number of landscape patches; mi is the number of sample plots for
landscape type i; M is the total number of sample plots in the landscape.
In addition to the degree of loss of landscape structure, landscape
3.1.3. Comprehensive weighting model types have different vulnerability in response to external environmental
The comprehensive weighting method that combines subjective with change pressures, namely landscape ecological vulnerability (Fi ) (Xie
objective weights can make the evaluation results more reliable (Deng et al., 2013). Based on the landscape disturbance resistance character­
et al., 2021; Yin et al., 2020). The comprehensive weight was obtained istics of the SFMA, the vulnerability weights of each landscape type were
by the method of minimum discriminant information, which minimized determined by the AHP method (Table 3). The implementation method
the bias between AHP and CRITIC (Yang et al., 2022). The formula is as of the AHP method is the same as section 3.1.1. The judgment matrix is
follows: as follows.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ⎡ ⎤
w1j w2j Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6
wj = ∑ m √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (j = 1, 2, ……, m) (7) ⎢ Y1 1 1/2 1/3 2 1/7 1/4 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
w1k w2k ⎢ Y2 2 1 1/2 3 1/6 1/3 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
k=1
F− Y = ⎢ ⎢ Y3 3 2 1 4 1/5 1/2 ⎥ ⎥
⎢ Y4 1/2 1/3 1/4 1 1/8 1/5 ⎥
where, w1j and w2j refer to the weights of AHP and CRITIC respec­ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ Y5 7 6 5 8 1 3 ⎦
tively. The results of comprehensive weights are shown in Table 2.
Y6 4 3 2 5 1/3 1

3.2. Improved eco-geological risk assessment
3.2.1. Landscape eco-geological risk index
Based on the previous research findings and considering the rela­
tionship between landscape pattern and eco-geological risk, the LEGRI
was constructed by integrating the landscape loss index (R) and the eco-
geological risk index (EGRI) (Gong et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021a). The
where, Y1-Y6 represent forest, grassland, cropland, building, bare,
water, and F refers to the vulnerability index of the landscape type.
3.3. Accuracy assessment
Although there is no standardized method for assessing the reliability
of LEGRI results, existing studies indicate that cross-validation between

4
X. Zhu et al. Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of eco-geological risk assessment indicators.

different evaluation methods and regional geological disaster data ( )

Ni
provide effective indirect ways to evaluate the quality of the LEGRI
assessment result (Muço et al., 2012; Zou et al., 2023). The results of N
FRi = ( ) (15)
Si
LEGRI classification were overlapped with spatial distribution data of
geological disasters. The results of EGRI and LEGRI were validated by S
using geological disasters frequency ratio (FR) and frequency ratio ac­
∑
n
curacy (FRA). The FR of geological disasters represents the ratio of the FRi
frequency of geological disasters in a certain partition, while the FRA FRA = i=m
∑n (16)
can directly compare the accuracy and rationality of different assess­ FRi
ment results. The formulas are as follows:
i=1

where, Ni and Si are the number and area of disasters occurring in

the i − th risk grade, respectively; the greater i, the higher the risk level;
N represents the total number of disasters, and S refers the total area of
the study area.

5
X. Zhu et al. Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635

Fig. 3. Overview of methodology.

3.4. Spatial correlation analysis n ∑

∑ n ( )
n wij (xi − x) xj − x
Spatial autocorrelation is a technique that tests whether an element ′
Global Moran s I =
i=1 j=1
(17)
∑n ∑ n ∑
n
is correlated with its neighbors and determines spatial heterogeneity wij (xi − x)2
(Cai et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2023). The Global Moran’s I was used to i=1 j=1 i=1

measure the overall correlation and variation of ecological phenomena,

and the Local Moran’s I effectively reflected the spatial clustering dis­
tribution of the study area (Yang et al., 2023a), which are expressed as:

6
X. Zhu et al. Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635

Table 2 tures of the MGWR model and mining disturbance characteristics. The
Calculation results of the comprehensive weight. conceptual model diagram is illustrated in Fig. 4. Specifically, existing
Indicator AHP CRITIC Comprehensive weight studies suggest an exponential change in the environmental disturbance
caused by mining activities as one moves away from the mining area,
Fluctuation 0.0442 0.0413 0.0430
Slope 0.0694 0.0449 0.0596 with an approximate disturbance range of 1 km (Wang et al., 2023).
Soil type 0.0264 0.1482 0.0752 These characteristics were utilized to determine the kernel function and
Lithological hardness 0.0235 0.1540 0.0758 different bandwidths of the MGWR model. We set up a bandwidth
Precipitation 0.0485 0.0498 0.0491 scheme from 500 m to 1500 m with 100 m intervals. Then, the optimal
FVC 0.0882 0.0821 0.0857
RSEI 0.1602 0.1756 0.1664
bandwidth for each parameter was determined by the minimum cor­
Biological abundance 0.1725 0.0715 0.1320 rected Akaike Information Criterion (AICC). In addition, the kernel
Distance to road 0.0658 0.1138 0.0850 function employed was the exponential function. The model is formu­
Subsidence rate 0.3013 0.1188 0.2282 lated as follows:
∑
m
yi = β0 (ui , vi ) + βbwj (ui , vi )xij + εi (19)
Table 3 j=1

Calculation results of the landscape loss-related indices.

where, (ui , vi ) represents the coordinates of sampling point i, β0 (ui , vi )
Land Use Types Ci Ni Di Ei Fi Ri
represents the intercept at location i, βbwj refers the adjustment of the j th
Forest 7.3252 9.7688 0.1306 6.6194 0.0566 0.3747
bandwidth, m is the number of sampling points, xij represents the value
Grassland 0.1359 0.2073 0.6773 0.2656 0.0876 0.0233
Cropland 2.0021 2.3421 0.2555 1.7548 0.1346 0.2362 of independent variable xj at point i, εi is the error term of the model.
Building 2.1970 4.6182 0.0824 2.5005 0.0378 0.0945
Bare 4.1535 4.0325 0.2609 3.3387 0.4736 1.5812
4. Result
Water 0.7904 4.6046 0.0186 1.7803 0.2098 0.3735

4.1. Correlation and collinearity analysis of LEGRI indicators

∑
n ( )
(xi − x) wij xj − x
To test the level of correlation and degree of multicollinearity be­
(18)
j=1
Local Moran’ s I = ∑
n
2 tween the LEGRI assessment indicators, we calculated the Pearson cor­
(xi − x)
i=1 relations (Fig. 5) and variance inflation factor (VIF). The results show
that slope and fluctuation (r = 0.45), FVC and RSEI (r = 0.53) have a
where, xi and xj are the attribute values of spatial units i and j, x is the certain degree of correlation, but the correlations between other in­
mean of all attribute values of spatial units, wij is the spatial weight dicators are weak. In addition. The VIF values of slope, fluctuation, FVC
matrix, and n is the total number of evaluation units. and RSEI are 5.07, 4.08, 8.91 and 7.29, respectively, and the VIF values
of other indicators are also <10, which proves that there is no multi­
collinearity relationship between indicators (Cheng et al., 2022).
3.5. Construction of MGWR model at the mine scale
Therefore, the selected indicators are relatively independent factors
suitable for LEGRI assessment in the SFMA.
The mining process leads to varying degrees of subsidence on the
corresponding surface and its surroundings, triggering eco-geological
environmental problems within a certain range. Thus, when analyzing 4.2. Accuracy verification
the relationship between assessment indicators and eco-geological risk,
it is necessary to consider the disturbance of mining activities to sur­ The results of LEGRI and EGRI on all assessment units were statis­
rounding environment. The geographically weighted regression (GWR) tically analyzed (Fig. 6a), indicating a good spatial consistency between
model is a local parameter estimation technique that considers spatial the two models. The overall EGRI showed higher degree of risk than the
non-stationarity based on ordinary least square method, utilizing LEGRI. Furthermore, the FR and FRA were used to quantitatively
geographic coordinates and kernel functions to perform local regression
estimates for neighboring entities in each research unit (Brunsdon et al.,
2010; Zhu et al., 2020). However, the bandwidth of GWR regression
parameters is the same. MGWR takes into account the heterogeneity
scale of different parameters, compensating for the shortcomings of a
single scale in GWR (Zhou et al., 2023).
In this work, we constructed the regression relationship between
influencing factors and LEGRI at the mine scale by combining the fea­

Fig. 4. Conceptual diagram of the MGWR model at the mine scale. Fig. 5. Heatmap of indicators correlation.

7
X. Zhu et al.
Fig. 6. Accuracy verification of LEGRI and EGRI. (a). Comparison of pixel by pixel point density and histogram. (b). Distribution and frequency ratio of geological
hazards in two assessment results.
validate the assessment results. The distribution characteristics and the
FRs of geological disaster at different risk levels exhibited some degree
of variation (Fig. 6b). The FRA of EGRI and LEGRI are 73.67% and
74.87%, respectively. The result indicated that LEGRI has better
assessment performance.
4.3. Spatial distribution characteristics of LEGRI
The LEGRI in the SFMA was classified into five levels from low
(LEGRI–I) to high (LEGRI–V) using the natural breaks method. The
spatial distribution of LEGRI is presented in Fig. 7. The overall eco-
geological risk in the study area is low in the northwest and high in
the northeast and southwest. The LEGRI–IV-V risk zones are mainly
distributed in Laogaochuan, Sandaogou, Miaogoumen, and Dabaodang
towns. The areas of LEGRI–IV-V are 79.10 km2, 74.34 km2, 153.28 km2,
and 201.97 km2, accounting for 34.28%, 49.73%, 62.11%, and 33.58%
of the respective town areas. Laogaochuan, Sandaogou, and Miaogou­
men towns are located on hilly loess areas with fragmented terrain and
numerous gullies, while Dabaodang town is located on an aeolian sandy
Fig. 7. Evaluation results of landscape eco-geological risk index.
8
Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635
area with loose structure and susceptible to wind erosion. In addition,
due to shallow mining and relatively fragmented underground mining,
affecting the eco-geological environment of these townships. Specif­
ically, the LEGRI–III zone is distributed throughout the entire study area
without significant spatial clustering. The LEGRI–I-II zones are primarily
located in Erlintu, Zhongji, and Tianjiazhai towns, where there are fewer
mining activities and less landscape dispersion, resulting in a relatively
low eco-geological environmental risk. As a result, the LEGRI–II-III
zones account for 65.7%, while the EGERI–IV-V zones account for
19.3%, indicating that the overall risk level in the SFMA is moderate,
high risk existed in the certain areas.
4.4. Spatial autocorrelation analysis of LEGRI
From Fig. 8a, the global Moran’s I value is 0.798 (p < 0.01, z > 2.58),
signifying a notably positive correlation in the spatial distribution of
LEGRI in the SFMA. The LEGRI in SFMA has obvious spatial clustering
characteristics (Fig. 8b). On the whole, the clustering characteristics of
SFMA mainly manifest as high-high and low-low types. The high-high
X. Zhu et al.
Fig. 8. Spatial autocorrelation analysis of LEGRI. (a) Moran’s I scatter. (b) LISA clustering diagram.
clustering area mainly distributed in the northeast and southwest of the
SFMA. The large number of mines and the high density of mining in
these areas have altered landscape pattern and aggravated its frag­
mentation, which greatly affects the eco-geological conditions of these
regions. In contrast, the northwest and southeast parts of the study area
showed a low-low risk clustering phenomenon, indicating that these
areas are less affected by coal mining activities and have relatively
better ecological conditions. The high-low and the low-high regions are
mainly distributed around both the high-high and low-low aggregation
areas. This explained that the eco-geological risks in the study area are
relatively stable.
4.5. MGWR-based monitoring plan for LEGRI in mining areas
This study focuses on the application of eco-geological risk assess­
ment results at the mine scale. In previous studies, it is a conventional
idea to monitor the quality of eco-geological environments by over­
laying the multiplication of both indicator weights and time series of
indicator values on the evaluation unit (Li et al., 2023). However, the
calculation of LEGRI across the region shares a common set of weights so
that above monitoring plan at the mine scale may be biased due to the
spatial heterogeneity of eco-geological conditions. In addition, the
relatively high subsidence rates may lead to decorrelation in SBAS-
InSAR derivation results, causing a limited number of effective subsi­
dence points (Li et al., 2022a). To better address these problems, we
constructed a regression relationship between assessment indicators and
LEGRI based on the MGWR model. Subsequently, we utilized these
regression coefficients as indicator weights to devise an eco-geological
risk monitoring plan for mining areas. The regression coefficients of
each underground mining were estimated (Table 4). The lithological
hardness and soil type are classified as a constant parameter of the
MGWR model due to not change significantly in individual mining areas.
The LEGRI of a monitoring site or assessment unit within a mine site
varies as the value of one or more indicators changes. When the LEGRI is
above or below the critical threshold, the corresponding eco-geological
risk level is increased or decreased.
5. Discussion
5.1. Impact of mining intensity on LEGRI
High-intensity coal mining exacerbates soil erosion and vegetation
damage, leading to environmental degradation. Mining intensity is
therefore considered to be a key factor contributing to the increase in
LEGR (Xu et al., 2021b). However, through a comparison with the
9
Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635
spatial distribution of mining intensity in the SFMA (Fan et al., 2016),
we found that the LEGRI does not always higher in eco-geological risk
with increasing mining intensity. High-intensity mining often occurs in
large and medium-sized mining areas that focus on implementing
disaster prevention, land management, and ecological restoration pro­
jects under policy driven initiatives. Therefore, the LEGRI levels in these
regions are at a medium to high level. On the contrary, although Lao­
gaochuan, Sandaogou, and Miaogoumen towns are medium mining in­
tensity, the high underground mining density and strong clustering
result in high LEGRI levels. Previous studies also support this viewpoint,
the standardization of mining activities in large and medium-sized
mining areas has gradually reduced the negative impact of mining on
the environment (Xiao et al., 2020). The mining intensity of a mining
area is determined by the length and depth of the mining face, rather
than its production capacity.
5.2. Application of LEGR assessment framework
Based on the regional eco-geological risk situation differences, the
scholars designed the assessment framework for different background
conditions and risk factors (Ghosh and Maiti, 2021; Mantelli et al., 2011;
Weng et al., 2023). However, these frameworks do not fully consider the
characteristics of geological risk. Only relying on indicators that reflect
the inherent characteristics of landforms, such as faults, formation li­
thology and slope, lacking the risk sources that disturb the changes of
geological conditions.(Bastos et al., 2023) also emphasized that the
ecological risk assessment in the region with high vulnerability should
be clear about the risk source. Therefore, the above framework is not
applicable to the eco-geological risk assessment of areas affected by
groundwater extraction and mining activities. The framework of this
study uses SAR satellite time series images to deduce the risk factors of
regional land subsidence, which provides several advantages over other
assessment frameworks. This framework offers a detailed quantification
of the spatial distribution of surface disturbance during specific periods
and is suitable for eco-geological risk assessment of different scales (e.g.,
single mining area, mining area group and mining city).
Fragmented landscape patterns lead to deterioration of ecological
quality compared to landscape types with a high degree of connectivity
(Biswas et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023b). (Shi et al., 2023) utilized
landscape pattern indices of the patch density, the landscape division
index, the Shannons diversity index, and the perimeter-area fractal
dimension to assess vulnerability in the ecological risk assessment
framework. The SFMA has a high degree of landscape pattern frag­
mentation due to the long time-series coal mining activities. However,
existing eco-geological risk assessments of the mine rarely focus on
X. Zhu et al. Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635

Table 4
MGWR parameters estimate for mining areas.
Mine β1(×103) β2 β3(×102) β4(×102) β5(×104) β6 β7(×102) β8 β0

U1 8.194 − 0.323 2.581 0.012 1.018 − 0.080 − 1.089 − 4.002 1.571

U2 4.207 − 0.191 0.228 − 0.362 − 0.335 0.324 − 0.747 − 1.657 3.322
U3 0.310 − 0.782 1.338 1.934 − 1.853 − 0.142 1.581 − 3.553 − 4.150
U4 − 3.325 − 0.345 0.955 0.050 1.768 0.160 0.059 − 1.939 1.794
U5 2.202 − 0.097 1.772 0.071 4.553 − 0.131 − 2.339 − 1.180 0.495
U6 − 2.528 − 0.011 − 0.028 0.050 − 1.221 0.030 − 0.117 − 1.768 2.635
U7 − 1.244 − 0.645 0.662 0.743 − 0.777 − 0.144 1.335 − 4.097 0.396
U8 2.023 − 0.605 1.137 − 1.149 − 0.020 − 0.171 1.159 − 6.262 8.125
U9 − 0.435 − 0.599 1.048 0.627 0.201 − 0.144 1.156 − 4.016 0.561
U10 − 0.595 − 0.445 1.185 − 0.127 − 0.007 − 0.158 1.067 − 3.956 3.555
U11 − 4.493 0.038 − 0.614 0.115 − 0.531 − 0.047 0.447 4.418 0.685
U12 − 2.735 0.111 − 0.267 0.208 0.419 − 0.024 0.454 − 3.092 1.742
U13 − 5.276 − 0.543 − 0.135 0.105 − 0.491 − 0.073 0.482 − 5.494 3.201
U14 − 4.737 − 0.285 0.402 − 0.761 − 3.772 0.174 − 0.213 − 2.535 5.702
U15 − 1.141 − 0.041 0.010 0.168 0.259 0.015 − 0.397 − 3.904 2.239
U16 − 6.463 0.021 0.110 − 0.009 − 0.857 − 0.011 0.011 − 7.826 3.905
U17 − 4.539 − 0.166 0.022 0.051 − 0.902 0.002 0.210 − 6.048 3.574
U18 − 5.415 − 0.879 − 0.241 0.204 − 1.789 0.031 0.231 − 3.124 2.451
U19 − 3.348 − 0.290 0.753 − 5.517 0.024 − 0.212 0.979 − 8.451 28.019
U20 − 1.908 − 0.073 0.013 0.051 − 0.385 − 0.094 − 0.210 − 0.407 2.721
U21 − 20.776 − 0.514 0.813 0.564 0.452 − 0.197 1.040 − 3.304 0.556
U22 − 13.317 − 0.258 0.580 2.887 1.249 0.025 0.224 − 1.962 − 10.582
U23 − 9.083 − 0.039 0.272 0.116 − 0.311 − 0.097 − 0.109 − 5.861 3.095
U24 − 4.741 − 0.610 − 0.111 0.118 1.740 0.000 − 0.056 − 5.405 2.585
U25 − 23.401 − 0.410 0.626 0.920 − 2.397 − 0.204 0.824 − 0.516 − 1.252
U26 − 10.907 − 0.123 0.297 0.165 1.386 − 0.366 0.592 − 8.192 3.443
U27 − 20.707 − 0.765 1.224 1.567 0.245 − 0.119 1.016 − 4.288 − 3.396
U28 − 5.051 − 0.105 0.094 0.148 − 0.468 − 0.032 0.197 − 1.589 1.926
U29 − 4.839 − 0.592 0.717 1.074 − 0.082 − 0.144 1.270 − 6.919 − 0.478
U30 − 2.349 − 0.050 0.172 − 0.057 − 1.448 0.029 − 0.349 0.557 2.545
U31 0.074 − 0.462 0.727 − 0.138 0.050 − 0.174 1.183 − 3.496 3.578
U32 − 0.754 − 0.572 1.148 0.046 − 0.779 − 0.250 1.263 − 3.898 3.196
U33 1.913 0.091 1.313 − 0.001 − 0.695 − 0.037 1.514 1.866 1.917
U34 − 0.506 − 0.564 0.648 − 0.323 − 0.224 − 0.197 1.074 − 4.457 4.829
U35 − 2.907 − 0.873 0.181 − 72.709 0.371 0.261 0.885 − 3.066 292.796
U36 − 0.554 − 0.508 0.991 0.598 − 0.539 − 0.150 1.341 − 5.941 1.209
U37 − 3.812 − 0.466 0.148 0.068 − 0.144 0.007 1.383 − 8.055 3.600
U38 − 3.849 − 0.471 1.189 − 2.379 − 0.083 − 0.226 0.771 − 0.144 12.165
U39 − 0.326 − 0.887 − 0.986 0.152 − 3.397 − 0.012 − 0.569 − 2.771 2.793
U40 − 8.503 − 0.420 0.554 0.224 − 1.327 − 0.017 − 0.359 − 2.585 2.042
U41 − 17.971 − 0.498 1.264 0.851 − 0.138 − 0.177 0.979 − 3.453 − 0.424
U42 − 1.436 − 0.747 1.093 − 0.857 − 0.047 0.250 0.917 − 3.900 6.059
U43 0.305 − 0.414 0.775 0.274 0.068 − 0.189 1.198 − 3.138 1.869
U44 − 1.402 − 0.099 0.043 0.051 − 0.416 − 0.042 0.432 − 1.896 2.233
U45 0.703 − 0.462 0.817 − 13.261 − 0.787 − 0.164 0.941 − 3.835 58.535
U46 − 3.992 − 0.193 − 0.833 0.118 3.124 − 0.092 − 2.048 − 0.648 1.112
U47 − 0.032 − 0.115 0.164 0.952 1.722 − 0.130 0.000 − 4.102 − 1.833
U48 − 3.832 − 0.100 0.104 − 0.068 0.846 − 0.027 − 1.679 − 5.361 3.283
U49 0.650 0.062 0.229 0.007 0.174 − 0.011 0.312 − 3.262 2.848
O1 − 6.365 − 0.795 0.462 − 8.631 0.999 0.230 2.129 − 3.337 30.670
O2 − 5.590 0.040 − 0.865 0.319 − 0.539 − 0.010 0.574 − 4.987 2.265
O3 − 12.550 − 0.077 1.823 − 4.089 2.016 − 0.475 1.097 − 3.766 19.626
O4 − 9.518 − 0.416 2.550 0.047 − 1.771 − 0.370 1.039 − 6.381 3.957

Note: β1 ~ β8 represent the first-order coefficients of subsidence rate, FVC, fluctuation, precipitation, distance to road, RSEI, slope, and biological abundance in the
MGWR model. β0 is the constant term. “U” denotes underground mine, “O” denotes open-pit mine.

landscape pattern fragmentation. Therefore, the LEGR framework in­
corporates a landscape ecological risk index to measure the impact of
landscape patch variation on the regional eco-geological environment.
In conclusion, the LEGR framework helps to understand the impact of
human activities and climate change on eco-geological conditions.
5.3. Influence on decision-making
The LEGRI in the SFMA exhibited significant spatial variation. Un­
derstanding these differences is conducive to the more effective man­
agement of ecosystems and predicting their responses to natural and
human interventions. This study emphasizes on both ecological and
geological pressure factors. The results of the LEGR assessment help to
reduce the eco-geological risk of SFMA. Based on the township LEGRI
characteristics and field survey, we provided the following ancillary
suggestions for decision-makers to develop sustainable development
plans.
High-intensity mining activities have led to surface subsidence and
ground fissures in the loess gully area of the SFMA, the surface water
seeps into the deep layers of the surface along the fissures, causing
damage to vegetation and soil ecosystems (Li et al., 2020a; Xu et al.,
2021b), resulting in a relatively high for LEGRI level. Mining companies
are advised to combine numerical modeling and SBAS-InSAR technology
to quantify subsidence above and around the working face (Woo et al.,
2012), and to backfill and remediate areas of high subsidence promptly
after mining. Some towns, such as Miaogoumen, Sandaogou, and Lao­
gaochuan towns, have a high density of underground mining and
increased landscape fragmentation, which has resulted in a reduction in
natural landscape connectivity and a significant spatial diffusion of
LEGRI-IV-V in the mining area. In addition, the LEGRI in different

10
X. Zhu et al. Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635

microtopographic units is different because of the complex topography
of the SFMA. Therefore, specific ecological restoration measures should
fully consider the local topographic and geomorphological characteris­
tics, optimizing the landscape pattern to reduce the overall LEGRI of the
mining area. The degree of desertification in the Mu Us Desert has been
significantly reversed after decades of management and restoration (Liu
et al., 2020). To prevent the rebound of desertification, it is recom­
mended to integrate multi-source remote sensing to conduct large-scale
and refined desertification monitoring on the LEGRI-III-IV-V zones of the
sand-covered area. By identifying the rebound or expansion areas of
desertification, and then implementing targeted restoration measures to
improve the stability of the ecological landscape.
5.4. Limitations
The eco-geological risk assessment framework of this study used
multi-source remote sensing images to calculate ecological quality (e.g.,
RSEI), geological conditions (e.g., land subsidence rate), and landscape
pattern fragmentation. This improves the reliability of the evaluation
system. Nevertheless, this study has certain limitations. Firstly, envi­
ronmental pollution resulting from the mining process is a factor
contributing to the alteration in surface risk, but it is not included in the
LEGRI assessment index system due to the insufficiency of data such as
soil pollution and groundwater pollution. Secondly, different landscape
scales explain differences in external pressure. How to divide the
optimal landscape scale and landscape pattern to respond to the impact
of external disturbances on LEGRI will be a key focus of future research.
6. Conclusion
mining areas aggravate degree of LEGRI. The areas of LEGRI–IV-V of
mining-type towns such as Laogaochuan town and Sandaogou town
were 79.10km2 and 74.34km2, respectively, exceeding 34% of the
respective town areas. Therefore, ecological restoration projects should
address the direct eco-geological environmental problems caused by
mining activities. In addition, a monitoring plan for the eco-geological
risk in the mining area was developed by combining the LEGRI with
the MGWR model. It provides scientific references for decision-makers
in formulating environmental protection policies.
Funding
This research was funded by the open funds from the State Key
Laboratory of Coal Mining and Clean Utilization (Granted No.2021-
CMCU-KF014), Fundamental Research Funds for the Key Laboratory of
Mine Ecological Effects and Systematic Restoration, Ministry of Natural
Resources (Grant No. MEER2023–06), Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 52174160), the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities (Grant Nos. 2023ZKPYDC04 and 2023YJSDC08),
the Ecological-Smart Mines Joint Research Fund of the Natural Science
Foundation of Hebei Province (Grant No. E2020402086).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Xiaoya Zhu: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology,
Conceptualization. Peixian Li: Writing – review & editing, Investiga­
tion, Funding acquisition. Bing Wang: Visualization, Software. Sihai
Zhao: Supervision. Tao Zhang: Validation, Supervision. Qingyue Yao:
Supervision.

This study proposed a novel landscape eco-geological risk assess­

ment framework by integrating regional intrinsic attributes, stress Declaration of competing interest
characteristics and landscape risk disturbances. The application of the
LEGRI evaluation framework not only demonstrates satisfactory per­ The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
formance in the SFMA (FRA = 74.87%), but also the framework can be
applied in other similar mining areas. The results indicated that the Data availability
overall eco-geological risk of the SFMA was moderate or below, the
LEGRI–I-II-III zones accounting for 80.7% of the study area. The spatial Data will be made available on request.
distribution of the LEGRI gradually increases from southwest to north­
east. The LEGRI global Moran’s I value of SFMA was 0.798, with high- Acknowledgments
high accumulations mainly influenced by human interference.
Notably, the surface subsidence above the mining area spreads to the The authors would like to acknowledge the open dataset of satellite
surrounding environment, resulting in a high degree of LEGRI in these images provided by the USGS and open survey data published by local
areas. Cumulative disturbance effects in long-term and high-intensity Chinese governments.

Appendix A

(1) Judgment matrix construction and quantitative grading of indicators

The eco-geological risk assessment model of SFMA can be divided into target layer (A), criterion layer (B) and indicator layer (C). The target layer is
the ecological and geological risk of SFMA; The criterion layer includes topographic and geological conditions, ecological conditions and anthro­
pogenic factors; The indicator layer includes 10 selected indicators. The discriminant matrix of the target layer (A-B) and the discriminant matrix of
the criterion layer (B1–C, B2–C, B3–C) are:
⎡ ⎤
B1 B2 B3
⎢ B1 1 1/2 1/3 ⎥
A− B=⎢ ⎣ B2 2
⎥
1 1/2 ⎦
B3 3 2 1
⎡ ⎤
C1 C2 C3 C4
⎢ C1 1 2 1/2 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
B1 − C⎢ ⎢ C2 1/2 1 1/2 1 ⎥ ⎥
⎣ C3 2 2 1 3 ⎦
C4 1/2 1 1/3 1

11
X. Zhu et al. Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635

⎡ ⎤
C5 C6 C7
⎢ C5 1 1/2 1/3 ⎥
B2 − C = ⎢
⎣ C6
⎥
2 1 1/2 ⎦
C7 3 2 1
⎡ ⎤
C8 C9 C10
⎢ C8 1 3 1/2 ⎥
B3 − C = ⎢
⎣ C9 1/3
⎥
1 1/4 ⎦
C10 2 4 1

where, C1 to C11 represent the fluctuation, soil type, slope, lithological hardness, precipitation, FVC, RSEI, biological abundance, distance to roads,
and subsidence rate, respectively.
By referring to the literature and expert scoring, the data of the evaluation indicators were graded in a standard quantitative way to carry out the
comprehensive operation among the indicators (Table A.1). The evaluation indicators of EGR in the study area are divided into five levels from low to
high, assigned values 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 respectively.

Table A.1
Quantitative grading standards of evaluation indicators.

score 1 3 5 7 9

Fluctuation (m) <5 5–10 10–15 15–20 >20

Slope (◦ ) <5 5–15 15–25 25–35 >35
Soil type – Semi hydrated soil Aqueous soil Primary soil Calcareous soil
Lithological hardness – – Medium hardness rock Soft rock Extremely soft rock
FVC 0.8–1.0 0.6–0.8 0.4–0.6 0.2–0.4 0–0.2
RSEI 0.8–1.0 0.6–0.8 0.4–0.6 0.2–0.4 0–0.2
Precipitation (mm) <370 370–390 390–410 410–430 >430
Biological abundance 0.8–1.0 0.6–0.8 0.4–0.6 0.2–0.4 0–0.2
Distance to roads (m) >500 300–500 200–300 100–200 <100
Sbusidence rate (mm/year) − 10–40 − 20 ~ − 10 − 30 ~ − 20 − 40 ~ − 30 <− 40 | >40

(2) Consistency Check

CI
CR = (A.1)
RI
λmax − n
CI = (A.2)
n− 1

where, CI and RI are the consistency index and average random consistency index of the judgment matrix; λmax is the maximum eigenvalue
of the consistency matrix; n is the number of compared factors.
Table A.2
Random consistency index.

Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.12 1.26 1.36 1.41 1.46 1.49

References Chen, W., Xie, X., Wang, J., Pradhan, B., Hong, H., Bui, D.T., Duan, Z., Ma, J., 2017.
A comparative study of logistic model tree, random forest, and classification and
regression tree models for spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility. CATENA
An, H., Tang, Z., Keesstra, S., Shangguan, Z., 2019. Impact of desertification on soil and
151, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.11.032.
plant nutrient stoichiometry in a desert grassland. Sci. Rep. 9, 9422. https://doi.org/
Chen, Z., Chen, J., Zhou, C., Li, Y., 2022. An ecological assessment process based on
10.1038/s41598-019-45927-0.
integrated remote sensing model: a case from Kaikukang-Walagan District, Greater
Bastos, M.I., Roebeling, P.C., Alves, F.L., Villasante, S., Magalhães Filho, L., 2023. High
Khingan Range, China. Ecol. Inform. 70, 101699 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
risk water pollution hazards affecting Aveiro coastal lagoon (Portugal) – a habitat
ecoinf.2022.101699.
risk assessment using InVEST. Eco. Inform. 76, 102144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Chen, L., Yang, H., Huang, H., Chang, M., Wang, X., Han, D., Liu, S., Xiao, Y., Yao, D.,
ecoinf.2023.102144.
Xiang, X., Yang, Q., 2023. How do natural and socio-economic factors influence the
Biswas, G., Sengupta, A., Alfaisal, F.M., Alam, S., Alharbi, R.S., Jeon, B.-H., 2023.
sustainable development of the ecological environment in the World Natural
Evaluating the effects of landscape fragmentation on ecosystem services: a three-
Heritage Sites? Evidence from the Jiuzhaigou, China. J. Clean. Prod. 428, 139238
decade perspective. Eco. Inform. 77, 102283 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139238.
ecoinf.2023.102283.
Cheng, J., Sun, J., Yao, K., Xu, M., Cao, Y., 2022. A variable selection method based on
Brunsdon, C., Fotheringham, A.S., Charlton, M.E., 2010. Geographically weighted
mutual information and variance inflation factor. Spectrochim. Acta A Mol. Biomol.
regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geogr. Anal. 28, 281–298.
Spectrosc. 268, 120652 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2021.120652.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1996.tb00936.x.
Deng, L., Yin, J., Tian, J., Li, Q., Guo, S., 2021. Comprehensive evaluation of water
Cai, Z., Zhang, Z., Zhao, F., Guo, X., Zhao, J., Xu, Y., Liu, X., 2023. Assessment of eco-
resources carrying capacity in the Han River basin. Water 13, 249. https://doi.org/
environmental quality changes and spatial heterogeneity in the Yellow River Delta
10.3390/w13030249.
based on the remote sensing ecological index and geo-detector model. Eco. Inform.
Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., Papayannakis, L., 1995. Determining objective weights in
77, 102203 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102203.
multiple criteria problems: the critic method. Comput. Oper. Res. 22, 763–770.
Cao, Q., Zhang, X., Lei, D., Guo, L., Sun, X., Kong, F., Wu, J., 2019. Multi-scenario
https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H.
simulation of landscape ecological risk probability to facilitate different decision-
Dou, S., Xu, D., Keenan, R.J., 2023. Effect of income, industry structure and
making preferences. J. Clean. Prod. 227, 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
environmental regulation on the ecological impacts of mining: An analysis for
jclepro.2019.03.125.
Guangxi Province in China. J. Clean. Prod. 400, 136654 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2023.136654.

12
X. Zhu et al.
Fan, L., Ma, X., Li, Y., Li, C., Yao, C., Xiang, M., WU, B., Peng, J., 2016. Geological
disasters and control technology in high intensity mining area of western China[J].
J. China Coal Soc. 42 (2), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.13225/j.cnki.jccs.2016.6002,
2017.
Fan, L., Li, T., Xiang, M., He, W., Wu, B., Peng, J., Li, Y., Li, C., Zheng, M., Chen, J.,
Gao, S., Du, J., Ji, Y., 2018. Effect of coal mining on springs in the Yushenfu Mining
Area of China. Geofluids 2018, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3564360.
Ghosh, A., Maiti, R., 2021. Development of new Ecological Susceptibility Index (ESI) for
monitoring ecological risk of river corridor using F-AHP and AHP and its application
on the Mayurakshi river of Eastern India. Eco. Inform. 63, 101318 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101318.
Gong, J., Cao, E., Xie, Y., Xu, C., Li, H., Yan, L., 2021. Integrating ecosystem services and
landscape ecological risk into adaptive management: insights from a western
mountain-basin area, China. J. Environ. Manag. 281, 111817 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111817.
Guo, Z., Xie, Y., Guo, H., Zhang, X., Wang, H., Bie, Q., Xi, G., Ma, C., 2023. Do the
ecosystems of Gansu Province in Western China’s crucial ecological security barrier
remain vulnerable? Evidence from remote sensing based on geospatial analysis.
J. Clean. Prod. 402, 136740 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136740.
Huang, X., Wang, X., Zhang, X., Zhou, C., Ma, J., Feng, X., 2022. Ecological risk
assessment and identification of risk control priority areas based on degradation of
ecosystem services: a case study in the Tibetan Plateau. Ecol. Indic. 141, 109078
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109078.
Jin, J., Yan, C., Tang, Y., Yin, Y., 2021. Mine geological environment monitoring and risk
assessment in arid and semiarid areas. Complexity 2021, 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2021/3896130.
Kim, E.S., Lee, D.K., Choi, J., Kim, J.H., Mo, Y., Jeon, Y., Kim, J.Y., 2024. Metapopulation
models using landscape connectivity can better reflect landscape heterogeneity. Eco.
Inform. 80, 102464 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102464.
Kokangül, A., Polat, U., Dağsuyu, C., 2017. A new approximation for risk assessment
using the AHP and Fine Kinney methodologies. Saf. Sci. 91, 24–32. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.015.
Kucuker, D.M., Cedano Giraldo, D., 2022. Assessment of soil erosion risk using an
integrated approach of GIS and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Erzurum,
Turkiye. Ecol. Inform. 71, 101788 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101788.
Li, C., Chen, J., Liao, M., Chen, G., Zhou, Q., 2018a. Ecological risk assessment of Shan
Xin Mining area based on remote sensing and geography information system
technology. JGIS 10, 234–246. https://doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2018.102012.
Li, W., Liu, S., Pei, Y., He, J., Wang, Q., 2018b. Zoning for eco-geological environment
before mining in Yushenfu mining area, northern Shaanxi, China. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 190, 619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6996-5.
Li, Jianwei, Li, X., Liu, C., Wu, X., 2020a. Dynamic changes in surface damage induced by
high-intensity mining of shallow, thick coal seams in gully areas. Adv. Civil Eng.
2020, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5151246.
Li, Jun, Pei, Y., Zhao, S., Xiao, R., Sang, X., Zhang, C., 2020b. A review of remote sensing
for environmental monitoring in China. Remote Sens. 12, 1130. https://doi.org/
10.3390/rs12071130.
Li, S., Xu, W., Li, Z., 2022a. Review of the SBAS InSAR time-series algorithms,
applications, and challenges. Geodesy Geodynam. 13, 114–126. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geog.2021.09.007.
Li, L., Zhou, X., Yang, L., Duan, J., Zeng, Z., 2022b. Spatio-temporal characteristics and
influencing factors of ecological Risk in China’s North–South Transition Zone.
Sustainability 14, 5464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095464.
Li, P., Wang, B., Chen, P., Zhang, Y., Zhao, S., 2023. Vulnerability assessment of the eco-
geo-environment of mining cities in arid and semi-arid areas: a case study from
Zhungeer, China. Ecol. Indic. 152, 110364 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2023.110364.
Liu, S., Li, W., 2019. Zoning and management of phreatic water resource conservation
impacted by underground coal mining: a case study in arid and semiarid areas.
J. Clean. Prod. 224, 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.282.
Liu, Q., Zhang, Q., Yan, Y., Zhang, X., Niu, J., Svenning, J.-C., 2020. Ecological
restoration is the dominant driver of the recent reversal of desertification in the Mu
Us Desert (China). J. Clean. Prod. 268, 122241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.122241.
Löbmann, M.T., Geitner, C., Wellstein, C., Zerbe, S., 2020. The influence of herbaceous
vegetation on slope stability – a review. Earth Sci. Rev. 209, 103328 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103328.
Mantelli, L.R., Barbosa, J.M., Bitencourt, M.D., 2011. Assessing ecological risk through
automated drainage extraction and watershed delineation. Eco. Inform. 6, 325–331.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2011.04.003.
Muço, B., Alexiev, G., Aliaj, S., Elezi, Z., Grecu, B., Mandrescu, N., Milutinovic, Z.,
Radulian, M., Ranguelov, B., Shkupi, D., 2012. Geohazards assessment and mapping
of some Balkan countries. Nat. Hazards 64, 943–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-012-0185-6.
Nicholson, E., Watermeyer, K.E., Rowland, J.A., Sato, C.F., Stevenson, S.L., Andrade, A.,
Brooks, T.M., Burgess, N.D., Cheng, S.-T., Grantham, H.S., Hill, S.L., Keith, D.A.,
Maron, M., Metzke, D., Murray, N.J., Nelson, C.R., Obura, D., Plumptre, A.,
Skowno, A.L., Watson, J.E.M., 2021. Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal,
milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Nat Ecol
Evol 5, 1338–1349. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01538-5.
Oh, H.-J., Pradhan, B., 2011. Application of a neuro-fuzzy model to landslide-
susceptibility mapping for shallow landslides in a tropical hilly area. Comput.
Geosci. 37, 1264–1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2010.10.012.
O’Neill, R.V., Hunsaker, C.T., Timmins, S.P., Jackson, B.L., Jones, K.B., Riitters, K.H.,
Wickham, J.D., 1996. Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional
scale. Landsc. Ecol. 11, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02447515.
13
Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635
Shang, Y., Ye, X., Dong, L., Liu, S., Du, T., Wang, G., 2022. Landscape pattern evolution
in a Mining City: an urban life cycle perspective. Sustainability 14, 8492. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su14148492.
Sharma, L.P., Patel, N., Debnath, P., Ghose, M.K., 2012. Assessing landslide vulnerability
from soil characteristics—a GIS-based analysis. Arab. J. Geosci. 5, 789–796. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12517-010-0272-5.
Shi, H., Shi, T., Yang, Z., Wang, Z., Han, F., Wang, C., 2018. Effect of roads on ecological
corridors used for wildlife movement in a natural heritage site. Sustainability 10,
2725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082725.
Shi, Z., Xiang, F., Guo, Y., 2023. Ecological risk of geohazards and its combination
patterns: a case study of an ecologically fragile region, NW ChinaEcol. Inform. 77,
102153. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102153.
Tang, W., Zhao, X., Motagh, M., Bi, G., Li, J., Chen, M., Chen, H., Liao, M., 2022. Land
subsidence and rebound in the Taiyuan basin, northern China, in the context of inter-
basin water transfer and groundwater management. Remote Sens. Environ. 269,
112792 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112792.
Teodoro, A., Santos, P., Espinha Marques, J., Ribeiro, J., Mansilha, C., Melo, A.,
Duarte, L., Rodrigues De Almeida, C., Flores, D., 2021. An integrated multi-approach
to environmental monitoring of a self-burning coal waste pile: the São Pedro da Cova
mine (Porto, Portugal) study case. Environments 8, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/
environments8060048.
Tesfa, C., Woldearegay, K., 2021. Characteristics and susceptibility zonation of landslides
in Wabe Shebelle Gorge, south eastern Ethiopia. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 182, 104275
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2021.104275.
Trofimov, V.T., 2008. Ecological geology, environmental geology, geoecology: contents
and relations. Mosc. Univ. Geol. Bull. 63, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.3103/
S0145875208020014.
Wang, H., Liu, X., Zhao, C., Chang, Y., Liu, Y., Zang, F., 2021a. Spatial-temporal pattern
analysis of landscape ecological risk assessment based on land use/land cover
change in Baishuijiang national nature reserve in Gansu Province, China. Ecol. Indic.
124, 107454 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107454.
Wang, X., Zhang, C., Wang, C., Liu, G., Wang, H., 2021b. GIS-based for prediction and
prevention of environmental geological disaster susceptibility: from a perspective of
sustainable development. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 226, 112881 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112881.
Wang, B., Li, P., Zhu, X., 2023. Quantification of vegetation phenological disturbance
characteristics in open-pit coal mines of arid and semi-arid regions using harmonized
Landsat 8 and Sentinel-2. Remote Sens. 15, 5257. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs15215257.
Wang, X., Xiong, J., Wang, J., Liu, M., Zhang, J., 2024. Spatiotemporal evolution and
driving factors of tourism ecological adaptation in the Dongting Lake Area, China.
Ecol. Inform. 80, 102459 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102459.
Weng, C., Bai, Y., Chen, B., Hu, Y., Shu, J., Chen, Q., Wang, P., 2023. Assessing the
vulnerability to climate change of a semi-arid pastoral social–ecological system: a
case study in Hulunbuir, China. Ecol. Inform. 76, 102139 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoinf.2023.102139.
Woo, K.-S., Eberhardt, E., Rabus, B., Stead, D., Vyazmensky, A., 2012. Integration of field
characterisation, mine production and InSAR monitoring data to constrain and
calibrate 3-D numerical modelling of block caving-induced subsidence. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 53, 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.05.008.
Xiao, W., Zhang, W., Lyu, X., Wang, X., 2020. Spatio-temporal patterns of ecological
capital under different mining intensities in an ecologically fragile mining area in
Western China: a case study of Shenfu mining area. J. Nat. Resourc. 35 (1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.31497/zrzyxb.20200107, 2020.
Xie, H., Wang, P., Huang, H., 2013. Ecological risk assessment of land use change in the
Poyang Lake Eco-economic Zone, China. IJERPH 10, 328–346. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph10010328.
Xu, W., Wang, J., Zhang, M., Li, S., 2021a. Construction of landscape ecological network
based on landscape ecological risk assessment in a large-scale opencast coal mine
area. J. Clean. Prod. 286, 125523 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125523.
Xu, J., Zhu, W., Xu, Jialin, Wu, J., Li, Y., 2021b. High-intensity longwall mining-induced
ground subsidence in Shendong coalfield, China. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 141,
104730 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2021.104730.
Xu, W., Yao, W., Bai, Z., Yang, J., Li, L., 2023a. Ecological risk evaluation and ecological
restoration model of mining in the source area of the Yellow River Basin. Land 12,
933. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12040933.
Xu, Q., Zhao, B., Dai, K., Dong, X., Li, W., Zhu, X., Yang, Y., Xiao, X., Wang, X., Huang, J.,
Lu, H., Deng, B., Ge, D., 2023b. Remote sensing for landslide investigations: a
progress report from China. Eng. Geol. 321, 107156 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2023.107156.
Yang, Z., Li, W., Li, X., Wang, Q., He, J., 2019. Assessment of eco-geo-environment
quality using multivariate data: a case study in a coal mining area of Western China.
Ecol. Indic. 107, 105651 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105651.
Yang, Y., Wang, H., Wang, C., Yang, B., 2022. Model-based temporal evolution and
spatial equilibrium analysis of green development in China’s Yangtze River
Economic Belt from 2009 to 2018. Ecol. Indic. 141, 109071 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109071.
Yang, L., Pan, S., Chen, W., Zeng, J., Xu, H., Gu, T., 2023a. Spatially non-stationary
response of habitat quality to land use activities in World’s protected areas over 20
years. J. Clean. Prod. 419, 138245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138245.
Yang, H., Xu, W., Yu, J., Xie, X., Xie, Z., Lei, X., Wu, Z., Ding, Z., 2023b. Exploring the
impact of changing landscape patterns on ecological quality in different cities: a
comparative study among three megacities in eastern and western China. Eco.
Inform. 77, 102255 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102255.
Yang, X., Zheng, X., Zhou, Z., Miao, H., Liu, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, H., You, S., Wei, S.,
2023c. A novel multilevel decision-making evaluation approach for the renewable
X. Zhu et al.
energy heating systems: a case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 390, 135934 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135934.
Yin, S., Li, J., Liang, J., Jia, K., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., 2020. Optimization of the weighted
linear combination method for agricultural land suitability evaluation considering
current land use and regional differences. Sustainability 12, 10134. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su122310134.
Zhang, P., Chen, X., Ren, Y., Lu, S., Song, D., Wang, Y., 2023a. A novel mine-specific eco-
environment index (MSEEI) for mine ecological environment monitoring using
Landsat imagery. Remote Sens. 15, 933. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15040933.
Zhang, Z., Lu, L., Zhao, Y., Wang, Y., Wei, D., Wu, X., Ma, X., 2023b. Recent advances in
using Chinese earth observation satellites for remote sensing of vegetation. ISPRS J.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. 195, 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
isprsjprs.2022.12.006.
Zhao, J., Ji, G., Tian, Y., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., 2018. Environmental vulnerability
assessment for mainland China based on entropy method. Ecol. Indic. 91, 410–422.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.016.
Zhao, S., Li, P., Li, H., Zhang, T., Wang, B., 2023. Monitoring and comparative analysis of
Hohhot Subway subsidence using StaMPS-PS based on two DEMS. Remote Sens. 15,
4011. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15164011.
14
Ecological Informatics 81 (2024) 102635
Zheng, Z., Wu, Z., Chen, Y., Guo, C., Marinello, F., 2022. Instability of remote sensing
based ecological index (RSEI) and its improvement for time series analysis. Sci. Total
Environ. 814, 152595 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152595.
Zhou, Y., Xu, K., Feng, Z., Wu, K., 2023. Quantification and driving mechanism of
cultivated land fragmentation under scale differences. Eco. Inform. 78, 102336
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102336.
Zhu, C., Zhang, X., Zhou, M., He, S., Gan, M., Yang, L., Wang, K., 2020. Impacts of
urbanization and landscape pattern on habitat quality using OLS and GWR models in
Hangzhou, China. Ecol. Indic. 117, 106654 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2020.106654.
Zhu, X., Li, J., Cheng, H., Zheng, L., Huang, W., Yan, Y., Liu, H., Yang, X., 2022. Assessing
the impacts of ecological governance on carbon storage in an urban coal mining
subsidence area. Eco. Inform. 72, 101901 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoinf.2022.101901.
Zou, F., Che, E., Long, M., 2023. Quantitative assessment of geological hazard risk with
different hazard indexes in mountainous areas. J. Clean. Prod. 413, 137467 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137467.