Land Quality Evaluation Indicators at County Scale Based on "Press-State-Response" Framework

  • 1. Key Laboratory of Land Use, Ministry of National Land and Resources, Beijing 100035;
    2. Department of System Resources and Environment Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875;
    3. Key Laboratory of Ecology, Research Center for Eco-environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085

Received date: 2004-08-06

  Revised date: 2004-12-11

  Online published: 2005-09-20


Huge press to land resources with economic development and land quality degradation and ecological environment deterioration urge to build up the land quality indicators based on"press-state-response" framework, which can reflect distinctly the reasons and results of land quality changes and correspondingly adoptable strategies. By taking Ansai County, Shaanxi Province, in the northern China as an example, land quality indicators based on "press-state-response" framework for soil degradation by water erosion were built up. Press indicators include topography, farmland, population, income and spatial pattern indicators. State indicators include soil erosion, soil fertility and crop yield. Response indicators include land use and policy. The values of land quality indicators were got by the application of GIS, model simulating and statistical analysis. Based on land use map of Ansai County in 1998, the values of press, state and response were got respectively by giving values to different grades of indicators and computing the average. The results showed the press to land in Ansai County came mainly from topography and disturbance of human activities. The land whose slope is more than 25皁ccupied about 47.11% of total land area, while the land of slope less than 5癷s only 4.59%. The proportion of farmland and crop seeding area to whole area is respectively 52.48% and 47.96%,the proportion of cultivation income is also higher, which indicated higher dependence of farmers on land. The average soil erosion is estimated about 6268t/km2 by using USLE model. The soil fertility and crop yield is low, so the state of land quality is also low. Response of Land quality is not active, the evaluation value is only 1.75. This paper also discussed the applicability of indicators in land quality management practice and proposed it is probably one of the most important trend for land quality research to build up the land quality indicators and methods system based on PSR framework, which is supported by "3S"technology combined with field investigation and relative basic geographical information.

Cite this article

GUO Xu-Dong, QIU Yang, LIAN Gang, WANG Jing . Land Quality Evaluation Indicators at County Scale Based on "Press-State-Response" Framework[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2005 , 25(5) : 579 -583 . DOI: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2005.05.579


[1] Dumanski J. Land quality indicators. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment[J]. preface,2000,81:81.
[2] Dumanski J, Pieri C. Land quality indicators: research plan[J]. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2000,81: 93-102.
[3] Adriaanse A. Environmental policy performance indicators[M]. Uitgeverij, The Hague:A study on the development of indicators for environmental policy in The Netherlands,1993.
[4] Benites J R, Tschirley J B. Report of the Workshop on Land Quality Indicators for Sustainable Resource Management. FAO, Rome, Italy, 1996.
[5] Acton D F, Gregorich L J. Executive Summary of the Health of Our Soil toward Sustainable Agriculture in Canada[M]. Ottawa, Canada:Research Branch: Centre for land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1996.
[6] Walker J, Reuter D J. Indicators of catchment health: a technical perspective.CSIRO, Melbourne, 1996.
[7] Dumanski J, Gameda S, Pieri C. Indicators of land quality and sustainable land management: An annotated bibliography. Environmentally and Socially Sustainable development series: Rural development[M]. D.C., U.S.A:The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington, 1998.
[8] 苏培玺,张小军,刘新民. 荒漠绿洲PRED系统特征与可持续发展定量研究[J]. 地理科学,2001,21(6):519~523.
[9] 孙波, 张桃林, 赵其国. 我国东南丘陵山区土壤肥力的综合评价[J]. 土壤学报, 1995,32(4): 362~369.
[10] 陈利顶,傅伯杰. 长江流域可持续发展能力评价[J]. 地理科学, 2000,20(4): 301~306.
[11] 傅伯杰,陈利顶,马诚. 土地持续利用评价的指标体系与方法[J]. 自然资源学报,1997,12(2):112~118.
[12] 周海林. 农业可持续发展状态评价指标(体系)框架及其分析[J]. 农村生态环境, 1999, 15(3): 6~10.
[13] 王静,郭旭东. 我国县级尺度土地可持续利用的科学调控[J].地理科学进展,2002,11(3):216~220.
[14] 刘宝元,谢云,张科利. 土壤侵蚀预报模型[M]. 北京:中国科学技术出版社,2001.11.
[15] 郭旭东,邱扬,连纲,等. 基于PSR框架,针对土壤侵蚀的小流域土地质量评价[J]. 生态学报,2004,24(9):1884~1894.
[16] 傅伯杰,邱扬,王军,等. 黄土丘陵小流域土地利用变化对水土流失的影响[J]. 地理学报, 2002,57(6): 717~722.
[17] 彭文英,张科利,江忠善,等. 黄土高原坡耕地退耕还草的水沙变化特征[J]. 地理科学,2002,22(4):397~402.
[18] 傅伯杰,陈利顶,马克明.黄土丘陵小流域土地利用变化对生态环境的影响——以延安市羊圈沟流域为例[J].地理学报,1999,54(3):241~246.
[19] 郭旭东,邱扬,连纲,等. 基于PSR框架的土地质量指标体系研究进展与展望[J]. 地理科学进展,2003,22(5): 479~489.
[20] 黄铁青,张养贞. 可持续发展初探[J]. 地理科学,2002,22(2):156~161.
[21] 赵文晋,董德明,龙振永,等. 战略环境评价指标体系框架构建研究[J]. 地理科学,2003,23(6):751~754.
[22] 孙武,李森. 土地退化评价与监测技术路线的研究[J]. 地理科学,2000,20(1):92~96.