ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Ecological Risk Assessment and Protection Zone Identification for Linear Cultural Heritage: A Case Study of the Ming Great Wall.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecological risk assessment is an important part of the sustainable development of World Heritage. The Ming Great Wall Heritage (MGWH) plays an important role in World Heritage conservation as a representative of large linear heritage, yet its ecological risks have not received much attention. This study assessed the ecological risk of MGWH based on simultaneous consideration of spatial heterogeneity and autocorrelation of geographic factors, and four protection zones were further identified from the perspective of preservation status and risk by using GeoDetector, principal component analysis and bivariate autocorrelation. The results showed that there were statistically significant differences in the preservation status of MGWH at different elevations. Based on this assessed ecological risk, it was found that 63.49% of MGWH grids were in the low to medium risk, while the highest risk areas (16.61%) were mainly concentrated in lower (200-500 m) and medium (500-1000 m) elevation. As elevation increased, the dominant factor of ecological risk shifted from human factors to natural factors and the main ecological risk showed a trend of increasing and then decreasing with increasing elevation. In addition, four types of risk protection zones (i.e., Protection-Restricted, Restoration-Moderate exploited, Restoration-Restricted and Protection-Moderate exploited) and policy suggestions were identified in this study from the perspectives of conservation, restoration and development, respectively. Future ecological protection of the MGWH should be based on the principle of "cultural heritage protection first", with restricted development and use (e.g., tourism and education) and enhanced ecological restoration and environmental management of the surrounding area. This study provides references for the risk assessment of the cultural heritage at a large spatial scale, which is conducive to the maintenance and improvement of heritage value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.