Ecological restoration zoning for a marine protected area: A case study of Haizhouwan National Marine Park, China

Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Ecological restoration zoning for a marine protected area: A case study of Haizhouwan National Marine Park, China Fei Li a, b, Min Xu a, *, Qing liu a, Zaifeng Wang a, Wenjian Xu a a b

School of Geographic Science, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China National Marine Environmental Monitoring Center, Dalian 116023, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 19 July 2014

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an important means in protecting marine ecological functions and landscapes. Existing ecological restoration measures are singular and lack pertinence and systematicness. Thus, a gap between the expectations and real ecological restoration effects exists. This study was based on Haizhouwan National Marine Park, a national MPA of China. After investigating and evaluating the ecological environment in the Haizhouwan protected area (HPA), ecosystem health assessments to three ecological subsystems (i.e., island terrestrial, intertidal, and neritic ecosystems) and vulnerability assessments to the main protected objects (i.e., landforms) were conducted. This study was integrated with the functional zonation of the HPA, which enabled it to conduct an analytic hierarchy process for the assessment results to obtain ecological restoration zoning. According to the zoning, the HPA can be divided into 12 ecological restoration zones, namely, 2 key restoration zones, 3 general restoration zones, 2 taking-into-account restoration zones, and 5 maintaining-the-status zones. This paper also provides pertinent ecological restoration measures and recommendations to the environmental, ecological, and protected object problems existing in different zones. The study results can provide empirical references for the development of ecological restoration plans and measures for the HPA. The zoning method can also be applied to the ecological protection and restoration research of other MPAs. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Haizhouwan National Marine Park or the Haizhouwan Protected area (HPA) located in the north of Lianyungang, China, is a transition strip between the East Asian subtropical and warm temperate zones. It is an important bird migration channel with typical bay ecosystems and island landforms. Important marine historical and cultural sites are scattered among the islands. The establishment of the HPA was approved by the Chinese State Oceanic Administration in January 2008. With the intensification of coastal development in the Jiangsu Province, the marine ecological pressure and intensity of human disturbance kept increasing in the HPA and nearby waters. Since its establishment, the HPA's management was performed based on relevant laws and regulations (SOA, 2005, 2010, 2012a, 2012b), as well as insufficient operational management tools. Limited funds also restrict the ecological restoration in the HPA. In addition, there are spatial distribution differences and * Corresponding author. School of Geographic Science, Nanjing Normal University, No.1, Wenyuan Road, Xianlin University District, Nanjing 210023, China. Tel.: þ86 25 83717160. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Xu). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.06.013 0964-5691/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

particularities in the natural attributes of the inside HPA, such as hydrology and geomorphology, natural resource, environmental features, and ecological status. Also, protection modes and managing objects in the inside HPA posses distinctive features of the spatial distribution. Therefore, these characteristics of natural attributes and objective management lead to the spatial differences in the establishment and practice of ecological restoration, increasing the complexity and difficulty in conducting the restoration work. Dividing the protected area into different zones based on the area differences, as well as determining each zone's restoration order and characteristics, can facilitate the development of targeted ecological protection measures to improve the efficiency of ecological restoration in marine protected areas (MPAs). Ecological restoration is the practice of renewing and restoring degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems and protected objects. It is an active action intended to initiate and accelerate the restoration of ecosystem health, integrity, and sustainability (Howell et al., 2012). Ecological restoration zoning divides different levels of ecological restoration zones in the protected area and proposes targeted ecological restoration measures to improve the effectiveness of ecological restoration. This approach is based on the protected area's functional zonation, ecosystem status, and vulnerability of the

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166

protected objects. The current research on ecological restoration focuses mainly on terrestrial and freshwater ecological restoration, and the number of studies on marine ecological restoration is relatively small (Verdonschot et al., 2013). In response to the widespread occurrence of marine ecosystem degradation, countries around the world have launched a series of research and practices on marine ecological restoration technologies in recent years (Jones and Hanna, 2004; Hinkle and Mitsch, 2005; Lewis III, 2005; Rinkevich, 2005; Van Katwijk et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2012). However, only a few focus on marine ecosystems' ecological restoration zoning, degeneration diagnosis, restoration monitoring, restoration effect assessment, and management. Neckles et al. (2002) proposed a monitoring plan for the salt marsh restoration project in the Gulf of Maine. Konisky et al. (2006) evaluated the effectiveness of the ecosystem restoration measures applied to Maine's salt marsh from the aspects of tidal ranges, salinity, and vegetation changes. They pointed out that the ecological restoration of biological elements was slow. Jones et al. (2010) described the design and implementation of an ecological restoration project developed to mitigate coastal erosion in southern Texas. They also evaluated the project from the aspects of landscape, engineering technology, ecological environment, and socioeconomic aspects. Veríssimo et al. (2012) evaluated the ecological restoration effects of intertidal benthic communities on estuarine areas. Combined with existing empirical studies, Borja et al. (2010) introduced environmental features and anthropogenic pressures in different types of estuaries and coastal areas. The existing studies mainly focus on biological elements, such as benthic organisms, algae, and fish. Elliott et al. (2007) analyzed different types of ecological restoration actions and their results from the perspective of restoration ecology and restoration management. Although a series of studies on the ecological restoration of MPAs have been conducted, only a limited number concerns the restoration of

159

regionalization. The existing studies on the HPA also mainly focus mainly on environmental quality, causes of red tides, biological resources, and ecological restoration measures and plans in artificial reefs (Xu et al., 2009; Cheng et al., 2009; Sun et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2013). The present study focuses on the HPA as the research area. Based on the functional zonation of the HPA, as well as ecosystem health assessments and protected objects vulnerability assessments of the island, intertidal, and neritic ecological subsystems, this study proposes an ecological restoration zoning plan for the HPA, divides different ecological restoration zones, and identifies key restoration areas. This study can also be used to guide the design and implementation of the ecological restoration of MPAs. 2. Site description The HPA (119 20', 34 50') was established in January 2008 with a total area of approximately 515 km2. Its main protected objects are the island coastal landforms, as well as the native bay floral and faunal resources. The HPA has a shoreline of approximately 50 km. The west side is a muddy coast, whereas the south side includes an artificial shoreline and a bedrock coast. Five major estuaries are distributed along the west shoreline, which bear sewage discharges from Ganyu County in the west and Lianyungang in the south. Three bedrock islands (i.e., Lian Island, Qinshan Island, and Bamboo Island) are distributed in the HPA. The main marine sediments are salty clay and clayey silt. The HPA is a national level marine protected area in China. It includes four functional areas, namely, specially protected, ecology and resource recovery, moderate exploitation, and reserved areas (Fig. 1). The management requirements of functional areas are as follows: the specially protected area prohibits any constructions that are unrelated to the protection activities; the ecology and

Fig. 1. Location map of The HPA. (T1, T2, T3, and T4 represent the protected objects: the Longwang estuary spit, Qinshan Island, Bamboo Island, and the north shoreline of Lian Island).

160

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166

resource recovery area encourages scientific research and ecological restoration practices; the moderate exploitation area may have moderate development of the marine eco-industry without damaging the marine environment; and the reserved area maintains the natural state. The specially protected area includes Qinshan Island (119 170 E, 34 520 N), Bamboo Island (119 210 E, 34 460 N), Longwang estuary pit (119 120 E, 34 540 N), and the northern shoreline of Lian Island (119 270 E, 34 460 N). The ecology and resource recovery area includes the artificial reef areas located in the northeastern part of HNMP (119 280 E, 34 560 N). The artificial reefs have been placed in this area since 2003. The moderate exploitation area is the west coastal region. The reserved area is an area in addition to the abovementioned functional areas. The HPA's protected objects include coastal erosion and deposition landforms of Qinshan Island, coastal erosion landforms of Bamboo Island, feathery spit of Longwang estuary, and the north shoreline of Lian Island. 3. Zoning methods and techniques 3.1. Technical framework There are spatial distribution differences and uniquenesses for the inside HPA in its natural attributes, such as the structures of ecological system, environmental features and eco-health. Besides, protection modes and managing objects in the inside HPA posses distinctive features of the spatial distribution. These characteristics of natural attributes and objective management, therefore, make the spatial differences in the establishment and practice of ecological restoration. Ecological restoration zoning of MPAs divides different ecological restoration zones in the protected area according to certain standards and methods. It then proposes ecological restoration measures to guide the design and implementation of ecological restoration projects to improve the ecological restoration benefits. This process is based on the quantitative analysis of the MPA's environmental quality, ecological status, functional zonation, ecosystem health (Rapport, 1992), and vulnerability of the protected objects (De Lange et al., 2010). The ecological restoration technical framework (Fig. 2) mainly includes data collection, field investigation, ecosystem regionalization, health assessments, vulnerability assessments of the

protected objects, and ecological restoration area zoning and measures. The first step is to collect information related to the protected area's natural environment, socio-economy, and management, through supplementary field investigations and interviews. The second step is to specify the functional zonation and key protected objects according to the protected area's current management situation. The third step is to divide the island, intertidal, and neritic ecosystems according to the protected area's natural environmental features. Health evaluation models for island terrestrial, intertidal, and neritic ecosystems were developed based on the coastal ecosystem characteristics. Three vulnerability assessment models for landforms, biology, and resources were also developed based on the key protected objects' natural features. Ecosystem health and vulnerability assessments of the protected objects were then conducted based on the collected information about the ecosystems and protected objects. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied for the ecological restoration zoning of the HPA, including initial zoning and final zoning. The initial zoning employed AHP analysis on the functional zonation and ecosystem health assessments to determine the types and ranges of final zoning. Based on the zoning results, the urgent levels of the ecological restoration work were clarified. After integrating each division's current ecological states of protected objects, the environmental, ecological, and protected objects' problems and reasons were then diagnosed. Targeted ecological restoration measures were also suggested. 3.2. Module system and assessments 3.2.1. Ecosystem zoning and health evaluation Based on the hydrological geomorphological features, the HPA was divided into three subsystems, namely, the island subsystem (above the average low tide line), intertidal subsystem (above the average low tide line to the high tide line), and neritic subsystem (below the average low tide line and subtidal waters). With the increasing pressure on the coastal ecological environment, many marine environmental quality assessment studies have been conducted all over the world (Borja et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2012; Rombouts et al., 2013). Based on existing research results, the HPA's environment characteristics, and China's current marine

Fig. 2. Technical and theoretical framework for the ecological restoration zoning of the HPA.

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166

environmental status, the present study selected five health evaluation indicators for the three subsystems (i.e., current environmental status, environmental disasters, environmental background, system structure and functions, and system stability). These indicators were selected based on the following criteria: (a) scientificity e objectively reflects the components and interconnections between various elements of an ecosystem; (2) sensitivity e timely reflects an ecosystems' responses to natural and human disturbances; (3) maneuverability e indicators are measurable, and the data are accessible in the current economic and technological level; and (4) comparability e indicators are comparable at different times and spaces. The health evaluation indicators are shown in Table 1. After the evaluation indicators were standardized, they were sent to experts for final review. The AHP linearly weighted acculations were conducted to determine each sample's composite index value (IEH). The calculation formula for this model is as follows:

ICH ¼

m X

Ii $wi

i¼1

where ICH is the composite index of the ecosystem health, Ii is the standardized value of the i-th evaluation indicator, and Wi is the weight of this evaluation indicator. An ecosystem's IEH value is a continuous number between 0 and 1, that is, 0 to 0.2, 0.2 to 0.4, 0.4 to 0.6, 0.6 to 0.8, and 0.8 to 1. These ranges correspond to five health states: morbid (very poor), general morbid (poor), sub-healthy (fair), comparatively healthy (good), and healthy (excellent). According to the coastal ecosystem characteristics, the study area could be divided into three subsystem types. Ecosystem health evaluations in the neritic area were conducted based on the survey stations, whereas the intertidal coastal eco-system was based on the evaluation sections, and the island subsystems were evaluated as a whole. The study site scores in the neritic areas were processed using ArcGIS 9.3 software to interpolate and map the IEH values for the neritic ecosystem health by ordinary kriging. Ordinary kriging is a spatial interpolation estimator used to find the best linear unbiased estimate, which provides an estimate of the unsampled location of variable z based on the weighted average of neighbor measured locations (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0341816213002403Li and Heap, 2014).

161

3.2.2. Classification and vulnerability assessments of the protected objects According to the protected objects' different natural attributes, the protected objects were classified into three types: landform, biology, and resource. The landform type of protected objects includes territorial sea base points, unique geological landforms and landscapes, easy-to-lose islands, and special areas that can maintain stable oceanographic dynamic conditions. The biological protected objects include coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds, coastal wetlands, and other important divisions of typical ecosystems. The resource type of protected objects includes fishery resources and endangered species. Given existing vulnerability studies (Leng et al., 2008; Le Quesne and Jennings, 2012), the vulnerability evaluation indicator system was developed for the three types of protected objects in terms of four aspects: occurrence characteristics, main influencing factors, disasters, and human disturbances. The evaluation indicators are shown in Table 2. After the evaluation indicators were standardized and reviewed by the experts, the AHP linearly weighted calculations were conducted to determine each sample's composite index value (IF). The calculation formula for this model is as follows:

IF ¼

m X

Ii $wi

i¼1

where IF is the composite index of the vulnerability of protected object, Ii is the standardized value of the i-th evaluation indicator, and Wi is the weight of this evaluation indicator. The IF value is a continuous number between 0 and 1, that is, 0 to 0.2, 0.2 to 0.4, 0.4 to 0.6, 0.6 to 0.8, and 0.8 to 1. These values correspond to five states: very vulnerable, vulnerable, relatively stable, stable, and very stable. The area is evaluated as a whole because of the small range of each protected object. 3.3. Zoning types The initial zoning was conducted based on the HPA's functional zonation and ecosystem health assessment results (Table 3). The rezoning was then conducted by integrating the results of the protected objects's vulnerability assessments (Table 4).

Table 1 Health evaluation indicators. Types of indicators

Indicators

Explanations

Environmental status A1

Freshwater quality B1 Soil fertility B2 Sea water quality B3 Marine sediment quality B4 Biological quality B5 Natural disaster B6 Pollution incident B7 Coastal erosion rate B8 Beach stability B9 Water exchange capacity B10 Pollution pressure B11 Development intensity B12 Animal B13 Plant B14 Plankton B15 Benthos B16 Biological stain resistance B17 Biodiversity B18 Habitat naturalness B19 Habitat pattern stability B20

Nemerow Pollution Index Organic matter content classification Nemerow Pollution Index Nemerow Pollution Index Nemerow Pollution Index Frequency and intensity grading Frequency and intensity grading Percentage of total shoreline erosion Sedimentation intensity grading Tide flow classification Sewage emission grading Development intensity index Abundance Coverage Species and abundance Species, abundance, and biomass Benthos Pollution Index ShannoneWiener index Habitat naturalness index Habitat fragmentation index

Ecosystem Island

Environmental disasters A2 Environmental background A3

System structures and functions A4

System stability A5

Intertidal area

Neritic area

þ þ þ þ þ

þ þ þ þ þ

þ þ

þ þ

þ

þ þ þ

þ þ þ

þ þ

þ þ þ

þ þ þ þ þ þ

þ þ þ þ þ þ

162

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166

Table 2 Vulnerability evaluation indicators for the protected objects. Types of indicators

Indicators

Explanations

Protected objects Landform type

Occurrence characteristics A1

Scale and form B1 Shoreline type B2 Erosion intensity B3 covered shoreline degree B4 Structural stability B5 Area loss B6 Species density B7 Pest B8 Alien species B9 Wave B10 Tide B11 Erosion and deposition environment B12 Eutrophication B13 Habitat B14 Trophic level structure B15 Natural disasters (non-eco class) B16 Ecological disaster B17 Construction B18 Restoration measures B19

Main influencing factor A2

Disaster factor A3 Human intervesionA4

Length and width classification Type classification Erosion intensity grading Ratio of covered shoreline Structural features grading Area loss rate Density deduction rate Plant diseases and insect pest occurrence rate Degree of alien species invasion Wave height grading Tide flow grading Sedimentation intensity grading Trophic Index Habitat loss rate Trophic structure stability index Frequency and intensity grading Frequency and intensity grading Construction scale grading Restoration effects grading

According to the HPA's different regional characteristics, the ecological restoration area was divided into four types: key restoration zones, general restoration zones, taking-into-account restoration zones, and maintaining-the-status zones. The key restoration zone has very poor ecosystem health, very vulnerable protected objects, and requires various ecological restoration measures. The general restoration area has poor ecosystem health, vulnerable restoration protected objects, and requires some ecological restoration measures. The taking-into-account restoration area has fair ecosystem health, relatively stable protected objects, and only requires small-scale ecological restoration measures. The maintaining-the-status area has good ecosystem health, stable protected objects, and does not require ecological restoration measures. 3.4. Data sources Three marine environmental investigations were conducted in the HPA in December 2009 (winter), November 2010 (autumn), and March 2011 (spring). The station distribution is shown in Fig. 3. Water quality samples were collected at a depth of <10 m for surface seawater samples and >10 m for surface and bottom samples. Sediment samples were collected from the sediment surfaces. The ecological investigations included phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic organisms. Data related to marine disasters, landforms, Table 3 Initial ecological restoration zoning standards. Healthy Comparatively Sub-healthy General Morbid (excellent) healthy (good) (fair) morbid (very (poor) poor) The specially protected area The ecological and resource recovery area The reserved area The moderate exploitation area

M

G

K

K

K

M

T

G

K

K

M M

M M

T M

G T

K G

Abbreviations: K: key restoration zones; G: general restoration zone; T: taking-intoaccount restoration zone; M: maintaining-the-status zone.

Biological type

Resource type

þ þ þ þ þ þ þ

þ þ

þ

þ

þ þ þ þ

þ

þ þ þ þ þ þ þ

þ þ þ þ

þ þ

marine hydrology, and island ecology were collected through reviewing existing documents and visiting the HPA's management unit Table 5. 4. Zoning results 4.1. Ecosystem health and vulnerability assessments of the protected objects 4.1.1. Comprehensive ecosystem health assessments The two island subsystems of Qinshan Island and Bamboo Island were evaluated. The comprehensive index values were 0.634 for Qinshan Island and 0.662 for Bamboo Island. Their ecosystem health states were both comparatively healthy (good). The health status of Bamboo Island was better than that of Qinshan Island. The intertidal areas in the HPA were mainly distributed along the west shoreline. Based on the river and beach characteristics, the intertidal ecosystems were divided into three coastal sections: from Linhong estuary to Xishu, from XingZhuang estuary to Linhong estuary, and from XingZhuang estuary to the north of XingZhuang estuary. The three sections' intertidal ecosystem health was evaluated, with comprehensive index values of 0.524/0.513, 0.510/ 0.416, and 0.717/0.636, respectively. Except for the north of XingZhuang estuary, the other sections' intertidal ecosystem health states were unsatisfactory and mostly subhealthy (fair). Ecosystem health evaluations were conducted in the three neritic areas in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The comprehensive index values of 0.570 (0.479e0.668) in 2009, 0.623 (0.467e0.827) in 2010, and 0.650 (0.418e0.861) in 2011 were in the range of sub-

Table 4 Final ecological restoration zoning standards.

K G T M

Very stable

Stable

Relatively stable

Vulnerable

Very vulnerable

K G T M

K G T M

K G T M

K K G T

K K K G

Abbreviations: K: key restoration zones; G: general restoration zone; T: taking-intoaccount restoration zone; M: maintaining-the-status zone.

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166

163

Fig. 3. Sampling station distribution in the HPA.

healthy (fair) to comparatively healthy (good). The neritic ecosystem health spatial interpolations used kriging interpolations. The spatial distribution shows that the ecological health of the coastal waters was sub-healthy (fair), whereas the ecological health of the offshore waters was comparatively healthy (good). The terrestrial ecosystem health states of Qinshan Island and Bamboo Island were both relatively healthy (good). This condition is consistent with these two islands having less human disturbances. These islands' intertidal ecosystem health states were basically the same, indicating that the south of XingZhuang estuary was sub-healthy (fair), whereas the north of XingZhuang estuary was relatively healthy (good). This condition is consistent with the south of XingZhuang estuary having frequent development activities and larger marine environmental pressure. The overall health states of the neritic ecosystem ranged from sub-healthy to comparatively healthy, showing that the east offshore waters have better health states than the west coastal waters. This difference is consistent with the coastal waters having more human disturbances from development activities and larger environmental pressure. Considering that the MPAs ecological management should be strict, this study's ecosystem defined the HPA ecosystem health

distribution comprehensively by integrating the health evaluation results from the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. On the one hand, the island terrestrial ecosystem health of Qinshan Island and Bamboo Island, the intertidal ecosystem health of the north of Xingzhuang estuary, and the neritic ecosystem health of the east coastal waters were comparatively healthy (good). On the other hand, the intertidal ecosystem health of the south of XingZhuang estuary and the neritic ecosystem health of the west coastal waters were subhealthy (fair). The overall distribution of the ecosystem health is shown in Fig. 4. The spatial distribution of the ecosystem health situation is consistent with the spatial characteristic of environmental quality in other related research of Haizhou Bay (Liu et al., 2013; Li and XU, 2014). 4.1.2. Vulnerability assessments of the protected objects The key protected objects of the HPA were all landforms. The comprehensive index values of the protected objects, including Qinshan Island, Bamboo Island, Longwang esturary spit, and the north shoreline of Lian Island were 0.58, 0.624, 0.479, and 0.578, respectively. Their vulnerability levels were relatively stable, stable, relatively stable, and relatively stable, respectively. 4.2. Ecological restoration zoning and measures

Table 5 Marine environmental investigation elements. Investigation items

Number of investigation sites December, 2009

November, 2010

March, 2011

Water Sediment Ecology Intertidal organism

33 17 19 4

12 12 12 1

20 10 12 2

4.2.1. Restoration zoning Based on the functional zonation, ecosystem health, and vulnerability assessments of the protected objects, the HPA's ecological restoration area was divided into 12 zones: 2 key restoration zones, 3 general restoration zones, 2 taking-intoaccount restoration zones, and 5 maintaining-the-status zones. Given that the overall vulnerability level of the protected objects

164

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166

Fig. 4. Ecosystem health states and vulnerability assessments of the HPA. (T1, T2, T3, and T4 are the protected objects: the Longwang estuary spit, Qinshan Island, Bamboo Island, and the north shoreline of Lian Island. The values are the vulnerability indicators).

was relatively stable, the final zoning was consistent with the initial zoning. The ecological restoration zones are shown in Fig. 5 and Table 6. 4.2.2. Restoration measures The key restoration zones are distributed in the waters around Qinshan Island (I-A-1) and the north shore of Lian Island (I-A-2). These two zones are located in the specially protected area of the HPA. The ecological quality is sub-healthy, and the main environmental pressures are from aquaculture and terrestrial sewage discharge. The ecological restoration measures include the following: applying strict restrictions on the aquaculture activities in the restoration area and the nearby waters; reducing the farming scale and density; and remediating the regional polluted rivers and sewage polluted area to decrease the terrestrial contaminants (JOFB, 2011, 2012a, 2012b). The general recovery zones are located in the Longwang estuary spit (II-A-1), Qinshan Island (II-A-2), and Bamboo Island (II-A-3). These three zones are within the functional area of the specially protected area. The Longwang estuary spit's problem is its own vulnerability. Considering that its typical landscape was formed by its estuary hydrodynamics, its restoration measures should include applying strict restrictions on the development activities that can change the hydrodynamic conditions. Qinshan Island also faces the problem of its own vulnerability. Given that the island has a typical marine erosion and deposition landform distribution, the ecological restoration measures include applying restrictions on development activities, avoiding vandalism, and encouraging appropriate landform protections. Bamboo Island has typical marine erosion landforms, but is more stable. Its pressure mainly comes from potential human disturbances. Based on these

characteristics, the development activities should be strictly limited on the island, whereas attempts to stabilize the marine erosion landforms should be encouraged. Taking-into-account restoration zones include artificial reefs (IIIeB) and the neritic area-coastal waters (IIIeC). The artificial reef area is in the functional ecology and resource recovery areas. This reef area is important in bay ecological restoration; therefore, scientific research and practices of ecological restoration should be encouraged in these zones to fully realize its ecological role of protecting and restoring marine and breeding habitats. The neritic area-coastal waters are located in the functional area of the reserved area. Its pressure mainly comes from marine development activities such as aquaculture and other terrestrial pollutions. The farming density should be lowered, regional resources and environmental management should be strengthened, and regional pollution should be lowered to improve water quality and restore the ecology of coastal waters. Maintaining-the-status zones include the neritic area-offshore area (IVeC), intertidal area-north of XingZhuang estuary (IV-D-1), intertidal area-XingZhuang estuary to Linhong estuary (IV-D-2), intertidal atea-Linhong estuary to Xishu (Ⅳ-D-3), and neritic area close to the intertidal area (IV-D-4). The measures for these areas include maintaining the existing marine environmental quality and controlling the development scale. 5. Discussion Ecosystem zoning and evaluation. An extensively applicable method for ecological restoration zoning for the protected area was constructed for the case of the Haizhou Bay MPA. This method comprehensively considers the regional ecosystem health level and

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166

165

Fig. 5. Ecological restoration zoning map of the HPA.

vulnerability of the protected object. Through the ecological restoration zoning of the protected area, the guiding management scheme for the spatial control policy of the protected area can be formulated. The administrative department of the protected area can formulate zoning management policies for the protected area based on the results of restoration zoning. They can provide guidance for the ecological restoration measures and policy of the protected area depending on the differences in restoration type (Elliott et al., 2007). The ecological restoration area of the same type may have a distinctive degradation factor, functional zoning of the protected area, regional ecological health status, and vulnerability of the protected objects. The ecological restoration practice can be improved by analyzing and identifying the main influence factors of the protected area's ecological restoration zoning. In the previous study on the development activities in the protected area's moderate utilization zone, the ecological restoration zoning also lays the basis for the preliminary influence evaluation and guides the

relevant research. Based on the HPA marine ecosystem features, the present study develops health evaluation models to evaluate the HPA island terrestrial, intertidal, and neritic ecosystem health. The HPA is located in the transition strip between subtropical and warm temperate zones. Its coast is mainly composed of silt, bedrocks, and artificial reefs, whereas its sedimentary environment is simple. In this study, the ecosystem zoning and indicator selection were based on the local environmental features. However, the ecosystem division and evaluation indicators suggested in this study cannot fully cover different types of ecosystems in other places because of the complexity and diversity of the marine ecosystems. Therefore, when conducting ecological restoration zoning and evaluation study in other places, the local ecological attributes should be considered. This study's vulnerability assessments of the protected objects only focused on landforms. The main protected objects in the HPA include island landforms, coastal landforms, and original biological

Table 6 The ecological restoration zones in HNMP. No.

Codes of ecological restoration zones

Names of the zones

Category of the zones

The corresponding functional areas

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I-A-1 I-A-2 II-A-1 II-A-2 II-A-3 III-B. III-C. IV-C IV-D-1 IV-D-2

Key restoration zones I

Specially protected area A

General restoration zone II

Specially protected area A

Taking-into-account restoration zone III Maintaining-the-status zone IV

Ecology and resource recovery area B Reserved area C Reserved area C Moderate exploitation area D

11 12

IV-D-3 IV-D-4

Waters around Qinshan Island North shoreline of Lian Island Longwang estuary spit Qingshan Island Bamboo Island Artificial reefs Neritic area e coastal area Neritic area e offshore area Intertidal area e north of XingZhuang estuary Intertidal area e XingZhuang estuary to Linghong estuary Intertidal area eLinghong estuary to Xishu Neritic area e area close to the intertidal area

166

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166

resources in the bay. The important biological resources include island and coastal protozoa and plants, and local fish resources. The animal and plant resources were mainly distributed in Qinshan Island, Bamboo Island, and the Longwang estuary spit, whereas the fish resources were mainly distributed in the artificial reefs. The HPA does not have specially protected areas for biological and resource types of protected objects, so this study mainly focuses on analyzing marine erosion and deposition landforms. When conducting the vulnerability assessment for protected objects in other places, other possible types of protected objects should also be considered. Zoning technique and its application in other MPAs. This study divides the HPA into 12 ecological restoration zones and provides targeted ecological restoration measures and recommendations based on each zone's environment, ecology, and protected objects. The ecological restoration zoning method used in this study can also be applied to ecological protection and restoration in other MPAs. The insufficient operational management tools and limited funds have restricted the ecological restoration work in all areas. The zoning analysis and scientific assessments can provide effective guidance for the direction of ecological restoration work and maximize the ecological restoration efficiency in the case of limited funds. The investigation data's completeness affected the zoning. In this zoning method, the ecosystems' health states and protected objects' vulnerability assessments were based on the actual investigation data. Therefore, the scientificity and validity of the assessments were affected by the investigation data. Conducting scientific and systematic field investigations to obtain a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the ecological status and functional characteristics are the primary motivations for achieving scientific assessments and zoning. Strengthening the follow-up monitoring of the ecological restoration and revising zoning regularly. A protected area's ecological restoration is continuing work. With the progress in ecological restoration and implementation of protection measures, the ecological environment of the protected area, as well as the intensity and pressure from human activities will change. Followup environmental monitoring can effectively evaluate the ecological, environmental, and protected object changes. This approach can provide information for the timely amendments of the ecological restoration zoning and effectively guide the design and implementation of ecological restoration. Acknowledgments The work was financially supported by the Marine Nonprofit Industry Research Project (201205005), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (41373112). References  Bricker, S.B., Dauer, D.M., Demetriades, N.T., Ferreira, J.G., Forbes, A.T., Borja, A., Zhu, C., 2008. Overview of integrative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine and coastal systems worldwide. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56 (9), 1519e1537.  Dauer, D.M., Elliott, M., Simenstad, C.A., 2010. Medium-and long-term Borja, A., recovery of estuarine and coastal ecosystems: patterns, rates and restoration effectiveness. Estuar. Coast. 33 (6), 1249e1260. Chen, B., Yu, W., Liu, W., Liu, Z., 2012. An assessment on restoration of typical marine ecosystems in china e achievements and lessons. Ocean. Coast. Manage. 57, 53e61. Cheng, J.L., Zhang, Y., Zhang, D., Lliu, J.T., Chen, S.S., 2009. Analysis of ecological environment elements during the red tide occurring in Haizhou Bay. Adv. Mar. Sci. 27 (2), 217e223 (in Chinese). De Lange, H.J., Sala, S., Vighi, M., Faber, J.H., 2010. Ecological vulnerability in risk assessmentda review and perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (18), 3871e3879.

Elliott, M., Burdon, D., Hemingway, K.L., Apitz, S.E., 2007. Estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystem restoration: confusing management and science e a revision of concepts. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 74 (3), 349e366. Hinkle, R.L., Mitsch, W.J., 2005. Salt marsh vegetation recovery at salt hay farm wetland restoration sites on Delaware Bay. Eco. Eng. 25 (3), 240e251. Howell, E.A., Harrington, J.A., Glass, S.B., 2012. Introduction to Restoration Ecology. Island Press, Washington, DC. JOFB (Jiangsu Oceanic and Fishery Bureau), 2011. The “Twelfth-five Year Plan” of Coastal Pollution Prevention in Jiangsu Province. China Ocean Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese). JOFB (Jiangsu Oceanic and Fishery Bureau), 2012a. Ocean Environment quality bulletin in 2011. China Ocean Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese). JOFB (Jiangsu Oceanic and Fishery Bureau), 2012b. Integrated Report on Coastal Zone in Jiangsu Province. China Science Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese). Jones, K., Hanna, E., 2004. Design and implementation of an ecological engineering approach to coastal restoration at Loyola Beach, Kleberg County. Tex. Eco. Eng. 22 (4), 249e261. Jones, K., Pan, X., Garza, A., Lloyd-Reilley, J., 2010. Multi-level assessment of ecological coastal restoration in South Texas. Eco. Eng. 36 (4), 435e440. Konisky, R.A., Burdick, D.M., Dionne, M., Neckles, H.A., 2006. A regional assessment of salt marsh restoration and monitoring in the Gulf of Maine. Restor. Eco. 14 (4), 516e525. Le Quesne, W.J., Jennings, S., 2012. Predicting species vulnerability with minimal data to support rapid risk assessment of fishing impacts on biodiversity. J. Appl. Eco. 49 (1), 20e28. Leng, Y.S., Sun, S.X., Wang, Z.L., Zhang, Z.H., Zhou, M., 2008. Vulnerability analysis of island ecological environment and regulating measures. Coast. Eng. 27 (2), 58e64 (in Chinese). Lewis III, R.R., 2005. Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of mangrove forests. Eco. Eng. 24 (4), 403e418. Li, J., Heap, A.D., 2014. Spatial interpolation methods applied in the environmental sciences: a review. Environ. Model. Softw. 53, 173e189. Li, F., XU, M., 2014. Source characteristics and contamination evaluation of heavy metals in the surface sediments of Haizhou Bay. Environ. Sci. 35 (3), 1035e1040 (in chinese). Liu, Q., XU, M., LI, F., XU, W.J., 2013. Health diagnosis of Haizhou Bay neritic ecosystem. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 29 (3), 301e310 (in chinese). Neckles, H.A., Dionne, M., Burdick, D.M., Roman, C.T., Buchsbaum, R., Hutchins, E., 2002. A monitoring protocol to assess tidal restoration of salt marshes on local and regional scales. Restor. Eco. 10 (3), 556e563. Rapport, D.J., 1992. Evaluating ecosystem health. J. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health 1 (1), 15e24. Rinkevich, B., 2005. Conservation of coral reefs through active restoration measures: recent approaches and last decade progress. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (12), 4333e4342. vaert, F., Goberville, E., Rombouts, I., Beaugrand, G., Artigas, L.F., Dauvin, J.C., Ge Kirby, R.R., 2013. Evaluating marine ecosystem health: case studies of indicators using direct observations and modelling methods. Eco. Indic. 24, 353e365. SOA (The State Oceanic Administration of China), 2005. Interim Measures for The Administration of Special Marine Protected Area. China Ocean Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese). SOA (The State Oceanic Administration of China), 2010. Standard for the Classification and Categorization of Special Marine Protected Area (amended). China Ocean Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese). SOA (The State Oceanic Administration of China), 2012a. National Marine Functional Zoning Plan (2011e2020). China Ocean Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese). SOA (The State Oceanic Administration of China), 2012b. China’ S Ocean Development Report. China Ocean Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese). Sun, X.W., Zhang, S., Zhao, Y.Q., Zhang, H., 2010. Community structure of fish and macroinvertebrates in the artificial reef sea area of Haizhou Bay. J. Shanghai Ocean. Uni. 19 (4), 505e513 (in Chinese). Van Katwijk, M.M., Bos, A.R., De Jonge, V.N., Hanssen, L.S.A.M., Hermus, D.C.R., De Jong, D.J., 2009. Guidelines for seagrass restoration: importance of habitat selection and donor population, spreading of risks, and ecosystem engineering effects. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58 (2), 179e188. Verdonschot, P.F.M., Spears, B.M., Feld, C.K., Brucet, S., Keizer-Vlek, H., Borja, A., Johnson, R.K., 2013. A comparative review of recovery processes in rivers, lakes, estuarine and coastal waters. Hydrobiologia 704 (1), 453e474. Veríssimo, H., Bremner, J., Garcia, C., Patrício, J., van der Linden, P., Marques, J.C., 2012. Assessment of the subtidal macrobenthic community functioning of a temperate estuary following environmental restoration. Eco. Indic. 23, 312e322. Wu, H.Y., Chen, K.L., Chen, Z.H., Chen, Q.H., Qiu, Y.P., Wu, J.C., Zhang, J.F., 2012. Evaluation for the ecological quality status of coastal waters in East China Sea using fuzzy integrated assessment method. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64 (3), 546e555. Xu, Y., Zhang, Y., Lliu, J.T., Zhang, D., 2009. Research on environmental factor threshold of red tides in the Haizhou gulf based on logistic regression. Mar. Sci. Bull. 28 (3), 70e75 (in Chinese). Zhang, R., Zhang, F., Liu, F.C., Yin, F.J., Ding, Y.J., Gao, J.R., Shao, W., 2013. History of heavy metal pollution from tidal flat in Haizhou Bay. Environ. Sci. 34 (3), 1044e1054 (in Chinese).