lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

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

Fei Li a, b, Min Xu a, *, Qing liu a, Zaifeng Wang a, Wenjian Xu a

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

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 19 July 2014

* Corresponding author. School of Geographic Sciesity, No.1, Wenyuan Road, Xianlin University DistrTel.: þ86 25 83717160.

E-mail address: minxucn@163.com (M. Xu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.06.0130964-5691/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an important means in protecting marine ecological functions andlandscapes. 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 basedon Haizhouwan National Marine Park, a national MPA of China. After investigating and evaluating theecological environment in the Haizhouwan protected area (HPA), ecosystem health assessments to threeecological subsystems (i.e., island terrestrial, intertidal, and neritic ecosystems) and vulnerability as-sessments to the main protected objects (i.e., landforms) were conducted. This study was integrated withthe functional zonation of the HPA, which enabled it to conduct an analytic hierarchy process for theassessment results to obtain ecological restoration zoning. According to the zoning, the HPA can bedivided 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 providespertinent ecological restoration measures and recommendations to the environmental, ecological, andprotected object problems existing in different zones. The study results can provide empirical referencesfor the development of ecological restoration plans and measures for the HPA. The zoning method canalso 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 Protectedarea (HPA) located in the north of Lianyungang, China, is a transi-tion strip between the East Asian subtropical and warm temperatezones. It is an important bird migration channel with typical bayecosystems and island landforms. Important marine historical andcultural sites are scattered among the islands. The establishment ofthe HPAwas approved by the Chinese State Oceanic Administrationin January 2008. With the intensification of coastal development inthe Jiangsu Province, the marine ecological pressure and intensityof human disturbance kept increasing in the HPA and nearby wa-ters. Since its establishment, the HPA's management was per-formed based on relevant laws and regulations (SOA, 2005, 2010,2012a, 2012b), as well as insufficient operational managementtools. Limited funds also restrict the ecological restoration in theHPA. In addition, there are spatial distribution differences and

nce, Nanjing Normal Univer-ict, Nanjing 210023, China.

particularities in the natural attributes of the inside HPA, such ashydrology and geomorphology, natural resource, environmentalfeatures, and ecological status. Also, protection modes and man-aging objects in the inside HPA posses distinctive features of thespatial distribution. Therefore, these characteristics of natural at-tributes and objective management lead to the spatial differencesin the establishment and practice of ecological restoration,increasing the complexity and difficulty in conducting the resto-ration work. Dividing the protected area into different zones basedon the area differences, as well as determining each zone's resto-ration order and characteristics, can facilitate the development oftargeted ecological protection measures to improve the efficiencyof ecological restoration in marine protected areas (MPAs).

Ecological restoration is the practice of renewing and restoringdegraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems and protected objects.It is an active action intended to initiate and accelerate the restora-tion of ecosystem health, integrity, and sustainability (Howell et al.,2012). Ecological restoration zoning divides different levels ofecological restoration zones in the protected area and proposes tar-geted ecological restorationmeasures to improve the effectiveness ofecological restoration. This approach is based on the protected area'sfunctional zonation, ecosystem status, and vulnerability of the

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166 159

protected objects. The current research on ecological restorationfocuses mainly on terrestrial and freshwater ecological restoration,and the number of studies on marine ecological restoration is rela-tively small (Verdonschot et al., 2013). In response to thewidespreadoccurrence of marine ecosystem degradation, countries around theworld have launched a series of research and practices on marineecological restoration technologies in recent years (Jones and Hanna,2004; Hinkle andMitsch, 2005; Lewis III, 2005; Rinkevich, 2005; VanKatwijk et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2012). However, only a few focus onmarine ecosystems' ecological restoration zoning, degenerationdiagnosis, restoration monitoring, restoration effect assessment, andmanagement. Neckles et al. (2002) proposed a monitoring plan forthe salt marsh restoration project in the Gulf of Maine. Konisky et al.(2006) evaluated the effectiveness of the ecosystem restorationmeasures applied to Maine's salt marsh from the aspects of tidalranges, salinity, and vegetation changes. They pointed out that theecological restoration of biological elements was slow. Jones et al.(2010) described the design and implementation of an ecologicalrestoration project developed to mitigate coastal erosion in southernTexas. They also evaluated the project from the aspects of landscape,engineering technology, ecological environment, and socio-economic aspects. Veríssimo et al. (2012) evaluated the ecologicalrestoration effects of intertidal benthic communities on estuarineareas. Combined with existing empirical studies, Borja et al. (2010)introduced environmental features and anthropogenic pressures indifferent types of estuaries and coastal areas. The existing studiesmainly focus on biological elements, such as benthic organisms,algae, and fish. Elliott et al. (2007) analyzed different types ofecological restoration actions and their results from the perspectiveof restoration ecology and restoration management. Although a se-ries of studies on the ecological restoration of MPAs have beenconducted, only a limited number concerns the restoration of

Fig. 1. Location map of The HPA. (T1, T2, T3, and T4 represent the protected objects: the LIsland).

regionalization. The existing studies on the HPA also mainly focusmainly on environmental quality, causes of red tides, biological re-sources, and ecological restoration measures and plans in artificialreefs (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 ecosystemhealth assessments and protected objects vulnerability assessmentsof the island, intertidal, and neritic ecological subsystems, this studyproposes an ecological restoration zoning plan for the HPA, dividesdifferent ecological restoration zones, and identifies key restorationareas. This study can also be used to guide the design and imple-mentation of the ecological restoration of MPAs.

2. Site description

The HPA (119� 20', 34� 50') was established in January 2008witha total area of approximately 515 km2. Its main protected objectsare the island coastal landforms, as well as the native bay floral andfaunal resources. The HPA has a shoreline of approximately 50 km.The west side is a muddy coast, whereas the south side includes anartificial shoreline and a bedrock coast. Five major estuaries aredistributed along thewest shoreline, which bear sewage dischargesfrom Ganyu County in the west and Lianyungang in the south.Three bedrock islands (i.e., Lian Island, Qinshan Island, and BambooIsland) are distributed in the HPA. The main marine sediments aresalty clay and clayey silt.

The HPA is a national level marine protected area in China. Itincludes four functional areas, namely, specially protected, ecologyand resource recovery, moderate exploitation, and reserved areas(Fig. 1). The management requirements of functional areas are asfollows: the specially protected area prohibits any constructionsthat are unrelated to the protection activities; the ecology and

ongwang estuary spit, Qinshan Island, Bamboo Island, and the north shoreline of Lian

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166160

resource recovery area encourages scientific research and ecolog-ical restoration practices; the moderate exploitation area may havemoderate development of the marine eco-industry withoutdamaging the marine environment; and the reserved area main-tains the natural state. The specially protected area includes Qin-shan Island (119� 170E, 34� 520N), Bamboo Island (119� 210E, 34�

460N), Longwang estuary pit (119� 120E, 34� 540N), and the northernshoreline of Lian Island (119� 270E, 34� 460N). The ecology andresource recovery area includes the artificial reef areas located inthe northeastern part of HNMP (119� 280E, 34� 560N). The artificialreefs have been placed in this area since 2003. The moderateexploitation area is the west coastal region. The reserved area is anarea in addition to the abovementioned functional areas.

The HPA's protected objects include coastal erosion and depo-sition landforms of Qinshan Island, coastal erosion landforms ofBamboo Island, feathery spit of Longwang estuary, and the northshoreline of Lian Island.

3. Zoning methods and techniques

3.1. Technical framework

There are spatial distribution differences and uniquenesses forthe inside HPA in its natural attributes, such as the structures ofecological system, environmental features and eco-health. Besides,protection modes and managing objects in the inside HPA possesdistinctive features of the spatial distribution. These characteristicsof natural attributes and objective management, therefore, makethe spatial differences in the establishment and practice ofecological restoration.

Ecological restoration zoning of MPAs divides different ecolog-ical restoration zones in the protected area according to certainstandards and methods. It then proposes ecological restorationmeasures to guide the design and implementation of ecologicalrestoration projects to improve the ecological restoration benefits.This process is based on the quantitative analysis of the MPA'senvironmental quality, ecological status, functional zonation,ecosystem health (Rapport, 1992), and vulnerability of the pro-tected objects (De Lange et al., 2010).

The ecological restoration technical framework (Fig. 2) mainlyincludes data collection, field investigation, ecosystem regionali-zation, health assessments, vulnerability assessments of the

Fig. 2. Technical and theoretical framework for t

protected objects, and ecological restoration area zoning andmeasures.

The first step is to collect information related to the protectedarea's natural environment, socio-economy, and management,through supplementary field investigations and interviews. Thesecond step is to specify the functional zonation and key protectedobjects according to the protected area's current management sit-uation. The third step is to divide the island, intertidal, and neriticecosystems according to the protected area's natural environ-mental features.

Health evaluation models for island terrestrial, intertidal, andneritic ecosystems were developed based on the coastal ecosystemcharacteristics. Three vulnerability assessment models for land-forms, biology, and resources were also developed based on the keyprotected objects' natural features. Ecosystem health and vulner-ability assessments of the protected objects were then conductedbased on the collected information about the ecosystems andprotected objects.

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied for theecological restoration zoning of the HPA, including initial zoningand final zoning. The initial zoning employed AHP analysis on thefunctional zonation and ecosystem health assessments to deter-mine the types and ranges of final zoning. Based on the zoningresults, the urgent levels of the ecological restoration work wereclarified. After integrating each division's current ecological statesof protected objects, the environmental, ecological, and protectedobjects' problems and reasons were then diagnosed. Targetedecological restoration measures were also suggested.

3.2. Module system and assessments

3.2.1. Ecosystem zoning and health evaluationBased 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 theaverage 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 envi-ronment, many marine environmental quality assessment studieshave been conducted all over theworld (Borja et al., 2008;Wu et al.,2012; Rombouts et al., 2013). Based on existing research results, theHPA's environment characteristics, and China's current marine

he ecological restoration zoning of the HPA.

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166 161

environmental status, the present study selected five health eval-uation indicators for the three subsystems (i.e., current environ-mental status, environmental disasters, environmentalbackground, system structure and functions, and system stability).These indicators were selected based on the following criteria: (a)scientificity e objectively reflects the components and in-terconnections between various elements of an ecosystem; (2)sensitivity e timely reflects an ecosystems' responses to naturaland human disturbances; (3) maneuverability e indicators aremeasurable, and the data are accessible in the current economicand technological level; and (4) comparability e indicators arecomparable at different times and spaces. The health evaluationindicators are shown in Table 1.

After the evaluation indicators were standardized, they weresent to experts for final review. The AHP linearly weighted accu-lations were conducted to determine each sample's composite in-dex value (IEH). The calculation formula for this model is as follows:

ICH ¼Xm

i¼1

Ii$wi

where ICH is the composite index of the ecosystem health, Ii is thestandardized value of the i-th evaluation indicator, and Wi is theweight of this evaluation indicator.

An ecosystem's IEH value is a continuous number between 0 and1, 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. Theseranges correspond to five health states: morbid (very poor), generalmorbid (poor), sub-healthy (fair), comparatively healthy (good),and healthy (excellent).

According to the coastal ecosystem characteristics, the studyarea could be divided into three subsystem types. Ecosystem healthevaluations in the neritic area were conducted based on the surveystations, whereas the intertidal coastal eco-system was based onthe evaluation sections, and the island subsystems were evaluatedas awhole. The study site scores in the neritic areas were processedusing ArcGIS 9.3 software to interpolate and map the IEH values forthe neritic ecosystem health by ordinary kriging. Ordinary krigingis a spatial interpolation estimator used to find the best linearunbiased estimate, which provides an estimate of the unsampledlocation of variable z based on the weighted average of neighbormeasured locations (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0341816213002403Li and Heap, 2014).

Table 1Health evaluation indicators.

Types of indicators Indicators Explana

Environmental status A1 Freshwater quality B1 NemeroSoil fertility B2 OrganicSea water quality B3 NemeroMarine sediment quality B4 NemeroBiological quality B5 Nemero

Environmental disasters A2 Natural disaster B6 FrequenPollution incident B7 Frequen

Environmental background A3 Coastal erosion rate B8 PercentBeach stability B9 SedimeWater exchange capacity B10 Tide floPollution pressure B11 SewageDevelopment intensity B12 Develop

System structures and functions A4 Animal B13 AbundaPlant B14 CoveragPlankton B15 SpeciesBenthos B16 SpeciesBiological stain resistance B17 Bentho

System stability A5 Biodiversity B18 ShannoHabitat naturalness B19 HabitatHabitat pattern stability B20 Habitat

3.2.2. Classification and vulnerability assessments of the protectedobjects

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 in-cludes territorial sea base points, unique geological landforms andlandscapes, easy-to-lose islands, and special areas that can main-tain stable oceanographic dynamic conditions. The biological pro-tected objects include coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds, coastalwetlands, and other important divisions of typical ecosystems. Theresource type of protected objects includes fishery resources andendangered species.

Given existing vulnerability studies (Leng et al., 2008; Le Quesneand Jennings, 2012), the vulnerability evaluation indicator systemwas developed for the three types of protected objects in terms offour aspects: occurrence characteristics, main influencing factors,disasters, and human disturbances. The evaluation indicators areshown in Table 2.

After the evaluation indicators were standardized and reviewedby the experts, the AHP linearly weighted calculations were con-ducted to determine each sample's composite index value (IF). Thecalculation formula for this model is as follows:

IF ¼Xm

i¼1

Ii$wi

where IF is the composite index of the vulnerability of protectedobject, 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 to0.2, 0.2 to 0.4, 0.4 to 0.6, 0.6 to 0.8, and 0.8 to 1. These valuescorrespond to five states: very vulnerable, vulnerable, relativelystable, stable, and very stable.

The area is evaluated as a whole because of the small range ofeach protected object.

3.3. Zoning types

The initial zoning was conducted based on the HPA's functionalzonation and ecosystem health assessment results (Table 3). Therezoning was then conducted by integrating the results of theprotected objects's vulnerability assessments (Table 4).

tions Ecosystem

Island Intertidal area Neritic area

w Pollution Index þmatter content classification þw Pollution Index þ þw Pollution Index þ þw Pollution Index þ þcy and intensity grading þ þ þcy and intensity grading þ þage of total shoreline erosion þntation intensity grading þw classification þemission grading þ þment intensity index þ þ þnce þe þ þand abundance þ, abundance, and biomass þ þs Pollution Index þ þneWiener index þ þ þnaturalness index þ þ þfragmentation index þ þ þ

Table 2Vulnerability evaluation indicators for the protected objects.

Types of indicators Indicators Explanations Protected objects

Landform type Biological type Resource type

Occurrence characteristics A1 Scale and form B1 Length and width classification þShoreline type B2 Type classification þErosion intensity B3 Erosion intensity grading þcovered shoreline degree B4 Ratio of covered shoreline þStructural stability B5 Structural features grading þArea loss B6 Area loss rate þSpecies density B7 Density deduction rate þPest B8 Plant diseases and insect pest

occurrence rateþ þ

Alien species B9 Degree of alien species invasion þ þMain influencing factor A2 Wave B10 Wave height grading þ

Tide B11 Tide flow grading þErosion and depositionenvironment B12

Sedimentation intensity grading þ

Eutrophication B13 Trophic Index þ þHabitat B14 Habitat loss rate þTrophic level structure B15 Trophic structure stability index þ

Disaster factor A3 Natural disasters (non-eco class) B16 Frequency and intensity grading þ þ þEcological disaster B17 Frequency and intensity grading þ þ

Human intervesionA4 Construction B18 Construction scale grading þ þ þRestoration measures B19 Restoration effects grading þ þ þ

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166162

According to the HPA's different regional characteristics, theecological restoration area was divided into four types: key resto-ration zones, general restoration zones, taking-into-accountrestoration zones, and maintaining-the-status zones. The keyrestoration zone has very poor ecosystem health, very vulnerableprotected objects, and requires various ecological restorationmeasures. The general restoration area has poor ecosystem health,vulnerable restoration protected objects, and requires someecological restoration measures. The taking-into-account restora-tion area has fair ecosystem health, relatively stable protected ob-jects, and only requires small-scale ecological restorationmeasures.The maintaining-the-status area has good ecosystem health, stableprotected objects, and does not require ecological restorationmeasures.

3.4. Data sources

Three marine environmental investigations were conducted inthe HPA in December 2009 (winter), November 2010 (autumn), andMarch 2011 (spring). The station distribution is shown in Fig. 3.Water quality samples were collected at a depth of <10 m for sur-face seawater samples and >10 m for surface and bottom samples.Sediment samples were collected from the sediment surfaces. Theecological investigations included phytoplankton, zooplankton,and benthic organisms. Data related tomarine disasters, landforms,

Table 3Initial ecological restoration zoning standards.

Healthy(excellent)

Comparativelyhealthy (good)

Sub-healthy(fair)

Generalmorbid(poor)

Morbid(verypoor)

The speciallyprotected area

M G K K K

The ecological andresourcerecovery area

M T G K K

The reserved area M M T G KThe moderate

exploitation areaM M M T G

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

marine hydrology, and island ecology were collected throughreviewing existing documents and visiting the HPA's managementunit Table 5.

4. Zoning results

4.1. Ecosystem health and vulnerability assessments of theprotected objects

4.1.1. Comprehensive ecosystem health assessmentsThe two island subsystems of Qinshan Island and Bamboo Island

were evaluated. The comprehensive index values were 0.634 forQinshan Island and 0.662 for Bamboo Island. Their ecosystemhealth states were both comparatively healthy (good). The healthstatus of Bamboo Island was better than that of Qinshan Island.

The intertidal areas in the HPA were mainly distributed alongthewest shoreline. Based on the river and beach characteristics, theintertidal ecosystemswere divided into three coastal sections: fromLinhong estuary to Xishu, from XingZhuang estuary to Linhongestuary, and from XingZhuang estuary to the north of XingZhuangestuary. The three sections' intertidal ecosystem health was eval-uated, with comprehensive index values of 0.524/0.513, 0.510/0.416, and 0.717/0.636, respectively. Except for the north ofXingZhuang estuary, the other sections' intertidal ecosystem healthstates were unsatisfactory and mostly subhealthy (fair).

Ecosystem health evaluations were conducted in the threeneritic areas in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The comprehensiveindex 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 4Final ecological restoration zoning standards.

Very stable Stable Relatively stable Vulnerable Very vulnerable

K K K K K KG G G G K KT T T T G KM M M M T G

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

Fig. 3. Sampling station distribution in the HPA.

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166 163

healthy (fair) to comparatively healthy (good). The neriticecosystem health spatial interpolations used kriging interpolations.The spatial distribution shows that the ecological health of thecoastal waters was sub-healthy (fair), whereas the ecological healthof the offshore waters was comparatively healthy (good).

The terrestrial ecosystem health states of Qinshan Island andBamboo Island were both relatively healthy (good). This conditionis consistent with these two islands having less human distur-bances. These islands' intertidal ecosystem health states werebasically the same, indicating that the south of XingZhuang estuarywas sub-healthy (fair), whereas the north of XingZhuang estuarywas relatively healthy (good). This condition is consistent with thesouth of XingZhuang estuary having frequent development activ-ities and larger marine environmental pressure. The overall healthstates of the neritic ecosystem ranged from sub-healthy tocomparatively healthy, showing that the east offshore waters havebetter health states than the west coastal waters. This difference isconsistent with the coastal waters having more human distur-bances from development activities and larger environmentalpressure.

Considering that the MPAs ecological management should bestrict, this study's ecosystem defined the HPA ecosystem health

Table 5Marine environmental investigation elements.

Investigation items Number of investigation sites

December, 2009 November, 2010 March, 2011

Water 33 12 20Sediment 17 12 10Ecology 19 12 12Intertidal organism 4 1 2

distribution comprehensively by integrating the health evaluationresults from the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. On the one hand, theisland terrestrial ecosystem health of Qinshan Island and BambooIsland, the intertidal ecosystem health of the north of Xingzhuangestuary, and the neritic ecosystem health of the east coastal waterswere comparatively healthy (good). On the other hand, the inter-tidal ecosystem health of the south of XingZhuang estuary and theneritic ecosystem health of the west coastal waters were sub-healthy (fair). The overall distribution of the ecosystem health isshown in Fig. 4. The spatial distribution of the ecosystem healthsituation is consistent with the spatial characteristic of environ-mental quality in other related research of Haizhou Bay (Liu et al.,2013; Li and XU, 2014).

4.1.2. Vulnerability assessments of the protected objectsThe key protected objects of the HPA were all landforms. The

comprehensive index values of the protected objects, includingQinshan Island, Bamboo Island, Longwang esturary spit, and thenorth 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

4.2.1. Restoration zoningBased on the functional zonation, ecosystem health, and

vulnerability assessments of the protected objects, the HPA'secological restoration area was divided into 12 zones: 2 keyrestoration zones, 3 general restoration zones, 2 taking-into-account restoration zones, and 5 maintaining-the-status zones.Given that the overall vulnerability level of the protected objects

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).

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166164

was relatively stable, the final zoning was consistent with the initialzoning. The ecological restoration zones are shown in Fig. 5 andTable 6.

4.2.2. Restoration measuresThe 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 theHPA. The ecological quality is sub-healthy, and the main environ-mental pressures are from aquaculture and terrestrial sewagedischarge. The ecological restoration measures include thefollowing: applying strict restrictions on the aquaculture activitiesin the restoration area and the nearby waters; reducing the farmingscale and density; and remediating the regional polluted rivers andsewage polluted area to decrease the terrestrial contaminants(JOFB, 2011, 2012a, 2012b).

The general recovery zones are located in the Longwang estuaryspit (II-A-1), Qinshan Island (II-A-2), and Bamboo Island (II-A-3).These three zones are within the functional area of the speciallyprotected area. The Longwang estuary spit's problem is its ownvulnerability. Considering that its typical landscape was formed byits estuary hydrodynamics, its restoration measures should includeapplying strict restrictions on the development activities that canchange the hydrodynamic conditions. Qinshan Island also faces theproblem of its own vulnerability. Given that the island has a typicalmarine erosion and deposition landform distribution, the ecolog-ical restoration measures include applying restrictions on devel-opment activities, avoiding vandalism, and encouragingappropriate landform protections. Bamboo Island has typical ma-rine erosion landforms, but is more stable. Its pressure mainlycomes from potential human disturbances. Based on these

characteristics, the development activities should be strictly limitedon the island, whereas attempts to stabilize the marine erosionlandforms should be encouraged.

Taking-into-account restoration zones include artificial reefs(IIIeB) and the neritic area-coastal waters (IIIeC). The artificial reefarea is in the functional ecology and resource recovery areas. Thisreef area is important in bay ecological restoration; therefore, sci-entific research and practices of ecological restoration should beencouraged in these zones to fully realize its ecological role ofprotecting and restoring marine and breeding habitats. The neriticarea-coastal waters are located in the functional area of thereserved area. Its pressure mainly comes frommarine developmentactivities such as aquaculture and other terrestrial pollutions. Thefarming density should be lowered, regional resources and envi-ronmental management should be strengthened, and regionalpollution should be lowered to improve water quality and restorethe ecology of coastal waters.

Maintaining-the-status zones include the neritic area-offshorearea (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 areaclose to the intertidal area (IV-D-4). The measures for these areasinclude maintaining the existing marine environmental quality andcontrolling the development scale.

5. Discussion

Ecosystem zoning and evaluation. An extensively applicablemethod for ecological restoration zoning for the protected area wasconstructed for the case of the Haizhou Bay MPA. This methodcomprehensively considers the regional ecosystem health level and

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

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166 165

vulnerability of the protected object. Through the ecologicalrestoration zoning of the protected area, the guiding managementscheme for the spatial control policy of the protected area can beformulated. The administrative department of the protected areacan formulate zoning management policies for the protected areabased on the results of restoration zoning. They can provide guid-ance for the ecological restoration measures and policy of theprotected area depending on the differences in restoration type(Elliott et al., 2007). The ecological restoration area of the same typemay have a distinctive degradation factor, functional zoning of theprotected area, regional ecological health status, and vulnerabilityof the protected objects. The ecological restoration practice can beimproved by analyzing and identifying themain influence factors ofthe protected area's ecological restoration zoning. In the previousstudy on the development activities in the protected area's mod-erate utilization zone, the ecological restoration zoning also lays thebasis for the preliminary influence evaluation and guides the

Table 6The ecological restoration zones in HNMP.

No. Codes of ecologicalrestoration zones

Names of the zones

1 I-A-1 Waters around Qinshan Island2 I-A-2 North shoreline of Lian Island3 II-A-1 Longwang estuary spit4 II-A-2 Qingshan Island5 II-A-3 Bamboo Island6 III-B. Artificial reefs7 III-C. Neritic area e coastal area8 IV-C Neritic area e offshore area9 IV-D-1 Intertidal area e north of XingZhuang estuary10 IV-D-2 Intertidal area e XingZhuang estuary to

Linghong estuary11 IV-D-3 Intertidal area eLinghong estuary to Xishu12 IV-D-4 Neritic area e area close to the intertidal area

relevant research. Based on the HPAmarine ecosystem features, thepresent study develops health evaluation models to evaluate theHPA island terrestrial, intertidal, and neritic ecosystem health. TheHPA is located in the transition strip between subtropical andwarmtemperate zones. Its coast is mainly composed of silt, bedrocks, andartificial reefs, whereas its sedimentary environment is simple. Inthis study, the ecosystem zoning and indicator selectionwere basedon the local environmental features. However, the ecosystem di-vision and evaluation indicators suggested in this study cannot fullycover different types of ecosystems in other places because of thecomplexity and diversity of the marine ecosystems. Therefore,when conducting ecological restoration zoning and evaluationstudy in other places, the local ecological attributes should beconsidered.

This study's vulnerability assessments of the protected objectsonly focused on landforms. The main protected objects in the HPAinclude island landforms, coastal landforms, and original biological

Category of the zones The corresponding functional areas

Key restoration zones I Specially protected area A

General restoration zone II Specially protected area A

Taking-into-account restorationzone III

Ecology and resource recovery area BReserved area C

Maintaining-the-status zone IV Reserved area CModerate exploitation area D

F. Li et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 98 (2014) 158e166166

resources in the bay. The important biological resources includeisland and coastal protozoa and plants, and local fish resources. Theanimal and plant resources were mainly distributed in QinshanIsland, Bamboo Island, and the Longwang estuary spit, whereas thefish resources were mainly distributed in the artificial reefs. TheHPA does not have specially protected areas for biological andresource types of protected objects, so this study mainly focuses onanalyzing marine erosion and deposition landforms. When con-ducting the vulnerability assessment for protected objects in otherplaces, other possible types of protected objects should also beconsidered.

Zoning technique and its application in other MPAs. This studydivides the HPA into 12 ecological restoration zones and providestargeted ecological restoration measures and recommendationsbased on each zone's environment, ecology, and protected objects.The ecological restoration zoning method used in this study canalso be applied to ecological protection and restoration in otherMPAs. The insufficient operational management tools and limitedfunds have restricted the ecological restoration work in all areas.The zoning analysis and scientific assessments can provide effectiveguidance for the direction of ecological restoration work andmaximize the ecological restoration efficiency in the case of limitedfunds.

The investigation data's completeness affected the zoning. Inthis zoning method, the ecosystems' health states and protectedobjects' vulnerability assessments were based on the actualinvestigation data. Therefore, the scientificity and validity of theassessments were affected by the investigation data. Conductingscientific and systematic field investigations to obtain a compre-hensive knowledge and understanding of the ecological status andfunctional characteristics are the primary motivations for achievingscientific assessments and zoning.

Strengthening the follow-up monitoring of the ecologicalrestoration and revising zoning regularly. A protected area'secological restoration is continuing work. With the progress inecological restoration and implementation of protection measures,the ecological environment of the protected area, as well as theintensity and pressure from human activities will change. Follow-up environmental monitoring can effectively evaluate the ecolog-ical, environmental, and protected object changes. This approachcan provide information for the timely amendments of theecological restoration zoning and effectively guide the design andimplementation of ecological restoration.

Acknowledgments

The work was financially supported by the Marine NonprofitIndustry Research Project (201205005), and the National NaturalScience Foundation of China (NSFC) (41373112).

References

Borja, �A., Bricker, S.B., Dauer, D.M., Demetriades, N.T., Ferreira, J.G., Forbes, A.T.,Zhu, C., 2008. Overview of integrative tools and methods in assessing ecologicalintegrity in estuarine and coastal systems worldwide. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56 (9),1519e1537.

Borja, �A., Dauer, D.M., Elliott, M., Simenstad, C.A., 2010. Medium-and long-termrecovery of estuarine and coastal ecosystems: patterns, rates and restorationeffectiveness. Estuar. Coast. 33 (6), 1249e1260.

Chen, B., Yu, W., Liu, W., Liu, Z., 2012. An assessment on restoration of typicalmarine 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 ecologicalenvironment 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 riskassessmentda review and perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (18),3871e3879.

Elliott, M., Burdon, D., Hemingway, K.L., Apitz, S.E., 2007. Estuarine, coastal andmarine ecosystem restoration: confusing management and science e a revisionof concepts. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 74 (3), 349e366.

Hinkle, R.L., Mitsch, W.J., 2005. Salt marsh vegetation recovery at salt hay farmwetland 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” ofCoastal Pollution Prevention in Jiangsu Province. China Ocean Press, Beijing,China (in Chinese).

JOFB (Jiangsu Oceanic and Fishery Bureau), 2012a. Ocean Environment qualitybulletin in 2011. China Ocean Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese).

JOFB (Jiangsu Oceanic and Fishery Bureau), 2012b. Integrated Report on CoastalZone in Jiangsu Province. China Science Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese).

Jones, K., Hanna, E., 2004. Design and implementation of an ecological engineeringapproach 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 ofecological coastal restoration in South Texas. Eco. Eng. 36 (4), 435e440.

Konisky, R.A., Burdick, D.M., Dionne, M., Neckles, H.A., 2006. A regional assessmentof 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 minimaldata 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 ofisland ecological environment and regulating measures. Coast. Eng. 27 (2),58e64 (in Chinese).

Lewis III, R.R., 2005. Ecological engineering for successful management and resto-ration of mangrove forests. Eco. Eng. 24 (4), 403e418.

Li, J., Heap, A.D., 2014. Spatial interpolation methods applied in the environmentalsciences: a review. Environ. Model. Softw. 53, 173e189.

Li, F., XU, M., 2014. Source characteristics and contamination evaluation of heavymetals 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 neriticecosystem. 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 localand 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 mea-sures: recent approaches and last decade progress. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39(12), 4333e4342.

Rombouts, I., Beaugrand, G., Artigas, L.F., Dauvin, J.C., G�evaert, F., Goberville, E.,Kirby, R.R., 2013. Evaluating marine ecosystem health: case studies of in-dicators using direct observations and modelling methods. Eco. Indic. 24,353e365.

SOA (The State Oceanic Administration of China), 2005. Interim Measures for TheAdministration of Special Marine Protected Area. China Ocean Press, Beijing,China (in Chinese).

SOA (The State Oceanic Administration of China), 2010. Standard for the Classifi-cation and Categorization of Special Marine Protected Area (amended). ChinaOcean Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese).

SOA (The State Oceanic Administration of China), 2012a. National Marine FunctionalZoning Plan (2011e2020). China Ocean Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese).

SOA (The State Oceanic Administration of China), 2012b. China’ S Ocean Develop-ment Report. China Ocean Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese).

Sun, X.W., Zhang, S., Zhao, Y.Q., Zhang, H., 2010. Community structure of fish andmacroinvertebrates in the artificial reef sea area of Haizhou Bay. J. ShanghaiOcean. 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., DeJong, D.J., 2009. Guidelines for seagrass restoration: importance of habitat se-lection and donor population, spreading of risks, and ecosystem engineeringeffects. 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 atemperate 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 Seausing fuzzy integrated assessment method. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64 (3), 546e555.

Xu, Y., Zhang, Y., Lliu, J.T., Zhang, D., 2009. Research on environmental factorthreshold 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 ofheavy metal pollution from tidal flat in Haizhou Bay. Environ. Sci. 34 (3),1044e1054 (in Chinese).