ObjectiveAgainst the backdrop of accelerating global biodiversity loss, the “Kunming−Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF) has set higher requirements for systemic and integrated conservation. China has established an in situ conservation system centered on national parks and an ex situ conservation system centered on national botanical gardens. However, these two systems have long been operated in a fragmented pattern characterized by “spatial separation and functional parallelism”, which constrains the overall conservation effectiveness. As a result, problems such as the continuous decline of native populations in protected areas and the low adaptability of reintroduced ex situ germplasm persist. This study aims to explore the collaborative mechanism between national parks and national botanical gardens in plant diversity conservation and to propose systematic implementation pathways suited to the Chinese context.MethodsTo address this issue, this research employs a methodology integrating theoretical synthesis and comparative case study analysis. Grounded in synergy theory, this study constructs a multidimensional theoretical framework encompassing “population−habitat−governance−external drivers.” This framework moves beyond traditional siloed approaches by systematically integrating key ecological elements with socio-governance factors and external pressures, providing a holistic perspective to analyze the interactions and coupling mechanisms required for effective collaboration. On this basis, the study further proposes a dynamic, closed-loop operational mechanism at the core of the collaboration, conceptualized as “collection−storage−reintroduction−feedback.” This mechanism is designed to integrate the entire process from germplasm resource safeguarding and ecosystem restoration to adaptive governance. The “collection” phase refers to the systematic in situ germplasm sampling within national parks to capture maximum genetic diversity. The “storage” phase refers to the multi-layered ex situ conservation network managed by botanical gardens. The “reintroduction” phase refers to the ecologically informed, step-wise return of propagated plant material to restored habitats within or adjacent to national parks, aiming to reconstruct viable populations and ecological networks. The “feedback” phase establishes a multi-scale monitoring network to track outcomes, driving iterative learning and adaptive management of the entire cycle. To extract practical experience, this study conducts a comparative analysis of four international collaborative models: 1) Integrated Institutional, characterized by unified planning under a single agency; 2) species-focused rescue collaboration, where parks and gardens divide in situ and ex situ tasks for target species; 3) networked collaborative conservation, leveraging international networks to connect protected areas and gardens systematically; and 4)landscape-community co-construction, which integrates conservation, research, education, and sustainable community livelihoods within a shared landscape. This comparative analysis extracts key governance experiences regarding institutional design, stakeholder roles, and incentive structures.ResultsThe results show that the four international collaborative models differ in organizational form, participating actors, and operational focus, but all emphasize stable institutional support, clear divisions of responsibility, sustained resource investment, information sharing, and stakeholder participation. Based on the above framework and international experience, this study proposes four essential implementation pathways for constructing a “national park−national botanical garden collaborative conservation network” in China: 1) An incentive-compatible institutional and policy system should be established through unified technical standards, clear, legally embedded mandates for collaboration, a stable cross-ministerial coordination mechanism, and performance-based incentive mechanisms should be introduced. Through these measures, the interests of national parks and national botanical gardens can be better aligned, enabling collaboration to shift from short-term, project-based cooperation to sustained, institutionalized practice. 2) Flagship species-guided rescue initiatives should be implemented with clearly assigned responsibilities. National parks should lead in situ habitat protection, site management, and long-term monitoring, while national botanical gardens should lead ex situ collection, propagation, genetic assessment, and pre-reintroduction acclimatization. Such focused “project-based” collaboration may deepen operational integration, enhance mutual trust, and facilitate standardized protocols that can be gradually scaled. 3) Establishing a national biodiversity data collaboration platform: Breaking down information silos is critical for intelligent coordination. This pathway calls for building a unified national data cloud platform that integrates field monitoring data from parks with species biology and genomics data from gardens. The formulation and enforcement of common data standards are a prerequisite for effective data sharing. Digital technologies may further support germplasm tracking, ecological simulation, and proactive conservation planning. 4) Community-engaged landscape co-construction should be explored by linking the educational resources of botanical gardens with the wilderness experience of national parks. It should also promote community co-management and benefit-sharing models. It can transform local communities from passive management subjects into active conservation partners, helping form a virtuous cycle that links conservation with livelihood improvement.ConclusionPromoting deep collaboration between national parks and national botanical gardens is a key means of advancing biodiversity conservation from isolated single-point conservation toward systemic governance. The proposed multidimensional framework and the “collection−storage−reintroduction−feedback” mechanism can strengthen the connection between in situ and ex situ conservation in terms of conservation targets, technical processes, and governance systems. Institutional incentives and data sharing provide basic support for stable collaboration, flagship-species programs offer an operational vehicle for inter-organizational cooperation, and community participation strengthens the social foundation and long-term resilience of conservation. This collaborative model is of theoretical and practical significance for building a resilient national ecological security framework, improving biodiversity governance capacity, and contributing to the implementation of the goals of the Kunming−Montreal GBF.
ObjectiveSmall wetlands in mountainous areas are typical small-scale ecological spaces embedded in mountain terrain, hydrological processes, and human settlement systems. Different from large riverine and lacustrine wetlands in plains, they usually occur as springs, ponds, seepage wetlands, slope wetlands, valley wetlands, small impoundments, irrigation ponds, ditches, weirs, karst depressions, and seasonal vernal pools. Although individual patches are small in size, they are widely distributed along slope seepage zones, valley bottoms, foot slope accumulation areas, agroforestry mosaics, and settlement margins. They play important roles in runoff retention, flood buffering, groundwater recharge, habitat maintenance, biodiversity conservation, nutrient interception, landscape shaping, local water supply, and ecological product provision. However, because of their small size, strong topographic concealment, seasonal hydrological dynamics, and limited detectability in conventional land use surveys, small wetlands in mountainous areas are often merged into other land categories or neglected in planning practice. This has led to a structural blind spot in mountain territorial ecological governance. Against the background of ecological zoning control, territorial spatial planning, and refined ecological restoration, this paper aims to clarify the concept, ecological functions, cross-scale effects, governance dilemmas, and planning strategies of small wetlands in mountainous areas, so as to provide a theoretical basis and operational framework for integrating them into territorial spatial governance and landscape architecture practice.MethodsThis study adopts a synthetic review and conceptual integration approach. It systematically examines relevant literature on small wetlands, mountain wetlands, hydrogeomorphic wetland classification, ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, landscape connectivity, territorial ecological restoration, and small-scale ecological space planning. On this basis, the paper redefines small wetlands in mountainous areas from the perspective of territorial spatial governance rather than from a single area threshold. It analyzes their formation mechanisms through the coupled effects of topography, geology, hydrology, and human activities, and identifies their main natural and semi-artificial types. The study further summarizes their ecological characteristics, including high spatial heterogeneity, strong hydrological fluctuation, process sensitivity, landscape mosaic patterns, and human-nature coupling. It then interprets their key ecological functions and cross-scale effects from the perspective of “patch−network−watershed” transmission. Finally, the paper evaluates existing governance constraints and develops a planning strategy framework that links investigation, classification, value assessment, spatial control, reasonable use, monitoring and adaptive governance.ResultsThe study finds that small wetlands in mountainous areas should not be understood merely as small remnants outside large and medium-sized wetland systems. Instead, they should be recognized as basic ecological units with clear spatial locations, identifiable process connections, and practical governance feasibility. Their formation is controlled by surface runoff accumulation, groundwater discharge, karst and special geomorphic processes, snowmelt, microtopographic depressions, and long-term local water-use practices. In mountain landscapes, these wetlands are not isolated patches. They are often organized as clustered, beaded, chain-like, or mosaic wetland groups through surface runoff, shallow subsurface flow, groundwater emergence, biological dispersal, and traditional pond−ditch systems. At the patch scale, they regulate local hydrology, microclimate, nutrient transformation, pollution interception, and habitat provision. At the network scale, different patches perform complementary roles along altitudinal, slope-position, and hydrological gradients. Headwater and upper-slope wetlands tend to support source retention and runoff delay, mid-slope and valley-transition wetlands contribute to flow redistribution and sediment or nutrient interception, while lower-slope and settlement-edge wetlands often support water purification, habitat maintenance, risk buffering, and local livelihood needs. At the watershed scale, their distributed but connected network can generate cumulative ecological effects in flood mitigation, water quality improvement, biodiversity maintenance, and ecosystem service provision. The overall value of small wetlands in mountainous areas therefore lies not in the linear relationship between individual size and individual benefit, but in the non-linear amplification of multiple small units through spatial connectivity, functional complementarity, and redundancy. The paper also identifies three major governance dilemmas. First, small wetlands in mountainous areas are ecologically important but often invisible in conventional surveys and planning systems. Seasonal and temporary wetlands are especially prone to being missed. Second, existing research often focuses either on regional-scale statistics or single-patch ecological processes, while planning practice requires intermediate-scale knowledge at the levels of small watersheds, wetland groups, and settlement units. Third, current protection and management systems remain insufficient for mountain contexts, because they often treat small wetlands as isolated objects and lack institutional responses to their network effects, cross-scale ecological functions, and coupled protection−use relationships.ConclusionSmall wetlands in mountainous areas should be incorporated into territorial spatial planning as identifiable, assessable, configurable, and manageable basic ecological units. The paper proposes a planning framework of “investigation and identification—classification and grading—value assessment—spatial control—ecological restoration—reasonable use—monitoring and feedback.” Specifically, basic surveys should integrate multi-temporal remote sensing, terrain-constrained analysis, UAV-based identification, field verification, and local community knowledge. Classification and value assessment should shift from area-oriented judgment to a comprehensive framework considering object attributes, degradation status, functional value, network position, process criticality, and governance needs. Spatial control should be implemented across patch, network, and watershed scales, emphasizing patch integrity, hydrological and habitat connectivity, and watershed-level process continuity. Reasonable use should be developed under ecological constraints through ecological agriculture, distributed water storage, low-impact recreation, natural education, cultural landscape renewal, and OECM-based community governance. Long-term monitoring, standards, policy coordination, and adaptive governance are necessary to sustain ecological processes and social cooperation. In this sense, small wetlands in mountainous areas should move from being fragmented marginal objects in mountain landscapes to foundational ecological units in territorial spatial planning, ecological restoration, and landscape design.
ObjectiveGiven the limitations of conventional constructed wetland projects that prioritize a single function and thus fail to systematically tackle interconnected urban water challenges—such as waterlogging, water pollution, and ecological degradation—this study proposes a construction methodology for multi-objective oriented composite constructed wetlands. Its primary purpose is to deliver replicable technical theories and practical guidelines for urban wetland development amid rapid urbanization and escalating global climate change. In recent decades, the acceleration of urbanization and the intensification of extreme weather events have exposed cities worldwide to increasingly severe water-related challenges. In China alone, over 360 cities have been afflicted by waterlogging since 2007, while nearly 400 cities grapple with water scarcity. The erratic spatiotemporal distribution of water resources, coupled with the underutilization of non-traditional water sources like rainwater and reclaimed water, has further exacerbated the imbalance between water supply and demand. Traditional research on constructed wetlands has predominantly focused on isolated aspects, such as water purification efficiency and anti-clogging technologies, which fall short of meeting the comprehensive demands of modern cities for water security, water environment improvement, and aquatic ecological restoration. Therefore, there is an urgent need to explore a systematic and integrated construction paradigm.MethodsTaking Lianggao Constructed Wetland in Handan as a case study, this research adopts a holistic approach to establish a construction framework comprising multi-objective orientation, multi-dimensional value evaluation, and landscape coordination. The framework integrates a diverse range of treatment units, including ecological detention ponds, subsurface flow wetlands, and surface flow wetlands. Interdisciplinary collaboration spanning landscape architecture, hydrology, ecology, and environmental engineering is leveraged to conduct site assessments, analyze existing resource conditions, and optimize the spatial layout of water storage and purification zones. Concurrently, the design accounts for seasonal variability to enable staggered operation of purification and storage functions, and establishes a joint early-warning management mechanism to ensure the wetland operates stably under various working conditions. Specifically, during the multi-objective orientation phase, the overarching goal is decomposed into specific sub-goals covering water security, water environment, water ecology, water resources, and water culture. For each sub-goal, tailored action frameworks are formulated through cross-disciplinary collaboration. In the landscape coordination phase, the design optimizes temporal, spatial, and resource allocation to strike a balance between the wetland’s engineering functionalities and ecological benefits.ResultsThe implementation of the Lianggao Constructed Wetland project has yielded remarkable comprehensive benefits across flood regulation, water purification, ecological restoration, and social welfare. In terms of flood mitigation, the wetland employs a zoned and time-phased storage model, with a total storage capacity of 13,000 m3, which has effectively alleviated waterlogging pressure in Handan’s old urban districts. From 2021 to 2023, the wetland was used for storage four times, accumulating a total storage volume of 17,000 m3. It successfully withstood several extreme rainfall events in the region, preventing waterlogging disasters in adjacent residential areas. In terms of water purification, the hybrid process combining horizontal subsurface flow and surface flow wetlands achieves a daily treatment capacity of 2,000 m3, with the effluent quality meeting the quasi-Class Ⅲ surface water environmental standard. Monitoring data from 2023 shows that the effluent ammonia nitrogen concentration ranges from 0.2 to 0.8 mg/L, and total phosphorus concentration from 0.01 to 0.06 mg/L, both well below the national discharge limits. The wetland is designed with three operational modes to adapt to varying influent water quality, ensuring consistent purification efficiency even when water quality fluctuates. In terms of social benefits, the wetland has transformed a derelict urban fringe into a comprehensive ecological park, offering residents spaces for leisure, sightseeing, and environmental education. It has also achieved substantial energy-saving and emission-reduction outcomes, saving approximately 730,000 tons of water and 95,000 kWh of electricity annually.ConclusionThe multi-objective oriented composite constructed wetland model effectively overcomes the limitations of traditional single-function wetland construction. By taking landscape coordination as the core link, it realizes the organic integration of flood regulation, water purification, ecological restoration, and social services. This model not only enhances the urban water ecological environment and bolsters urban resilience but also provides a viable blueprint for similar projects in other cities. The practice of Lianggao Constructed Wetland demonstrates that landscape coordination can effectively balance engineering functionality and ecological benefits, converting constructed wetlands from mere ecological infrastructure into multifunctional urban landscapes that serve both ecological conservation and public recreation. In future urbanization efforts, constructed wetland projects should adhere to the principle of holistic governance, advancing the coordinated development of urban water systems and ecological environments through interdisciplinary collaboration. It is also essential to strengthen long-term monitoring and operational management to ensure the sustainable functioning of wetland ecosystems, while adjusting operational strategies dynamically in response to regional water environment changes and climatic shifts.
ObjectiveThe Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area is a typical ecologically fragile coastal zone. Its unique geographical location and intensive human activities make it face multiple ecological challenges, including the degradation of ecosystem service functions, the threat of biodiversity loss and flood risk. In this context, ecological network construction and resilience regulation have become important ways to address these challenges. Through the construction of a robust ecological network and the implementation of targeted resilience regulation measures, the ecosystem service functions of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area can be synergistically optimized, the protection of biodiversity can be strengthened, and its buffering capacity for flood disasters can be enhanced. MethodsThis study takes the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area as the research area, and integrates ecosystem service value identification, waterbird diversity assessment and waterlogging sensitivity assessment into the ecological source identification process. Based on the methods of integrated valuation of ecosystem services and tradeoffs (InVEST) model, maximum entropy (MaxEnt) model, soil conservation service (SCS) model, it constructs an ecological network for coastal megacities focused on waterbird diversity conservation and flood risk adaptation. Through dynamic and static resilience evaluation, it reveals the impact of different scenarios on the stability of the ecological network structure. The research design fully considers the ecological vulnerability of the Greater Bay Area as a coastal zone. Results1) The results of ecological network construction showed that a total of 133 ecological sources and 324 ecological corridors were identified, and the key pinch points and obstacle points of the corridors were identified. The results clearly reflect the fragmentation effect of rapid urbanization on regional ecosystems and the spatial differentiation characteristics of ecological resistance. This effectively breaks through the limitation of excessive concentration in inland mountainous areas in the construction of traditional ecological networks, takes into account the ecological characteristics of coastal urban agglomerations, further improves the identification system of coastal ecological networks, and improves the relevance and practicability of research. 2) Multi-scenario simulation results show that the loss of ecological stepping stones has the most significant impact on the disruption of network connectivity. The failure of ecological pinch points will lead to the loss of the looped and redundant functions of the ecological pathways. The increase of barriers significantly weakens the stability of the network structure and the migration efficiency. 3) The results of resilience evaluation reveal a high dependence of the ecological network on key structural elements and a differentiated vulnerability mechanism under dynamic disturbances. The nodes such as Qixingyan–Dinghushan and Haizhu Wetland–Huanglu Mountain have the highest degree, representing key ecological sources of the network topology and playing a core role in connectivity and ecological flow transportation. Scenario 1 has the lowest network collapse threshold under random attacks, at 23.3%, and should be given priority for inclusion in ecological restoration projects. Scenario 2 has a network collapse threshold of 33.8%. The reduction of ecological nodes leads to lengthy ecological network connections, an increase in ecological breakpoints, and a weakened anti-interference ability. Scenario 3 has a network collapse threshold of 39.1%. The increase in ecological barrier points results in more detours in high-resistance areas and a decrease in spatial connection efficiency, as well as an increase in network complexity. Under deliberate attacks, all scenarios fail rapidly due to the removal of key nodes, highlighting the network's dependence on high-degree nodes. The reduction of stepping stones has the greatest impact on the connectivity of the ecological network. Based on this, this paper constructs a “source area classification−corridor classification−node collaboration” ecological restoration system.ConclusionThe research results can provide scientific decision-making basis for ecological network construction, resilience evaluation and territorial space governance of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and other coastal urban agglomerations. It fully considers the ecological vulnerability of the coastal zone in the Greater Bay Area, and the scientific system of the methods used can not only support the optimization of the regional ecological network structure, but also have important value for promoting the ecological restoration of land space from area orientation to structure and function orientation, and provide theoretical and technical support for regional ecological security and sustainable development.
ObjectiveThis article examines three wetland areas in the delta of the Netherlands — the Biesbosch, the Oostvaardersplassen in Flevoland, and the Volgermeerpolder — as case studies in the interaction between human activity and landscape formation. Comparing the three cases tests whether the concept of wilderness is applicable to these landscapes. MethodsA comparative case-study method generates the argument from the evidence. Three wetlands in a single delta were selected by the degree of human intention behind their creation, while their shared geological and hydrological conditions are held constant, so that human intention is the variable under comparison. The Biesbosch, in the Rhine-Meuse and North Sea delta, originated in the floods of 1421−1424, and the resulting tidal basin has since been continuously reshaped by hydraulic and ecological restoration works carried out under both Natura 2000 conservation policy and the Room for the River programme. The Oostvaardersplassen arose when reclaimed land in Southern Flevoland remained too wet for its intended use and was colonised by nature. The Volgermeerpolder is a wetland engineered as a remedy for industrial contamination, in which peat development in rainwater-fed wetland units serves as a permanent sealing technique. ResultsSuccessive human interventions transformed each landscape so that what is designated as natural wetland is the product of centuries of human action. The Biesbosch illustrates this most clearly: from medieval floods to the Room for the River programme, culminating in the deliberate inundation of the Noordwaard polder and its incorporation into the National Park. The Oostvaardersplassen developed from unplanned wetland into one of the larger nature reserves in the Netherlands, with recognised international ecological value. The Volgermeerpolder is the most engineered case. A membrane system initiates peat formation; over decades, the accumulating peat seals the contaminated substrate and forms the basis of a restored landscape. ConclusionThe three cases differ in the degree of human intention behind their creation: unintended but managed, unplanned but framed, and deliberately constructed. This comparison supports the conclusion that the concept of wilderness does not apply in the Dutch delta, since in none of the three cases did nature and human history operate independently. The comparative framework proposed here offers a path toward a typology of wetlands based on the degree of anthropogenic shaping; its wider applicability remains to be tested in further delta and coastal wetland cases.
