The Hexi Corridor is located in northwest China, and its water resources mainly rely on meltwater from the Qilian Mountains and limited precipitation. The Hexi Corridor is an important regional population center and grain production area. However, limited rainfall restricts regional development due to inadequate water resources. Assessing water resource security in the Hexi region and providing targeted recommendations are crucial for rational planning and utilization of water resources, protecting the ecological environment, and promoting development. This study employs the entropy weight method to construct a pressure-state-response (PSR) system, assessing the water resource security of various river basins in the Hexi inland area. The evaluation results indicate that since the 21st century, the comprehensive water resource security scores of the three river basins have shown an upward trend. Specifically, the economic and social systems of the Shule River Basin and Heihe River Basin are improving, while their natural systems are declining; all three systems in the Shiyang River Basin are improving. Based on these results, targeted recommendations for different areas are proposed, providing a basis for enhancing water resource security in the region.

  • Since the 21st century, comprehensive water resource security scores of the three river basins have shown an upward trend.

  • The economic and social systems of the Shule River Basin and Heihe River Basin are improving, while their natural systems are declining.

  • Based on the evaluation results, targeted recommendations for different areas are proposed to enhance water resource security in the region.

Water security refers to the ability to ensure a sustainable supply of sufficient quantity and quality of water resources to meet the needs of humans and ecosystems while reducing the risk of water-related disasters. In recent years, the international community has intensified its focus on water security issues, initiating numerous significant international projects aimed at promoting the sustainable use and management of water resources. The United Nations initiated the ‘International Decade for Action: Water for Life’ (2005–2015), which raised global awareness about the importance of water resources and proposed measures to enhance water resource management, improve water quality, and increase the efficiency of use (United Nations 2015). UNESCO's World Water Assessment Program (WWAP) provides detailed analyses of the current state and trends of global water resources through the publication of the World Water Development Report, highlighting the significance of water issues to the international community (UNESCO WWAP 2020). The International Water Resources Association (IWRA) regularly hosts the World Water Congress, bringing together global experts to discuss the latest research findings and best practices in water resource management, fostering international knowledge exchange (IWRA 2023). The Global Water Partnership offers policy advice, technical support, and capacity building to help countries implement Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), ensuring effective and sustainable water use. The World Bank supports various water resource management projects by providing financial and technical assistance, helping developing countries improve their water management capabilities to address water scarcity and pollution issues (Ministry of Water Resources of the People's Republic of China 2020a). These international initiatives and projects underscore the global emphasis on water security, with nations endeavoring to address water challenges and promote sustainable water development through international co-operation and comprehensive management.

China has introduced several significant plans, policies, and strategies to ensure water security through scientific management and rational utilization of water resources. The ‘14th Five-Year Plan for Water Security’ emphasizes preventive measures, integrating prevention and control to enhance water conservation and soil erosion management (NDRC 2024). The National Water Resources Security Strategy, led by the Ministry of Water Resources and the Hydropower Planning and Design Institute, promotes water resource modernization and coordinated utilization (Ministry of Human Resources & Social Security 2024). The National Water Network Construction Outline aims to improve flood control and disaster mitigation systems, enhance water allocation capabilities, and promote the interconnection of water projects (The State Council 2023). The New Era Water Security Strategy guides China in addressing water system uncertainties with a focus on ‘water conservation first, spatial balance, systematic governance, and dual efforts’ (Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 2021). The South-to-North Water Diversion Project, a significant undertaking, optimizes water resource allocation to support high-quality development (South-to-North Water Diversion Project 2023). The Ministry of Water Resources implements the ‘National Comprehensive Water Resources Plan’ to ensure sustainable development through rational water resource allocation and utilization efficiency enhancement (Ministry of Water Resources of the People's Republic of China 2020b). China has also conducted the ‘National Water Resources Survey and Assessment,’ providing a comprehensive evaluation of water resources status and utilization, forming a critical basis for scientific management and rational use (Ministry of Water Resources of the People's Republic of China 2020c). Furthermore, China participates in international water resource management co-operation projects, actively promoting water resource exchange and co-operation.

The history of water security assessment dates back to the mid-20th century, initially focusing on evaluating water resource quantity and quality. In the 1960s, with the growing global water demand and environmental pollution issues, the scientific community began to emphasize water security. The concept of water security was first introduced at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, highlighting the importance of water management and environmental protection. In the 1980s, the international community recognized the complexity of water management, introducing the concept of IWRM, and proposing a holistic approach to water management from source to end-use (Global Water Partnership 2000). In the 21st century, water security assessment has evolved into a multidisciplinary field, covering hydrology, water resources engineering, ecological environment, and socio-economic aspects, with continuous improvements in comprehensive assessment methods and technologies.

Water security assessment has transitioned from traditional statistical methods to modern comprehensive models. Early assessments relied on hydrological statistics and simple mathematical models, such as water balance and water quality models. While these methods were straightforward, they could not fully capture the complexity of water resource systems. With advancements in computer and remote sensing (RS) technologies, water security assessment has entered a phase of refined and dynamic simulation. The introduction of geographic information systems (GIS) and RS technologies has enabled the monitoring of spatial distribution and the dynamic changes in water resources. Additionally, the application of integrated models, such as the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model and the Water Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) model, has significantly improved the accuracy and reliability of assessments. In recent years, the emergence of big data and artificial intelligence has provided new tools and methodologies for water security assessment, allowing for more precise predictions and early warnings of water security issues.

Despite these advancements, several scientific challenges in water security assessment remain unresolved. The impact of global climate change on water security remains incompletely understood, making accurate predictions of water resource changes under such conditions a major challenge (IPCC 2021). Transboundary water management is complex due to the involvement of multiple countries and regions, lacking unified management and coordination mechanisms, posing difficulties for transboundary water security assessment and management (TWAP 2016). The relationship between water resources and ecosystem services is not entirely clear, requiring further research to balance water security with ecosystem protection. Furthermore, uncertainty in water security assessment, especially regarding data gaps and model uncertainties, necessitates the development of effective strategies to reduce assessment uncertainties in future research.

The Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, conducted detailed water resource surveys in the Tarim River Basin. The study focused on sustainable water use and water security strategies, assessing water distribution and utilization through field surveys and data analysis, and proposing multiple management and protection measures. The research predicts water resource trends under climate change, providing a scientific basis for regional water resource planning (China News Network 2023). Additionally, the ‘Natural-Social-Trade’ Water Cycle Theory and Security Regulation Research Project in Northwest Inland River Areas analyzed the impacts of natural factors, human activities, and trade on the water cycle, establishing a multi-dimensional water resource assessment model. The study revealed overexploitation and pollution issues in Northwest inland river basins, particularly in agricultural irrigation and industrial water use, suggesting specific measures for optimizing water resource allocation and improving utilization efficiency (China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, 2019). Another study in the Shule River Basin established an assessment system with 16 influencing factors to evaluate water resource vulnerability and management strategies (MDPI 2020). A study assessing environmental changes and ecosystem services in China's largest inland river basin found that water resource management needs optimization under multiple pressures (HESSD 2020). An evaluation of water balance component changes in the Yellow River Basin provided critical data for inland river basin water resource management (Yin et al. 2016). Research on mercury pollution in typical inland river lake basins indicated that water quality pollution remains a significant issue requiring urgent attention (PubMed 2023). These studies collectively highlight the need for multi-faceted approaches to achieve sustainable water resource management in China's inland river basins.

The arid inland river basins of Northwest China, as the most severely water-scarce regions in China, face numerous challenges in water resource security, primarily including uneven spatial and temporal distribution of water resources, excessive groundwater extraction, and water pollution issues. The scarcity and uneven distribution of precipitation in Northwest China lead to significant seasonal fluctuations in river flow, complicating water resource management. Severe groundwater over-extraction results in continuous groundwater level decline, causing land desertification and ecological degradation (Gansu Province Water Network Construction Plan 2024). Water pollution remains a critical issue, with inadequate pollution control measures and monitoring, leading to significant impacts on water quality from industrial wastewater and agricultural non-point source pollution, exacerbating China's water scarcity and causing severe damage to regional ecosystems (Nature 2020). Additionally, climate change exacerbates the uncertainties in river water volume, posing more challenges to future water resource availability (AMS 2016). The Hexi Corridor, located in northwest Gansu Province, is an important ecological safety barrier and a typical irrigated agricultural area. Despite significant achievements in economic, social, and ecological development, water resources remain the main constraint to the region's development (Zhao et al. 2023). The expansion of oasis areas in the Hexi Corridor increasingly encroaches on ecological water use, further exacerbated by the impacts of climate change, leading to heightened uncertainty and risk in water resource and ecological environment changes (Jin & Wang 2007; Zhang et al. 2015; Liu 2023). Achieving sustainable water resource utilization requires enhanced scientific management, policy implementation, technological innovation, and international co-operation.

To achieve high-quality development in the Hexi Corridor, it is essential to balance the development of various industries while protecting the ecological environment, with water resources playing a crucial role. However, most current research on Hexi Corridor water resources focuses on revealing the role of water resources in specific economic, social, or ecological factors, without broadly explaining the comprehensive role of water resources in regional development. To assess the water resource security status in the Hexi Corridor, identify influencing factors, and propose recommendations for improved water resource management, this study, taking the inland river basins in the Hexi Corridor as units, selects indicators reflecting the water resource security status in social, economic, resource, environmental, and ecological fields, constructs a pressure-state-response (PSR) model, and uses the entropy weight method to calculate entropy values for ‘weighting’ the water resource security evaluation in various areas. The main influencing factors of water resource security in the region are analyzed using principal component analysis, and targeted countermeasures and suggestions are proposed to improve regional water resource security.

The Hexi Corridor's inland river area of China includes the Shule River, Heihe River, and Shiyang River basins (Figure 1), covering a total area of 215,000 km² (Chen & Qu 1988). The region comprises five cities: Jiayuguan, Jinchang, Wuwei, Zhangye, and Jiuquan, with a population exceeding 4 million. The Hexi region has rich arable land resources, but most areas receive less than 200 mm of annual precipitation (Wang et al. 2002). Water scarcity is a significant issue, with uneven spatial distribution of water and soil resources constraining regional development. Agricultural water use accounts for more than 80% of total water consumption, making it the highest water-using sector.
Figure 1

Hexi corridor regional water system diagram.

Figure 1

Hexi corridor regional water system diagram.

Close modal

The Shule River is located at the western end of the Hexi Corridor, originating between the Tola Nanshan and Shule Nanshan mountains in the western section of the Qilian Mountains. The upper and middle reaches are divided by the Changma Gorge, with the lower reaches below the Shuangta Reservoir in Guazhou County. The average annual runoff is 968 million m³. The northern part of the basin is mainly desert and Gobi, the central part is an irrigated oasis, and the southern part is the mountainous area of the Qilian Mountains, with high terrain in the south and north and low terrain in the middle. The Shule River basin has a typical inland arid and semi-arid climate, with precipitation concentrated from June to September. Annual precipitation ranges from 50.2 to 57.5 mm, and annual evaporation ranges from 2577.4 to 2653.2 mm (Ji et al. 2023). The basin mainly includes plain and mountainous terrain, with cities like Yumen, Guazhou, and Dunhuang. Human activities are concentrated in the central oasis area, with a permanent population of about 500,000, including about 300,000 agricultural residents. Agricultural irrigation water use consistently accounts for about 70% of total water use (Yang et al. 2023).

The Heihe River is located in the central part of the Hexi Corridor, originating from the Qilian Mountains. The basin has a permanent population of about 2 million. The Heihe River basin includes 35 small tributaries, but many have lost surface water connection with the main stream due to increased water use with economic and social development. The downstream lakes have shrunk, and land desertification has intensified. In the early 21st century, the Yellow River Conservancy Commission established the Heihe River Basin Management Bureau to strengthen water resource management, improving the downstream ecological environment (et al. 2008). The upper reaches of the Heihe River are above Yingluo Gorge, the middle reaches are from Yingluo Gorge to Zhengyi Gorge, and the lower reaches are below Zhengyi Gorge. The middle reaches have flat terrain, an arid temperate climate, and are an important grain-producing area in Gansu Province (Shu et al. 1998).

The Shiyang River is located in the eastern part of the Hexi Corridor, originating from the Lenglongling Glacier in the Qilian Mountains. The basin has a temperate continental climate with low precipitation. The administrative regions include Jinchang City, Liangzhou District of Wuwei City, Gulang County, Minqin County, and parts of Tianzhu and Subei counties. The basin has a population of about 1.8 million. In the 20th century, human activities significantly impacted the Shiyang River basin, leading to ecological degradation. The expansion of arable land in the middle reaches and increased agricultural water use sharply reduced the area of the Minqin oasis in the lower reaches (Qing et al. 2022). Since the 21st century, Gansu Province has implemented several policies and regulations to ensure ecological water use, improving the ecological environment in the basin. However, some areas still face ecological degradation (Shi et al. 2024).

Data sources

The elevation raster data used for the study area in Figure 1 is DEM SRTMDEM 90M resolution raw elevation data, sourced from the Geospatial Data Cloud (https://www.gscloud.cn/). The river data and the boundaries of each basin are sourced from the National Glacier, Permafrost, and Desert Scientific Data Center (http://www.ncdc.ac.cn/portal/).

The statistical data used in the PSR system are from the ‘Gansu Province Water Resources Bulletin’ (1995–2021).

Research methods

PSR model

The PSR model was first proposed by Tony Friend and David Rapport. It was later modified by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for environmental analysis studies (Mai et al. 2005). The PSR model is widely used in water resource assessment to provide a structured approach to understanding and managing water-related issues. The PSR system establishes relevant indicators to reflect the interactions between human activities, the environment and natural resources, and institutions (Gao & Huang 2010). ‘Pressure’ refers to the driving force factors, which are indicators that cause changes in water resource security status. ‘State’ refers to the indicators that reflect the current water resource security situation. ‘Response’ refers to the measures taken by humans to address changes in water resource security or the trends generated in response to the pressures on the current situation in the study area. The structure of the PSR model is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2

PSR system diagram (cited from Wolfslehner et al. 2008).

Figure 2

PSR system diagram (cited from Wolfslehner et al. 2008).

Close modal
In this study, to reflect the overall situation of water resources in the study area, the external manifestations of human activities related to water resource security, and the ‘response’ of different parts of the system to human activities, a comprehensive water resource security evaluation system consisting of economic, social, and natural systems was constructed. Each of these systems was evaluated separately. The natural system is further divided into resource, environment, and ecology subsystems. The structure of the comprehensive water resource security evaluation system is shown in Figure 3. After selecting the indicators for each subsystem, the safety trends (positive or negative) were determined based on the impact of each indicator on water resource security (better with higher values, better with lower values).
Figure 3

Structure of the comprehensive water resource security evaluation system.

Figure 3

Structure of the comprehensive water resource security evaluation system.

Close modal

The PSR system allows for the calculation of the weights of various indicators and uses these to evaluate the water resource security situation in each basin.

Entropy weight method

The entropy weight method originated from the thermodynamic definition and was later introduced into information theory. By normalizing the data, the entropy weight of each indicator is determined: the greater the degree of variation, the smaller the entropy weight; the smaller the degree of variation, the larger the entropy weight (Zhang et al. 2014). If the evaluation values of a certain indicator are all equal, it means that this indicator has no effect on the system and can be removed.

Data normalization

With m indicators and n evaluation samples, the original matrix is: , normalized to obtain a matrix, , where is the normalized value of in the original matrix, .

For indicators where a higher value is better, the normalization formula is:
(1)
For indicators where a lower value is better, the normalization formula is:
(2)

Since the statistical projects and regional divisions in the ‘Gansu Province Water Resources Bulletin’ vary over the years, and some data are missing, interpolation was performed on missing data before normalization.

Entropy weight calculation
For an evaluation problem with m indicators and n data points, the entropy of the ith indicator is calculated as follows:
(3)
where ,
The entropy weight of the ith indicator is calculated as:
(4)
Consistency test of entropy weight method
After obtaining the entropy weights of the m indicators, a fuzzy complementary judgment matrix is constructed to test the consistency of the weights:
(5)
where k represents the pressure, state, and response indicators within each subsystem. The matrix satisfies:
The consistency index is calculated using the fuzzy complementary judgment matrix:
(6)

A consistency index less than 0.2 is considered to have a good consistency.

Water resource security status evaluation method

The evaluation scores for each basin and system are calculated using the formula:
(7)
where is the evaluation value for the jth year, is the normalized standard value of the ith indicator in the jth year, and is the weight of the ith indicator.

After obtaining the evaluation scores for the three subsystems within the natural system, the evaluation scores of these subsystems serve as indicators for the natural system, and their weights are calculated for inclusion in the comprehensive evaluation system for water resource security, which also includes economic and social systems. The comprehensive water resource security scores for each basin are then calculated.

Based on the evaluation scores, the degree of water resource security is divided into five levels (Sun & Zhao 2018) (Table 1).

Table 1

Classification of the safety degree of water resources

ScoreLevelCondition
0–0.2 Unsafe 
0.2–0.4 VI Less safe 
0.4–0.6 III Basically safe 
0.6–0.8 II Relatively safe 
0.8–1 Safe 
ScoreLevelCondition
0–0.2 Unsafe 
0.2–0.4 VI Less safe 
0.4–0.6 III Basically safe 
0.6–0.8 II Relatively safe 
0.8–1 Safe 

Correlation analysis and significance testing

The correlation analysis and consistency test between each indicator and the corresponding system evaluation scores are conducted to illustrate the relationship between each indicator and water resource security. During the correlation analysis, significance testing is also performed. The significance test indicates the probability of making an error if a certain parameter of an indicator falls within a specified interval. The lower the significance level, the more significant the result (Lehmann 1958). If the significance level of an indicator is less than 0.01, it is considered extremely significant, while if it is between 0.01 and 0.05, it is considered significant.

Principal component analysis method

By using principal component analysis (PCA), the indicators affecting the comprehensive evaluation scores of water resource security in various river basins can be ‘extracted’ to obtain several different principal components. These components help identify the dominant indicators influencing water resource security in each basin (Yu & Fu 2004). In this study, PCA is performed on the normalized data of each river basin to identify the indicators that significantly impact water resource security, thereby analyzing the causes of changes in water resource security across different basins.

PSR model construction and entropy weight calculation results

The constructed PSR system and the weights of each indicator in each system, as well as the consistency test results of each system, are shown in Tables 2 and 3. In the constructed PSR system, the establishment of the economic system mainly considers the impact of water resources on economic development, selecting indicators related to the economic status and development trends of the study area and other water-related indicators directly affecting economic development. The selection of social system indicators mainly focuses on the impact of water resource security on social development and the impact of human social activities on water resource security. Social system indicators primarily include indicators reflecting social development, the impact of social development on water resource security, and social development trends. The natural system is divided into three subsystems: the resource subsystem, which focuses on the use and changes of water resources, including surface water and groundwater resources; the environmental subsystem, which focuses on the impact of water resources on the environment and the influence of human activities on the environment through ‘water’; and the ecological subsystem, which mainly reflects the impact of human activities (including sewage discharge, artificial purification of water bodies) on water quality.

Table 2

Construction of PSR system and calculation results of entropy weight

SystemsWeight
SubsystemWeight
ItemsWeight
ItemsSecurity trendWeight
Shule RiverHeihe RiverShiyang RiverShule RiverHeihe RiverShiyang RiverShule RiverHeihe RiverShiyang RiverShule RiverHeihe RiverShiyang River
System of Economy 36.49% 46.20% 32.87% – – Pressure 23.72% 23.88% 23.09% Irrigation water (a hundred million m3)X1 – 4.71% 6.04% 8.23% 
Industrial water (a hundred million m3)X2 – 3.12% 3.63% 1.63% 
Water for forestry, animal husbandry, fishery and livestock
(a hundred million m3)X3 
– 6.57% 7.30% 6.01% 
Initial storage capacity of large reservoirs (a hundred million m3)X4 5.55% 4.73% 3.68% 
Total water resources (a hundred million m3)X5 3.78% 2.18% 3.53% 
State 49.23% 52.27% 50.96% GDP (a hundred million yuan)X6 8.13% 8.18% 7.37% 
Per capita GDP (yuan)X7 8.36% 8.31% 7.44% 
Growth rate of GDP (%)X8 3.03% 2.93% 3.49% 
Growth rate of GDP per capita (%)X9 3.22% 3.15% 3.86% 
Output value of primary industry (a hundred million yuan)X10 – 3.94% 4.55% 4.60% 
Output value of secondary industry (a hundred million yuan)X11 – 5.76% 7.71% 8.12% 
Output value of tertiary industry (a hundred million yuan)X12 9.34% 9.05% 7.95% 
Industrial added value (a hundred million yuan)X13 7.45% 8.39% 8.13% 
Response 27.04% 23.86% 25.95% Inter-basin water transfer (a hundred million m3)X14 0% 3.83% 7.57% 
Water-saving irrigation area (ten thousand mu)X15 9.44% 3.76% 7.44% 
Irrigation water growth rate (%)X16 − 3.87% 1.76% 3.41% 
Industrial water consumption growth rate (%)X17 − 3.69% 4.25% 1.59% 
Growth rate of water consumption for forestry, animal husbandry, fishery, and livestock (%)X18 − 2.20% 2.58% 1.64% 
Water consumption rate X19 7.84% 7.67% 4.30% 
System of Society 28.01% 20.95% 35.12% – – Pressure 30.25% 25.73% 32.22% Wastewater discharge (ten thousand tons)X1 − 6.89% 5.17% 7.34% 
Domestic consumption (a hundred million m3)X2 − 7.33% 7.66% 7.94% 
Total water consumption (a hundred million m3)X3 − 5.61% 7.24% 7.92% 
Per capita water resources holdings (a hundred million m3)X4 5.64% 2.79% 4.40% 
Total water resources (a hundred million m3)X5 4.78% 2.87% 4.62% 
State 43.92% 47.39% 45.68% Population growth rate (%)X6 − 2.35% 4.61% 3.24% 
Proportion of primary industry (%)X7 − 6.83% 7.09% 8.17% 
Proportion of secondary industry (%)X8 − 9.19% 8.62% 9.71% 
The tertiary industry accounted for (%)X9 6.93% 8.08% 8.45% 
Grain yield (ten thousand tons)X10 − 2.73% 2.42% 2.20% 
Farmland irrigated area (ten thousand mu)X11 − 10.85% 9.10% 6.73% 
Population (ten thousand people)X12 − 5.04% 7.47% 7.20% 
Response 25.83% 26.88% 22.10% Water consumption rate X13 9.92% 10.09% 5.61% 
Domestic water consumption growth rate (%)X14 − 2.00% 2.13% 2.77% 
Grain output growth rate (%)X15 − 2.54% 1.73% 1.82% 
Growth rate of farmland irrigated area (%)X16 − 1.84% 2.04% 2.94% 
Variation of water storage capacity of large reservoirs (a hundred million m3)X17 2.69% 3.81% 2.72% 
Water consumption of ten thousand yuan output value (m3)X18 − 6.85% 7.07% 6.24% 
System of Nature 35.50% 32.85% 32.00% Subsystem of Natural Resources 34.86% 21.21% 26.91% Pressure 43.49% 45.38% 40.88% Total water consumption (a hundred million m3)X1 − 7.65% 8.05% 8.51% 
Annual runoff (a hundred million m3)X2 6.66% 6.18% 4.97% 
Groundwater exploitation (a hundred million m3)X3 − 6.56% 10.08% 10.72% 
Surface water supply (a hundred million m3)X4 10.32% 10.69% 7.21% 
Total surface water (a hundred million m3)X5 6.66% 6.18% 4.97% 
Total groundwater (a hundred million m3)X6 5.64% 4.20% 4.49% 
State 29.27% 21.55% 22.95% Variation of water storage capacity of large reservoirs (a hundred million m3)X7 3.67% 4.24% 2.92% 
Water yield modulus (ten thousand m3/km2)X8 5.87% 2.96% 5.07% 
Water production rate X9 5.24% 4.19% 5.15% 
Comparison between annual runoff and multi-year average (%)X10 7.98% 6.96% 4.85% 
Total water resources (a hundred million m3)X11 6.52% 3.20% 4.96% 
Response 27.23% 33.07% 36.17% Inter-basin water transfer (a hundred million m3)X12 0% 5.61% 10.63% 
Proportion of groundwater use (%)X13 − 6.56% 10.08% 10.72% 
Proportion of surface water use (%)X14 10.32% 10.69% 7.21% 
Growth rate of surface water supply (%)X15 6.95% 4.08% 4.03% 
Growth rate of groundwater exploitation (%)X16 − 3.41% 2.60% 3.58% 
Subsystem of Environment 33.55% 45.94% 50.01% Pressure 51.42% 44.01% 40.75% Groundwater for irrigation (a hundred million m3)X1 − 3.84% 5.39% 6.16% 
Groundwater for industrial use (a hundred million m3)X2 − 3.84% 2.40% 5.27% 
Groundwater for domestic use (a hundred million m3)X3 − 4.86% 6.56% 3.81% 
Groundwater for forestry, animal husbandry, fishery, and livestock (a hundred million m3)X4 − 7.02% 7.88% 4.70% 
Groundwater for ecological use (a hundred million m3)X5 − 1.48% 1.28% 1.39% 
Water-saving irrigation area (ten thousand mu)X6 8.61% 2.95% 5.99% 
Annual precipitation (mm)X7 3.34% 1.97% 3.97% 
Number of large livestock (ten thousand)X8 − 4.08% 4.69% 1.95% 
Number of small livestock (ten thousand)X9 − 6.54% 5.47% 3.36% 
Farmland irrigated area (ten thousand mu)X10 − 7.81% 5.43% 4.14% 
State 25.07% 27.47% 28.48% River length of Class I water quality (equivalent)(km)X11 7.28% 8.09% 0% 
River length of Class II water quality (equivalent)(km)X12 9.63% 5.63% 3.28% 
River length of Class III water quality (equivalent)(km)X13 5.18% 5.29% 8.11% 
River length of Class IV water quality (equivalent)(km)X14 − 0% 2.92% 3.14% 
River length of Class V water quality(km)X15 − 0% 3.68% 3.34% 
River length with worse water quality than Class V (equivalent) (km)X16 − 0% 0% 6.35% 
Comparison between precipitation and multi-year average(%)X17 2.98% 1.87% 4.26% 
Response 23.51% 28.51% 30.77% Inter-basin water transfer (a hundred million m3)X18 0% 3.01% 6.09% 
Proportion of groundwater used for irrigation (%)X19 − 4.15% 4.99% 4.81% 
Proportion of industrial groundwater (%)X20 − 4.16% 3.26% 5.39% 
Proportion of groundwater for domestic use (%)X21 − 5.95% 7.50% 4.75% 
Proportion of groundwater used by forest, animal husbandry, fishery, and livestock (%)X22 − 5.04% 6.13% 5.52% 
Proportion of groundwater for ecological use (%)X23 − 1.49% 1.27% 1.39% 
Growth rate of water-saving irrigation area (%)X24 2.73% 2.35% 2.81% 
Subsystem of Ecology 31.59% 32.85% 23.09% Pressure 36.04% 37.18% 36.41% Total recharge of groundwater in plain area (a hundred million m3)X1 4.62% 5.80% 5.62% 
Ecological environment water consumption (a hundred million m3)X2 8.79% 11.41% 7.23% 
Wastewater discharge (Ten thousand tons)X3 − 8.55% 5.56% 7.55% 
Industrial sewage discharge (ten thousand tons)X4 − 8.68% 9.17% 10.58% 
Domestic sewage discharge (ten thousand tons)X5 − 5.40% 5.24% 5.43% 
State 49.87% 46.36% 51.76% Annual runoff (a hundred million m3)X6 6.06% 5.97% 4.75% 
Annual precipitation (mm)X7 5.75% 3.54% 6.62% 
Proportion of river length of Class I water quality (%)X8 12.54% 15.39% 0% 
Proportion of river length of Class II water quality (%)X9 16.59% 6.90% 5.47% 
Proportion of river length of Class III water quality (%)X10 8.92% 9.11% 13.53% 
Proportion of river length of Class IV water quality (%)X11 − 0% 2.53% 5.24% 
Proportion of river length of Class V water quality (%)X12 − 0% 2.92% 5.56% 
Proportion of river length with worse water quality than Class V (%)X13 − 0% 0% 10.59% 
Response 14.09% 16.46% 11.83% Growth rate of wastewater discharge (%)X14 − 2.70% 2.68% 2.53% 
Industrial sewage discharge growth rate (%)X15 − 2.54% 4.03% 3.06% 
Growth rate of domestic wastewater discharge (%)X16 − 4.61% 6.32% 2.34% 
Environmental water consumption growth rate (%)X17 4.24% 3.42% 3.90% 
SystemsWeight
SubsystemWeight
ItemsWeight
ItemsSecurity trendWeight
Shule RiverHeihe RiverShiyang RiverShule RiverHeihe RiverShiyang RiverShule RiverHeihe RiverShiyang RiverShule RiverHeihe RiverShiyang River
System of Economy 36.49% 46.20% 32.87% – – Pressure 23.72% 23.88% 23.09% Irrigation water (a hundred million m3)X1 – 4.71% 6.04% 8.23% 
Industrial water (a hundred million m3)X2 – 3.12% 3.63% 1.63% 
Water for forestry, animal husbandry, fishery and livestock
(a hundred million m3)X3 
– 6.57% 7.30% 6.01% 
Initial storage capacity of large reservoirs (a hundred million m3)X4 5.55% 4.73% 3.68% 
Total water resources (a hundred million m3)X5 3.78% 2.18% 3.53% 
State 49.23% 52.27% 50.96% GDP (a hundred million yuan)X6 8.13% 8.18% 7.37% 
Per capita GDP (yuan)X7 8.36% 8.31% 7.44% 
Growth rate of GDP (%)X8 3.03% 2.93% 3.49% 
Growth rate of GDP per capita (%)X9 3.22% 3.15% 3.86% 
Output value of primary industry (a hundred million yuan)X10 – 3.94% 4.55% 4.60% 
Output value of secondary industry (a hundred million yuan)X11 – 5.76% 7.71% 8.12% 
Output value of tertiary industry (a hundred million yuan)X12 9.34% 9.05% 7.95% 
Industrial added value (a hundred million yuan)X13 7.45% 8.39% 8.13% 
Response 27.04% 23.86% 25.95% Inter-basin water transfer (a hundred million m3)X14 0% 3.83% 7.57% 
Water-saving irrigation area (ten thousand mu)X15 9.44% 3.76% 7.44% 
Irrigation water growth rate (%)X16 − 3.87% 1.76% 3.41% 
Industrial water consumption growth rate (%)X17 − 3.69% 4.25% 1.59% 
Growth rate of water consumption for forestry, animal husbandry, fishery, and livestock (%)X18 − 2.20% 2.58% 1.64% 
Water consumption rate X19 7.84% 7.67% 4.30% 
System of Society 28.01% 20.95% 35.12% – – Pressure 30.25% 25.73% 32.22% Wastewater discharge (ten thousand tons)X1 − 6.89% 5.17% 7.34% 
Domestic consumption (a hundred million m3)X2 − 7.33% 7.66% 7.94% 
Total water consumption (a hundred million m3)X3 − 5.61% 7.24% 7.92% 
Per capita water resources holdings (a hundred million m3)X4 5.64% 2.79% 4.40% 
Total water resources (a hundred million m3)X5 4.78% 2.87% 4.62% 
State 43.92% 47.39% 45.68% Population growth rate (%)X6 − 2.35% 4.61% 3.24% 
Proportion of primary industry (%)X7 − 6.83% 7.09% 8.17% 
Proportion of secondary industry (%)X8 − 9.19% 8.62% 9.71% 
The tertiary industry accounted for (%)X9 6.93% 8.08% 8.45% 
Grain yield (ten thousand tons)X10 − 2.73% 2.42% 2.20% 
Farmland irrigated area (ten thousand mu)X11 − 10.85% 9.10% 6.73% 
Population (ten thousand people)X12 − 5.04% 7.47% 7.20% 
Response 25.83% 26.88% 22.10% Water consumption rate X13 9.92% 10.09% 5.61% 
Domestic water consumption growth rate (%)X14 − 2.00% 2.13% 2.77% 
Grain output growth rate (%)X15 − 2.54% 1.73% 1.82% 
Growth rate of farmland irrigated area (%)X16 − 1.84% 2.04% 2.94% 
Variation of water storage capacity of large reservoirs (a hundred million m3)X17 2.69% 3.81% 2.72% 
Water consumption of ten thousand yuan output value (m3)X18 − 6.85% 7.07% 6.24% 
System of Nature 35.50% 32.85% 32.00% Subsystem of Natural Resources 34.86% 21.21% 26.91% Pressure 43.49% 45.38% 40.88% Total water consumption (a hundred million m3)X1 − 7.65% 8.05% 8.51% 
Annual runoff (a hundred million m3)X2 6.66% 6.18% 4.97% 
Groundwater exploitation (a hundred million m3)X3 − 6.56% 10.08% 10.72% 
Surface water supply (a hundred million m3)X4 10.32% 10.69% 7.21% 
Total surface water (a hundred million m3)X5 6.66% 6.18% 4.97% 
Total groundwater (a hundred million m3)X6 5.64% 4.20% 4.49% 
State 29.27% 21.55% 22.95% Variation of water storage capacity of large reservoirs (a hundred million m3)X7 3.67% 4.24% 2.92% 
Water yield modulus (ten thousand m3/km2)X8 5.87% 2.96% 5.07% 
Water production rate X9 5.24% 4.19% 5.15% 
Comparison between annual runoff and multi-year average (%)X10 7.98% 6.96% 4.85% 
Total water resources (a hundred million m3)X11 6.52% 3.20% 4.96% 
Response 27.23% 33.07% 36.17% Inter-basin water transfer (a hundred million m3)X12 0% 5.61% 10.63% 
Proportion of groundwater use (%)X13 − 6.56% 10.08% 10.72% 
Proportion of surface water use (%)X14 10.32% 10.69% 7.21% 
Growth rate of surface water supply (%)X15 6.95% 4.08% 4.03% 
Growth rate of groundwater exploitation (%)X16 − 3.41% 2.60% 3.58% 
Subsystem of Environment 33.55% 45.94% 50.01% Pressure 51.42% 44.01% 40.75% Groundwater for irrigation (a hundred million m3)X1 − 3.84% 5.39% 6.16% 
Groundwater for industrial use (a hundred million m3)X2 − 3.84% 2.40% 5.27% 
Groundwater for domestic use (a hundred million m3)X3 − 4.86% 6.56% 3.81% 
Groundwater for forestry, animal husbandry, fishery, and livestock (a hundred million m3)X4 − 7.02% 7.88% 4.70% 
Groundwater for ecological use (a hundred million m3)X5 − 1.48% 1.28% 1.39% 
Water-saving irrigation area (ten thousand mu)X6 8.61% 2.95% 5.99% 
Annual precipitation (mm)X7 3.34% 1.97% 3.97% 
Number of large livestock (ten thousand)X8 − 4.08% 4.69% 1.95% 
Number of small livestock (ten thousand)X9 − 6.54% 5.47% 3.36% 
Farmland irrigated area (ten thousand mu)X10 − 7.81% 5.43% 4.14% 
State 25.07% 27.47% 28.48% River length of Class I water quality (equivalent)(km)X11 7.28% 8.09% 0% 
River length of Class II water quality (equivalent)(km)X12 9.63% 5.63% 3.28% 
River length of Class III water quality (equivalent)(km)X13 5.18% 5.29% 8.11% 
River length of Class IV water quality (equivalent)(km)X14 − 0% 2.92% 3.14% 
River length of Class V water quality(km)X15 − 0% 3.68% 3.34% 
River length with worse water quality than Class V (equivalent) (km)X16 − 0% 0% 6.35% 
Comparison between precipitation and multi-year average(%)X17 2.98% 1.87% 4.26% 
Response 23.51% 28.51% 30.77% Inter-basin water transfer (a hundred million m3)X18 0% 3.01% 6.09% 
Proportion of groundwater used for irrigation (%)X19 − 4.15% 4.99% 4.81% 
Proportion of industrial groundwater (%)X20 − 4.16% 3.26% 5.39% 
Proportion of groundwater for domestic use (%)X21 − 5.95% 7.50% 4.75% 
Proportion of groundwater used by forest, animal husbandry, fishery, and livestock (%)X22 − 5.04% 6.13% 5.52% 
Proportion of groundwater for ecological use (%)X23 − 1.49% 1.27% 1.39% 
Growth rate of water-saving irrigation area (%)X24 2.73% 2.35% 2.81% 
Subsystem of Ecology 31.59% 32.85% 23.09% Pressure 36.04% 37.18% 36.41% Total recharge of groundwater in plain area (a hundred million m3)X1 4.62% 5.80% 5.62% 
Ecological environment water consumption (a hundred million m3)X2 8.79% 11.41% 7.23% 
Wastewater discharge (Ten thousand tons)X3 − 8.55% 5.56% 7.55% 
Industrial sewage discharge (ten thousand tons)X4 − 8.68% 9.17% 10.58% 
Domestic sewage discharge (ten thousand tons)X5 − 5.40% 5.24% 5.43% 
State 49.87% 46.36% 51.76% Annual runoff (a hundred million m3)X6 6.06% 5.97% 4.75% 
Annual precipitation (mm)X7 5.75% 3.54% 6.62% 
Proportion of river length of Class I water quality (%)X8 12.54% 15.39% 0% 
Proportion of river length of Class II water quality (%)X9 16.59% 6.90% 5.47% 
Proportion of river length of Class III water quality (%)X10 8.92% 9.11% 13.53% 
Proportion of river length of Class IV water quality (%)X11 − 0% 2.53% 5.24% 
Proportion of river length of Class V water quality (%)X12 − 0% 2.92% 5.56% 
Proportion of river length with worse water quality than Class V (%)X13 − 0% 0% 10.59% 
Response 14.09% 16.46% 11.83% Growth rate of wastewater discharge (%)X14 − 2.70% 2.68% 2.53% 
Industrial sewage discharge growth rate (%)X15 − 2.54% 4.03% 3.06% 
Growth rate of domestic wastewater discharge (%)X16 − 4.61% 6.32% 2.34% 
Environmental water consumption growth rate (%)X17 4.24% 3.42% 3.90% 
Table 3

Consistency test result

SystemsSubsystemItemsResult
Shule RiverHeihe RiverShiyang River
System of economy Subsystem of economy Pressure 3.26 × 10−7 1.06 × 10−6 2.03 × 10−6 
State 1.40 × 10−6 1.04 × 10−6 4.66 × 10−7 
Response 2.62 × 10−6 9.80 × 10−7 1.51 × 10−6 
System of society Subsystem of society Pressure 1.22 × 10−7 9.00 × 10−7 2.26 × 10−7 
State 3.81 × 10−6 1.46 × 10−6 2.21 × 10−6 
Response 2.52 × 10−6 3.32 × 10−6 4.00 × 10−7 
System of nature Subsystem of nature resources Pressure 4.60 × 10−7 1.85 × 10−6 1.56 × 10−6 
State 5.99 × 10−7 3.84 × 10−7 3.08 × 10−8 
Response 3.35 × 10−6 4.15 × 10−6 2.99 × 10−6 
Subsystem of environment Pressure 1.29 × 10−6 1.08 × 10−6 5.55 × 10−7 
State 3.32 × 10−6 1.42 × 10−6 6.79 × 10−7 
Response 5.02 × 10−7 1.24 × 10−6 5.52 × 10−7 
Subsystem of ecology Pressure 3.38 × 10−7 1.60 × 10−6 1.05 × 10−6 
State 1.22 × 10−5 1.14 × 10−5 3.07 × 10−6 
Response 5.96 × 10−8 4.22 × 10−7 3.46 × 10−8 
SystemsSubsystemItemsResult
Shule RiverHeihe RiverShiyang River
System of economy Subsystem of economy Pressure 3.26 × 10−7 1.06 × 10−6 2.03 × 10−6 
State 1.40 × 10−6 1.04 × 10−6 4.66 × 10−7 
Response 2.62 × 10−6 9.80 × 10−7 1.51 × 10−6 
System of society Subsystem of society Pressure 1.22 × 10−7 9.00 × 10−7 2.26 × 10−7 
State 3.81 × 10−6 1.46 × 10−6 2.21 × 10−6 
Response 2.52 × 10−6 3.32 × 10−6 4.00 × 10−7 
System of nature Subsystem of nature resources Pressure 4.60 × 10−7 1.85 × 10−6 1.56 × 10−6 
State 5.99 × 10−7 3.84 × 10−7 3.08 × 10−8 
Response 3.35 × 10−6 4.15 × 10−6 2.99 × 10−6 
Subsystem of environment Pressure 1.29 × 10−6 1.08 × 10−6 5.55 × 10−7 
State 3.32 × 10−6 1.42 × 10−6 6.79 × 10−7 
Response 5.02 × 10−7 1.24 × 10−6 5.52 × 10−7 
Subsystem of ecology Pressure 3.38 × 10−7 1.60 × 10−6 1.05 × 10−6 
State 1.22 × 10−5 1.14 × 10−5 3.07 × 10−6 
Response 5.96 × 10−8 4.22 × 10−7 3.46 × 10−8 

The consistency test results for each system in the three river basins are all less than 0.2. In the Shule River Basin, the original data for indicators such as the amount of inter-basin water transfer, the equivalent river length of Class IV water quality, the equivalent river length of Class V water quality, the equivalent river length of over-Class V water quality, the proportion of river length of Class IV water quality, the proportion of river length of Class V water quality, and the proportion of river length of over-Class V water quality are all equal (all being 0), so the weights of these indicators are 0. Similarly, in the Heihe River Basin, the original data for the equivalent river length of over-Class V water quality and the proportion of river length of over-Class V water quality are all equal (all being 0), and in the Shiyang River Basin, the original data for the equivalent river length of Class I water quality and the proportion of river length of Class I water quality are all equal (all being 0), hence the weights of these indicators are also 0.

Water resource security evaluation results

The water resource security evaluation scores for each basin are shown in Figure 4. For the Shule River Basin, the economic system's water resource security evaluation score shows a fluctuating upward trend overall. It first reached the ‘basic safety’ level in 2002, declined in 2003, stabilized above level III after 2004, reached the ‘relatively safe’ level in 2012, and remained in that range thereafter. The social system generally maintained a certain level of fluctuation, reaching the ‘relatively safe’ level for the first time in 2010, but fell back to the ‘basic safety’ level in 2019. The natural system of the Shule River Basin generally shows a downward trend amidst fluctuations, mostly remaining at the ‘basic safety’ level. The comprehensive score of water resource security in the Shule River Basin showed a declining trend amidst fluctuations from 1994 to 2007, a rapid increase from 2007 to 2010, and a fluctuating downward trend from 2010 to 2020. It was at the ‘unsafe’ level in 1996, 1997, 2000, and 2006–2007, but remained above the ‘basic safety’ level after 2008, reaching the ‘safe’ level in 2015 and 2016. Overall, the water resource security situation in the Shule River Basin showed an initial rise followed by a decline.
Figure 4

Water resource security status of each basin.

Figure 4

Water resource security status of each basin.

Close modal

For the Heihe River Basin, the economic system's water resource security status was at the ‘relatively unsafe’ level from 1994 to 2003, and above the ‘basic safety’ level after 2004; the evaluation score shows an overall upward trend. The social system generally maintained the ‘basic safety’ level, but fell within the ‘relatively unsafe’ range in 2000. The natural system showed an upward trend amidst fluctuations from 1994 to 2004, moving from the ‘basic safety’ level to the ‘relatively safe’ level, but showed a downward trend after 2005, gradually moving toward the ‘relatively unsafe’ and ‘unsafe’ levels. The comprehensive score of water resource security in the Heihe River Basin showed an upward trend amidst fluctuations from 1994 to 2004, a downward trend amidst fluctuations from 2004 to 2012, with a significant drop in 2012; an upward trend from 2012 to 2016, and a downward trend from 2016 to 2020. Overall, the water resource security situation in the Heihe River Basin showed an initial rise followed by a decline amidst fluctuations. It was generally at the ‘basic safety’ level from 1994 to 2002, at the ‘unsafe’ level in 2000, mostly at the ‘relatively safe’ level from 2003 to 2011, at the ‘basic safety’ level from 2012 to 2015, and at the ‘relatively safe’ level from 2016 to 2020.

For the Shiyang River Basin, the economic system was at the ‘relatively unsafe’ level from 1994 to 2003, at the ‘basic safety’ level from 2004 to 2016, and at the ‘relatively safe’ level after 2017. The social system showed a fluctuating downward trend before 2003, with water resource security moving from the ‘basic safety’ to the ‘relatively unsafe’ level; it showed a fluctuating upward trend after 2003, transitioning to the ‘basic safety’ level. The water resource security level of the natural system quickly dropped from the ‘safe’ to the ‘unsafe’ level from 1994 to 1998, and showed an upward trend from 1998, gradually rising to the ‘relatively safe’ level. The comprehensive score of water resource security in the Shiyang River Basin showed a downward trend amidst fluctuations from 1994 to 2001, an upward trend amidst fluctuations from 2001 to 2011, a sudden low in 2012 with a score of 0.32, and an upward trend amidst fluctuations from 2013 to 2020. Overall, the water resource security level in the Shiyang River Basin dropped from the ‘basic safety’ to the ‘unsafe’ level, gradually rising from 2001, and reaching the ‘safe’ level after 2017.

The comprehensive scores and fitted lines for the three basins are shown in Figure 5. The comprehensive water resource security scores of the Shule River Basin and Heihe River Basin show an initial rise followed by a decline, while the Shiyang River Basin shows an initial decline followed by a rise.
Figure 5

Comparison of comprehensive scores (a) and trend fitting (b) of water resource security status in each basin.

Figure 5

Comparison of comprehensive scores (a) and trend fitting (b) of water resource security status in each basin.

Close modal

Applicability analysis of the PSR system in the Hexi endorheic basin

The economic system shows a high correlation with indicators reflecting the current state of economic development, such as gross domestic product (GDP) and per capita GDP, and these indicators have relatively high weights. The state (S) indicator has the highest weight in all basins, which aligns with general trends. The economic system evaluation scores for all three basins exhibit a highly significant negative correlation with the primary industry output. This is because the total available water resources are limited, and agriculture consumes a large portion of these resources. Hence, a higher primary industry output indicates more developed agriculture and relatively higher water consumption, ‘squeezing’ the water available for the more productive secondary and tertiary industries. Therefore, the evaluation scores of the economic system negatively correlate with the primary industry output. At the same time, agriculture is crucial for food security and has high social importance.

In the social system, the state (S) indicator holds the highest weight across all three basins. Indicators related to agriculture generally have a higher weight within the social system indicators for each basin. The Hexi Corridor, where these basins are located, experiences low annual precipitation, making the total water resources significantly impactful on the region's water security. In the PSR system constructed in this study, indicators related to total water resources have relatively high weights, effectively reflecting the constraint of total water resources on the natural system. Across different basins and systems, there is a trend where higher weight indicators also have a higher correlation with evaluation scores, indicating that the construction of the PSR system is relatively successful. The selected indicators are reasonable, reflecting the development status and human intervention in each basin and system, thus providing insights into the development trends and issues in each basin.

Analysis of causes for changes in water resource security status

Correlation analysis and significance testing

The correlation coefficients and significance levels between the economic system evaluation scores and each indicator for each basin are shown in Table 4. Since the weight of the cross-basin water transfer volume (X14) in the Shule River Basin is 0, the correlation coefficient cannot be calculated.

Table 4

Correlation analysis and significance test results of the economic system in each basin

Shule River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.208 0.584 0.111 0.804 −0.386 0.964 0.962 −0.502 −0.4 −0.959 −0.919 0.959 0.88 
sig. 0.297 0.001 0.582 <0.001 0.047 <0.001 <0.001 0.008 0.039 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 Score         
Perason corr. 0.962 0.388 0.116 0.31 0.766         
sig. <0.001 0.045 0.564 0.116 <0.001          
Heihe River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.593 0.164 0.105 0.878 0.328 0.825 0.827 0.136 0.186 −0.841 −0.788 0.793 0.769 −0.184 
sig. 0.001 0.413 0.603 <0.001 0.095 <0.001 <0.001 0.498 0.352 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.358 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 Score         
Perason corr. 0.858 0.16 0.002 0.309 0.852         
sig. <0.001 0.426 0.994 0.117 <0.001          
Shiyang River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.873 0.321 −0.502 0.838 0.063 0.977 0.972 −0.081 −0.024 −0.962 −0.904 0.938 0.856 0.888 
sig. <0.001 0.102 0.008 <0.001 0.755 <0.001 <0.001 0.689 0.906 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 Score         
Perason corr. 0.871 0.074 0.301 −0.06 0.753         
sig. <0.001 0.714 0.126 0.767 <0.001          
Shule River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.208 0.584 0.111 0.804 −0.386 0.964 0.962 −0.502 −0.4 −0.959 −0.919 0.959 0.88 
sig. 0.297 0.001 0.582 <0.001 0.047 <0.001 <0.001 0.008 0.039 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 Score         
Perason corr. 0.962 0.388 0.116 0.31 0.766         
sig. <0.001 0.045 0.564 0.116 <0.001          
Heihe River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.593 0.164 0.105 0.878 0.328 0.825 0.827 0.136 0.186 −0.841 −0.788 0.793 0.769 −0.184 
sig. 0.001 0.413 0.603 <0.001 0.095 <0.001 <0.001 0.498 0.352 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.358 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 Score         
Perason corr. 0.858 0.16 0.002 0.309 0.852         
sig. <0.001 0.426 0.994 0.117 <0.001          
Shiyang River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.873 0.321 −0.502 0.838 0.063 0.977 0.972 −0.081 −0.024 −0.962 −0.904 0.938 0.856 0.888 
sig. <0.001 0.102 0.008 <0.001 0.755 <0.001 <0.001 0.689 0.906 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 Score         
Perason corr. 0.871 0.074 0.301 −0.06 0.753         
sig. <0.001 0.714 0.126 0.767 <0.001          

For each basin, in the Shule River Basin, GDP (X6), per capita GDP (X7), water-saving irrigation area (X15), tertiary industry output (X12), industrial added value (X13), and the initial water demand of large and medium-sized reservoirs (X4) have a highly significant positive correlation with the evaluation scores. The primary industry output (X10) and secondary industry output (X11) have a highly significant negative correlation with the evaluation scores. In the Heihe River Basin, the initial storage volume of large and medium-sized reservoirs (X4), water-saving irrigation area (X15), total water consumption rate (X19), per capita GDP (X7), and GDP (X6) have a highly significant positive correlation with the economic system evaluation scores, while the primary industry output (X10) has a highly significant negative correlation. In the Shiyang River Basin, the economic system evaluation scores have a highly significant positive correlation with GDP (X6), per capita GDP (X7), tertiary industry output (X12), cross-basin water transfer volume (X14), water-saving irrigation area (X15), industrial added value (X13), irrigation water volume (X1), and the initial water demand of large and medium-sized reservoirs (X4). They have a highly significant negative correlation with primary industry output (X10) and secondary industry output (X11).

The correlation coefficients and significance levels between the social system evaluation scores and each indicator for each basin are shown in Table 5. In the Shule River Basin, the per capita GDP growth rate (X9) has a highly significant positive correlation with the evaluation scores, while other indicators have low correlations. In the Heihe River Basin, the total water resources (X5) have a highly significant positive correlation with the social system evaluation scores. In the Shiyang River Basin, the social system evaluation scores have a highly significant positive correlation with the total wastewater discharge (X1) and three indicators: total water consumption (X3), the proportion of the tertiary industry (X9), and domestic water consumption (X2). They have a highly significant negative correlation with the actual irrigated area (X11).

Table 5

Correlation analysis and significance test results of the social system in each basin

Shule River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.514 0.571 0.21 0.122 0.223 0.123 0.273 0.269 0.648 0.239 −0.345 −0.333 0.284 0.319 
sig. 0.006 0.002 0.294 0.544 0.264 0.54 0.168 0.175 <0.001 0.229 0.078 0.09 0.151 0.105 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 Score          
Perason corr. 0.047 0.311 0.192 0.402          
sig. 0.818 0.114 0.336 0.038           
Heihe River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.404 0.522 0.446 0.489 0.62 0.352 0.576 −0.24 0.458 −0.239 −0.302 −0.399 0.594 0.075 
sig. 0.036 0.005 0.02 0.01 <0.001 0.072 0.002 0.229 0.016 0.229 0.126 0.039 0.001 0.71 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 Score          
Perason corr. −0.1 0.431 0.217 0.546          
sig. 0.62 0.025 0.278 0.003           
Shiyang River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.811 0.623 0.774 0.275 0.081 0.349 −0.087 0.104 0.634 −0.176 −0.677 0.505 0.29 0.212 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.165 0.687 0.075 0.667 0.605 <0.001 0.381 <0.001 0.007 0.143 0.288 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 Score          
Perason corr. 0.112 0.084 −0.177 0.352          
sig. 0.577 0.677 0.378 0.072           
Shule River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.514 0.571 0.21 0.122 0.223 0.123 0.273 0.269 0.648 0.239 −0.345 −0.333 0.284 0.319 
sig. 0.006 0.002 0.294 0.544 0.264 0.54 0.168 0.175 <0.001 0.229 0.078 0.09 0.151 0.105 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 Score          
Perason corr. 0.047 0.311 0.192 0.402          
sig. 0.818 0.114 0.336 0.038           
Heihe River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.404 0.522 0.446 0.489 0.62 0.352 0.576 −0.24 0.458 −0.239 −0.302 −0.399 0.594 0.075 
sig. 0.036 0.005 0.02 0.01 <0.001 0.072 0.002 0.229 0.016 0.229 0.126 0.039 0.001 0.71 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 Score          
Perason corr. −0.1 0.431 0.217 0.546          
sig. 0.62 0.025 0.278 0.003           
Shiyang River Score Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 
Perason corr. 0.811 0.623 0.774 0.275 0.081 0.349 −0.087 0.104 0.634 −0.176 −0.677 0.505 0.29 0.212 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.165 0.687 0.075 0.667 0.605 <0.001 0.381 <0.001 0.007 0.143 0.288 
Index X15 X16 X17 X18 Score          
Perason corr. 0.112 0.084 −0.177 0.352          
sig. 0.577 0.677 0.378 0.072           

The correlation coefficients and significance levels between the natural system evaluation scores and the scores of each subsystem for each basin are shown in Table 6. In the Shule River Basin, the resource subsystem evaluation scores have a highly significant positive correlation with the natural system evaluation scores, while the correlations with the environment and ecology subsystems are low and their significance levels are poor. In the Heihe River Basin, the natural system has a highly significant positive correlation with the environment subsystem and a significant positive correlation with the resource subsystem. In the Shiyang River Basin, the natural system evaluation scores have a highly significant positive correlation with both the environment and ecology subsystems and a significant positive correlation with the resource subsystem.

Table 6

Correlation analysis and significance test results of natural systems in each basin

Subsystem ofSubsystem ofSubsystem ofSystem of
Subsystemnatural resourcesenvironmentecologynature
System of nature Shule River Perason corr. 0.704 0.344 0.409 
sig. <0.001 0.079 0.034  
Heihe River Perason corr. 0.702 0.837 0.273 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 0.168  
Shiyang River Perason corr. 0.7 0.973 0.864 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 <0.001  
Subsystem ofSubsystem ofSubsystem ofSystem of
Subsystemnatural resourcesenvironmentecologynature
System of nature Shule River Perason corr. 0.704 0.344 0.409 
sig. <0.001 0.079 0.034  
Heihe River Perason corr. 0.702 0.837 0.273 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 0.168  
Shiyang River Perason corr. 0.7 0.973 0.864 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 <0.001  

The correlation coefficients and significance levels between the comprehensive water resource security scores and the evaluation scores of each system for each basin are shown in Table 7. In the Shule River Basin, the social system evaluation scores for water resources have a highly significant positive correlation with the comprehensive water resource security scores, while the economic and natural systems show a significant positive correlation. In the Heihe River Basin, the comprehensive water resource security scores have a highly significant positive correlation with the social system, a significant positive correlation with the economic system, and a low correlation with the natural system. In the Shiyang River Basin, the comprehensive scores have a highly significant positive correlation with all three systems: social, economic, and natural.

Table 7

Correlation analysis and significance test results of scoring results for water resources security in each basin

System ofSystem ofSystem ofComprehensive
Systemseconomysocietynaturescore
Comprehensive score Shule River Perason corr. 0.721 0.883 0.67 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 <0.001  
Heihe River Perason corr. 0.793 0.857 0.105 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 0.602  
Shiyang River Perason corr. 0.805 0.953 0.823 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 <0.001  
System ofSystem ofSystem ofComprehensive
Systemseconomysocietynaturescore
Comprehensive score Shule River Perason corr. 0.721 0.883 0.67 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 <0.001  
Heihe River Perason corr. 0.793 0.857 0.105 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 0.602  
Shiyang River Perason corr. 0.805 0.953 0.823 
sig. <0.001 <0.001 <0.001  

Key influencing factors of water resource security

PCA is used to identify the key indicators affecting water resource security. To achieve a minimum number of principal components with all extraction values greater than 0.8 and a cumulative contribution rate greater than 85%, 13 principal components were identified for the Shule River Basin, and 14 principal components were identified for both the Heihe River Basin and the Shiyang River Basin. The variance contribution rates of the top three principal components in the Shule River Basin are 26.56, 17.5, and 11.421%, respectively. In the Heihe River Basin, the variance contribution rates of the top three principal components are 34.32, 12.292, and 10.259%, respectively. In the Shiyang River Basin, the variance contribution rates of the top two principal components are 28.205 and 13.777%, respectively. These principal components have a large contribution to variance, and the indicators with high factor loadings are shown in Table 8.

Table 8

Factor loadings of principal components in each basin

Principal constituent1
2
3
IndexesLoadIndexesLoadIndexesLoad
Shule River Per capita GDP growth rate 0.932 Farmland irrigated area 0.877 Growth rate of domestic wastewater discharge 0.651 
River length of Class III water quality (equivalent) 0.926 Proportion of groundwater for domestic use 0.816 Industrial water consumption growth rate 0.582 
Proportion of river length of Class II water quality 0.86 Proportion of groundwater for ecological 0.793 Groundwater for ecological use 0.517 
Total recharge of groundwater in plain area 0.859 Population rate of increase 0.693 Number of small livestock 0.514 
Irrigation water growth rate 0.823 Comparison between precipitation and multi-year average 0.596 Irrigation water 0.507 
Heihe River Proportion of surface water use 0.957 Population 0.748 Comparison between precipitation and multi-year average 0.723 
Number of small livestock 0.918 Per capita water resources holdings 0.74 Industrial water 0.686 
Proportion of primary industry 0.918 Total surface water 0.6 grain yield 0.686 
River length of Class III water quality (equivalent) 0.915 Water yield modulus 0.586 Water yield modulus 0.629 
Growth rate of groundwater exploitation 0.91 Grain output growth rate 0.583 Industrial sewage discharge 0.601 
Shiyang River GDP 0.978 Water yield modulus 0.729   
Per capita GDP 0.972 Total water resources 0.729   
Irrigation water 0.943 Comparison between annual runoff and multi-year average 0.713   
Output value of tertiary industry 0.943 Annual runoff 0.7   
Inter-basin water transfer 0.918 Total surface water 0.7   
Principal constituent1
2
3
IndexesLoadIndexesLoadIndexesLoad
Shule River Per capita GDP growth rate 0.932 Farmland irrigated area 0.877 Growth rate of domestic wastewater discharge 0.651 
River length of Class III water quality (equivalent) 0.926 Proportion of groundwater for domestic use 0.816 Industrial water consumption growth rate 0.582 
Proportion of river length of Class II water quality 0.86 Proportion of groundwater for ecological 0.793 Groundwater for ecological use 0.517 
Total recharge of groundwater in plain area 0.859 Population rate of increase 0.693 Number of small livestock 0.514 
Irrigation water growth rate 0.823 Comparison between precipitation and multi-year average 0.596 Irrigation water 0.507 
Heihe River Proportion of surface water use 0.957 Population 0.748 Comparison between precipitation and multi-year average 0.723 
Number of small livestock 0.918 Per capita water resources holdings 0.74 Industrial water 0.686 
Proportion of primary industry 0.918 Total surface water 0.6 grain yield 0.686 
River length of Class III water quality (equivalent) 0.915 Water yield modulus 0.586 Water yield modulus 0.629 
Growth rate of groundwater exploitation 0.91 Grain output growth rate 0.583 Industrial sewage discharge 0.601 
Shiyang River GDP 0.978 Water yield modulus 0.729   
Per capita GDP 0.972 Total water resources 0.729   
Irrigation water 0.943 Comparison between annual runoff and multi-year average 0.713   
Output value of tertiary industry 0.943 Annual runoff 0.7   
Inter-basin water transfer 0.918 Total surface water 0.7   

The water resource security situation in the Shule River Basin is mainly affected by human activities, particularly those related to groundwater extraction. The most significant impact is from per capita GDP. The growth in per capita GDP indicates economic and social development, which inevitably leads to a shift toward a water-saving society (Li et al. 2008). Due to the shortage of water resources in the Shule River Basin, human water use has a direct and significant impact on regional water resource security. The Shule River Basin suffers from severe groundwater over-extraction, which has become a serious ecological problem in the region (Liu 2018). Groundwater, as an important strategic resource, will have a profound impact on the entire basin's water resource security.

In the Heihe River Basin, the three principal components reflect human water use, pollution discharge, and natural resource endowment. The declining trend in the water resource security evaluation scores of the natural system in the Heihe River Basin is more pronounced than in the other two basins, especially in the environmental subsystem. Therefore, the comprehensive water resource security situation in the Heihe River Basin is affected by multiple factors. The most significant indicator affecting water resource security in the Heihe River Basin is the proportion of surface water use, i.e., the ratio of surface water usage to total water usage. Due to severe groundwater over-extraction in the Heihe River Basin, which has created large-scale drawdown cones (Xu et al. 2013), controlling groundwater extraction is crucial, and this will be directly reflected in the increased proportion of surface water use.

In the Shiyang River Basin, the indicators significantly affecting regional water resource security are concentrated on available water resources and human water use. The water resource security evaluation scores of the natural system in the Shiyang River Basin have shown an upward trend in recent years, but the resource subsystem's evaluation scores have fluctuated significantly. The available water resources in the Shiyang River Basin are insufficient to support both human and ecological water needs, leading to serious environmental degradation issues due to insufficient ecological water use (Xi et al. 2021). The most significant indicators affecting water resource security in the Shiyang River Basin are GDP and per capita GDP. These indicators reflect the economic development status of the Shiyang River Basin. Similar to the Shule River Basin, economic development can drive the construction of a water-saving society, thereby positively impacting water resource security.

Countermeasures and recommendations

Based on the results of the entropy weight method and PCA, combined with the current issues of severe groundwater over-extraction leading to large-scale drawdown cones (Ma et al. 2022), poor water quality in some river sections, artificial water extraction squeezing out ecological water use, the impact of human activities and natural resource endowments on regional water resource security, and the prominent contradictions in the supply–demand relationship of water resources, the following suggestions are proposed from both supply and demand perspectives.

Supply perspective

From the supply perspective, only the Shiyang River Basin has a relatively complete inter-basin water transfer project among the three basins. It is necessary to accelerate the construction of inter-basin water transfer projects in the Shule and Heihe River Basins and to efficiently utilize existing water conservancy facilities to alleviate the current shortage of water resources and prevent engineering-related water shortages. In the Heihe and Shiyang River Basins, there are still river sections with Class IV water quality and below. It is essential to strictly control sewage discharge and intensify sewage treatment efforts. The Shule River Basin should also continue to pay attention to river water quality to prevent water quality-related shortages.

Demand perspective

From the demand perspective, it is necessary to reasonably allocate water rights among various water use units to prevent water resource wastage. In the Hexi Corridor region, where agricultural water use accounts for a large proportion, suitable crops should be selected, and research and promotion of water-saving agriculture should be vigorously carried out in the region to gradually reduce the proportion of agricultural water use, thereby allocating more water to other industries and the ecological environment.

The overall water resource utilization efficiency in the three basins is relatively low. It is necessary to comprehensively consider water use among various units and explore the establishment of a water resource recycling and comprehensive utilization system. By implementing these measures, the goal is to improve water resource utilization efficiency, ensure adequate water volume for ecological environments while supporting normal economic and social development, and promote ecological restoration. This, in turn, will further enhance the efficient use of water resources and the construction of a water-saving society, achieving a positive cycle that improves regional water resource security.

Comparison with other studies

Currently, many scholars have conducted research on water resource security. Jia et al. (2002) discussed the water resource security evaluation index system and constructed an evaluation index system for water resource social, economic, and ecological security, with selected indicators similar to those in this study, validating the rationality of the selected indicators in this study. Lu et al. (2015) evaluated the water resource security of the Poyang Lake Basin by constructing a PSR model, confirming the feasibility of this method. However, this study evaluates the security status of water resources from multiple aspects, including economic, social, and natural, with improvements based on the original method.

There have also been many studies on water resource security in the Hexi Corridor region. Gao et al. (2004) analyzed the water resource conversion and surface water consumption dynamics in the Hexi Corridor region, concluding that surface water consumption is continuously increasing and harming downstream ecology. They suggested focusing on vegetation construction in mountainous areas to improve water resource security. This study did not quantitatively analyze the water resource security development trend in the Hexi Corridor region, but the conclusions are consistent with the results of this study, which found that human activities are squeezing out ecological water use, leading to a decline in water resource security. Zhao et al. (2008) analyzed the water resource allocation pattern in the Shiyang River Basin, suggesting that rational water resource allocation is needed to ensure downstream ecology, consistent with this study's recommendation to improve the security status of water resources in the natural system. However, their study did not quantitatively analyze the correlation between regional water resource security status and human water use activities.

Overall, existing studies on water resource security in the Hexi region have provided some reference suggestions for improving water resource security and offered a basis for this study. However, most of them have not quantitatively assessed the security of water resources in economic, social, and natural aspects, making it difficult to intuitively reflect the overall development trend of water resource security and the positive or negative driving forces of human activities on water resource security. The suggestions proposed are often limited to specific aspects or links of water resource security. This study addresses these limitations by quantifying the water resource security status in each basin using the PSR system and the entropy weight method. The inherent characteristics of the PSR system allow for mutual verification and supplementation with existing studies. By aligning the comparative analysis with the objectives stated in the introduction, this study enhances water resource management and improves adaptability to future climate changes. This alignment creates a cohesive narrative that emphasizes the comprehensive approach and the added value of this research in understanding and managing water resource security in the context of economic, social, and natural factors.

This study theoretically introduces the PSR model to systematically assess water resource security in the Hexi Corridor region of China, addressing gaps in existing research and providing methodological insights. In practical application, the study offers comprehensive evaluations and targeted recommendations for water resource security across different basins in the Hexi Corridor, aiding local governments in rational planning and utilization of water resources, reducing groundwater extraction, protecting the ecological environment, and promoting sustainable economic development. In terms of policy-making, the research results provide scientific evidence for the government to formulate precise water resource management policies, particularly in the areas of water resource allocation, pollution control, and conservation, thereby balancing economic development with ecological protection.

The comprehensive water resource security scores in the Shule River Basin and the Heihe River Basin showed a trend of first rising and then declining, while the Shiyang River Basin exhibited a trend of first declining and then rising. The Hexi Corridor region has limited water resources, with surface water resources unable to meet the demands of both human and ecological water needs. Consequently, all three basins experience severe groundwater over-extraction, leading to significant groundwater over-extraction, large drawdown cones, and ecological degradation.

Overall, the evaluation scores of each system in the three basins of the Hexi Corridor region are not high, mostly falling within the ‘relatively safe’ and ‘basically safe’ levels. Additionally, the entire Hexi Corridor region is constrained by resource-based water scarcity, with agriculture being the largest water-consuming industry. Therefore, it is necessary to accelerate the construction of a water-saving society by introducing and developing low-water-consuming industries, controlling high-water-consuming industries, promoting the recycling of water resources, and improving water resource utilization efficiency.

Agriculture is an important industry in the Hexi Corridor region, and it is crucial to develop water-saving agriculture to ensure food production while gradually reducing agricultural water consumption. By developing the economy, the whole society can be steered toward becoming a water-saving society. Meanwhile, the Shule River Basin and the Heihe River Basin can expedite the construction of inter-basin water transfer projects to alleviate water stress, ultimately aiming to improve the water resource security situation.

The study faces several limitations, primarily related to data availability and quality, which can affect the accuracy of the findings. The temporal scope may not fully capture long-term trends, particularly in the context of climate change. Additionally, the regional focus on the Hexi Corridor limits the generalizability of the results to other areas. Lastly, the study's emphasis on quantitative measures might overlook the crucial roles of policy and governance in water resource management. Future research should aim to enhance data collection with advanced technologies like RS and GIS. Long-term studies are needed to better understand trends over extended periods. Comparative analyses with other regions can provide broader insights. Incorporating qualitative assessments of policy and governance can offer a more comprehensive view. Additionally, investigating climate change impacts and developing adaptive strategies will be essential for sustainable water resource management.

This work was supported by the ‘Light of the West’ Cross-team Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [grant numbers: xbzg-zdsys-202103], the University Student Innovation and Practice Training Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Project Name: Research on Hydrological Ecological Processes in Inland [grant numbers: 20234000534], the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant numbers: 52379031], the Gansu Provincial Science and Technology Planning Project [grant numbers: 23ZDFA018].

H. X. wrote the original draft, visualized and supervised the process, developed the methodology, investigated and conceptualized the article. Y. Ji. wrote the original draft, visualized the process, developed the methodology, and investigated the article. W. C. wrote the review and edited the article. Y. C. developed the methodology.

All relevant data are available from https://pan.baidu.com/s/1SajRxmncLQ0JZRvv6rXcmQ?pwd=nx9q.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

American Meteorological Society (AMS)
(
2016
)
Climate Change and River Water Volume
.
Chen
L.
&
Qu
Y.
(
1988
)
Rational development and utilization of water and soil resources in the Hexi region
,
Acta Geographica Sinica
,
43
, (
01
),
11
18
.
China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research
(
2019
)
Northwest Inland River Areas Water Cycle Study
.
Available at: https://www.iwhr.com
.
China News Network
(
2023
)
Tarim River Basin Water Resources Study
.
Gansu Province Water Network Construction Plan
(
2024
)
Gansu Province Water Network Construction Plan
.
Gao
S.
&
Huang
X.
(
2010
)
Evaluation of China's ecological construction effectiveness based on the PSR framework from 1953 to 2008
,
Journal of Natural Resources
,
25
(
02
),
341
350
.
Gao
Q.
,
Li
X.
,
Wu
Y.
&
Hu
X.
(
2004
)
Analysis of water resources conversion in inland river basins of the hexi corridor
,
Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology
,
26
(
01
),
48
54
.
Global Water Partnership (GWP)
(
2000
)
Integrated Water Resources Management
.
Available at: https://www.gwp.org.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions (HESSD)
(
2020
)
Environmental Changes in China's Largest Inland River Basin
.
Available at: https://www.hessd.net.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
(
2021
)
Climate Change and Water Security
.
Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch.
International Water Resources Association (IWRA)
(
2023
)
World Water Congress
.
Ji
Z.
,
Sun
D.
,
Niu
Z.
,
Wang
X.
,
Wu
L.
,
Ma
Y.
,
Chen
C.
&
Cui
Y.
(
2023
)
Study on precipitation variation characteristics in the Shule River Basin
,
Arid Zone Research
,
40
(
10
),
1583
1594
.
https://doi.org/10.13866/j.azr.2023.10.05
.
Jia
S.
,
Zhang
J.
&
Zhang
S.
(
2002
)
Regional water resources pressure index and water resources security evaluation index system
,
Progress in Geography
,
21
(
06
),
538
545
.
Jin
R.
&
Wang
X.
(
2007
)
Research on countermeasures for sustainable agricultural development in the hexi corridor
,
Journal of Huaihai Institute of Technology (Social Science Edition
,
5
(
04
),
54
56
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
(
2021
)
New Era Water Security Strategy
.
Available at: https://www.jhe.org.cn.
Lehmann
E. L.
(
1958
)
Significance level and power
,
The Annals of Mathematical Statistics
,
29
(
4
),
1167
1176
.
Li
S.
,
Cheng
J.
&
Wu
Q.
(
2008
)
Analysis of regional differences in water resource utilization efficiency in China
.
China Population, Resources and Environment
,
18
(
03
),
215
220
.
Liu
J.
(
2018
)
Strict water resources management in the Shule River irrigation area promotes the construction of water ecological civilization
,
Agricultural Science & Technology and Information
,
2018
(
01
),
47
49
.
https://doi.org/10.15979/j.cnki.cn62-1057/s.2018.01.023
.
Liu
W.
(
2023
)
Study on key ecological problems and management in the hexi corridor
,
Gansu Theory Journal
, (
05
),
107
117
.
Y.
,
Zhang
B.
,
Liu
F.
&
Zhang
Z.
(
2008
)
Game analysis of water use and water resources utilization in the middle reaches of the Heihe River
,
Arid Zone Research
,
25
(
06
),
818
823
.
https://doi.org/10.13866/j.azr.2008.06.014
.
Lu
J.
,
Cui
X.
&
Chen
X.
(
2015
)
Evaluation of water resource security in the Poyang Lake Basin based on a comprehensive index method
,
Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin
,
24
(
02
),
212
218
.
Ma
B.
,
Wang
X.
,
Tang
C.
,
Liu
E.
&
Li
L.
(
2022
)
Analysis of the characteristics of groundwater resource development and utilization in Gansu Province
,
Groundwater
,
44
(
03
),
65
67
+ 266. https://doi.org/10.19807/j.cnki.DXS.2022-03-021
.
Mai
S.
,
Xu
S.
&
Pan
Y.
(
2005
)
Application of PSR model in wetland ecosystem health assessment
,
Tropical Geography
,
25
(
04
),
317
321
.
MDPI
(
2020
)
Shule River Basin Water Resource Vulnerability Study
.
Available at: https://www.mdpi.com.
Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security
(
2024
)
National Water Resources Security Strategy
.
Ministry of Water Resources of the People's Republic of China
(
2020a
)
World Bank Water Resources Management Projects
.
Ministry of Water Resources
.
Ministry of Water Resources of the People's Republic of China
(
2020b
)
National Comprehensive Water Resources Plan
.
Ministry of Water Resources
.
Available at: https://www.mwr.gov.cn.
Ministry of Water Resources of the People's Republic of China
(
2020c
)
National Water Resources Survey and Assessment
.
Ministry of Water Resources
.
Available at: https://www.mwr.gov.cn.
National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)
(
2024
)
14th Five-Year Plan for Water Security
.
Nature
(
2020
)
Water Pollution and Ecosystem Impact
.
Available at: https://www.nature.com.
PubMed
(
2023
)
Mercury Pollution in Inland River Basins
.
Available at: https://www.pubmed.gov.
Qing
M.
,
Zhao
J.
,
Feng
C.
,
Huang
Z.
,
Wen
Y.
&
Zhang
W.
(
2022
)
Response of ecosystem carbon storage service to land use changes in the Shiyang River Basin from 1980 to 2030
,
Acta Ecologica Sinica
,
42
(
23
),
9525
9536
.
Shu
J.
,
Wang
J.
,
Zheng
B.
,
Gao
J.
&
Zhang
L.
(
1998
)
Status and governance suggestions of ecological environment deterioration in the Heihe River Basin
,
Research of Environmental Sciences
,
11
(
04
),
57
59
+ 63. https://doi.org/10.13198/j.res.1998.04.57.shujm.015
.
South-to-North Water Diversion Project
(
2023
)
South-to-North Water Diversion Project
.
Sun
F.
&
Zhao
C.
(
2018
)
Evaluation of sustainable water resources utilization based on entropy weight method: A case study of Yanbian Korean autonomous prefecture
,
Journal of Yanbian University (Agricultural Sciences
,
40
(
04
),
26
31
.
https://doi.org/10.13478/j.cnki.jasyu.2018.04.005
.
The State Council
(
2023
)
National Water Network Construction Outline
.
Available at: https://www.gov.cn.
Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP)
(
2016
)
UNEP. Available at: https://www.unep.org.
UNESCO WWAP
(
2020
)
World Water Development Report
.
UNESCO
.
United Nations
(
2015
)
International Decade for Action: Water for Life 2005–2015
.
United Nations
.
Wang
G.
,
Cheng
G.
&
Shen
Y.
(
2002
)
Characteristics of ecological environment changes and comprehensive control countermeasures in the hexi corridor over the past 50 years
,
Journal of Natural Resources
,
17
(
01
),
78
86
.
Wolfslehner
B.
,
Vacik
H.
(
2008
)
Evaluating sustainable forest management strategies with the Analytic Network Process in a Pressure-State-Response framework
,
Journal of Environmental Management
,
88
(
1
),
1
10
.
Xi
H.
,
Chen
K.
,
Yu
T.
&
Cheng
W.
(
2021
)
Utilization of newly transferred water resources in the first phase of the western route of the south-to-north water diversion project
,
Journal of Desert Research
,
41
(
04
),
158
166
.
Xu
Y.
,
Guan
D.
,
Wang
C.
&
Wen
F.
(
2013
)
Constraints and optimization paths of water resources utilization in Gansu Province
,
Environmental Protection
,
41
(
18
),
72
73
.
https://doi.org/10.14026/j.cnki.0253-9705.2013.18.002
.
Yang
J
,
Zhou
D.
,
Ma
J.
,
Zhu
X.
,
Jin
Y.
,
Zhou
F.
&
Zhang
J.
(
2023
)
Spatiotemporal matching characteristics of agricultural water and soil resources in the Shule River Basin
,
Arid Land Geography
,
46
(
06
),
982
992
.
Yu
X.
&
Fu
D.
(
2004
)
A review of comprehensive evaluation methods with multiple indicators
,
Statistics & Decision
,
2004
(
11
),
119
121
.
Zhang
X.
,
Wang
C.
,
Li
E.
&
Xu
C.
(
2014
)
Assessment model of eco-environmental vulnerability based on improved entropy weight method
,
The Scientific World Journal
,
2014
,
797814
.
Zhang
J.
,
Li
Y.
,
Zhao
W.
&
Shi
X.
(
2015
)
Tracking analysis of ecological pattern changes in the Hexi Corridor
,
Water Resources Protection
,
31
(
03
),
5
10
.
Zhao
X.
,
Shi
M.
&
Ma
G.
(
2008
)
Initial water rights and adjustment of the interest pattern in water resources allocation in inland river basins: Taking the Shiyang River Basin as an example
,
Resources Science
,
30
(
08
),
1147
1154
.
Zhao
W.
,
Ren
H.
,
Du
J.
,
Yang
R.
,
Yang
Q.
&
Liu
H.
(
2023
)
Thoughts and suggestions on oasis ecological construction and agricultural development in the Hexi Corridor
,
Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
,
38
(
03
),
424
434
.
https://doi.org/10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.20220406001
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).