Exploring the Scale Effects of Trade-offs and Synergies of Multifunctional Cultivated Land—Evidence from Wuhan Metropolitan Area

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.06.016

Abstract

Abstract:

The purpose of this paper is to explore the trade-offs and synergies of multifunctional cultivated land (MCL) at multiple scales. The study area is Wuhan Metropolitan Area, China. The entropy method and the method of Spearman's rank correlation were employed for the analysis of combined land use/cover data, administrative division data, population data and statistical yearbook data, from the multi-scale perspectives of cities, counties and townships. The results showed that: (1) The multi-functionality of cultivated land had obvious spatial differences and its overall spatial patterns were relatively robust, which did not change very much at the single scale. (2) At each single scale, the MCL's trade-offs and synergies had spatial heterogeneity. (3) Scale effects existed in the MCL's trade-offs and synergies. From the prefecture-level city scale, to the county scale, and to the township scale, the MCL's trade-offs were changed to synergies, and some synergic relationships were enhanced. This article contributes to the literature by deepening the multiscale analysis of trade-offs and synergies of multifunctional cultivated land. The conclusions might provide a basis for helping policy-makers to implement protection measures for the multi-functionality of cultivated land at the right spatial scale, and to promote the higher-level synergies of multifunctional cultivated land to realize its sustainable use.

Key words: sustainable cultivated land use, multifunctional cultivated land, trade-offs and synergies, scale effects, Wuhan Metropolitan Area

YANG Fengyanzi, HU Weiyan. Exploring the Scale Effects of Trade-offs and Synergies of Multifunctional Cultivated Land—Evidence from Wuhan Metropolitan Area[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022, 13(6): 1116-1127.

Figures/Tables 7

References 35

[1]	Brandão M, Clift R, Canals L M I, et al. 2010. A life-cycle approach to characterising environmental and economic impacts of multifunctional land-use systems: An integrated assessment in the UK. Sustainability, 2(12): 3747-3776. DOI URL
[2]	Cao Y, Cao Y, Li G Y, et al. 2020. Linking ecosystem services trade-offs, bundles and hotspot identification with cropland management in the coastal Hangzhou Bay area of China. Land Use Policy, 97: 104689. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104689. DOI URL
[3]	Chan K M A, Shaw M R, Cameron D R, et al. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. Plos Biology, 4(11): 2138-2152.
[4]	Deng X Z, Li Z H, Gibson J. 2016. A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 26(7): 953-968. DOI
[5]	Dong P, Zhao H. 2019. Study on trade-off and synergy relationship of cultivated land multifunction: A case of Qingpu District, Shanghai. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 28(2): 368-375. (in Chinese)
[6]	Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, et al. 2008. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 127(1-2): 135-140. DOI URL
[7]	Fan Y, Jin X, Xiang X, et al. 2018. Evaluation and spatial characteristics of arable land multifunction in southern Jiangsu. Resources Science, 40(5): 980-992. (in Chinese) DOI
[8]	Fleskens L, Duarte F, Eicher I. 2009. A conceptual framework for the assessment of multiple functions of agro-ecosystems: A case study of Tras-os-Montes olive groves. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(1): 141-155. DOI URL
[9]	Gong J, Liu D, Zhang J, et al. 2019. Tradeoffs/synergies of multiple ecosystem services based on land use simulation in a mountain-basin area, western China. Ecological Indicators, 99: 283-293. DOI
[10]	Huang J, Tichit M, Poulot M, et al. 2015. Comparative review of multifunctionality and ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture. Journal of Environmental Management, 149: 138-147. DOI PMID
[11]	Jiang G, Zhang F, Kong X, et al. 2011. The different levels and protection of multi-functions of cultivated land. China Land Science, 25(8): 42-47. (in Chinese)
[12]	Lee C, Liao L, Chen Y, et al. 2009. Farmland functions and use types option under multifunctional agricultural regime. Journal of Taiwan Land Research, 12: 135-162.
[13]	Liu T. 2013. Study on the social security function of cultivated land. Diss., Changsha, China: Hunan Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[14]	Liu T, Hu W, Wei A, et al. 2018. Multiscale study of location selection of prime farmland in the Wuhan Metropolitan Area. Resources Science, 40(7): 1365-1374. (in Chinese)
[15]	Liu Y, Bi J, Lv J S, et al. 2017. Spatial multi-scale relationships of ecosystem services: A case study using a geostatistical methodology. Scientific Reports, 7(1): 9486. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09863-1. DOI PMID
[16]	Liu Y S, Li Y H. 2017. Revitalize the world's countryside. Nature, 548(7667): 275-277. DOI URL
[17]	OECD. 2001. Multifunctionality: Towards an analytical framework. Paris, France: OECD Publications.
[18]	Pearson W R, Lipman D J. 1988. Improved tools for biological sequence comparison. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 85(8): 2444-2448. DOI URL
[19]	Peng J, Liu Z, Liu Y, et al. 2016. Assessment of farmland landscape multifunctionality at county level in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei area. Acta Ecologica Science, 36(8): 2274-2285. (in Chinese)
[20]	Plieninger T, Bieling C, Ohnesorge B, et al. 2013. Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecology and Society, 18(3): 261-272.
[21]	Qi X, Zhang Z, Huang X. 2018. The contradiction of cultivated land protection in the New Era and its innovative countermeasures. China Land Science, 32(8): 9-15. (in Chinese)
[22]	Qian F, Zhang L, Jia L, et al. 2016. Site condition assessment during prime farmland demarcating. Journal of Natural Resources, 31(3): 447-456. (in Chinese)
[23]	Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson G D. 2016. Scale and ecosystem services: How do observation, management, and analysis shift with scale-lessons from Québec. Ecology and Society, 21(3): 16. DOI: 10.5751/ES-08605-210316. DOI
[24]	Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson G D, Bennett E M. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107(11): 5242-5247. DOI URL
[25]	Rodriguez J P, Beard T D, Bennett E M, et al. 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 11(1): 709-723.
[26]	Song X, Ouyang Z. 2012. Connotation of multifunctional cultivated land and its implications for cultivated land protection. Progress in Geography, 31(7): 859-868. (in Chinese) DOI
[27]	Spearman C. 2010. The proof and measurement of association between two things. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39(5): 1137-1150. DOI PMID
[28]	Stürck J, Verburg P H. 2017. Multifunctionality at what scale? A landscape multifunctionality assessment for the European Union under conditions of land use change. Landscape Ecology, 32(3): 481-500. DOI URL
[29]	Swallow B M, Sang J K, Nyabenge M, et al. 2009. Tradeoffs, synergies and traps among ecosystem services in the Lake Victoria basin of East Africa. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(4): 504-519. DOI URL
[30]	Wang S, Huang X, Chen Z, et al. 2008. Study on compensation standard of land expropriation based on value of cultivated land. China Land Science, 22(11): 44-50. (in Chinese)
[31]	Wiggering H, Dalchow C, Glemnitz M, et al. 2006. Indicators for multifunctional land use-Linking socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials. Ecological Indicators, 6(1): 238-249. DOI URL
[32]	Wu J S, Feng Z, Gao Y, et al. 2013. Hotspot and relationship identification in multiple landscape services: A case study on an area with intensive human activities. Ecological Indicators, 29: 529-537. DOI URL
[33]	Xie G D, Zhen L, Zhang C X, et al. 2010. Assessing the multifunctionalities of land use in China. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 1(4): 311-318.
[34]	Zhang L, Chen F. 2014. Analysis and forecast on prospect about influence of urbanization gradual progress on cultivated land in China based on Logistic model. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 30(4): 1-11. (in Chinese)
[35]	Zhu Q, Hu W, Zhao Z. 2018. Dynamic analysis on spatial-temporal pattern of trade-offs and synergies of multifunctional cultivated land evidence from Hubei Province. Economic Geography, 38(7): 143-153. (in Chinese)

Function type	Evaluation index	Property	Calculation method^**	Weights
Function type	Evaluation index	Property	Calculation method^**	City	County	Township
F1: Production function	F11: Grain yield (t)	+	${{y}_{1ij}}={{Y}_{1i}}\times \frac{{{A}_{ij}}}{{{S}_{i}}}$.	0.0769	0.1028	0.1102
	F12: Vegetable yield (t)	+	${{y}_{2ij}}={{Y}_{2i}}\times \frac{{{A}_{ij}}}{{{S}_{i}}}$.	0.1308	0.1388	0.2296
	F13: Fruit yield(t)	+	${{y}_{3ij}}={{Y}_{3i}}\times \frac{{{A}_{ij}}}{{{S}_{i}}}$.	0.1399	0.1347	0.2423
	F14: Land reclamation rate (%)	+	Cultivated land area / total land area	0.0504	0.0611	0.0592
F2: Ecological function	F21: Fertilizer application rate (t)	-	${{y}_{4ij}}={{Y}_{4i}}\times \frac{{{A}_{ij}}}{{{S}_{i}}}$.	0.0278	0.0331	0.0109
	F22: Carbon fixation and oxygen release (t ha^-1)	+	CO₂ Absorption + O₂Release	0.0786	0.1030	0.1107
	F23: Habitat fragmentation (/)	-	(Area fragmentation index + distribution fragmentation index)/2	0.0379	0.0436	0.0326
	F24: Per capita ecological carrying capacity of cultivated land (/)^*	+	Per capita cropland resource endowment × cropland yield factor × cropland equilibrium factor	0.0441	0.0438
F3: Social function	F31: Food self-sufficiency ratio (%)	+	Food output/ (resident population × 400 kg)	0.0434	0.0610	0.0772
	F32: Per capita cultivated land area (m² person^-1)	+	Cultivated land area / resident population	0.0470	0.0391	0.0567
	F33: Proportion of agricultural output value (%)^*	+	Agricultural output value/GDP	0.0878	0.0782
	F34: Proportion of employed population in primary industry^* (%)	+	Number of employees in primary industry / total number of employees	0.0547
F4: Landscape function	F41: Aggregation index (/)	+	Fragstats 4.2 (AI）	0.0415	0.0396	0.0233
	F42: Shannon's diversity index (/)	+	Fragstats 4.2 (SHDI)	0.0527	0.0372	0.0161
	F43: Contagion index (/)	+	Fragstats 4.2 (CONTAG)	0.0318	0.0393	0.0164
	F44: Perimeter area fractal dimension (/)	-	Fragstats 4.2 (PAFRAC）	0.0548	0.0446	0.0148

Function type	Evaluation index	Property	Calculation method^**	Weights
Function type	Evaluation index	Property	Calculation method^**	City	County	Township
F1: Production function	F11: Grain yield (t)	+	${{y}_{1ij}}={{Y}_{1i}}\times \frac{{{A}_{ij}}}{{{S}_{i}}}$.	0.0769	0.1028	0.1102
	F12: Vegetable yield (t)	+	${{y}_{2ij}}={{Y}_{2i}}\times \frac{{{A}_{ij}}}{{{S}_{i}}}$.	0.1308	0.1388	0.2296
	F13: Fruit yield(t)	+	${{y}_{3ij}}={{Y}_{3i}}\times \frac{{{A}_{ij}}}{{{S}_{i}}}$.	0.1399	0.1347	0.2423
	F14: Land reclamation rate (%)	+	Cultivated land area / total land area	0.0504	0.0611	0.0592
F2: Ecological function	F21: Fertilizer application rate (t)	-	${{y}_{4ij}}={{Y}_{4i}}\times \frac{{{A}_{ij}}}{{{S}_{i}}}$.	0.0278	0.0331	0.0109
	F22: Carbon fixation and oxygen release (t ha^-1)	+	CO₂ Absorption + O₂Release	0.0786	0.1030	0.1107
	F23: Habitat fragmentation (/)	-	(Area fragmentation index + distribution fragmentation index)/2	0.0379	0.0436	0.0326
	F24: Per capita ecological carrying capacity of cultivated land (/)^*	+	Per capita cropland resource endowment × cropland yield factor × cropland equilibrium factor	0.0441	0.0438
F3: Social function	F31: Food self-sufficiency ratio (%)	+	Food output/ (resident population × 400 kg)	0.0434	0.0610	0.0772
	F32: Per capita cultivated land area (m² person^-1)	+	Cultivated land area / resident population	0.0470	0.0391	0.0567
	F33: Proportion of agricultural output value (%)^*	+	Agricultural output value/GDP	0.0878	0.0782
	F34: Proportion of employed population in primary industry^* (%)	+	Number of employees in primary industry / total number of employees	0.0547
F4: Landscape function	F41: Aggregation index (/)	+	Fragstats 4.2 (AI）	0.0415	0.0396	0.0233
	F42: Shannon's diversity index (/)	+	Fragstats 4.2 (SHDI)	0.0527	0.0372	0.0161
	F43: Contagion index (/)	+	Fragstats 4.2 (CONTAG)	0.0318	0.0393	0.0164
	F44: Perimeter area fractal dimension (/)	-	Fragstats 4.2 (PAFRAC）	0.0548	0.0446	0.0148

Type	Source	Format
Land use/cover	Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning of Hubei Province	Vector
Administrative division data	NGCC (http://www.ngcc.cn/ngcc/)	Vector
Population data	Resource and Environment Science and Data Center (http://www.resdc.cn/)	Raster
Socioeconomic statistics	Hubei Provincial Bureau of Statistics (http://tjj.hubei.gov.cn/)	Spreadsheet
Agricultural production data	Hubei Provincial Bureau of Statistics (http://tjj.hubei.gov.cn/)	Spreadsheet

Type	Source	Format
Land use/cover	Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning of Hubei Province	Vector
Administrative division data	NGCC (http://www.ngcc.cn/ngcc/)	Vector
Population data	Resource and Environment Science and Data Center (http://www.resdc.cn/)	Raster
Socioeconomic statistics	Hubei Provincial Bureau of Statistics (http://tjj.hubei.gov.cn/)	Spreadsheet
Agricultural production data	Hubei Provincial Bureau of Statistics (http://tjj.hubei.gov.cn/)	Spreadsheet