Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2022, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (6): 1116-1127.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.06.016
• Land Resource and Land Use • Previous Articles Next Articles
YANG Fengyanzi1,2(), HU Weiyan1,*(
)
Received:
2020-12-28
Accepted:
2021-08-30
Online:
2022-11-30
Published:
2022-10-12
Contact:
HU Weiyan
About author:
YANG Fengyanzi, E-mail: 479508644@qq.com
Supported by:
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.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.06.016
Function type | Evaluation index | Property | Calculation method** | Weights | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
City | County | Township | ||||
F1: Production function | F11: Grain yield (t) | + | | 0.0769 | 0.1028 | 0.1102 |
F12: Vegetable yield (t) | + | | 0.1308 | 0.1388 | 0.2296 | |
F13: Fruit yield(t) | + | | 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) | - | | 0.0278 | 0.0331 | 0.0109 |
F22: Carbon fixation and oxygen release (t ha-1) | + | CO2 Absorption + O2 Release | 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 |
Table 1 Evaluation system of multifunctional cultivated land in the Wuhan Metropolitan Area
Function type | Evaluation index | Property | Calculation method** | Weights | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
City | County | Township | ||||
F1: Production function | F11: Grain yield (t) | + | | 0.0769 | 0.1028 | 0.1102 |
F12: Vegetable yield (t) | + | | 0.1308 | 0.1388 | 0.2296 | |
F13: Fruit yield(t) | + | | 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) | - | | 0.0278 | 0.0331 | 0.0109 |
F22: Carbon fixation and oxygen release (t ha-1) | + | CO2 Absorption + O2 Release | 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 ( | Vector |
Population data | Resource and Environment Science and Data Center ( | Raster |
Socioeconomic statistics | Hubei Provincial Bureau of Statistics ( | Spreadsheet |
Agricultural production data | Hubei Provincial Bureau of Statistics ( | Spreadsheet |
Table 2 Data sources and descriptions
Type | Source | Format |
---|---|---|
Land use/cover | Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning of Hubei Province | Vector |
Administrative division data | NGCC ( | Vector |
Population data | Resource and Environment Science and Data Center ( | Raster |
Socioeconomic statistics | Hubei Provincial Bureau of Statistics ( | Spreadsheet |
Agricultural production data | Hubei Provincial Bureau of Statistics ( | Spreadsheet |
Fig. 3 Multiscale spatial distribution patterns of the single functions of cultivated land in Wuhan Metropolitan Area Note: From column 1 to column 4, a-d, is used to represent the production function, ecological function, social function and landscape function of cultivated land, respectively; while line 1 to line 3 uses 1-3 to represent city scale, county scale and township scale, respectively.
Fig. 4 Multiscale spatial distribution pattern of multifunctional cultivated land in Wuhan Metropolitan Area Note: a-c is the multifunctional degree of cultivated land measured by the weighted comprehensive index method at the city scale, county scale and township scale; d-f is the multifunctional degree of cultivated land measured by Simpson's reciprocal index method at the city scale, county scale and township scale.
Fig. 5 Scale effect of trade-offs and synergies of multifunctional cultivated land in Wuhan Metropolitan Area Note: a, b, and c represent the city scale, county scale, and township scale, respectively; *, and ** indicate a significance level of 0.05, and 0.01, respectively.
[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) |
No related articles found! |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||