The Evolution of Land Spatial Pattern in Chengdu during the Period of Rapid Urbanization from the Perspective of Land Function

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2023.02.019

Abstract

Abstract:

Chengdu has experienced a rapid urbanization in the past two decades, and its land spatial pattern has undergone severe changes. It’s meaningful to investigate the tempo-spatial evolution of land spatial pattern and then contribute to high-quality development in Chengdu. Based on the Landsat-series satellite imagery and land use/cover datasets, this paper investigates Chengdu’s land function change concerning Production, Living and Ecological (PLE) land. The methods of land dynamics degree, landscape pattern index and Pearson correlation were be employed to analyzes the tempo-spatial evolution of landscape pattern in Chengdu, and some suggestions were finally made. We found that there were severe dynamic degree of PLE land in Chengdu and the production and ecological land were decrease obviously before 2015. Contrastingly, the dynamic degree is decrease after 2015, high dynamic degree regions are move to the northeast from 2000-2019. In addition, the change of production land is the main factor affecting the landscape pattern of Chengdu. In general, we put forward the macroscopic strategy and suggestions of “one core, two belts, four regions, and one direction” to support the high-quality development of Chengdu.

Key words: production, living and ecological land, tempo-spatial pattern, land use/cover change, rapid urbanization, Chengdu

HOU Langong, LIU Tao, HE Xiaoqin. The Evolution of Land Spatial Pattern in Chengdu during the Period of Rapid Urbanization from the Perspective of Land Function[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2023, 14(2): 410-422.

Figures/Tables 15

References 24

[1]	Chen F H, Fu B G, Xia J, et al. 2019a. Major advances in studies of the physical geography and living environment of China during the past 70 years and future prospects. Science China ( Earth Sciences), 62(11): 1665-1701.
[2]	Chen M X, Liang L W, Wang Z B, et al. 2019b. Geographical thinking on the relationship between beautiful China and land spatial planning. Acta Geographica Sinica, 74(12): 2467-2481. (in Chinese)
[3]	Chen X, Yu L, Du Z, et al. 2022. Toward sustainable land use in China: A perspective on China’s national land surveys. Land Use Policy, 123, 106428. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106428.
[4]	Fu J, Bu Z, Jiang D, et al. 2022. Sustainable land use diagnosis based on the perspective of production-living-ecological spaces in China. Land Use Policy. 122:106386. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106386.
[5]	Hou Q, Du Y, Dong W, et al. 2021. Smart city oriented ecological corridor layout of Sanshui River Basin in arid area of Loess Plateau. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 44: 100993. DOI: 10.1016/j.set a.2021.100993.
[6]	Jiang X, Zhai S, Liu H, et al, 2022. Multi-scenario simulation of production-living-ecological space and ecological effects based on shared socioeconomic pathways in Zhengzhou, China. Ecological Indicators, 137, 108750. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108750.
[7]	Kates R W, Clark W C, Corell R, et al. 2001. Environment and development-Sustainability science. Science, 292: 641-642.
[8]	Li X, Fang B, Yin R M, et al. 2020. Spatial pattern and association of Production-Living-Ecological function and life quality on the village scale: A case of Yangzhong City, Jiangsu Province. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 40(4): 599-607. (in Chinese)
[9]	Li X Y, Yang Y, Liu Y. 2018. The evolution process and its mechanism of man-land relationship in China. Geographical Research, 37(8): 1495-1514. (in Chinese)
[10]	Lin G, Jiang D, Fu J, et al. 2022. A review on the overall optimization of production-living-ecological space: Theoretical basis and conceptual framework. Land, 11(3): 345. DOI: 10.3390/land11030345.
[11]	Liu T, Hou L G. 2021. Evolution and Driving Forces of Spatial Pattern of Chengdu Plain from 2000 to 2018: Based on Multifunctional Perspective of “Production-Living-Ecological” Space. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 34(9): 2004-2013. (in Chinese)
[12]	Liu T, Yu L, Chen X, et al. 2023. Environmental laws and ecological restoration projects enhancing ecosystem services in China: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 327, 116810. DOI: 10.1016/j.j envman.2022.116810.
[13]	Liu Y S, Long H L, Chen Y F, et al. 2016. Research progress and prospects of China’s urban-rural transformation and rural development in the past decade. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 26(8): 1117-1132.
[14]	Peng W, Wang G, Zhou J, et al. 2015. Studies on the temporal and spatial variations of urban expansion in Chengdu, western China, from 1978 to 2010. Sustainable Cities and Society. 17: 141-150.
[15]	Peter S A, Henrik V, Tommy D, et al. 2013. An indicator-based method for quantifying farm multifunctionality. Ecological Indicators, 25: 166-179.
[16]	Priemus H. 2004. From a layers approach towards a network approach: A Dutch contributions to spatial. Planning, Practice & Research, 19(3): 267-283.
[17]	Qin L, Wen P Y, Ming G M, et al. 2019. Analysis of the spatial and temporal evolution of land cover and heat island effects in six districts of Chongqing’s main city. Sensors, 19(23): 5239. DOI: 10.3390/s19235239.
[18]	Sun P L, Xu Y Q, Liu Q G, et al. 2017. Spatiotemporal differentiation and driving factors of multi-functionality of land use in county scale in poverty belt around Beijing and Tianjin. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 33(15): 283-292. (in Chinese)
[19]	Sun T, Feng Z M, Yang Y Z, et al. 2018. Research on land resource carrying capacity: Progress and prospects. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 9(4): 331-340.
[20]	Wang P, Yang R Z, Liu W, et al. 2011. Reservoir characteristics and favorable area prediction of Devonian Kizirtag Formation in Bashituo Area, Tarim Basin. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 29(5): 575-596.
[21]	Wang Q N, M’Ikiugu M, Kinoshita I. 2014. A GIS-based approach in support of spatial planning for renewable energy: A case study of Fukushima, Japan. Sustainability, 6(4): 2087-2117.
[22]	Yu Q N, Peng Y, Liu Z, et al. 2020a. Survey of ecotourism landscape resources and shrub landscape resources in western Sichuan mountains. Journal of Landscape Research, 12(5): 26-33.
[23]	Yu Z, Xu E, Zhang H, et al. 2020b. Spatio-temporal coordination and conflict of production-living-ecology land functions in the beijing-tianjin-hebei region, china. Land. 9(5): 170. DOI: 10.3390/land9050170.
[24]	Zhang H, Sun X, Zhang Y, et al. 2016. Ascertaining the comprehensive carrying capacity of island land. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 24(1): 151-166.

Land type	First land use classification	Secondary land use classification
Production land	Urban and rural, industrial and mining, residential land	Other construction land
	Arable land	Paddy field, dry land
	Woodland	Other woodland
Living land	Urban and rural, industrial and mining, residential land	Rural settlement
Living land	Urban and rural, industrial and mining, residential land	Urban land
Ecological land	Woodland	There are woodland, shrubland, sparse woodland
	Grassland I	Medium coverage grassland, low coverage grassland
	Waters I	Permanent glaciers, snowfields, beaches, beaches
	Unused land	Sandy land, Gobi, saline-alkali land, marshland, bare land, bare rock texture, etc.
	Grassland II	High coverage grassland
	Waters II	Canals, lakes, reservoirs and ponds

Land type	First land use classification	Secondary land use classification
Production land	Urban and rural, industrial and mining, residential land	Other construction land
	Arable land	Paddy field, dry land
	Woodland	Other woodland
Living land	Urban and rural, industrial and mining, residential land	Rural settlement
Living land	Urban and rural, industrial and mining, residential land	Urban land
Ecological land	Woodland	There are woodland, shrubland, sparse woodland
	Grassland I	Medium coverage grassland, low coverage grassland
	Waters I	Permanent glaciers, snowfields, beaches, beaches
	Unused land	Sandy land, Gobi, saline-alkali land, marshland, bare land, bare rock texture, etc.
	Grassland II	High coverage grassland
	Waters II	Canals, lakes, reservoirs and ponds

Landscape pattern index	Formula	Explanation	Ecological significance
PD (Patch density)	$PD=\frac{N}{A}$	N is the number of landscape plate ; A is the total landscape area	It is an important indicator to describe the fragmentation of the landscape. The larger PD, the higher the degree of fragmentation
CONTAG (contagion index)	$CONTAG=\left[ 1+\frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\left[ {{P}_{i}}\times \left( \frac{{{g}_{ik}}}{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{{{g}_{ik}}}} \right) \right]\left[ \ln {{p}_{i}}\times \left( \frac{{{g}_{ik}}}{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{{{g}_{ik}}}} \right) \right]}}}{2\ln m} \right]\times 100$	P_i is the percentage of the area occupied by i lands; g_ik is the number of adjacent patches of i land and k land; m is the total number of patch in the landscape	It can describe the degree of reunion or spreading trend of the landscape pattern. The larger CONTAG indicating that there have well connections in dominant landscape patch
LSI (Landscape shape index)	$LSI=\frac{0.25E}{\sqrt{A}}$	E is the total length of boundaries in landscape, A is the total area of the landscape	The index that reflects the shape of the landscape. The smaller LSI indicates that the plate shape tends to be regular
AI (Aggregation index)	$AI=\frac{{{\text{g}}_{ii}}}{\max {{g}_{ii}}}\times 100$	g_ii is the number of similar adjacent patches	The higher AI indicates that the better the agglomeration between the plates
SHDI (Shannon Diversity Index)	$SHDI=-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{({{P}_{i}}\ln ({{P}_{i}}))}$	P_i is the proportion of landscape patch type i area	The higher SHDI and the higher the degree of fragmentation and the heterogeneity of the landscape
SHEI (Shannons Evenness Index)	$SHEI=\frac{-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{({{P}_{i}}\ln ({{P}_{i}}))}}{\ln m}$	P_i is the proportion of landscape patch type i area; m is the number of landscape types	The higher SHEI indicating that each land type is equally distributed in the landscape and there is no obvious dominant landscape type

Landscape pattern index	Formula	Explanation	Ecological significance
PD (Patch density)	$PD=\frac{N}{A}$	N is the number of landscape plate ; A is the total landscape area	It is an important indicator to describe the fragmentation of the landscape. The larger PD, the higher the degree of fragmentation
CONTAG (contagion index)	$CONTAG=\left[ 1+\frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\left[ {{P}_{i}}\times \left( \frac{{{g}_{ik}}}{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{{{g}_{ik}}}} \right) \right]\left[ \ln {{p}_{i}}\times \left( \frac{{{g}_{ik}}}{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{{{g}_{ik}}}} \right) \right]}}}{2\ln m} \right]\times 100$	P_i is the percentage of the area occupied by i lands; g_ik is the number of adjacent patches of i land and k land; m is the total number of patch in the landscape	It can describe the degree of reunion or spreading trend of the landscape pattern. The larger CONTAG indicating that there have well connections in dominant landscape patch
LSI (Landscape shape index)	$LSI=\frac{0.25E}{\sqrt{A}}$	E is the total length of boundaries in landscape, A is the total area of the landscape	The index that reflects the shape of the landscape. The smaller LSI indicates that the plate shape tends to be regular
AI (Aggregation index)	$AI=\frac{{{\text{g}}_{ii}}}{\max {{g}_{ii}}}\times 100$	g_ii is the number of similar adjacent patches	The higher AI indicates that the better the agglomeration between the plates
SHDI (Shannon Diversity Index)	$SHDI=-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{({{P}_{i}}\ln ({{P}_{i}}))}$	P_i is the proportion of landscape patch type i area	The higher SHDI and the higher the degree of fragmentation and the heterogeneity of the landscape
SHEI (Shannons Evenness Index)	$SHEI=\frac{-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{({{P}_{i}}\ln ({{P}_{i}}))}}{\ln m}$	P_i is the proportion of landscape patch type i area; m is the number of landscape types	The higher SHEI indicating that each land type is equally distributed in the landscape and there is no obvious dominant landscape type

Land type	2000		2005		2010		2015		2019
Land type	Area (ha)	Proportion (%)	Area (ha)	Proportion (%)	Area (ha)	Proportion (%)	Area (ha)	Proportion (%)	Area (ha)	Proportion (%)
Production land	926256	64.62	900245.3	62.80	868985	60.62	867169.8	60.50	844280.8	59.90
Living land	107934.2	7.53	137330.4	9.58	169009.1	11.79	171700.6	11.98	184024.7	12.84
Ecology land	399198.9	27.85	395935.9	27.62	395501.4	27.59	394551.8	27.53	395117.4	27.56