Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2021, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (2): 175-191.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.02.005
• Land Use Change and Land Multifunction Tradeoffs • Previous Articles Next Articles
ZHOU Ting1, QI Jialing1, XU Zhihan2, ZHOU De1,*(
)
Received:2020-09-24
Accepted:2020-11-30
Online:2021-03-30
Published:2021-05-30
Contact:
ZHOU De
Supported by:ZHOU Ting, QI Jialing, XU Zhihan, ZHOU De. Damage or Recovery? Assessing Ecological Land Change and Its Driving Factors: A Case of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(2): 175-191.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.02.005
Fig. 1 The technical flowchart of this study
Fig. 2 Geographical location of the YREB
| Types | Connotation | Literatures |
|---|---|---|
| Type 1 | Ecological land is defined as the space of ecological elements | Dong et al., 1999 |
| Ecological land is one of the key resources and conditions for the survival of humans, and the total amount of the environment required or occupied by a species in a stable state | Xie et al., 2013; Zhu et al., 2015; Li et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020 | |
| Ecological land’s main function is to provide ecological products and ecological services. It plays an important role in regulating, maintaining and ensuring regional ecological security | Deng et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2015; Hu et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2017; Peng et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2020 ; Li et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020 | |
| Ecological land includes green ecological land (grassland and unused land) and water ecological land | Chen et al., 2015 | |
| Type 2 | Ecological land includes unproductive forest land, grassland, water and unused land. Production- ecological land includes cultivated land, garden land, productive forest land, grassland and water. Living-ecological land includes parks and green space, and land for scenic spots | Dang et al., 2014 |
| Ecological land is relatively less used by humans. Ecological-production land has the dual functions of ecology and agricultural production, but the ecological function is stronger than the production function; while production-ecological land is mainly aimed at obtaining agricultural products, so the production function is stronger than ecological function | Zhang et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2017 | |
| Ecological land includes complete ecological land, semi-ecological land, weak ecological land and non-ecological land | Liu et al., 2017a; Lin and Feng, 2018; Zou et al., 2018 |
Table 1 Connotation of ecological land
| Types | Connotation | Literatures |
|---|---|---|
| Type 1 | Ecological land is defined as the space of ecological elements | Dong et al., 1999 |
| Ecological land is one of the key resources and conditions for the survival of humans, and the total amount of the environment required or occupied by a species in a stable state | Xie et al., 2013; Zhu et al., 2015; Li et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020 | |
| Ecological land’s main function is to provide ecological products and ecological services. It plays an important role in regulating, maintaining and ensuring regional ecological security | Deng et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2015; Hu et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2017; Peng et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2020 ; Li et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020 | |
| Ecological land includes green ecological land (grassland and unused land) and water ecological land | Chen et al., 2015 | |
| Type 2 | Ecological land includes unproductive forest land, grassland, water and unused land. Production- ecological land includes cultivated land, garden land, productive forest land, grassland and water. Living-ecological land includes parks and green space, and land for scenic spots | Dang et al., 2014 |
| Ecological land is relatively less used by humans. Ecological-production land has the dual functions of ecology and agricultural production, but the ecological function is stronger than the production function; while production-ecological land is mainly aimed at obtaining agricultural products, so the production function is stronger than ecological function | Zhang et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2017 | |
| Ecological land includes complete ecological land, semi-ecological land, weak ecological land and non-ecological land | Liu et al., 2017a; Lin and Feng, 2018; Zou et al., 2018 |
| Levels | Transformation | Land use changes |
|---|---|---|
| Severe damage | Complete ecological land→Non-ecological land | Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land→Construction land |
| Slight damage | Complete ecological land→Semi-ecological land | Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land→Arable land |
| Semi-ecological land→Non-ecological land | Arable land→Construction land | |
| Unchanged | Complete ecological land→Complete ecological land | Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land→Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land |
| Semi-ecological land→Semi-ecological land | Arable land→Arable land | |
| Slight recovery | Non-ecological land→Semi-ecological land | Construction land→Arable land |
| Semi-ecological land→Complete ecological land | Arable land→Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land | |
| Obvious recovery | Non-ecological land→Complete ecological land | Construction land→Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land |
Table 2 Types of ecological land change
| Levels | Transformation | Land use changes |
|---|---|---|
| Severe damage | Complete ecological land→Non-ecological land | Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land→Construction land |
| Slight damage | Complete ecological land→Semi-ecological land | Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land→Arable land |
| Semi-ecological land→Non-ecological land | Arable land→Construction land | |
| Unchanged | Complete ecological land→Complete ecological land | Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land→Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land |
| Semi-ecological land→Semi-ecological land | Arable land→Arable land | |
| Slight recovery | Non-ecological land→Semi-ecological land | Construction land→Arable land |
| Semi-ecological land→Complete ecological land | Arable land→Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land | |
| Obvious recovery | Non-ecological land→Complete ecological land | Construction land→Woodland, grassland, water, and other ecological land |
| Classes | First-level indicators | Basic-level indicators | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural factors (A) | Topography | A1 | Elevation (m) | Xie, 2011; Wang, 2012; Zhou, 2019 |
| A2 | Slope (°) | Xie, 2011; Peng et al., 2017; Zhou, 2019 | ||
| Climate | A3 | Annual average precipitation (mm) | Long, 2015; Zhou, 2019 | |
| A4 | Annual average temperature (℃) | Long, 2015; Zhou, 2019 | ||
| Social factors (B) | Urbanization level | B1 | Proportion of non-agricultural population to total population (%) | Zhang et al., 2007; Xie, 2011; Wang, 2012; Long, 2015; Wang, 2018 |
| Population | B2 | Population density (person km-2) | Xie, 2011; Wang, 2012; Long, 2015; Tang et al., 2016; Wang and Chen, 2016; Wang, 2018 | |
| Development scale | B3 | Proportion of construction land to the total land area (%) | Zhang et al., 2007; Tang et al., 2016 | |
| Infrastructure | B4 | Urban road density (m2 person-1) | Zhang et al., 2007; Wang, 2018 | |
| Savings level (Social Stability Index) | B5 | Year-end balance of savings of urban and rural residents (104 yuan) | Sun, 2005; Zhang and Wang, 2017 | |
| Economic factors (C) | Economic development level | C1 | GDP (104 yuan) | Xie, 2011; Wang, 2012; Cui, 2015; Long, 2015; Zhang and Wang, 2017; Wang, 2018 |
| C2 | Total investment in fixed assets (104 yuan) | Zhang et al., 2007; Cui, 2015 | ||
| Consumption level | C3 | Total retail sales of social consumer goods (104 yuan) | Cui, 2015; Yu, 2016 | |
| Industrial structure | C4 | Proportion of the secondary industry in the regional GDP (%) | Wang, 2012; Wang and Chen, 2016; Zhang and Wang, 2017; Wang, 2018 | |
| C5 | Proportion of the tertiary industry in the regional GDP (%) | Wang, 2012; Wang and Chen, 2016; Zhang and Wang, 2017; Wang, 2018 | ||
Table 3 Index system for the driving factors of ecological land change
| Classes | First-level indicators | Basic-level indicators | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural factors (A) | Topography | A1 | Elevation (m) | Xie, 2011; Wang, 2012; Zhou, 2019 |
| A2 | Slope (°) | Xie, 2011; Peng et al., 2017; Zhou, 2019 | ||
| Climate | A3 | Annual average precipitation (mm) | Long, 2015; Zhou, 2019 | |
| A4 | Annual average temperature (℃) | Long, 2015; Zhou, 2019 | ||
| Social factors (B) | Urbanization level | B1 | Proportion of non-agricultural population to total population (%) | Zhang et al., 2007; Xie, 2011; Wang, 2012; Long, 2015; Wang, 2018 |
| Population | B2 | Population density (person km-2) | Xie, 2011; Wang, 2012; Long, 2015; Tang et al., 2016; Wang and Chen, 2016; Wang, 2018 | |
| Development scale | B3 | Proportion of construction land to the total land area (%) | Zhang et al., 2007; Tang et al., 2016 | |
| Infrastructure | B4 | Urban road density (m2 person-1) | Zhang et al., 2007; Wang, 2018 | |
| Savings level (Social Stability Index) | B5 | Year-end balance of savings of urban and rural residents (104 yuan) | Sun, 2005; Zhang and Wang, 2017 | |
| Economic factors (C) | Economic development level | C1 | GDP (104 yuan) | Xie, 2011; Wang, 2012; Cui, 2015; Long, 2015; Zhang and Wang, 2017; Wang, 2018 |
| C2 | Total investment in fixed assets (104 yuan) | Zhang et al., 2007; Cui, 2015 | ||
| Consumption level | C3 | Total retail sales of social consumer goods (104 yuan) | Cui, 2015; Yu, 2016 | |
| Industrial structure | C4 | Proportion of the secondary industry in the regional GDP (%) | Wang, 2012; Wang and Chen, 2016; Zhang and Wang, 2017; Wang, 2018 | |
| C5 | Proportion of the tertiary industry in the regional GDP (%) | Wang, 2012; Wang and Chen, 2016; Zhang and Wang, 2017; Wang, 2018 | ||
| Description | Interaction |
|---|---|
| q(X1∩X2) < min(q(X1), q(X2)) | Weaken, nonlinear |
| min(q(X1), q(X2)) < q(X1∩X2) <max (q(X1), q(X2)) | Weaken, univariate |
| q(X1∩X2) > max(q(X1), q(X2)) | Enhance, bivariate |
| q(X1∩X2) = q(X1) + q(X2) | Independent |
| q(X1∩X2) > q(X1) + q(X2) | Enhance, nonlinear |
Table 4 Types of interactions between two covariates
| Description | Interaction |
|---|---|
| q(X1∩X2) < min(q(X1), q(X2)) | Weaken, nonlinear |
| min(q(X1), q(X2)) < q(X1∩X2) <max (q(X1), q(X2)) | Weaken, univariate |
| q(X1∩X2) > max(q(X1), q(X2)) | Enhance, bivariate |
| q(X1∩X2) = q(X1) + q(X2) | Independent |
| q(X1∩X2) > q(X1) + q(X2) | Enhance, nonlinear |
Fig. 3 Changes of ecological lands in the YREB from 1995 to 2015
Fig. 4 Spatial pattern of ecological lands in the YREB from 1995 to 2015
| Stages | Severe damage | Slight damage | Unchanged | Slight recovery | Obvious recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995‒2015 | 9053 | 161490 | 1713018 | 148307 | 3513 |
| 1995‒2000 | 3805 | 149134 | 1731878 | 146935 | 3511 |
| 2000‒2005 | 881 | 6525 | 2138318 | 3400 | 65 |
| 2005‒2010 | 677 | 4119 | 2043259 | 1289 | 26 |
| 2010‒2015 | 3433 | 8474 | 2035341 | 2006 | 220 |
Table 5 Areas of ecological land changes in the YREB (km2)
| Stages | Severe damage | Slight damage | Unchanged | Slight recovery | Obvious recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995‒2015 | 9053 | 161490 | 1713018 | 148307 | 3513 |
| 1995‒2000 | 3805 | 149134 | 1731878 | 146935 | 3511 |
| 2000‒2005 | 881 | 6525 | 2138318 | 3400 | 65 |
| 2005‒2010 | 677 | 4119 | 2043259 | 1289 | 26 |
| 2010‒2015 | 3433 | 8474 | 2035341 | 2006 | 220 |
| Regions | Severe damage | Slight damage | Unchanged | Slight recovery | Obvious recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upstream | 2477 | 87028 | 942775 | 84836 | 943 |
| Midstream | 3303 | 35974 | 480717 | 33635 | 1142 |
| Downstream | 3253 | 38475 | 259397 | 29839 | 1428 |
Table 6 Areas of ecological land changes in different regions in the YREB from 1995 to 2015 (km2)
| Regions | Severe damage | Slight damage | Unchanged | Slight recovery | Obvious recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upstream | 2477 | 87028 | 942775 | 84836 | 943 |
| Midstream | 3303 | 35974 | 480717 | 33635 | 1142 |
| Downstream | 3253 | 38475 | 259397 | 29839 | 1428 |
Fig. 5 Spatial distribution of types of ecological land damage in the YREB from 1995 to 2015 Note: (a), (b), (c) and (d) mainly show severe damage, slight damage, slight recovery and obvious recovery, respectively.
| Land types | Semi-ecological land | Complete ecological land | Non-ecological land | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 1995 | Arable land | Woodland | Grassland | Water | Other ecological land | Construction land |
| Arable land | - | 98872 | 27475 | 9664 | 312 | 29177 |
| Woodland | 95973 | - | 57989 | 3973 | 780 | 5790 |
| Grassland | 28806 | 55389 | - | 1587 | 671 | 1507 |
| Water | 7308 | 3242 | 1032 | - | 414 | 1737 |
| Other ecological land | 226 | 565 | 707 | 672 | - | 19 |
| Construction land | 11984 | 2103 | 532 | 853 | 25 | - |
Table 7 The area transition matrix of ecological land in the YREB from 1995 to 2015 (km2)
| Land types | Semi-ecological land | Complete ecological land | Non-ecological land | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 1995 | Arable land | Woodland | Grassland | Water | Other ecological land | Construction land |
| Arable land | - | 98872 | 27475 | 9664 | 312 | 29177 |
| Woodland | 95973 | - | 57989 | 3973 | 780 | 5790 |
| Grassland | 28806 | 55389 | - | 1587 | 671 | 1507 |
| Water | 7308 | 3242 | 1032 | - | 414 | 1737 |
| Other ecological land | 226 | 565 | 707 | 672 | - | 19 |
| Construction land | 11984 | 2103 | 532 | 853 | 25 | - |
Fig. 6 Spatial characteristics of ecological land change for 130 cities from 1995 to 2015 Note: Red, green, and white indicate the percentages of the damaged area, the recovered area, and the unchanged area of a land type in the total administrative area, respectively.
| Classes | First-level indicators | Basic-level indicators | Rank | q value | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural factors (A) | Topography | A1 | Elevation | 14 | 0.0568 | 0.2379 |
| A2 | Slope | 11 | 0.1338 | 0.0176* | ||
| Climate | A3 | Annual average precipitation | 8 | 0.1598 | 0.0031** | |
| A4 | Annual average temperature | 7 | 0.1599 | 0.0046** | ||
| Social factors (B) | Urbanization level | B1 | Proportion of non-agricultural population to total population | 5 | 0.1650 | 0.0024** |
| Population | B2 | Population density | 13 | 0.1302 | 0.0109* | |
| Development scale | B3 | Proportion of construction land to the total area of the city | 6 | 0.1635 | 0.0110* | |
| Infrastructure | B4 | Urban road density | 10 | 0.1572 | 0.0057** | |
| Savings level (Social Stability Index) | B5 | Year-end balance of savings of urban and rural residents | 1 | 0.2700 | 0.0470* | |
| Economic factors (C) | The level of economic development | C1 | GDP | 12 | 0.1316 | 0.0550 |
| C2 | Total investment in fixed assets | 2 | 0.2078 | 0.1998 | ||
| Consumption level | C3 | Total retail sales of social consumer goods | 9 | 0.1582 | 0.0594 | |
| Industrial structure | C4 | Proportion of the secondary industry in the regional GDP | 4 | 0.1754 | 0.0025** | |
| C5 | Proportion of the tertiary industry in the regional GDP | 3 | 0.1826 | 0.0021** | ||
Table 8 Results of the factor detector
| Classes | First-level indicators | Basic-level indicators | Rank | q value | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural factors (A) | Topography | A1 | Elevation | 14 | 0.0568 | 0.2379 |
| A2 | Slope | 11 | 0.1338 | 0.0176* | ||
| Climate | A3 | Annual average precipitation | 8 | 0.1598 | 0.0031** | |
| A4 | Annual average temperature | 7 | 0.1599 | 0.0046** | ||
| Social factors (B) | Urbanization level | B1 | Proportion of non-agricultural population to total population | 5 | 0.1650 | 0.0024** |
| Population | B2 | Population density | 13 | 0.1302 | 0.0109* | |
| Development scale | B3 | Proportion of construction land to the total area of the city | 6 | 0.1635 | 0.0110* | |
| Infrastructure | B4 | Urban road density | 10 | 0.1572 | 0.0057** | |
| Savings level (Social Stability Index) | B5 | Year-end balance of savings of urban and rural residents | 1 | 0.2700 | 0.0470* | |
| Economic factors (C) | The level of economic development | C1 | GDP | 12 | 0.1316 | 0.0550 |
| C2 | Total investment in fixed assets | 2 | 0.2078 | 0.1998 | ||
| Consumption level | C3 | Total retail sales of social consumer goods | 9 | 0.1582 | 0.0594 | |
| Industrial structure | C4 | Proportion of the secondary industry in the regional GDP | 4 | 0.1754 | 0.0025** | |
| C5 | Proportion of the tertiary industry in the regional GDP | 3 | 0.1826 | 0.0021** | ||
| Basic-level indicators | Arable land | Woodland | Grassland | Water | Other ecological land |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elevation (A1) | 0.0675 | 0.0088 | 0.0243 | 0.0754 | 0.0176 |
| Slope (A2) | 0.1326 | 0.0611 | 0.0383 | 0.0436 | 0.0229 |
| Annual average precipitation (A3) | 0.2396*** | 0.0213 | 0.0068 | 0.0128 | 0.0189 |
| Annual average temperature (A4) | 0.1696* | 0.0089 | 0.0259 | 0.0085 | 0.0099 |
| Proportion of non-agricultural population to total population (B1) | 0.2700*** | 0.0132 | 0.0092 | 0.0537 | 0.01095 |
| Population density (B2) | 0.2838* | 0.0007 | 0.0140 | 0.0408 | 0.0072 |
| Proportion of construction land to the total area of the city (B3) | 0.1116* | 0.0377 | 0.0307 | 0.0414 | 0.0176 |
| Urban road density (B4) | 0.1821** | 0.0268 | 0.0011 | 0.0152 | 0.0236 |
| Year-end balance of savings of urban and rural residents (B5) | 0.0597 | 0.0518 | 0.0712 | 0.0924 | 0.0074 |
| GDP (C1) | 0.0667 | 0.0640 | 0.0876 | 0.0661 | 0.0071 |
| Total investment in fixed assets (C2) | 0.0719 | 0.0070 | 0.0318 | 0.0299 | 0.0196 |
| Total retail sales of social consumer goods (C3) | 0.0569 | 0.0687 | 0.0517 | 0.0646 | 0.0107 |
| Proportion of the secondary industry in the regional GDP (C4) | 0.2355*** | 0.0499 | 0.0032 | 0.0660 | 0.0424 |
| Proportion of the tertiary industry in the regional GDP (C5) | 0.2106*** | 0.0232 | 0.0113 | 0.0508 | 0.0221 |
Table 9 Factor detector results of the five land type
| Basic-level indicators | Arable land | Woodland | Grassland | Water | Other ecological land |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elevation (A1) | 0.0675 | 0.0088 | 0.0243 | 0.0754 | 0.0176 |
| Slope (A2) | 0.1326 | 0.0611 | 0.0383 | 0.0436 | 0.0229 |
| Annual average precipitation (A3) | 0.2396*** | 0.0213 | 0.0068 | 0.0128 | 0.0189 |
| Annual average temperature (A4) | 0.1696* | 0.0089 | 0.0259 | 0.0085 | 0.0099 |
| Proportion of non-agricultural population to total population (B1) | 0.2700*** | 0.0132 | 0.0092 | 0.0537 | 0.01095 |
| Population density (B2) | 0.2838* | 0.0007 | 0.0140 | 0.0408 | 0.0072 |
| Proportion of construction land to the total area of the city (B3) | 0.1116* | 0.0377 | 0.0307 | 0.0414 | 0.0176 |
| Urban road density (B4) | 0.1821** | 0.0268 | 0.0011 | 0.0152 | 0.0236 |
| Year-end balance of savings of urban and rural residents (B5) | 0.0597 | 0.0518 | 0.0712 | 0.0924 | 0.0074 |
| GDP (C1) | 0.0667 | 0.0640 | 0.0876 | 0.0661 | 0.0071 |
| Total investment in fixed assets (C2) | 0.0719 | 0.0070 | 0.0318 | 0.0299 | 0.0196 |
| Total retail sales of social consumer goods (C3) | 0.0569 | 0.0687 | 0.0517 | 0.0646 | 0.0107 |
| Proportion of the secondary industry in the regional GDP (C4) | 0.2355*** | 0.0499 | 0.0032 | 0.0660 | 0.0424 |
| Proportion of the tertiary industry in the regional GDP (C5) | 0.2106*** | 0.0232 | 0.0113 | 0.0508 | 0.0221 |
Fig. 7 The risk detector of the driving factors for the ecological land change Note: The X-axis is the subregion of driving factors; the Y-axis is the area of ecological land change (km2). A1-Elevation, A2-Slope, A3-Annual average precipitation, A4-Annual average temperature, B1-Proportion of non-agricultural population to total population, B2-Population density, B3-Proportion of construction land to the total area of the city, B4-Urban road density, B5-Year-end balance of savings of urban and rural residents, C1-GDP, C2-Total investment in fixed assets, C3-Total retail sales of social consumer goods, C4-Proportion of the secondary industry in the regional GDP, C5-Proportion of the tertiary industry in the regional GDP.
| Indicators | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 0.057 | |||||||||||||
| A2 | 0.368 | 0.134 | ||||||||||||
| A3 | 0.424 | 0.178 | 0.160 | |||||||||||
| A4 | 0.413 | 0.186 | 0.179 | 0.160 | ||||||||||
| B1 | 0.408 | 0.180 | 0.176 | 0.179 | 0.165 | |||||||||
| B2 | 0.263 | 0.149 | 0.173 | 0.173 | 0.175 | 0.130 | ||||||||
| B3 | 0.482 | 0.189 | 0.176 | 0.178 | 0.176 | 0.175 | 0.163 | |||||||
| B4 | 0.392 | 0.169 | 0.196 | 0.204 | 0.191 | 0.169 | 0.214 | 0.157 | ||||||
| B5 | 0.441 | 0.302 | 0.291 | 0.300 | 0.293 | 0.286 | 0.301 | 0.326 | 0.270 | |||||
| C1 | 0.384 | 0.160 | 0.174 | 0.185 | 0.178 | 0.152 | 0.195 | 0.185 | 0.295 | 0.132 | ||||
| C2 | 0.377 | 0.232 | 0.239 | 0.258 | 0.251 | 0.224 | 0.247 | 0.241 | 0.286 | 0.249 | 0.208 | |||
| C3 | 0.477 | 0.196 | 0.174 | 0.179 | 0.178 | 0.173 | 0.176 | 0.204 | 0.290 | 0.229 | 0.266 | 0.158 | ||
| C4 | 0.464 | 0.215 | 0.192 | 0.186 | 0.188 | 0.185 | 0.188 | 0.242 | 0.308 | 0.220 | 0.282 | 0.194 | 0.175 | |
| C5 | 0.477 | 0.239 | 0.197 | 0.193 | 0.194 | 0.192 | 0.201 | 0.273 | 0.311 | 0.229 | 0.289 | 0.201 | 0.194 | 0.183 |
Table 10 The explanatory power between any two driving factors
| Indicators | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 0.057 | |||||||||||||
| A2 | 0.368 | 0.134 | ||||||||||||
| A3 | 0.424 | 0.178 | 0.160 | |||||||||||
| A4 | 0.413 | 0.186 | 0.179 | 0.160 | ||||||||||
| B1 | 0.408 | 0.180 | 0.176 | 0.179 | 0.165 | |||||||||
| B2 | 0.263 | 0.149 | 0.173 | 0.173 | 0.175 | 0.130 | ||||||||
| B3 | 0.482 | 0.189 | 0.176 | 0.178 | 0.176 | 0.175 | 0.163 | |||||||
| B4 | 0.392 | 0.169 | 0.196 | 0.204 | 0.191 | 0.169 | 0.214 | 0.157 | ||||||
| B5 | 0.441 | 0.302 | 0.291 | 0.300 | 0.293 | 0.286 | 0.301 | 0.326 | 0.270 | |||||
| C1 | 0.384 | 0.160 | 0.174 | 0.185 | 0.178 | 0.152 | 0.195 | 0.185 | 0.295 | 0.132 | ||||
| C2 | 0.377 | 0.232 | 0.239 | 0.258 | 0.251 | 0.224 | 0.247 | 0.241 | 0.286 | 0.249 | 0.208 | |||
| C3 | 0.477 | 0.196 | 0.174 | 0.179 | 0.178 | 0.173 | 0.176 | 0.204 | 0.290 | 0.229 | 0.266 | 0.158 | ||
| C4 | 0.464 | 0.215 | 0.192 | 0.186 | 0.188 | 0.185 | 0.188 | 0.242 | 0.308 | 0.220 | 0.282 | 0.194 | 0.175 | |
| C5 | 0.477 | 0.239 | 0.197 | 0.193 | 0.194 | 0.192 | 0.201 | 0.273 | 0.311 | 0.229 | 0.289 | 0.201 | 0.194 | 0.183 |
| Indicators | Min | Max | Mean | Q1 | Median | Q3 | STD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elevation (A1) | ‒0.07 | ‒0.04 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.06 | ‒0.06 | ‒0.05 | 0.01 |
| Slope (A2) | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.01 |
| Annual average precipitation (A3) | ‒0.05 | 0.04 | ‒0.01 | ‒0.04 | ‒0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| Annual average temperature (A4) | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.02 |
| Proportion of non-agricultural population to total population (B1) | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
| Population density (B2) | ‒0.10 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.07 | ‒0.09 | ‒0.08 | ‒0.06 | 0.01 |
| Proportion of construction land to the total area of the city (B3) | ‒0.33 | ‒0.14 | ‒0.21 | ‒0.25 | ‒0.20 | ‒0.17 | 0.05 |
| Urban road density (B4) | ‒0.06 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.05 | 0 |
| Year-end balance of savings of urban and rural residents (B5) | ‒0.53 | ‒0.13 | ‒0.30 | ‒0.41 | ‒0.28 | ‒0.20 | 0.11 |
| GDP (C1) | ‒0.65 | 0.04 | ‒0.39 | ‒0.55 | ‒0.43 | ‒0.22 | 0.18 |
| Total investment in fixed assets (C2) | ‒0.59 | ‒0.51 | ‒0.54 | ‒0.56 | ‒0.54 | ‒0.52 | 0.02 |
| Total retail sales of social consumer goods (C3) | 0.31 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.47 | 0.04 |
| Proportion of the secondary industry in the regional GDP (C4) | ‒0.04 | 0.00 | ‒0.02 | ‒0.03 | ‒0.02 | ‒0.01 | 0.01 |
| Proportion of the tertiary industry in the regional GDP (C5) | ‒0.01 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Table 11 Descriptive statistics for the regression coefficients of the geographically weighted regression model
| Indicators | Min | Max | Mean | Q1 | Median | Q3 | STD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elevation (A1) | ‒0.07 | ‒0.04 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.06 | ‒0.06 | ‒0.05 | 0.01 |
| Slope (A2) | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.01 |
| Annual average precipitation (A3) | ‒0.05 | 0.04 | ‒0.01 | ‒0.04 | ‒0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| Annual average temperature (A4) | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.02 |
| Proportion of non-agricultural population to total population (B1) | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
| Population density (B2) | ‒0.10 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.07 | ‒0.09 | ‒0.08 | ‒0.06 | 0.01 |
| Proportion of construction land to the total area of the city (B3) | ‒0.33 | ‒0.14 | ‒0.21 | ‒0.25 | ‒0.20 | ‒0.17 | 0.05 |
| Urban road density (B4) | ‒0.06 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.05 | ‒0.05 | 0 |
| Year-end balance of savings of urban and rural residents (B5) | ‒0.53 | ‒0.13 | ‒0.30 | ‒0.41 | ‒0.28 | ‒0.20 | 0.11 |
| GDP (C1) | ‒0.65 | 0.04 | ‒0.39 | ‒0.55 | ‒0.43 | ‒0.22 | 0.18 |
| Total investment in fixed assets (C2) | ‒0.59 | ‒0.51 | ‒0.54 | ‒0.56 | ‒0.54 | ‒0.52 | 0.02 |
| Total retail sales of social consumer goods (C3) | 0.31 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.47 | 0.04 |
| Proportion of the secondary industry in the regional GDP (C4) | ‒0.04 | 0.00 | ‒0.02 | ‒0.03 | ‒0.02 | ‒0.01 | 0.01 |
| Proportion of the tertiary industry in the regional GDP (C5) | ‒0.01 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Fig. 8 Spatial distribution of regression coefficients of driving factors Note: A1-Elevation, A2-Slope, A3-Annual average precipitation, A4-Annual average temperature, B1-Proportion of non-agricultural population to total population, B2-Population density, B3-Proportion of construction land to the total area of the city, B4-Urban road density, B5-Year-end balance of savings of urban and rural residents, C1-GDP, C2-Total investment in fixed assets, C3-Total retail sales of social consumer goods, C4-Proportion of the secondary industry in the regional GDP, C5-Proportion of the tertiary industry in the regional GDP.
| 1 | Bajzak D, Roberts B A . 1996. Development of ecological land classification and mapping in support of forest management in northern Newfoundland, Canada. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 39: 199‒213. |
| 2 | Belmeziti A, Cherqui F, Kaufmann B . 2018. Improving the multi- functionality of urban green spaces: Relations between components of green spaces and urban services. Sustainable Cities and Society, 43: 1‒10. |
| 3 | Bruce E M, Randal G P . 1996. Developing an ecological land classification for the Fundy model forest, southeastern New Brunswick, Canada. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 39: 149‒172. |
| 4 | Chen L . 2015. Study on provincial tourism competitiveness based on niche theory: A case study on Yangtze River Economic Belt. Diss., Wuhan, China: Central China Normal University. (in Chinese) |
| 5 | Chen L, Zhou S L, Zhou B B , et al. 2015. Characteristics and driving forces of regional land use transition based on the leading function classification: A case study of Jiangsu Province. Economic Geography, 35(2): 155‒162. (in Chinese) |
| 6 | Costanza R, Daly H E . 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology, 6(1): 37‒46. |
| 7 | Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R , et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253‒260. |
| 8 | Cui D . 2015. Research in driving factors of land urbanization in Yangtze River DeIta Area. Diss., Wuhan, China: Huazhong University of Science & Technology. (in Chinese) |
| 9 | Dang L J, Xu Y, Gao Y . 2014. Assessment method of functional land use classification and spatial system—A case study of Yangou Watershed. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 21(5): 193‒197, 203. (in Chinese) |
| 10 | Deng H B, Chen C D, Liu X , et al. 2009. Conception and function classification of regional ecological land. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29(3): 1519‒1524. (in Chinese) |
| 11 | Ding L, Xia H H, Shi Y , et al. 2020. Evolution of industrial structure and its environmental effect in the Yangtze River Economic Belt from 2000 to 2015. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 27(2): 8‒1. (in Chinese) |
| 12 | Dong Y W, Zhou W, Zhou L , et al. 1999. Research on ecological protection in urban areas. Urban Research,(2): 6‒8,10. (in Chinese) |
| 13 |
Fang C L, Zhou C H, Wang Z B . 2015. Sustainable development strategy and priorities of spatially differentiated development of urban agglomerations along the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Progress in Geography, 34(11): 1398‒1408. (in Chinese)
DOI URL |
| 14 | Fei J B, Xia J G, Hu J , et al. 2019. Research progress of ecological space and ecological land in China. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 27(11): 1626‒1636. (in Chinese) |
| 15 |
Grondin P, Gauthier S, Borcard D , et al. 2014. A new approach to ecological land classification for the Canadian boreal forest that integrates disturbances. Landscape Ecology, 29(1): 1‒16.
DOI URL |
| 16 | Hu J T. 2012. Report of the 18th Party Congress. Beijing, China: People’s Publishing House. |
| 17 | Hu X D, Zou L L . 2020. Landscape pattern evolution of land use and its driving mechanism in Yangtze River Economic Belt under the guidance of ecological priority: Case study of Wuhan City. Areal Research and Development, 39(3): 138‒149. (in Chinese) |
| 18 | Hu X J, Gao L, Ma C M , et al. 2020. Land use zoning of Weifang North Plain based on ecological function and geo-environmental suitability. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 79(5): 2697‒2719. |
| 19 | Huang J C, Lin H X, Qi X X . 2017. A literature review on optimization of spatial development pattern based on ecological-production-living space. Progress in Geography, 36(3): 378‒3.1. (in Chinese) |
| 20 | Jiang W Y, Cai Y L, Tian J J . 2019. The application of minimum cumulative resistance model in the evaluation of urban ecological land use efficiency. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 12(23): 1‒7. |
| 21 | Jozi S A, Majd N M . 2015. Ecological land capability evaluation of Dehloran County in order to ecotourism development. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 43(3): 571‒581. |
| 22 | Klijn F, Haes H A U D. 1994. A hierarchical approach to ecosystems and its implications for ecological land classification. Landscape Ecology, 9(2): 89‒104. |
| 23 | Li D J, Xu E Q, Zhang H Q . 2020. Influence of ecological land change on wind erosion prevention service in arid area of northwest China from 1990 to 2015. Ecological Indicators, 117. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106686. |
| 24 | Li G D, Fang C L, Wang S J , et al. 2016. Progress in remote sensing recognition and spatio-temporal changes study of urban and rural land use. Journal of Natural Resources, 31(4): 703‒718. (in Chinese) |
| 25 | Li Y, Feng Y, Peng F , et al. 2017. Pattern evolvement of ecological land in Tianjin based on geographic detector. Economic Geography, 37(12): 180‒189. |
| 26 | Lin H R, Feng Y F . 2018. Identification and analysis of “production-living-ecological space” of Xiajie Village, Zhanjiang City, Guangdong Province. Journal of Guangzhou University (Natural Science Edition), 17(1): 82‒87, 94. (in Chinese) |
| 27 | Lin X L . 2016. Analysis on time space process and driving factors for ecological land loss in the urban circle of Wuhan. Diss., Wuhan, China: South-Central University for Nationalities. (in Chinese) |
| 28 | Liu D Q, Ma X C, Gong J , et al. 2018. Functional identification and spatiotemporal pattern analysis of production-living-ecological space in watershed scale: A case study of Bailongjiang Watershed in Gansu. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 37(5): 1490‒1497. (in Chinese) |
| 29 | Liu F, Zhang H Q . 2016. Ecological land use mapping and spatio-temporal dynamics in the Tarim Basin. Resources Science, 38(5): 825‒836. (in Chinese) |
| 30 | Liu J L, Liu Y S, Li Y R . 2017a. Classification evaluation and spatial-temporal analysis of “production-living-ecological” spaces in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(7): 1290‒1304. (in Chinese) |
| 31 | Liu S H, Wang D Y, Li H , et al. 2017b. Ecological land fragmentation evaluation and dynamic change of a typical black soil farming area in Northeast China. Sustainability, 9(2):300. DOI: 10.3390/su9020300. |
| 32 |
Liu Y W, Liu C W, He Z Y , et al. 2020. Spatial-temporal evolution of ecological land and influence factors in Wuhan urban agglomeration based on geographically weighted regression model. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 31(3): 987‒998. (in Chinese)
URL PMID |
| 33 | Long H R . 2015. The changes of ecological land in Chang-Zhu-Tan region and its effect mechanism. Diss., Changsha, China: Central South University of Forestry and Technology. (in Chinese) |
| 34 | Naser A S, Sasan B K, Timo P , et al. 2016. Integrated use of GIS, remote sensing and multi-criteria decision analysis to assess ecological land suitability in multi-functional forestry. Journal of Forestry Research, 27(5): 1127‒1135. |
| 35 | Peng J, Wang A, Liu Y X , et al. 2015. Research progress and prospect on measuring urban ecological land demand. Acta Geographica Sinica, 70(2): 333‒346. (in Chinese) |
| 36 | Peng J, Zhao M Y, Guo X N , et al. 2017. Spatial-temporal dynamics and associated driving forces of urban ecological land: A case study in Shenzhen City, China. Habitat International, 60: 81‒90. |
| 37 | Peng K F, Jiang W G, Deng Y . 2019. Identification of wetland damage degree and analysis of its driving forces in Wuhan Urban Agglomeration. Journal of Natural Resources, 34(8): 1694‒1707. (in Chinese) |
| 38 | Ran R, Li J F . 2020. Transformation of land use and ecological environment effect in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 48(2): 256‒263. (in Chinese) |
| 39 | Rowe J S, Sheard J W . 1981. Ecological land classification: A survey approach. Environmental Management, 5(5): 451‒464. |
| 40 | Sun D F . 2005. Analysis of socio-economic driving forces on land desertification at Minqin County in Gansu Province in 1988‒1997. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 21(S1): 131‒135. (in Chinese) |
| 41 | Tan Y Z, Zhao Y, Cao Y , et al. 2016. Research progress on regional ecological land classification in China. China Land Sciences, 30(9): 28‒36. (in Chinese) |
| 42 | Tang A, Li X S, Bian Z F , et al. 2016. Research on the driving factors of the ecological land evolution based on data reconstruction: A case study of the southwest coal cities. Ecological Economy, 32(5): 136‒142. (in Chinese) |
| 43 | Tu J, Xia Z G . 2008. Examining spatially varying relationships between land use and water quality using geographically weighted regression I: Model design and evaluation. Science of the Total Environment, 407(1): 358‒378. |
| 44 | Wang H . 2018. Study on the ecological land change and management strategy of Zhejiang Province. Diss., Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang Gongshang University. (in Chinese) |
| 45 | Wang J F, Xu C D . 2017. Geodetector: Principle and prospective. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(1): 116‒134. (in Chinese) |
| 46 | Wang J Z . 2012. Study on ecological land change and the driving force in Poyang Lake ecological economic region. Diss., Nanchang, China: Jiangxi University of Finance & Economics. (in Chinese) |
| 47 | Wang L P, Chen J . 2016. Socio-economic influential factors of haze pollution in China: Empirical study by EBA model using spatial panel data. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 36(10): 3833‒3839. (in Chinese) |
| 48 | Wang Z B, Luo K, Song J , et al. 2015. Characteristics of change and strategic considerations of the structure of urban functional divisions in the Yangtze River Economic Belt since 2000. Progress in Geography, 34(11): 1409‒1418. (in Chinese) |
| 49 | Xiao B Y, Dai L M, Chen G , et al. 2002. Application of GIS in ecological land type (ELT) mapping—A case in Changbai Mountain area. Journal of Forestry Research, 13(1): 56‒60. |
| 50 | Xiao D N, Li X Z . 1997. Development and prospect of contemporary landscape ecology. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 17(4): 356‒364. (in Chinese) |
| 51 | Xie G D, Lu C X, Cheng S K , et al. 2001. Evaluation of natural capital utilization with ecological footprint in China. Resources Science, 23(6): 20‒23. (in Chinese) |
| 52 | Xie H L, Li X B . 2011. Analysis of regionally ecological land use and its influencing factors based on a logistic regression model in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region, China. Resources Science, 33(11): 2063‒ 2070. (in Chinese) |
| 53 |
Xie H L, Liu Z F, Wang P , et al. 2013. Exploring the mechanisms of ecological land change based on the spatial autoregressive model: A case study of the Poyang Lake Eco-Economic Zone, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(1): 583‒599.
DOI URL PMID |
| 54 | Yu F, Li X B, Zhang L J , et al. 2015. Study of ecological land in China: Conception, classification, and spatial-temporal pattern. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35(14): 4931‒4943. (in Chinese) |
| 55 | Yu L, Song A A, Zheng Y , et al. 2017. The ecological-living-industrial land classification system and the analysis of its spatial distribution—Case of Changli County. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 38(2): 89‒96. (in Chinese) |
| 56 | Yu X F . 2016. Study on the land use and land cover change and its driving forces based on RS and GIS—Setting Jiangbei District of Chongqing as the example. Diss., Chongqing, China: Southwest University. (in Chinese) |
| 57 | Yuan S F, Tang Y Y, Shentu C N . 2019. Spatiotemporal change of land-use transformation and its eco-environmental response:A case of 127 counties in Yangtze River Economic Belt. Economic Geography, 39(9): 174‒181. (in Chinese) |
| 58 | Zeng C Y, Yang L, Zhu A X , et al. 2016. Mapping soil organic matter concentration at different scales using a mixed geographically weighted regression method. Geoderma, 281: 69‒82. |
| 59 | Zhang H Q, Wang L X, Jia B Q . 2004. A conception of ecological land use and its function classification in arid area in Northwest China. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 12(2): 5‒8. (in Chinese) |
| 60 | Zhang H Q, Xu E Q, Zhu H Y . 2017a. Ecological-Living-Productive land classification system in China. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 8(2): 121‒128. |
| 61 | Zhang H, Wang Y . 2017. Spatial differentiation of cropland pressure and its socio-economic factors in China based on panel data of 342 prefectural-level units. Geographical Research, 36(4): 731‒742. (in Chinese) |
| 62 | Zhang Q, Gao M, Yang L , et al. 2017b. Changes in the spatial structure of ecological land and ecosystem service values in nine key districts of Chongqing City over the past 25 years. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(2): 566‒575. (in Chinese) |
| 63 | Zhang W S, Jiang L, Cui Y Z , et al. 2019. Effects of urbanization on airport CO2 emissions: A geographically weighted approach using nighttime light data in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 150:104454. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104454. |
| 64 | Zhang Y C, Zhang B, Jiang X Y . 2007. Research on social and economic driving mechanism of land use/cover change in oasis region. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 35(9): 2683‒2684,2755. (in Chinese) |
| 65 | Zhang Y Z, Hu Y F, Zhuang D F . 2020. A highly integrated, expansible, and comprehensive analytical framework for urban ecological land: A case study in Guangzhou, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122360. |
| 66 | Zheng T, Chen S, Zhang T . 2019. Changes of ecological land and driving factors in urban riverside area: The case of Nanjing section of the Yangtze River. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 28(5): 1049‒1.58. (in Chinese) |
| 67 |
Zhou D, Lin Z L, Lim S H . 2019. Spatial characteristics and risk factor identification for land use spatial conflicts in a rapid urbanization region in China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191:677. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-019-7809-1.
DOI URL PMID |
| 68 | Zhou R, Wang X J, Su H L , et al. 2015. Identification and security pattern of ecological land in Pingdingshan newly developed area. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35(6): 2003‒ 2012. (in Chinese) |
| 69 | Zhou Z, Meng J J, Qi Y , et al. 2016. Importance of ecological lands and their pattern optimization in China: A review. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 35(1): 218‒225. (in Chinese) |
| 70 | Zhu Z Q, Yang F, Song Z J . 2015. Exploring spatial patterns and complexities of ecological lands in Beijing. Economic Geography, 35(7): 168‒175. (in Chinese) |
| 71 | Zou L L, Wang J Y, Hu X D . 2018. A classification systems of production-living-ecological land on the county level: Theory building and empirical research. China Land Science, 32(4): 59‒66. (in Chinese) |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
