Journal of Resources and Ecology >
Spatio-temporal Pattern of Multifunction Tradeoffs and Synergies of the Rural Landscape: Evidence from Qingpu District in Shanghai
REN Guoping, E-mail: renguoping82@163.com |
Received date: 2020-09-26
Accepted date: 2020-12-15
Online published: 2021-05-30
Supported by
The National Natural Science Foundation of China(41471455)
The Humanities and Social Science Research Project of Hunan Education Department(19A086)
The Key Laboratory of Key Technologies of Digital Urban-Rural Spatial Planning of Hunan Province(2018TP1042)
The configuration of a multifunctional rural landscape is critical for its protection. Although studies on multifunctional rural landscapes have been conducted, there is a lack of information regarding the spatiotemporal characteristics and tradeoff/synergy relationships of rural landscape functions in the time series on the administrative unit scale. The purposes of this study were to (1) analyze the spatial-temporal distribution characteristics of the tradeoff and synergy from the perspective of multifunctionality for efficient use of rural landscape resources and (2) formulate regional sustainable development policies to minimize the conflict between people and nature. Aiming at the scientific representation of landscape function and the quantification of landscape multifunctional relationships, and by taking Qingpu District of Shanghai as an example, six kinds of rural landscape functions were constructed according to the functional framework of “productive function, living function and ecological function”. Based on the data for 1980 to 2018, the characteristics of variations of multifunctional tradeoff and synergy relationships of the rural landscape in 184 administrative villages were studied by the methods of Spearman rank correlation coefficient analysis and bivariate spatial autocorrelation. The following results were obtained. 1) The fine division of rural landscape function types was realistic and necessary for analyzing the regional multi-function relationships in the regions with rapid development. In the process of rapid urbanization, the rural landscape functions of urban suburban areas changed under the combined action of natural resource endowment, social and economic conditions and other internal and external factors. As a result, the agricultural production function could not replace the economic development function and become the function of rural landscape production. The research results of Qingpu District showed that the agricultural production function was no longer the primary functional form, yet the economic development function became the dominant function in this area. 2) Temporal and spatial analysis methods of rural landscape functions can accurately and comprehensively reflect the evolution of the characteristics of multifunction tradeoffs and synergies. According to the Spearman rank correlation analysis of the multifunction value of the rural landscape in the time dimension, the results masked the differences of resource and environment carrying capacity caused by the differences of regional landscape resource endowment in the spatial dimension. 3) The spatial and temporal differences of the multi-functional tradeoffs and synergies of the rural landscape in Qingpu District from 1980 to 2018 were significant. There was significant heterogeneity of tradeoffs and synergies between functions in the spatial pattern, with clustering characteristics. Meanwhile, as for the temporal pattern, the tradeoffs and synergies of functions changed differently in terms of Moran's I and the correlation coefficient. The results of this study can provide scientific references for urban-suburban-rural space reconstruction and regional sustainable development.
Key words: rural landscape; multifunction; evolution; tradeoff and synergy; Qingpu District
REN Guoping , LIU Liming , LI Hongqing , YIN Gang , ZHAO Xu . Spatio-temporal Pattern of Multifunction Tradeoffs and Synergies of the Rural Landscape: Evidence from Qingpu District in Shanghai[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021 , 12(2) : 225 -240 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.02.009
Fig. 1 Location of the case study area |
Table 1 Evaluation index system of landscape functions and weights in Qingpu District |
Target | Criterion | Indicators | Direction | Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|
PF | APF | X1 Annual value of food supply(yuan) | Positive | 0.065 |
X2 Annual value of cash crop supply (yuan) | Positive | 0.051 | ||
X3 Per capita cultivated land area (ha person-1) | Positive | 0.039 | ||
EDF | X4 Per capita GDP (yuan) | Positive | 0.059 | |
X5 Land urbanization rate (%) | Positive | 0.053 | ||
X6 Contribution of agriculture(%) | Positive | 0.044 | ||
LF | SCF | X7 Population density (person km-2) | Positive | 0.061 |
X8 Area of settlement landscape land (ha) | Positive | 0.063 | ||
X9 Per capita road mileage (km person-1) | Positive | 0.044 | ||
LAF | X10 Demand (person) | Positive | 0.045 | |
X11 Level of demand (yuan person-1) | Positive | 0.053 | ||
X12 Radiation range of landscape aesthetics (km) | Positive | 0.039 | ||
X13 Plaque agglomeration | Positive | 0.041 | ||
X14 Landscape diversity index | Positive | 0.034 | ||
EF | ERF | X15 Vegetation coverage index (%) | Positive | 0.043 |
X16 Water network density index (%) | Positive | 0.056 | ||
X17 Land degradation index | Negative | 0.037 | ||
EMF | X18 Annual fertilizer application (t) | Negative | 0.065 | |
X19 Environmental annual capacity of landscape ecological land (t) | Positive | 0.049 | ||
X20 Industrial waste emissions (t) | Negative | 0.059 |
Table 2 Results of multifunctional comprehensive evaluation of the rural landscape in Qingpu District |
Function | 1980 | 1995 | 2007 | 2018 |
---|---|---|---|---|
PF | 0.545 | 0.641 | 0.662 | 0.675 |
LF | 0.527 | 0.546 | 0.587 | 0.593 |
EF | 0.605 | 0.505 | 0.334 | 0.396 |
APF | 0.657 | 0.606 | 0.453 | 0.348 |
EDF | 0.540 | 0.725 | 0.890 | 0.949 |
SCF | 0.426 | 0.549 | 0.649 | 0.707 |
LAF | 0.613 | 0.515 | 0.326 | 0.389 |
ERF | 0.658 | 0.419 | 0.309 | 0.314 |
EMF | 0.569 | 0.349 | 0.256 | 0.311 |
Fig. 2 Results of multifunctional correlation analysis of the rural landscape in Qingpu District |
Table 3 Global spatial autocorrelation index between rural landscape functions in Qingpu District |
Pairs of rural landscape functions | 1980 | 1995 | 2007 | 2018 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I value | Z value | I value | Z value | I value | Z value | I value | Z value | |
PF-LF | 0.334 | 6.255 | 0.318 | 5.856 | 0.217 | 8.542 | 0.243 | 9.885 |
PF-EF | 0.159 | 1.995 | -0.102 | 6.523 | -0.293 | 5.575 | -0.185 | 2.688 |
LF-EF | 0.272 | 9.523 | 0.138 | 5.445 | -0.131 | 5.742 | -0.109 | 6.635 |
APF-EDF | -0.559 | -6.859 | -0.455 | -5.778 | -0.382 | -4.524 | -0.314 | -3.524 |
APF-SCF | 0.248 | 7.885 | -0.332 | -0.758 | -0.459 | -0.789 | -0.547 | -0.851 |
APF-LAF | 0.353 | 7.851 | -0.244 | -6.855 | -0.217 | -4.874 | 0.142 | 3.448 |
APF-ERF | -0.142 | 9.985 | -0.311 | -8.667 | -0.564 | -8.228 | -0.337 | 5.668 |
APF-EMF | -0.037 | 2.776 | -0.119 | -6.867 | -0.325 | -5.567 | -0.217 | 2.888 |
EDF-SCF | 0.256 | 7.567 | 0.356 | 9.861 | 0.467 | 10.232 | 0.633 | 11.745 |
EDF-LAF | 0.138 | 2.664 | -0.143 | -3.752 | -0.365 | -4.578 | -0.243 | -8.347 |
EDF-ERF | -0.251 | -6.752 | -0.316 | -7.664 | -0.542 | -9.001 | -0.424 | -5.664 |
EDF-EMF | -0.332 | -3.341 | -0.452 | -4.584 | -0.621 | -6.854 | -0.522 | -7.330 |
SCF-LAF | -0.213 | -0.856 | -0.311 | -5.856 | -0.322 | -0.741 | -0.362 | -1.775 |
SCF-ERF | 0.182 | 2.452 | -0.051 | -5.521 | -0.242 | -7.634 | -0.328 | -6.853 |
SCF-EMF | 0.212 | 1.885 | -0.101 | -5.752 | -0.225 | -8.532 | -0.362 | -9.774 |
LAF-ERF | 0.241 | 2.521 | 0.312 | 8.442 | 0.422 | 12.841 | 0.637 | 18.772 |
LAF-EMF | 0.332 | 5.321 | 0.411 | 8.854 | 0.492 | 5.334 | 0.591 | 10.654 |
ERF-EMF | 0.451 | 6.854 | 0.462 | 2.885 | 0.511 | 13.772 | 0.542 | 9.524 |
Fig. 3 LISA among productive-living-ecological functions in Qingpu District from 1980 to 2018 |
Fig. 4 Local indicators of spatial associations among rural landscape functions in Qingpu District in 1980 |
Fig. 5 Local indicators of spatial association among rural landscape functions in Qingpu District in 2018 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
NBSC(National Bureau of Statistics of China). 1980-2018. China Statistical Yearbook. Beijing, China: Chinese Statistics Press.
|
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |