| Literature DB >> 23066410 |
Hualin Xie1, Chih-Chun Kung, Yanting Zhang, Xiubin Li.
Abstract
Ecological land is like the "liver" of a city and is very useful to public health. Ecological land change is a spatially dynamic non-linear process under the interaction between natural and anthropogenic factors at different scales. In this study, by setting up natural development scenario, object orientation scenario and ecosystem priority scenario, a Cellular Automation (CA) model has been established to simulate the evolution pattern of ecological land in Beijing in the year 2020. Under the natural development scenario, most of ecological land will be replaced by construction land and crop land. But under the scenarios of object orientation and ecosystem priority, the ecological land area will increase, especially under the scenario of ecosystem priority. When considering the factors such as total area of ecological land, loss of key ecological land and spatial patterns of land use, the scenarios from priority to inferiority are ecosystem priority, object orientation and natural development, so future land management policies in Beijing should be focused on conversion of cropland to forest, wetland protection and prohibition of exploitation of natural protection zones, water source areas and forest parks to maintain the safety of the regional ecosystem.Entities:
Keywords: cellular automation model; ecological land; ecosystem management; land use
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23066410 PMCID: PMC3447600 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph9082986
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Study area.
Land use and land cover of the study area.
| Land use/ land cover class | Land use/land cover subclass |
|---|---|
| Cultivated land | Paddy field |
| Dry field | |
| Ecological land | Forest |
| Grassland | |
| Wetland | |
| Construct land | City or town region |
| Village residential area | |
| Rest construct land | |
| Other land | Sand land |
| Bare ground | |
| Bare rock | |
| Rest of used land |
Spatial variables needed by finding translation rules for the logistic regression model.
| Variable types | Acquisition method | Normalized value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variables | Convert to urban land between 2000 and 2005 | Overlay analysis of ArcGIS9.3 | 0–1 |
| Convert to cultivated land between 2000 and 2005 | Overlay analysis of ArcGIS9.3 | 0–1 | |
| Convert to ecological land between 2000 and 2005 | Overlay analysis of ArcGIS9.3 | 0–1 | |
| Independent variables of natural factors | Distance to the nearest town center | Eucdistance function of ArcGIS9.3 | 0–1 |
| Distance to the nearest highway | Eucdistance function of ArcGIS9.3 | 0–1 | |
| Distance to the nearest river | Eucdistance function of ArcGIS9.3 | 0–1 | |
| DEM | Digitalization of relief map | 0–1 | |
| Slope | Surface analysis module of ArcGIS9.3 | 0–1 | |
| Independent variables of social factors | Inverse Distance Weight’s Interpolation of ArcGIS9.3 | 0–1 | |
| Population density | Inverse Distance Weight’s Interpolation of ArcGIS9.3 | 0–1 | |
Figure 2Framework of CA model for ecological land regulation under different scenarios.
Transition matrix of land use change from 2000 to 2005 in Beijing (km2).
| 2005 | Cultivated land | Ecological land | Construction land | Other land | Total area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | |||||
| Cultivated land | 3,012.09 | 618.74 | 914.19 | 8.83 | 4,553.85 |
| Ecological land | 876.13 | 8,476.67 | 305.07 | 16.43 | 9674.3 |
| Construction land | 342.4 | 128.64 | 1,664.36 | 5.29 | 2,140.69 |
| Other land | 2.04 | 13.1 | 1.7 | 0.04 | 16.88 |
| Total area | 4,232.66 | 9,237.15 | 2,885.32 | 30.59 | 16,385.72 |
Figure 3Change of land use pattern from 2000 to 2005 in Beijing.
Figure 4Development pattern of land use in 2020 of Beijing under different scenarios.
The predicted areas of land use in 2020 of Beijing in different situation.
| Land usetypes | Land use status (2005) | Natural development scenario (2020) | Object orientation scenario (2020) | Ecosystem priority scenario (2020) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area (km2) | Proportion (%) | Area (km2) | Proportion (%) | Area (km2) | Proportion (%) | Area (km2) | Proportion (%) | |
| Cultivated land | 4,232.66 | 25.83 | 3,798.57 | 23.18 | 4,003.17 | 24.43 | 3,903.64 | 23.82 |
| Ecological land | 9,237.15 | 56.37 | 8,728.13 | 53.27 | 9,105.78 | 55.57 | 9,266.64 | 56.55 |
| Construction land | 2,885.32 | 17.61 | 3,835.82 | 23.41 | 3,189.32 | 19.46 | 3,189.32 | 19.46 |
| Other land | 30.59 | 0.19 | 23.20 | 0.14 | 29.15 | 0.18 | 25.72 | 0.16 |
| Total area | 16,385.72 | 100 | 16,385.72 | 100 | 16,385.72 | 100 | 16,385.72 | 100 |
Compare of protective effect of ecological land in different scenarios.
| Evaluation index | Status (2005) | Natural development scenario (2020) | Object orientation scenario (2020) | Ecosystem priority scenario (2020) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loss quantity of key ecological land in low security level (km2) | 0 | 311.86 | 186.32 | 6.33 |
| Loss quantity of key ecological land in high security level(km2) | 0 | 1,567.10 | 1195.19 | 1,138.25 |
| Largest patch index (LPI) | 48.089 | 48.771 | 50.537 | 51.538 |
| Cohesion index of patch (COHESION) | 99.915 | 99.908 | 99.903 | 99.909 |
| Splitting index (SPLIT) | 4.322 | 4.202 | 3.913 | 3.763 |
| Aggregation index (AI) | 96.243 | 96.157 | 96.090 | 96.251 |