| Literature DB >> 27879729 |
Hualou Long1, Xiuqin Wu2, Wenjie Wang3, Guihua Dong4.
Abstract
This paper analyzes the urban-rural land-use change of Chongqing and its policydimensional driving forces from 1995 to 2006, using high-resolution Landsat TM(Thematic Mapper) data of 1995, 2000 and 2006, and socio-economic data from bothresearch institutes and government departments. The outcomes indicated that urban-ruralland-use change in Chongqing can be characterized by two major trends: First, thenon-agricultural land increased substantially from 1995 to 2006, thus causing agriculturalland especially farmland to decrease continuously. Second, the aggregation index of urbansettlements and rural settlements shows that local urban-rural development experienced aprocess of changing from aggregation (1995-2000) to decentralization (2000-2006).Chongqing is a special area getting immersed in many important policies, which includethe establishment of the municipality directly under the Central Government, the buildingof Three Gorges Dam Project, the Western China Development Program and theGrain-for-Green Programme, and bring about tremendous influences on its land-usechange. By analyzing Chongqing's land-use change and its policy driving forces, someimplications for its new policy of 'Urban-rural Integrated Reform' are obtained. That ismore attentions need to be paid to curbing excessive and idle rural housing andconsolidating rural construction land, and to laying out a scientific land-use plan for its rural areas taking such rural land-use issues as farmland occupation and rural housing landmanagement into accounts, so as to coordinate and balance the urban-rural development.Entities:
Keywords: China; Chongqing; Driving forces; Land-use change; Policy dimension; Urban-rural development
Year: 2008 PMID: 27879729 PMCID: PMC3927500 DOI: 10.3390/s8020681
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Location of the study area Chongqing.
Figure 2.Reclassified and gridded LULC types in 1995, 2000 and 2006 in Chongqing.
Change matrix of each compared LULC type in 1995 and 2000, and its changes in 2000 (ha).
| LULC type in 2000 | LULC type in 1995 | Changes in 2000 (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||
| FML | FL | GL | WB | US | RS | CL | UL | Total | ||
| FML | 1423 | 676 | 56 | 3808225 | -0.32 | |||||
| FL | 53 | 16228 | 44 | 67 | 3179633 | -0.08 | ||||
| GL | 113 | 16677 | 35 | 1038921 | -0.06 | |||||
| WB | 189 | 202 | 123627 | 0.21 | ||||||
| US | 8769 | 479 | 191 | 56203 | 20.18 | |||||
| RS | 3574 | 265 | 73 | 20249 | 23.95 | |||||
| CL | 1762 | 169 | 104 | 26 | 5797 | 55.17 | ||||
| UL | 37 | 12 | 13 | 1190 | -3.25 | |||||
| Total | 3820567 | 3182266 | 1039583 | 123362 | 46764 | 16337 | 3736 | 1230 | 8233845 | |
Note: FML = farmland, FL = forested land, GL = grassland, WB = water body, US = urban settlements, RS = rural settlements, CL = construction land, UL = unused land; the unchanged area of each LULC type was marked in bold.
Change matrix of each compared LULC type in 2000 and 2006, and its changes in 2006 (ha).
| LULC type in 2006 | LULC type in 2000 | Changes in 2006 (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||
| FML | FL | GL | WB | US | RS | CL | UL | Total | ||
| FML | 1893 | 1041 | 71 | 53 | 30 | 3793048 | -0.40 | |||
| FL | 6478 | 1186 | 32 | 3182997 | 0.11 | |||||
| GL | 319 | 45 | 1036224 | -0.26 | ||||||
| WB | 811 | 525 | 277 | 9 | 24 | 125153 | 1.23 | |||
| US | 7266 | 1462 | 417 | 47 | 40 | 674 | 66048 | 17.52 | ||
| RS | 2088 | 312 | 54 | 231 | 22817 | 12.68 | ||||
| CL | 1303 | 119 | 52 | 2 | 52 | 6390 | 10.23 | |||
| UL | 21 | 34 | 1168 | -1.85 | ||||||
| Total | 3808225 | 3179633 | 1038921 | 123627 | 56203 | 20249 | 5797 | 1190 | 8233845 | |
Note: FML = farmland, FL = forested land, GL = grassland, WB = water body, US = urban settlements, RS = rural settlements, CL = construction land, UL = unused land; the unchanged area of each LULC type was marked in bold.
Changes of LULC patches from 1995 to 2000, and to 2006.
| LULC type | Patch density (number/100 ha) | Aggregation index | Number of patches | Average area (ha) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||
| 95 | 00 | 06 | 95 | 00 | 06 | 95 | 00 | 06 | 95 | 00 | 06 | |
| FML | 0.338 | 0.331 | 0.330 | 83.42 | 84.41 | 84.11 | 27821 | 27257 | 27151 | 136.1 | 142.2 | 137.0 |
| FL | 0.158 | 0.142 | 0.142 | 84.41 | 84.74 | 84.86 | 12972 | 11699 | 11716 | 218.9 | 240.0 | 245.1 |
| GL | 0.081 | 0.081 | 0.089 | 78.53 | 78.47 | 77.74 | 6671 | 6662 | 7304 | 176.6 | 170.6 | 137.7 |
| WB | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.065 | 79.77 | 79.71 | 71.49 | 1067 | 1086 | 5374 | 105.4 | 104.5 | 111.3 |
| US | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.008 | 85.88 | 88.04 | 85.72 | 100 | 97 | 628 | 238.4 | 352.9 | 114.9 |
| RS | 0.014 | 0.016 | 0.020 | 63.09 | 65.08 | 62.97 | 1166 | 1345 | 1681 | 14.6 | 16.2 | 13.9 |
| CL | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.006 | 72.90 | 72.05 | 62.62 | 147 | 229 | 496 | 30.2 | 30.4 | 15.5 |
| UL | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 58.60 | 58.40 | 59.47 | 144 | 137 | 77 | 15.1 | 15.1 | 15.0 |
Note: FML = farmland, FL = forested land, GL = grassland, WB = water body, US = urban settlements, RS = rural settlements, CL = construction land, UL = unused land.
The percentages taken by corresponding types in internal conversions of main LULC types.
| Corresponding LULC type | Main urban-rural LULC types (1995-2000) | Main urban-rural LULC types (2000-2006) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||
| FML | FL | GL | US | RS | CL | FML | FL | GL | US | RS | CL | |
| FML | 52.0 | 85.0 | 92.9 | 91.4 | 85.5 | 136.3 | 26.8 | 73.8 | 79.2 | 214.7 | ||
| FL | -11.1 | -67.8 | 5.1 | 6.8 | 8.2 | 30.2 | 44.0 | 14.9 | 12.1 | 20.1 | ||
| GL | -4.6 | 17.1 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 5.0 | -4.8 | 35.3 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 8.8 | ||
| WB | 1.1 | -1.7 | 30.5 | 1.3 | 4.9 | -15.6 | 10.3 | 0.4 | -0.9 | 0.3 | ||
| US | 71.1 | 18.2 | 28.9 | 47.9 | -43.5 | 15.5 | -1.6 | -104.9 | ||||
| RS | 29.0 | 10.1 | 11.0 | 13.4 | -9.3 | 2.0 | 0.4 | -39.0 | ||||
| CL | 14.3 | 6.4 | 15.7 | 8.4 | -3.5 | 1.9 | 6.3 | 9.0 | ||||
| UL | 0.3 | -2.1 | -3.3 | 0.3 | -0.4 | |||||||
Note: FML = farmland, FL = forested land, GL = grassland, WB = water body, US = urban settlements, RS = rural settlements, CL = construction land, UL = unused land;
conversion loss to,
conversion gain from,
“conversion loss” occurred even the net change was “conversion gain.”
Figure 3.Industrial output value versus farmland (left) and construction land (right) of Chongqing between 1996 and 2006.