| Literature DB >> 31790469 |
Luyao Wei1, Cheng Jin1,2,3, Yuqi Lu1,2,3.
Abstract
The data regarding resources and environmental carrying capacities (RECC) are not only the basis for realizing regional sustainable development, but also the core links for major function-oriented zoning practices, which include specific partitioning schemes of spatial units with various geographical functions. Previously, relevant studies were mainly based on the evaluations of single factors. However, the realization of regional function-oriented spatial zoning practices based on comprehensive assessments of RECC has been neglected. This study presented an evaluation index system for RECC based on nine aspects, in accordance with the evaluation elements of the major function-oriented zoning programs which were in place and the characteristics of the study area. Then, by using subjective and objective comprehensive weighting methods, the basic elements were finally integrated, and an accurate spatial distribution pattern of the RECC in China's Fengxian County was obtained. In addition, based on the construction of a three-dimensional spatial conceptual model, this study was able to finally obtain four specific types of functional partitions in the study areas, and proposed specific development proposals according to the different types of functional zoning from a systemic perspective. It was observed that the RECC had been decreasing from a central built-up area to the surrounding townships, and the spatial distribution patterns were distinctly scattered. In addition, the townships with smaller land scales had more obvious advantages in the RECC. However, fluctuating upward trends were observed after the lowest thresholds had been reached as for the medium or above medium scales. At the same time, in terms of the correlations between the population levels, and gross values and the RECC, fluctuating characteristics were observed. The correlations with the latter had presented S-shape curves and inverted U-shape curves, respectively. Finally, the optimized expansion zone located in the north-central region had taken the greatest percentage among functional zoning classifications, followed by the basic competitive zone in the southwestern section. However, the main construction zone accounted for the smallest proportion, at only 2.065%. Therefore, based on these results, it was concluded that there were certain fluctuating correlations between the RECC and total population levels, economic levels, and land scales. Moreover, the RECC evaluation results were found to gradually decrease after rising to the thresholds under the comprehensive effects of the various factors. This study combined the data of the conceptual model with the RECC evaluation results, in order to obtain a potential geographical functional zoning program for the study area. The results of this study are expected to provide a new analysis perspective for the scientific and sustainable development of small-scale geographic units. Moreover, on the basis of this study's comprehensive evaluations of the RECC, the directions of regional development can be further clarified.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31790469 PMCID: PMC6886813 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225683
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Geographical location map of the study area.
Comprehensive evaluation index system of RECC.
| Target layer | Index layer (impact) | Factor layer | General weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cultivated land area X1 | 0.283 | ||
| Reserved cultivated land area X2 | 0.191 | ||
| Economic value of cultivated land X3 | 0.316 | ||
| Construction land area X4 | 0.210 | ||
| Available water resources X5 | 1.000 | ||
| Terrain index X6 | 0.141 | ||
| Normalized difference vegetation index X7 | 0.296 | ||
| Species richness X8 | 0.332 | ||
| Land use degree X9 | 0.231 | ||
| Distance to ecologically sensitive area X10 | 0.500 | ||
| Distance to river corridors X11 | 0.500 | ||
| Flood location index X12 | 1.000 | ||
| Soil organic matter content X13 | 0.338 | ||
| Surface soil texture X14 | 0.351 | ||
| Soil acidity X15 | 0.311 | ||
| Road network density X16 | 0.713 | ||
| Time accessibility of critical traffic nodes X17 | 0.287 | ||
| The amount of resident population X18 | 1.000 | ||
| Economic industry density X19 | 1.000 |
Note: In the table, ‘+’ separately denotes the positive effects and ‘-’ indicates the negatives effect on RECC evaluation.
Discriminant factors and specific assignments of ecological importance.
| Discriminant index | Grades | Classifications | Factor assignment |
|---|---|---|---|
| First level of ecological sensitive areas | < 1,000 m: Core zone | 100 | |
| 1,000 to 2,000 m: Buffer zone | 80 | ||
| Second level of ecological sensitive areas | < 500 m: Core zone | 80 | |
| 500 to 1,000 m: Buffer zone | 60 | ||
| Important rivers | < 200 m: Core zone | 80 | |
| 200 to 500 m: Buffer zone | 60 | ||
| 5,000 to 2,000m: Affected zone | 40 | ||
| Common rivers | < 100 m: Core zone | 60 | |
| 100 to 200 m: Buffer zone | 40 |
Fig 2Spatial distributions of the compositional factors of the RECC.
Grades of terrain elevation and their corresponding flood disaster risk.
| Absolute elevation grades (m) | Elevation standard deviation grades (m) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| First level [0, 0.50) | Second level [0, 1.26) | Third level [1.26, 7.14) | |
| First level [28.46, 37.38) | 90 | 80 | 70 |
| Second level [37.38, 39.60) | 80 | 70 | 60 |
| Third level [39.60, 41.68) | 70 | 60 | 50 |
| Fourth level [41.68, 44.06) | 60 | 50 | 40 |
| Fifth level [44.06, 66.32) | 50 | 40 | 30 |
Linear regression between the population and types of land use factors.
| Land use types | Natural reserved areas (X1) | Forested grassland, water areas (X2) | Cultivated land, gardens, agricultural facility land (X3) | Urban settlement land (X4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.205 | 0.028 | 0.342 | 0.603 |
Linear regression between the economic development levels and land use types.
| Type | Linear regression equation | Correlation coefficient |
|---|---|---|
| Economic density of the primary industry | Y1 = 7.43825X11+9.92326X12+5.55844X13+55.14572X14-106.22108X15−4.12414X16 +662.65415X17−0.40912X18+84.63683 X19 | 0.985 |
| Economic densities of the secondary and tertiary industries | Y2 = 712.00265 X21-43.50090 X22+137.44720 X23 | 0.905 |
Fig 3Spatial distributions of the comprehensive RECC.
Fig 4Three-dimensional spatial conceptual model of the RECC.
Main functional partition led by the RECC evaluation results.
| Advantage partition | Main oriented function | Conceptual model coordinates |
|---|---|---|
| Areas with absolute predominance | Agriculture production | x∈[Xav+ Xsd, Xmax], y≥Ymin, z≤Zav+Zsd |
| Areas with comparative advantage | Agriculture production | x∈[Xav, Xav+ Xsd], y≥Ymin, z≤Zav |
| Basic competitive zone | - | [Xav-Xsd, Yav-Ysd, Zav-Zsd]≤x, y, z≤[Xav, Yav, Zav] |
| Potential excavation zone | - | [Xmin, Ymin, Zmin]≤x, y, z≤[Xav-Xsd, Yav-Ysd, Zav-Zsd] |
Note: In the tabel, x, y and z respectively represent the levels of the agricuture production function oriented areas, ecology production function oriented areas, and social-economic function oriented areas.
Fig 5Evaluation of the RECC at the township level.
Fig 6Rank-size analysis results between the RECC and land scales.
Fig 7Correlations between the population levels and gross value and RECC.