| Literature DB >> 32355265 |
Jiansheng Wu1,2, Wei Sha3,4, Puhua Zhang3, Zhenyu Wang3.
Abstract
The problem of urban waterlogging has consistently affected areas of southern China, and has generated widespread concerns among the public and professionals. The geographically weighted regression model (GWR) is widely used to reflect the spatial non-stationarity of parameters in different locations, with the relationship between variables able to change with spatial position. In this research, Shenzhen City, which has a serious waterlogging problem, was used as a case study. Several key results were obtained. (1) The spatial autocorrelation of flood spot density in Shenzhen was significant at the 5% level, but because the Z value was not large it was not very obvious. (2) The degree of impact on flood disasters from large to small was: Built up_ DIVISION > SHDI > Built up_ COHESION > CONTAG > Built up_ LPI. (3) The degree of waterlogging disasters in higher altitude regions was less affected by the landscape pattern. The results of this study highlight the important role of the landscape pattern on waterlogging disasters and also indicate the different impacts of different regional landscape patterns on waterlogging disasters, which provides useful information for planning the landscape pattern and controlling waterlogging.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32355265 PMCID: PMC7193673 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-64113-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
OLS test results (4 land use classes).
| Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnDWS | lnDWS | lnDWS | lnDWS | lnDWS | |
| lnLPI | 0.1285 | 0.14723 | 0.0917* | 0.1126 | 0.1322 |
| (0.1467) | (0.2456) | (0.0645) | (0.3125) | (0.2472) | |
| lnCOHESION | 0.0475 | 0.0342* | 0.0418 | 0.0385 | 0.0521* |
| (0.1376) | (0.0203) | (0.0531) | (0.1312) | (0.0312) | |
| lnDIVISION | −2.0186 | −3.0331 | −3.0274 | ||
| (0.0254) | (0.0421) | (0.0384) | |||
| lnCONTAG | 0.1632 | 0.1462 | |||
| (0.2315) | (0.1971) | ||||
| lnSHDI | −1.2156 | ||||
| (0.2486) | |||||
| lnPrecipitation | 2.5317* | 1.9874** | 2.8716* | 3.1762*** | |
| (1.8434) | (0.8434) | (2.1273) | (0.1972) | ||
| Constant | 15.7541* | 11.0589* | 10.2675* | 18.3247 | 13.1526** |
| (12.3816) | (9.1847) | (8.6541) | (20.3987) | (6.8712) | |
| Radj2 | 0.058 | 0.134 | 0.157 | 0.166 | 0.175 |
Standard errors in parentheses.
***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.
Density of waterlogged sites = DWS.
OLS test results (16 land use classes).
| Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnDWS | lnDWS | lnDWS | lnDWS | lnDWS | |
| lnLPI | 0.0973 | 0.1137* | 0.0816 | 0.1573 | 0.1727 |
| (0.1318) | (0.0774) | (0.1345) | (0.2517) | (0.2119) | |
| lnCOHESION | 0.0714 | 0.0578 | 0.0813 | 0.0687 | 0.0952 |
| (0.1784) | (0.0715) | (0.0934) | (0.0881) | (0.1748) | |
| lnDIVISION | −3.0186 | −2.0331* | −1.0274* | ||
| (6.7154) | (1.8921) | (0.8356) | |||
| lnCONTAG | 0.1128 | 0.1276* | |||
| (0.2315) | (0.0817) | ||||
| lnSHDI | −2.2156 | ||||
| (0.2486) | |||||
| lnPrecipitation | 4.1324** | 1.7623** | 1.7687* | 4.8786** | |
| (1.8434) | (0.9817) | (2.8136) | (2.3365) | ||
| Constant | 20.3184* | 18.7565* | 16.8673* | 15.1341 | 17.8616*** |
| (14.9176) | (14.3845) | (12.6732) | (17.5361) | (3.2984) | |
| Radj2 | 0.138 | 0.204 | 0.213 | 0.224 | 0.231 |
Standard errors in parentheses.
***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.
Density of waterlogged sites = DWS.
Figure 1The scatter plot of Moran’s I values for waterlogged site density in Shenzhen City.
Figure 2An aggregated local indicators of spatial association (LISA) map of waterlogged site density in Shenzhen City.
Regression coefficients for the relationships between the density of waterlogged sites and landscape pattern indexes from the geographically weighted regression (GWR) model.
| Variable | Average | Minimum | Lower quartile | Median | Upper quartile | Maximum | AIC | R2 | Radj2 | F | SD | t | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4 class | Built up_LPI | 3.625 | 3.317 | 3.507 | 3.646 | 3.881 | 4.085 | 658.56 | 0.443 | 0.346 | 2.712 | 0.818 | 4.208 |
| Built up_COHESION | 93.705 | 42.330 | 58.724 | 101.123 | 133.691 | 150.749 | 658.88 | 0.482 | 0.352 | 2.570 | 18.60 | 3.758 | |
| Built up_DIVISION | −356.89 | −390.695 | −378.674 | −363.753 | −348.88 | −323.99 | 657.34 | 0.455 | 0.361 | 2.525 | 75.99 | −4.51 | |
| CONTAG | 5.835 | 5.533 | 5.870 | 5.975 | 6.056 | 6.157 | 657.24 | 0.446 | 0.360 | 1.978 | 1.159 | 4.903 | |
| SHDI | −270.72 | −288.880 | −282.301 | −275.992 | −270.99 | −253.64 | 663.72 | 0.385 | 0.283 | 2.182 | 67.37 | −3.79 | |
16 class | Built up_LPI | 5.726 | 1.138 | 3.599 | 5.724 | 8.468 | 9.743 | 657.27 | 0.521 | 0.371 | 3.290 | 1.526 | 2.607 |
| Built up_COHESION | 36.313 | 25.345 | 32.589 | 37.927 | 41.976 | 45.374 | 650.27 | 0.558 | 0.443 | 2.258 | 6.818 | 5.195 | |
| Built up_DIVISION | −889.47 | −1929.27 | −1435.97 | −809.773 | −432.21 | −148.97 | 663.90 | 0.460 | 0.291 | 3.031 | 261.8 | −1.44 | |
| CONTAG | 7.855 | 4.748 | 6.451 | 7.888 | 9.742 | 11.308 | 671.28 | 0.336 | 0.186 | 2.217 | 3.274 | 1.903 | |
| SHDI | −197.51 | −266.164 | −242.705 | −201.611 | −169.15 | −123.84 | 669.85 | 0.354 | 0.207 | 2.311 | 73.66 | −2.13 |
Overview of data used in this study.
| Data type | Properties | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Waterlogging point data of Shenzhen during on rainstorm period on May 11, 2014 | A total of 278 points | Shenzhen Flood Control and Drought Prevention and Wind Control Headquarters |
| Land Use Data 2013 of Shenzhen | 30 × 30(m) | Shenzhen Government |
| DEM Data of Shenzhen | 30 × 30(m) | Geospatial Data Cloud |
| Daily Rainfall Data for Shenzhen, May 11, 2014 | Statistical data, recorded by 50 meteorological monitoring stations | Shenzhen Meteorological Bureau website |
Figure 3Distribution of regression coefficients for the relationships between the density of waterlogged sites and landscape pattern indexes (4 land use classes) in Shenzhen.
Figure 4Distribution of regression coefficients for the relationships between the density of waterlogged sites and landscape pattern indexes (16 land use classes) in Shenzhen.
Figure 5Three-dimensional 3-D scatter plot of regression coefficients for the relationships between the density of waterlogged sites and landscape pattern indexes (four land use classes) in Shenzhen.
Figure 6Three-dimensional 3-D scatter plot of regression coefficients for the relationships between the density of waterlogged sites and landscape pattern indexes (16 land use classes) in Shenzhen.
Figure 7Distribution of waterlogging points and the Shenzhen sub-watershed.
Figure 8The classification of land use.
Overview of landscape indices used in this study.
| Scale | Index | Unit | Range | Representational meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Type level | (LPI) | % | 0 < LPI ≤ 100 | Representing the dominance of landscape types. |
| (COHESION) | None | 0 < COHESION < 100 | Reflecting the degree of patch accumulation in the same landscape type, the higher the value, the higher the patch cohesion. | |
| (DIVISION) | None | 0 ≤ DIVISION < 1 | Reflecting the degree of patch dispersion in the same landscape type. Value = 0, the landscape type is composed of a single patch; Value = 1, the landscape type is composed of many small patches. | |
| Landscape Level | (CONTAG) | % | 0<CONTAG ≤ 100 | Describing the degree of agglomeration or extension of different landscape types. |
| (SHDI) | None | 0 ≤ SHDI | To characterize the complexity of the landscape as a whole, the greater its value, the higher the complexity of the landscape as a whole. |
Note: The contents of the table are from the Fragstats 4.2 user manual.
The classification and description of the independent variables.
| Variable category | Variable subcategory | Variable names | Variable description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landscape pattern index | 4 rough classification | Green space, Built up, Water, Bare land | Built up_ Landscape pattern indexes | Under 4 rough classification circumstance, each Landscape pattern index has been calculated |
| (LPI, COHESION, DIVISION) | ||||
| 4 classification_ Landscape pattern indexes | ||||
| (CONTAG,SHDI) | ||||
| 16 fine classification | Arable land, Garden, Forest, Grassland, Business place, Warehousing and mining, Residential land, | Built up_ Landscape pattern indexes | Under 16 fine classification circumstance, each Landscape pattern index has been calculated | |
| Public land, Park, | (LPI, COHESION, DIVISION) | |||
| Special land, Traffic land, River, Other waters, | 16 classification_ Landscape pattern indexes | |||
| Water facilities, wasteland, | (CONTAG,SHDI) | |||
| Equipment farmland, | ||||
| Other variables | Average daily rainfall, average elevation, average undulation | Statistics in small watersheds | ||