| Literature DB >> 32408569 |
Kongming Li1, Mingming Feng1, Asim Biswas2, Haohai Su1, Yalin Niu1, Jianjun Cao1.
Abstract
Land use and cover change (LUCC) is an important issue affecting the global environment, climate change, and sustainable development. Detecting and predicting LUCC, a dynamic process, and its driving factors will help in formulating effective land use and planning policy suitable for local conditions, thus supporting local socioeconomic development and global environmental protection. In this study, taking Gansu Province as a case study example, we explored the LUCC pattern and its driving mechanism from 1980 to 2018, and predicted land use and cover in 2030 using the integrated LCM (Logistic-Cellular Automata-Markov chain) model and data from satellite remote sensing. The results suggest that the LUCC pattern was more reasonable in the second stage (2005 to 2018) compared with that in the first stage (1980 to 2005). This was because a large area of green lands was protected by ecological engineering in the second stage. From 1980 to 2018, in general, natural factors were the main force influencing changes in land use and cover in Gansu, while the effects of socioeconomic factors were not significant because of the slow development of economy. Landscape indices analysis indicated that predicted land use and cover in 2030 under the ecological protection scenario would be more favorable than under the historical trend scenario. Besides, results from the present study suggested that LUCC in arid and semiarid area could be well detected by the LCM model. This study would hopefully provide theoretical instructions for future land use planning and management, as well as a new methodology reference for LUCC analysis in arid and semiarid regions.Entities:
Keywords: CA-Markov model; LUCC driving factors; land use prediction; logistic regression; remote sensing
Year: 2020 PMID: 32408569 PMCID: PMC7285483 DOI: 10.3390/s20102757
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Location of Gansu Province.
Figure 2Land use and cover maps for 1980, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2018.
Figure 3Framework building for the present study.
Potential driving factors.
| Factor Types | Potential Driving Factors | Description | Units | Signs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural factors | temperature | annual mean temperature | mm | X1 |
| precipitation | annual mean precipitation | °C | X2 | |
| elevation | DEM data | m | X3 | |
| aspect | range from 0 to 360 | ° | X4 | |
| slope | range from 0 to 90 | ° | X5 | |
| Proximity factors | distance to water body | Euclidean distance to water body | km | X6 |
| distance to road | Euclidean distance to road | km | X7 | |
| distance to residential point | Euclidean distance to residential point | km | X8 | |
| Socioeconomic factors | GDP change | mean annual growth rate of GDP | % | X9 |
| GDP per capita | mean annual growth rate of GDP per capita | % | X10 | |
| agricultural outputs | mean annual growth rate of agricultural output | % | X11 | |
| industrial outputs | mean annual growth rate of industrial output | % | X12 | |
| tertiary industry outputs | mean annual growth rate of tertiary industry output | % | X13 | |
| livestock number | mean annual growth rate of livestock | % | X14 | |
| population change | mean annual natural population growth rate | % | X15 |
Figure 4ROC value of each land use type in different modeling scales.
Weights of selected driving factors.
| Potential Factors | Farmland | Forest | Grassland | Water Area | Built-Up Land | Unused Land |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | - | 0.039 | 0.028 | 0.034 | - | 0.033 |
| X2 | 0.077 | 0.113 | 0.082 | 0.098 | 0.164 | 0.096 |
| X3 | 0.044 | 0.064 | 0.046 | 0.055 | 0.093 | 0.054 |
| X4 | 0.067 | 0.098 | 0.071 | - | - | - |
| X5 | 0.114 | 0.166 | 0.121 | 0.144 | 0.242 | 0.170 |
| X6 | 0.138 | - | - | 0.174 | - | 0.135 |
| X7 | 0.109 | - | 0.116 | 0.138 | 0.232 | 0.117 |
| X8 | 0.095 | 0.139 | 0.101 | 0.120 | 0.202 | - |
| X9 | - | 0.084 | 0.061 | - | - | - |
| X10 | 0.066 | 0.096 | 0.070 | 0.083 | - | 0.081 |
| X11 | 0.031 | - | - | - | 0.066 | - |
| X12 | 0.121 | - | 0.128 | 0.153 | - | 0.149 |
| X13 | - | - | 0.029 | - | - | 0.034 |
| X14 | 0.106 | 0.155 | 0.112 | - | - | 0.131 |
| X15 | 0.032 | 0.047 | 0.034 | - | - | - |
NOTE: “-” represents that this factor was not selected.
Land use and cover conversion matrix from 1980 to 2005 (km2).
| Land Use and Cover Types in 1980 | Land Use and Cover Types in 2005 | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farmland | Forest | Grassland | Water Area | Built-Up Land | Unused Land | ||
| Farmland | - | 341.11 | 1997.17 | 46.03 | 479.05 | 136.66 | 3000.02 |
| Forest | 211.59 | - | 918.90 | 6.96 | 19.08 | 26.39 | 1182.90 |
| Grassland | 2373.87 | 983.81 | - | 34.55 | 71.69 | 674.99 | 4138.90 |
| Water area | 165.07 | 22.30 | 84.72 | - | 8.59 | 58.49 | 339.17 |
| Built-up land | 105.53 | 4.83 | 25.23 | 1.52 | - | 1.92 | 139.02 |
| Unused land | 997.22 | 35.15 | 735.23 | 63.19 | 46.60 | - | 1877.38 |
| Total | 3853.27 | 1387.19 | 3761.25 | 152.25 | 625.00 | 898.44. | 10677.41 |
Land use and cover conversion matrix from 2005 to 2018 (km2).
| Land Use and Cover Types in 2005 | Land Use and Cover Types in 2018 | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farmland | Forest | Grassland | Water Area | Built-Up Land | Unused Land | ||
| Farmland | - | 1335.04 | 12703.67 | 319.27 | 1916.13 | 632.04 | 16906.15 |
| Forest | 1121.55 | - | 5412.95 | 57.88 | 80.93 | 327.87 | 7001.17 |
| Grassland | 11532.78 | 5624.00 | - | 332.93 | 626.79 | 5367.83 | 23484.34 |
| Water area | 270.05 | 56.21 | 272.08 | - | 43.77 | 205.70 | 847.81 |
| Built-up land | 1119.76 | 51.28 | 295.43 | 24.19 | - | 29.94 | 1520.59 |
| Unused land | 1340.63 | 312.00 | 5535.72 | 664.38 | 452.30 | - | 8305.03 |
| Total | 15384.77 | 7378.53 | 24219.85 | 1398.66 | 3119.92 | 6563.37 | 58065.09 |
Dynamic degree and intensity of LUCC from 1980 to 2018.
| Land Use and Cover Types | Dynamic Degree (%) | Intensity (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1980–2005 | 2005–2018 | 1980–2005 | 2005–2018 | |
| Farmland | 0.051 | −0.168 | 0.008 | −0.028 |
| Forest | 0.020 | 0.065 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Grassland | −0.010 | 0.034 | −0.003 | 0.012 |
| Water area | −0.205 | 1.146 | −0.002 | 0.010 |
| Built-up land | 0.569 | 3.030 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Unused land | −0.022 | −0.076 | −0.009 | −0.033 |
Results of binary logistic regression analysis.
| Land Use and Cover Types | Driving Factors | Regression Coefficients | Standard | Wald | Significance | Exp (B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farmland | X4 | −0.001 | 0.000 | 10.281 | 0.001 | 0.999 |
| X3 | −0.001 | 0.000 | 170.418 | 0.000 | 0.999 | |
| X2 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 138.424 | 0.000 | 1.003 | |
| X5 | −0.052 | 0.004 | 160.534 | 0.000 | 0.949 | |
| X12 | −2.723 | 0.309 | 77.781 | 0.000 | 0.066 | |
| X7 | −0.065 | 0.000 | 13.307 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| X8 | −0.206 | 0.000 | 363.532 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| X6 | −0.051 | 0.000 | 11.809 | 0.001 | 1.000 | |
| X11 | 6.017 | 1.053 | 32.631 | 0.000 | 410.209 | |
| X10 | 5.910 | 0.607 | 94.715 | 0.000 | 368.881 | |
| X15 | −0.536 | 0.253 | 4.510 | 0.034 | 0.585 | |
| X14 | 0.193 | 0.088 | 4.788 | 0.029 | 1.212 | |
| Forest | X4 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 3.967 | 0.046 | 1.001 |
| X3 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 200.220 | 0.000 | 1.001 | |
| X2 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 380.118 | 0.000 | 1.005 | |
| X5 | 0.049 | 0.004 | 163.644 | 0.000 | 1.050 | |
| X1 | 0.160 | 0.021 | 56.974 | 0.000 | 1.173 | |
| X9 | −2.280 | 0.656 | 12.079 | 0.001 | 0.102 | |
| X8 | −0.030 | 0.000 | 12.065 | 0.001 | 1.000 | |
| X10 | 5.248 | 0.685 | 58.726 | 0.000 | 190.262 | |
| X15 | −0.755 | 0.308 | 5.998 | 0.014 | 0.470 | |
| X14 | −0.512 | 0.093 | 30.063 | 0.000 | 0.600 | |
| Grassland | X4 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5.913 | 0.015 | 1.000 |
| X3 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 71.275 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| X2 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 54.098 | 0.000 | 1.001 | |
| X5 | 0.008 | 0.003 | 10.756 | 0.001 | 1.009 | |
| X1 | −0.041 | 0.014 | 8.750 | 0.003 | 0.960 | |
| X9 | −2.202 | 0.496 | 19.749 | 0.000 | 0.111 | |
| X13 | 0.965 | 0.400 | 5.834 | 0.016 | 2.625 | |
| X12 | −1.196 | 0.245 | 23.870 | 0.000 | 0.302 | |
| X7 | −0.017 | 0.000 | 6.290 | 0.012 | 1.000 | |
| X8 | −0.020 | 0.000 | 43.804 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| X10 | 3.961 | 0.491 | 64.958 | 0.000 | 52.494 | |
| X15 | 0.945 | 0.171 | 30.683 | 0.000 | 2.573 | |
| X14 | −0.326 | 0.076 | 18.425 | 0.000 | 0.722 | |
| Water area | X3 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 37.197 | 0.000 | 1.001 |
| X2 | −0.002 | 0.001 | 6.110 | 0.013 | 0.998 | |
| X5 | −0.046 | 0.013 | 11.821 | 0.001 | 0.955 | |
| X1 | 0.195 | 0.069 | 8.047 | 0.005 | 1.215 | |
| X12 | −4.478 | 1.274 | 12.356 | 0.000 | 0.011 | |
| X7 | −0.129 | 0.000 | 16.105 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| X8 | −0.102 | 0.000 | 18.335 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| X6 | −0.001 | 0.000 | 44.078 | 0.000 | 0.999 | |
| X10 | 5.070 | 1.919 | 6.979 | 0.008 | 159.219 | |
| Built-up land | X3 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 5.749 | 0.016 | 1.000 |
| X2 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 31.395 | 0.000 | 1.003 | |
| X5 | −0.139 | 0.019 | 53.999 | 0.000 | 0.870 | |
| X7 | −0.390 | 0.000 | 19.492 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| X8 | −0.255 | 0.000 | 47.063 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| X11 | −6.555 | 2.902 | 5.101 | 0.024 | 0.001 | |
| Unused land | X3 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 108.017 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| X2 | −0.012 | 0.000 | 933.409 | 0.000 | 0.988 | |
| X1 | −0.562 | 0.036 | 240.324 | 0.000 | 0.570 | |
| X13 | 1.762 | 0.584 | 9.110 | 0.003 | 5.825 | |
| X12 | 4.198 | 0.422 | 98.789 | 0.000 | 66.535 | |
| X7 | 0.044 | 0.000 | 25.954 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| X8 | 0.035 | 0.000 | 89.307 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| X6 | 0.081 | 0.000 | 76.450 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| X10 | −6.935 | 0.808 | 73.715 | 0.000 | 0.001 | |
| X14 | −1.608 | 0.312 | 26.473 | 0.000 | 0.200 |
Figure 5Predicted and actual land use and cover maps in 2015: (a) predicted land use maps by model; (b) actual maps from remote sensing.
Validation of predicted land use and cover in 2015 (km2).
| Land Use and Cover | Farmland | Forest | Grassland | Water Area | Built-Up Land | Unused Land | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actuality | 64927.88 | 38226.20 | 143,281.66 | 3357.43 | 4260.18 | 171,445.61 | 425,498.98 |
| Prediction | 72139.68 | 38431.24 | 145,349.78 | 5376.15 | 5849.64 | 158,393.94 | 425,540.43 |
| Error | 0.111 | 0.005 | 0.014 | 0.60 | 0.373 | −0.076 | 0.0001 |
Figure 6Prediction for land use and cover in 2030 under two scenarios.
Figure 7Landscape indices in Gansu Province: (a) area-edge indices; (b) shape indices; (c) landscape aggregation indices; (d) landscape diversity indices.