| Literature DB >> 33028037 |
Xiaoyang Liu1, Ming Wei2,3, Jian Zeng1.
Abstract
In recent decades, the ecological security pattern (ESP) has drawn increasing scientific attention against the backdrop of rapid urbanization and worsening ecological environment. Despite numerous achievements in identifying and constructing the ecological security pattern, limited attention has been paid on applying ESP to predict urban growth. To bridge the research gap, this paper took Quanzhou, China as a study case and incorporated the identified ESP into an urban growth simulation with three distinct scenarios. Following the "ecological source-ecological corridor-ecological security pattern" paradigm, the ESP identification was carried out from four single aspects (i.e., water, geology, biodiversity, and recreation) into three levels (i.e., basic ESP, intermediate ESP, and optimal ESP). Grounded in an equally weighted superposition algorithm, the four single ESPs were combined as an integrated ESP (IESP) with three levels. Taking IESP as an exclusion element, urban growth simulation in 2030 was completed with thee SLEUTH model. Drawing on the three levels of IESP, our urban growth simulation contained three scenarios. In terms of urban sprawl distribution coupled with urban growth rate, an optimal urban growth scenario is recommended in this paper to balance both urban development and eco-environment protection. We argue that our ESP-based urban growth simulation results shed new light on predicting urban sprawl and have the potential to inform planners and policymakers to contribute to more environmentally-friendly urban development.Entities:
Keywords: SLEUTH model; ecological security pattern; urban growth simulation
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33028037 PMCID: PMC7579663 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17197282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location of Quanzhou.
Data information.
| Data | Utility | Data Source |
|---|---|---|
| Land use | ESP identification; Urban growth simulation | Resource and Environment Cloud Platform |
| Annual rainfall | Water & Geology ESP identification | National Meteorological Information Center |
| NDVI | Biodiversity & Geology ESP identification | U.S. Geological Survey Landsat image |
| Slope | Water & Geology & Biodiversity ESP identification; Urban growth simulation | Calculated from DEM data; Geospatial Data Cloud |
| Elevation | Water & Geology & Biodiversity ESP identification | Derived from DEM data; Geospatial Data Cloud |
| Curvature | Geology ESP identification | Calculated from DEM data; Geospatial Data Cloud |
| Hill-shade | Urban growth simulation | Calculated from DEM data; Geospatial Data Cloud |
| Road | Geology & Biodiversity ESP identification; Urban growth simulation | National Geoinformation Service |
| Geological hazards | Geology ESP identification | Fujian Seismological Bureau; Fujian Water Conservancy Bureau |
| Soil type | Geology ESP identification | Fujian Agriculture Department |
| Nighttime light | Biodiversity ESP revision | Luojia-1 Satellite image |
| Recreation resources | Recreation ESP identification | Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China; Fujian Forestry Bureau |
Figure 2Methodological framework.
Calibration coefficients for the SLEUTH model.
| Growth Coefficients | Coarse | Fine | Final | BFC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCI = 5 | MCI = 7 | MCI = 9 | |||||
| NI = 3163 | NI = 7851 | NI = 7796 | |||||
| OSM = 0.4679 | OSM = 0.4723 | OSM = 0.5034 | |||||
| Range | Step | Range | Step | Range | Step | ||
| Dispersion | 0–100 | 25 | 25–100 | 15 | 40–75 | 7 | 81 |
| Breed | 0–100 | 25 | 50–100 | 10 | 50–75 | 5 | 51 |
| Road gravity | 0–100 | 25 | 0–75 | 15 | 30–75 | 9 | 66 |
| Slope | 0–100 | 25 | 25–70 | 9 | 25–40 | 3 | 35 |
| Spread | 0–100 | 25 | 25–100 | 15 | 25–55 | 6 | 42 |
BFC: Best Fit Coefficient, MCI: Monte Carlo Iterations, NI: Number of Iterations.
The SLEUTH model simulation accuracy.
| Modelling Results | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual value (number of pixels) | 64,455 | 106,264 | 127,652 |
| Simulation value (number of pixels) | 56,427 | 94,628 | 11,6457 |
| Simulation accuracy (%) | 87.54 | 89.05 | 91.23 |
Exclusion probability of the selected layers in the three urban growth scenarios (%).
| Exclusion Layers | Urban Growth Scenario A | Urban Growth Scenario B | Urban Growth Scenario C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Built–up area in 2015 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Water body | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Cultivated land | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Basic IESP | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Intermediate IESP | 70 | 70 | 0 |
| Optimal IESP | 50 | 0 | 0 |
Criteria for water ESP identification.
| Evaluation Factor | Basic Water ESP | Intermediate Water ESP | Optimal Water ESP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distance to river and lake (m) | ≤50 | 50–150 | 150–500 |
| Distance to surface water (m) | ≤500 | 500–1000 | 1000–1500 |
| Flood storage area (m3) | 3rd level of water storage area | 2nd level of water storage area | 1st level of water storage area |
| Distance to inundation area (km2) | 10–Year rain event | 50–Year rain event | 1000–Year rain event |
Figure 3(a) Water ESP; (b) Geology ESP; (c) Biodiversity ESP; (d) Recreation ESP.
Criteria for geology ESP identification.
| Evaluation Factor | Standardized Value | Weight | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Impact Area | Optimal ESP | Intermediate ESP | Basic Security | |||
| Insensitive (1) | Mildly Sensitive (3) | Moderately Sensitive (5) | Sensitive (7) | Highly Sensitive (9) | ||
| Average annual rainfall (mm) | <1300 | 1300–1400 | 1400–1500 | 1500–1600 | >1600 | 0.15 |
| Slope (°) | <5 | 5–15 | 15–25 | 25–35 | >35 | 0.1 |
| Elevation (m) | <200 | 200–500 | 500–800 | 800–1000 | >1000 | 0.1 |
| Curvature | −0.5–0.5 | (−1.5, −0.5], [0.5–1.5) | (−2.5, −1.5], [1.5–2.5) | (−3.5, −2.5], [2.5–3.5) | (−∞,−3.5], | 0.1 |
| Soil type | Paddy soil | Saline soil | Lateritic soil | Yellow soil | Purple soil | 0.1 |
| Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) | <0.55 | 0.4–0.55 | 0.25–0.4 | 0.1–0.25 | <0.1 | 0.1 |
| Land cover | Construction land | Forest | Irrigable land Dryland | Artificial grassland | Slash land | 0.1 |
| Distance to major road (m) | >5000 | 3000–5000 | 1500–3000 | 500–1500 | <500 | 0.1 |
| Geological hazards number | <2 | 2–4 | 4–6 | 6–8 | >8 | 0.15 |
Criteria for biological habitat suitability.
| Evaluation Factor | Classification | Value | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Land cover | Urban and other construction lands | 0 | 0.35 |
| Rural residential land | 1 | ||
| Bare land | 2 | ||
| Lowly covered grassland | 3 | ||
| Dryland and medium covered grassland | 5 | ||
| Sparse forest and waterway | 6 | ||
| Shrub and highly covered grassland | 7 | ||
| Closed forest, lake, reservoir, wetland | 8 | ||
| Paddy filed and mudflats | 10 | ||
| Elevation (m) | 0–100 | 5 | 0.10 |
| 100–800 | 10 | ||
| 800–1500 | 5 | ||
| >1500 | 1 | ||
| Distance to water sources (m) | 0–2000 | 6 | 0.25 |
| 2000–7000 | 8 | ||
| 7000–15000 | 10 | ||
| 15000–30000 | 5 | ||
| >30000 | 2 | ||
| Distance to Built–up area (m) | >6000 | 10 | 0.15 |
| 4000–6000 | 5 | ||
| 2000–4000 | 3 | ||
| 0–2000 | 1 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| Distance to road (m) | 0–500 | 0 | 0.15 |
| 500–1000 | 1 | ||
| 1000–2000 | 3 | ||
| 2000–4000 | 5 | ||
| >4000 | 10 |
Land cover resistance for biodiversity and recreation ESP identification.
| Land Cover | Resistance Coefficient | Land Cover | Resistance Coefficient |
|---|---|---|---|
| Closed forest | 1 | Mudflats | 100 |
| Shrub forest, highly covered grassland | 10 | Dryland | 200 |
| Medium covered grassland | 20 | Bare land and saline–alkali land | 300 |
| Sparse forest | 30 | Rural residential land | 400 |
| Paddy field | 50 | Urban land | 500 |
| Waterbody | 50 | Other construction lands | 500 |
Figure 4(a) Nighttime light in Quanzhou city; (b) Revised resistance surface.
Criteria for biodiversity ESP identification.
| Evaluation Factor | Basic Biodiversity ESP | Intermediate Biodiversity ESP | Optimal Biodiversity ESP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distance to biodiversity source (m) | 0 | 0–200 | 200–300 |
| MCR value | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
| Distance to biodiversity corridor (m) | <100 | 100–200 | 200–300 |
Criteria for recreation ESP identification.
| Evaluation Factor | Basic Recreation ESP | Intermediate Recreation ESP | Optimal Recreation ESP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distance to recreation source (m) | 0 | 0–200 | 200–300 |
| MCR value | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
| Distance to recreation corridor (m) | <100 | 100–200 | 200–300 |
Figure 5Integrated ESP with three different scenarios in Quanzhou city.
Figure 6(a) Urban growth scenario A; (b) Urban growth scenario B; (c) Urban growth scenario C.
Statistics of urban growth simulation.
| Period | Urban Growth Scenarios | Urban Growth Area (km2) | Annual Urban Growth Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000–2015 | Historical record | 538.8 | 4.4% |
| 2015–2030 | Urban growth scenario A | 750.5 | 3.6% |
| Urban growth scenario B | 677.7 | 3.3% | |
| Urban growth scenario C | 498.4 | 2.5% |