| Literature DB >> 36059423 |
Abstract
Improving carbon reserves is considered to be an important way to alleviate global warming. However, there is a lack of research work based on the perspective of metropolitan area, and there is also a lack of analysis on the leading influencing factors of spatial distribution of carbon storage in subregions of metropolitan area. In this study, Nanjing metropolitan area (NMA) is taken as the research area, and the InVEST model is used to calculate the spatial distribution of regional carbon reserves, and the evolution of carbon reserves distribution in recent 20 years is analyzed. Then, based on the random forest (RF) model, taking the whole study area and subareas as the research scope, a regression model of each selected impact factor and carbon reserves is established, and the leading factors of spatial distribution of carbon reserves in NMA are obtained. The results show that the overall carbon reserves level in the study area is in a downward trend. Through the application of the RF model, the leading factors of the spatial distribution of carbon reserves in NMA and its subareas are derived. The research proves that the application of the RF model in the analysis is helpful for city planners and governments to make plans and improve regional carbon storage more effectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36059423 PMCID: PMC9436533 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3013620
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Location of the study site.
Administrative regions included in the study area and subareas.
| Area | Including administrative divisions |
|---|---|
| NMA | Nanjing metropolitan area |
| UCA | Nanjing city |
| UPA | Jingkou district, Runzhou district, Dantu district and Jurong city in Zhenjiang city, Guangling district, Hanjiang district, Jiangdu district and Yizheng city in Yangzhou city, Xuyi county in Huai'an city, Jinghu district, Yijiang district and Jiujiang district in Wuhu city, Anhui province, Huashan district, Yushan district, Bowang district, He county and Dangtu county in Ma'anshan city, Langya district and Nanqiao district in Chuzhou city |
| UEA | The areas except the above areas in Zhenjiang city, Yangzhou city, Huai'an city, Wuhu city, Maanshan city, Chuzhou city and Xuancheng city, and Jintan city and Liyang city in Changzhou city |
Carbon density of different LULC types used in this study.
| Land use types | Carbon density (kg/m3) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aboveground | Underground | Soil | Dead | |
| Cultivated lands | 1.8873 | 1.2457 | 8.6759 | 0.2410 |
| Forests | 3.6339 | 0.7268 | 12.0758 | 0.3354 |
| Grasslands | 1.7374 | 2.0849 | 10.5847 | 0.2940 |
| Water bodies | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 8.1100 | 0.0000 |
| Artificial surfaces | 1.6153 | 0.3231 | 7.2920 | 0.0000 |
| Bare lands | 2.4291 | 0.4858 | 8.0719 | 0.2242 |
Figure 2Impact factors used in this thesis.
Figure 3Framework of the RF model in this thesis.
Figure 4Distribution of carbon reserves in NMA from 2000 to 2020.
Carbon reserves data of different levels in Nanjing metropolitan area.
| Year | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total area and proportion of each level | Level A | 6230.3391 | 8101.602 | 9067.167 |
| 9.52% | 12.38% | 13.85% | ||
| Level B | 47701.1169 | 45640.1502 | 44697.575 | |
| 72.88% | 69.73% | 68.29% | ||
| Level C | 5278.218 | 5084.54 | 5063.052 | |
| 8.06% | 7.77% | 7.74% | ||
| Level D | 6241.9599 | 6625.6569 | 6618.222 | |
| 9.54% | 10.12% | 10.11% | ||
Figure 5Carbon reserves variation in 2000 to 2010 and 2010 to 2020.
The errors and R2 of the RF model for NMA and its subareas.
| Area | Model | Set type | RMSE | MAE | MAPE |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NMA | I | Training set | 0.309 | 0.176 | 1.628 | 0.926 |
| Test set | 0.377 | 0.207 | 1.905 | 0.892 | ||
|
| ||||||
| UCA | II | Training set | 0.123 | 0.089 | 0.886 | 0.982 |
| Test set | 0.257 | 0.155 | 1.596 | 0.919 | ||
|
| ||||||
| UPA | III | Training set | 0.466 | 0.136 | 1.206 | 0.901 |
| Test set | 0.348 | 0.171 | 1.586 | 0.884 | ||
|
| ||||||
| UEA | IV | Training set | 0.328 | 0.191 | 1.727 | 0.925 |
| Test set | 0.412 | 0.226 | 2.036 | 0.888 | ||
Figure 6Test set prediction results. (a) Test set prediction results of MODEL I (b) test set prediction results of MODEL II (c) test set prediction results of MODEL III (d) test set prediction results of MODEL IV.
Figure 7The relative importance of the factors.