| Literature DB >> 36078185 |
Menglin Ou1, Xiaochun Lai2, Jian Gong1.
Abstract
Changes in the territorial pattern of the Beibu Gulf, an environmentally sensitive and ecologically fragile area in China, will directly or indirectly affect the regional ecological environment, while profoundly influencing economic development and human well-being. Therefore, it is significant to understand the ecological response in the process of territorial space changes in the Beibu Gulf to promote the coordination between sea and land and sustainable regional development. This paper used remote sensing image interpretation to generate land-use maps in 2000, 2010 and 2020, and then analyzed the spatial and temporal evolution of the territorial pattern of the Beibu Gulf from 2000 to 2020. Finally, this paper proposed a comprehensive carrying capacity evaluation system and explored the spatial functional zones of the coastal areas of the Beibu Gulf. The results showed that the demand for urban development and ecological protection between 2000 and 2020 increased built-up land and forestland by 386.71% and 25.56%, respectively, and reduced farmland by 28.33%. There was significant spatial heterogeneity in various land-use types. Where forestland is mainly distributed in the west, farmland is mainly distributed in the east, wetland is mainly distributed in the south, and orchards are spread throughout the whole area. The evaluation results of land resources, water resources and ecological conditions in the Beibu Gulf area showed that its comprehensive carrying capacity was high in the south and low in the north, and high in the west and low in the east. On this basis, this paper considered the actual situation of natural resources, ecological conditions, socio-economic development, protection and development in coastal areas; divided the study area into four categories: developed areas, priority development areas, ecological reserve areas and coastal reserve areas; and put forward corresponding control suggestions. The results of this paper could provide a scientific basis for regional development and territorial spatial planning in the coastal areas.Entities:
Keywords: coastal area; comprehensive carrying capacity; territorial pattern evolution; the Beibu Gulf
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078185 PMCID: PMC9518303 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710469
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The geographical location (a), 8 counties (b), 1 km grid and coastal zone (c) in the study area.
Classification of territorial space and land-use type.
| Territorial Space | Land-Use Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Production space | Farmland | Agricultural production land |
| Orchard | Fruit production land | |
| Aquaculture land | Aquaculture production land | |
| Ecological space | Forestland | Forests with the crown density more than 0.2 |
| Wetland | Oceans, rivers, lakes and mud flats | |
| Bare land | Abandoned land and bare rock | |
| Living space | Built-up land | Towns, roads and settlements |
Land-use types and classification examples in remote sensing images for three territorial spaces.
| Territorial Space | Classification Examples in Satellite Images | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Production space |
|
|
|
|
| Farmland (Paddy field) | Farmland (Dry land) | Orchard | Aquaculture land | |
| Ecological space |
|
|
|
|
| Forestland | River | Lake | Bare rock | |
| Living space |
|
| ||
| Town and settlement | Road | |||
Landscape pattern index in our study.
| Landscape Pattern Index | Study Scale | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| CA (Class Area) | Class scale | Describing the differences in patch distribution of different land-use types |
| NP (Number of Patches) | Class scale | Describing the number of patches of different land-use types and their degree of fragmentation |
| PD (Patch Density) | Class and landscape scales | Describing the fragmentation degree of patches of different land-use types for class scale, and the average fragmentation degree of all land-use patches in the entire study area for landscape scale |
| LPI (Largest Patch Index) | Class scale | Describing the dominant land-use type |
| PAFRC (Perimeter Area of Fractal Dimension) | Class scale | Describing the shape characteristics of patches of different land-use types |
| IJI (Interspersion and Juxtaposition Index) | Class scale | Describing the spatial distribution and juxtaposition of patches of different land-use types |
| LSI (Landscape Shape Index) | Landscape scale | Describing the comprehensive shape characteristics of patches of different land-use types throughout the study area |
| CONTAG (Contagion Index) | Landscape scale | Describing the extension trend of patches of different land-use types in the whole study area |
| COHESION (Cohesion index) | Landscape scale | Describing the degree of aggregation of patches of different land-use types throughout the study area |
| SHDI (Shannon’s Diversity Index) | Landscape scale | Describing each land-use type that tends to be distributed evenly throughout the study area |
Figure 2Evaluation index system of comprehensive carrying capacity of national territorial space.
Weights of each indicator for comprehensive carrying capacity.
| Target Layer | Criterion Layer | Weight | Indicator Layer | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive carrying capacity | Land resources | 0.399 | Development potential of construction land | 0.10374 |
| Potential of cultivated land | 0.08778 | |||
| Development potential of coastal zone | 0.20748 | |||
| Water resources | 0.229 | Water resources support capacity | 0.08015 | |
| Water supply capacity | 0.0916 | |||
| Hydrological regulation ability | 0.05725 | |||
| Ecological conditions | 0.372 | Biodiversity | 0.17856 | |
| Environmental purification capability | 0.08184 | |||
| Ecological importance of coastal zone | 0.1116 |
Land-use area and their changes during 2000 and 2020 in the study area.
| Territorial Space | Land-Use Type | Land-Use Area (%) | Change Rate of Land-Use Area (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | 2000–2010 | 2010–2020 | 2000–2020 | ||
| Production space | Farmland | 41.61 | 31.23 | 29.82 | −24.95 | −4.51 | −28.33 |
| Orchard | 28.88 | 30.82 | 30.76 | 6.7 | −0.18 | 6.51 | |
| Aquaculture land | 2.82 | 4.43 | 3.55 | 57.21 | −19.84 | 26.02 | |
| Ecological space | Forestland | 17.25 | 21.76 | 21.66 | 26.12 | −0.45 | 25.56 |
| Wetland | 3.28 | 3.39 | 4.12 | 3.08 | 21.74 | 25.5 | |
| Bare land | 3.86 | 4.27 | 3.19 | 10.65 | −25.29 | −17.34 | |
| Living space | Built-up land | 1.38 | 3.51 | 6.74 | 153.81 | 91.76 | 386.71 |
Land-use dynamic degree during 2000 and 2020 in the study area.
| Territorial Space | Land-Use Type | Land-Use Dynamic Degree (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000–2010 | 2010–2020 | 2000–2020 | ||
| Production space | Farmland | −3.56 | −0.56 | −1.89 |
| Orchard | 0.96 | −0.02 | 0.43 | |
| Aquaculture land | 8.17 | −2.48 | 1.73 | |
| Ecological space | Forestland | 3.73 | −0.06 | 1.7 |
| Wetland | 0.44 | 2.72 | 1.7 | |
| Bare land | 1.52 | −3.16 | −1.16 | |
| Living space | Built-up land | 21.97 | 11.47 | 25.78 |
Figure 3The territorial spaces and land-use pattern in 2000 (a), 2010 (b) and 2020 (c).
Landscape pattern indexes for class scale in the study area.
| Territorial Space | Land-Use Type | Time | Landscape Pattern Index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA | NP | PD | LPI | PAFRAC | IJI | |||
| Production space | Farmland | 2000 | 368,541.18 | 47,276 | 2.34 | 4.77 | 1.48 | 55.29 |
| 2010 | 276,307.74 | 58,652 | 2.9 | 1.29 | 1.51 | 60.24 | ||
| 2020 | 264,707.73 | 55,799 | 2.76 | 3.08 | 1.47 | 65.5 | ||
| Orchard | 2000 | 255,871.71 | 73,713 | 3.64 | 1.07 | 1.49 | 49.86 | |
| 2010 | 273,161.07 | 65,598 | 3.24 | 1.08 | 1.49 | 49.07 | ||
| 2020 | 272,339.91 | 50,350 | 2.49 | 2.72 | 1.46 | 61.48 | ||
| Aquaculture land | 2000 | 32,269.5 | 9991 | 0.49 | 0.08 | 1.51 | 75.77 | |
| 2010 | 47,184.66 | 5822 | 0.29 | 0.62 | 1.48 | 90.26 | ||
| 2020 | 35,061.84 | 13,763 | 0.68 | 0.31 | 1.49 | 74.6 | ||
| Ecological space | Forestland | 2000 | 152,552.52 | 17,630 | 0.87 | 3.48 | 1.39 | 35.16 |
| 2010 | 192,423.33 | 30,192 | 1.49 | 6.42 | 1.45 | 54.39 | ||
| 2020 | 191,535.3 | 17,938 | 0.89 | 5.38 | 1.4 | 56.42 | ||
| Wetland | 2000 | 168,618.69 | 10,992 | 0.54 | 7.16 | 1.41 | 79.39 | |
| 2010 | 165,802.41 | 11,485 | 0.57 | 6.79 | 1.43 | 90.76 | ||
| 2020 | 171,593.19 | 22,319 | 1.1 | 2.87 | 1.43 | 90.92 | ||
| Bare land | 2000 | 34,228.71 | 45,739 | 2.26 | 0.01 | 1.45 | 44.91 | |
| 2010 | 38,382.57 | 37,661 | 1.86 | 0.02 | 1.36 | 66.4 | ||
| 2020 | 30,995.55 | 29,072 | 1.44 | 0.04 | 1.39 | 74.2 | ||
| Living space | Built-up land | 2000 | 12,466.44 | 8322 | 0.41 | 0.1 | 1.43 | 72.21 |
| 2010 | 32,659.29 | 25,807 | 1.27 | 0.19 | 1.44 | 80.2 | ||
| 2020 | 63,821.79 | 44,004 | 2.17 | 0.44 | 1.45 | 75.27 | ||
Landscape pattern indexes for landscape scale in the study area.
| Time | PD | LSI | CONTAG | COHESION | SHDI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 11.69 | 216.46 | 46.14 | 99.60 | 1.62 |
| 2010 | 12.34 | 216.24 | 42.83 | 99.35 | 1.73 |
| 2020 | 11.77 | 191.17 | 43.40 | 99.31 | 1.73 |
Figure 4Assessing results for development potential of construction land (a), potential of cultivated land (b), development potential of coastal zone (c), water resources support capacity (d), water supply capacity (e), hydrological regulation ability (f), biodiversity (g), environmental purification capability (h) and ecological importance of coastal zone (i) in the study area with 1 km grid.
Figure 5Assessing results for land resources (a), water resources (b), ecological conditions (c) and comprehensive carrying capacity (d) in the study area with 1 km grid.
Figure 6Zoning layout based on comprehensive carrying capacity.
Zoning layout and control guidance for the study area.
| Zone | Main Function | Control Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| Developed areas | Production and living | No construction activities and maintaining current functions |
| Priority development areas | Industrial production and residential life | Urban construction and development |
| Agricultural production | Agriculture | |
| Fishery production | Aquaculture | |
| Port industry port construction | Port transportation | |
| Tourism | Modern service industry | |
| Ecological reserve areas | Environmental protection | Ecological protection, ecological restoration, controlled development and some consideration of ecological tourism |
| Coastal reserve areas | Ecological restoration | Mangrove restoration, coastal tourism |