Land-Use Pattern Evaluation Using GeoSOS-FLUS in National Territory Spatial Planning: A Case Study of Changzhi City, Shanxi Province
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Sources
2.3. Methods
2.3.1. Land-Use Dynamics
2.3.2. Comprehensive Index of Land Use Degree
2.3.3. Potential Evaluation
- (1)
- Evaluation of Intensive Use of Construction Land
- (2)
- Evaluation of the Potential of Cultivated Land Reserve Resources
- (3)
- Evaluation of the Potential for Rural Construction Land Consolidation
2.3.4. GeoSOS-FLUS
3. Results
3.1. Changes in the Amount of Land Use
3.2. Changes in Land Use
3.3. Potential Evaluation
3.4. Probabilistic Evolution Reasoning
4. Discussion
4.1. Overall Spatial Pattern of Changzhi City
4.2. Land Use Problems in Changzhi City
4.3. Suggestions on Critical Directions of Land Use
4.4. Deficiencies and Prospects
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- He, C.; Han, Q.; de Vries, B.; Wang, X.; Zhao, G. Evaluation of sustainable land management in urban area: A case study of Shanghai, China. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 80, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, H. Towards Sustainable Land Use in China: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2129–2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kukkonen, M.O.; Muhammad, M.J.; Kayhko, N.; Luoto, M. Urban expansion in Zanzibar City, Tanzania: Analyzing quantity, spatial patterns and effects of alternative planning approaches. Land Use Policy 2018, 71, 554–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasenev, V.I.; Stoorvogel, J.J.; Leemans, R.; Valentini, R.; Hajiaghayeva, R.A. Projection of urban expansion and related changes in soil carbon stocks in the Moscow Region. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 902–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owoeye, J.O.; Ibitoye, O.A. Analysis of Akure Urban Land Use Change Detection from Remote Imagery Perspective. Urban Stud. Res. 2016, 2016, 4673019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Quan, B.; Bai, Y.; Römkens, M.J.M.; Chang, K.-t.; Song, H.; Guo, T.; Lei, S. Urban land expansion in Quanzhou City, China, 1995–2010. Habitat Int. 2015, 48, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byomkesh, T.; Nakagoshi, N.; Dewan, A.M. Urbanization and green space dynamics in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 8, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, H.; Yang, C.; Song, J. Scenario Simulation and the Prediction of Land Use and Land Cover Change in Beijing, China. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4260–4279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Y.; Long, H. Land use transitions and their dynamic mechanism: The case of the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain. J. Geogr. Sci. 2016, 26, 515–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brundtland, G.H. World summit on sustainable development—Importance of health in economic development makes it a priority. BMJ-Br. Med. J. 2002, 325, 399–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Jiang, H. National territory spatial planning: Evaluation process, governance status and control strategies. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2021, 42, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, Z. From Land-Use Planning to Territorial Space Planning: A Perspective of Scientific and Rational Planning. China Land Sci. 2020, 34, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Guan, P.; Shi, S.; Wang, S.; Cui, W. Analysis on the Problems of my country’s Land and Space Planning. Land Resour. 2016, 4, 44–45. [Google Scholar]
- Lan, L.; Tian, Y. Research Progress and Prospects of Territorial Spatial Planning. Acta Agric. Jiangxi 2020, 32, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, P.M.; Joao, E. Land use planning and the ecosystem approach: An evaluation of case study planning frameworks against the Malawi Principles. Land Use Policy 2017, 68, 460–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Koomen, E.; Rietveld, P.; de Nijs, T. Modelling land-use change for spatial planning support. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2008, 42, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Todes, A. Urban growth and strategic spatial planning in Johannesburg, South Africa. Cities 2012, 29, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Q. Study on Evaluation of Land Use and Ecological Security Change in Changsha City. Master’s Thesis, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.; Wang, X.; Zhang, H. Simulation on optimized allocation of land resource based on DE-CA model. Ecol. Model. 2015, 314, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Bao, Y. Study on the Methods of Land Use Dynamic Change research. Prog. Geogr. 1999, 18, 83–89. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Xu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Cheng, L.; Lu, X.; Yang, Q. Analyzing the Value and Evolution of Land Use Functions from “Demand–Function–Value” Perspective: A Framework and Case Study from Zhangjiakou City, China. Land 2022, 11, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Li, S.; Wei, B.; Zhou, X. Characterizing Production–Living–Ecological Space Evolution and Its Driving Factors: A Case Study of the Chaohu Lake Basin in China from 2000 to 2020. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, H. Research on Land Use Change Analysis of the Spaio-Temporal Visualization. Ph.D. Thesis, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- He, Z. Review of Land Use Change Model. Environ. Sci. Surv. 2019, 38, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Bai, Z.; Sun, Q.; Zhou, W. Rural settlement changes in compound land use areas: Characteristics and reasons of changes in a mixed mining-rural-settlement area in Shanxi Province, China. Habitat Int. 2017, 61, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ying, L.; Dong, Z.; Wang, J.; Mei, Y.; Shen, Z.; Zhang, Y. Rural economic benefits of land consolidation in mountainous and hilly areas of southeast China: Implications for rural development. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 74, 142–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zare, M.; Panagopoulos, T.; Loures, L. Simulating the impacts of future land use change on soil erosion in the Kasilian watershed, Iran. Land Use Policy 2017, 67, 558–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, Y. The Study of Dynamic Change of Land Use and Forecast Analysis in Changzhi City from 2000 to 2020. Master’s Thesis, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, Q.; Zhao, X. Analysis on spatial-temporal features of land use in China. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2001, 56, 631–639. [Google Scholar]
- Zhuang, D.; Liu, J. Study on the model of regional differentiation of land use degree in China. J. Nat. Resour. 1997, 12, 105–111. [Google Scholar]
- TDT 1018-2008; Construction Land Conservation and Intensive Utilization Evaluation Regulations. Ministry of Land and Resources of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2008.
- Ye, D.; Wu, K.; Liu, P. Developmental Potentiality Evaluation of Cultivated Land Reserve in Jingtai Based on Normal Cloud Model and Entropy Weight. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2016, 37, 22–28. [Google Scholar]
- Ling, S.; Zhang, M. Research on the potential evaluation of land consolidation in Longnan County. Rural Econ. Technol. 2017, 28, 32–35. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X.; Liang, X.; Li, X.; Xu, X.; Ou, J.; Chen, Y.; Li, S.; Wang, S.; Pei, F. A future land use simulation model (FLUS) for simulating multiple land use scenarios by coupling human and natural effects. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 168, 94–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, Z.; Yuying, J.; He, T.; Lu, Y.; Xv, X.; Yang, J. Land use change simulation: Progress, challenges, and prospects. ACTA Ecol. Sinca 2022, 42, 5165–5176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Pan, P.; Wang, X.; Wang, X. Simulation of landscape pattern for land use in Hebei province based on GeoSOS-FLUS model. Jiangsu J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 37, 667–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M. Research on Land Use Change Simulation and Prediction Method Based on FLUS Model. Surv. Geospat. Inf. 2022, 45, 161–166. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, H.; Zhang, X.; Jiang, Z. Appraisal of Fujian Province Construction Land Intensive Use. J. Jilin Norm. Univ. 2008, 1, 44–45. [Google Scholar]
Land Type | 2010 | 2014 | 2018 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area (hm2) | Proportion (%) | Area (hm2) | Proportion (%) | Area (hm2) | Proportion (%) | |
Cultivated land | 360,765.48 | 25.85 | 358,926.58 | 25.72 | 358,483.27 | 25.69 |
Garden land | 12,861.84 | 0.92 | 12,688.11 | 0.91 | 12,629.23 | 0.91 |
Forest land | 497,616.79 | 35.66 | 496,796.20 | 35.60 | 496,417.95 | 35.57 |
Grassland | 327,748.68 | 23.49 | 325,771.78 | 23.35 | 324,262.55 | 23.23 |
Towns, villages, and industrial and mining land | 81,317.72 | 5.83 | 84,722.25 | 6.07 | 86,181.70 | 6.18 |
Transportation land | 20,175.47 | 1.44 | 21,597.62 | 1.55 | 22,470.49 | 1.61 |
Waters and water conservancy facility land | 19,242.87 | 1.38 | 19,041.36 | 1.36 | 18,970.50 | 1.36 |
Other land | 75,793.55 | 5.43 | 75,978.50 | 5.44 | 76,106.71 | 5.45 |
Total | 1,395,522.40 | 100 | 1,395,522.40 | 100 | 1,395,522.40 | 100 |
Land Type | 2010–2014 | 2014–2018 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Amount of Change (hm2) | Dynamic (%) | Amount of Change (hm2) | Dynamic (%) | |
Cultivated land | −1838.90 | −0.13 | −443.31 | −0.03 |
Garden land | −173.73 | −0.34 | −58.88 | −0.12 |
Forest land | −820.59 | −0.04 | −378.25 | −0.02 |
Grassland | −1976.90 | −0.15 | −1509.23 | −0.12 |
Towns, villages, and industrial and mining land | 3404.53 | 1.05 | 1459.45 | 0.43 |
Transportation land | 1422.15 | 1.76 | 872.87 | 1.01 |
Waters and water conservancy facilities land | −201.51 | −0.6 | −70.86 | −0.09 |
Other land | 184.95 | 0.06 | 128.21 | 0.04 |
Land Type | 2010 | 2014 | 2018 |
---|---|---|---|
Cultivated land | 77.55 | 77.16 | 77.07 |
Garden land | 2.76 | 2.73 | 2.73 |
Forest land | 71.32 | 71.20 | 71.14 |
Grassland | 56.98 | 46.70 | 46.46 |
Towns, villages, and industrial and mining land | 23.32 | 24.28 | 24.72 |
Transportation land | 4.76 | 6.20 | 6.44 |
Waters and water conservancy facilities land | 2.76 | 2.72 | 2.72 |
Other land | 5.43 | 5.44 | 5.45 |
Total | 235.88 | 236.43 | 236.73 |
Administrative District Name | Intensity of Construction Land | Cultivated Land Reserve Resource Potential | Rural Construction Land Consolidation Potential |
---|---|---|---|
Luzhou District | 0.65 | 0.47 | 2545.60 |
Lucheng District | 0.31 | 0.52 | 3696.08 |
Shangdang District | 0.64 | 0.50 | 211.42 |
Tunliu District | 0.27 | 0.30 | 5543.13 |
Huguan County | 0.40 | 0.30 | 3959.63 |
Xiangyuan County | 0.26 | 0.51 | 6998.42 |
Licheng County | 0.22 | 0.64 | 1387.21 |
Pingshun County | 0.23 | 0.33 | 603.09 |
Qinyuan County | 0.42 | 0.07 | 1668.58 |
Qin County | 0.19 | 0.38 | 2979.43 |
Wuxiang County | 0.26 | 0.26 | 3483.17 |
Zhangzi County | 0.14 | 0.26 | 5089.33 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, J.; Lv, J.; Zhang, W.; Chen, T.; Yang, Y.; Wu, J. Land-Use Pattern Evaluation Using GeoSOS-FLUS in National Territory Spatial Planning: A Case Study of Changzhi City, Shanxi Province. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113752
Wang J, Lv J, Zhang W, Chen T, Yang Y, Wu J. Land-Use Pattern Evaluation Using GeoSOS-FLUS in National Territory Spatial Planning: A Case Study of Changzhi City, Shanxi Province. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21):13752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113752
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Juan, Jiaqi Lv, Wenping Zhang, Tianqian Chen, Yang Yang, and Jinjin Wu. 2022. "Land-Use Pattern Evaluation Using GeoSOS-FLUS in National Territory Spatial Planning: A Case Study of Changzhi City, Shanxi Province" Sustainability 14, no. 21: 13752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113752
APA StyleWang, J., Lv, J., Zhang, W., Chen, T., Yang, Y., & Wu, J. (2022). Land-Use Pattern Evaluation Using GeoSOS-FLUS in National Territory Spatial Planning: A Case Study of Changzhi City, Shanxi Province. Sustainability, 14(21), 13752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113752