Identification and Analysis of Production–Living–Ecological Space Based on Multi-Source Geospatial Data: A Case Study of Xuzhou City
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview of the Study Area
2.2. Data
2.2.1. Data Sources
2.2.2. Data Preprocessing
2.3. Methods
2.3.1. Extraction of Urban Built-Up Area
2.3.2. Unit Division for PLES Identification in UBUAs
2.3.3. PLES Identification in UBUAs
- When a unit contains no POI data, it is classified as “No data”, and its final spatial type is determined by supplementary identification using the CLCD.
- If POI data exist within the unit, the proportions of each function are calculated and ranked as primary, secondary, and tertiary proportions, represented by , , and , respectively.
- (1)
- When , the unit is determined as a single-function space (LS, PS, or ES) dominated by the function of .
- (2)
- When, is compared to 30%, resulting in four possible identification scenarios:
- If and , the unit may be defined as MS.
- If , and the relative difference between and is , the unit is possibly classified as SLS, SPS, or SES based on the function of . If the difference is less than 10%, the unit may be determined to be a single-function space (LS, PS, or ES) dominated by the function of .
- If and , the unit is possibly classified as SLS, SPS, or SES according to the .
- If , , and the relative difference between and is , the unit is possibly classified as SLS, SPS, or SES based on the function of . If the difference is less than 20%, the unit is possibly defined as the LPS, LES, or PES depending on the functions of and .
- (3)
- When , is compared to 30%, resulting in three possible identification scenarios:
- If and , the unit is classified as MS.
- If and , the unit is likely classified as LPS, LES, or PES, depending on the functions of and .
- If , the unit is classified as MS.
2.3.4. PLES Identification in NUBUAs
3. Results
3.1. Extraction Results and Verification of UBUAs
3.1.1. Extraction Results
3.1.2. Verification of Extraction Results
3.2. Identification Results and Verification of PLESs in Xuzhou City
3.2.1. Identification Results
3.2.2. Verification of Identification Results of PLESs in UBUAs
3.3. Identification Results in UBUAs
3.4. Identification Results in NUBUAs
- (1)
- The scale of ecological space decreased, and the protection of ecological land was under pressure.
- (2)
- The scale of production–ecological space decreased due to urban expansion and land-use transformation.
- (3)
- The scale of living–production space increased significantly due to urbanization and rural development.
4. Discussion
4.1. Quantitative Description of Spatial Transitions in PLESs
4.2. Center of Gravity Migration of PLESs in NUBUAs
4.3. Driving Forces of the Spatiotemporal Evolution in PLESs
4.3.1. Selection of Driving Factors
4.3.2. Driving Force Exploration with Geo-Detector
4.4. Limitation and Prospective
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- Based on the PLES classification results, UBUAs were mainly composed of living spaces, while NUBUAs were primarily characterized by production–ecological spaces. Additionally, the area of multifunctional space increased from 10,876.98 km2 in 2012 to 10,898.55 km2 in 2018, and further expanded to 10,941.15 km2 by 2022. This continuous growth in multifunctional space indicates the increasingly integrated relationship be-tween living, production, and ecological activities, as well as the growing interaction of spatial functions within Xuzhou City.
- (2)
- According to the results of the spatial transfer matrix in PLESs, the most significant scale of conversion in UBUAs was the transformation of living space into living–production space. In NUBUAs, the area of ecological space transferred shows a significant increase, growing from 56.28 km2 to 105.18 km2. However, compared to the areas transferred out from living–production and production–ecological spaces, the transfer-out area of ecological space remains the smallest. The effective ecological restoration and protection efforts of Xuzhou City have reduced the loss of ecological space and have contributed to enhancing environmental sustainability.
- (3)
- The centers of gravity for living–production space and production–ecological space in the years 2012, 2018, and 2022 consistently remained within Jiawang District, while the centers of gravity for ecological space were located in Tongshan District. From 2012 to 2018, the moving distances for living–production space, production–ecological space, and ecological space were 640.63 m, 184.89 m, and 1702.23 m, respectively. However, the moving distances were reduced to 145.18 m, 53.98 m, and 391.27 m from 2018 to 2022, respectively. During 2012 to 2022, the center of gravity of PLESs remained relatively stable.
- (4)
- Driving force analysis revealed that socio-economic and natural climate factors were the main drivers of the evolution of PLESs. The primary social factors influencing the spatial variations of PLESs were GDP and population; the primary natural factor influencing the geographical variations of PLESs is precipitation. The interaction between GDP and population had the greatest effect on the spatial changes of PLESs.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Hu, S.; Song, Z.; Cui, X.; Afriyie, D. Spatial and Temporal Evolution and Prediction of the Coordination Level of “Production-Living-Ecological” Function Coupling in the Yellow River Basin, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cao, Y.; Huang, X.; Liu, X.; Cao, B. Spatio-Temporal Evolution Characteristics, Development Patterns, and Ecological Effects of “Production-Living-Ecological Space” at the City Level in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Mi, X.; Wu, X.; Cheng, Z. Spatiotemporal Evolution Patterns of “Production-Living-Ecological” Spaces and the Coordination Level and Optimization of the Functions in Jilin Province. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yanbo, Q.; Shilei, W.; Yaya, T.; Guanghui, J.; Tao, Z.; Liang, M. Territorial Spatial Planning for Regional High-Quality Development—An Analytical Framework for the Identification, Mediation and Transmission of Potential Land Utilization Conflicts in the Yellow River Delta. Land Use Policy 2023, 125, 106462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng-ying, J.; Xiao-zhong, Y.; Zhi-qiang, H.; Xiao, Z.; Lin, L.U. Evolution Characteristics and Possible Impact Factors for the Changing Pattern and Function of “Production-Living-Ecological” Space in Wuyuan County. J. Nat. Resour. 2021, 36, 1252–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, N.; Hai, W.; Tang, M.; Song, J.; Quan, W.; Zhang, B.; Ma, Y. Spatiotemporal Evolution Law and Driving Mechanism of Production–Living–Ecological Space from 2000 to 2020 in Xinjiang, China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhao, R.; Li, Y.; Yao, R.; Wu, R.; Li, W. Research on the Evolution and the Driving Forces of Land Use Classification for Production, Living, and Ecological Space in China’s Qilian Mountains Nature Reserve from 2000 to 2020. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 64949–64970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alkishe, A.; Cobos, M.E.; Peterson, A.; Samy, A. Recognizing Sources of Uncertainty in Disease Vector Ecological Niche Models: An Example with the Tick Rhipicephalus Sanguineus Sensu Lato. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 18, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, E.E.; Escobar, L.E.; Zambrana-Torrelio, C. An Ecological Framework for Modeling the Geography of Disease Transmission. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019, 34, 655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, F.; Liu, X.; Zhao, X.; Wang, H. Effects of Production–Living–Ecological Space Changes on the Ecosystem Service Value of the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration in China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, B.; Han, Y. Policy Effects and Mechanisms of Ecological Civilization Demonstration Area on Carbon Efficiency in Resource-Based Cities. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 155, 111055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Jiang, P.; Cui, L.; Yang, Y.; Ma, Z.; Wang, Y.; Miao, D. Study on the Spatial Variation of China’s Territorial Ecological Space Based on the Standard Deviation Ellipse. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 982734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, L.; Zhou, X.; Tian, Y.; Wei, L. Evaluation for the Development of Urban Agglomeration Integration: A Case Study of Pearl River Delta. Soc. Indic. Res. 2024, 171, 877–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Z.; Peng, S.; Ma, X.; Lin, Z.; Ma, D.; Shi, S.; Gong, L.; Huang, B. Identification of Potential Conflicts in the Production-Living-Ecological Spaces of the Central Yunnan Urban Agglomeration from a Multi-Scale Perspective. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 165, 112206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Bao, W.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Z. Land Use Transition and Its Eco-Environmental Effects in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Urban Agglomeration: A Production–Living–Ecological Perspective. Land 2020, 9, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Mo, Y.; Tang, H.; Wang, K.; Ji, Q.; Zhang, P.; Wang, Y.-G.; Jin, G.; Li, L. Distribution, Transfer Process and Influence Factors of Phosphorus at Sediment-Water Interface in the Huaihe River. J. Hydrol. 2022, 612, 128079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, T.; Wang, N.; Luo, X.; Xu, J. Landscape Ecological Risks Assessment of the China-Vietnam Border Area: The Perspective of Production-Living-Ecological Spaces. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2024, 24, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Qi, J.; Liu, P. Study on the Ecological Environment Quality and Its Driving Factors of the Spatial Transformation of Production-Living-Ecological Space in Baishan City. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 18709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aruhan; Liu, D. Study on the Influencing Factors of the Evolution of Space Pattern Based on Principal Component Analysis in Duolun County. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 20567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Lai, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, S.; Lv, L.; Fan, Y. Optimization of Territorial Ecological Space under the Constraint of Ecosystem Service Externalities. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 168, 112752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, C.; Chen, X.; Rong, Y.; Zhang, J.; Huang, B.; Bai, L.; Chen, Q.; Su, Y.; et al. Spatial Identification and Interactive Analysis of Urban Production—Living—Ecological Spaces Using Point of Interest Data and a Two-Level Scoring Evaluation Model. Land 2022, 11, 1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, X.; Li, X.; Fan, H.; He, W. Spatial Analysis of Production-Living-Ecological Functions and Zoning Method under Symbiosis Theory of Henan, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 69093–69110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yuan, W.; Bai, L.; Gao, X.; Zhou, K.; Gao, Y.; Zhou, X.; Qiu, Z.; Kou, Y.; Lv, Z.; Zhao, D.; et al. The Ecological Risks in Arid Zones from a Production–Living–Ecological Space Perspective: A Case Study of the Tuha Region in Xinjiang, China. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 3224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Fu, J.; Xie, X.; Ding, F.; Jiang, D. Spatiotemporal Evolution of Urban-Agricultural-Ecological Space in China and Its Driving Mechanism. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 371, 133684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Sun, H.; Xu, C. Function Evaluation and Coordination Analysis of Production–Living–Ecological Space Based on the Perspective of Type–Intensity–Connection: A Case Study of Suzhou, China. Land 2022, 11, 1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Zhao, Y. Synergy/Trade-Offs and Differential Optimization of Production, Living, and Ecological Functions in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 147, 109925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Ruan, Y.; Xuan, W.; Bao, H.; Du, Z. Risk Assessment and Spatial Regulation on Urban Ground Collapse Based on Geo-Detector: A Case Study of Hangzhou Urban Area. Nat. Hazards 2023, 118, 525–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, G.; He, P.; Gao, X.; Lin, Z.; Huang, C.; Zhou, W.; Deng, O.; Xu, C.; Deng, L. Land Use Optimization of Rural Production–Living–Ecological Space at Different Scales Based on the BP–ANN and CLUE–S Models. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 137, 108710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Z.; Wu, Z.; Yuan, X.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, F. Spatial–Temporal Evolution of Production–Living–Ecological Space and Layout Optimization Strategy in Eco-Sensitive Areas: A Case Study of Typical Area on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 79807–79820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, T.; Yang, F.; Huang, D.; Luo, Y.; Wu, Y.; Wen, C. Land-Use Transformation and Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region Based on the “Production–Living–Ecological Space” Perspective. Land 2022, 11, 1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, H.; Xiao, R.; Fei, X.; Zhang, Z.; Gao, Z.; Wan, Y.; Tan, W.; Jiang, X.; Cao, W.; Guo, Y. Analyzing “Economy-Society-Environment” Sustainability from the Perspective of Urban Spatial Structure: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 96, 104691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, Y.; Cao, L.; Li, S.; Ye, F.; Boloorani, A.D.; Liang, Z.; Huang, J.; Liu, G. Multisource Geoscience Data-Driven Framework for Subsidence Risk Assessment in Urban Area. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2024, 113, 104901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, F.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, J.; Liu, Y.; Wang, W.; Li, S. Ecological Security Assessment of Yunnan Province, China in the Context of Production–Living–Ecological Space Division. Ecol. Evol. 2024, 14, e70131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, C.; Tu, X.; Huang, A. Identification and Characterization of Production–Living–Ecological Space in a Central Urban Area Based on POI Data: A Case Study for Wuhan, China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, H.; Silva, E.A. Delineating Urban Functional Use from Points of Interest Data with Neural Network Embedding: A Case Study in Greater London. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2021, 88, 101651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, J.; Bu, Z.; Jiang, D.; Lin, G. Identification and Classification of Urban PLES Spatial Functions Based on Multisource Data and Machine Learning. Land 2022, 11, 1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Shen, J.; Konečný, M.; Wang, Y.; Štampach, R. Study on the Spatial Heterogeneity of the POI Quality in OpenStreetMap. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Cartography and GIS, Sozopol, Bulgaria, 18–23 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
- GB/T 21010-2017; Current Land Use Classification. Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 2017.
- GB 50137-2011; Code for Classification of Urban Land Use and Planning Standards of Development Land. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2011.
- Reis, I.F.C.; Ferreira, F.A.F.; Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, I.; Govindan, K.; Fang, W.; Falcão, P.F. An Evaluation Thermometer for Assessing City Sustainability and Livability. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 47, 101449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai, B.; Lai, Z.; Ma, S. Mapping the Functional Structure of Urban Agglomerations at the Block Level: A New Spatial Classification That Goes beyond Land Use. Land 2024, 13, 1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Li, X.; Sha, J.; Zhang, H.; Shifaw, E.; Guo, X.; Lai, S.; Wang, J. Trade-Offs and Synergies for Urban Production-Living-Ecological Spatial Patterns-Comparison Study between Fuzhou, China, and Saskatoon, Canada. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 169, 112816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Gao, X. A Novel Method for Identifying the Boundary of Urban Built-up Areas with POI Data. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2016, 71, 928–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-C. A Tutorial on Kernel Density Estimation and Recent Advances. Biostat. Epidemiol. 2017, 1, 161–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gramacki, A. Kernel Density Estimation. In Nonparametric Kernel Density Estimation and Its Computational Aspects; Gramacki, A., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 25–62. ISBN 978-3-319-71688-6. [Google Scholar]
- Li, C.; Wu, J. Land Use Transformation and Eco-Environmental Effects Based on Production-Living-Ecological Spatial Synergy: Evidence from Shaanxi Province, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 41492–41504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhao, B.; Tan, X.; Luo, L.; Deng, M.; Yang, X. Identifying the Production–Living–Ecological Functional Structure of Haikou City by Integrating Empirical Knowledge with Multi-Source Data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2023, 12, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, Y.; Yang, R. Influence Mechanism of Production-Living-Ecological Space Changes in the Urbanization Process of Guangdong Province, China. Land 2021, 10, 1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; He, J.; Wang, X. Quantitatively Comparing the Morphological Influences on the Cool Island Effect in Urban Waterfront Blue-Green Spaces across Six Cities near 30° N. Urban. Clim. 2024, 56, 102076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Yang, J.; Yang, R.; Xiao, X.; Xia, J. (Cecilia) Contribution of Urban Functional Zones to the Spatial Distribution of Urban Thermal Environment. Build. Environ. 2022, 216, 109000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Deng, Y.; Li, M.; Yang, J.; Liu, T. Classification Schemes and Identification Methods for Urban Functional Zone: A Review of Recent Papers. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, K.; Buttenfield, B.P.; Qiang, Y. Wetland Classification, Attribute Accuracy, and Scale. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024, 13, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Ye, H.; Zhang, L. Understanding the Characteristics and Mechanism of Land Use Transition in Mountainous Economic Zone: A Case Study of the Chengdu-Chongqing Region in Southwestern China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 963197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Hao, S.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, H. Study on the Response of Ecological Sensitivity to Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Jinzhai, China. Geocarto Int. 2024, 39, 2390491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, Y.; Chai, D.; Zhou, X.; Ning, Y. Potential Conflict Diagnosis, Simulation Optimization and Coordination of Production-Living-Ecological Space in Gully Areas of the Loess Plateau, China. Environ. Dev. 2024, 52, 101099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Dong, B.; Gao, X.; Wang, P.; Ren, C.; Li, S.; Xu, H.; Lei, F.; Wei, Z.; Lu, Z.; et al. Land-Use Change and Driving Force Analysis of Wetland in Poyang Lake Based on Remote Sensing. J. Indian. Soc. Remote Sens. 2023, 51, 2077–2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Zulkar, H.; Wang, D.; Zhao, T.; Xu, W. Changes in Vegetation Coverage and Migration Characteristics of Center of Gravity in the Arid Desert Region of Northwest China in 30 Recent Years. Land 2022, 11, 1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.; Ji, G.; Wang, F.; Ji, X.; Hou, C. Analysis of the Environmental Benefits and Driving Forces of the Development of the “Production–Living–Ecological Space” Pattern Based on the ERI-ESV Geodetector. Land 2024, 13, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Qin, C.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, J.; Han, Y. The Evolutionary Path of the Center of Gravity for Water Use, the Population, and the Economy, and Their Decomposed Contributions in China from 1965 to 2019. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, X.; Cai, L.; Du, P. Spatiotemporal Evolution and Driving Forces of Production-Living-Ecological Space in Arid Ecological Transition Zone Based on Functional and Structural Perspectives: A Case Study of the Hexi Corridor. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Shi, Z.; Rossel, R.A.V.; Liang, Z.; Wang, H.; Zhou, L.; Yu, W. Interactive Effects of Elevation and Land Use on Soil Bacterial Communities in the Tibetan Plateau. Pedosphere 2020, 30, 817–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; El-Kassaby, Y.A.; Guan, W. The Effect of Slope Aspect on Vegetation Attributes in a Mountainous Dry Valley, Southwest China. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 16465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, X.; Li, H.; Zhang, J.; Niu, S.; Miao, M. Urban Economic Resilience within the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration: Exploring Spatially Correlated Network and Spatial Heterogeneity. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024, 103, 105270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Luan, W.; Zhang, Z.; Su, M. Relationship between Urban Construction Land Expansion and Population/Economic Growth in Liaoning Province, China. Land. Use Policy 2020, 99, 105022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, M.-M.; Han, Z.-Y.; Lu, B.; Guo, J.; Xu, S.; Yang, Y.-J.; Huang, H. Effects of Rainfall on the Weekday Traffic Flow in Major Cities of the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region, China, in 2021. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. 2022, 13, 858–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, S.; Wang, Y.; Chen, X.; Cui, T.; Pan, C. Spatiotemporal Variation Characteristics of Precipitation and Urbanization Effects in Shenzhen from 1960 to 2019. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2024, 15, 4114–4126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Qin, H.; Zhang, S.; Chen, H.; Jin, G.; Liu, Z.; Xu, Q.; Zhan, Y. The Hydrological Regime of Taihu Lake under the Influence of Anthropogenic Activities. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2023, 50, 101568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mo, G.; Yan, L.; Li, Z.; Wang, Z.; Chen, S.; Li, H.; Zheng, S.; Cui, Y. Spatiotemporal Changes of Urban Heat Island Effect Relative to Land Surface Temperature: A Case Study of Jinan City, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 51902–51920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, G.; He, K.; Lyu, X.; Zang, Y.; Shu, H.; Zhao, L.; Li, J.; Wang, C. High-Precision Intracity Temperature Estimation Based on Generated Point Clouds. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2024, 62, 5705615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Wu, Z.; Liu, X. Dynamic Changes of Net Primary Productivity and Associated Urban Growth Driving Forces in Guangzhou City, China. Environ. Manag. 2020, 65, 758–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, J.-F.; Zhang, T.-L.; Fu, B.-J. A Measure of Spatial Stratified Heterogeneity. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 67, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, C.; Zhang, H.; Xiao, L.; Guo, Y. Land Use Change and Its Driving Factors in the Rural–Urban Fringe of Beijing: A Production–Living–Ecological Perspective. Land 2022, 11, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.; Ding, J.; Lu, B.; Wan, Y.; Shi, L.; Wen, Q. Eco-Environmental Effects of Changes in Territorial Spatial Pattern and Their Driving Forces in Qinghai, China (1980–2020). Land 2022, 11, 1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Data Type | Data Name | Data Source |
---|---|---|
Point data | POI | AMAP inside |
Land cover data | CLCD | Wuhan University |
Administrative division spatial data | Basic geographic data | National geographic Information Resource Catalog Service System |
Map data | Open Street Map (OSM) | Open-source website: OSM |
Statistical data | Area of built districts | Xuzhou statistical yearbook |
Precipitation data | 1 km monthly mean temperature dataset for China | Resource and environment science data platform |
Temperature data | 1 km monthly precipitation dataset for China | National earth system science data center |
Terrain data | DEM | NASA |
Socio-economic data | GDP | Xuzhou statistical yearbook |
Demographic data | Xuzhou statistical yearbook | |
Net Primary Productivity (NPP) data | Data product of MOD17A3H.006 | PIE-Engine |
Spatial Type | Sub-Categories | POI Type | P1 | P2 | P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Living space | Service-oriented living space | Food and Beverage Services | 0.0280 | 10 | 0.028 |
Shopping Services | 0.0242 | 20 | 0.484 | ||
Hotel Accommodation | 0.0356 | 10 | 0.356 | ||
Lifestyle Services | 0.0954 | 15 | 1.431 | ||
Automotive Services | 0.0108 | 10 | 0.108 | ||
Public Facilities | 0.0122 | 15 | 0.183 | ||
Science, Education and Culture | 0.1882 | 25 | 4.705 | ||
Sports and Leisure | 0.0216 | 10 | 0.216 | ||
Healthcare Services | 0.1721 | 20 | 3.442 | ||
Residential living space | Business Residences | 0.0501 | 50 | 2.505 | |
Production space | Service-oriented production space | Business Districts | 0.0463 | 30 | 1.389 |
Financial Institutions | 0.0439 | 20 | 0.878 | ||
Enterprise-oriented production space | Industrial Parks | 0.0297 | 70 | 2.079 | |
Corporate Enterprises | 0.0632 | 50 | 3.160 | ||
Transportation-oriented production space | Transportation Facilities | 0.0874 | 15 | 1.311 | |
Roadside Facilities | 0.0140 | 10 | 0.140 | ||
Ecological space | Service-oriented ecological space | Parks and Green Spaces | 0.0374 | 90 | 3.366 |
Scenic Spots and Landmarks | 0.0274 | 90 | 2.466 | ||
Cultural Landscapes | 0.0126 | 30 | 0.378 |
Function Type | Spatial Type | Description |
---|---|---|
Single-function space | Living space (LS) | One function of PLES dominates or only one function exists in the unit |
Production space (PS) | ||
Ecological space (ES) | ||
Dual-function space | Sub-living space (Sub-LS) | Two functions of PLES are predominant or only two functions are present in similar proportion in the unit |
Sub-production space (Sub-PS) | ||
Sub-ecological space (Sub-ES) | ||
Living–production space (LPS) | Two functions of PLES are predominant or only two functions are present in significantly different proportion in the unit | |
Living–ecological space (LES) | ||
Production–ecological space (PES) | ||
Mixed-function space | Mixed space (MS) | Three functions of PLES with similar proportions or one of the functions is approximately the sum of the other two similar proportions in the unit |
Spatial Type | Dominant Function | CLCD Type |
---|---|---|
Living–production space | Rural or urban living | Impervious |
Production–ecological space | Crops | Cropland |
Ecological space | Aquatic or greenery ecosystem | Forest, Shrub, Grassland, Water, Barren, Wetland |
Year | Extracted Area (km2) | Statistical Area (km2) | Error (%) |
---|---|---|---|
2012 | 421.16 | 403.1 | 4.48 |
2018 | 462.07 | 454.7 | 1.62 |
2022 | 533.04 | 497.1 | 7.23 |
PLES 1 | LS | PS | ES | Sub-LS | Sub-PS | Sub-ES | LPS | LES | PES | MS | N 2 | PA (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LS | 427 | 5 | 2 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 35 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 486 | 87.86 |
PS | 2 | 119 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 123 | 96.74 |
ES | 0 | 0 | 79 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 79 | 100 |
Sub-LS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 72 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 72 | 100 |
Sub-PS | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 96.00 |
Sub-ES | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 37 | 81.08 |
LPS | 31 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 330 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 389 | 84.83 |
LES | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 80.00 |
PES | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 25 | 96.00 |
MS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 100 |
N2 | 460 | 129 | 95 | 88 | 55 | 36 | 366 | 30 | 29 | 16 | 1304 | - |
UA (%) | 92.83 | 92.25 | 83.16 | 81.82 | 87.28 | 83.33 | 90.16 | 80.00 | 82.76 | 81.25 | - | - |
OA | 89.42% | Kappa | 0.86 |
PLES Type | Xuzhou City | The Central Urban Districts | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2018 | 2022 | 2012 | 2018 | 2022 | |
LS | 263.23 | 223.72 | 261.39 | 70.99 | 66.00 | 70.48 |
PS | 19.99 | 18.97 | 17.45 | 10.28 | 13.48 | 9.11 |
ES | 5.11 | 11.76 | 10.67 | 3.37 | 6.14 | 10.44 |
Sub-LS | 51.21 | 65.11 | 66.01 | 22.91 | 30.31 | 28.00 |
Sub-PS | 9.60 | 16.14 | 18.38 | 4.59 | 7.09 | 10.77 |
Sub-ES | 1.50 | 4.25 | 5.20 | 0.91 | 1.17 | 4.56 |
LPS | 53.55 | 97.69 | 117.07 | 20.97 | 32.56 | 37.91 |
LES | 12.39 | 15.87 | 17.36 | 6.64 | 10.87 | 9.16 |
PES | 1.88 | 4.23 | 5.41 | 0.75 | 2.09 | 3.60 |
MS | 2.71 | 4.33 | 14.10 | 1.86 | 2.29 | 8.61 |
PLES Type | PES | LPS | ES | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | 2012 | 2018 | 2022 | 2012 | 2018 | 2022 | 2012 | 2018 | 2022 |
The central urban district | 1554.97 | 1500.12 | 1473.79 | 581.42 | 618.15 | 637.51 | 102.41 | 76.42 | 66.74 |
Jiawang | 408.78 | 394.24 | 390.56 | 166.94 | 183.11 | 191.13 | 29.68 | 28.92 | 26.05 |
Pizhou | 1623.50 | 1592.04 | 1576.17 | 376.76 | 411.12 | 425.83 | 49.79 | 46.88 | 43.55 |
Peixian | 939.08 | 920.52 | 907.39 | 259.48 | 273.92 | 275.87 | 13.36 | 14.48 | 14.33 |
Xinyi | 1166.35 | 1139.12 | 1125.35 | 269.45 | 296.98 | 309.88 | 122.37 | 121.86 | 118.41 |
Fengxian | 1134.43 | 1108.67 | 1096.91 | 268.36 | 295.12 | 303.76 | 11.22 | 12.71 | 12.36 |
Suining | 1405.58 | 1369.18 | 1348.75 | 300.71 | 334.19 | 345.21 | 22.02 | 24.29 | 23.83 |
Year | PLES Type | LS | PS | ES | Sub-LS | Sub-PS | Sub-ES | LPS | LES | PES | MS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012–2018 | LS | - | 5.21 | 6.08 | 32.95 | 0.14 | 0 | 60.07 | 0 | 15.18 | 0.35 |
PS | 10.01 | - | 0.12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4.64 | 0.12 | 3.78 | 0 | |
ES | 0.2 | 0.01 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | 4.33 | 0 | 0 | |
Sub-LS | 28.69 | 3.75 | 1.45 | - | 0 | 0.21 | 4.94 | 6.67 | 4.32 | 0.06 | |
Sub-PS | 1.83 | 0.4 | 0.09 | 0.44 | - | 0 | 4.02 | 0 | 2.52 | 0 | |
Sub-ES | 0.04 | 0.39 | 0.11 | 0.57 | 0 | - | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0 | 0 | |
LPS | 27.61 | 5.51 | 0.64 | 8.75 | 0 | 0.04 | - | 3.27 | 0.26 | 2.66 | |
LES | 0.15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.24 | - | 0 | 0 | |
PES | 0.51 | 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0 | 0 | 0.61 | 0 | - | 0 | |
MS | 0 | 0 | 2.57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | |
2018–2022 | LS | - | 3.36 | 0.08 | 18.04 | 6.58 | 0.06 | 17.67 | 16.97 | 0.34 | 6.84 |
PS | 16.15 | - | 0 | 2.88 | 4.03 | 0.01 | 1.57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
ES | 5.57 | 0 | - | 2.09 | 0.1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 2.67 | |
Sub-LS | 30.75 | 0.61 | 0.01 | - | 0.35 | 3.78 | 10.06 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 1.39 | |
Sub-PS | 0 | 0 | 0.14 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Sub-ES | 0 | 0.04 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
LPS | 54.21 | 2.32 | 0.34 | 15.89 | 2.18 | 0.06 | - | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.07 | |
LES | 3.29 | 0.12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.87 | - | 4.33 | 0 | |
PES | 15.56 | 2.09 | 0.01 | 0.74 | 1.62 | 0 | 6.46 | 0 | - | 0 | |
MS | 0.01 | 0.24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.74 | 0 | 0 | - |
Year | PLES Type | PES | LPS | ES |
---|---|---|---|---|
2012–2018 | PES | - | 1684.07 | 308.72 |
LPS | 598.05 | - | 97.37 | |
ES | 43.54 | 12.74 | - | |
2018–2022 | PES | - | 501.63 | 129.40 |
LPS | 346.09 | - | 21.20 | |
ES | 77.19 | 27.99 | - |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 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, W.; Zhao, Y.; Ma, C.; Dong, S. Identification and Analysis of Production–Living–Ecological Space Based on Multi-Source Geospatial Data: A Case Study of Xuzhou City. Sustainability 2025, 17, 886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17030886
Wang W, Zhao Y, Ma C, Dong S. Identification and Analysis of Production–Living–Ecological Space Based on Multi-Source Geospatial Data: A Case Study of Xuzhou City. Sustainability. 2025; 17(3):886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17030886
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Weilin, Yindi Zhao, Caihong Ma, and Simeng Dong. 2025. "Identification and Analysis of Production–Living–Ecological Space Based on Multi-Source Geospatial Data: A Case Study of Xuzhou City" Sustainability 17, no. 3: 886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17030886
APA StyleWang, W., Zhao, Y., Ma, C., & Dong, S. (2025). Identification and Analysis of Production–Living–Ecological Space Based on Multi-Source Geospatial Data: A Case Study of Xuzhou City. Sustainability, 17(3), 886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17030886