Next Article in Journal
Research on the Influence Mechanism of Street Vitality in Mountainous Cities Based on a Bayesian Network: A Case Study of the Main Urban Area of Chongqing
Previous Article in Journal
An Empirical Analysis of Logistics Corridors and Regional Economic Spatial Patterns from the Perspective of Compressive Transportation between Urban Agglomerations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/land11050727
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Verifying the Synthesized Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use on Quality of Life, Ecology, and Urban-Land-Use Scale in China

by
Bingqing Li
,
Zhanqi Wang
* and
Ji Chai
School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences, No. 388, Lumo Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan 430074, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2022, 11(5), 727; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050727
Submission received: 4 April 2022 / Revised: 4 May 2022 / Accepted: 10 May 2022 / Published: 12 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Land Socio-Economic and Political Issues)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Intensive urban land use has been proposed as a method to promote sustainable development in the context of rapid urban sprawl. However, a consensus has not been reached on whether this approach is beneficial for ecology and compatible with suitable living conditions. Exploring this issue in China will help promote high-quality development. Extant research has mainly explored the effects of intensive urban land use on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale separately, while a synthesized analysis in this regard is lacking. In the light of this, we establish an analysis framework by which to verify the effects of intensive urban land use on the three aspects, using data from China spanning 2005–2019, subjected to structural equation modeling. The results show that intensive urban land use has varying degrees of positive effects on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale. It had no strong effect on the three items initially, while quality of life was significantly optimized by 2010, and ecology was markedly improved from 2015. However, there was a trend toward shrinking living space and sprawling urban areas. The corresponding suggestions are formulated for policy makers to improve intensive urban-land-use policy.

1. Introduction

Increases in urbanization, industrialization, and population have driven rapid urban sprawl around the world, in which land-use sprawl is a significant feature [1,2,3,4]. Generally, urban-land-use sprawl can take two forms: exogenous, referring to a horizontal sprawl of land; or endogenous, referring to intensive land use [5]. These forms satisfy land demand in a complementary manner and are considered to be among the most obvious and important trends in global development [6]. Considering that land sprawl has brought about agricultural crises and climate changes [7], intensive urban land use is widely accepted as key to develop more livable and sustainable cities [8,9,10], especially in developing countries that are densely populated and short of resources [11]. However, although intensive urban land use has been widely adopted by policy makers, the view that it is good for ecology and compatible with suitable living conditions lacks consensus. Many scholars have conducted theoretical and empirical analyses on the effects of such land use, but extant studies have differed in the areas used for verification and have obtained distinct—even contradictory—results [12].
Intensive urban land use is a key part of China’s urban land management policy [13]. Since the Economic Reform and Open Door Policy of 1978, remarkable achievements have been made in urbanization [14]. However, resulting land-use problems, such as urban land sprawl and reduced arable land area, have inevitably threatened sustainable development [15]. According to the China Urban Construction Statistical Yearbook, the national urban construction land area was expanded from 2.21 × 104 km2 to 5.83 × 104 km2 from 2000 to 2019, reflecting over 160% growth. Considering the irrational land conversion, the program of intensive urban land use has been increasing on a large scale in China. The intensive urban-land-use approaches can be divided into two stages. The first is a metaphysical approach, which arose against a backdrop of widespread, low-efficiency urban land use. In 2007, a trial technical regulation for evaluating the potential of intensive use of urban land was promulgated by the Ministry of Land and Resources (now called the Ministry of Natural Resources). Adding the labor and capital input and economic output of land units was expected to promote more compact urban areas and slower urban land sprawl. The evaluation was then carried out nationwide at county, city, and province levels [16]. It was acknowledged that the higher the input and output of land units, the greater the intensification, and the more sustainable the land-use patterns. After 2012, with high-density development and deteriorating ecology, the negative effects of over-intensive use on ecology and quality of life have been realized [17]. Therefore, strategies for new forms of urbanization and ecological civilization construction have been suggested, resulting in a transformation of intensive urban land use to the second stage, the dialectical approach, in which high-quality development is highlighted [18,19]. In other words, there are needs to increase labor and capital input to an appropriate point while avoiding the adverse effects of over-intensive use on ecology and quality of life, and much attention is being devoted to science and technology input to develop advanced manufacturing industry and high-tech industry [20]. With regard to the intensive urban land use in China, most research focuses on the first stage, including intensive degree evaluation, testing the influencing factors and analyzing the relationship with urbanization; meanwhile, only a small number of studies focus on the second stage, explored the effects of intensive urban land use on urban land sprawl and carbon emissions [21,22]. Therefore, there is still much to explore in the intensive urban land use under the requirements of high-quality development. To what extent has the current intensive use of urban land achieved efficient, green, and livable patterns? What are the achievements and shortcomings of the policy implementation? How can these shortcomings be eliminated? Addressing these issues can provide scientific references for policy makers on optimizing intensive urban land use and promoting high-quality development.
To sum up, this paper explores issues surrounding how China’s intensive urban land use affects quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale in a synthesized approach. First, previous work is summarized in order to explain the concept of intensive urban land use and its possible effects on the three items. On this basis, an analysis framework is established to verify the effects. Specific indices and structural equation modeling are then used to examine the significance of the effects. According to the results, the achievements and shortcomings of intensive urban land use are identified, and some suggestions to help optimize this policy are proposed.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Intensive Urban Land Use

The concept of intensive land use originated in relation to agricultural land. With the development of industrialization and urbanization, the concept of intensive urban land use was introduced into urban development. Many scholars have defined such land use as the process of obtaining greater output by increasing land input, optimizing structure, and rationalizing layout [23]. Accordingly, four evaluation perspectives on the intensity degree have been frequently discussed: (1) Intensive urban land use has been considered as a result of obtaining more output per unit of land. Some studies select one or more representative indicator, which are easy to measure to analyze the degree of intensity, such as finance income per unit area of land or GDP per unit area of land, etc. [22]. (2) Intensive urban land use has been considered as an action of increasing the input of non-land factors on land units. Indicators such as plot ratio and investment density of fixed assets are used to analyze the intensity degree. (3) Intensive urban land use has been considered as an economic relationship between land input and land output [24,25]. Studies on this have calculated the input–output efficiency using a data envelopment analysis to reflect the intensity degree [26,27]. Indices related to population, investment, science and technology development, and utilization patterns are used to analyze the land input, while indices related to economic benefit are used to analyze the output [28]. (4) Intensive urban land use has been considered as a process of optimizing land use. Guided by the technical regulation for evaluating the potential of intensive use of urban land, a large number of Chinese scholars have calculated a comprehensive intensity score by building an evaluation index system. Land input level and land output level are the commonly used criteria in constructing the index system [16].

2.2. Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use on Quality of Life

Intensive urban land use primarily impacts quality of life via changes in habitat, wellbeing, community, and infrastructure availability [29]. At present, there is debate surrounding the view that intensive urban land use is compatible with suitable living conditions [30]. For low-density space, especially in certain developed countries, improving the degree of intensity is conducive to creating a compact urban form, which has advantages in terms of minimizing the need for transport, increasing social communications, and increasing the proximity of multiple infrastructure services, equating to a shorter travel distance between them. However, the opposite is true for high-density space, as often occurs in developing countries. In this case, continued intensification leads to different types of land competing for already compact urban space, thus risking an array of congestion- and crowding-related problems. First, the increased population density will lead to an increase in the number of private cars per unit area [31]. If the area of road does not increase accordingly, then traffic congestion will be a serious issue. Second, the dense population will give rise to competition for infrastructure, which will lead to a shortage of medical and educational resources. Third, crowded space may reduce already small living space and lead to increased land rent and housing prices, thus harming mental health and social equity.

2.3. Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use on Ecology

The ecological effects of intensive urban land use are of great interest. In view of the expanded industrial production and the increased urban-land-use scale which such use entails, reducing ecological damage is an important goal [3]. The positive effects on ecology come from the high-efficiency utilization of resources and energy. For example, some studies have exemplified that higher urban population density, capital intensity, and technology levels correspond to reduced energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and air pollution [32,33,34,35]. In addition, it has been suggested that intensive land use is useful in controlling urban land sprawl, which can reduce the transformation of arable land and green fields, thus curbing climate change [36,37]. However, other studies have proposed that high-density development leads to a decrease in urban green space, which aggravates the heat island effect, and changes original landscape patterns [31,38]. Therefore, views on the ecological effects of intensive urban land use are inconsistent.

2.4. Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use on Urban-Land-Use Scale

Referring to Hui et al. [39], urban development is affected by both land and non-land factors, such as the amount of built-up land, capital, labor, and technology. In a static state, there is a substitution effect between land and non-land factors, which leads to a negative effect of intensive land use on urban-land-use scale. To maintain the same level of output, a reduction in one type of factor necessarily requires an increase in the input of another, and vice versa. That is, the greater the input of non-land factors, the less demand there is for land factors. Thus, when the supply of land is limited, land factors begin to be replaced with non-land factors to maintain the development speed. Intensive land use is a process aimed at reducing the demand for land by increasing the input of non-land factors. However, from a dynamic perspective, urban form is driven by an aggregation effect, which will bring about a positive effect of intensive land use on urban-land-use scale. Increasing the capital and labor input of unit land is conducive to obtaining higher land revenue. Areas with higher returns are more likely to see improved infrastructure and attract new non-land factors. These factors are allocated to either the existing urban land or its surroundings. With the process of aggregation, the area becomes an agglomeration district for relevant industry and consistently attracts non-land factors; thus, new land factors are needed to compensate for these. It is in this way that metropolises are formed. To sum up, while intensive land use effects urban-land-use scale in both positive and negative ways, the combined effect is uncertain.
The effects of intensive urban land use on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1a shows the effects of intensive urban land use on quality of life, Figure 1b shows the effects of intensive urban land use on ecology, and Figure 1c shows the effects of intensive urban land use on urban-land-use scale.

3. Analysis Framework for Examining the Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use

3.1. Verifying the Effects Using an Analysis Framework

According to Section 2, we propose a framework to verifying the possible effects of intensive urban land use (Figure 2). First, the characteristics of intensive urban land use are defined according to two aspects, land input and land output, which explain the utilization degree and utilization benefit of urban land, respectively. Second, the effects of intensive urban land use are primarily manifested in three items: quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale. We take land input and land output as independent variables; we take quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale as dependent variables; and we hypothesize that there are significant and one-to-one direct effects between the independent and dependent variables.
In addition, there may be some correlations between the dependent variables. For example, there may be competitive relationships between ecological, productive, and living spaces in a city; the traffic condition and the layout of living space may affect regional eco-environments; and the urban-land-use scale may affect traffic conditions and energy consumption.
The possible correlations between the three dependent variables lead to the indirect effects of intensive urban land use on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale. This means that, after the intensive urban-land-use changes (dependent variable A), dependent variable B is also changed due to the correlations between A and B. The indirect effect is calculated by multiplying the direct effect coefficient between the independent and dependent variables and the correlation coefficient between corresponding dependent variables. The total effect is the sum of the direct and indirect effects.

3.2. Indices for Analysis

To verify the significance of the effects in Figure 2, some observable indices are selected to measure the independent and dependent variables based on the literature review (Section 2). We select the indices that are frequently used in related research. The indices and representative references are shown in Table 1.
In terms of land input and land output, factors including the number of people employed, fixed-asset investment, gross regional product, and public finance income in average urban land areas are key in the trial technical regulation for evaluating the potential of intensive use of urban land, promulgated by the Ministry of Land and Resources of China. Investment into research and development (R&D) in average urban land areas is an important index in the context of high-quality development.
In terms of quality of life, although it comprises many aspects, we focus only on the key items of concern to the Chinese government with regarding to intensive urban land use. The observable indices related to the urban infrastructure and living standard are selected.
In terms of ecology, effects in energy consumption, air pollution, and green space are generally included in previous studies. Therefore, we select three indices: energy consumption per capita, volume of soot emissions per unit of industrial output, and public green land area per capita.
In terms of urban-land-use scale, the two indices, land area used for urban construction and increase in land area used for urban construction in the past five years, respectively, reflect the state and trend of urban land sprawl.

4. Data and Methodology

4.1. Study Area and Data

Considering that the negative effects of intensive urban land use often occur in high-density spaces [41,43], the built-up area of 281 prefectural-level cities that met the criteria—densely populated, economically prosperous, and providing data access—were selected for investigation (Figure 3). We set the considered research periods as the end of 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019, which align with the end of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth national five-year plans in China and the year of latest statistics, respectively. The data used were gathered from the China City Statistical Yearbook (2006–2020) and China Urban Construction Statistical Yearbook (2006–2019). The statistical range pertains to built-up urban areas. For eight areas with incomplete data, the missing data was supplemented with regressions and predictions. We standardized the data using SPSS 18 software, and conducted reliability tests via Cronbach’s α, which is a commonly used index to test the reliability of sample data. The α values for 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019 were 0.729, 0.679, 0. 727, and 0.738, respectively, indicating that the data were reliable and suitable for this research [44].

4.2. Methodology

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a method used for estimating latent variables and their effects [45]. It takes into account the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations between independent and dependent variables, thus enabling the evaluation of a multilevel model. Compared with traditional causal models, it has the advantages of being able to handle multiple and interrelated dependent variables simultaneously, to estimate factor structures and factor relationships simultaneously, and to deal with unobserved variables and measurement errors [46]. We used SEM instead of the traditional statistical models to verify the synthesized effects for the following reasons: (1) We should verify the effects between some latent variables, including land input, land output, quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale; (2) There was a need to deal with the relationships between multiple dependent variables and independent variables.
A concept map of the SEM is shown in Figure 4. The model contains four kinds of variables: exogenous latent variables, endogenous latent variables, exogenous observed variables, and endogenous observed variables. Measurement components and a structural component were used to address the relationships among these variables [47]. The former estimates measurement errors of observed variables and their intended latent variables, which can be formulated by Equations (1) and (2). The latter captures the effects among latent variables, which can be formulated by Equation (3) [48].
Y = φ η + ε
X = ϕ ξ + δ
where Y represents endogenous latent variables; X represents exogenous latent variables; η is the endogenous observed variables; ξ is the exogenous observed variables; ε and δ are the measurement errors of Y and X, respectively; and φ and ϕ are the factor loading matrix of the latent variables on observed variables. The closer the absolute factor loading is to 1, the greater the correlation between the related latent and observed variables.
η = θ η + γ ξ + ζ
where γ represents path coefficients of exogenous latent variables to endogenous latent variables, describing the effects between them; θ are the path coefficients that describe the relationships among latent variables; and ζ is the residual of η.
In this study, land input and land output were taken as exogenous latent variables; quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale were taken as endogenous latent variables; and the indices used for estimating the two kinds of latent variables were, respectively, taken as exogenous and endogenous observed variables. The modeling of SEM was a process of repeatedly verifying and modifying the initial model to obtain a best simulation. We first analyzed the validity of the initial model through the results of the fit coefficient [48]; we then constantly revised the paths by deleting insignificant paths in the entire model with low coefficients and adding significant paths between endogenous latent variables that held obviously higher modification indices. The modification continued until almost all the path coefficients in the models had passed the significance test at the 0.05 level and satisfactory fit indices had been obtained. All modifications were based on the theoretical significance of the variables.
We estimated the parameters of the SEM using LISREL 8.7, making use of the maximum likelihood estimation. The correlations between endogenous latent variables were ignored in the initial hypothesis and were supplemented during the fitting process. The final SEM can well reveal the characteristics and effects of intensive urban land use. The factor loading between exogenous variables explains the characteristics of land input and land output. The path coefficients between latent variables explain not only the effects of land input and land output on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale, but also the interrelations among the three aspects. The factor loading between endogenous variables shows the performances that affect quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale.

5. Results

5.1. Estimated Results from SEM

The final models are shown in Figure 5. If a factor loading or a path coefficient was greater than 0.5, we considered the effect strong. Almost all paths from the exogenous latent variables to the exogenous obvious variable in the four periods were strong. However, the paths in the structural components and the paths between endogenous variables varied, indicating that the effects of intensive urban land use varied over the four periods. In addition, some correlations were found between the endogenous latent variables of 2010, 2015, and 2019, revealing indirect effects of the exogenous latent variables on the endogenous variables.
The results regarding the fitness coefficients in Table 2 show that the four final models all slightly deviated from the evaluation standard. We considered this to have been due to effects of paths with low coefficients that were not deleted. As in other statistical analyses, statistical results are not necessary relationships but support the logical and intuitive belief influence between data. Thus, we retained the fitness results as this followed related theory and enabled us to become much closer to a standardized goodness of fit.

5.2. Analysis of the Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use

5.2.1. The Characteristics of Intensive Urban Land Use

The significant paths between the exogenous variables revealed effective ways to increase the intensity degree of urban land use by increasing the number of employed people, fixed-asset investment, and investment into R&D; in addition, adding to the gross regional product and public finance income had always represented increases in land output.
Based on the factor loading related to land input, we analyzed the driver of intensive urban land use in different periods. Previous studies have shown that there is a close relationship between economic development and urban land use. Considering that economic development is divided into four stages—the factor-driven stage, the investment-driven stage, the innovation-driven stage, and the wealth-driven stage [49]—we interpreted the major driving factors combined with the estimated results and the economic development stages. In 2005, the SEM shows that fixed-asset investment was the main driver of intensive urban land use (Figure 5A). From 2000 to 2005, government statistics shows that the fixed-asset investment of the whole society had increased by more than 20% annually in China. The characteristic of land use in this period was to increase capital investment to improve land output. In 2010 and 2015, the SEMs show that investment into R&D became the main driver (Figure 5B,C). The characteristic of land use in this period was that technological innovation played a stronger role than investment in the wake of rapid development of high-tech industry. In 2019, investment into R&D and fixed-asset investment had a considerable driving degree (Figure 5D). We speculated that this was a dual-track-driving period of innovation and wealth, in which knowledge, technology, and innovation became important factors in land use.

5.2.2. The Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use in 2005

The regression results of the structural component in 2005 showed that land input had a positive and strong effect on urban-land-use scale but had no obvious effect on quality of life or ecology. Meanwhile, land output had positive and weak effect on quality of life and ecology, but had a negative and strong effect on urban-land-use scale. These findings reveal that, in the early stage, intensive urban land use promoted compact land input, thus increasing the population and the capital agglomeration, which led to urban land sprawl. Subsequently, agglomeration optimized quality of life and ecology by driving land output. Contrary to expectations, the results show that land output had a negative relationship with urban land sprawl. This may be because with restrictions in urban areas cities became more compact and land output density increased. The total effect coefficients of the three items quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale were 0.48, 0.45, and 0.25, respectively. Therefore, in 2005, intensive urban land use had optimized quality of life and ecology to a weak degree and had a weak agglomeration effect on urban land sprawl.
The regression results of the factor loading between the endogenous variables explained the performances of above effects. In terms of quality of life, intensive urban land use was conducive to transport and increased living standards, but did not affect living space, infrastructure services, and employment pressure. With regard to ecology, it was conducive to saving energy and reducing air pollution. With respect to urban-land-use scale, η3 had positive and strong impacts on both y31 and y32, indicating that the urban form was primarily driven by the aggregation effect of intensive urban land use, and built-up areas continued to sprawl.

5.2.3. The Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use in 2010

The regression results of the structural component showed two obvious changes compared with the previous period. First, land input began to have a weak and positive effect on quality of life. Second, there was a significant and positive correlation between ecology and urban-land-use scale, with one path from η3 to η2 with a coefficient of 0.51. This reveals that intensive urban land use had an indirect effect on ecology by improving urban land sprawl. After intensive urban land use affected urban-land-use scale, the ecology improved with the expansion of urban land area. The total effect coefficients of intensive urban land use on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale were 0.83, 0.44, and 0.31, respectively. We considered the positive effect on quality of life to be strong.
The performances of the effects in 2010 also changed. The factor loading between η1 and the related endogenous observed variables shows that traffic was no longer an important indicator with respect to quality of life, and intensive urban land use began to have a negative effect on living space. The factor loading between η2 and the related endogenous observed variables shows that the effect on energy conservation reduced, the effect on air pollution disappeared, and there was a positive effect on the accessibility of green space. The factor loading between η3 and the related endogenous observed variables shows that the main factor of urban-land-use scale influenced by intensive urban land use was the urban area.

5.2.4. The Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use in 2015

The structural components in 2015 differed significantly from those in the past. First, land output no longer affected quality of life, but had a significant positive effect on ecology. Second, there was a weak and negative correlation between quality of life and urban-land-use scale, with a path from η3 to η1 with a coefficient of −0.29, indicating that intensive urban land use indirectly affected quality of life by changing urban land sprawl. After intensive urban land use affected urban-land-use scale, the quality of life decreased with the expansion of urban land area. Intensive urban land use had positive effects on ecology and had both positive and negative effects on quality of life and urban-land-use scale. The total effect coefficients of intensive urban land use on the three items were 0.34, 0.77, and 0.33, respectively. Only the positive effect on ecology was considered strong.
The factor loading between the endogenous variables was similar compared with the results in 2010. η2 and η3 had similar links to their related endogenous observed variables while only η1 changed. The results show that traffic continued to be an important representation of quality of life. In addition, the problem of shrinking living space became more pronounced, as the factor loading between η2 and y12 changed from −0.20 to −0.37.

5.2.5. The Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use in 2019

The structural component showed two obvious differences from that in 2015, which were that land input slightly promoted ecology and the path coefficient from η3 to η1 and changed from negative to positive. It indicated that ecological protection was emphasized in land use and intensive urban land use indirectly improved quality of life by promoting urban land sprawl. After intensive urban land use affected urban-land-use scale, the quality of life improved with the expansion of urban land area. By comparing the path coefficients of 2015 and 2019, it was found that the indirect effect was enhanced. Intensive urban land use still had positive effects on ecology, and both positive and negative effects on quality of life and urban-land-use scale. The total effect coefficients of intensive urban land use on the three items were 0.60, 0.95, and 0.15, respectively. The positive effects on quality of life and ecology were strong.
The performances of the effects in 2019 showed one important difference, which was that the negative effect on living space was further aggravated. Therefore, the main positive outcomes in this period were in optimization of traffic conditions, living standards, and urban green spaces, while the negative outcomes were in the promotion of urban land sprawl and narrow residential areas.

6. Discussion

6.1. Comparison with Previous Studies

This paper verified the effects of the intensive urban-land-use policy in China from a more synthesized perspective. Previous studies have considered the role of intensive urban land use in constraining urban land sprawl and analyzed the effects of this on quality of life and ecology separately [15,18,30,32,36,39]. For example, Hui et al. analyzed the coupling relationship of urban scale and intensive use of land in China [39]; Bardhan et al. evaluated the effects of compact urban forms on quality of life in India [30]; and Xie et al. explored the relationship of intensive land use and carbon emissions in China [18]. Considering that a city is an organic whole, in which policy, land use change, and land use benefits are closely linked with each other, this paper reflected on the intensive urban-land-use policy and verified its effects in prefectural-level cities of China under a synthesized perspective. The results of this study are similar to previous results related to developing countries; that is, intensive urban land use helps to optimize the quality of life and ecology, but it does not control urban-land-use scale.
However, our extension to the literature is necessary for explaining the effectiveness of intensive urban land use. The SEMs show that, in addition to the direct effects between intensive urban land use and the three items—quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale—there were correlations between these three items. So, intensive urban land use indirectly affected one item by changing another. We summarized the direct, indirect, and total effects of intensive urban land use on quality, ecology, and urban-land-use scale from 2005 to 2019 (Figure 6). Visual differences were noted between the results when indirect effects were considered, versus considering only direct effects; thus, the results of traditional single-factor research may be inaccurate. We think this study more thoroughly identified the effect paths and thereby contributed to more rational urban-land-use policy making.

6.2. The Comparison of Total Effects

Figure 6 shows that intensive urban land use helped to improve quality of life and ecology, but played an aggregation role in urban land sprawl in the study period. The effects on quality of life fluctuated; however, the effects on ecology and urban-land-use scale presented positive U-shape and inverted U-shape, respectively. The changes are consistent with China’s development strategy. Because the intensive urban land use was not really put forward before 2005, its effects were not yet clear at that time. After a short period of exploration, the policy was popularized nationwide in 2010. Influenced by the requirement of constructing a harmonious society in the 11th Five-Year Plan (from 2005 to 2010), greater emphasis was placed on ensuring that life functioned effectively, resulting in a significant improvement in quality of life in 2010. Later, the Ecological Civilization Strategy was highlighted as a priority in the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China of 2012. Under the requirement that ecological construction should be integrated with economic, political, cultural, and social construction, more attention began to be paid to the effect of intensive land use on ecology, thus resulting in significant and positive effects on ecology seen after 2015. With the tightening of land supply, the aggregation role on urban-land-use scale had remained at a weak level.
Regarding the cause of the effects, according to the characteristics of intensive urban land use, we speculate that intensive urban land use optimized the quality of life and ecology by promoting economic development and technological progress. On the one hand, improving the economic output of urban land provided financial support for infrastructure construction, thus optimizing quality of life. On the other hand, increasing the output intensity of land per unit area reduced the dependence of economic development on built-up land, thus leaving more space for green areas. As a result of technological progress, air pollution and energy consumption were reduced through technological progress and industrial upgrading. Therefore, the policy of intensive land use had become an effective measure by which to optimize the comprehensive functions and reduce ecological pressure of cities.
The results show that while there were many positive outcomes there was also several unfavorable performances. Regarding quality of life, intensive urban land use threatened the provision of adequate living space starting in 2010. In order to explain this effect more clearly, we drew the scatter diagrams of land area used for urban construction, gross regional product in average urban land areas, and percentage of urban area used for living (Figure 7). It shows that the percentage of urban area used for living represented a trend of convergence and were concentrated between 20% and 40%. From 2005 to 2019, with the continuous sprawling of urban area and increasing of gross regional product of average urban land, the distribution focus of residential land proportion gradually decreased. The proportion of residential land in cities with large area and high gross regional product of average urban land was usually at a lower level. Against the background of planning management of newly supplied built-up land, we suggest that this may be because large cities need to allocate more newly supplied built-up land to industries, roads, and public facilities in order to support the rapid economic development and maintain urban service functions, resulting in less residential land area. Besides, the findings warn that intensive urban land use did not contribute to the control of urban-land-use scale. This viewpoint had been proposed in previous studies by comparing the change of urban construction land areas [49]. However, this study proved it more accurately by explaining the path and extent of the effects of intensive urban land use on urban-land-use scale.

6.3. Limitations of the Research

First, we verified the effects of intensive urban land use on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale by linear relationship rather than through nonlinearity, so the results in this research only represented the macro situation in China, and could not explain the periodic characteristics. Taking ecology as an example, promoting intensive land use helps to protect ecology in some small cities of low-intensity use and would cause obvious ecological problems in some large cities of over-intensive use. The results only show that the intensive urban use land was conducive to ecological protection at the municipal level, but could not indicate when and where there would be a negative effect. Following, the study needs to use more appropriate models to verify these nonlinear effects. For example, some models, such as panel data model and threshold test model, have be used to explore the nonlinear relationships between multiple independent variables and a dependent variable. If there is a method to integrate the functions of SEM and the above models, then it will be helpful to explore the nonlinear influence characteristics between multiple independent variables and multiple dependent variables.
Second, there are restrictions regarding the indices used for analysis. We selected indices for simulation from existing research that were frequently used and fitted the Chinese context. However, restricted by the data sources of the numerous research units, the indices we selected to evaluate quality of life and ecology were not sufficiently rich. According to the theoretical analysis of the effect paths, we suggest that while the indices cover the primary evaluation objectives, they may also ignore certain characteristics. Enriching the indices would enhance the ability to assess the life and ecological functions of urban land. In terms of ecology, indices related to CO2 emission and heat island effect deserve to be added in combination with China’s development goals of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality. In terms of quality of life, indices related to crime rate and social interconnectivity deserve to be added.

7. Conclusions and Policy Implications

Intensive urban land use is widely accepted as key in developing more livable and sustainable cities in the context of rapid urban land sprawl. However, whether it is good for ecology and compatible with suitable living conditions lacks consensus. This study examined the synthesized effects of intensive urban land use on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale in China from 2005 to 2019. Some observable indices were selected to explain the above variables based on a literature review, and SEM was used to quantify the effects. The results can be summarized as follows: (1) On the whole, intensive urban land use had different degrees of positive effects on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale from 2005 to 2019. It had no strong effect on the three items initially, while significantly optimizing quality of life by 2010, and eventually markedly improving ecology from 2015. However, it presented an aggregation role in urban land sprawl, which was contrary to the original intention of this policy. (2) Since 2010, there had been some correlations between quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale, which suggested intensive urban land use had both direct and indirect effects on the three items. Visual differences were noted between the results when indirect effects were considered versus considering only direct effects. (3) In terms of quality of life, intensive urban land use helped to improve transportation, infrastructure services, and living standards, but threatened adequate living space, especially after 2010; in terms of ecology, it helped to promote green space and attenuate air pollution and energy consumption; in terms of urban-land-use scale, the higher the degree of intensity, the larger the city and the faster the urban land sprawl.
To sum up, we considered that intensive urban land use was conducive to optimizing quality of life and ecology by promoting economic development and technological progress in China. However, the negative effect on living space and the failure to control urban land sprawl should be concerning. The following suggestions are formulated to improve the intensive urban-land-use policy:
(1)
The control measures of intensive urban land use need to be improved. Despite the government issuing many relevant policy documents, the operational measures are limited. For example, the Regulations on Economical and Intensive Land Use issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources in 2019 contains many principles but few concrete measures; that is to say, how to regulate the intensive urban land use is still unclear. Secondly, relevant constraints and incentives are not established. Although the evaluation of intensive land use in development zones and urban areas has been widely carried out in China, the evaluation results are disjointed with the quantitative evaluation indexes of government work. As a result, the government is not active in promoting this policy. Therefore, we believe that specific control indicators and supporting measures on urban land boundaries and intensities should be developed. For example, each city should not only locate the development boundary, but also set appropriate control indicators on intensive land use according to the development orientation, and these indicators could be linked with newly supplied built-up land area and the assessment of government work.
(2)
More attention needs to be paid to the rational planning of urban land use structure, especially mega cities and super-large cities. We suggest that the carrying capacity of residential land be increased simultaneously with intensive use. There is also an urgent need to accelerate the overall planning of the use of aboveground and underground urban space, and to promote the reasonable allocation of newly supplied built-up land to different sectors according to population migration.
This article represents an important supplement to existing research on the direct and indirect effects of intensive urban land use on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale. Furthermore, if nonlinear models and additional observation indices can be introduced, this would serve to enhance the results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.W.; methodology, B.L.; software, B.L.; validation, J.C.; formal analysis, J.C.; investigation, B.L.; resources, Z.W.; data curation, B.L.; writing—original draft preparation, B.L.; writing—review and editing, Z.W.; visualization, B.L.; supervision, Z.W.; project administration, Z.W.; funding acquisition, B.L. and J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was funded by the Youth Foundation of School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences (No. CUGGG-2003) and the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (No. 72004209).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tian, L.; Ge, B.; Li, Y. Impacts of state-led and bottom-up urbanization on land use change in the peri-urban areas of Shanghai: Planned growth or uncontrolled sprawl? Cities 2017, 60, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fernandez Milan, B.; Creutzig, F. Municipal policies accelerated urban sprawl and public debts in Spain. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Chen, H.; Jia, B.; Lau, S.S.Y. Sustainable urban form for Chinese compact cities: Challenges of a rapid urbanized economy. Habitat Int. 2008, 32, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Davis, C.; Schaub, T. A transboundary study of urban sprawl in the Pacific Coast region of North America: The benefits of multiple measurement methods. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. 2005, 7, 268–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zeng, C.; Zhang, A.; Liu, L.; Liu, Y. Administrative restructuring and land-use intensity—A spatial explicit perspective. Land Use Policy 2017, 67, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wei, Y.D.; Li, H.; Yue, W. Urban land expansion and regional inequality in transitional China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 163, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Skog, K.L.; Steinnes, M. How do centrality, population growth and urban sprawl impact farmland conversion in Norway? Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Artmann, M.; Inostroza, L.; Fan, P. Urban sprawl, compact urban development and green cities. How much do we know, how much do we agree? Ecol. Indic. 2019, 96, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Liu, Y.S.; Li, J.T.; Yang, Y.Y. Strategic adjustment of land use policy under the economic transformation. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hassan, A.M.; Lee, H. Toward the sustainable development of urban areas: An overview of global trends in trials and policies. Land Use Policy 2015, 48, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kuang, W.; Liu, J.; Dong, J.; Chi, W.; Zhang, C. The rapid and massive urban and industrial land expansions in China between 1990 and 2010: A CLUD-based analysis of their trajectories, patterns, and drivers. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 145, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Santos-Martín, F.; Zorrilla-Miras, P.; Palomo, I.; Montes, C.; Benayas, J.; Maes, J. Protecting nature is necessary but not sufficient for conserving ecosystem services: A comprehensive assessment along a gradient of land-use intensity in Spain. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 35, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gong, J.; Chen, W.; Liu, Y.; Wang, J. The intensity change of urban development land: Implications for the city master plan of Guangzhou, China. Land Use Policy 2014, 40, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huang, L.; Yan, L.; Wu, J. Assessing urban sustainability of Chinese megacities: 35 years after the economic reform and open-door policy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 145, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, C.; Miao, C.; Zhang, W.; Chen, X. Spatiotemporal patterns of urban sprawl and its relationship with economic development in China during 1990–2010. Habitat Int. 2018, 79, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, Q.; Wang, W.M.; Jin, W. New perspectives and new methods on the research of intensive urban land use in China: Literature review and prospect. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2017, 27 (Suppl. S1), 95–100. [Google Scholar]
  17. Long, H. Land use policy in China: Introduction. Land Use Policy 2014, 40, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xie, H.; Zhai, Q.; Wang, W.; Yu, J.; Lu, F.; Chen, Q. Does intensive land use promote a reduction in carbon emissions? Evidence from the Chinese industrial sector. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2018, 137, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Geng, B.; Zheng, X.; Fu, M. Scenario analysis of sustainable intensive land use based on SD model. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 29, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yang, J.; Jin, G.; Huang, X.J.; Chen, K.; Meng, H. How to Measure Urban Land Use Intensity? A Perspective of Multi-Objective Decision in Wuhan Urban Agglomeration, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Liu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, W.S. Evalution on Spatio-temporal Development and Interaction of Intensive Urban Land Use and Urbanization. Geogr. Res. 2011, 30, 1805–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jiang, H.; Qu, F.T. Econometric Analysis on Influence Factors of Intensity Level of Land for Construction at County Level. China Land Sci. 2008, 22, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tao, Z.H. Discussion on several basic problems of intensive urban land use. China Land Sci. 2000, 14, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jin, G.; Deng, X.; Zhao, X.; Guo, B.; Yang, J. Spatiotemporal patterns in urbanization efficiency within the Yangtze River Economic Belt between 2005 and 2014. J. Geogr. Sci. 2018, 28, 1113–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Hubacek, K.; Giljum, S. Applying physical input–output analysis to estimate land appropriation (ecological footprints) of international trade activities. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 44, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, L.; Pan, C.; Ling, S.; Li, M. Ecological efficiency of urban industrial land in metropolitan areas: Evidence from China. Land 2022, 11, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pouriyeh, A.; Khorasani, N.; Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F.; Farshchi, P. Efficiency evaluation of urban development in Yazd City, Central Iran using data envelopment analysis. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Song, Y.; Yeung, G.; Zhu, D.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, L. Efficiency of urban land use in China’s resource-based cities, 2000–2018. Land Use Policy 2022, 115, 106009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lohrey, S.; Creutzig, F. A ‘sustainability window’ of urban form. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 45, 96–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bardhan, R.; Kurisu, K.; Hanaki, K. Does compact urban forms relate to good quality of life in high density cities of India? Case of Kolkata. Cities 2015, 48, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pearsall, H. Staying cool in the compact city: Vacant land and urban heating in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Appiled Geogr. 2017, 79, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yin, R.M.; Wang, Z.Q.; Chai, J.; Gao, Y.X.; Xu, F. The Evolution and Response of Space Utilization Efficiency and Carbon Emissions: A Comparative Analysis of Spaces and Regions. Land 2022, 11, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lee, J.H.; Lim, S. The selection of compact city policy instruments and their effects on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector: The case of South Korea. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 37, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yuan, M.; Song, Y.; Hong, S.; Huang, Y. Evaluating the effects of compact growth on air quality in already-high-density cities with an integrated land use-transport-emission model: A case study of Xiamen, China. Habitat Int. 2017, 69, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lo, A.Y. Small is green? Urban form and sustainable consumption in selected OECD metropolitan areas. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Richards, D.R.; Passy, P.; Oh, R.R.Y. Impacts of population density and wealth on the quantity and structure of urban green space in tropical Southeast Asia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 553–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, J.; Chen, Y.; Shao, X.; Zhang, Y.; Cao, Y. Land-use changes and policy dimension driving forces in China: Present, trend and future. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 737–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hua, J.; Zhang, X.; Ren, C.; Shi, Y.; Lee, T.C. Spatiotemporal assessment of extreme heat risk for high-density cities: A case study of Hong Kong from 2006 to 2016. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 64, 102507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hui, E.C.M.; Wu, Y.; Deng, L.; Zheng, B. Analysis on coupling relationship of urban scale and intensive use of land in China. Cities 2015, 42, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Howley, P. Attitudes towards compact city living: Towards a greater understanding of residential behaviour. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 792–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mouratidis, K. Compact city, urban sprawl, and subjective well-being. Cities 2019, 92, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kong, W.H.; Wang, R.; Wang, Y.; Cao, J.R. Research and Practice of Intensive Use of Land based on the Fuzzy Evaluation. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2011, 10, 1502–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Gaigné, C.; Riou, S.; Thisse, J.F. Are compact cities environmentally friendly? J. Urban Econ. 2012, 72, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mohamad, M.M.; Sulaiman, N.L.; Sern, L.C.; Salleh, K.M. Measuring the Validity and Reliability of Research Instruments. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 204, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Hou, D.; Al-Tabbaa, A.; Chen, H.; Mamic, I. Factor analysis and structural equation modelling of sustainable behaviour in contaminated land remediation. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 84, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Golob, T.F. Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2003, 37, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Song, X.Y.; Chen, F.; Lu, Z.H. A Bayesian semiparametric dynamic two-level structural equation model for analyzing non-normal longitudinal data. J. Multivar. Anal. 2013, 121, 87–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, C.; Chen, J.; Li, Z.; Abouel Nasr, E.S.; El-Tamimi, A.M. An indicator system for evaluating the development of land-sea coordination systems: A case study of Lianyungang port. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 98, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yang, J.; Huang, X.J.; Wang, Z.Q.; Zhang, J.; Gong, Y.L. Re-understanding of Some Issues in Urban Land Intensive Use of China in the New Era. China Land Sci. 2020, 34, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 11 00727 g001 550
Figure 1. The possible effects of intensive urban land use.
Figure 1. The possible effects of intensive urban land use.
Land 11 00727 g001
Land 11 00727 g002 550
Figure 2. The analysis framework for verifying the effects.
Figure 2. The analysis framework for verifying the effects.
Land 11 00727 g002
Land 11 00727 g003 550
Figure 3. Distribution of cities considered in the research. Note: The investigation only covers built-up areas in these cities.
Figure 3. Distribution of cities considered in the research. Note: The investigation only covers built-up areas in these cities.
Land 11 00727 g003
Land 11 00727 g004 550
Figure 4. The concept map of the SEM.
Figure 4. The concept map of the SEM.
Land 11 00727 g004
Land 11 00727 g005 550
Figure 5. SEM results.
Figure 5. SEM results.
Land 11 00727 g005
Land 11 00727 g006 550
Figure 6. The direct, indirect, and total effects of intensive urban land use on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale.
Figure 6. The direct, indirect, and total effects of intensive urban land use on quality of life, ecology, and urban-land-use scale.
Land 11 00727 g006
Land 11 00727 g007 550
Figure 7. The scatter diagrams of land area used for urban construction, gross regional product in average urban land areas, and percentage of urban area used for living.
Figure 7. The scatter diagrams of land area used for urban construction, gross regional product in average urban land areas, and percentage of urban area used for living.
Land 11 00727 g007
Table
Table 1. Observable indices used to measure the independent and dependent variables.
Table 1. Observable indices used to measure the independent and dependent variables.
Level 1 VariablesLevel 2 VariablesObservable IndicesCodesReferencesDefinitions
Independent variablesLand input
(ξ1)		Number of people employed in average urban land areasx11Howley, 2009 [40]Labor input intensity
Fixed-asset investment in average urban land areasx12Geng et al., 2017 [19]Capital input intensity
Investment into research and development(R&D) in average urban land areasx13Xie et al., 2018 [18]Technical input intensity
Land output
(ξ2)		Gross regional product in average urban land areasx21Geng et al., 2017 [19]Important indicators that measure land economic output in China
Public finance income in average urban land areasx22Geng et al., 2017 [19]
Dependent variablesQuality of life (η1)Percentage of urban area used for roads y11Gong et al., 2014 [13]Reflects the traffic congestion in China
Percentage of urban area used for livingy12Gong et al., 2014 [13]Reflects the abundance of living space
Number of hospital beds in health centers per capitay13Bardhan et al., 2015 [30]Reflects the accessibility of infrastructure services
Unemployment ratey14Mouratidis, 2019 [41]Reflects the employment pressure caused by labor agglomeration
Average wagey15Zhang et al., 2018 [15]Reflects the living standards
Ecology
(η2)		Energy consumption per capitay21Yin et al., 2022 [32]Reflects the energy conservation
Volume of soot emissions per unit of industrial outputy22Bardhan et al., 2015 [30]Reflects the air pollution caused by development
Public green land area per capitay23Kong et al., 2011 [42]Reflects the accessibility of green space
Urban-land-use scale (η3)Land area used for urban constructiony31Hui et al., 2015 [39]Reflects the state of urban-land-use scale
Increase in land area used for urban construction in the past five yearsy32Zhang et al., 2018 [15]Reflects the pace of urban land sprawl
Table
Table 2. Fitness coefficients from SEM.
Table 2. Fitness coefficients from SEM.
Fitness CoefficientsRMSEAGFICFI
Evaluation standards<0.10>0.90>0.90
20050.100.880.90
20100.130.820.84
20150.120.860.90
20190.110.880.90
Note: (1) Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) estimates the difference between the implied and real population covariance matrices per degree of freedom; (2) goodness-of-fit index (GFI) represents the ability of the independent variable to interpret the dependent variable; and (3) comparative-fit index (CFI) tests the gap between the worst model and the model of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, B.; Wang, Z.; Chai, J. Verifying the Synthesized Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use on Quality of Life, Ecology, and Urban-Land-Use Scale in China. Land 2022, 11, 727. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050727

AMA Style

Li B, Wang Z, Chai J. Verifying the Synthesized Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use on Quality of Life, Ecology, and Urban-Land-Use Scale in China. Land. 2022; 11(5):727. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050727

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Bingqing, Zhanqi Wang, and Ji Chai. 2022. "Verifying the Synthesized Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use on Quality of Life, Ecology, and Urban-Land-Use Scale in China" Land 11, no. 5: 727. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050727

APA Style

Li, B., Wang, Z., & Chai, J. (2022). Verifying the Synthesized Effects of Intensive Urban Land Use on Quality of Life, Ecology, and Urban-Land-Use Scale in China. Land, 11(5), 727. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050727

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop