
Quantifying effects of socioeconomic development on urban landscape fragmentation
CHE Tong, LUO Yunjian
JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2020, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (1) : 154-162.
Quantifying effects of socioeconomic development on urban landscape fragmentation
【Objective】 We analyzed spatial patterns of urban landscape fragmentation by taking Yangzhou City as a case study. Here, we further quantitatively explore the effects of socioeconomic factors on landscape fragmentation.【Method】 Multi data sources (e.g., Landsat-5 TM imagery with 30 m spatial resolution, and the Statistical Yearbook of Yangzhou City) and several data analysis methods (e.g., landscape pattern analysis and the boosted regression trees machine learning technique) were employed. 【Result】 ① Arable land was the dominant land use, covering 54.9% of the total area of the city in 2010, followed by water (22.0%), built-up land (21.9%), and forestland and grassland (1.1%). As the distance from the city center increased, the degree of landscape fragmentation first increased and then decreased, whereby the turning point was at the edge of the city. ② The degree of landscape fragmentation increased with increasing level of urbanization, and reached an extremum at 35%-45% before declining gradually. ③ At the landscape level, social factors (i.e., total population and population density) generally had an inhibiting role on landscape fragmentation, while economic factors (i.e., per capita GDP, per capita revenue, primary and tertiary industries) usually promoted landscape fragmentation. In comparison to landscape level, socioeconomic factors had greater impacts at the class-level, and their relationships with class-level fragmentation indices (patch density, edge density, landscape division index and aggregation index) showed distinct differences. For example, per capita revenue promoted the division of landscape at the landscape level, but inhibited it at class level.【Conclusion】 Socioeconomic development played an important role in landscape fragmentation, not only at different levels (landscape and class levels), but also in terms of different driving roles (inhibition or promotion) of fragmentation indices. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the scale effect, impact intensity, and impact direction of socioeconomic factors in order to effectively alleviate urban landscape fragmentation.
urbanization / landscape fragmentation / spatial pattern / socioeconomic development / Yangzhou City
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
陈利顶, 孙然好, 刘海莲. 城市景观格局演变的生态环境效应研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(4):1042-1050.
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
仇江啸, 王效科, 逯非, 等. 城市景观破碎化与城市化及社会经济发展水平的关系——以北京城区为例[J]. 生态学报, 2012, 32(9):2659-2669.
|
[7] |
阳文锐. 北京城市景观格局时空变化及驱动力[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(13):4357-4366.
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
臧淑英, 王凌云, 那晓东, 等. 基于经济驱动因子的土地利用结构变化区域差异分析——以哈大齐工业走廊为例[J]. 地理研究, 2011, 30(2):224-232.
|
[11] |
潘竟虎, 苏有才, 黄永生, 等. 近30年玉门市土地利用与景观格局变化及其驱动力[J]. 地理研究, 2012, 31(9):1631-1639.
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
高晓俊. 基于情景规划的中小城市空间发展规划研究[D]. 合肥: 合肥工业大学, 2016.
|
[15] |
齐杨, 邬建国, 李建龙, 等. 中国东西部中小城市景观格局及其驱动力[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(1):275-285.
|
[16] |
蔡春菊, 贾宝全, 王成. 扬州地区土地利用与景观格局分析[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2010, 38(4):42-48.
|
[17] |
徐连芳, 叶亚平. 扬州市湿地景观格局演变及驱动力研究[J]. 水生态学杂志, 2015, 36(3):44-50.
|
[18] |
李栋科, 丁圣彦, 梁国付, 等. 基于移动窗口法的豫西山地丘陵地区景观异质性分析[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(12):3414-3424.
|
[19] |
王润, 丁圣彦, 卢训令, 等. 黄河中下游农业景观异质性对传粉昆虫多样性的多尺度效应——以巩义市为例[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(7):2145-2153.
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
欧强新, 李海奎, 雷相东, 等. 基于清查数据的福建省马尾松生物量转换和扩展因子估算差异解析——3种集成学习决策树模型的比较[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(6):2007-2016.
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
李春林, 刘淼, 胡远满, 等. 基于增强回归树和Logistic回归的城市扩展驱动力分析[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(3):727-737.
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
王蓉, 周宝同, 甘雪坤. 西南山地景观破碎化与城镇化及社会经济发展水平的关系研究——以重庆市渝北区为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2018, 27(3):624-631.
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
胡冬雪, 唐立娜, 邱全毅, 等. 海峡西岸经济区景观格局10年变化及驱动力[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(18):6138-6147.
|
[32] |
向英奇, 刘淼, 胡远满, 等. 辽宁省沿海地区景观格局时空变化及其驱动力[J]. 生态学杂志, 2015, 34(9):2628-2635.
|
[33] |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |