IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v26y2022i1p309-322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimation of entity‐level land use and its application in urban sectoral land use footprint: A bottom‐up model with emerging geospatial data

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Xie
  • Huajun Yu
  • Yang Li
  • Min Dai
  • Xinyi Long
  • Nan Li
  • Yutao Wang

Abstract

Land is an essential resource tomaintain the functioning of the socio‐economic system. Due to sectoral land data limitations, previous studies were primarily restricted to a coarse sectoral level or focused mainly on the global and national scales. However,fine‐scale land use data are required to provide tailored implications for municipal sustainable development. With emerging geographic data and novel methods, including point of interest data, road network data, and natural language processing, a bottom‐up model is developed to estimate the entity‐level artificial impervious land use. Then, we conducted a case study in Shanghai to investigate the spatial features, footprints, and intensities of sectoral land use. Our results indicated that 42 sectors in Shanghai had diverse spatial patterns. The transportation sector had the highest level of agglomeration among all sectors, and the manufacturing industry's adjacent land patches had higher sectoral heterogeneities than the service sector. The transportation sector had the largest direct and embodied land use footprint. The residential‐related sectors had higher land use intensities, while the high value‐added service sectors showed lower land use intensities. Our study indicates that this model offers a novel way of extracting entity‐level spatial land use information and is applicable for socio‐economic metabolism research. Future studies could incorporate remote sensing images and multiple databases to achieve higher resolution.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Xie & Huajun Yu & Yang Li & Min Dai & Xinyi Long & Nan Li & Yutao Wang, 2022. "Estimation of entity‐level land use and its application in urban sectoral land use footprint: A bottom‐up model with emerging geospatial data," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(1), pages 309-322, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:26:y:2022:i:1:p:309-322
    DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13191
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jiec.13191?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krekel, Christian & Kolbe, Jens & Wüstemann, Henry, 2016. "The greener, the happier? The effect of urban land use on residential well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-127.
    2. Helmut Haberl & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Stefan Pauliuk & Fridolin Krausmann & Daniel B. Müller & Marina Fischer-Kowalski, 2019. "Contributions of sociometabolic research to sustainability science," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(3), pages 173-184, March.
    3. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Ottar Michelsen & Francesco Cherubini & Anders Hammer Strømman, 2012. "Impact Assessment of Biodiversity and Carbon Pools from Land Use and Land Use Changes in Life Cycle Assessment, Exemplified with Forestry Operations in Norway," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(2), pages 231-242, April.
    5. Anke Schaffartzik & Helmut Haberl & Thomas Kastner & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Nina Eisenmenger & Karl-Heinz Erb, 2015. "Trading Land: A Review of Approaches to Accounting for Upstream Land Requirements of Traded Products," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(5), pages 703-714, October.
    6. Stefan Giljum & Martin Bruckner & Aldo Martinez, 2015. "Material Footprint Assessment in a Global Input-Output Framework," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(5), pages 792-804, October.
    7. Monica Di Donato & Pedro L. Lomas & Óscar Carpintero, 2015. "Metabolism and Environmental Impacts of Household Consumption: A Review on the Assessment, Methodology, and Drivers," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(5), pages 904-916, October.
    8. Isabel M. Horta & James Keirstead, 2017. "Downscaling Aggregate Urban Metabolism Accounts to Local Districts," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(2), pages 294-306, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chris Kennedy & Richard Wood, 2023. "Winners of the 2022 Graedel Prizes: The Journal of Industrial Ecology Best Paper Prizes," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(6), pages 1426-1428, December.
    2. Min Wang & Yang Wang & Yingmei Wu & Xiaoli Yue & Mengjiao Wang & Pingping Hu, 2022. "Detecting Differences in the Impact of Construction Land Types on Carbon Emissions: A Case Study of Southwest China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-16, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Plank, Christina & Görg, Christoph & Kalt, Gerald & Kaufmann, Lisa & Dullinger, Stefan & Krausmann, Fridolin, 2023. "“Biomass from somewhere?” Governing the spatial mismatch of Viennese biomass consumption and its impact on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. De Rosa, Michele, 2018. "Land Use and Land-use Changes in Life Cycle Assessment: Green Modelling or Black Boxing?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 73-81.
    3. Eisenmenger, Nina & Wiedenhofer, Dominik & Schaffartzik, Anke & Giljum, Stefan & Bruckner, Martin & Schandl, Heinz & Wiedmann, Thomas O. & Lenzen, Manfred & Tukker, Arnold & Koning, Arjan, 2016. "Consumption-based material flow indicators — Comparing six ways of calculating the Austrian raw material consumption providing six results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 177-186.
    4. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Umeki, Kentaro & Mousa, Elsayed & Hedayati, Ali & Romar, Henrik & Kemppainen, Antti & Wang, Chuan & Phounglamcheik, Aekjuthon & Tuomikoski, Sari & Norberg, Nicklas & Andefors, Alf , 2018. "Use of biomass in integrated steelmaking – Status quo, future needs and comparison to other low-CO2 steel production technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 384-407.
    5. Tonini, Davide & Vadenbo, Carl & Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard, 2017. "Priority of domestic biomass resources for energy: Importance of national environmental targets in a climate perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 295-309.
    6. Lotze-Campen, Hermann & von Witzke, Harald & Noleppa, Steffen & Schwarz, Gerald, 2015. "Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 79-84.
    7. Iriarte, Alfredo & Rieradevall, Joan & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2012. "Transition towards a more environmentally sustainable biodiesel in South America: The case of Chile," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 263-273.
    8. Knut Einar Rosendahl & Jon Strand, 2011. "Carbon Leakage from the Clean Development Mechanism," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 27-50.
    9. Andrew E. Clark, 2018. "Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 245-269, June.
    10. Kriegler, Elmar, 2011. "Comment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 594-596, July.
    11. Proost, Stef & Van Dender, Kurt, 2012. "Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-87.
    12. repec:fpr:ifprib:2012ghienglish is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Otrachshenko, Vladimir & Tyurina, Elena & Nagapetyan, Artur, 2022. "The economic value of the Glass Beach: Contingent valuation and life satisfaction approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    14. Canabarro, N.I. & Silva-Ortiz, P. & Nogueira, L.A.H. & Cantarella, H. & Maciel-Filho, R. & Souza, G.M., 2023. "Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    15. Kucukvar, Murat & Haider, Muhammad Ali & Onat, Nuri Cihat, 2017. "Exploring the material footprints of national electricity production scenarios until 2050: The case for Turkey and UK," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 251-263.
    16. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    17. Zeke Marshall & Paul E. Brockway, 2020. "A Net Energy Analysis of the Global Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fishing and Forestry System," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1-27, June.
    18. Baka, Jennifer & Roland-Holst, David, 2009. "Food or fuel? What European farmers can contribute to Europe's transport energy requirements and the Doha Round," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2505-2513, July.
    19. Nguyen, Thu Lan T. & Hermansen, John E. & Mogensen, Lisbeth, 2010. "Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2561-2571, May.
    20. Sarah Jansen & William Foster & Gustavo Anríquez & Jorge Ortega, 2021. "Understanding Farm-Level Incentives within the Bioeconomy Framework: Prices, Product Quality, Losses, and Bio-Based Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    21. Shortall, O.K., 2013. "“Marginal land” for energy crops: Exploring definitions and embedded assumptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 19-27.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:26:y:2022:i:1:p:309-322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.