IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2021i1p301-d712869.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simulating Urban Expansion Based on Ecological Security Pattern—A Case Study of Hangzhou, China

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaochang Yang

    (Institute of Applied Remote Sensing and Information Technology, College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Sinan Li

    (Institute of Applied Remote Sensing and Information Technology, College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Congmou Zhu

    (Institute of Applied Remote Sensing and Information Technology, College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Baiyu Dong

    (Institute of Applied Remote Sensing and Information Technology, College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Hongwei Xu

    (Institute of Applied Remote Sensing and Information Technology, College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

Abstract

Disordered urban expansion has encroached on a large amount of ecological land, resulting in the steady degradation of urban ecology, which has an adverse effect on the sustainable development of the region. An ecological security pattern can effectively control urban expansion, and it is of great significance to balance urban development and ecological protection. In order to analyze the impact of ecological security patterns on urban expansion, Hangzhou was taken as an example, the CA-Markov model and FLUS model were used to simulate the urban expansion pattern in 2030 under the natural development scenario and the ecological security scenario. The results showed that (1) the ecological source area in the study area is 630.90 km 2 and was mainly distributed in the western mountainous area. There are 14 ecological corridors, primarily composed of valleys and rivers. Ecological nodes are mainly distributed on the north and south sides of the main urban area. (2) From 2000 to 2018, the annual increase index (AI) of construction land decreased in the northeast and southeast directions but increased in the northwest and southwest directions, and in the northeast direction the value was always the highest. Except for the southwest direction, the average annual growth rate (AGR) of construction land in the other directions decreased. At a distance from the city center of 30 km, AI was relatively higher and was increasing, while AGR was declining. At a distance of 30–45 km, both AI and AGR were increasing, indicating that the focus of construction land was moving outwards. (3) From 2018 to 2030, under both natural development scenario and ecological security scenario, construction land would keep expanding, but the construction land area, proportion, AI, and AGR of the latter would both be smaller than the former, indicating that the ecological security pattern can effectively curb urban expansion. Because of a large amount area of ecological sources, the expansion of construction land in the southwest direction would be constrained, especially under the ecological security scenario. The methods and results of this study can provide theoretical and application references for urban planning and green development in metropolises.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaochang Yang & Sinan Li & Congmou Zhu & Baiyu Dong & Hongwei Xu, 2021. "Simulating Urban Expansion Based on Ecological Security Pattern—A Case Study of Hangzhou, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2021:i:1:p:301-:d:712869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/1/301/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/1/301/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Feixue & Li, Zhifeng & Chen, Honghua & Chen, Zhenjie & Li, Manchun, 2020. "An agent-based learning-embedded model (ABM-learning) for urban land use planning: A case study of residential land growth simulation in Shenzhen, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. Davies, Clive & Lafortezza, Raffaele, 2017. "Urban green infrastructure in Europe: Is greenspace planning and policy compliant?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 93-101.
    3. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2018. "Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 298-312.
    4. Huan Zhang, 2021. "The Impact of Urban Sprawl on Environmental Pollution: Empirical Analysis from Large and Medium-Sized Cities of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-19, August.
    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. Shan Ke & Hui Pan & Bowen Jin, 2023. "Identification of Priority Areas for Ecological Restoration Based on Human Disturbance and Ecological Security Patterns: A Case Study of Fuzhou City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.
    2. Siyu Sheng & Bohan Yang & Bing Kuang, 2022. "Impact of Cereal Production Displacement from Urban Expansion on Ecosystem Service Values in China: Based on Three Cropland Supplement Strategies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Qian Zuo & Yong Zhou & Jingyi Liu, 2022. "Construction and Optimization Strategy of an Ecological Network in Mountainous Areas: A Case Study in Southwestern Hubei Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-27, August.

    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. Conway, Tenley M. & Khan, Aliza & Esak, Nasra, 2020. "An analysis of green infrastructure in municipal policy: Divergent meaning and terminology in the Greater Toronto Area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Adams, Clare & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Moglia, Magnus, 2023. "Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in cities: A systematic literature review and a proposal for facilitating urban transitions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    4. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Antonio Ledda & Marta Kubacka & Giovanna Calia & Sylwia Bródka & Vittorio Serra & Andrea De Montis, 2023. "Italy vs. Poland: A Comparative Analysis of Regional Planning System Attitudes toward Adaptation to Climate Changes and Green Infrastructures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    6. Junjie Cao & Yao Zhang & Taoyuan Wei & Hui Sun, 2021. "Temporal–Spatial Evolution and Influencing Factors of Coordinated Development of the Population, Resources, Economy and Environment (PREE) System: Evidence from 31 Provinces in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-22, December.
    7. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    8. Irina Iulia Năstase & Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Felix Kienast, 2019. "Landscape Preferences and Distance Decay Analysis for Mapping the Recreational Potential of an Urban Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-19, July.
    9. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    10. Renato Monteiro & José C. Ferreira & Paula Antunes, 2020. "Green Infrastructure Planning Principles: An Integrated Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Calzolari, C. & Tarocco, P. & Lombardo, N. & Marchi, N. & Ungaro, F., 2020. "Assessing soil ecosystem services in urban and peri-urban areas: From urban soils survey to providing support tool for urban planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Jiquan Chen & Hogeun Park & Peilei Fan & Li Tian & Zutao Ouyang & Raffaele Lafortezza, 2021. "Cultural Landmarks and Urban Landscapes in Three Contrasting Societies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    13. Mahbubur Meenar & Megan Heckert & Deepti Adlakha, 2022. "“Green Enough Ain’t Good Enough:” Public Perceptions and Emotions Related to Green Infrastructure in Environmental Justice Communities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.
    14. Eunjoung Lee & Gunwoo Kim, 2022. "Analysis of Domestic and International Green Infrastructure Research Trends from the ESG Perspective in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-18, June.
    15. Harald Zepp & Luis Inostroza, 2021. "Who Pays the Bill? Assessing Ecosystem Services Losses in an Urban Planning Context," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Jiang, Xue & Li, Bingxin & Zhao, Hongyu & Zhang, Qiqi & Song, Xiaoya & Zhang, Haoran, 2022. "Examining the spatial simulation and land-use reorganisation mechanism of agricultural suburban settlements using a cellular-automata and agent-based model: Six settlements in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    17. Lesong Zhao & Guangsheng Liu & Chunlong Xian & Jiaqi Nie & Yao Xiao & Zhigang Zhou & Xiting Li & Hongmei Wang, 2022. "Simulation of Land Use Pattern Based on Land Ecological Security: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-20, July.
    18. Linrun Qiu & Yuxiang Dong & Hai Liu, 2022. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Planning Practice: Situation, Challenges and Inspirations," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    19. Elin Slätmo & Kjell Nilsson & Eeva Turunen, 2019. "Implementing Green Infrastructure in Spatial Planning in Europe," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21, April.
    20. Giacomo Ravaioli & Tiago Domingos & Ricardo F. M. Teixeira, 2023. "A Framework for Data-Driven Agent-Based Modelling of Agricultural Land Use," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, March.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2021:i:1:p:301-:d:712869. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.