IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i4p457-d1369756.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Heterogeneity Impacts of Urbanisation on Open Space Fragmentation in Hong Kong’s Built-Up Area

Author

Listed:
  • Peiheng Yu

    (Department of Building and Real Estate, Research Institute of Sustainable Urban Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, China
    Department of Geography, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117549, Singapore)

  • Yan Zhang

    (Key Laboratory of Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation, Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing 100035, China)

  • Mingqing Han

    (Department of Public Administration, School of Law, Hangzhou City University, Hangzhou 310015, China)

  • Esther H. K. Yung

    (Department of Building and Real Estate, Research Institute of Sustainable Urban Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, China)

  • Edwin H. W. Chan

    (Department of Building and Real Estate, Research Institute of Sustainable Urban Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, China)

  • Yiyun Chen

    (School of Resource and Environmental Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China)

Abstract

Rapid urbanisation has generated numerous environmental consequences, particularly regarding open space fragmentation. Open space fragmentation is the transformation of open space from a state of homogeneity, integration, and continuity to a state of heterogeneity, division, and incoherence. Nevertheless, one main obstacle to understanding this issue is how to address the spatial heterogeneity of the impact of urbanisation on open space fragmentation. Thus, this paper provides a comprehensive framework for the mechanistic associations between open space fragmentation and urbanisation in Hong Kong’s built-up area. The results illustrate that both open space fragmentation index and urbanisation index values are noticeably higher in dense urban areas. Land urbanisation, represented by the percentage of construction land in total land, has the highest explanatory power for spatial differentiation in open space fragmentation, followed by social and population urbanisation factors. Furthermore, the relational interrelations of open space fragmentation drivers are the bivariate and nonlinear enhancement interactions. Social urbanisation and land urbanisation have the strongest bivariate enhancement interaction for the use fragmentation form and the largest nonlinear enhancement interaction for the internal fragmentation form. Based on initial urban planning, open space fragmentation is an adaptation outcome of population, land, and social urbanisation factors, and this self-organisation phenomenon has been further emphasised in the historical process. These insights significantly enrich our understanding of how urbanisation affects open space fragmentation and provide valuable guidance for better open space strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Peiheng Yu & Yan Zhang & Mingqing Han & Esther H. K. Yung & Edwin H. W. Chan & Yiyun Chen, 2024. "Spatial Heterogeneity Impacts of Urbanisation on Open Space Fragmentation in Hong Kong’s Built-Up Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:4:p:457-:d:1369756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/4/457/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/4/457/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vesely, Eva-Terezia, 2007. "Green for green: The perceived value of a quantitative change in the urban tree estate of New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 605-615, August.
    2. Siddique, Sumaiya & Uddin, Md. Mahin, 2022. "Green space dynamics in response to rapid urbanization: Patterns, transformations and topographic influence in Chattogram city, Bangladesh," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Ntihinyurwa, Pierre Damien & de Vries, Walter Timo, 2021. "Farmland fragmentation concourse: Analysis of scenarios and research gaps," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Daunt, Ana Beatriz Pierri & Inostroza, Luis & Hersperger, Anna M., 2021. "The role of spatial planning in land change: An assessment of urban planning and nature conservation efficiency at the southeastern coast of Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    5. Barau, Aliyu Salisu & Abubakar, Ismaila Rimi & Kafi, Kamil Muhammad & Olugbodi, Kemi Hamdat & Abubakar, Jibrin Ibrahim, 2023. "Dynamics of negotiated use of public open spaces between children and adults in an African city," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    6. Ntihinyurwa, Pierre Damien & de Vries, Walter Timo & Chigbu, Uchendu Eugene & Dukwiyimpuhwe, Patrick Acklam, 2019. "The positive impacts of farm land fragmentation in Rwanda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 565-581.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ndip, Francis Ebai & Molua, Ernest L. & Mvodo, Meyo-Elise Stephanie & Nkendah, Robert & Djomo Choumbou, Raoul Fani & Tabetando, Rayner & Akem, Nina Fabinin, 2023. "Farmland Fragmentation, crop diversification and incomes in Cameroon, a Congo Basin country," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Georgina Milne & Andrew William Byrne & Emma Campbell & Jordon Graham & John McGrath & Raymond Kirke & Wilma McMaster & Jesko Zimmermann & Adewale Henry Adenuga, 2022. "Quantifying Land Fragmentation in Northern Irish Cattle Enterprises," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Yu, Peiheng & Fennell, Shailaja & Chen, Yiyun & Liu, Hui & Xu, Lu & Pan, Jiawei & Bai, Shaoyun & Gu, Shixiang, 2022. "Positive impacts of farmland fragmentation on agricultural production efficiency in Qilu Lake watershed: Implications for appropriate scale management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    4. Tanrıvermiş, Yeşim & Tanrıvermiş, Harun & Uisso, Amani Michael, 2024. "Assessment of farmland fragmentation and the role of the legal regulations for the prevention of farmland fragmentation in Türki̇ye," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    5. Pierre Damien Ntihinyurwa & Walter Timo de Vries, 2021. "Farmland Fragmentation, Farmland Consolidation and Food Security: Relationships, Research Lapses and Future Perspectives," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-39, January.
    6. Yaoyao Zhu & Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Morphological Transformation of Urban Open Spaces: Drivers, Trends, and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-22, August.
    7. Theresa Kotulla & Jon Martin Denstadli & Are Oust & Elisabeth Beusker, 2019. "What Does It Take to Make the Compact City Liveable for Wider Groups? Identifying Key Neighbourhood and Dwelling Features," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, June.
    8. Andrew Allan & Ali Soltani & Mohammad Hamed Abdi & Melika Zarei, 2022. "Driving Forces behind Land Use and Land Cover Change: A Systematic and Bibliometric Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, August.
    9. Tuyen Quang Tran & Huong Van Vu, 2021. "The impact of land fragmentation on food security in the North Central Coast, Vietnam," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 327-345, May.
    10. Valente, Marieta & Fernandes, Maria Eduarda & Pinto, Lígia Maria Costa, 2024. "Crowdfunding or crowdsourcing time: Exploring the willingness of private citizens to help prevent forest fires," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    11. Christopher Ambrey & Christopher Fleming, 2014. "Public Greenspace and Life Satisfaction in Urban Australia," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(6), pages 1290-1321, May.
    12. Richard Yao & David Palmer & Barbara Hock & Duncan Harrison & Tim Payn & Juan Monge, 2019. "Forest Investment Framework as a Support Tool for the Sustainable Management of Planted Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    13. Liu, Jing & Jin, Xiaobin & Xu, Weiyi & Sun, Rui & Han, Bo & Yang, Xuhong & Gu, Zhengming & Xu, Cuilan & Sui, Xueyan & Zhou, Yinkang, 2019. "Influential factors and classification of cultivated land fragmentation, and implications for future land consolidation: A case study of Jiangsu Province in eastern China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    14. Lin, Hsin-Wei & Chuang, Yu-Chou & Liu, Wan-Yu, 2020. "Assessing the economic value of an iconic urban heritage tree," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    15. Marzena Suchocka & Paweł Jankowski & Magdalena Błaszczyk, 2019. "Perception of Urban Trees by Polish Tree Professionals vs. Nonprofessionals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    16. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, C.Y., 2015. "Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-66.
    17. CAO, Yu & Zou, Jie & Fang, Xiaoqian & Wang, Jiayi & Cao, Yu & Li, Guoyu, 2020. "Effect of land tenure fragmentation on the decision-making and scale of agricultural land transfer in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    18. Xiaoyu Chen & Qingming Zhan & Yuli Fan, 2023. "Classification and Evaluation Methods for Optimization of Land Use Efficiency at Village Level," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, March.
    19. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2024. "Limited Substitutability, Relative Price Changes and the Uplifting of Public Natural Capital Values," CESifo Working Paper Series 11156, CESifo.
    20. Prince Donkor Ameyaw & Walter Timo de Vries, 2021. "Toward Smart Land Management: Land Acquisition and the Associated Challenges in Ghana. A Look into a Blockchain Digital Land Registry for Prospects," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-22, 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:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:4:p:457-:d:1369756. 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.