IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2017i1p63-d124688.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of the Economic Efficiency of Construction Land in the Pearl River Delta Megalopolis from 1998 to 2012

Author

Listed:
  • Yuyao Ye

    (Guangzhou Institute of Geography, Guangzhou 510070, China)

  • Shengfa Li

    (Guangzhou Institute of Geography, Guangzhou 510070, China)

  • Hongou Zhang

    (Guangzhou Institute of Geography, Guangzhou 510070, China)

  • Yongxian Su

    (Guangzhou Institute of Geography, Guangzhou 510070, China)

  • Qitao Wu

    (Guangzhou Institute of Geography, Guangzhou 510070, China)

  • Changjian Wang

    (Guangzhou Institute of Geography, Guangzhou 510070, China)

Abstract

Since the 1980s, the rapid, extensive, and dispersed urban expansion in the Pearl River Delta megalopolis (PRDM) has led to landscape fragmentation and the inefficient use of construction land. Like other developed regions in China that are subject to the dual challenges of shortages of construction land and deterioration of the ecological environment, it is becoming increasingly important in the PRDM to improve the land-use efficiency of urban construction. However, current methods for assessing land-use efficiency do not meet the emerging needs of land-use planning and policymaking. Therefore, using the American Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP)/Operational Linescan System (OLS) nighttime light imagery and Landsat TM data, this study aims to develop a timely and efficient approach to model the high-resolution economic efficiency of construction land (EECL). With this approach, we mapped the reliable EECL of the PRDM at township level and with a one-kilometer grid. Next, the study compared the temporal changes and revealed the spatial-temporal dynamics in order to provide a scientific reference for informed land-use planning and policymaking. The results show that since 1998, the economic efficiency of construction land in the PRDM increased in general but varied significantly throughout the area. Further, these disparities widened from 1998 to 2012 between the PRDM’s inner and peripheral circles. Only one-fifth of the towns and subdistricts were categorized as fast-growth or ultrafast-growth, with the majority located in the most developed areas of the PRDM’s inner circle. In order to improve the efficiency of construction land in the PRDM and realize sustainable development, differentiated land-use policies for the inner and peripheral circles were proposed. The inner circle should focus on promoting the efficiency of existing construction land and encourage urban renewal, while the peripheral circle should enhance the control of new construction land and improve its efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuyao Ye & Shengfa Li & Hongou Zhang & Yongxian Su & Qitao Wu & Changjian Wang, 2017. "Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of the Economic Efficiency of Construction Land in the Pearl River Delta Megalopolis from 1998 to 2012," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2017:i:1:p:63-:d:124688
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/63/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/63/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hualin Xie & Wei Wang, 2015. "Exploring the Spatial-Temporal Disparities of Urban Land Use Economic Efficiency in China and Its Influencing Factors under Environmental Constraints Based on a Sequential Slacks-Based Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Doll, Christopher N.H. & Muller, Jan-Peter & Morley, Jeremy G., 2006. "Mapping regional economic activity from night-time light satellite imagery," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 75-92, April.
    3. Carmelo M. Torre & Pierluigi Morano & Francesco Tajani, 2017. "Saving Soil for Sustainable Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-32, February.
    4. Arrow, Kenneth & Bolin, Bert & Costanza, Robert & Dasgupta, Partha & Folke, Carl & Holling, C.S. & Jansson, Bengt-Owe & Levin, Simon & Mäler, Karl-Göran & Perrings, Charles & Pimentel, David, 1996. "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 104-110, February.
    5. Costanza, Robert, 1995. "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 89-90, November.
    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. Yongxin Liu & Yiting Wang & Yiwen Lin & Xiaoqing Ma & Shifa Guo & Qianru Ouyang & Caige Sun, 2023. "Habitat Quality Assessment and Driving Factors Analysis of Guangdong Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-23, July.
    2. Yutian Liang & Zhengke Zhou & Xun Li, 2019. "Dynamic of Regional Planning and Sustainable Development in the Pearl River Delta, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Xin Cheng & Hua Shao & Yang Li & Chao Shen & Peipei Liang, 2019. "Urban Land Intensive Use Evaluation Study Based on Nighttime Light—A Case Study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, January.
    4. Hanwen Zhang & Yanqing Lang, 2022. "Quantifying and Analyzing the Responses of Habitat Quality to Land Use Change in Guangdong Province, China over the Past 40 Years," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, 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. Zhen Yang & Weijun Gao & Jiawei Li, 2022. "Can Economic Growth and Environmental Protection Achieve a “Win–Win” Situation? Empirical Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Opschoor, J. (Hans) B., 1995. "Ecospace and the fall and rise of throughput intensity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 137-140, November.
    3. Kaika, Dimitra & Zervas, Efthimios, 2013. "The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory. Part B: Critical issues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1403-1411.
    4. Bradford David F. & Fender Rebecca A & Shore Stephen H. & Wagner Martin, 2005. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Exploring a Fresh Specification," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-28, June.
    5. Ghimire, Narishwar & Woodward, Richard T., 2013. "Under- and over-use of pesticides: An international analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 73-81.
    6. Jha, Raghbendra & Murthy, K. V. Bhanu, 2003. "An inverse global environmental Kuznets curve," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 352-368, June.
    7. Shuaibing Zhang & Kaixu Zhao & Shuoyang Ji & Yafang Guo & Fengqi Wu & Jingxian Liu & Fei Xie, 2022. "Evolution Characteristics, Eco-Environmental Response and Influencing Factors of Production-Living-Ecological Space in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-26, July.
    8. G. Mythili & Shibashis Mukherjee, 2011. "Examining Environmental Kuznets Curve for river effluents in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 627-640, June.
    9. George Halkos & Iacovos Psarianos, 2016. "Exploring the effect of including the environment in the neoclassical growth model," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 18(3), pages 339-358, July.
    10. Fabian Knorre & Martin Wagner & Maximilian Grupe, 2021. "Monitoring Cointegrating Polynomial Regressions: Theory and Application to the Environmental Kuznets Curves for Carbon and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-35, March.
    11. Carmen van der Merwe & Martin de Wit, 2021. "An In-Depth Investigation into the Relationship Between Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Economic Growth in the City of Cape Town," Working Papers 07/2021, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics, revised 2021.
    12. Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. "Biodiversity: Economic perspectives," Serie Research Memoranda 0002, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    13. Thomas Bolognesi, 2015. "The water vulnerability of metro and megacities: An investigation of structural determinants," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(2), pages 123-133, May.
    14. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    15. Rothman, Dale S., 1998. "Environmental Kuznets curves--real progress or passing the buck?: A case for consumption-based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-194, May.
    16. B. Venkatraja, 2021. "Does China exhibit any evidence of an Environmental Kuznets Curve? An ARDL bounds testing approach," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 1, pages 88-110,111-.
    17. Andreoni, James & Levinson, Arik, 2001. "The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 269-286, May.
    18. Ranjan, Ram & Shortle, James, 2007. "The environmental Kuznets curve when the environment exhibits hysteresis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 204-215, October.
    19. Edyta Kiedrzyńska & Marcin Kiedrzyński & Maciej Zalewski, 2015. "Sustainable floodplain management for flood prevention and water quality improvement," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 76(2), pages 955-977, March.
    20. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q., 2007. "Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy--a case study of the Chinese society 1981-2001," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 355-376, 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:jsusta:v:10:y:2017:i:1:p:63-:d:124688. 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.