IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i23p15738-d984665.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Scenario Simulation of Land Use Change and Ecosystem Service Value in the Middle Reaches of Yangtze River Urban Agglomeration

Author

Listed:
  • Yangcheng Hu

    (School of Business Administration, Nanchang Institute of Technology, Nanchang 330099, China)

  • Yi Liu

    (School of Business Administration, Nanchang Institute of Technology, Nanchang 330099, China)

  • Changyan Li

    (School of Business Administration, Nanchang Institute of Technology, Nanchang 330099, China)

Abstract

The evolution of regional land use is a complex process under the combined effect of multiple factors, and it is important to understand this evolution process, as well as its characteristics and future trends, through land use change models in order to achieve scientific use of land space and optimize the regional development pattern. In this study, the PLUS model is used to simulate the land use in 2035 for the natural development scenario, the urban expansion scenario and the ecological protection scenario using the middle reaches of Yangtze River urban agglomeration (MRYRUA) as the study area, and then to calculate the ecosystem service values (ESV) and analyze the contribution of each driver to each land type and the spatial autocorrelation of the ESV at the grid scale. The results show that (1) the land use changes in the study area from 2015 to 2020 are mainly: the rapid expansion of construction land with an increase of 200,221 hm 2 and an increase in arable land, specifically 85,982 hm 2 , and a decrease in all other land types. (2) The ESV of the study area was CNY 3,837,282 million and CNY 3,774,162 million from 2015 to 2020, respectively, with an general decreasing trend. (3) Three scenarios are simulated for the study area in 2035, and the ESVs under the natural development scenario, urban expansion scenario and ecological conservation scenario are CNY 3,618,062 million, CNY 3,609,707 million and CNY 3,625,662 million, respectively, which are all lower than those in 2020. (4) The global autocorrelation indices for 2020 and the three scenarios are 0.7126, 0.7104, 0.7144 and 0.7104, respectively, which are significantly positive. The simulation of MRYRUA land use and the comparative analysis of ESV provide some help in the strategic optimization of the spatial distribution pattern of land use in large regional urban agglomerations.

Suggested Citation

  • Yangcheng Hu & Yi Liu & Changyan Li, 2022. "Multi-Scenario Simulation of Land Use Change and Ecosystem Service Value in the Middle Reaches of Yangtze River Urban Agglomeration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-19, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15738-:d:984665
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15738/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15738/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mansour, Shawky & Al-Belushi, Mohammed & Al-Awadhi, Talal, 2020. "Monitoring land use and land cover changes in the mountainous cities of Oman using GIS and CA-Markov modelling techniques," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    3. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    4. Xindong He & Xianmin Mai & Guoqiang Shen, 2019. "Delineation of Urban Growth Boundaries with SD and CLUE-s Models under Multi-Scenarios in Chengdu Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Rahel Hamad & Heiko Balzter & Kamal Kolo, 2018. "Predicting Land Use/Land Cover Changes Using a CA-Markov Model under Two Different Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Huang, Daquan & Huang, Jing & Liu, Tao, 2019. "Delimiting urban growth boundaries using the CLUE-S model with village administrative boundaries," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 422-435.
    7. Linfeng Xu & Xuan Liu & De Tong & Zhixin Liu & Lirong Yin & Wenfeng Zheng, 2022. "Forecasting Urban Land Use Change Based on Cellular Automata and the PLUS Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-16, April.
    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. Changqing Sun & Yulong Bao & Battsengel Vandansambuu & Yuhai Bao, 2022. "Simulation and Prediction of Land Use/Cover Changes Based on CLUE-S and CA-Markov Models: A Case Study of a Typical Pastoral Area in Mongolia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-21, November.
    2. Milad Asadi & Amir Oshnooei-Nooshabadi & Samira-Sadat Saleh & Fattaneh Habibnezhad & Sonia Sarafraz-Asbagh & John Lodewijk Van Genderen, 2022. "Urban Sprawl Simulation Mapping of Urmia (Iran) by Comparison of Cellular Automata–Markov Chain and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Chen, Haojie & Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2022. "Legitimacy and limitations of valuing the oxygen production of ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    5. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    6. Exley, G. & Hernandez, R.R. & Page, T. & Chipps, M. & Gambro, S. & Hersey, M. & Lake, R. & Zoannou, K.-S. & Armstrong, A., 2021. "Scientific and stakeholder evidence-based assessment: Ecosystem response to floating solar photovoltaics and implications for sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    7. Namakando, Namakando, 2020. "Stakeholder perceptions of raw water quality and its management in Fetakgomo and Maruleng municipalities of Limpopo Province," Research Theses 334769, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    8. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    9. Luoman Pu & Jiuchun Yang & Lingxue Yu & Changsheng Xiong & Fengqin Yan & Yubo Zhang & Shuwen Zhang, 2021. "Simulating Land-Use Changes and Predicting Maize Potential Yields in Northeast China for 2050," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-21, January.
    10. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    11. Zhe Yu & Chunwei Song & Huishi Du, 2024. "Dynamic Changes in Ecosystem Service Value and Ecological Compensation in Original Continuous Poverty-Stricken Areas of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-22, May.
    12. Reed, James & van Vianen, Josh & Foli, Samson & Clendenning, Jessica & Yang, Kevin & MacDonald, Margaret & Petrokofsky, Gillian & Padoch, Christine & Sunderland, Terry, 2017. "Trees for life: The ecosystem service contribution of trees to food production and livelihoods in the tropics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 62-71.
    13. Gaaff, Aris & Reinhard, Stijn, 2012. "Incorporating the value of ecological networks into cost–benefit analysis to improve spatially explicit land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-74.
    14. Marie Hubatova & James McGinlay & David J. Parsons & Joe Morris & Anil R. Graves, 2023. "Assessing Preferences for Cultural Ecosystem Services in the English Countryside Using Q Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.
    15. Selamawit Haftu Gebresellase & Zhiyong Wu & Huating Xu & Wada Idris Muhammad, 2023. "Scenario-Based LULC Dynamics Projection Using the CA–Markov Model on Upper Awash Basin (UAB), Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-27, January.
    16. Nápoles-Vértiz, Sonia & Caro-Borrero, Angela, 2024. "Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    17. Balaguer, Laura Pereira & Garcia, Maria da Glória Motta & Reverte, Fernanda Coyado & Ribeiro, Lígia Maria de Almeida Leite, 2023. "To what extent are ecosystem services provided by geodiversity affected by anthropogenic impacts? A quantitative study in Caraguatatuba, Southeast coast of Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    18. Swinton, Scott M. & Zhang, Wei, 2005. "Rethinking Ecosystem Services from an Intermediate Product Perspective," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19536, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Yuxiang Zhang & Dongjie Guan & Xiujuan He & Boling Yin, 2022. "Simulation on the Evolution Trend of the Urban Sprawl Spatial Pattern in the Upper Reaches of the Yangtze River, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-21, July.
    20. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.

    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:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15738-:d:984665. 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.