IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v39y2012i5p858-879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capturing Multiscalar Feedbacks in Urban Land Change: A Coupled System Dynamics Spatial Logistic Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Burak Güneralp

    (School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA)

  • Michael K Reilly

    (School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University, 397 Panama Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA)

  • Karen C Seto

    (School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA)

Abstract

In this paper we ask two questions: Does a multiscalar urban land-change model that couples a region-scale system dynamics model with a local-scale spatial logit model better predict the amount of urban land change than either model alone? Does a multiscalar urban land-change model that couples regional and local-scale factors better predict the spatial patterns of urban land change than a standalone local-scale spatial logit model? To examine these questions, we develop a coupled system dynamics spatial logit (CSDSL) model for the Pearl River Delta, China, that incorporates region-scale population and economic factors with local-scale biophysical and accessibility factors. In terms of predicting the amounts of urban land change, the CSDSL model is 15% and 18% more accurate than the standalone spatial logit and system dynamics models, respectively. In terms of predicting the spatial pattern of urban land change, the CSDSL model slightly outperforms the spatial logit model as measured by four spatial pattern metrics: number of urban patches, urban edge density, average urban patch size, and spatial irregularity of the urban area. Both the CSDSL and spatial logit models underpredict the number of discrete urban patches (by 64% and 80%, respectively) and the urban edge density (by 42% and 62%, respectively). While both models overpredict the average urban patch size, the spatial logit model overpredicts by over 316%, while the CSDSL overpredicts by 192%. Finally, the models perform equally well in predicting the spatial irregularity of urban areas and the location of urban change. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the CSDSL model outperforms a standalone spatial logit or system dynamics model in predicting the amount and spatial complexity of urban land change. The results also show that predicting urban land-change patterns remains more difficult than predicting total amounts of change.

Suggested Citation

  • Burak Güneralp & Michael K Reilly & Karen C Seto, 2012. "Capturing Multiscalar Feedbacks in Urban Land Change: A Coupled System Dynamics Spatial Logistic Approach," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 39(5), pages 858-879, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:39:y:2012:i:5:p:858-879
    DOI: 10.1068/b36151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b36151
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b36151?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. George Lin, 2009. "Scaling-up Regional Development in Globalizing China: Local Capital Accumulation, Land-centred Politics, and Reproduction of Space," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(3), pages 429-447.
    2. Gibson, Clark C. & Ostrom, Elinor & Ahn, T. K., 2000. "The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 217-239, February.
    3. Karen C. Seto & Robert K. Kaufmann, 2003. "Modeling the Drivers of Urban Land Use Change in the Pearl River Delta, China: Integrating Remote Sensing with Socioeconomic Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 106-121.
    4. Zellner Arnold, 2002. "My Experiences with Nonlinear Dynamic Models in Economics," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Robert Pontius & Wideke Boersma & Jean-Christophe Castella & Keith Clarke & Ton Nijs & Charles Dietzel & Zengqiang Duan & Eric Fotsing & Noah Goldstein & Kasper Kok & Eric Koomen & Christopher Lippitt, 2008. "Comparing the input, output, and validation maps for several models of land change," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 42(1), pages 11-37, March.
    6. William P. Anderson & Pavlos S. Kanaroglou & Eric J. Miller, 1996. "Urban Form, Energy and the Environment: A Review of Issues, Evidence and Policy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 7-35, February.
    7. Camagni, Roberto & Gibelli, Maria Cristina & Rigamonti, Paolo, 2002. "Urban mobility and urban form: the social and environmental costs of different patterns of urban expansion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 199-216, February.
    8. Elena G. Irwin, 2010. "New Directions For Urban Economic Models Of Land Use Change: Incorporating Spatial Dynamics And Heterogeneity," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 65-91, February.
    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. Andrea CIRILLI & Paolo VENERI, 2010. "Spatial Structure and CO2 Emissions Due to Commuting: an Analysis on Italian Urban Areas," Working Papers 353, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    2. Prashanti Sharma & Rajesh Bahadur Thapa & Mir Abdul Matin, 2020. "Examining forest cover change and deforestation drivers in Taunggyi District, Shan State, Myanmar," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 5521-5538, August.
    3. Ran Guo & Hong Leng & Qing Yuan & Shiyi Song, 2022. "Impact of Urban Form on CO 2 Emissions under Different Socioeconomic Factors: Evidence from 132 Small and Medium-Sized Cities in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Li Ji & Wei Zhang, 2019. "Fiscal Incentives and Sustainable Urbanization: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Liu, Xiaoping & Ou, Jinpei & Chen, Yimin & Wang, Shaojian & Li, Xia & Jiao, Limin & Liu, Yaolin, 2019. "Scenario simulation of urban energy-related CO2 emissions by coupling the socioeconomic factors and spatial structures," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1163-1178.
    6. Davide Burgalassi & Tommaso Luzzati, 2015. "Urban spatial structure and environmental emissions: a survey of the literature and some empirical evidence for Italian NUTS-3 regions," Discussion Papers 2015/199, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    7. Clune, Stephen & Morrissey, John & Moore, Trivess, 2012. "Size matters: House size and thermal efficiency as policy strategies to reduce net emissions of new developments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 657-667.
    8. Fang, Chuanglin & Wang, Shaojian & Li, Guangdong, 2015. "Changing urban forms and carbon dioxide emissions in China: A case study of 30 provincial capital cities," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 519-531.
    9. Jaebin Lim & Myounggu Kang, 2023. "Finding Sprawl Factors and Pirate Development: Based on Spatial Analysis of Population Grid Changes from 2014 to 2022 in SMA, South Korea," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, October.
    10. Yanchun Yi & Sisi Ma & Weijun Guan & Ke Li, 2017. "An Empirical Study on the Relationship between Urban Spatial Form and CO 2 in Chinese Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, April.
    11. Timothy Welch & Sabyasachee Mishra, 2014. "Envisioning an emission diet: application of travel demand mechanisms to facilitate policy decision making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 611-631, May.
    12. Yin, Yanhong & Mizokami, Shoshi & Maruyama, Takuya, 2013. "An analysis of the influence of urban form on energy consumption by individual consumption behaviors from a microeconomic viewpoint," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 909-919.
    13. Robert Costanza & Shuang Liu, 2014. "Ecosystem Services and Environmental Governance: Comparing China and the U.S," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 160-170, January.
    14. Grillitsch, Markus & Asheim, Björn & Fünfschilling, Lea & Kelmenson, Sophie & Lowe, Nichola & Lundquist, Karl Johan & Mahmoud, Yahia & Martynovich, Mikhail & Mattson, Pauline & Miörner, Johan & Nilsso, 2023. "Rescaling: An Analytical Lense to Study Economic and Industrial Shifts," Papers in Innovation Studies 2023/11, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    15. Fulong Wu, 2016. "China's Emergent City-Region Governance: A New Form of State Spatial Selectivity through State-orchestrated Rescaling," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(6), pages 1134-1151, November.
    16. Yang, Yuanyuan & Bao, Wenkai & Liu, Yansui, 2020. "Scenario simulation of land system change in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    17. Changchun Feng & Hao Zhang & Liang Xiao & Yongpei Guo, 2022. "Land Use Change and Its Driving Factors in the Rural–Urban Fringe of Beijing: A Production–Living–Ecological Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, February.
    18. Bo Liu & Desheng Xue & Yiming Tan, 2019. "Deciphering the Manufacturing Production Space in Global City-Regions of Developing Countries—a Case of Pearl River Delta, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-26, December.
    19. Chunhong Zhao & Jennifer L.R. Jensen & Russell Weaver, 2020. "Global and Local Modeling of Land Use Change in the Border Cities of Laredo, Texas, USA and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico: A Comparative Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, September.
    20. Dominique Prunetti & Alexandre Muzy & Eric Innocenti & Xavier Pieri, 2014. "Utility-based Multi-agent System with Spatial Interactions: The Case of Virtual Estate Development," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 43(3), pages 271-299, 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:sae:envirb:v:39:y:2012:i:5:p:858-879. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.