IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i9p5281-d802753.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimizing County-Level Land-Use Structure Method: Case Study of W County, China

Author

Listed:
  • Lijing Tang

    (School of Public Administration, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250014, China)

  • Yuanyuan Yang

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resource Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Dongyan Wang

    (College of Earth Sciences, Jilin University, Changchun 130061, China)

  • Qing Wei

    (Jintian Industry Development (Shandong) Group Co., Ltd., Jinan 250109, China)

Abstract

Planning has a direct impact on the formation of China’s land-use structure. In order to better play its role, China has proposed Multiple Planning Integration. As a part of reform for promoting ecological progress, it should have the concept of ecological progress, as well as the formation of land-use structure. Based on these, we focused on China’s land at the county level and developed a method to optimize its land-use structure catering to Multiple Planning Integration and ecological progress, using W County as a case study. This method mainly comprises three parts: calculating the demand area; calculating the carrying capacity; and optimizing the land-use structure. Models are constructed based on the ecological footprint theory. We found that setting unified targets as the link to integrating plans can effectively form the optimal land-use structure at county-level in the manner of “targets set—area determined”. There are three ways to integrate the concept of ecological progress into the optimization process. First, unified targets should be set for both ecological protection and socio-economic development, and priority should be given to the implementation of ecological protection; that is, in the process of optimization, the land area for the ecological redline of a county needs to be initially determined. Second, when optimizing the land-use structure, we should consider the carrying capacity of county-level land, in relation to demand related to the implementation of socio-economic development. Third, ecological balance should be ensured by comparing demands and the carrying capacities and maximizing the ecological service values of the land, which are important principles for determining the land-use structure. Our research provides a reference for optimizing land-use structure at the county level in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Lijing Tang & Yuanyuan Yang & Dongyan Wang & Qing Wei, 2022. "Optimizing County-Level Land-Use Structure Method: Case Study of W County, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-26, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:9:p:5281-:d:802753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5281/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5281/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tim Marshall, 2007. "After Structure Planning: The New Sub-regional Planning in England," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 107-132, January.
    2. Stefanie Duhr, 2005. "Spatial policies for regional sustainable development: A comparison of graphic and textual representations in regional plans in England and Germany," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(9), pages 1167-1182.
    3. Han, Albert T. & Go, Min Hee, 2019. "Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 644-656.
    4. Kim, Hyungkyoo & Jung, Yoonhee & Oh, Jae In, 2019. "Transformation of urban heat island in the three-center city of Seoul, South Korea: The role of master plans," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 328-338.
    5. Wackernagel, Mathis & Rees, William E., 1997. "Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, January.
    6. James E. M. Watson & Nigel Dudley & Daniel B. Segan & Marc Hockings, 2014. "The performance and potential of protected areas," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7525), pages 67-73, November.
    7. Vasu, Duraisamy & Srivastava, Rajeev & Patil, Nitin G. & Tiwary, Pramod & Chandran, Padikkal & Kumar Singh, Surendra, 2018. "A comparative assessment of land suitability evaluation methods for agricultural land use planning at village level," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 146-163.
    8. Federico Montesino Pouzols & Tuuli Toivonen & Enrico Di Minin & Aija S. Kukkala & Peter Kullberg & Johanna Kuusterä & Joona Lehtomäki & Henrikki Tenkanen & Peter H. Verburg & Atte Moilanen, 2014. "Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism," Nature, Nature, vol. 516(7531), pages 383-386, December.
    9. Sharifi, M. A. & Van Keulen, H., 1994. "A decision support system for land use planning at farm enterprise level," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 239-257.
    10. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    11. Tim Marshall, 2014. "The European Union and Major Infrastructure Policies: The Reforms of the Trans-European Networks Programmes and the Implications for Spatial Planning," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(7), pages 1484-1506, July.
    12. Wackernagel, Mathis & Onisto, Larry & Bello, Patricia & Callejas Linares, Alejandro & Susana Lopez Falfan, Ina & Mendez Garcia, Jesus & Isabel Suarez Guerrero, Ana & Guadalupe Suarez Guerrero, Ma., 1999. "National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 375-390, June.
    13. Claire Colomb & John Tomaney, 2016. "Territorial Politics, Devolution and Spatial Planning in the UK: Results, Prospects, Lessons," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 1-22, January.
    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. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago & Conceição, Pedro & Belbute, José, 2005. "Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 382-396, September.
    2. Chunrong Mi & Liang Ma & Mengyuan Yang & Xinhai Li & Shai Meiri & Uri Roll & Oleksandra Oskyrko & Daniel Pincheira-Donoso & Lilly P. Harvey & Daniel Jablonski & Barbod Safaei-Mahroo & Hanyeh Ghaffari , 2023. "Global Protected Areas as refuges for amphibians and reptiles under climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Xin Yang & Fan Zhang & Cheng Luo & Anlu Zhang, 2019. "Farmland Ecological Compensation Zoning and Horizontal Fiscal Payment Mechanism in Wuhan Agglomeration, China, From the Perspective of Ecological Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Jouni Korhonen, 2003. "Should we measure corporate social responsibility?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 25-39, March.
    6. Hoekstra, A.Y., 2009. "Human appropriation of natural capital: A comparison of ecological footprint and water footprint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1963-1974, May.
    7. Hanna Safwat H. Shakir & Kendall T. Harris & Irvin W. Osborne-Lee & Gian Paolo Cesaretti & Rosa Misso & Magdy T. Khalil, 2013. "Global Ecological Footprint, Climate Change Impacts and Assessment," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(2), pages 9-38.
    8. Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett, 2010. "A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-49, June.
    9. Liang Chang & Teiji Watanabe & Hanlin Xu & Jiho Han, 2022. "Knowledge Mapping on Nepal’s Protected Areas Using CiteSpace and VOSviewer," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-23, July.
    10. Áron Szennay & Cecília Szigeti & Judit Beke & László Radácsi, 2021. "Ecological Footprint as an Indicator of Corporate Environmental Performance—Empirical Evidence from Hungarian SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, January.
    11. Xiaoman Liu & Chao Wang & Dong Jiang & Yong Wang & Jixi Gao & Chuanping Jin & Wandong Ma & Jingfang Yuan, 2022. "Selection of National Park Candidate Areas Based on Spatial Overlap Characteristics of Protected Areas in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Destek, Mehmet & Sinha, Avik, 2020. "Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries," MPRA Paper 104246, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2020.
    13. Parvaneh Sobhani & Hassan Esmaeilzadeh & Seyed Mohammad Moein Sadeghi & Isabelle D. Wolf & Yaghoub Esmaeilzadeh & Azade Deljouei, 2022. "Assessing Spatial and Temporal Changes of Natural Capital in a Typical Semi-Arid Protected Area Based on an Ecological Footprint Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-16, September.
    14. Chuxiong Deng & Zhen Liu & Rongrong Li & Ke Li, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation Based on a Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study in Hunan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.
    15. Yening Wang & Yuantong Jiang & Yuanmao Zheng & Haowei Wang, 2019. "Assessing the Ecological Carrying Capacity Based on Revised Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, April.
    16. Juanjo Galan, 2020. "Towards A Relational Model for Emerging Urban Nature Concepts: A Practical Application and an External Assessment in Landscape Planning Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, March.
    17. Yin Su & Qifang Zheng & Shenghai Liao, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Characteristics of Water Ecological Footprint and Countermeasures for Water Sustainability in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-16, August.
    18. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    19. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q. & Yang, Z.F. & Jiang, M.M., 2007. "Ecological footprint accounting for energy and resource in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1599-1609, March.
    20. Xiaojie Chen & Jing Wang, 2021. "Quantitatively Determining the Priorities of Regional Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land in Different Main Functional Areas: A Case Study of Hubei Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, 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:2022:i:9:p:5281-:d:802753. 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.