IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v54y2016icp58-68.html

Socioeconomic drivers of forest loss and fragmentation: A comparison between different land use planning schemes and policy implications

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Yaolin
  • Feng, Yuhao
  • Zhao, Zhe
  • Zhang, Qianwen
  • Su, Shiliang

Abstract

Forest loss and fragmentation, which generate various negative environmental and ecological consequences, have become widespread phenomena across the globe. Motivation to investigate the underlying drivers is essential for land use planning and policy decision making. This paper characterizes forest loss and fragmentation from 1979 to 2014 in the Ningbo region (China) using multitemporal satellite imageries and a set of landscape metrics (area-weighted mean patch area, edge density, area-weighted shape index, Euclidean nearest neighbor distance, effective mesh size and total area); and then quantifies the responsible socioeconomic drivers (economy, social activities, science and technology, culture and policy, demography) under different land use planning schemes (urban and non-urban) using multivariate linear regression. Results show that the two zones present identical trend of intensifying forest loss and fragmentation but differ in changing magnitude and speed. More specifically, forest loss and fragmentation in the non-urban planning zone occurs at a significantly higher pace and magnitude. For the urban planning zone, population pressure, economic growth and fruit consumption are the primary drivers of forest loss, while forest fragmentation is mainly driven by economic openness, cash crop consumption and environmental protection consciousness. For the non-urban planning zone, income increases, fruit consumption and infrastructure development are the primary drivers of forest loss, while infrastructure and tourism development are the major drivers of forest fragmentation. Besides, forest loss and fragmentation in the two zones are both heavily subjected to land use policy. The variance partitioning analysis highlights that the policy driver is the most influential one and economic driver also has strong effect on forest loss and fragmentation in the urban planning zone. For the non-urban planning zone, the influence of policy driver is the strongest and social activity is also very powerful. These results provide compelling evidence that land use planning fails to play an efficient role in protecting forest resources in the Ningbo region. The failure should be attributed to several issues associated with land use planning and forestry governance that widely exist in China. We finally propose some pertinent implications and suggestions for China’s land use planning and forest policy. This study is believed to advance the understanding of the socioeconomic drivers of forest loss and fragmentation. It therefore provides some new insights in land use policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Yaolin & Feng, Yuhao & Zhao, Zhe & Zhang, Qianwen & Su, Shiliang, 2016. "Socioeconomic drivers of forest loss and fragmentation: A comparison between different land use planning schemes and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 58-68.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:54:y:2016:i:c:p:58-68
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.01.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837715301903
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.01.016?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yingyi Qian & Barry R. Weingast, 1996. "China's transition to markets: market-preserving federalism, chinese style," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 149-185.
    2. Zhang, Yufu & Tachibana, Satoshi & Nagata, Shin, 2006. "Impact of socio-economic factors on the changes in forest areas in China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 63-76, November.
    3. Echeverria, Cristian & Coomes, David A. & Hall, Myrna & Newton, Adrian C., 2008. "Spatially explicit models to analyze forest loss and fragmentation between 1976 and 2020 in southern Chile," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 212(3), pages 439-449.
    4. Su, Shiliang & Hu, Yi’na & Luo, Fanghan & Mai, Gengchen & Wang, Yaping, 2014. "Farmland fragmentation due to anthropogenic activity in rapidly developing region," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 87-93.
    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. Guo, Shan & Kong, Weilong & Wan, Yaohua & Zeng, Xinyu & Wu, Xiaofang, 2025. "Accounting for consumption-based cultivated land use in China: A structural driver-pathway framework," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 508(C).

    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. Yizhou Wu & Peilei Fan & Bo Li & Zutao Ouyang & Yong Liu & Heyuan You, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Planning Control on Urban Growth: Evidence from Hangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-24, May.
    2. Calvin King Lam Chung & Jiang Xu, 2016. "Scale as both material and discursive: A view through China’s rescaling of urban planning system for environmental governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1404-1424, December.
    3. Deng, Yuping & Wu, Yanrui & Xu, Helian, 2019. "Political turnover and firm pollution discharges: An empirical study," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    4. Lei Zhang & Yanfang Liu & Xiaojian Wei, 2017. "Forest Fragmentation and Driving Forces in Yingkou, Northeastern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Ge, Dazhuan & Long, Hualou & Zhang, Yingnan & Ma, Li & Li, Tingting, 2018. "Farmland transition and its influences on grain production in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 94-105.
    6. Shengjun Yan & Xuan Wang & Yanpeng Cai & Chunhui Li & Rui Yan & Guannan Cui & Zhifeng Yang, 2018. "An Integrated Investigation of Spatiotemporal Habitat Quality Dynamics and Driving Forces in the Upper Basin of Miyun Reservoir, North China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Zhang, Qianwen & Gao, Wujun & Su, Shiliang & Weng, Min & Cai, Zhongliang, 2017. "Biophysical and socioeconomic determinants of tea expansion: Apportioning their relative importance for sustainable land use policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 438-447.
    8. Zhu, Z. & Krug, B., 2005. "Is China a Leviathan?," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2005-087-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. Zhang Wei & Li Ji, 2017. "Weak Law v. Strong Ties: An Empirical Study of Business Investment, Law and Political Connections in China," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-45, March.
    10. Das Gupta, Monica & Grandvoinnet, Helene & Romani, Mattia, 2000. "State-community synergies in development : laying the basis for collective action," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2439, The World Bank.
    11. Sergei Guriev & Evgeny Yakovlev & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2007. "Inter-Regional Trade and Lobbying," Working Papers w0100, New Economic School (NES).
    12. Gehlbach, Scott & Keefer, Philip, 2011. "Investment without democracy: Ruling-party institutionalization and credible commitment in autocracies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 123-139, June.
    13. Pablo Cuenca & Juan Robalino & Rodrigo Arriagada & Cristian Echeverría, 2018. "Are government incentives effective for avoided deforestation in the tropical Andean forest?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.
    14. Xia, Jun, 2016. "Universal service policy in China (I): Institutional elements and ecosystem," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 242-252.
    15. Enikolopov, Ruben & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2007. "Decentralization and political institutions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(11-12), pages 2261-2290, December.
    16. Torgler, Benno, 2011. "Tax morale and compliance : review of evidence and case studies for Europe," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5922, The World Bank.
    17. Ahmad, Ehtisham, 2011. "Should China revisit the 1994 fiscal reforms?," Discussion Papers 115922, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    18. Xiaoqing Zhao & Junwei Pu & Xingyou Wang & Junxu Chen & Liang Emlyn Yang & Zexian Gu, 2018. "Land-Use Spatio-Temporal Change and Its Driving Factors in an Artificial Forest Area in Southwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    19. Huang, Hongyun & Wang, Fengrong & Song, Malin & Balezentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia, 2021. "Green innovations for sustainable development of China: Analysis based on the nested spatial panel models," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    20. Fei Yan, 2018. "Urban poverty, economic restructuring and poverty reduction policy in urban China: Evidence from Shanghai, 1978–2008," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 36(4), pages 465-481, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:lauspo:v:54:y:2016:i:c:p:58-68. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.