IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v72y2018icp100-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban expansion dynamics and modes in metropolitan Guangzhou, China

Author

Listed:
  • Gong, Jianzhou
  • Hu, Zhiren
  • Chen, Wenli
  • Liu, Yansui
  • Wang, Jieyong

Abstract

Urbanization changes urban landscapes and results in ecological and environmental problems. To solve these problems, it is essential to quantify the dynamics of urban expansion and better understand the modes of urban sprawl. This study evaluated urbanization in metropolitan Guangzhou, China from 1990 to 2020 and explored its modes of urban growth using Landsat Thematic Mapper images and simulated landscape maps based on the Conversion of Land Use and its Effects (CLUE) modeling framework. The results indicate that Guangzhou has experienced great expansion, characterized by the tripling of its total urbanized area within the last 20 years, and it is projected to continue expanding into less developed areas (agricultural and forest land). The results also show that adjusting the land-use structure sometime has a greater effect on the formation of the urban landscape than spatial restriction policies. Three urban expansion modes (infilling, edge expanding, and leapfrogging) were observed to occur simultaneously along with a shift in their relative dominance, which reveals a spiraling urban process.

Suggested Citation

  • Gong, Jianzhou & Hu, Zhiren & Chen, Wenli & Liu, Yansui & Wang, Jieyong, 2018. "Urban expansion dynamics and modes in metropolitan Guangzhou, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 100-109.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:100-109
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716310547
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.025?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul & Wright, George, 2016. "A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1050-1062.
    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. Rostami-Tabar, Bahman & Ali, Mohammad M. & Hong, Tao & Hyndman, Rob J. & Porter, Michael D. & Syntetos, Aris, 2022. "Forecasting for social good," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1245-1257.
    2. 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).
    3. James Derbyshire, 2020. "Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(4), pages 710-727, June.
    4. Wright, George & Cairns, George & O'Brien, Frances A. & Goodwin, Paul, 2019. "Scenario analysis to support decision making in addressing wicked problems: Pitfalls and potential," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 3-19.
    5. Calabrese, Armando & Costa, Roberta & Levialdi, Nathan & Menichini, Tamara, 2019. "Integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 155-168.
    6. George Cairns, 2021. "Resistance to hegemony in theorising scenario methods: A manifesto in response to Fergnani and Chermack, 2021," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3-4), September.
    7. George Cairns & George Wright, 2019. "Making scenario interventions matter: Exploring issues of power and rationality," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), March.
    8. Andersen, Per Dannemand & Hansen, Meiken & Selin, Cynthia, 2021. "Stakeholder inclusion in scenario planning—A review of European projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    9. Almutairi, Ayedh & Collier, Zachary A. & Hendrickson, Daniel & Palma-Oliveira, José M. & Polmateer, Thomas L. & Lambert, James H., 2019. "Stakeholder mapping and disruption scenarios with application to resilience of a container port," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 219-232.
    10. Anne Marchais-Roubelat & Fabrice Roubelat, 2018. "The sustainability of the making of global communities. Functions, dysfunctions, scenarios," Post-Print hal-02557578, HAL.
    11. Anne Marchais-Roubelat & Fabrice Roubelat, 2019. "History, time and futures studies. Tensions from geostrategy anticipatory practices," Post-Print hal-02557600, HAL.
    12. Ayedh Almutairi & John P. Wheeler & David L. Slutzky & James H. Lambert, 2019. "Integrating Stakeholder Mapping and Risk Scenarios to Improve Resilience of Cyber‐Physical‐Social Networks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(9), pages 2093-2112, September.
    13. Derbyshire, James & Morgan, Jamie, 2022. "Is seeking certainty in climate sensitivity measures counterproductive in the context of climate emergency? The case for scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    14. Gordon, Adam Vigdor, 2020. "Limits and longevity: A model for scenarios that influence the future," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).

    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:72:y:2018:i:c:p:100-109. 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.