IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i7p1420-d1195012.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic Matching and Spatial Optimization of Land Use and Resource-Environment Constraints in Typical Regions of the Yellow River Basin in China

Author

Listed:
  • Ze Yu

    (School of Public Administration and Policy, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan 250014, China)

  • Desheng Su

    (School of Public Administration and Policy, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan 250014, China)

  • Shilei Wang

    (School of Public Administration and Policy, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan 250014, China)

  • Chuanchen Wei

    (School of Public Administration and Policy, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan 250014, China)

  • Na Li

    (School of Public Administration and Policy, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan 250014, China)

  • Yanbo Qu

    (School of Public Administration and Policy, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan 250014, China)

  • Meng Wang

    (Jinan Land Reserve Center of Shandong Province, Jinan 250099, China)

Abstract

Accurately identifying the matching relationships between territorial space evolution and the resources and environment carrying capacity will directly guide the sustainable use of territorial space. Based on the evaluation of the territorial space dynamics of the lower Yellow River, this paper evaluates the suitability of territorial space development by focusing on ecological protection, agricultural development, and urban construction. Specifically, the resources and environment carrying capacity is estimated by identifying and mediating potential conflicts in the development of territorial space. The matching relationship between the evolution of territorial space and the resources and environment carrying capacity is identified using the matching degree model. The results demonstrated that: (1) Between 2000 and 2020, the agricultural space of the lower Yellow River was relatively stable, while the ecological space was generally shrinking, and the urban space continued to increase; (2) The characteristics of suitability for the agricultural development and urban construction of the lower Yellow River are characterized by landform and land-sea differentiation. The carrying scale of resources and the environment is based on agricultural space and is increasing yearly, followed by ecological space, which is gradually decreasing, and urban space, which first increased and then decreased; (3) Between 2000 and 2020, the matching index of the ecological and agricultural space evolution and the resource and environmental carrying capacity in the lower Yellow River exhibited a downward trend, while the regional difference increased. Furthermore, the matching index of urban space and the resources and environment carrying capacity indicated an upward trend, while the regional difference decreased.

Suggested Citation

  • Ze Yu & Desheng Su & Shilei Wang & Chuanchen Wei & Na Li & Yanbo Qu & Meng Wang, 2023. "Dynamic Matching and Spatial Optimization of Land Use and Resource-Environment Constraints in Typical Regions of the Yellow River Basin in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:7:p:1420-:d:1195012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/7/1420/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/7/1420/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qiao, Weifeng & Hu, Yi & Jia, Kaiyang & He, Tianqi & Wang, Yahua, 2020. "Dynamic modes and ecological effects of salt field utilization in the Weifang coastal area, China: Implications for territorial spatial planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Li, Sinan & Zhao, Xiaoqing & Pu, Junwei & Miao, Peipei & Wang, Qian & Tan, Kun, 2021. "Optimize and control territorial spatial functional areas to improve the ecological stability and total environment in karst areas of Southwest China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Tan, Ronghui & Liu, Pengcheng & Zhou, Kehao & He, Qingsong, 2022. "Evaluating the effectiveness of development-limiting boundary control policy: Spatial difference-in-difference analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Arrow, Kenneth & Bolin, Bert & Costanza, Robert & Dasgupta, Partha & Folke, Carl & Holling, C.S. & Jansson, Bengt-Owe & Levin, Simon & Mäler, Karl-Göran & Perrings, Charles & Pimentel, David, 1996. "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 104-110, February.
    5. Costanza, Robert, 1995. "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 89-90, November.
    6. Victor Galaz, 2012. "Planetary boundaries concept is valuable," Nature, Nature, vol. 486(7402), pages 191-191, June.
    7. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    8. Shilei Wang & Yanbo Qu & Weiying Zhao & Mei Guan & Zongli Ping, 2022. "Evolution and Optimization of Territorial-Space Structure Based on Regional Function Orientation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-26, March.
    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. Teevrat Garg & Ajay Shenoy, 2021. "The Ecological Impact of Place‐Based Economic Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1239-1250, August.
    2. Mirela Stoian & Raluca Andreea Ion & Vlad Constantin Turcea & Ionut Catalin Nica & Catalin Gheorghe Zemeleaga, 2022. "The Influence of Governmental Agricultural R&D Expenditure on Farmers’ Income—Disparities between EU Member States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-14, August.
    3. Opschoor, J. (Hans) B., 1995. "Ecospace and the fall and rise of throughput intensity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 137-140, November.
    4. Kaika, Dimitra & Zervas, Efthimios, 2013. "The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory. Part B: Critical issues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1403-1411.
    5. Bradford David F. & Fender Rebecca A & Shore Stephen H. & Wagner Martin, 2005. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Exploring a Fresh Specification," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-30, June.
    6. Ghimire, Narishwar & Woodward, Richard T., 2013. "Under- and over-use of pesticides: An international analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 73-81.
    7. Jha, Raghbendra & Murthy, K. V. Bhanu, 2003. "An inverse global environmental Kuznets curve," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 352-368, June.
    8. Shuaibing Zhang & Kaixu Zhao & Shuoyang Ji & Yafang Guo & Fengqi Wu & Jingxian Liu & Fei Xie, 2022. "Evolution Characteristics, Eco-Environmental Response and Influencing Factors of Production-Living-Ecological Space in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-26, July.
    9. G. Mythili & Shibashis Mukherjee, 2011. "Examining Environmental Kuznets Curve for river effluents in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 627-640, June.
    10. George Halkos & Iacovos Psarianos, 2016. "Exploring the effect of including the environment in the neoclassical growth model," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 18(3), pages 339-358, July.
    11. Fabian Knorre & Martin Wagner & Maximilian Grupe, 2021. "Monitoring Cointegrating Polynomial Regressions: Theory and Application to the Environmental Kuznets Curves for Carbon and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-35, March.
    12. Carmen van der Merwe & Martin de Wit, 2021. "An In-Depth Investigation into the Relationship Between Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Economic Growth in the City of Cape Town," Working Papers 07/2021, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics, revised 2021.
    13. Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. "Biodiversity: Economic perspectives," Serie Research Memoranda 0002, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    14. Thomas Bolognesi, 2015. "The water vulnerability of metro and megacities: An investigation of structural determinants," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(2), pages 123-133, May.
    15. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    16. Rothman, Dale S., 1998. "Environmental Kuznets curves--real progress or passing the buck?: A case for consumption-based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-194, May.
    17. B. Venkatraja, 2021. "Does China exhibit any evidence of an Environmental Kuznets Curve? An ARDL bounds testing approach," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 1, pages 88-110,111-.
    18. Andreoni, James & Levinson, Arik, 2001. "The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 269-286, May.
    19. Ranjan, Ram & Shortle, James, 2007. "The environmental Kuznets curve when the environment exhibits hysteresis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 204-215, October.
    20. Edyta Kiedrzyńska & Marcin Kiedrzyński & Maciej Zalewski, 2015. "Sustainable floodplain management for flood prevention and water quality improvement," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 76(2), pages 955-977, 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:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:7:p:1420-:d:1195012. 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.