IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i4p457-d1369756.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Heterogeneity Impacts of Urbanisation on Open Space Fragmentation in Hong Kong’s Built-Up Area

Author

Listed:
  • Peiheng Yu

    (Department of Building and Real Estate, Research Institute of Sustainable Urban Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, China
    Department of Geography, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117549, Singapore)

  • Yan Zhang

    (Key Laboratory of Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation, Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing 100035, China)

  • Mingqing Han

    (Department of Public Administration, School of Law, Hangzhou City University, Hangzhou 310015, China)

  • Esther H. K. Yung

    (Department of Building and Real Estate, Research Institute of Sustainable Urban Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, China)

  • Edwin H. W. Chan

    (Department of Building and Real Estate, Research Institute of Sustainable Urban Development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, China)

  • Yiyun Chen

    (School of Resource and Environmental Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China)

Abstract

Rapid urbanisation has generated numerous environmental consequences, particularly regarding open space fragmentation. Open space fragmentation is the transformation of open space from a state of homogeneity, integration, and continuity to a state of heterogeneity, division, and incoherence. Nevertheless, one main obstacle to understanding this issue is how to address the spatial heterogeneity of the impact of urbanisation on open space fragmentation. Thus, this paper provides a comprehensive framework for the mechanistic associations between open space fragmentation and urbanisation in Hong Kong’s built-up area. The results illustrate that both open space fragmentation index and urbanisation index values are noticeably higher in dense urban areas. Land urbanisation, represented by the percentage of construction land in total land, has the highest explanatory power for spatial differentiation in open space fragmentation, followed by social and population urbanisation factors. Furthermore, the relational interrelations of open space fragmentation drivers are the bivariate and nonlinear enhancement interactions. Social urbanisation and land urbanisation have the strongest bivariate enhancement interaction for the use fragmentation form and the largest nonlinear enhancement interaction for the internal fragmentation form. Based on initial urban planning, open space fragmentation is an adaptation outcome of population, land, and social urbanisation factors, and this self-organisation phenomenon has been further emphasised in the historical process. These insights significantly enrich our understanding of how urbanisation affects open space fragmentation and provide valuable guidance for better open space strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Peiheng Yu & Yan Zhang & Mingqing Han & Esther H. K. Yung & Edwin H. W. Chan & Yiyun Chen, 2024. "Spatial Heterogeneity Impacts of Urbanisation on Open Space Fragmentation in Hong Kong’s Built-Up Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:4:p:457-:d:1369756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/4/457/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/4/457/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vesely, Eva-Terezia, 2007. "Green for green: The perceived value of a quantitative change in the urban tree estate of New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 605-615, August.
    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. Theresa Kotulla & Jon Martin Denstadli & Are Oust & Elisabeth Beusker, 2019. "What Does It Take to Make the Compact City Liveable for Wider Groups? Identifying Key Neighbourhood and Dwelling Features," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Christopher Ambrey & Christopher Fleming, 2014. "Public Greenspace and Life Satisfaction in Urban Australia," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(6), pages 1290-1321, May.
    3. Richard Yao & David Palmer & Barbara Hock & Duncan Harrison & Tim Payn & Juan Monge, 2019. "Forest Investment Framework as a Support Tool for the Sustainable Management of Planted Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Lin, Hsin-Wei & Chuang, Yu-Chou & Liu, Wan-Yu, 2020. "Assessing the economic value of an iconic urban heritage tree," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    5. Marzena Suchocka & Paweł Jankowski & Magdalena Błaszczyk, 2019. "Perception of Urban Trees by Polish Tree Professionals vs. Nonprofessionals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    6. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, C.Y., 2015. "Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-66.
    7. Marija Opačak & Erda Wang, 2019. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for a Future Recreational Park Atop the Current Jakuševec Landfill in Zagreb, Croatia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-16, October.
    8. López-Mosquera, Natalia & Sánchez, Mercedes, 2011. "The influence of personal values in the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces: An application of the means-end chain theory," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 875-889.
    9. Diafas, Iason & Barkmann, Jan & Mburu, John, 2017. "Measurement of Bequest Value Using a Non-monetary Payment in a Choice Experiment—The Case of Improving Forest Ecosystem Services for the Benefit of Local Communities in Rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 157-165.
    10. Joseph Hiebert & Karen Allen, 2019. "Valuing Environmental Amenities across Space: A Geographically Weighted Regression of Housing Preferences in Greenville County, SC," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2021. "Urban forests valuation and environmental disposition: The case of Puerto Rico," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    12. Bertram, Christine & Larondelle, Neele, 2017. "Going to the Woods Is Going Home: Recreational Benefits of a Larger Urban Forest Site — A Travel Cost Analysis for Berlin, Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 255-263.
    13. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, C. & Machleras, A. & Skourtos, M., 2012. "Service providing units, existence values and the valuation of endangered species: A methodological test," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 97-104.
    14. Halkos, George & Leonti, Aikaterini & Petropoulos, Constantinos & Sardianou, Eleni, 2022. "Determinants of willingness to pay for urban parks: An empirical analysis in Greece," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    15. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato.
    16. Areeyapat Petcharat & Yohan Lee & Jae Bong Chang, 2020. "Choice Experiments for Estimating the Non-Market Value of Ecosystem Services in the Bang Kachao Green Area, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    17. Karolina Kais & Marlena Gołaś & Marzena Suchocka, 2021. "Awareness of Air Pollution and Ecosystem Services Provided by Trees: The Case Study of Warsaw City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-24, September.
    18. Sander, Heather & Polasky, Stephen & Haight, Robert G., 2010. "The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1646-1656, June.

    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:13:y:2024:i:4:p:457-:d:1369756. 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.