IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i14p8526-d861067.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land Utilization, Landscape Pattern, and Ecological Efficiency: An Empirical Analysis of Discrimination and Overlap from Suining, China

Author

Listed:
  • Xichen Ge

    (School of Architecture & Design, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

  • Liang Sun

    (School of Architecture & Design, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

  • Jiongzhen Chen

    (School of Architecture & Design, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

  • Shuangrong Cai

    (School of Architecture & Design, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

Abstract

The rapid urbanization in recent decades has highlighted the impact of rural land utilization, which further affects the spatial structure and efficiency of rural ecosystems. Optimizing the structure of urban green infrastructure is an effective way to alleviate the fragmentation of rural landscapes, coordinate the relationship between rural development and ecosystem services, and ensure sustainable rural development. The purpose of this paper is to provide a clear direction for the optimization of construction for the sustainable development of rural green infrastructure (RGI). This study provides a new method for RGI identification and analysis by taking Suining County, a typical rural area on the North China Plain, as an example. Morphological spatial pattern analysis (MSPA) was used to distinguish different space scenery elements in RGI and combine them with land utilization elements, so as to obtain two types of overlapping degree data in each village and town. We further combined the overlapping degree data with ecological efficiency indicators to evaluate the spatial structure construction priorities of different land use components in the RGI system. The results show that the MSPA and ecological efficiency analysis method proposed in this paper are conducive to qualitative and quantitative analysis of the relationship between land use type, spatial structure, and ecological efficiency in the RGI system and are suitable for the construction of a green infrastructure network. This method can be used to better understand the spatial distribution and priority of green infrastructure networks to achieve sustainable rural development on the North China Plain.

Suggested Citation

  • Xichen Ge & Liang Sun & Jiongzhen Chen & Shuangrong Cai, 2022. "Land Utilization, Landscape Pattern, and Ecological Efficiency: An Empirical Analysis of Discrimination and Overlap from Suining, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:14:p:8526-:d:861067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8526/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8526/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hui Ye & Zhaoping Yang & Xiaoliang Xu, 2020. "Ecological Corridors Analysis Based on MSPA and MCR Model—A Case Study of the Tomur World Natural Heritage Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    3. Xuemin Shi & Mingzhou Qin & Bin Li & Dan Zhang, 2021. "A Framework for Optimizing Green Infrastructure Networks Based on Landscape Connectivity and Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-23, September.
    4. Jiaxing Wei & Jing Qian & Yu Tao & Feng Hu & Weixin Ou, 2018. "Evaluating Spatial Priority of Urban Green Infrastructure for Urban Sustainability in Areas of Rapid Urbanization: A Case Study of Pukou in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, January.
    5. Pulighe, Giuseppe & Fava, Francesco & Lupia, Flavio, 2016. "Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 1-10.
    6. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    7. Xuemin Shi & Mingzhou Qin, 2018. "Research on the Optimization of Regional Green Infrastructure Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, December.
    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. Li Lin & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Rong Zhao & Jiayi Zhou, 2023. "A Review of Village Ecosystem Structure and Stability: Implications for the Karst Desertification Control," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, May.

    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. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    2. Shrestha, Ram K. & Seidl, Andrew F. & Moraes, Andre S., 2002. "Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 289-299, August.
    3. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    4. Vorstius, Anne Carolin & Spray, Christopher J., 2015. "A comparison of ecosystem services mapping tools for their potential to support planning and decision-making on a local scale," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 75-83.
    5. Zhongmin, Xu & Guodong, Cheng & Zhiqiang, Zhang & Zhiyong, Su & Loomis, John, 2003. "Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 345-358, March.
    6. Rees, Siân E. & Fletcher, Stephen & Gall, Sarah C. & Friedrich, Laura A. & Jackson, Emma L. & Rodwell, Lynda D., 2014. "Securing the benefits: Linking ecology with marine planning policy to examine the potential of a network of Marine Protected Areas to support human wellbeing," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 335-341.
    7. Mann, Carsten, 2015. "Strategies for sustainable policy design: Constructive assessment of biodiversity offsets and banking," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 266-274.
    8. Prévost, Benoît & Rivaud, Audrey, 2018. "The World Bank’s environmental strategies: Assessing the influence of a biased use of New Institutional Economics on legal issues," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 370-380.
    9. Markowska, Agnieszka & Zylicz, Tomasz, 1999. "Costing an international public good: the case of the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 301-316, August.
    10. Linrun Qiu & Yuxiang Dong & Hai Liu, 2022. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Planning Practice: Situation, Challenges and Inspirations," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    11. Reed, James & van Vianen, Josh & Foli, Samson & Clendenning, Jessica & Yang, Kevin & MacDonald, Margaret & Petrokofsky, Gillian & Padoch, Christine & Sunderland, Terry, 2017. "Trees for life: The ecosystem service contribution of trees to food production and livelihoods in the tropics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 62-71.
    12. John Kurien, 2003. "The blessing of the commons: Small-scale fisheries, community property rights and coastal natural assets," Centre for Development Studies, Trivendrum Working Papers 349, Centre for Development Studies, Trivendrum, India.
    13. Gaaff, Aris & Reinhard, Stijn, 2012. "Incorporating the value of ecological networks into cost–benefit analysis to improve spatially explicit land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-74.
    14. Bergstrom, John & Holmes, Tom & Huszar, Eric & Kask, Susan, 2001. "Testing a Computer-Assisted Valuation Panel Approach for Valuing Watershed Ecosystem Restoration," Western Region Archives 321683, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    15. Chaofan Wu & Huanhuan Shen & Ke Wang & Aihua Shen & Jinsong Deng & Muye Gan, 2016. "Landsat Imagery-Based Above Ground Biomass Estimation and Change Investigation Related to Human Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-13, February.
    16. Yajuan Chen & Qian Zhang & Wenping Liu & Zhenrong Yu, 2017. "Analyzing Farmers’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and PES Schemes within Agricultural Landscapes in Mengyin County, China: Transforming Trade-Offs into Synergies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Mukherjee, Joyita & Scharler, Ursula M. & Fath, Brian D. & Ray, Santanu, 2015. "Measuring sensitivity of robustness and network indices for an estuarine food web model under perturbations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 306(C), pages 160-173.
    18. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2001. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 203-222, November.
    19. Li Ma & Yueting Qin & Han Zhang & Jie Zheng & Yilei Hou & Yali Wen, 2021. "Improving Well-Being of Farmers Using Ecological Awareness around Protected Areas: Evidence from Qinling Region, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-22, September.
    20. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:14:p:8526-:d:861067. 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.