IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i10p8312-d1151316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Major Function-Oriented Zone Planning on Spatial and Temporal Evolution of “Three Zone Space” in China

Author

Listed:
  • Xinliang Xu

    (State Key Laboratory of Resource and Environmental Information Systems, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Rigala Na

    (State Key Laboratory of Resource and Environmental Information Systems, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Zhicheng Shen

    (State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Simulation and Control of Groundwater Pollution, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China)

  • Xiaojuan Deng

    (State Key Laboratory of Resource and Environmental Information Systems, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

Abstract

Major function-oriented zone (MFOZ) planning is an important blueprint for the spatial development and protection of the Chinese national territory. The “Three Zone Space” (TZS) perspective, including agricultural space, ecological space, and urban space, is an important principle and method for the transformation and diffusion of MFOZ planning to implement territory planning from the central government to local branches. More than ten years have passed since the release of the MFOZ plan in 2010 in China, but there is still a lack of comprehensive and systematic analysis of the dynamic characteristics of the TZS under the impact of MFOZ planning. Therefore, based on high-resolution remote sensing land use data from 2010 to 2020, this paper systematically analyzes the changing characteristics of the TZS on the national scale by reasonably determining TZS areas in China. The main results are as follows: in 2020, the proportions of ecological space, agricultural space, and urban space in China were 78.635%, 20.083%, and 1.282%, respectively. The TZS areas reflected the spatial pattern of MFOZs in China. From 2010 to 2020, the spatial heterogeneity of the TZS changes was significant. In China, agricultural space and ecological space as a whole showed a decreasing trend, with dynamic degrees of −0.05% and −0.04%, respectively, while urban space showed a significant expansion trend, with a dynamic degree of 4.69%. The temporal change processes of the TZS in the periods of 2010–2015 and 2015–2020 were noticeably different. The agricultural space first showed an increasing trend and then a decreasing trend. The ecological space showed a decreasing trend in the two periods, while the urban space showed a significant expansion trend in the two periods. From 2010 to 2020, the urban spatial structure of the optimized development zones tended to be stable, and the ecological space reduction in the key ecological function zones has gradually been curbed, but the agricultural space in the main agricultural production zones has shown a slight decline. On the whole, the dynamic changes in the TZS from 2010 to 2020 in China are basically in line with the governance objectives of territorial space. The reasonable allocation and development of the “three zone space” is of great significance for protecting the natural and ecological environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Xinliang Xu & Rigala Na & Zhicheng Shen & Xiaojuan Deng, 2023. "Impact of Major Function-Oriented Zone Planning on Spatial and Temporal Evolution of “Three Zone Space” in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:10:p:8312-:d:1151316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/10/8312/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/10/8312/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah Taylor Lovell, 2010. "Multifunctional Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Land Use Planning in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(8), pages 1-24, August.
    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. Yan Ma & Qilin Zhang & Liyun Huang, 2023. "Spatial distribution characteristics and influencing factors of traditional villages in Fujian Province, China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, December.

    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. Ishak Norziha & Abdullah Rosazlin & Rosli Noor Sharina Mohd & Halim Nur Sa’adah Abdul & Majid Hazreenbdul & Ariffin Fazilah, 2022. "Challenges of Urban Garden Initiatives for Food Security in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 41(4), pages 57-72, December.
    2. Agnieszka Stacherzak & Maria Hełdak & Ladislav Hájek & Katarzyna Przybyła, 2019. "State Interventionism in Agricultural Land Turnover in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-13, March.
    3. Devi Buehler & Ranka Junge, 2016. "Global Trends and Current Status of Commercial Urban Rooftop Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Heather L Reynolds & Leslie Brandt & Burnell C Fischer & Brady S Hardiman & Donovan J Moxley & Eric Sandweiss & James H Speer & Songlin Fei, 2020. "Implications of climate change for managing urban green infrastructure: an Indiana, US case study," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(4), pages 1967-1984, December.
    5. Oh, Joo-seok & Kim, Sei-yong, 2017. "Enhancing urban agriculture through participants’ satisfaction: The case of Seoul, Korea," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 123-133.
    6. Rich, Karl M. & Rich, Magda & Dizyee, Kanar, 2018. "Participatory systems approaches for urban and peri-urban agriculture planning: The role of system dynamics and spatial group model building," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 110-123.
    7. Qureshi, Salman & Tarashkar, Mahsa & Matloobi, Mansour & Wang, Zhifang & Rahimi, Akbar, 2022. "Understanding the dynamics of urban horticulture by socially-oriented practices and populace perception: Seeking future outlook through a comprehensive review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    8. John R. Taylor & Mamatha Hanumappa & Lara Miller & Brendan Shane & Matthew L. Richardson, 2021. "Facilitating Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Planning in Washington, DC through a Tableau Interface," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    9. Nicole Rogge & Insa Theesfeld & Carola Strassner, 2018. "Social Sustainability through Social Interaction—A National Survey on Community Gardens in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    10. Diana Mincyte & Karin Dobernig, 2016. "Urban farming in the North American metropolis: Rethinking work and distance in alternative food networks," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(9), pages 1767-1786, September.
    11. Anita Kwartnik-Pruc & Gabriela Droj, 2023. "The Role of Allotments and Community Gardens and the Challenges Facing Their Development in Urban Environments—A Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-26, January.
    12. Anna Trembecka & Anita Kwartnik-Pruc, 2018. "An Analysis of the Changes in the Structure of Allotment Gardens in Poland and of the Process of Regulating Legal Status," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, October.
    13. Monica Allaby & Graham K. MacDonald & Sarah Turner, 2021. "Growing pains: Small-scale farmer responses to an urban rooftop farming and online marketplace enterprise in Montréal, Canada," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 677-692, September.
    14. Pedro Cerrada-Serra & Luca Colombo & Dionisio Ortiz-Miranda & Stefano Grando, 2018. "Access to agricultural land in peri-urban spaces: social mobilisation and institutional frameworks in Rome and Valencia," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(6), pages 1325-1336, December.
    15. Hilal Erkuş & Yavuz Selim Alkan & Gülşah Tırış, 2024. "Deliberative Democracy and Making Sustainable and Legitimate Development Plans: The Case of the Antalya Kırcami Agrihood," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-29, March.
    16. Kentaro Harada & Kimihiro Hino & Akiko Iida & Takahiro Yamazaki & Hiroyuki Usui & Yasushi Asami & Makoto Yokohari, 2021. "How Does Urban Farming Benefit Participants’ Health? A Case Study of Allotments and Experience Farms in Tokyo," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-13, January.
    17. Chandra, Amanda Jennifer & Diehl, Jessica Ann, 2019. "Urban agriculture, food security, and development policies in Jakarta: A case study of farming communities at Kalideres – Cengkareng district, West Jakarta," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    18. Chethika Gunasiri Wadumestrige Dona & Geetha Mohan & Kensuke Fukushi, 2021. "Promoting Urban Agriculture and Its Opportunities and Challenges—A Global Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    19. Miriam C. Dobson & Philip H. Warren & Jill L. Edmondson, 2021. "Assessing the Direct Resource Requirements of Urban Horticulture in the United Kingdom: A Citizen Science Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Edita, Abalikstiene & Dalia, Perkumiene, 2022. "Challenges and problems of agricultural land use changes in Lithuania according to territorial planning documents: Case of Vilnius district municipality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:10:p:8312-:d:1151316. 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.