IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i4p1566-d1338170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensive Framework for Analysing the Intensity of Land Use and Land Cover Change in Continental Ecuadorian Biosphere Reserves

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Urgilez-Clavijo

    (Instituto de Estudios de Régimen Seccional del Ecuador (IERSE), Universidad del Azuay, Cuenca 010204, Ecuador
    GEOFOREST-IUCA, Department of Geography and Land Management, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • David Rivas-Tabares

    (Centro de Estudios e Investigación para la Gestión de Riesgos Agrarios y Medioambientales (CEIGRAM), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
    Departamento de Recursos Hídricos y Ciencias Ambientales (iDRHICA), Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 0101168, Ecuador
    Escuela de Agronomía, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca 010205, Ecuador)

  • Anne Gobin

    (Vlaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek (VITO) NV, 2400 Mol, Belgium
    Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of BioScience Engineering, University of Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Juan de la Riva

    (GEOFOREST-IUCA, Department of Geography and Land Management, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

Abstract

The conventional methods of land use and land cover (LULC) analysis are frequently based on crosstabulation matrices. However, this analysis becomes complex when including sites with multiple management zones and categories at different time points. This is challenging regarding data processing and the presentation of numerous results. We transformed the graphical representation of conventional Intensity Analysis to assess and compare the intensity and magnitude of LULC changes in six Continental Ecuadorian Biosphere Reserves at three levels: interval, category, and transition, and at three time intervals. A dimension reduction strategy was used to convert multiple bar charts into three composite heat maps. The results confirm the global conservation effectiveness in the core zones among the biosphere reserves with less than 10% change, but worrisome dynamics were detected in buffers and transitions with a change of up to 10% for all periods. Deforestation and agriculture were detected as the most relevant land processes. This work highlights the dimension reduction by summarizing 17, 51, and 312 bar charts from conventional Intensity Analysis in three composite heat maps, one for each level of analysis. Systematic suspicious transitions occurred in the water body category because of its dynamics and misclassification in LULC maps.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Urgilez-Clavijo & David Rivas-Tabares & Anne Gobin & Juan de la Riva, 2024. "Comprehensive Framework for Analysing the Intensity of Land Use and Land Cover Change in Continental Ecuadorian Biosphere Reserves," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-21, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:4:p:1566-:d:1338170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/4/1566/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/4/1566/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nyamekye, Clement & Kwofie, Samuel & Ghansah, Benjamin & Agyapong, Emmanuel & Boamah, Linda Appiah, 2020. "Assessing urban growth in Ghana using machine learning and intensity analysis: A case study of the New Juaben Municipality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Roshan Sharma & Bhagawat Rimal & Himlal Baral & Udo Nehren & Kiran Paudyal & Sunil Sharma & Sushila Rijal & Surendra Ranpal & Ram Prasad Acharya & Amer A. Alenazy & Prashid Kandel, 2019. "Impact of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services in a Tropical Forested Landscape," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, January.
    3. James E. M. Watson & Nigel Dudley & Daniel B. Segan & Marc Hockings, 2014. "The performance and potential of protected areas," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7525), pages 67-73, November.
    4. Lippe, Melvin & Rummel, Lisa & Günter, Sven, 2022. "Simulating land use and land cover change under contrasting levels of policy enforcement and its spatially-explicit impact on tropical forest landscapes in Ecuador," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. Xiaofang Sun & Guicai Li & Junbang Wang & Meng Wang, 2021. "Quantifying the Land Use and Land Cover Changes in the Yellow River Basin while Accounting for Data Errors Based on GlobeLand30 Maps," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    6. Ze Zhou & Bin Quan & Zhiwei Deng, 2023. "Effects of Land Use Changes on Ecosystem Service Value in Xiangjiang River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    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. Zhiwei Deng & Bin Quan, 2022. "Intensity Characteristics and Multi-Scenario Projection of Land Use and Land Cover Change in Hengyang, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Ze Zhou & Bin Quan & Zhiwei Deng, 2023. "Effects of Land Use Changes on Ecosystem Service Value in Xiangjiang River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Chunrong Mi & Liang Ma & Mengyuan Yang & Xinhai Li & Shai Meiri & Uri Roll & Oleksandra Oskyrko & Daniel Pincheira-Donoso & Lilly P. Harvey & Daniel Jablonski & Barbod Safaei-Mahroo & Hanyeh Ghaffari , 2023. "Global Protected Areas as refuges for amphibians and reptiles under climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Changchun Feng & Hao Zhang & Liang Xiao & Yongpei Guo, 2022. "Land Use Change and Its Driving Factors in the Rural–Urban Fringe of Beijing: A Production–Living–Ecological Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Ming-Kuang Chung & Dau-Jye Lu & Bor-Wen Tsai & Kuei-Tien Chou, 2019. "Assessing Effectiveness of PPGIS on Protected Areas by Governance Quality: A Case Study of Community-Based Monitoring in Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, August.
    6. Tingting Zhang & Dan He & Tian Kuang & Ke Chen, 2022. "Effect of Rural Human Settlement Environment around Nature Reserves on Farmers’ Well-Being: A Field Survey Based on 1002 Farmer Households around Six Nature Reserves in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Thomas Campagnaro & Giovanni Trentanovi & Tommaso Sitzia, 2018. "Identifying Habitat Type Conservation Priorities under the Habitats Directive: Application to Two Italian Biogeographical Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Adam Pawlewicz & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Katarzyna Brodzińska & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Paweł Kluczek, 2022. "Organic Farming as an Alternative Maintenance Strategy in the Opinion of Farmers from Natura 2000 Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Chang You & Hongjiao Qu & Shidong Zhang & Luo Guo, 2024. "Assessment of Uncertainties in Ecological Risk Based on the Prediction of Land Use Change and Ecosystem Service Evolution," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, April.
    10. Qiaoqiao Zhan & Katsunori Furuya & Xiaolan Tang & Zhehui Li, 2024. "Policy Development in China’s Protected Scenic and Historic Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, February.
    11. Jacqueline Loos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    12. Minh-Hoang Nguyen & Thomas E. Jones, 2022. "Building eco-surplus culture among urban residents as a novel strategy to improve finance for conservation in protected areas," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    13. Alexandra Jiricka-Pürrer & Valeria Tadini & Boris Salak & Karolina Taczanowska & Andrzej Tucki & Giulio Senes, 2019. "Do Protected Areas Contribute to Health and Well-Being? A Cross-Cultural Comparison," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-18, April.
    14. Changjun Gu & Pei Zhao & Qiong Chen & Shicheng Li & Lanhui Li & Linshan Liu & Yili Zhang, 2020. "Forest Cover Change and the Effectiveness of Protected Areas in the Himalaya since 1998," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-24, July.
    15. Erik Aschenbrand & Thomas Michler, 2021. "Why Do UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Get Less Recognition than National Parks? A Landscape Research Perspective on Protected Area Narratives in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-18, December.
    16. Bernadetta Zawilińska & Patrycja Brańka & Karol Majewski & Marcin Semczuk, 2021. "National Parks—Areas of Economic Development or Stagnation? Evidence from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-24, October.
    17. Lijing Tang & Yuanyuan Yang & Dongyan Wang & Qing Wei, 2022. "Optimizing County-Level Land-Use Structure Method: Case Study of W County, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-26, April.
    18. Gonghan Sheng & Heyuan Chen & Kalifi Ferretti-Gallon & John L. Innes & Zhongjun Wang & Yujun Zhang & Guangyu Wang, 2020. "Moving toward a Greener China: Is China’s National Park Pilot Program a Solution?," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-23, December.
    19. World Bank, 2021. "Banking on Protected Areas," World Bank Publications - Reports 35737, The World Bank Group.
    20. L. Duncanson & M. Liang & V. Leitold & J. Armston & S. M. Krishna Moorthy & R. Dubayah & S. Costedoat & B. J. Enquist & L. Fatoyinbo & S. J. Goetz & M. Gonzalez-Roglich & C. Merow & P. R. Roehrdanz & , 2023. "The effectiveness of global protected areas for climate change mitigation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.

    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:16:y:2024:i:4:p:1566-:d:1338170. 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.