Analysis of Land-Use/Land-Cover Change and Driving Factors in the Manas River Basin, China, from 2000 to 2020
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview of the Research Area
2.2. Data Sources and Research Methods
2.2.1. Data Sources
2.2.2. Research Method
- LULC Transfer Matrix
- 2.
- LULC Dynamic Degree
- 3.
- Patch-Generating Land-Use Simulation (PLUS) Model
- 4.
- Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR)
3. Results
3.1. Analysis of LULC Transfer Matrix
3.2. Analysis of LULC Dynamics
3.3. Analysis of Driving Forces of LULC Change
3.3.1. Quantitative Analysis of the Driving Mechanism of Each LULC Type
3.3.2. Spatial Statistical Analysis of Driving Factors
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sun, S.; Chen, B.; Yan, J.; Van Zwieten, L.; Wang, H.; Dong, J.; Fu, P.; Song, Z. Potential impacts of land use and land cover change (LUCC) and climate change on evapotranspiration and gross primary productivity in the Haihe River Basin, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 476, 143729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Wang, X.; Zhou, Z.; Li, M.; Jing, C. Spatial Quantitative Model of Human Activity Disturbance Intensity and Land Use Intensity Based on GF-6 Image, Empirical Study in Southwest Mountainous County, China. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 4574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Liu, S.; Guo, L.; Zhang, J.; Feng, C.; Feng, M.; Li, Y. Evolution and Analysis of Water Yield under the Change of Land Use and Climate Change Based on the PLUS-InVEST Model: A Case Study of the Yellow River Basin in Henan Province. Water 2024, 16, 2551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, F.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Qin, J.; Kayumba, P.M. Historic and Simulated Desert-Oasis Ecotone Changes in the Arid Tarim River Basin, China. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, T.; Kurtz, D. Maritime glacier retreat and terminus area change in Kenai Fjords National Park, Alaska, between 1984 and 2021. J. Glaciol. 2023, 69, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Y.; Feng, G.; Ren, J. Spatio-temporal evolution of land use and its eco-environmental effects in the Caohai National Nature Reserve of China. Sci. Rep. (Nat. Publ. Group) 2023, 13, 20150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, Z.; Liu, B.; Wang, H.; Hu, M. Analysis of the Spatiotemporal Changes in Watershed Landscape Pattern and Its Influencing Factors in Rapidly Urbanizing Areas Using Satellite Data. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Liesch, T.; Chen, Z.; Goldscheider, N. Global analysis of land-use changes in karst areas and the implications for water resources. Hydrogeol. J. 2023, 31, 1197–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Wang, Q.; Liu, J.; Liang, H. Simulation of Land-Use Changes Using the Partitioned ANN-CA Model and Considering the Influence of Land-Use Change Frequency. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fathololoumi, S.; Saurette, D.; Gobezie, T.B.; Biswas, A. Land use change detection and quantification of prime agricultural lands in Southern Ontario. Geoderma Reg. 2024, 37, e00775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Guan, Z.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, F. Land Use/Cover Change and Its Relationship with Regional Development in Xixian New Area, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Huang, C.; Zhang, L. The Spatio-Temporal Patterns and Driving Forces of Land Use in the Context of Urbanization in China: Evidence from Nanchang City. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sang, C.C.; Olago, D.O.; Nyumba, T.O.; Marchant, R.; Thorn, J.P.R. Assessing the Underlying Drivers of Change over Two Decades of Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics along the Standard Gauge Railway Corridor, Kenya. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, C.E.S.; da Silva, M.V.M.; Rocha, S.M.G.; Silveira, C.d.S. Anthropic Changes in Land Use and Land Cover and Their Impacts on the Hydrological Variables of the São Francisco River Basin, Brazil. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Zhu, J.; Tian, Y. Impact of Land-Use–Land Cover Changes on the Service Value of Urban Ecosystems: Evidence from Chengdu, China. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2024, 150, 05024028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.; Luo, P.; Yang, H.; Li, M.; Ni, M.; Li, H.; Huang, Y.; Xie, W.; Wang, L. Land use and cover change accelerated China’s land carbon sinks limits soil carbon. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2024, 7, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Chen, Q.; Wang, Q.; Gao, J.; Yin, Y.; Guo, H. Future carbon storages of ecosystem based on land use change and carbon sequestration practices in a large economic belt. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 90924–90935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yu, P.; Zhang, S.; Wang, P.; Li, Y.; Huang, L. Evaluation and prediction of land use change impacts on ecosystem service values in Nanjing City from 1995 to 2030. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 18040–18063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, R.; Peng, Y.; Ren, Q.; Wu, J. Optimizing global protected areas to address future land use threats to biodiversity. Land Use Policy 2025, 154, 107560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Yang, L.; Chi, G.; Zeng, J. Ecosystem degradation or restoration? The evolving role of land use in China, 2000–2020. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2024, 196, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, Y.; Yan, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Liang, L.e.; Xu, Z.; Guo, J.; Yang, R. Landscape pattern change and its correlation with influencing factors in semiarid areas, northwestern China. Chemosphere 2022, 307, 135837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, D.; Zhang, K.; Cao, L.; Guan, X.; Zhang, H. Driving forces and prediction of urban land use change based on the geodetector and CA-Markov model: A case study of Zhengzhou, China. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2022, 15, 2246–2267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, T.; Zhang, X.; Xia, F.; Zhang, Z.; Yin, J.; Wu, S. The Process-Mode-Driving Force of Cropland Expansion in Arid Regions of China Based on the Land Use Remote Sensing Monitoring Data. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Y.; He, X.; Li, X.; Li, X.; Gu, X.; Yang, G.; Li, W.; Wu, Y.; Qiu, J. Changes in landscape pattern and ecological service value as land use evolves in the Manas River Basin. Open Geosci. 2022, 14, 1092–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, S.; Wang, X.; Xu, S.; Su, T.; Yang, Q.; Sheng, J. Soil Salinity Mapping of Croplands in Arid Areas Based on the Soil-Land Inference Model. Agronomy 2023, 13, 3074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, X.; Fu, J.; Li, Y.; Li, Z. Attributing vegetation change in an arid and cold watershed with complex ecosystems in northwest China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 138, 108835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Yang, G.; Tian, L.; Gu, X.; Li, X.; He, X.; Xue, L.; Li, P.; Xiao, S. Spatiotemporal variation in groundwater level within the Manas River Basin, Northwest China: Relative impacts of natural and human factors. Open Geosci. 2021, 13, 626–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Yin, X.; Zhu, H.; Zheng, X. Geographical Detector-Based Research of Spatiotemporal Evolution and Driving Factors of Oasification and Desertification in Manas River Basin, China. Land 2023, 12, 1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalfas, D.; Kalogiannidis, S.; Papaevangelou, O.; Chatzitheodoridis, F. Assessing the Connection between Land Use Planning, Water Resources, and Global Climate Change. Water 2024, 16, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorjsuren, B.; Batsaikhan, N.; Yan, D.; Yadamjav, O.; Chonokhuu, S.; Enkhbold, A.; Qin, T.; Weng, B.; Bi, W.; Demberel, O.; et al. Study on Relationship of Land Cover Changes and Ecohydrological Processes of the Tuul River Basin. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Wang, J.; Du, Y.; Hou, X.; Xi, R.; Yang, Y. Assessing landscape fragmentation and its driving factors in arid regions: A case study of the Manas River, China. Ecol. Indic. 2025, 171, 113253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Y.; Li, X.; He, X.; Li, X.; Yang, G.; Li, D.; Xu, W.; Qiao, X.; Chen, L.; Lu, S. Multi-Scenario Simulation and Trade-Off Analysis of Ecological Service Value in the Manas River Basin Based on Land Use Optimization in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liao, N.; Gu, X.; Wang, Y.; Xu, H.; Fan, Z. Analysis of Ecological and Economic Benefits of Rural Land Integration in the Manas River Basin Oasis. Land 2021, 10, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Qin, D.; He, X.; Wang, C.; Yang, G.; Li, P.; Liu, B.; Gong, P.; Yang, Y. Spatial and Temporal Changes in Land Use and Landscape Pattern Evolution in the Economic Belt of the Northern Slope of the Tianshan Mountains in China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, F.; Zhan, J.; Yan, H.; Shi, C.; Huang, J. Land Cover Mapping Based on Multisource Spatial Data Mining Approach for Climate Simulation: A Case Study in the Farming-Pastoral Ecotone of North China. Adv. Meteorol. 2013, 2013, 520813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Ma, E.; Liao, L.; Wu, M. Land Use Change in a Typical Transect in Northern China and Its Impact on the Ecological Environment. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, X.; Gao, X.; Li, R. Research on the spatial temporary evolution of urban expansion in Xining city and its surrounding areas based on Landsat time series data. Heliyon 2024, 10, e24846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, H.; Qi, Z.; Yan, H.; Yang, H. Variation Characteristics of Land Use Change Within the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region During 1985–2022. Land 2024, 13, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y.; Cheng, L.; Wang, Y. Measuring the Spatial Conflict of Resource-Based Cities and Its Coupling Coordination Relationship with Land Use. Land 2022, 11, 1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Zhao, Y.; Li, X.; Ni, W.; Zhao, K.; He, Z.; Abuarab, M.E.-S.; Elbeltagi, A.; Ahmed, A. Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Service Value in Qinghai Province (2000–2018): Trends, Drivers, and Implications. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, X.; Guan, Q.; Clarke, K.C.; Liu, S.; Yao, Y. Understanding the drivers of sustainable land expansion using a patch-generating land use simulation (PLUS) model: A case study in Wuhan, China. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2021, 85, 101569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Lim, B.; Lee, J. Analysis of Factors Influencing Forest Loss in South Korea: Statistical Models and Machine-Learning Model. Forests 2021, 12, 1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, W.; Luo, P.; Luo, L.; Zha, X.; Nover, D. Spatiotemporal characteristics and influencing factors of carbon emissions from land-use change in Shaanxi Province, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 123480–123496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhong, Y.; Zhang, X.; Yang, Y.; Xue, M. Optimization and Simulation of Mountain City Land Use Based on MOP-PLUS Model: A Case Study of Caijia Cluster, Chongqing. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2023, 12, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Liu, X.; De, T.; Liu, Z.; Yin, L.; Zheng, W. Forecasting Urban Land Use Change Based on Cellular Automata and the PLUS Model. Land 2022, 11, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Hou, Y.; Li, F.; Zheng, B.; Chen, Z.; Zheng, F.; Zhang, X.; Yu, R. Land use change projection and driving factors exploration in Hainan Island based on the PLUS model. Front. Mar. Sci. 2025, 12, 1534508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, J.; Guo, W.; Xu, L.; Gao, C. Multi Scenario Simulation of Land Use in Chaohu Lake Basin Based on PLUS Model. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2025, 34, 1207–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, G. Comparative Spatial Distribution Simulation of Plateau Mountain Cultivated Land Based on Spatial Multi-Scale Model, Yunnan Central Urban Agglomeration Area, China. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2023, 32, 3063–3080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, L.; Halik, Ü.; Shi, L.; Ru, J.; Wei, Z.; Li, J.; Welp, M. Integrating Multi-Source Data to Explore Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Future Scenarios of Arid Urban Agglomerations: A Geodetector–PLUS Modelling Framework for Sustainable Land Use Planning. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Wu, C. Sensitivity assessment and simulation of ecosystem services in response to land use change in arid regions: Empirical evidence from Xinjiang, China. Ecol. Indic. 2025, 171, 113150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, J.; Shi, P.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L.; Li, Y. Multi-Scenario Simulation and Driving Force Analysis of Ecosystem Service Value in Arid Areas Based on PLUS Model: A Case Study of Jiuquan City, China. Land 2023, 12, 937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Dong, B.; Gao, X.; Wang, P.; Ye, X.K.; Xu, H.; Ren, C. Land use change and driving forces in Shengjin Lake wetland in Anhui province, China. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2021, 15, 042404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.; Liu, L.; Li, Y.; Jin, X.; Wang, F.; Yan, H. Analysis on landscape pattern change and driving force in Manas River Basin. Yangtze River 2016, 47, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]








| Data Type | Data | Time | Data Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| LULC data | LULC classification data of the Manas River Basin | 2000 | Resource and Environmental Science and Data Center “https://www.resdc.cn/Default.aspx (accessed on 21 February 2025)” |
| LULC classification data of the Manas River Basin | 2010 | ||
| LULC classification data of the Manas River Basin | 2020 | ||
| Socioeconomic data | Population | 2019 | Resource and Environmental Science and Data Center “https://www.resdc.cn/Default.aspx (accessed on 21 February 2025)” |
| GDP | 2019 | ||
| Distance to first-class road | 2020 | ||
| Distance to secondary road | 2020 | ||
| Distance to third level road | 2020 | ||
| Distance to expressway | 2020 | ||
| Environmental data | Annual average temperature | 2000–2020 | China Meteorological Network “https://www.weather.com.cn/ (accessed on 21 February 2025)” |
| Annual average precipitation | 2000–2020 | ||
| DEM | 2020 | Resource and Environmental Science and Data Center “https://www.resdc.cn/Default.aspx (accessed on 21 February 2025)” | |
| Distance to water area | 2020 | National Catalogue Service for Geographic Information “https://www.webmap.cn/main.do?method=index (accessed on 21 February 2025)” |
| 2010 | Farmland | Forest | Grassland | Water Bodies | Build-Up Area | Unused Land | Total | Transfer Out | Proportion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | |||||||||
| Farmland | 4188.44 | 13.74 | 166.70 | 7.64 | 114.27 | 12.85 | 4503.64 | 315.20 | 3.88% |
| Forest | 234.93 | 292.48 | 652.18 | 13.66 | 10.36 | 61.80 | 1265.41 | 972.93 | 11.97% |
| Grassland | 1870.72 | 177.96 | 8157.91 | 101.68 | 69.00 | 1002.72 | 11,379.99 | 3222.08 | 39.64% |
| Water bodies | 5.87 | 0.14 | 161.78 | 696.54 | 3.03 | 1257.49 | 2124.85 | 1428.31 | 17.57% |
| Build-up area | 116.50 | 0.12 | 13.94 | 0.22 | 191.25 | 0.77 | 322.80 | 131.55 | 1.62% |
| Unused land | 898.75 | 13.50 | 974.40 | 117.26 | 55.09 | 12,394. 20 | 14,453.20 | 2059.00 | 25.33% |
| Total | 7315.21 | 497.94 | 10,126.91 | 937.00 | 443.00 | 14,729.83 | 34,049.89 | \ | \ |
| Transfer in | 3126.77 | 205.46 | 1969.00 | 240.46 | 251.75 | 2335.63 | \ | 8129.07 | \ |
| proportion | 38.46% | 2.53% | 24.22% | 2.96% | 3.10% | 28.73% | \ | \ | \ |
| 2020 | Farmland | Forest | Grassland | Water Bodies | Build-Up Area | Unused Land | Total | Transfer Out | Proportion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | |||||||||
| Farmland | 7108.66 | 2.39 | 110.10 | 2.68 | 79.73 | 11.31 | 7314.87 | 206.21 | 15.09% |
| Forest | 6.86 | 419.99 | 70.25 | 0.40 | 0.06 | 0.38 | 497.94 | 77.95 | 5.70% |
| Grassland | 596.62 | 32.27 | 9428.35 | 8.10 | 26.43 | 33.84 | 10,125.61 | 697.26 | 51.01% |
| Water bodies | 5.42 | 0.58 | 17.40 | 859.84 | 4.90 | 48.66 | 936.80 | 76.96 | 5.63% |
| Build-up area | 17.29 | 0.05 | 2.36 | 0.18 | 422.83 | 0.28 | 442.99 | 20.16 | 1.47% |
| Unused land | 69.32 | 0.16 | 32.74 | 177.50 | 8.72 | 14,439.50 | 14,727.94 | 288.44 | 21.10% |
| Total | 7804.17 | 455.44 | 9661.20 | 1048.70 | 542.67 | 14,533.97 | 34,046.15 | \ | \ |
| Transfer in | 695.51 | 35.45 | 232.85 | 188.86 | 119.84 | 94.47 | \ | 1366.98 | \ |
| Proportion | 50.88% | 2.59% | 17.03% | 13.82% | 8.77% | 6.91% | \ | \ | \ |
| K | 2000–2010 | 2010–2020 |
|---|---|---|
| Farmland | 6.24% | 0.67% |
| Forest | −6.07% | −0.86% |
| Grassland | −1.10% | −0.46% |
| Water-bodies | −5.59% | 1.20% |
| Build-up area | 3.73% | 2.25% |
| Unused land | 0.19% | −0.13% |
| LC | 0.94% | 0.21% |
| Factor Category | Serial Number | Factor Name |
|---|---|---|
| Socioeconomic factors | 1 | Population |
| 2 | GDP | |
| 3 | Distance to primary roads | |
| 4 | Distance to secondary roads | |
| 5 | Distance to tertiary roads | |
| 6 | Distance to highway | |
| Natural environmental factors | 7 | Average annual temperature |
| 8 | Average annual precipitation | |
| 10 | Altitude | |
| 11 | Distance to water system |
| Population | GDP | DEM | Annual Average Precipitation | Annual Average Temperature | Distance to Water Area | Distance to First Class Road | Distance to Secondary Road | Distance to Third Level Road | Distance to Expressway | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farmland | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.11 |
| Forest | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 |
| Grassland | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 |
| Water bodies | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.07 |
| Build-up area | 0.26 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.08 |
| Unused land | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.13 |
| Bandwidth | AICc | R2 | R2 Adjusted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.987 | 463.806 | 0.983 | 0.928 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Li, P.; He, X.; Su, N.; Yang, G.; Farid, M.A. Analysis of Land-Use/Land-Cover Change and Driving Factors in the Manas River Basin, China, from 2000 to 2020. Sustainability 2026, 18, 526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010526
Li P, He X, Su N, Yang G, Farid MA. Analysis of Land-Use/Land-Cover Change and Driving Factors in the Manas River Basin, China, from 2000 to 2020. Sustainability. 2026; 18(1):526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010526
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Pengfei, Xinlin He, Ning Su, Guang Yang, and Muhammad Arsalan Farid. 2026. "Analysis of Land-Use/Land-Cover Change and Driving Factors in the Manas River Basin, China, from 2000 to 2020" Sustainability 18, no. 1: 526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010526
APA StyleLi, P., He, X., Su, N., Yang, G., & Farid, M. A. (2026). Analysis of Land-Use/Land-Cover Change and Driving Factors in the Manas River Basin, China, from 2000 to 2020. Sustainability, 18(1), 526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010526

