The Influence of Land Use Evolution on the Visitor Economy in Wuhan from the Perspective of Ecological Service Value
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Data Sources and Research Method
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Sources and Processing
2.3. Research Methods
2.3.1. Dynamic Attitude of Single Land Use
2.3.2. Dynamic Attitude of Comprehensive Land Use
2.3.3. Land Use Transfer Matrix
2.3.4. Measure of Ecosystem Service Value
2.3.5. Linear Regression Model
3. Analysis of Land Use Change in Wuhan Metropolitan Area
3.1. Change of Land Use Scale
3.2. Rate of Change of Land Use Type
3.3. Changes in Land Use Types
3.4. Analysis of Changes in Ecological Service Value
4. Discussion
4.1. Effect of Land Use Change on the Visitor Economy
4.2. Impact of Land Use Change on the Visitor Economy
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Deng, J.S.; Wang, K.; Hong, Y.; Qi, J.G. Spatio-temporal dynamics and evolution of land use change and landscape pattern in response to rapid urbanization. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 92, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mcmurry, K.C. The Use of Land for recreation. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1930, 20, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammes, D.L. Resort development impact on labor and land markets. Ann. Tour. Res. 1994, 21, 729–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Q.; Lu, L. Research progress and Enlightenment of tourism land. Econ. Geogr. 2009, 29, 313–319. [Google Scholar]
- Weaver, D.B. Model of urban tourism for small Caribbean islands. Geogr. Rev. 1993, 83, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, A.M.; Shaw, G. Future play: Tourism, recreation and land use. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 326–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tyrvainen, L.; Uusitalo, M.; Silvennoinen, H.; Hasu, E. Towards sustainable growth in nature-based tourism destinations: Clients’ views of land use options in Finnish Lapland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 13, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saha, J.; Paul, S. An insight on land use and land cover change due to tourism growth in coastal area and its environmental consequences from West Bengal, India. Spat. Inf. Res. 2020, 29, 577–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hjalager, A.M. Land-use conflicts in coastal tourism and the quest for governance innovations. Land Use Policy 2020, 94, 104566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Liu, Y. Tourism-Led Land-Use Changes and their Environmental Effects in the Southern Coastal Region of Hainan Island, China. J. Coastal Res. 2013, 23, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, L.; Wang, N.; Wu, C. Characteristics and Driving Mechanism of Land Use Change in Hillside Tourism Town: A Case Study of Jinggangshan City. J. Chin. Urban For. 2019, 17, 22–26. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, B. A Study on Recreational Belt around Metropolis (ReBAM): Shanghai Case. Entia Geogr. Sin. 2001, 21, 354–359. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, P.; Zhao, C.; Zhou, Y.; Feng, H.; Li, X.; Jiang, J. Study on Land Consolidation Zoning in Hubei Province Based on the Coupling of Neural Network and Cluster Analysis. Land 2021, 10, 756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bunruamkaew, K.; Murayama, Y. Land use and natural resources planning for sustainable ecotourism using GIS in Surat Thani, Thailand. Sustainability 2012, 4, 412–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, B.; He, P.; Zhao, T. Land use pattern change of Zhangjiajie National Forest Park. J. Ecol. 2006, 25, 2027–2034. [Google Scholar]
- Chai, Y.; Qiao, W.; Hu, Y.; He, T.; Jia, K.; Feng, T.; Wang, Y. Land-Use Transition of Tourist Villages in the Metropolitan Suburbs and Its Driving Forces: A Case Study of She Village in Nanjing City, China. Land 2021, 10, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, D.J.; Lusch, D.P.; Smucker, T.A.; Wangui, E.E. Multiple Methods in the Study of Driving Forces of Land Use and Land Cover Change: A Case Study of SE Kajiado District, Kenya. Hum. Ecol. 2005, 33, 763–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, C.; Fu, B.; Lu, Y.; Lu, N.; Zeng, Y.; He, A.; Lamparski, H. Land use change and anthropogenic driving forces: A case study in Yanhe River Basin. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2011, 21, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, J.; Zhang, Z.D.; Cui, F. Response of ecosystem services to landscape pattern change in New York Bay area from 1996 to 2015. Res. World Geogr. 2021, 30, 826–838. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Z. Study on the dynamic change of land use in scenic cities and its interaction mechanism with tourism development—A case study of Yangshuo County, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. Resour. Sci. 2010, 32, 1980–1986. [Google Scholar]
- Zuo, B. Study on tourism driving force of land use change. J. Yunnan Univ. Financ. Trade 2005, 5, 106–110. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, X.; Jin, Y. Study on the mechanism of urban land use change and tourism development. Tour. Trib. 2014, 29, 87–96. [Google Scholar]
- van Vliet, J.; de Groot, H.L.F.; Rietveld, P.; Verburg, P.H. Manifestations and underlying drivers of agricultural land use change in Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 133, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Long, H.; Qu, Y. Land use transitions and land management: A mutual feedback perspective. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, G.; Yang, X.; Jin, Y.; Luo, S.; Xu, B.; Zhou, Q. Land Use Changes in the Zoige Plateau Based on the Object-Oriented Method and Their Effects on Landscape Patterns. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khwarahm, N.R.; Qader, S.; Ararat, K.; Fadhil Al-Quraishi, A.M. Predicting and mapping land cover/land use changes in Erbil /Iraq using CA-Markov synergy model. Earth Sci. Inform. 2021, 14, 393–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Gu, P.; Chen, Y.; He, D.; Mao, Q. Influence of land use and street characteristics on car ownership and use: Evidence from Jinan, China. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 52, 518–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; Arge, A.R.; Groot, R.D.; Farberk, S.; Belt, M.V. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol. Econ. 1997, 25, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, G.; Zhen, L.; Lu, C.; Xiao, Y.; Chen, C. A method of valuing ecosystem services based on expert knowledge. J. Nat. Resour. 2008, 23, 911–919. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, W.; Guo, L.; Xue, D.; Sun, S. Temporal and spatial evolution of land use pattern and ecosystem service value in southern Jiangxi. J. Ecol. 2019, 39, 1969–1978. [Google Scholar]
- Lei, J.; Chen, Z.; Ting, T.W.; Li, Y.; Yang, Q.; Chen, X. Spatial autocorrelation pattern of land use and ecosystem service value in the northeast of Hainan Island. J. Ecol. 2019, 39, 2366–2377. [Google Scholar]
- Lei, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Wu, S.; You, X.; Wu, J.; Cui, P.; Ding, H. Impact of land use change on ecosystem service value in Xunwu County. J. Ecol. 2019, 39, 3089–3099. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, X.; Zeng, J.; Li, W. Spatial correlation between urbanization and land ecosystem service value in Wuhan metropolitan area. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2015, 31, 249–256. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, G.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, L.; Chen, W.; Li, S. Improvement of ecosystem service valuation method based on unit area value equivalent factor. J. Nat. Resour. 2015, 30, 1243–1254. [Google Scholar]
- Hou, L.; Wu, F.; Xie, X. The spatial characteristics and relationships between landscape pattern and ecosystem service value along an urban-rural gradient in Xi’an city, China. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 108, 105720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lei, J.; Chen, Z.; Chen, X.; Li, Y.; Wu, T.T. Temporal and spatial changes of land use and ecosystem service value in Hainan Island from 1980 to 2018. J. Ecol. 2020, 40, 4760–4773. [Google Scholar]
- Macdonald, W.G.M. Some Large Sample Tests for Nonnormality in The Linear Regression Model. Publ. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1980, 75, 16–28. [Google Scholar]
- Ploberger, W.; Krämer, W.; Kontrus, K. A new test for structural stability in the linear regression model. J. Econom. 1989, 40, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.L.; Bao, Y. Discussion on research methods of land use dynamic change. Prog. Geogr. Sci. 1999, 18, 83–89. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Y.; Zeng, C. Temporal and spatial evolution analysis and influencing factors of ecological service value in Wuhan Urban Circle. J. Ecol. 2019, 39, 1426–1440. [Google Scholar]
- Petrov, L.O.; Lavalle, C.; Kasanko, M. Urban land use scenarios for a tourist region in Europe: Applying the MOLAND model to Algarve, Portugal. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 92, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, N.; Teng, Y.; Hu, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, L. Study on land use change and its relationship with tourism development in Lijiang River Basin. J. Northwest. For. Univ. 2021, 36, 262–268. [Google Scholar]
- Xi, J.; Zhao, M.; Ge, Q.; Kong, Q. Changes in land use of a village driven by over 25 years of tourism: The case of Gougezhuang village, China. Land Use Policy 2014, 40, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, S.; Zhang, J.; Su, W. Difference in the net value of ecological services between natural and artificial forests in China. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 1076–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Z.; Liu, L.; He, X.; Li, Z.; Wang, P. Evaluation on glaciers ecological services value in the Tianshan Mountains, Northwest China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2019, 29, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, J.H.; Zhao, L.Y.; He, C.; Du, W.M.; Huang, C. Ecological risks resulting from changes in land use in Wuhan in the past 15 years. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Sustainable Development 2016, Wuhan, China, 1 April 2016; Sustainable Development: Nanjing, China, 2016; pp. 113–133. [Google Scholar]
Classification I | Classification II | Forested Land | Grassland | Cultivated | Water | Built | Unutilized |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supply service | Food production | 0.33 | 0.43 | 1.00 | 0.53 | 0.00 | 0.26 |
Raw material production | 2.98 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.00 | 0.04 | |
Regulating services | Gas exchange | 4.32 | 1.50 | 0.72 | 0.51 | 0.00 | 0.39 |
Climate regulation | 4.07 | 1.56 | 0.97 | 2.06 | 0.00 | 0.40 | |
Hydrological adjusting | 4.09 | 1.52 | 0.77 | 18.77 | 0.00 | 0.49 | |
Waste disposal | 1.72 | 1.32 | 1.39 | 14.85 | 0.00 | 0.26 | |
Support services | Soil formation and conservation | 4.02 | 2.24 | 1.47 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 0.49 |
Biodiversity conservation | 4.51 | 1.87 | 1.02 | 3.43 | 0.00 | 0.40 | |
Cultural services | Provide landscape aesthetics | 2.08 | 0.87 | 0.17 | 4.44 | 0.58 | 0.36 |
Cultural entertainment | 0.26 | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.74 | 0.84 | 0.24 | |
Natural heritage and diversity | 0.46 | 0.85 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.38 | 0.053 |
Land Type | Forest | Grass | Cultivated | Water | Built | Unutilized | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1990 | Area | 17,579.54 | 1441.31 | 30,285.19 | 5549.42 | 2834.82 | 171.19 |
Rate | 30.38% | 2.49% | 52.34% | 9.59% | 4.90% | 0.30% | |
2005 | Area | 17,494.82 | 1418.68 | 29,402.60 | 5988.83 | 3295.57 | 235.82 |
Rate | 30.25% | 2.45% | 50.84% | 10.35% | 5.70% | 0.41% | |
Variation | −84.72 | −22.63 | −882.60 | 439.40 | 460.75 | 64.63 | |
Range of change | −0.13% | −0.04% | −1.50% | 0.76% | 0.8% | 0.11% | |
2005 | Area | 17,494.82 | 1418.68 | 29,402.60 | 5988.83 | 3295.57 | 235.82 |
Rate | 30.25% | 2.45% | 50.84% | 10.35% | 5.70% | 0.41% | |
2020 | Area | 17,419.56 | 1396.81 | 27,617.04 | 6320.26 | 4910.30 | 172.34 |
Rate | 30.12% | 2.42% | 47.75% | 10.93% | 8.49% | 0.30% | |
Variation | −75.26 | −21.87 | −1785.56 | 331.43 | 1614.73 | −63.48 | |
Range of change | −0.13% | −0.03% | −3.09% | 0.58% | 2.79% | −0.11% | |
1990 | Area | 17,579.54 | 1441.31 | 30,285.19 | 5549.42 | 2834.82 | 171.19 |
Rate | 30.38% | 2.49% | 52.34% | 9.59% | 4.90% | 0.30% | |
2020 | Area | 17,419.56 | 1396.81 | 27,617.04 | 6320.26 | 4910.30 | 172.34 |
Rate | 30.12% | 2.42% | 47.75% | 10.93% | 8.49% | 0.30% | |
Variation | −159.98 | −44.50 | −2668.15 | 770.84 | 2075.48 | 1.15 | |
Range of change | −0.26% | −0.07% | −4.59% | 1.34% | 5.59% | 0.00% |
Year | Land Type | Forest | Grass | Crop | Water | Built | Unutilized | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1990–2005 | Forest | 17,345.72 | 20.40 | 143.88 | 21.16 | 47.86 | 0.52 | 17,579.54 |
Grass | 25.94 | 1384.17 | 14.12 | 11.14 | 5.73 | 0.20 | 1441.31 | |
Crop | 122.81 | 8.46 | 29,098.95 | 636.80 | 410.38 | 7.79 | 30,285.19 | |
Water | 10.43 | 6.42 | 109.81 | 5288.69 | 41.85 | 92.23 | 5549.42 | |
Built | 3.60 | 0.26 | 36.61 | 4.86 | 2787.87 | 1.63 | 2834.82 | |
Unutilized | 2.03 | 1.35 | 4.70 | 27.51 | 2.06 | 133.54 | 171.19 | |
Total | 17,510.54 | 1421.06 | 29,408.08 | 5990.16 | 3295.75 | 235.90 | 57,861.48 | |
2006–2020 | Forest | 15,641.49 | 177.10 | 1258.71 | 133.15 | 281.96 | 2.42 | 17,494.82 |
Grass | 192.80 | 1124.84 | 52.95 | 18.77 | 28.18 | 1.13 | 1418.68 | |
Crop | 1404.21 | 71.05 | 24,852.51 | 1038.95 | 2005.30 | 30.58 | 29,402.60 | |
Water | 111.82 | 15.65 | 678.69 | 4966.97 | 183.46 | 32.24 | 5988.83 | |
Built | 65.12 | 6.94 | 746.63 | 75.39 | 2399.97 | 1.52 | 3295.57 | |
Unutilized | 4.11 | 1.23 | 27.55 | 87.03 | 11.44 | 104.45 | 235.82 | |
Forest | 17,419.56 | 1396.81 | 27,617.04 | 6320.26 | 4910.30 | 172.34 | 57,836.32 |
Land Type | ESV | 1990–2005 | 2006–2020 | 1990–2020 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1990 | 2005 | 2020 | Δ ESV | Rate of Change % | Δ ESV | Rate of Change % | Δ ESV | Rate of Change % | |
Forest | 1372.93 | 1332.92 | 1251.97 | −40.01 | −2.91 | −80.95 | −6.07 | −120.96 | −8.81 |
Grass | 2487.41 | 2475.43 | 2464.78 | −11.99 | −0.48 | −10.65 | −0.43 | −22.64 | −0.91 |
Crop | 92.42 | 90.97 | 89.57 | −1.45 | −1.57 | −1.40 | −1.54 | −2.85 | −3.09 |
Water | 1275.56 | 1376.57 | 1452.75 | 101.00 | 7.92 | 76.18 | 5.53 | 177.18 | 13.89 |
Built | 25.03 | 29.10 | 43.36 | 4.07 | 16.25 | 14.26 | 49.00 | 18.33 | 73.21 |
Unutilized | 2.84 | 3.91 | 2.86 | 1.07 | 37.75 | −1.05 | −26.92 | 0.02 | 0.67 |
Total | 5256.20 | 5308.90 | 5305.29 | 52.69 | 1.00 | −3.61 | −0.07 | 49.08 | 0.93 |
Category | Ecological Service Function | Individual ESV | Δ ESV | Rate of Change % | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1990 | 2005 | 2020 | 90–05 | 06–20 | 90–20 | 90–05 | 06–20 | 90–20 | ||
Supply service | Food production | 194.74 | 191.45 | 183.30 | −3.29 | −8.15 | −11.44 | −1.69 | −4.26 | −6.24 |
Raw material production | 327.08 | 324.88 | 320.88 | −2.20 | −4.00 | −6.20 | −0.67 | −1.23 | −1.93 | |
Regulating services | Gas exchange | 504.40 | 500.54 | 493.18 | −3.86 | −7.36 | −11.21 | −0.76 | −1.47 | −2.27 |
Climate regulation | 562.61 | 561.12 | 554.17 | −1.50 | −6.94 | −8.44 | −0.27 | −1.24 | −1.52 | |
Hydrological adjusting | 989.3 | 1024.79 | 1046.74 | 35.42 | 21.95 | 57.37 | 3.58 | 2.14 | 5.48 | |
Waste disposal | 768.75 | 793.96 | 805.08 | 25.22 | 11.11 | 36.33 | 3.28 | 1.40 | 4.51 | |
Support services | Soil formation protection | 592.55 | 585.31 | 571.22 | −7.25 | −14.09 | −21.33 | −1.22 | −2.41 | −3.73 |
Biodiversity conservation | 647.49 | 648.51 | 643.16 | 1.02 | −5.35 | −4.33 | 0.16 | −0.82 | −0.67 | |
Cultural services | Provide landscape aesthetics | 340.06 | 349.36 | 358.72 | 9.30 | 9.35 | 18.65 | 2.73 | 2.68 | 5.20 |
Cultural entertainment | 147.50 | 148.30 | 150.67 | 0.80 | 2.37 | 3.18 | 0.54 | 1.60 | 2.11 | |
Natural heritage and diversity | 181.66 | 180.68 | 178.17 | −0.98 | −2.51 | −3.49 | −0.54 | −1.39 | −1.96 |
Variable | TMij | ||
---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
ESVi1 | 11.94 * | ||
(1.81) | |||
ESVi2 | 21.72 * | ||
(1.90) | |||
ESVi3 | 60.97 * | ||
(1.75) | |||
PO | −98.80 ** | −98.77 ** | −101.57 ** |
(−31.91) | (−37.62) | (−34.46) | |
ST | 3.64 *** | 3.64 *** | 3.64 *** |
(572.56) | (662.15) | (674.32) | |
AW | −34.79 *** | −34.82 *** | −34.71 *** |
(−82.95) | (−97.60) | (−97.40) | |
C | 213.58 *** | 398.33 *** | 403.73 *** |
(85.40) | (100.86) | (100.33) | |
N | 6 | 6 | 6 |
R2 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.80 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, Q.; Mao, Y.; Morrison, A.M. The Influence of Land Use Evolution on the Visitor Economy in Wuhan from the Perspective of Ecological Service Value. Land 2022, 11, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010001
Chen Q, Mao Y, Morrison AM. The Influence of Land Use Evolution on the Visitor Economy in Wuhan from the Perspective of Ecological Service Value. Land. 2022; 11(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010001
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Qiao, Yan Mao, and Alastair M. Morrison. 2022. "The Influence of Land Use Evolution on the Visitor Economy in Wuhan from the Perspective of Ecological Service Value" Land 11, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010001