4.6 Article

Quantifying the spatial differences of landscape change in the Hai River Basin, China, in the 1990s

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
Volume 33, Issue 14, Pages 4482-4501

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2011.649863

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX1-YW-08-03-07, KZCX2-YW-448]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40871021]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Quantifying a landscape pattern and its change is essential for monitoring and assessing the ecological consequences of land-use/land-cover (LULC) change and human interference. In this study, a combination of landscape pattern indices and land-use dynamics indices based on remote-sensing images was employed to analyse and compare the spatial and temporal dynamics of the landscape pattern in the Hai River Basin (HRB), China, in the 1990s. During this decade, the change in the landscape pattern was mainly driven by intense human-induced alterations. Overall, the landscape pattern changed considerably, progressively becoming more fragmented and diverse, with widespread encroachment of cropland because of rapid urbanization. The change in the landscape pattern exhibited distinctive spatial differences between the mountains and the plains, as well as between urban and rural areas, with higher fragmentation in the plain region and urban fringes or newly urbanizing areas. The changes in the landscape pattern around Beijing resulted in more fragmented and diverse landscape types. A detailed examination of the Jing-Guang (Beijing-Guangzhou) railway line transect and two other subregions indicated that urbanization contributed mostly to the spatial differences of landscape change through population growth, transportation improvements and rapid economic development. Spatial differences in the change in the landscape pattern were induced by economic growth, population increase and government policy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available