4.7 Article

Modeling spatial variations of urban growth patterns in Chinese cities: The case of Nanjing

Journal

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
Volume 91, Issue 2, Pages 51-64

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.11.010

Keywords

Urban growth; GIS; Remote sensing; GWR; Nanjing; China

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [40428003]
  2. Urban China Research Network

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Revealing spatially varying relationships between urban growth patterns and underlying determinants is important for better understanding local dimensions of urban development. Through a case study of Nanjing, China. we employ both global and local logistic regressions to model the probability of urban land expansion against a set of spatial variables, We found that compared with other fast growing coastal cities, Nanjing remains a relatively compact city. The orthodox logistic regression found the significance of proximity, neighborhood conditions. and urban agglomeration in urban land change. The logistic GWR significantly improves the global logistic regression model in terms of better model goodness-of-fit and lower level of spatial autocorrelation of residuals. More importantly, the local estimates of parameters of spatial variables enable us to investigate spatial variations of the influences of spatial variables on urban growth. We have found distinctive local patterns and effects of urban growth in Nanjing, shaped by local urban spatial and institutional structures. A probability surface of urban growth, which is generated from raster calculations among the parameter and variable surfaces, provides a clear scenario of urban growth patterns and can be useful for decision making. This study also shows the importance of policy studies and fieldwork in the interpretation of results generated from statistical and GIS modeling. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available