4.6 Article

Contrasting Trends of Forest Coverage between the Inland and Coastal Urban Groups of China over the Past Decades

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 11, Issue 16, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11164451

Keywords

forest urban agglomeration; land cover change; landscape pattern; remote sensing

Funding

  1. National Key R and D Program of China [2018YFA0605402]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41971374, 41601442]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2017B06814]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

China is building forest urban groups through reforestation and afforestation. However, the fast process of urbanization inevitably conflicts with multiple vegetated areas around cities. Hence, it is critical to evaluate the changes in regional vegetation cover and its spatial pattern due to complex natural and anthropogenic factors. Nevertheless, systematic studies to quantify and compare the development of forest urban agglomerations were rarely reported. Based on a remote sensing landcover dataset from 1992 to 2015, this study investigated forest cover changes and the impacts on landscape pattern in several urban groups, and tried to explore their differences between the inland and coastal regions of China. The results showed that over the past 24 years, the forest coverage in the coastal urban agglomerations declined (103 km(2)/year) while it increased (26 km(2)/year) in the inland urban agglomerations. There was a certain conflict between forest and cropland for the coastal urban agglomerations where the forest area converted to cropland accounted for 61.9% of the total forest loss. The increase in forests coverage in inland urban agglomerations mainly came from grassland which nearly accounted for 66.47% of the total increase. The landscape diversity has also changed in areas where forests have changed significantly (e.g., Shanghai, Changzhi, and Jincheng).

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