4.7 Article

Traditional Villages in Forest Areas: Exploring the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Land Use and Landscape Patterns in Enshi Prefecture, China

期刊

FORESTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f12010065

关键词

traditional villages; landscape pattern; land-use change

类别

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2020kfyXJJS105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the land-use dynamics and landscape patterns of traditional villages in Enshi Prefecture, China. The research shows that most villages have experienced an increase in forest area, a decrease in cultivated land and grassland area, as well as a decrease in landscape diversity and fragmentation levels.
In the context of the implementation of rural revitalization strategies in China, limited attention has been paid to the landscape patterns of traditional villages that are located in vulnerable environments. This study explores the land-use dynamics and landscape patterns of traditional villages in Enshi Prefecture, China. Based on a spatiotemporal analysis of land use and landscape metrics, we analyzed the prefecture and the environment surrounding 73 traditional villages. The results show that, from 2000 to 2020, most villages have had an increased share of forest, a decreased share of cultivated land and grassland, and a decreased level of landscape diversity and fragmentation. Additionally, villages at a higher elevation or with a steeper slope are associated with a lower level of landscape diversity, a lower proportion of cultivated land and grassland, and a higher proportion of forest. Overall, although the environment around the villages does not show dramatic changes in landscape patterns, land-use change at the prefecture level shows an increasing rate of urban growth from 2010 to 2020. For remote traditional villages in ecologically vulnerable and less-developed areas, caution is needed in the tradeoff between environmental conservation and economic development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据