4.7 Article

Linking climate change and socioeconomic development to urban land use simulation: Analysis of their concurrent effects on carbon storage

期刊

APPLIED GEOGRAPHY
卷 115, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102135

关键词

Carbon storage; Urban land use; Climate change; RCP; SSP

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41771429]
  2. Chinese Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Land use/cover change (LUCC) in the context of rapid urbanization process has exerted profound influences on carbon storage and ecosystem functions. Exploring the relationships between various urbanization patterns and carbon storage is conductive to developing scientific carbon storage polices. This study incorporated climate change and socioeconomic development into the urbanization process, and designed six future urbanization scenarios based on the combination of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). A hierarchical framework that integrates system dynamic, land-use simulation and carbon storage evaluation models was proposed to predict urban land use change under six concurrent scenarios of climate and socioeconomic conditions, and examine their synergic effects on carbon storage. Hubei Province, a rapidly urbanized area in central China, was selected as a case study. The results show that the decline of carbon storage from 2015 to 2030 ranges from 16.40 Tg to 24.22 Tg under different scenarios, and the scenario featuring steady climate conditions, low population growth, moderate economic growth and high-quality urbanization (e. g., technology innovation) will better maintain carbon storage. Our findings also demonstrate the spatially heterogeneous patterns of carbon storage change at regional scale, and more severe carbon storage loss in the medium-sized cities than the metropolis. This study suggests that targeted ecological conservation strategies should be developed for different cities.

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