Since the kappa coefficient is a description of the overall correlation, the simulation results may differ in detail and spatial distribution. Therefore, the kappa coefficient, the macro- and micro levels contrastive analysis are more convincing. The following are compared on the macro- and micro levels.
3.5.1. Macroanalysis
We test the accuracy of the MCR-modified CA–Markov model in the simulation of urban expansion. We compare the simulation results with real values to explore the similarities and differences between the simulation results. The results are shown in
Figure 8.
In
Figure 8d, patches in light blue depict areas that both models have underestimated. These areas are mainly distributed around the city given the rapid development and construction around the city. When the Markov model is used to solve the land-use transfer matrix, the transfer speed of land use around and distant from the city may is incorrectly estimated. Therefore, regions under natural conditions that surround the city are more likely to be underestimated than regions distant from the city.
The MCR model is not more likely to overestimate red regions than the non-MCR model. These red regions are mainly located in sampling areas 1–5, 9–10, 14–15, and 17–19. Sampling areas 1–4 and 10 represent water bodies; 14, 15, 17, and 19 represent woodlands and 5, 9, and 18 represent intersections between water bodies and woodlands. These regions are estimated correctly because the MCR model accounts for the influence of ecological factors on urban expansion.
Brown patches indicate areas that are overestimated by the two models and are mainly distributed in areas 7, 8, 12, and 13; other areas and around construction land. Rural residential areas close to cities are highly likely to be converted into urban construction land. The possibility of converting cultivated land around cities into construction land is also high. Overestimation by the two models may be attributed to human factors and may lead to the failure of development and construction in the region.
Dark blue areas represent underestimation by MCR-modified CA–Markov model and are mainly distributed in 6, 11, and 16. In terms of spatial distribution, areas that are underestimated by the two models are scattered. In general, differences exist between the ability of the two models to predict forest land, water area, scenic landscapes and other ecological land areas. Given that both models have inherited the characteristics of the CA–Markov model, their tendencies to overestimate and underestimate are similar.
Overestimated, correctly estimated and underestimated areas by the two models are subjected to quantitative statistical analysis.
Table 6 and
Figure 9 presents the results.
The area difference equals the area measured by MCR-modified CA–Markov model minus that of non-MCR method. The overestimation difference value between the two models was −4661.44 ha, the correct estimation difference value was 2431.23 ha and the underestimation difference value was 2230.21 ha. The area overestimated by the MCR-modified CA–Markov model is 29.87% less than that estimated by the non-MCR method. Compared with the MCR-modified CA–Markov model, the non-MCR method is quite possible to overestimate the actual area. The area underestimated by the MCR-modified CA–Markov model is 5.48% more than that of the non-MCR method. Limited by ecological factors, the areas underestimated by the MCR-modified CA–Markov model is slightly different from that of the non-MCR model, but the area overestimated by those two methods are quite different. Obviously, the simulation precision of MCR-modified CA–Markov model is higher than that of non-MCR model, hence, it can be concluded that the MCR-modified CA–Markov model provides advantages for urban planning by accounting for ecological factors.
3.5.2. Microanalysis
We select ecological features, such as the Longquan Mountain City Forest Park and Wuhu Lake, for microanalysis. The results of the MCR and non-MCR models are compared and analysed from the microscopic perspective. We also analyse the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods.
Woodland Constraint
We select the Longquan Mountain City Forest Park as the research object.
Figure 10 illustrates the final analytical result.
Given that the original land type of this area is woodland, the MCR model shows that it is unsuitable for urban expansion. The original natural ecological land forms the ecological matrix of the Wuhan metropolitan area and should be protected. However, the non-MCR model simulation results ignored the ecological condition of this area, thus leading to overestimation, as shown in
Figure 10a.
Water Constraints
We take the surrounding areas of Wuhu Lake as the research object.
Figure 11 presents the final analytical result. The study area has numerous lakes and rivers and is known as the ‘City of Hundreds of Lakes.’ A total of 166 lakes of various sizes are located in the area. The water areas encompass pit, reservoir, river, and lake water surfaces.
Development and construction should be prohibited within 800–1000 m of the areas that surround recreational lakes to ensure the integrity of ecological elements and coordinate land functions. As can be seen from the locally enlarged
Figure 11a, the simulation results obtained by the non-MCR model indicate that the lake can be developed. However, the ecological environment around the original lake should be protected and is unsuitable for development and construction.
In conclusion, both models consider the influence of similar factors, such as distance from the freeway, railway, main road, collector streets, and river and slope. Results show that the MCR-modified CA–Markov model can better predict forest, water, and other ecological factors than the non-MCR model. The MCR model can be applied to develop approaches for protecting the local ecological environment because it can express resistance values in urban expansion, such as woodland and water bodies, that represent areas that are unsuitable for urban development and construction. Therefore, this method excludes ecological land, such as woodland and water, from future urban expansion. By contrast, the non-MCR model ignores ecological land and identifies all areas as equally suitable for future urban expansion.