The Spatial–Temporal Evolution of the Trade-Offs and Synergy between the Suburban Rural Landscape’s Production–Living–Ecological Functions: A Case Study of Jiashan in the Yangtze River Delta Eco-Green Integrated Development Demonstration Zone, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Study Area
2.2. Basis of the Classification of Suburban Rural Landscape Functions
2.2.1. Rural Landscape Production Function
2.2.2. Rural Landscape Life Function
2.2.3. Ecological Function of the Rural Landscape
2.3. Design of a Rural Landscape Function Evaluation Index
2.4. The Research Methods
2.4.1. Single-Function Evaluation of the Landscape
2.4.2. Quantification of the Landscape’s Production–Living–Ecological Function Trade-Offs and Synergistic Relationships
2.4.3. Spatial Trade-Offs and Synergistic Relationships of the Landscape’s Production–Living–Ecological Functions
2.5. Research Data
3. Results
3.1. Rural Landscape Function Evaluation Results
- (1)
- The “production–living–ecological functions” of the rural landscape in Jiashan County changed regularly over time. From 2000 to 2020, the production–living–ecological functions of the target layer in Jiashan County exhibited regular changes, and the production function (PF; contains agricultural productivity per capita, agricultural output value per land, industrial contribution rate, and township urbanization level) and life function (LF; contains per capita living area, population density, landscape connectivity, and landscape diversity) exhibited linearly increasing trends. The ecological function (EF; contains NDVI, ecological synergy degree, PM2.5, and landscape fragmentation) rapidly decreased to 0.087 from 2000 to 2010 and then rebounded to 0.102 from 2010 to 2020. However, it was still 67% lower than the initial value of 0.310. This situation shows that under accelerated industrialization and urbanization processes in Jiashan County, a large amount of agricultural land has been transformed into industrial parks and residential areas. This change in land use has improved the regional production functions (such as an increase in the industrial contribution) and living functions (such as an increase in the urbanization level), but it has also led to deterioration of ecological functions. For example, large amounts of green space and wetlands have been replaced by urban buildings, resulting in a significant decline in the normalized vegetation index (NDVI) and increases in PM2.5 pollution and landscape fragmentation. This conclusion reflects the decline in the overall ecological function of the landscape under the influence of the gradual urbanization of rural and suburban areas in Jiashan County.
- (2)
- The single function of the rural landscape in Jiashan County changed regularly over time. From 2000 to 2020, the agricultural production function (APF), the economic development function (EDF), the space carrying function (SCF), and the landscape aesthetic function (LAF) all exhibited linearly increasing trends, while the ecological regulation function (ERF) rapidly decreased to 0.039 from 2000 to 2010 and basically remained stable from 2010 to 2020. The environmental maintenance function (EMF) decreased slightly from 0.068 to 0.048 from 2000 to 2010. From 2010 to 2020, it increased slightly to 0.064, and there was basically no change during the total period, indicating that the single functions of the production function and living function in the rural landscape in Jiashan County steadily increased over time, while the single function of the ecological function fluctuated greatly under the influence of rural urbanization. Specifically, the decrease in the ecological regulation function (ERF) will lead to a decrease in the ability of landscapes to filter air pollutants, causing loss and fragmentation of biological habitats. In turn, this could lead to a decrease in species diversity. In addition, the degradation of ecological functional monomers may also lead to a decline in urban soil quality and an increase in surface runoff, increasing the threat of flooding.
3.2. The Temporal Evolution of the Function Trade-Offs and Synergistic Relationships of the Production–Living–Ecological Functions of the Landscape
3.2.1. The Temporal Pattern of Rural Landscape Synergy in Jiashan County
3.2.2. The Temporal Pattern of Rural Landscape Trade-Offs in Jiashan County
3.2.3. The Temporal Pattern of the Transformation of the Rural Landscape’s Trade-Offs and Synergistic Relationships in Jiashan County
3.2.4. The Temporal Pattern of the Rural Landscape Compatibility in Jiashan County
- (1)
- The landscape aesthetic function and the ecological balance function cannot develop in concert with the environmental sustainability function, which indicates that the design of aesthetic and ecological adjustments to the landscape cannot solve the problem with the local environmental sustainability function.
- (2)
- The production–living–ecological functions of the rural landscape in Jiashan County were compatible, that is, there was no obvious synergistic relationship, indicating that the production–ecology–life functions of the rural landscape in Jiashan County could not increase synergistically.
3.3. Analysis of the Spatial Evolution of the Trade-Offs and Synergistic Relationships between the Landscape’s Production–Living–Ecological Functions
3.3.1. Spatial Pattern of the Trade-Offs and Synergistic Relationships of the Production–Living–Ecological Functions in the Rural Landscape
- (1)
- There were significant differences in the trade-offs and synergies at the spatial scale. The landscape’s aesthetic function–environmental sustainability function always exhibited a trade-off relationship, which is consistent with the results of the temporal evolution analysis, indicating that the design of the aesthetic function of the rural landscape in Jiashan County was irrational. The landscape aesthetic function–ecological trade-off (LAF-ERF) function were always in a synergistic relationship. The spatial evolution of the agricultural production function–landscape aesthetic function manifested as trade-offs and synergies.
- (2)
- The spatial heterogeneity of the trade-off in the degree of synergy increased steadily over time. The trade-off between the landscape aesthetic function and the environmental sustainability function increased year by year. The synergistic relationship between the landscape aesthetic function and the ecological balance function increased year by year.
3.3.2. The Spatiotemporal Evolution of the Trade-Off and Synergy between the Production, Life, and Ecological Functions
- (1)
- The production–life functions in the study area were dominated by a trade-off relationship (i.e., most of the research units exhibited a trade-off), but in Xitang Town and Ganyao Town, a synergistic relationship occurred in 2010, and the trade-off relationship transformed into a trade-off relationship in 2020, and the trade-off relationship transformed into a synergistic relationship on Luoxing Street from 2010 to 2020.
- (2)
- There was obvious spatial heterogeneity in the relationship of the production–ecological functions in the study area, among which the evolution relationship in Xitang Town from 2000 to 2020 was synergy–compatibility–trade-off, that on Weitang Street and in Dayun Town was synergy–compatibility–compatibility, and that on Huimin Street was trade-off–compatibility–trade-off.
- (3)
- The life function–ecological function in the study area was dominated by a trade-off relationship, but the evolution relationship in Xitang Town was trade-off–compatibility–trade-off. In Dayun Town, it changed from synergy to compatibility in 2010, and Huimin Street and Luoxing Street exhibited a trade-off–compatibility–trade-off based evolution model.
3.3.3. The Spatiotemporal Evolution of the Trade-Off and Synergy of Subfunction
- (1)
- In 2000, the single-function trade-offs and synergies for the suburban rural landscape in Jiashan County mostly manifested as compatible relationships. In 2010, single-function trade-offs and synergies for the suburban rural landscape in each township began to appear and mainly manifested as synergies. In 2020, the trade-offs and synergies began to change into trade-offs.
- (2)
- Agricultural production function–economic development function (APF-EDF): The spatial pattern of trade-offs in the north and synergy in the south in 2000 changed to trade-offs in the north in 2010, and it stabilized as a trade-off in the north in 2020.
- (3)
- Agricultural production function–spatial carrying function (APF-SCF): This relationship was compatible between 2000 and 2020.
- (4)
- Agricultural production function–landscape aesthetic function: In 2000, it manifested as a trade-off relationship between Taozhuang Town and Xitang Town. In 2010, it manifested as a trade-off relationship between Xitang Town, Huimin Street, and Luoxing Street. In 2020, it manifested as a trade-off relationship between Xitang Town, Huimin Street, and Luoxing Street.
- (5)
- Agricultural production function–ecological balance function: A compatible relationship in 2000 evolved into a trade-off relationship between Taozhuang Town, Huimin Street, and Luoxing Street in 2010. There was a synergistic relationship for Xitang Town and a trade-off relationship between Taozhuang Town, Xitang Town, Huimin Street, and Luoxing Street in 2020.
- (6)
- Agricultural production function–environmental sustainability function (APF-EMF): In 2000, there was a compatible relationship. In 2010, the relationship evolved into a trade-off relationship between Taozhuang Town, Huimin Street, and Luoxing Street and a synergistic relationship between Xitang Town. In 2020, there was a trade-off relationship between Taozhuang Town, Xitang Town, Huimin Street, and Luoxing Street.
- (7)
- Economic development function–spatial carrying function (EDF-SCF): All of the towns and streets were compatible in the three periods.
- (8)
- Economic development function–landscape aesthetic function (EDF-LAF): In 2000, the pattern of trade-offs in the north between Taozhuang Town and Xitang Town changed into a compatible relationship in Taozhuang Town, a synergistic relationship between Luoxing Street and Xitang Town, and a trade-off relationship on Huimin Street in 2010. There was a synergistic relationship on Luoxing Street, a trade-off relationship on Huimin Street, and a compatible relationship in Taozhuang Town in 2020.
- (9)
- Economic development function–ecological balance function (EDF-ERF): In 2000, the entirety of Jiashan exhibited a compatible relationship, which evolved into a trade-off relationship between Taozhuang Town and Huimin Street in 2010, a synergistic relationship between Xitang Town and Luoxing Street in 2020, and a stable synergistic relationship on Luoxing Street.
- (10)
- Economic development function–environmental sustainability function (EDF-EMF): In 2000, the entirety of Jiashan exhibited a compatible relationship, which evolved into a trade-off relationship between Taozhuang Town and Huimin Street in 2010, a synergistic relationship between Xitang Town and Luoxing Street in 2020, and a stable synergistic relationship on Luoxing Street.
- (11)
- Space carrying function–landscape aesthetic function: In 2000, it manifested as a trade-off relationship between Taozhuang Town and Xitang Town, which evolved into a synergistic relationship between Xitang Town, Luoxing Street, and Huimin Street in 2010, and a synergistic relationship was maintained between these areas in 2020.
- (12)
- Spatial carrying function–ecological balance function: The compatibility relationship of the entire study area in 2000 evolved into a synergistic relationship between Xitang Town, Luoxing Street, and Huimin Street in 2010 and 2020 and a trade-off relationship in Taozhuang Town.
- (13)
- Space bearing function–environmental sustainability function (SCF-EMF): In 2000, the relationship was compatible, and in 2010 and 2020, it evolved into a collaborative relationship between Xitang Town, Luoxing Street, and Huimin Street and a trade-off relationship in Taozhuang Town.
- (14)
- Landscape aesthetic function–ecological balance function: In 2000, the relationship was compatible, and in 2010 and 2020, it evolved into a synergistic relationship between Xitang Town and Taozhuang Town and a trade-off relationship between Huimin Street and Luoxing Street.
- (15)
- Landscape aesthetic function–environmental sustainability function: In 2000, it was a compatible relationship, and in 2010 and 2020, it evolved into a collaborative relationship between Xitang Town and Taozhuang Town and a trade-off relationship between Huimin Street and Luoxing Street.
- (16)
- Ecological trade-off function–environmental sustainability function: In 2000, it was a compatible relationship, and in 2010 and 2020, it evolved into a collaborative relationship between Xitang Town and Taozhuang Town and a trade-off relationship between Huimin Street and Luoxing Street.
4. Discussion
- (1)
- The linear increase in the overall production function and the living function led to a decline in the ecological function. This suggests that the production function and the living function should be maintained under the premise of protecting the ecological function, and the behavior of sacrificing the ecological environment to improve the production and living functions should be controlled at the county scale, with the Taipu River–Changbaitang water conservation area as the core. The spatial layout of the water, forest, and field land use types should be optimized, and the ecological garden of the new southern part of Jiangnan should be designed according to the integration of rivers, lakes, forests, and farmland. For example, we suggest that the following measures be taken: vigorously carrying out comprehensive remediation actions for unappropriated cultivated land, requisitioning cultivated land, and/or developing forest land for urban construction and economic activities, carrying out land remediation actions on non-grain and non-agricultural cultivated land, and curbing the occurrence of farmland abandonment.
- (2)
- In view of the trade-off conflict between the landscape aesthetic function and the environmental sustainability function in the rural landscape, it is suggested that in rural planning and management involving landscape aesthetics, not only should artistic appreciation of the landscape be considered but more attention should also be paid to the contiguous design and construction of the local ecological environment. Strengthening the relationship between Xitang, Jinze, and Dianshan Lake in the Hongqitang Clean Water Corridor and the Jiaxing Wusong River Historical and Cultural Belt would not only help to shape the new Jiangnan water town according to a modern style with Jiangnan charm and small town flavor but would also improve the ecological and environmental functions of the entire demonstration area and would promote the development of the landscape aesthetic and environmental sustainability functions.
- (3)
- In view of the unbalanced development between the towns and streets, Jiashan County should maintain a basic compatibility relationship between the production–living–ecological functions and should eliminate the differences between the production–living–ecological functions in the towns and streets as much as possible. It should transform development from compatibility to synergy and divide the identified H-H areas into corresponding functional advantage areas. The L-L areas should be divided into corresponding function improvement areas, the H-L areas should be divided into corresponding function protection advantage areas, and the L-H areas should be divided into corresponding function key improvement areas. In addition, with the Jiaxing Xiangfudang Innovation Center planned in the Yangtze River Delta Ecological and Green Integrated Development Demonstration Zone Territorial Space Master Plan (2021–2035) as the core, a green science and innovation corridor should be created, and administrative barriers and institutional barriers in the demonstration zone should be removed. A new mechanism for regional integration and synergistic development that integrates ecological standards, the sharing of living and production resources, and the integration of management and law enforcement should be established. In addition, in view of the prominent trade-off between the production–living–ecological functions on Huimin Street, it is proposed that Dianshan Lake and Yuandang be taken as ecological green centers, and on the basis of centralized continuous protection and the stability of high-quality cultivated land, part of the cultivated land and/or laid-down cultivated land should be converted into forest land. Lakeside plants should be enriched, the greening rate of the community should be improved, and the integrity and connectivity of the blue and green spaces should be ensured. The appropriate introduction of tourism, leisure, horticultural expos, and other services should be conducted to enhance the production–living–ecological functions according to a synergistic development relationship.
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- The linear growth of the production function and the living function led to a decline in the ecological function, and the individual functions of the ecological function were also gradually degraded. This was mainly due to the excessive emphasis on the improvement of the production and living functions during the recent rapid urbanization of rural areas in Jiashan County. By ignoring the maintenance and sustainable development of ecological functions, this emphasis led to deterioration of the ecological environment, which not only affected the quality of life of the residents but also posed a threat to the long-term development of the region. Healthy urban development should combine ecological protection with economic growth and urbanization efforts. Based on the current analysis of Jiashan County, its planning does not meet this demand. In subsequent development, ecological protection policies should be prioritized, and the economy should be developed only after stable ecology.
- (2)
- The functional relationships of the rural landscape in Jiashan County exhibited significant temporal and spatial changes. The agricultural production function and the landscape aesthetic function consistently maintained a synergistic relationship, whereas the spatial carrying function and the landscape aesthetic function shifted from a trade-off to synergy, promoting industrial adjustment and ecological optimization. However, persistent trade-offs were observed between the landscape aesthetic function and the environmental sustainability function, as well as the ecological trade-off function and the environmental sustainability function. This indicates that short-term aesthetic improvements have not resulted in long-term environmental benefits, highlighting the challenge of balancing aesthetic and sustainability functions for overall regional development.
- (3)
- The spatial synergistic relationships of the rural landscape in Jiashan County exhibited significant geographic differentiation, influenced by geographic location, economic development, and ecological factors. On Huimin Street, the basic production–living–ecological functions displayed a trade-off relationship, unlike other towns and streets, which exhibited major changes. On Weitang, Luoxing, and Huimin Street, the focus on production and living functions overshadowed ecological considerations, particularly in Jiashan County’s old city, where landscape function conflicts remained unresolved. The recent Yangtze River Delta integration strategy and the development of demonstration zones caused the evolution pattern in Xitang and Yaozhuang Towns to shift from synergy to trade-off relationships, reflecting the challenges of balancing rapid development with ecological sustainability.
- (1)
- Ecological restoration and protection: We suggest that wetland restoration projects be implemented to protect and restore local wetland ecosystems, enhance water purification and habitat functions, and promote biodiversity.
- (2)
- Green infrastructure construction: We suggest that the development of green buildings and infrastructure, such as rain gardens and green roofs, be promoted to reduce urban heat island effects and rainwater runoff problems.
- (3)
- Agricultural ecology: We suggest that organic agriculture and ecological agriculture be promoted to reduce the use of fertilizers and pesticides, protect soil and water sources, and improve agricultural sustainability.
- (4)
- Community participation and education: We suggest that environmental awareness education for residents be strengthened to encourage them to participate in ecological protection activities and promote harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.
6. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
PF | Production Function |
LF | Living Function |
EF | Ecological Function |
APF | Agricultural Production Function |
EDF | Economic Development Function |
SCF | Space Carrying Function |
LAF | Landscape Aesthetic Function |
ERF | Ecological Regulation Function |
EMF | Environmental Maintenance Function |
NDVI | Normalized Difference Vegetation Index |
PM2.5 | Particulate Matter 2.5 |
GDP | Gross Domestic Product |
LISA | Local Indicators of Spatial Association |
H-H | High–High |
L-L | Low–Low |
H-L | High–Low |
L-H | Low–High |
References
- Willemen, L.; Hein, L.; Vanmensvoort, E.F.; Verburg, P.H. Space for people, plants, and livestock? Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape functions in a Dutch rural region. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: A synthesis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2007, 16, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, G.; Ge, Y.; Xue, H.; Yang, W.; Shi, Y. Using ecosystem service bundles to detect trade-offs and synergies across urban-rural complexes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 136, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, J.X.; Turner, M.G. Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 12149–12154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Ning, Y. A study on rural urbanization in the suburbs of big cities: A case study of Shanghai. Urban Probl. 1997, 3, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, W. Theoretical and Practical Exploration of Metropolitan Suburb Development. Master’s Thesis, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, J.; Na, L.; Liu, B.; Zou, Y. An ecological service system based study on suburban rural landscape multifunction. Land 2021, 10, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, J. Research on the organic rural renewal strategy of super-city suburbs under the urban-rural integration pattern: A case study of Shanghai’s suburbs and exurbs. Shanghai Urban Plan. Rev. 2023, 4, 62–69. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, J.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Hu, Y.; Wang, Y. Multifunctionality assessment of urban agriculture in Beijing City, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 537, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lautenbach, S.; Kugel, C.; Lausch, A.; Seppelt, R. Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 676–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skalos, J.; Berchova, K.; Pokorny, J.; Vozenilek, V. Landscape water potential as a new indicator for monitoring macrostructural landscape changes. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 36, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; Diarge, R. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Q.; Hu, W.; Zhao, Z. Dynamic analysis of trade-off and synergistic spatio-temporal pattern of cultivated land “three crops” function: A case study of Hubei Province. Econ. Geogr. 2018, 38, 143–153. [Google Scholar]
- De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem function, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 41, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Y. Rural transformation and farmland protection mechanism in China. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2001, 21, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzalez-Redin, J.; Luque, S.; Poggio, L.; Smith, R.; Gimona, A. Spatial Bayesian belief networks as a planning decision tool for mapping ecosystem services trade-offs on forested landscapes. Environ. Res. 2016, 144, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, R. Research on Landscape Planning and Design of Terrace Based on the Integration of Agriculture and Tourism—A Case Study of Huayan Terrace in Youyang. Master’s Thesis, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, H. Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value of Shrub Grass in Hilly and Gully Region of the Loess Plateau in Longzhong. Master’s Thesis, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, D.; Li, K.; Sun, Q.; Wang, Y. Analysis of site community characteristics and landscape function in semi-arid area of Loess Plateau. Chin. Urban For. 2017, 15, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, S.; Lai, Q.; Wang, X.; Chen, X. Cultivated land zoning control in Fujian Province based on the function evaluation and trade-off synergy relationship of “production-living-ecology”. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2019, 39, 271–280. [Google Scholar]
- Zhuo, Z.; Xing, A.; Sun, Z.; Gao, L. Analysis of synergistic development and trade-off of agro-ecosystems in Northeast China. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2018, 26, 892–902. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, Z.; Wu, J.; Gao, Y.; Yuan, S. Landscape function classification based on SOFM network: A case study of Beijing and its surrounding areas. J. Geoinf. Sci. 2012, 14, 800–806. [Google Scholar]
- Ren, G.; Liu, L.; Li, H.; Zhang, X.; Yang, L. Evolution of function trade-off and synergistic relationship of rural landscape in urban suburbs. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2019, 35, 273–285. [Google Scholar]
- The CPC Central Committee; The State Council; CPC Central Committee. The State Council Issued the Yangtze River Delta Regional Integration Development Plan Outline. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2019/content_5462503.htm (accessed on 4 February 2023).
- Shanghai Municipal Government Synergy and Exchange Office. Shanghai What do Together into Neighboring Event. Available online: https://hzjl.sh.gov.cn/n1315/20210210/38b29e403437416e954c7e409a14c3a5.html (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- Under the State Council. The Overall Plan for the Yangtze River Delta Eco-Green Integrated Development Demonstration Zone (2021–2035). Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2023-02/21/content_5742406.htm (accessed on 4 February 2023).
- Ji, S.; Duan, J.; Xue, S.; Zhang, J. Exploration of urban design methods based on spatial gene inheritance: A case study of the living room of Shui Township in Yangtze River Delta integrated Demonstration Zone. City Plan. Rev. 2019, 47, 4–12+48. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.; Peng, Q.; Tang, N.; Li, J.; Wang, X. Spatial and temporal evolution, synergy and tradeoff of cultivated land “production-living-ecological” function from 2005 to 2015: A case study of Shapingba District, Chongqing. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2018, 38, 590–599. [Google Scholar]
- Pan, J.; Li, Z. Spatial trade-off and synergistic effect of ecosystem services in arid inland river basin. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2017, 33, 280–289. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, J. Plan of main function zoning in China. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2015, 70, 186–201. [Google Scholar]
- Millennium, E.A. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; pp. 559–567. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Song, L. Study on the spatial evolution characteristics and driving forces of “production-living-ecology” in western Jilin Province. Areal Res. Dev. 2023, 42, 33–39. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, W.; Yin, L. Evolution and driving mechanism of “three-region spatial pattern” in Northeast China. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2023, 43, 324–336. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W.; Wang, F.; Ma, X.; Xiao, L.; Lin, Y. Spatial and temporal evolution mechanism of land use in ecotype urban tourism complex: A case study of Xixi Wetland. Tour. Trib. 2019, 38, 133–148. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, X.; Liu, J.; Zhang, S.; Ouyang, Z.; Zheng, D. China Multi-Period Land Use and Land Cover Remote Sensing Monitoring Data Set (CNLUCC). Available online: http://www.resdc.cn (accessed on 23 February 2024).
- Van Donkelaar, A.; Hammer, M.S.; Bindle, L.; Brauer, M.; Martin, R.V. Monthly Global Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter and Their Uncertainty. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 15287–15300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WORLDPOP; Bondarenko, M. Individual Countries 1 km UN Adjusted Population Density (2000–2020). Available online: https://hub.worldpop.org/project/categories?id=18 (accessed on 6 February 2024).
- Zhao, J.; Zhao, Y. Synergy/trade-offs and differential optimization of production, living, and ecological functions in the Yangtze River economic Belt, China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 147, 109925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Fang, C. Quantitative identification and analysis of urban ecology-Production-living spatial function. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2016, 71, 49–65. [Google Scholar]
- Mina, M.; Bugmann, H.; Cordonnier, T.; Irauschek, F.; Klopcic, M.; Cailleret, M. Future ecosystem services from European mountain forests under climate change. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 389–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, J.; Lu, H.; Liu, Y.; Hu, Y.; Li, W.; Wu, J. Research progress and prospect of “production-living-ecological” functional landscape at home and abroad. Adv. Earth Sci. 2015, 30, 465–476. [Google Scholar]
- Green, R.E.; Cornell, S.J.; Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Balmford, A. Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 2005, 307, 550–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Target Layer | Criterion Layer | Index Layer | Calculation Method or Index Significance | Index Relationship | Index Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Production function (PF) | Agricultural production function (APF) | Agricultural productivity per capita | Gross value of primary industry/total township population (10,000 yuan/person). | Forward direction | 6.02% |
Agricultural output value per land | Agricultural output value/cultivated land area (yuan/square meter). | Forward direction | 4.53% | ||
Economic development function (EDF) | Industrial contribution rate | (Output value of primary industry + output value of tertiary industry)/township GDP. | Forward direction | 10.94% | |
Township urbanization level | Township construction land/total area of township. | Forward direction | 5.39% | ||
Living function (LF) | Space carrying function (SCF) | Per capita living area | Township construction land area/total population (km2). | Forward direction | 7.25% |
Population density | Reflects the population carrying capacity of the township. | Forward direction | 12.27% | ||
Landscape aesthetic function (LAF) | Landscape connectivity | CONTAG (0, 100%]—The degree of the agglomeration or spread of different patch types in the landscape. The greater the value is, the better the patch connectivity is. | Forward direction | 6.44% | |
Landscape diversity | SHDI [0, +∞)—The larger the value is, the more abundant the patch types and distributions in the landscape are. | Forward direction | 5.60% | ||
Ecological function (EF) | Ecological regulation function (ERF) | NDVI | Reflects the vegetation state of the township. | Forward direction | 23.91% |
Ecological synergy degree | SHEI [0, 1)—A smaller value indicates that the landscape is more dominated by a few dominant types, and a larger value indicates that the distribution of all of the landscape types is more uniform. | Forward direction | 5.80% | ||
Environmental maintenance function (EMF) | PM2.5 | Reflects the degree of air pollution in towns and villages. | Reverse direction | 4.32% | |
Landscape fragmentation | The landscape division index is one of the indicators used to evaluate landscape fragmentation, and it mainly measures the degree of fragmentation of views. | Reverse direction | 7.54% |
Data | Data Source | Application Indicators |
---|---|---|
Multi-period land use/land cover remote sensing monitoring data for China [35] | The multi-period land use/land cover remote sensing monitoring Chinese National Land Use and Cover Change (CNLUCC) database from the Chinese Academy of Sciences has a resolution of 30 m. | Landscape connectivity, landscape diversity index, and landscape fragmentation |
Satellite-derived PM2.5 [36] | The global and regional PM2.5 concentrations are estimated using information from satellite, modeling, and monitoring sources. The aerosol optical depth and simulation [Goddard Earth Observing System with Chemistry (GEOS-Chem)] from multiple satellites (MODIS, VIIRS, MISR, and SeaWiFS) and their respective retrievals (Dark Target, Deep Blue, and MAIAC) are combined to determine the relative uncertainties based on observations using ground-based solar photometers [Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET)] to produce geophysical estimates. This explains most of the differences in the ground-level PM2.5 measurements. Additional information from the PM2.5 measurements is then tallied at a resolution of 0.01°. | PM2.5 |
GDP | The China km grid GDP spatial distribution dataset from the Resources and Environmental Sciences Data Registration and Publication System, Chinese Academy of Sciences (http://www.resdc.cn/DOI (accessed on 16 February 2024)). | GDP |
Population density [37] | China’s 1 km population density dataset was downloaded from WorldPop (https://hub.worldpop.org/ (accessed on 16 February 2024)). | Population density |
Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) | Landsat 7 and Landsat 8 images with a resolution of 30 m were downloaded from NASA, and the NDVI index was calculated in ArcGIS Pro 3.2 (https://www.jiashan.gov.cn/ (accessed on 16 February 2024)). | NDVI |
Administrative boundary data | The base map is from the standard map service system of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and the review number is GS(2023)2767. | \ |
Jiashan County Yearbook for 2001, 2011, and 2021 | Jiashan County Statistics Bureau (https://www.jiashan.gov.cn/ (accessed on 20 February 2024)). | Agricultural earnings, industrial output, and commercial activity |
Category | Feature | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Target layer | PF | 0.043 | 0.091 | 0.108 |
LF | 0.070 | 0.143 | 0.152 | |
EF | 0.310 | 0.087 | 0.102 | |
Criterion layer | APF | 0.020 | 0.050 | 0.052 |
EDF | 0.023 | 0.041 | 0.056 | |
SCF | 0.039 | 0.064 | 0.075 | |
LAF | 0.031 | 0.077 | 0.079 | |
ERF | 0.242 | 0.039 | 0.039 |
Rural Landscape Function Synergy Type | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Correlation Coefficient | p-Value | Correlation Coefficient | p-Value | Correlation Coefficient | p-Value | |
PF-LF | −0.25 | 0.516 | 0.55 | 0.125 | 0.15 | 0.7 |
PF-EF | 0.433 | 0.244 | 0.217 | 0.576 | 0.05 | 0.898 |
LF-EF | −0.15 | 0.7 | −0.117 | 0.765 | −0.567 | 0.112 |
APF-EDF | 0.286 | 0.493 | −0.527 | 0.145 | −0.700 * | 0.036 |
APF-SCF | −0.571 | 0.139 | −0.405 | 0.279 | −0.700 * | 0.036 |
APF-LAF | 0.071 * | 0.008 | 0.720 * | 0.029 | 0.717 * | 0.03 |
APF-ERF | −0.31 * | 0.04 | 0.851 ** | 0.004 | 0.733 * | 0.025 |
APF-EMF | 0.143 | 0.736 | −0.736 * | 0.024 | −0.633 | 0.067 |
EDF-SCF | 0.452 | 0.26 | 0.613 | 0.079 | 0.800 ** | 0.01 |
EDF-LAF | −0.405 | 0.32 | −0.4 | 0.286 | −0.617 | 0.077 |
EDF-ERF | 0.119 | 0.779 | −0.492 | 0.179 | −0.6 | 0.088 |
EDF-EMF | −0.048 | 0.911 | 0.583 | 0.099 | 0.733 * | 0.025 |
SCF-LAF | −0.19 | 0.651 | −0.58 | 0.102 | −0.817 ** | 0.007 |
SCF-ERF | 0.405 | 0.32 | −0.154 | 0.693 | −0.5 | 0.17 |
SCF-EMF | −0.286 | 0.493 | 0.336 | 0.376 | 0.6 | 0.088 |
LAF-ERF | 0.667 | 0.071 | 0.695 * | 0.038 | 0.700 * | 0.036 |
LAF-EMF | −0.786 * | 0.021 | −0.717 * | 0.03 | −0.783 * | 0.013 |
ERF-EMF | −0.952 ** | 0 | −0.915 ** | 0.001 | −0.867 ** | 0.002 |
Rural Landscape Function Synergy Type | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moran’s I | Z-Value | Moran’s I | Z-Value | Moran’s I | Z-Value | |
PF-LF | −0.0863 | −1.0237 | 0.3171 | 2.2568 | −0.1111 | −0.6131 |
PF-EF | 0.1299 | 1.1015 | −0.0957 | −0.3133 | 0.111 | 0.6636 |
LF-EF | −0.2152 | −1.5692 | 0.0288 | −0.0399 | −0.3997 | −2.7636 |
APF-EDF | −0.1333 | −0.424 | 0.1815 | 0.7392 | 0.0323 | −0.2552 |
APF-SCF | 0.0059 | −0.3166 | 0.0097 | −0.2245 | 0.0652 | 0.0348 |
APF-LAF | −0.0398 | −1.6717 | 0.2665 | 1.8745 | 0.2243 | 1.6523 |
APF-ERF | 0.0104 | −0.3515 | 0.2062 | 1.5868 | 0.1796 | 1.3963 |
APF-EMF | −0.0047 | 0.3975 | −0.141 | −1.2271 | −0.179 | −1.397 |
EDF-SCF | −0.0227 | 0.0049 | −0.1681 | −0.5528 | −0.0477 | 0.2823 |
EDF-LAF | −0.1692 | −1.3248 | 0.1249 | 0.4548 | −0.1605 | −1.4015 |
EDF-ERF | −0.134 | −1.0232 | 0.159 | 0.6713 | −0.158 | −1.4562 |
EDF-EMF | 0.156 | 1.1781 | −0.194 | −0.8462 | 0.169 | 1.4948 |
SCF-LAF | 0.044 | 0.3829 | −0.052 | −0.6616 | −0.094 | −0.9531 |
SCF-ERF | −0.0092 | 0.261 | −0.1226 | −1.0871 | −0.1343 | −1.206 |
SCF-EMF | −0.0126 | −0.3724 | 0.1017 | 0.9138 | 0.1243 | 1.1151 |
LAF-ERF | 0.178 | 1.6897 | 0.4774 | 2.7977 | 0.4597 | 2.7344 |
LAF-EMF | −0.1937 | −1.6544 | −0.3953 | −2.4541 | −0.463 | −2.7251 |
ERF-EMF | −0.0638 | −0.984 | −0.241 | −1.781 | −0.3482 | −2.2479 |
Legend | Significance |
---|---|
Non-significant area (compatible) | p > 0.05 indicates a non-significant region, that is, the function of the region is compatible. |
Significant H-H region (synergy) | p < 0.05 indicates a significant region, and there was synergy among the regional functions, as well as synergy in the surrounding areas, so the spatial heterogeneity was small and the relationship was stable. |
Significant L-L region (trade-off) | There were trade-offs between the regional functions, and the surrounding areas also involved trade-offs, so the spatial heterogeneity was small and the relationship was stable. |
Significant L-H region (trade-off—peripheral region is synergistic) | The regional functions were trade-offs, but the surrounding areas were synergistic, so the spatial heterogeneity was large and the relationship was unstable. |
Significant H-L region (synergy—peripheral region exhibits a trade-off) | There was synergy among the regional functions, but the surrounding areas involved trade-offs, so the spatial heterogeneity was large and the relationship was unstable. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gong, S.; Zhang, L.; Pang, J. The Spatial–Temporal Evolution of the Trade-Offs and Synergy between the Suburban Rural Landscape’s Production–Living–Ecological Functions: A Case Study of Jiashan in the Yangtze River Delta Eco-Green Integrated Development Demonstration Zone, China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7439. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177439
Gong S, Zhang L, Pang J. The Spatial–Temporal Evolution of the Trade-Offs and Synergy between the Suburban Rural Landscape’s Production–Living–Ecological Functions: A Case Study of Jiashan in the Yangtze River Delta Eco-Green Integrated Development Demonstration Zone, China. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7439. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177439
Chicago/Turabian StyleGong, Suning, Lin Zhang, and Jun Pang. 2024. "The Spatial–Temporal Evolution of the Trade-Offs and Synergy between the Suburban Rural Landscape’s Production–Living–Ecological Functions: A Case Study of Jiashan in the Yangtze River Delta Eco-Green Integrated Development Demonstration Zone, China" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7439. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177439