Quantify the landscape effect and environmental sustainability of rural region planning at town scale near metropolis

Abstract

The urban fringe, which can be seen as a special form of regional ecosystem with a spatial transition from urban to rural areas, has strong heterogeneity and is a typical ecologically sensitive area. The expansion of cities and the landscape effect of the changes have attracted wide attention. The primary aim of this study is to obtain an understanding of the spatial patterns of landscape conversion and the corresponding environmental sustainability. With the help of GIS and Fragstats software, the changes of landscape patterns before and after town planning were compared in An-Ding town of Beijing, of which the sustainability was also revealed based on the ecological footprint using social and economic statistic data. The results showed that the landscape pattern changed greatly during its conversion from several villages to a small town and the landscape fragmentation increased due to road construction. Meanwhile, human disturbance increased with the constructed land extension. For the gap between the ecological footprint and the biological capacity, An-Ding town ran an ecological deficit at that period, which means it was unsustainable. However, the environmental sustainability decreased after planning due to the degraded green land and forest. The results suggested that ecological management should be strengthened during the town planning period.

Keywords

environmental sustainability / landscape / ecological footprint / ecological capacity / town development

References

[1] Fu B J, Chen L D, Ma G M, Wang Y L (2001). Theory and Application of Landscape Ecology. Beijing: Science Press (in Chinese)

[2] Li H, Zhang F R, Sun D F, Zhou L D (2005). The application of ecological footprint to evaluate ecological sustainability for mountainous area–ake Beijing western mountainous area as an example. Journal of Mountain Science, 23(5): 636–640 (in Chinese)

[3] McManus P, Haughton G (2006). Planning with ecological footprints: a sympathetic critique of theory and practice. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1): 113–127

[4] Mu F Y, Zhang Z X, Liu B, Wang C Y, Tan W B (2007). Remote sensed monitoring of land use change in Beijing based on TM images and “Beijing-1”. Ecology and Environment, 1: 94–101 (in Chinese)

[5] Rees W E (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2): 121–130

[6] Rees W E (1996). Revisiting carrying capacity: area-based indicators of sustainability. Population and Environment, 17: 195–215

[7] Wackernagel M, Lewan L, Borgstróm Hansson C (1999). Evaluating the use of natural capital with the ecological footprint—applications in Sweden and subregions. Ambio, 28: 604–611

[8] Wackeragel M, Ree W (1996). Our ecological footprint-reducing human impact on the earth gabriola island. New Society Publishers, 61–83

[9] Wackernagel M, Schulz N B, Deumling D, Linares A C, Jenkins M, Kapos V, Monfreda C, Loh J, Myers N, Norgaard R, Randers J (2002). Tracking the ecological over shoot of the human economy. PNAS, 99(14): 9266–9271

[10] World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press

[11] Wu J G (2000). Landscape Ecology: Patten, Process, Scale and Hierarchy. Beijing: Higher Education Press (in Chinese)

[12] Yang X Y, Yan D H, Cheng F (2005). Study on landscape effects from cultivated land consolidation. Journal of Natural Resources, 20(4): 572–580 (in Chinese)

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 40871237, 30700106).

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg