Optimal Simulation of the Land-Use Structure Based on the Local Ecological Environment: the Case of Huanghua City in Hebei Province, China

Chen, Ying; Cui, Jianghui; He, Ling; Men, Mingxin

doi:10.1590/18069657rbcs20180063

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Division – Soil Use and Management, Commission – Soil and Water Management and Conservation • Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 43 • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/18069657rbcs20180063 copy

Optimal Simulation of the Land-Use Structure Based on the Local Ecological Environment: the Case of Huanghua City in Hebei Province, China

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The overuse of land has resulted in a sharp decline in ecological functions, affecting the environment as it relates to the existence and sustainable development of the whole biosphere. This work aims to evaluate the ecological and economic efficiencies of the land-use structure. A simulation model, CLUE-S (Conversion of Land-Use and its Effects at Small Region Extent), and an integrated model based on the MOP (Multi-Objective Program) and CLUE-S were applied to assess the suitability of unutilized lands in Huanghua City, China. This was to simulate the optimal structure of land-use in the research zone to avoid loss of the land ecological service functions and the decreasing values with rapid changes in the land-use structure. By the year 2020, the simulation of the single model shows that the economic efficiency is expected to increase, but the ecological efficiency will decline. Depending on the evaluation of the suitability of unutilized land and the optimization results of the integrated MOP- and CLUE-S-based models, the ecological and economic efficiencies are expected to increase by 1.17 and 2.23 %, respectively, compared with those in 2012. In addition, the sum of the two land functions will increase for the integrated MOP- and CLUE-S-based model by the year 2020 compared with the single model. Consequently, the ecological efficiency will significantly increase. However, the optimization solution based on the integrated MOP and CLUE-S model is better than the one based on the CLUE-S model.

CLUE-S model; MOP model; evaluation of suitability; ecological efficiency

Evaluation factor	Grading standard

	1	2	3	4
Texture of surface soil	gravelly soil	sandy soil	medium loam, clay	light loam
Configuration of soil	sandy soil/clay/sandy soil, loam/sandy soil/sandy soil, whole-body sandy soil	clay/sandy soil/clay	loam/clay/clay, loam/sandy soil/loam, sandy soil/clay/clay/	whole-body loam
Salt content of soil (g kg^-1)	≥6	4-6	2-4	<2
Groundwater depth (m)	0-2	1.6-2.2	2.2-2.6	≥2.6
Vegetation coverage	<0.2	0.2-0.5	0.5-0.8	>0.8
Organic content (g kg^-1)	<5	5-10	10-15	≥15

Evaluation factor	Grading standard

	1	2	3	4
Organic content (g kg^-1)	<5	5-10	10-15	≥15
Groundwater depth (m)	0-2	1.6-2.2	2.2-2.6	≥2.6
Texture of surface soil	gravelly soil	sandy soil	medium loam, clay	light loam
Salt content of soil (g kg^-1)	≥6	4-6	2-4	<2
Urban influence distance (m)	>3,000	2,000-3,000	1,000-2,000	<1000

Evaluation factor	Grading standard

	1	2	3	4
Geological disaster	highly vulnerable zone	moderately vulnerable zone	less vulnerable zone	invulnerable zone
Bearing capacity of foundation soil (kPa m^-2)	100-200	200-300	300-400	400-500
Vegetation coverage	>0.8	0.5-0.8	0.2-0.5	<0.2
Groundwater depth (m)	0-2	1.6-2.2	2.2-2.6	≥2.6
Urban influence distance (m^-1)	3000	2,000-3,000	1,000-2,000	<1000
Road influence distance (m)	>500	200-500	100-200	<100

Type of lands	Cultivated land	Garden parcel	Grass land	Urban land	Land for water area	Other lands
Cultivated land	0.74	0.07	0.02	0.11	0.02	0.04
Garden parcel	0.44	0.27	0.06	0.13	0.01	0.08
Grassland	0.20	0.07	0.47	0.07	0.03	0.17
Urban land	0.27	0.04	0.01	0.66	0.01	0.02
Land for water area	0.27	0.04	0.01	0.13	0.52	0.03
Other lands	0.38	0.07	0.17	0.08	0.04	0.26

Transformational rules	Cultivated land	Garden parcel	Grass land	Urban land	Water area	Other lands
Cultivated land	1	1	1	1	1	1
Garden parcel	1	1	1	1	1	1
Grass land	1	1	1	1	1	1
Urban land	0	0	0	1	0	0
Water area	1	1	1	1	1	1
Unutilized land	1	1	1	1	1	1

Efficiencies		Cultivated land	Garden parcel	Grass land	Water area	Construction land	Unutilized land

Class I	Class II
Supply service	Food production	902.6	180.54	88.5	180.54	8.98	8.98
Supply service	Raw materials	90.27	1,195.85	2,300.60	36.06	0	0
Regulation service	Gas regulation	451.25	1,940.5	3,097.00	812.28	0	0
	Climate regulation	803.25	1,624.61	2,389.10	7,924.33	0	0
	Water conservation	541.52	1,805.09	2,831.50	1,6191.68	27.03	27.03
	Waste disposal	1,480.22	1,182.38	1,159.20	16,408.33	8.97	8.98
Support service	Maintain soil	1,317.74	2,639.96	3,450.90	776.17	18.05	18.05
Support service	Maintain biodiversity	640.76	1,963.04	2,884.60	2,251.91	306.82	306.82
Cultural service	Provide aesthetic landscape and cultural entertainment	8.98	595.68	1,132.60	4,463.06	8.97	8.98
	Total	6,236.59	13,127.66	1,9334.0	98,088.71	378.82	378.83

Transformational rules	Cultivated land	Garden parcel	Grass land	Urban land	Water area	Unutilized land suitable for cultivation	Unutilized land suitable for construction	Unutilized land suitable for ecosystem
Cultivated land	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Garden parcel	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0
Grass land	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
Urban land	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
Water area	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Unutilized land suitable for cultivation	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1
Unutilized land suitable for construction	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	1
Unutilized land suitable for ecosystem	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1

Variables	2012	Simulation solution for optimization of CLUE-S single model		Simulation solution for integration and optimization of dual model

		2020	Rate of change	2020	Rate of change
			%		%
Area of cultivated land (ha)	76875.73	79891.23	3.92	80937.16	5.28
Area of garden parcel (ha)	5364.85	6357.42	18.50	7345.84	36.93
Area of grass land (ha)	114.91	174.01	51.43	177.52	54.49
urban land (ha)	55582.53	57011.75	2.57	56471.33	1.60
Water area (ha)	64564.62	61140.47	−5.30	64487.26	−0.12
Total area of unutilized land (ha)	36633.54	34561.3	−5.66	29717.07	−18.88
Ecological efficiency (CNY 10 million)	501.87	493.47	−1.67	507.73	1.17
Economic efficiency (CNY 10 million)	1363.64	1401.39	2.77	1394.00	2.23

Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo Secretaria Executiva , Caixa Postal 231, 36570-000 Viçosa MG Brasil, Tel.: (55 31) 3899 2471 - Viçosa - MG - Brazil
E-mail: sbcs@ufv.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author: E-mail: mingxinmencn@sina.com