Spatial Patterns and Driving Forces of Conflicts among the Three Land Management Red Lines in China: A Case Study of the Wuhan Urban Development Area
Yang Zhang,
Yanfang Liu,
Yan Zhang,
Xuesong Kong,
Ying Jing,
Enxiang Cai,
Lingyu Zhang,
Yi Liu,
Zhengyu Wang and
Yaolin Liu
Additional contact information
Yang Zhang: School of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
Yanfang Liu: School of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
Yan Zhang: School of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
Xuesong Kong: School of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
Ying Jing: School of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
Enxiang Cai: College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China
Lingyu Zhang: School of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
Yi Liu: School of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
Zhengyu Wang: School of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
Yaolin Liu: School of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
Sustainability, 2019, vol. 11, issue 7, 1-17
Abstract:
The delimitation of three land management red lines (LMRLs), which refers to urban growth boundaries (UGBs), ecological protection redlines (EPRs), and basic farmland protection zones (BFPZs), has been regarded as a control method for promoting sustainable urban development in China. However, in many Chinese cities, conflicts extensively exist among the three LMRLs in terms of spatial partitioning. This study clarifies the connotation of conflicts among the three LMRLs. Moreover, a red line conflict index (RLCI) is established to characterize the intensity of conflicts among the three LMRLs. The Wuhan Urban Development Area (WUDA) is used for a case study, in which the spatial patterns of the three types of conflicts among the three LMRLs (i.e., conflicts between EPRs and BFPZs, EPRs and UGBs, and UGBs and BFPZs) are analyzed through numerous spatial statistical analysis methods (including spatial autocorrelation, urban-rural gradient, and landscape pattern analyses). In addition, the driving forces of these conflicts are identified from the perspectives of natural physics, socioeconomic development, neighborhood, policy and planning using three binary logistic regression models. Results show that the conflicts between EPRs and BFPZs, EPRs and UGBs, and UGBs and BFPZs are mainly distributed on the edge of the WUDA, inside Wuhan’s third circulation line, and at the urban–rural transition zone, respectively. The patch of conflict between BFPZs and UGBs has the lowest aggregation degree, the highest fragmentation degree, and the most complex shape. Logistic regression results show that the combination and relative importance of driving factors vary in the three types of conflicts among the three LMRLs. In the conflict between EPRs and BFPZs, the distance to city centers is the most important influencing factor, followed by the proportion of ecological land and elevation. In the conflict between UGBs and EPRs, the proportion of construction land, the distance to city centers, and whether the land unit is within the scope of a restricted development zone are the three most important factors. The proportion of construction land, the distances to the Yangtze and Han Rivers, and the proportion of cultivated land significantly influence the conflict between UGBs and BFPZs. This study aids in our understanding of the causes and mechanisms of conflicts among the three LMRLs, and provides important information for the “integration of multi-planning” and land management in Wuhan and similar cities.
Keywords: driving forces; logistic regression; conflicts among three LMRLs; three basic spaces; “Integration of multi-planning”; China (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)
Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2025/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2025/ (text/html)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:2025-:d:220249
Access Statistics for this article
Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu
More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager (indexing@mdpi.com).