Status of land use intensity in China and its impacts on land carrying capacity

doi:10.1007/s11442-017-1383-7

Abstract

Abstract:

Land use intensity quantifies the impacts of human activities on natural ecosystems, which have become the major driver of global environmental change, and thus it serves as an essential measurement for assessing land use sustainability. To date, land-change studies have mainly focused on changes in land cover and their effects on ecological processes, whereas land use intensity has not yet received the attention it deserves and for which spatially-explicit representation studies have only just begun. In this paper, according to the degree and reversibility of surface disturbance by human activities, there are four main classes of land use intensity: artificial land, semi-artificial land, semi-natural land, and natural land. These were further divided into 22 subclasses based on key indicators, such as human population density and the cropping intensity. Land use intensity map of China at a 1-km spatial resolution was obtained based on satellite images and statistical data. The area proportions of artificial land, semi-artificial land, semi-natural land, and natural land were 0.71%, 19.36%, 58.93%, and 21%, respectively. Human and economic carrying capacity increased with the increase of land use intensity. Artificial land supports 24.58% and 35.62% of the total population and GDP, using only 0.71% of the total land, while semi-artificial land supported 58.24% and 49.61% of human population and GDP with 19.36% of China’s total land area.

Key words: land use intensity, land carrying capacity, classification system, spatial pattern

Huimin YAN, Fang LIU, Jiyuan LIU, Xiangming XIAO, Yuanwei QIN. Status of land use intensity in China and its impacts on land carrying capacity[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2017, 27(4): 387-402.

Figures/Tables 8

Table 1

Land use intensity classification system"

Class	Subclass	Description
Artificial land (Built-up land)	Urban	Dense built environments with very high population density
Artificial land (Built-up land)	Village and others	Rural settlements, factories, and transportation facilities with high population but fragmented landscape
Semi-artificial land (Cropland)	Triple-cropping paddy	Cropland mainly for triple paddy rice
	Double-cropping paddy	Cropland mainly for double paddy rice
	Single-cropping paddy	Cropland mainly for single paddy rice
	Irrigated triple-cropping dryland	Dryland mainly for irrigated triple crop
	Irrigated double-cropping dryland	Dryland mainly for irrigated double crop
	Irrigated single-cropping dryland	Dryland mainly for irrigated single crop
	Rain-fed triple-cropping dryland	Rain-fed dryland with triple cropping
	Rain-fed double-cropping dryland	Rain-fed dryland with double cropping
	Rain-fed single-cropping dryland	Rain-fed dryland with single cropping
	Fallow land	Cropland left idle during the growing season
Semi-natural land (Forest, Grassland, Water body)	High intensity forest	Forest with high human population density (>100 persons/km²)
	Low intensity forest	Forest with low human population density (1-100 persons/km²)
	Natural forest	Forest with negligible human population density (>1 person/km²)
	High intensity grassland	Grassland with high livestock population density (>10 TLU/km²)
	Low intensity grassland	Grassland with low livestock population density (1-10 TLU /km²)
	Natural grasslandl water	Grassland with negligible livestock population density (<1 TLU /km²)
	High intensity water body	Water body located in county with high human population density (>100 persons/km²)
	Low intensity water body	Water body located in county with low human population density (1-100 persons/km²)
	Natural water body	Water body located in county with negligible human population density (<1 person/km²)
Natural land (Unused land)	Unused land	Sandy land, Gobi, salina, wetland, bare soil and bare rock

Table 1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

References 55

[56]	Zhang F G, Hao J M, Jiang G H et al., 2005. Spatial-temporal variance of urban land use intensity.China Land Science, 19(1): 23-29. (in Chinese)
[57]	Zhang H Y, Fan J W, Shao Q Q, 2015. Land use/land cover change in the grassland restoration program areas in China, 2000-2010.Progress in Geography, 34(7): 840-853. (in Chinese) doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2015.07.006
[1]	Allan E, Bossdorf O, Dormann C F et al., 2014. Interannual variation in land-use intensity enhances grassland multidiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(1): 308-313. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1312213111
[2]	Anderson J R, Hardy E E, Roach J T et al., 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 964.
[3]	Blüthgen N, Dormann C F, Prati D et al., 2012. A quantitative index of land-use intensity in grasslands: Integrating mowing, grazing and fertilization. Basic and Applied Ecology, 13(3): 207-220. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2012.04.001
[4]	Boserup E, 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. Chicago: Aldine Press.
[5]	Briske D D, Zhao M L, Han G D et al., 2015. Strategies to alleviate poverty and grassland degradation in Inner Mongolia: Intensification vs production efficiency of livestock systems.Journal of Environmental Management, 152: 177-182. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.036 pmid: 25687702
[6]	Burney J A, Davis S J, Lobell D B, 2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(26): 12052-12057. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0914216107
[7]	Chen Y Q, Li X B, 2009. Structural change of agricultural land use intensity and its regional disparity in China.Acta Geographica Sinica, 64(4): 469-478. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1007/s11442-009-0545-7
[8]	Dai Y D, Zhu Y Z, 2013. Remodeling energy for sustainable development in China.Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2: 239-246. (in Chinese)
[9]	Ellis E C, Klein Goldewijk K, Siebert S et al., 2010. Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000.Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19(5): 589-606. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00540.x
[10]	Ellis E C, Ramankutty N, 2008. Putting people in the map: Anthropogenic biomes of the world.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(8): 439-447. doi: 10.1890/070062
[11]	Erb K H, Haberl H, Rudbeck M, 2013. A conceptual framework for analysing and measuring land-use intensity.Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5): 464-470. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.010 pmid: 3798045
[12]	Erb K, Niedertscheider M, Dietrich J P et al., 2014. Conceptual and empirical approaches to mapping and quantifying land-use intensity. In: Fischer-Kowalski M, Reenberg A, Schaffartzik A et al., eds. Ester Boserup’s Legacy on Sustainability. New York: Springer, 61-86. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-8678-2_5
[13]	Fang C L, Wang Y, 2015. A comprehensive assessment of urban vulnerability and its spatial differentiation in China.Acta Geographica Sinica, 70(2): 234-247. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1007/s11442-016-1260-9
[14]	FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistical Databases), 2011. FAOSTAT, FAO Statistical Databases: Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry, Nutrition.
[15]	Foley J A, Ramankutty N, Brauman K A et al., 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet.Nature, 478: 337-342. doi: 10.1038/nature10452
[16]	Friedl M A, Sulla-Menashe D, Tan B et al., 2010. MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets.Remote Sensing of Environment, 114(1): 168-182. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.016
[17]	Green R E, Cornell S J, Scharlemann J P W et al., 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature.Science, 307(5709): 550-555. doi: 10.1126/science.1106049
[18]	Hao H G, Li X B, 2011. Agricultural land use intensity and its determinants in ecologically-vulnerable areas in North China: a case study of Taipusi County, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.Journal of Resource Ecology, 2(2): 117-125. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-764x.2011.02.003
[19]	Hua X B, Yan J Z, Wang Q et al., 2013. Comparative analysis on influencing factors of cultivated land use intensity in valley and middle mountain area of upper Dadu River watershed.Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 29(20): 234-244. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2013.20.031
[20]	Jiang L, Deng X Z, Seto K C, 2013. The impact of urban expansion on agricultural land use intensity in China.Land Use Policy, 35: 33-39. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.011
[21]	Kuemmerle T, Erb K, Meyfroidt P et al., 2013. Challenges and opportunities in mapping land use intensity globally.Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5): 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.02.003
[22]	Laliberté E, Wells J, DeClerck F et al., 2010. Land use intensification reduces functional redundancy and response diversity in plant communities.Ecology Letters, 13(1): 76-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01403.x pmid: 19917052
[23]	Lambin E F, Rounsevell M D A, Geist H J, 2000. Are agricultural land-use models able to predict changes in land-use intensity?Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 82(1-3): 321-331. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00235-8
[24]	Lambin E F, Turner B L, Geist H J et al., 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths.Global Environmental Change, 11(4): 261-269. doi: 10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3
[25]	Li G D, Fang C L, 2014. Quantitative measure and influencing mechanism of land intensive use in China at the county level.Acta Geographica Sinica, 69(12): 1739-1752. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11821/dlxb201412001
[26]	Li H M, Aide T M, Ma Y X et al., 2007. Demand for rubber is causing the loss of high diversity rain forest in SW China.Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(6): 1731-1745. doi: 10.1007/s10531-006-9052-7
[27]	Liu C W, Li X B, 2006. The changing characteristics of the agricultural land use intensity in China based on the production cost.Journal of Natural Resources, 21(1): 9-15. (in Chinese)
[28]	Liu J Y, Kuang W H, Zhang Z X et al., 2014. Spatiotemporal characteristics, patterns, and causes of land-use changes in China since the late 1980s.Journal of Geographical Sciences, 24(2): 195-210. doi: 10.1007/s11442-014-1082-6
[29]	Liu J Y, Zhang Z X, Xu X L et al., 2010. Spatial patterns and driving factors of land use change in China during the early 21st century.Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20(4): 483-494. doi: 10.1007/s11442-010-0483-4
[30]	Pahari K, Murai S, 1999. Modelling for prediction of global deforestation based on the growth of human population.The ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 54(5/6): 317-324. doi: 10.1016/S0924-2716(99)00032-5
[31]	Petz K, Alkemade R, Bakkenes M et al., 2014. Mapping and modelling trade-offs and synergies between grazing intensity and ecosystem services in rangelands using global-scale datasets and models.Global Environmental Change, 29: 223-234. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.007
[32]	Pittman K, Hansen M C, Becker-Reshef I et al., 2010. Estimating global cropland extent with multi-year MODIS data.Remote Sensing, 2(7): 1844-1863. doi: 10.3390/rs2071844
[33]	Robinson T P, Wint G R W, Conchedda G et al., 2014. Mapping the global distribution of livestock.PLoS One, 9(5): 1-3. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096084 pmid: 24875496
[34]	Sala O E, Chapin F S, Armesto J J et al., 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100.Science, 287(5459): 1770-1774. doi: 10.1126/science.287.5459.1770
[35]	Shriar A J, 2005. Determinants of agricultural intensity index “scores” in a frontier region: An analysis of data from northern Guatemala.Agriculture and Human Values, 22(4): 395-410. doi: 10.1007/s10460-005-3395-7
[36]	Song X Q, Ouyang Z, 2012. Key influences factors of food security guarantee in China during 1999-2007.Acta Geographica Sinica, 67(6): 793-803. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11821/xb201206007
[37]	Stone G D, 2001. Theory of the square chicken: Advances in agricultural intensification theory.Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 2001, 42(2/3): 163-180. doi: 10.1111/1467-8373.00142
[38]	Thenkabail P S, Biradar C M, Noojipady P et al., 2009. Global Irrigated Area Map (GIAM), derived from remote sensing, for the end of the last millennium. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 30(14): 3679-3733. doi: 10.1080/01431160802698919
[39]	Thenkabail P S, Hanjra M A, Dheeravath V et al., 2011. Global croplands and their water use remote sensing and non-remote sensing perspectives. In: Weng Q H eds. Advances in Environmental Remote Sensing: Sensors, Algorithms, and Applications. Florida: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 383-419. doi: 10.1201/b10599-20
[40]	Václavík T, Lautenbach S, Kuemmerle T et al., 2013. Mapping global land system archetypes.Global Environmental Change, 23(6): 1637-1647. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.004
[41]	van Asselen S, Verburg P H, 2012. A land system representation for global assessments and land-use modeling.Global Change Biology, 18(10): 3125-3148. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02759.x pmid: 28741836
[42]	Verburg P H, Erb K H, Mertz O et al., 2013. Land system science: Between global challenges and local realities.Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5): 433-437. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.08.001 pmid: 24851141
[43]	Verburg P H, Mertz O, Erb K H et al., 2013. Land system change and food security: towards multi-scale land system solutions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5): 494-502. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.003 pmid: 3798044
[44]	Verburg P H, Van de Steeg J, Veldkamp A et al., 2009. From land cover change to land function dynamics: A major challenge to improve land characterization.Journal of Environmental Management, 90(3): 1327-1335. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.005 pmid: 18809242
[45]	Wu Y L, Qu F T, 2007. Mechanism of intensive urban land use in china: Theoretical and practical study.Resources Science, 29(6): 106-113. (in Chinese)
[46]	Xiao X M, Hollinger D, Aber J et al., 2004a. Satellite-based modeling of gross primary production in an evergreen needleleaf forest.Remote Sensing Environment, 89(4): 519-534. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2003.11.008
[47]	Xiao X M, Zhang Q Y, Braswell B et al., 2004b. Modeling gross primary production of temperate deciduous broadleaf forest using satellite images and climate data.Remote Sensing of Environment, 91(2): 256-270. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2004.03.010
[48]	Xie Y, Jiang Q B, 2016. Land arrangements for rural-urban migrant workers in China: Findings from Jiangsu Province.Land Use Policy, 50: 262-267. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.010
[49]	Xu M Y, 2014. A review of grassland carrying capacity: Perspective and dilemma for research in China on forage-livestock balance.Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 23(5): 321-329. (in Chinese)
[50]	Xu X L, Shi P J, Yang M C, 2003. The impact of the national land policy on the sustainable arable land use in China since 1949. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Science Edition), 2: 115-123. (in Chinese)
[51]	Yan H M, Huang H Q, Xiao X M et al., 2008. Spatio-temporal distribution of multiple cropping system s in the Poyang Lake region.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 28(9): 4517-4523. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1509/jimk.16.3.108
[52]	Yan H M, Xiao X M, Huang H Q et al., 2014. Multiple cropping intensity in China derived from agro-meteorological observations and MODIS data.Chinese Geographical Science, 24(2): 205-219. doi: 10.1007/s11769-013-0637-2
[53]	Yan H M, Xiao X M, Huang H Q, 2010. Satellite observed crop calendar and its spatio-temporal characteristics in multiple cropping area of Huang-Huai-Hai Plain.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 30(9): 2416-2423. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1016/S1872-5813(11)60001-7
[54]	Yao C S, Huang L, Lü X et al, 2014. Temporal and spatial change of cultivated land use intensity in China based on emergy theory. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 30(8): 1-12. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.08.001
[58]	Zhu H Y, Sun M H, 2014. Main progress in the research on land use intensification.Acta Geographica Sinica, 69(9): 1346-1357. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11821/dlxb201409008
[55]	Yu L, Wang J, Clinton N et al., 2013. FROM-GC: 30 m global cropland extent derived through multisource data integration.International Journal of Digital Earth, 6(6): 521-533. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2013.822574

Regions	Artificial land	Semi-artificial land	Semi-natural land	Natural land
Northeast Region	13.20	17.88	10.12	2.20
Inner Mongolia and the Great Wall Region	5.42	8.74	10.22	2.87
Huang-Huai-Hai Region	35.57	19.22	1.09	0.11
Loess Plateau Region	5.10	8.81	4.23	0.07
Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River Region	15.98	18.81	10.80	0.10
Southwest Region	4.64	14.65	12.99	0.03
South China Region	13.62	6.15	6.56	0.02
Gan-Xin Region	5.78	5.07	12.89	70.93
Qinghai-Tibet Region	0.70	0.66	31.09	23.67