Cultivated land change in the Belt and Road Initiative region

doi:10.1007/s11442-018-1530-9

Abstract

Abstract:

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)-a development strategy proposed by China - provides unprecedented opportunities for multi-dimensional communication and cooperation across Asia, Africa and Europe. In this study, we analyse the spatio-temporal changes in cultivated land in the BRI countries (64 in total) to better understand the land use status of China along with its periphery for targeting specific collaboration. We apply FAO statistics and GlobeLand30 (the world’s finest land cover data at a 30-m resolution), and develop three indicator groups (namely quantity, conversion, and utilization degree) for the analysis. The results show that cultivated land area in the BRI region increased 3.73×10⁴ km² between 2000 and 2010. The increased cultivated land was mainly found in Central and Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, while the decreased cultivated land was mostly concentrated in China. Russia ranks first with an increase of 1.59×10⁴ km² cultivated land area, followed by Hungary (0.66×10⁴ km²) and India (0.57×10⁴ km²). China decreased 1.95×10⁴ km² cultivated land area, followed by Bangladesh (-0.22×10⁴ km²) and Thailand (-0.22×10⁴ km²). Cultivated land was mainly transferred to/from forest, grassland, artificial surfaces and bare land, and transfer types in different regions have different characteristics: while large amount of cultivated land in China was converted to artificial surfaces, considerable forest was converted to cultivated land in Southeast Asia. The increase of multi-cropping index dominated the region except the Central and Eastern Europe, while the increase of fragmentation index was prevailing in the region except for a few South Asian countries. Our results indicate that the negative consequence of cultivated land loss in China might be underestimated by the domestic-focused studies, as none of its close neighbours experienced such obvious cultivated land losses. Nevertheless, the increased cultivated land area in Southeast Asia and the extensive cultivated land use in Ukraine and Russia imply that the regional food production would be greatly improved if China’ “Go Out policy” would help those countries to intensify their cultivated land use.

Key words: spatio-temporal change, land conversion, intensification, multi-cropping, fragmentation, GlobeLand30

Di CHEN, Qiangyi YU, Qiong HU, Mingtao XIANG, Qingbo ZHOU, Wenbin WU. Cultivated land change in the Belt and Road Initiative region[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(11): 1580-1594.

Figures/Tables 13

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Table S1

Table S2

Cultivated land area change (104 km2) and changing rate (%) of seven geographical zones and each country in the BRI region between 2000 and 2010"

Geographical zone	Country		Area change	Area changing rate
East Asia	China		-1.95	-0.95
	Mongolia		-0.03	-2.00
	Subtotal		-1.98	-0.96
Central Asia	Kazakhstan		0.17	0.40
	Turkmenistan		0.17	4.87
	Tajikistan		0.02	1.86
	Uzbekistan		-0.06	-0.89
	Kyrgyzstan		0.02	0.92
	Subtotal		0.31	0.55
West Asia	Armenia		0.0001	0.02
	Syrian		-0.003	-0.04
	Lebanese		-0.02	-7.31
	Afghanistan		0.21	3.57
	Iraq		-0.001	-0.01
	Kuwait		0.001	2.39
	Jordan		-0.05	-11.18
Geographical zone	Country	Area change				Area changing rate
	Bahrain	-0.00003				-0.96
	Qatar	0.00005				0.35
	Georgia	-0.01				-0.58
	Israel	-0.12				-18.92
	Iran	0.32				1.40
	Yemen	-0.04				-3.16
	Saudi Arabia	0.08				2.97
	United Arab Emirates	0.01				6.44
	Turkey	-0.04				-0.15
	Oman	0.02				10.50
	Azerbaijan	0.10				3.20
	Subtotal	0.44				0.52
Southeast Asia	Brunei	0.0006				15.83
	East Timor	0.0007				1.78
	Laos	0.24				12.24
	Singapore	0.0006				5.07
	Cambodia	0.28				4.78
	Myanmar	0.10				0.64
	Thailand	-0.22				-0.82
	Indonesia	0.42				1.67
	Malaysia	0.01				0.49
	Vietnam	0.21				1.68
	Philippines	0.003				0.05
	Subtotal	1.05				1.11
South Asia	Maldives	0.00				0.00
	Sri Lanka	0.06				3.28
	Pakistan	0.27				1.01
	India	0.57				0.29
	Bangladesh	-0.22				-2.53
	Nepal	-0.01				-0.25
	Bhutan	0.02				20.25
	Subtotal	0.69				0.29
North Africa	Egypt	0.35				8.75
	Subtotal	0.35				8.75
Central and Eastern Europe	Estonia	0.003				0.18
	Latvia	-0.03				-1.03
	Lithuania	-0.02				-0.47
	Belarus	-0.18				1.72
	Poland	-0.08				-0.39
Geographical zone	Country		Area change		Area changing rate
	Czech		-0.003		-0.06
	Slovakia		-0.01		-0.42
	Moldova		0.003		0.12
	Hungary		0.66		11.69
	Slovenia		-0.004		-0.59
	Romania		0.39		2.98
	Serbia		0.01		0.13
	Ukraine		0.50		1.25
	Bosnia and Herzegovina		-0.01		-0.45
	Croatia		0.01		0.58
	Bulgaria		0.02		0.35
	Macedonia		-0.001		-0.15
	Albania		0.004		0.55
	Russia		1.59		1.02
	Montenegro		-0.0004		-0.15
	Subtotal		2.86		1.02
The BRI region	Total		3.73		0.39

Table S2

Table S3

Share (%) of cultivated land converted into other land cover types, and other land cover types converted into cultivated land in the BRI region between 2000 and 2010"

Geographical zone	Country	Cultivated land converted OUT				Cultivated land converted IN
Geographical zone	Country	(to) forest	(to) grassland	(to) artificial surfaces	(to) bare land	(from) forest	(from) grassland	(from) artificial surfaces	(from) bare land
East Asia	China	1.22	1.41	1.77	0.04	1.33	1.28	0.72	0.20
	Mongolia	0.04	5.21	0.02	0.01	0.08	3.22	0.01	0.04
	Subtotal	1.22	1.43	1.76	0.04	1.32	1.30	0.72	0.20
Central Asia	Kazakhstan	0.15	3.83	0.09	0.02	0.30	3.85	0.03	0.19
	Turkmenistan	0.02	4.05	0.61	0.50	0.13	3.16	0.65	5.32
	Tajikistan	0.04	2.86	1.40	0.28	0.10	3.44	1.18	1.31
	Uzbekistan	0.01	2.12	1.61	0.24	0.10	1.44	0.96	0.50
	Kyrgyzstan	0.01	0.85	0.56	0.05	0.13	1.62	0.13	0.37
	Subtotal	0.12	3.51	0.36	0.08	0.25	3.42	0.22	0.58
West Asia	Armenia	0.31	1.91	0.76	0.00	3.83	15.05	0.87	0.07
	Syrian	0.00	0.12	0.02	0.00	0.07	0.02	0.01	0.00
	Lebanese	0.97	8.80	0.51	0.19	0.97	1.50	0.80	0.16
	Afghanistan	0.01	3.31	0.16	1.03	0.11	2.66	0.10	4.66
	Iraq	0.02	0.05	0.02	0.11	0.01	0.03	0.02	0.10
	Kuwait	0.01	0.09	1.48	5.08	0.09	0.41	0.63	7.69
	Jordan	0.66	9.03	0.44	5.65	0.27	1.28	0.67	2.89
	Bahrain	0.00	0.00	1.93	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.99	0.00
Geographical zone	Country	Cultivated land converted OUT				Cultivated land converted IN
Geographical zone	Country	(to) forest	(to) grassland	(to) artificial surfaces	(to) bare land	(from) forest	(from) grassland	(from) artificial surfaces	(from) bare land
	Qatar	0.05	0.35	0.25	3.43	0.02	0.20	0.04	4.05
	Georgia	0.73	2.24	1.13	0.00	4.84	4.25	0.92	0.00
	Israel	4.28	14.16	1.34	3.92	0.55	1.10	2.59	1.20
	Iran	0.06	1.67	0.22	0.85	0.14	1.80	0.16	1.34
	Yemen	0.10	1.17	0.08	2.93	0.10	0.11	0.15	1.08
	Saudi Arabia	0.01	0.09	0.50	4.75	0.06	0.36	0.23	7.26
	United Arab Emirates	0.04	0.00	0.85	3.98	0.14	0.02	0.24	10.11
	Turkey	0.55	1.17	0.20	0.00	0.49	1.12	0.11	0.00
	Oman	0.00	0.00	1.69	1.06	1.60	0.00	0.60	9.59
	Azerbaijan	0.22	2.40	0.70	0.00	1.61	11.83	0.71	0.02
	Subtotal	0.28	1.44	0.24	0.59	0.43	1.74	0.18	1.03
Southeast Asia	Brunei	4.78	0.06	0.09	0.00	7.52	0.45	9.95	0.00
	East Timor	1.05	8.61	0.00	7.17	10.52	6.46	0.82	0.43
	Laos	5.20	0.78	0.17	0.00	12.90	3.26	0.05	0.01
	Singapore	0.86	0.04	3.14	0.00	7.52	0.45	9.95	0.00
	Cambodia	0.24	0.06	0.16	0.00	3.50	0.51	0.17	0.00
	Myanmar	3.13	0.65	0.68	0.02	3.61	1.58	0.24	0.06
	Thailand	2.58	0.10	0.47	0.00	1.72	0.39	0.14	0.00
	Indonesia	3.07	0.29	0.42	0.00	4.89	0.27	0.46	0.00
	Malaysia	3.45	0.13	0.83	0.00	4.17	0.13	0.50	0.00
	Vietnam	2.96	0.97	1.04	0.01	4.18	1.56	0.70	0.10
	Philippines	0.98	0.11	0.22	0.02	1.12	0.18	0.19	0.01
	Subtotal	2.67	0.37	0.54	0.01	3.57	0.76	0.32	0.02
South Asia	Maldives	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
	Sri Lanka	4.46	0.03	0.18	0.00	5.48	1.76	0.32	0.09
	Pakistan	0.14	0.23	0.13	0.16	0.21	0.53	0.11	0.72
	India	0.30	0.29	0.16	0.09	0.49	0.31	0.11	0.08
	Bangladesh	1.89	0.13	4.13	0.05	0.30	0.15	2.64	0.25
	Nepal	1.26	0.19	0.05	0.01	0.99	0.12	0.05	0.08
	Bhutan	8.48	3.57	0.00	0.00	25.80	0.65	0.09	2.36
	Subtotal	0.39	0.27	0.30	0.09	0.51	0.33	0.20	0.16
North Africa	Egypt	0.07	0.02	1.29	2.21	0.03	0.01	0.84	10.26
	Subtotal	0.07	0.02	1.29	2.21	0.03	0.01	0.84	10.26
Central and Eastern Europe	Estonia	1.89	0.48	0.46	0.00	2.05	0.20	0.50	0.00
	Latvia	3.07	0.10	0.36	0.00	1.74	0.03	0.37	0.00
	Lithuania	2.15	0.08	0.67	0.00	1.45	0.03	0.65	0.00
	Belarus	3.62	1.32	1.01	0.00	1.50	0.97	1.06	0.00
Geographical zone	Country	Cultivated land converted OUT				Cultivated land converted IN
Geographical zone	Country	(to) forest	(to) grassland	(to) artificial surfaces	(to) bare land	(from) forest	(from) grassland	(from) artificial surfaces	(from) bare land
	Poland	1.09	0.16	0.69	0.00	0.95	0.04	0.40	0.00
	Czech	1.74	0.05	0.77	0.00	1.62	0.08	0.69	0.00
	Slovakia	0.80	0.01	0.75	0.00	0.45	0.01	0.65	0.00
	Moldova	0.65	0.73	1.14	0.00	0.33	0.85	1.43	0.00
	Hungary	0.71	0.03	0.49	0.01	0.66	0.16	0.39	0.00
	Slovenia	4.76	0.02	1.13	0.01	4.23	0.03	0.81	0.01
	Romania	1.00	0.13	0.91	0.01	1.00	0.12	0.96	0.02
	Serbia	1.04	0.05	0.44	0.00	0.99	0.29	0.37	0.00
	Ukraine	0.89	0.74	0.74	0.00	0.61	1.83	0.84	0.01
	Bosnia and Herzegovina	3.11	0.06	0.50	0.01	2.65	0.07	0.39	0.01
	Croatia	1.35	0.02	0.61	0.04	1.47	0.02	0.58	0.04
	Bulgaria	0.97	0.13	0.75	0.01	1.13	0.22	0.78	0.01
	Macedonia	1.45	0.05	0.53	0.00	1.54	0.05	0.35	0.00
	Albania	1.20	0.73	0.48	0.01	1.42	0.86	0.58	0.03
	Russia	1.10	2.05	0.34	0.00	1.23	2.57	0.32	0.02
	Montenegro	2.28	0.19	0.64	0.00	2.38	0.23	0.40	0.00
	Subtotal	1.22	1.33	0.52	0.00	1.13	1.76	0.50	0.01
The Belt region	Subtotal	0.21	2.27	0.28	0.39	0.35	2.41	0.19	0.85
The Road region	Subtotal	1.04	0.30	0.38	0.09	1.38	0.45	0.25	0.25
The BRI region	Total	1.01	1.13	0.70	0.10	1.14	1.30	0.41	0.26

Table S3

Table S4

Changing rate (%) in multi-cropping index, and fragmentation index of seven geographical zones and each country in the BRI region between 2000 and 2010"

Geographical zone		Country			MCI changing rate			FI changing rate
East Asia		China			6.01			2.17
		Mongolia			27.77			-2.82
		Subtotal			6.06			2.16
Central Asia		Kazakhstan			22.71			-17.35
		Turkmenistan			-2.76			-8.55
		Tajikistan			0.62			15.53
		Uzbekistan			1.45			14.44
		Kyrgyzstan			-3.21			-2.20
		Subtotal			14.72			-14.28
West Asia		Armenia			4.11			-0.34
		Syrian			6.40			-0.97
		Lebanese			-5.49			3.82
		Afghanistan			20.06			2.13
Geographical zone		Country		MCI changing rate			FI changing rate
		Iraq		-1.76			0.95
		Kuwait		87.13			19.41
		Jordan		32.04			-21.81
		Bahrain		36.26			13.58
		Qatar		-29.94			0.00
		Georgia		-45.10			1.62
		Israel		21.05			-21.72
		Iran		18.88			-0.28
		Yemen		41.95			-49.59
		Saudi Arabia		-30.48			-1.40
		United Arab Emirates		-11.03			36.70
		Turkey		-9.60			34.67
		Oman		-19.38			3.42
		Azerbaijan		19.35			-1.89
		Subtotal		2.21			4.19
Southeast Asia		Brunei		-25.74			22.88
		East Timor		20.44			-1.78
		Laos		23.36			-16.52
		Singapore		49.09			-40.20
		Cambodia		54.40			-2.88
		Myanmar		39.15			-8.26
		Thailand		15.37			1.09
		Indonesia		24.42			52.22
		Malaysia		9.30			-6.67
		Vietnam		7.55			-7.46
		Philippines		9.39			-8.32
		Subtotal		20.40			10.47
South Asia		Maldives		0.00			0.00
		Sri Lanka		7.03			-12.32
		Pakistan		2.13			3.66
		India		8.82			-30.71
		Bangladesh		8.16			10.11
		Nepal		7.44			-0.57
		Bhutan		-22.18			129.89
		Subtotal		7.98			-16.67
North Africa		Egypt		2.35			-5.91
		Subtotal		2.35			-5.91
Central and Eastern Europe		Estonia		-24.44			9.85
		Latvia		16.04			58.77
		Lithuania		-6.02			69.96
Geographical zone	Country		MCI changing rate			FI changing rate
	Belarus		-9.55			3.59
	Poland		-7.45			133.17
	Czech		-16.51			89.39
	Slovakia		-11.25			6.66
	Moldova		-11.01			75.19
	Hungary		-20.58			-9.42
	Slovenia		0.79			17.63
	Romania		-4.76			60.83
	Serbia		93.08			28.88
	Ukraine		3.38			77.19
	Bosnia and Herzegovina		2.53			38.88
	Croatia		-24.36			74.29
	Bulgaria		2.76			113.41
	Macedonia		-15.55			34.42
	Albania		24.88			63.98
	Russia		-24.33			6.40
	Montenegro		-28.60			89.90
	Subtotal		-13.44			23.41
The BRI region	Total		4.27			6.51

Table S4

Figure S1

Figure S2

Figure S3

References 63

[1]	Arezki R, Deininger K, Selod H, 2011. What drives the global “land rush”? Policy Research Working Paper - World Bank, (5864). doi: 10.5089/9781463923334.001.
[2]	Ba S, 2013. Ukraine will become China’s largest overseas farm, provides 3 million hectares of farmland. People’s Daily, . (in Chinese)
[3]	Cao X, Chen X, Zhang W et al.Zhang W , 2016. Global cultivated land mapping at 30 m spatial resolution. Science China Earth Sciences, 46(11): 1426-1435. (in Chinese)
[4]	Chen J, Chen J, Liao A P et al., 2014. Concepts and key techniques for 30 m global land cover mapping.Acta Geodaetica et Cartographica Sinica, 43(6): 551-557. (in Chinese) doi: 10.13485/j.cnki.11-2089.2014.0089
[5]	Chen J, Chen J, Liao A P et al., 2015. Global land cover mapping at 30 m resolution: A POK-based operational approach.ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 103: 7-27. doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.09.002
[6]	Chen W, Wu X, 2015. Import demand changes of the countries along the Maritime Silk Route and the response strategy of China.International Economics and Trade Research, 31(4): 87-100. (in Chinese)
[7]	Chen X, Lin Y, Zhang M et al., 2017. Assessment of the cropland classifications in four global land cover datasets: A case study of Shaanxi Province, China.Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 16(2): 298-311. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61442-9
[8]	Chen Y, Li X, Wang L et al., 2017. Is China different from other investors in global land acquisition? Some observations from existing deals in China’s going global strategy.Land Use Policy, 60: 362-372. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.045
[9]	Cheng L K, Fleisher B M, Huang K X et al., 2016. Three questions on China’s “Belt and Road Initiative”.China Economic Review, 40: 309-313. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2016.07.008
[10]	Coppedge B R, Engle D M, Fuhlendorf S D et al., 2001. Landscape cover type and pattern dynamics in fragmented southern Great Plains grasslands, USA. Landscape Ecology, 16: 677-690.
[11]	Du S, Shi P, Rompaey A.2014. The relationship between urban sprawl and farmland displacement in the Pearl River Delta, China.Land, 3(1): 34-51.
[12]	Duan F, Ji Q, Liu B et al., 2017. Energy investment risk assessment for nations along China’s Belt & Road Initiative.Journal of Cleaner Production, 170: 535-547.
[13]	Dubovyk O, Menz G, Conrad C et al., 2013. Spatio-temporal analyses of cropland degradation in the irrigated lowlands of Uzbekistan using remote-sensing and logistic regression modeling. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185(6): 4775-4790. doi: 10.1007/s10661-012-2904-6 pmid: 3641299
[14]	Eitelberg D A, van Vliet J, Verburg P H, 2015. A review of global potentially available cropland estimates and their consequences for model-based assessments.Global Change Biology, 21(3): 1236-1248. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12733 pmid: 25205590
[15]	Erb K H, Haberl H, Jepsen M R et al., 2013. A conceptual framework for analyzing and measuring land-use intensity.Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5: 464-470. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.010 pmid: 24143156
[16]	Estel S, Kuemmerle T, Alcántara C et al., 2015. Mapping farmland abandonment and recultivation across Europe using MODIS NDVI time series.Remote Sensing of Environment, 163: 312-325. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2015.03.028
[17]	Fritz S, See L, Mccallum I et al., 2015. Mapping global cropland and field size.Global Change Biology, 21(5): 1980-1992. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12838 pmid: 25640302
[18]	Foley J A, 2005. Global consequences of land use.Science, 309(5734): 570-574. doi: 10.1126/science.1111772
[19]	Foley J A, Ramankutty N, Brauman K A et al., 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet.Nature, 478(7369): 337-342. doi: 10.1038/nature10452 pmid: 21993620
[20]	Forman R T T, 1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology.Landscape Ecology, 10: 133-142. doi: 10.1007/BF00133027
[21]	Gong B, Song Z, Liu W, 2015. Commodity structure of trade between China and countries in the Belt and Road Initiative area.Progress in Geography, 30(5): 571-580. (in Chinese)
[22]	Gray J, Friedl M, Frolking S et al., 2014. Mapping Asian cropping intensity with MODIS.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 7(8): 3373-3379. doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.2014.2344630
[23]	Grekousis G, Mountrakis G, Kavouras M, 2015. An overview of 21 global and 43 regional land-cover mapping products.International Journal of Remote Sensing, 36(21): 5309-5335. doi: 10.1080/01431161.2015.1093195
[24]	He M, Huang Z, Zhang N, 2016. An empirical research on agricultural trade between China and “The Belt and Road” countries: Competitiveness and complementarity.Modern Economy, 7: 1671-1686. doi: 10.4236/me.2016.714147
[25]	He Y, Lee E, Warner T A, 2017. A time series of annual land use and land cover maps of China from 1982 to 2013 generated using AVHRR GIMMS NDVI3g data.Remote Sensing of Environment, 199: 201-217. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2017.07.010
[26]	Hong K, 2008. The impact of global food crisis on Southeast Asian countries and China’s countermeasures. Southeast Asian Studies,(6): 31-35, 84. (in Chinese)
[27]	Huang Y, 2016. Understanding China’s Belt & Road Initiative: Motivation, framework and assessment.China Economic Review, 40: 314-321. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2016.07.007
[28]	Islam M, Miah M, Inoue Y, 2016. Analysis of land use and land cover changes in the coastal area of Bangladesh using Landsat imagery.Land Degradation & Development, 27(4): 899-909. doi: 10.1002/ldr.2339
[29]	Kühling I, Broll G, Trautz D, 2016. Spatio-temporal analysis of agricultural land-use intensity across the western Siberian grain belt.Science of the Total Environment, 544: 271-280. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.129 pmid: 26657373
[30]	Lambin E F, Gibbs H K, Ferreira L et al., 2013. Estimating the world’s potentially available cropland using a bottom-up approach.Global Environmental Change, 23(5): 892-901. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.005
[31]	Li F, Dong S, Yuan L et al., 2016. Study on agriculture patterns and strategy of the Belt and Road.Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 31(6): 678-688. (in Chinese)
[32]	Li J, Mancini M, Su B et al., 2017. Monitoring water resources and water use from earth observation in the Belt and Road Countries.Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 32(Suppl.1): 62-73.
[33]	Li X, Wang X, 2003. Changes in agricultural land use in China: 1981-2000.Asian Geographer, 22(1/2): 27-42. doi: 10.1080/10225706.2003.9684097
[34]	Liu J, Kuang W, Zhang Z et al., 2014. Spatiotemporal characteristics, patterns and causes of land use changes in China since the late 1980s.Acta Geographica Sinica, 69(1): 3-14. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1007/s11442-014-1082-6
[35]	Liu J, Peng S, Chen J et al., 2015. Knowledge based quality checking method and engineering practice of GlobeLand30 cropland data.Bulletin of Surveying and Mapping, (4): 42-48. (in Chinese)
[36]	Liu J, Zhang Z, Xu X et al., 2009. Spatial patterns and driving forces of land use change in China in the early 21st century.Acta Geographica Sinica, 64(12): 1411-1420. (in Chinese)
[37]	Liu W, Dunford M, 2016. Inclusive globalization: Unpacking China’s Belt and Road Initiative.Area Development and Policy, 1(3): 323-340. doi: 10.1080/23792949.2016.1232598
[38]	Loayza N V, Raddatz C, 2010. The composition of growth matters for poverty alleviation.Journal of Development Economics, 93: 137-151. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2009.03.008
[39]	Lu M, Wu W, Zhang L et al., 2016. A comparative analysis of five global cropland datasets in China.Science China Earth Sciences, 59(12): 2307-2317. doi: 10.1007/s11430-016-5327-3
[40]	Lu M, Wu W, You L et al., 2017. A synergy cropland of China by fusing multiple existing maps and statistics.Sensors, 17(1613): 1-16. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2017.2761499
[41]	Lu X, Huang X, Zhong T et al., 2011. A review of farmland fragmentation in China. Journal of Natural Resources, 26(3): 530-540. (in Chinese) doi: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2013.04.007
[42]	Meiyappan P, Roy P, Sharma Y et al., 2017. Dynamics and determinants of land change in India: Integrating satellite data with village socioeconomics.Reg. Environ. Change, 17(3): 753-766. doi: 10.1007/s10113-016-1068-2
[43]	Meyfroidt P, Schierhorn F, Prishchepov A et al., 2016. Drivers, constraints and trade-offs associated with recultivating abandoned cropland in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.Global Environmental Change, 37: 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.01.003
[44]	Neumann K, Verburg P H, Stehfest E et al., 2010. The yield gap of global grain production: A spatial analysis.Agricultural Systems, 103(5): 316-326. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.02.004
[45]	Ramankutty N, Evan A T, Monfreda C et al., 2008. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochemical Cycles,(22): GB1003. doi: 10.1029/2007GB002952. doi: 10.1029/2007GB002952
[46]	Sudaryanto T, 2009. Policy response to the impact of global food crisis in Indonesia.Extension Bulletin - Food & Fertilizer Technology Center, (624): 1-10.
[47]	Tal A, 2016. Rethinking the sustainability of Israel’s irrigation practices in the drylands.Water Research, 90: 387-394. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.016 pmid: 26771161
[48]	Wang L, Li C, Ying Q et al., 2012. China’s urban expansion from 1990 to 2010 determined with satellite remote sensing.Chinese Science Bulletin, 57(22): 2802-2812. doi: 10.1007/s11434-012-5235-7
[49]	Wu F, Zhang H, 2017. China’s Global Quest for Resources: Energy, Food and Water. Oxon, New York: Routledge, 5-6.
[50]	Wu L, Liu Q, Li L, 2009. A review of the progress of the national Green for Grain Project.Forestry Economics, 9: 21-37. doi: 10.13843/j.cnki.lyjj.2009.09.007. (in Chinese)
[51]	Wu W, Verburg P H, Tang H, 2014. Climate change and the food production system: Impacts and adaptation in China.Reg. Environ. Change, 14(1): 1-5. doi: 10.1007/s10113-013-0528-1
[52]	Wu W, Yu Q, Verburg P H et al., 2014. How could agricultural land systems contribute to raise food production under global change. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 13(7): 1432-1442. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60819-4
[53]	Wu W, Yu Q, You L et al., 2018. Global cropping intensity gaps: Increasing food production without cropland expansion.Land Use Policy, 76: 515-525. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.032
[54]	Yan L, Roy D P, 2016. Conterminous United States crop field size quantification from multi-temporal Landsat data.Remote Sensing of Environment, 172: 67-86. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2015.10.034
[55]	Yang D, Cai J, Hull V et al., 2016. New road for telecoupling global prosperity and ecological sustainability.Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 2(10): e01242. doi: 10.1002/ehs2.1242
[56]	Yang J, Sun J.2009. Probing into the food security issues in the Arabian countries.West Asia and Africa, (11): 33-40. (in Chinese)
[57]	Yu Q, Hu Q, van Vliet J et al., 2018. GlobeLand30 shows little cropland area loss but greater fragmentation in China.International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 66: 37-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2017.11.002
[58]	Yu Q, van Vliet J, Verburg P H et al., 2018. Harvested area gaps in China between 1981 and 2010: Effects of climatic and land management factors.Environmental Research Letters, 13: 044006. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaafe0
[59]	Yu Q, Wu W, Verburg P H et al., 2013. A survey-based exploration of land-system dynamics in an agricultural region of northeast China.Agricultural Systems, 121: 106-116. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2013.06.006
[60]	Zhang Y, Chen J, Chen L et al., 2015. Characteristics of land cover change in Siberia based on GlobeLand30, 2000-2010.Progress in Geography, 34(10): 1324-1333. (in Chinese) doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2015.10.013
[61]	Zhang Y, Yang G, Yang Y, 2015. The Belt and Road strategy: To strengthen China and Central Asian agricultural cooperation opportunities.Transnational Business, (1): 31-43. (in Chinese)
[62]	Zhao W, 2012. Arable land change dynamics and their driving forces for the major countries of the world.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32(20): 6452-6462. (in Chinese) doi: 10.5846/stxb201203080314
[63]	Zou J, Liu C, Yin G et al., 2015. Spatial patterns and economic effects of China’s trade with countries along the Belt and Road.Progress in Geography, 34(5): 598-605. (in Chinese)