Effects of Regional Land Uses on Agricultural Land Use Right Transfer with Logistic and Autologistic Models: A Case in Changping District, Beijing
Received date: 2011-12-27
Request revised date: 2012-04-14
Online published: 2012-12-20
Copyright
Agricultural land use right transfer (LURT) is an important rural land reform in recent years in China. The LURT was affected by many factors, and social-economic factors were usually studied. However, the landscape processes of LURT and the impact of regional land use types on LURT is little understood. According to the effects of LURT on landscape, LURT can be divided into two processes: land use right transfer in rural operating land and non-agricultural occurrence in the transferred land. Based on the two processes, this article defined the transferred type and non-transferred type for the land use right transfer, and non-agricultural type and agricultural type for the non-agricultural occurrence. Changping district of Beijing was took as a case, and the relationships between the regional land use types and LURT landscape processes were established with Logistic and Autologistic models. The results showed that urban and city land is the most important land use type to cause the occurrence of land use right transfer, meanwhile, the type also stimulated the change of agricultural use to non-agricultural use in transferred land. On the scale of historical land uses effects, the influence of these land uses was mainly reflected at the medium scale region (1-5 km) and the small scale region (0-1 km) for the occurrence of land use right transfer and the occurrence of non-agricultural uses in transferred patches respectively. Compared with traditional Logistic model, Autologistic model containing the spatial autocorrelation effects has higher accuracy, thusspatial autocorrelation effects cannot be ignored for the study the driven forces on LURT.
LIU Tong , LI Hong , SUN Dan-feng , JIANG Wan-bei , ZHOU Lian-di . Effects of Regional Land Uses on Agricultural Land Use Right Transfer with Logistic and Autologistic Models: A Case in Changping District, Beijing[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2012 , 32(12) : 1496 -1502 . DOI: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2012.012.1496
Fig.1 Centroid points of transferred patches, non-transferred patches, non-agricultural patches and agricultural patches图1 流转斑块、未流转斑块(a)及非农利用斑块、农业利用斑块(b)质心点的空间分布 |
Fig.2 Three buffers based on patch centroid图2 斑块质心点下的3个缓冲区 |
Table 1 Variables and their meanings表1 所选景观自变量及含义 |
变量 | 含义 |
---|---|
耕地I | 耕地在0~1 km缓冲区内的面积比例 (%) |
耕地II | 耕地在5~10 km缓冲区内的面积比例 (%) |
耕地III | 园地在1~5 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
园地I | 农村居民点在0~ 1 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
园地II | 农村居民点在5~10 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
园地III | 独立工矿用地在1~5 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
农村居民点I | 城镇用地在0~1 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
农村居民点II | 城镇用地在5~10 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
农村居民点III | 5种土地利用方式在1~5 km缓冲区内的景观多样性指数 |
独立工矿用地I | 斑块质心点距主干道的最近距离 (km) |
变量 | 含义 |
独立工矿用地II | 耕地在1~5 km缓冲区内的面积比例 (%) |
独立工矿用地III | 园地在0~1 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
城镇用地I | 园地在5~10 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
城镇用地II | 农村居民点在1~5 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
城镇用地III | 独立工矿用地在0~1 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
景观多样性指数I | 独立工矿用地在5~10 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
景观多样性指数II | 城镇用地在1~5 km缓冲区内的面积比例(%) |
景观多样性指数III | 5种土地利用方式在0~1 km缓冲区内的景观多样性指数 |
距乡村道最近距离 | 斑块质心点距乡村道的最近距离 (km) |
距主干道最近距离 | 斑块质心点距主干道的最近距离 (km) |
Table 2 Results of Logistic and Autologistic models on the occurrence of land use right transfer表2 土地流转发生的Logistic和Autologistic模型回归结果 |
变量 | Logistic | Autologistic | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beta | Wald | P | Beta | Wald | P | |
耕地I | ||||||
耕地II | -0.03 | 12.61 | <0.001 | |||
耕地III | ||||||
园地I | ||||||
园地II | ||||||
园地III | -0.09 | <0.001 | -0.06 | 13.23 | <0.001 | |
农村居民点I | ||||||
农村居民点II | ||||||
农村居民点III | ||||||
独立工矿用地I | 0.13 | 20.15 | <0.001 | |||
独立工矿用地II | ||||||
独立工矿用地III | ||||||
城镇用地I | ||||||
城镇用地II | 0.42 | 43.58 | <0.001 | 0.26 | 39.23 | <0.001 |
城镇用地III | ||||||
景观多样性指数I | ||||||
景观多样性指数II | 0.21 | 32.16 | <0.001 | 0.14 | 27.38 | <0.001 |
景观多样性指数III | ||||||
距主干道最近距离 | -0.15 | 30.59 | <0.001 | -0.08 | 15.69 | <0.001 |
距乡村道最近距离 | ||||||
空间协变量 | 0.45 | 41.40 | <0.001 | |||
ROC | 0.852 | 0.986 |
Table 3 Results of Logistic and Autologistic models on the occurrence of non-agricultural uses in transferred patches表3 流转后土地非农化发生的Logistic和Autologistic模型回归结果 |
变量 | Logistic | Autologistic | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beta | Wald | P | Beta | Wald | P | |
耕地I | -0.12 | 20.31 | <0.001 | -0.08 | 14.77 | 0.03 |
耕地II | ||||||
耕地III | ||||||
园地I | ||||||
园地II | -0.05 | 11.23 | <0.001 | |||
园地III | ||||||
农村居民点I | -0.16 | 24.87 | <0.001 | |||
农村居民点II | ||||||
农村居民点III | ||||||
独立工矿用地I | ||||||
独立工矿用地II | ||||||
独立工矿用地III | ||||||
城镇用地I | 0.35 | 34.15 | <0.001 | 0.28 | 15.63 | <0.001 |
城镇用地II | 0.12 | 12.71 | <0.001 | |||
城镇用地III | ||||||
景观多样性指数I | 0.28 | 29.65 | <0.001 | 0.21 | 18.94 | <0.001 |
景观多样性指数II | ||||||
景观多样性指数III | ||||||
距主干道最近距离 | -0.11 | 14.98 | <0.001 | -0.09 | 11.45 | <0.001 |
距乡村道最近距离 | ||||||
空间协变量 | 0.39 | 71.32 | <0.001 | |||
ROC | 0.869 | 0.999 |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |