... | ... | @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ title: Rural Land Use Multifunctionality Transformation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Document version_1.3 29.06.2025**\
|
|
|
**Project information**\
|
|
|
Acronym: Rural Land Use Multifunctionality\
|
... | ... | @@ -38,11 +39,31 @@ Computer\ |
|
|
Method:\
|
|
|
1.Quantitative evaluation of RLUFs, Includes four dimensions and 10 indicators\
|
|
|

|
|
|
2.Identify the type of dominant function type
|
|
|
2.Identify the type of dominant function type\
|
|
|

|
|
|
Transformation type of land based on dominant function type for the time periods 2000-2010 and 2010-2020
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
..!3.Spatial regression analyses of the impact of spatial transformation of agriculture on habitat quality
|
|
|
Selection of a suitable spatial regression model to analyse the spatial coupling between multifunctional transformation of rural space and influencing factors. The more significant spatial regression model was selected for regression analysis by LM test and robust LM test.\
|
|
|
Expected results:\
|
|
|
The overall trend of utility of rural land is multi-functional, and the functional values of different dimensions are gradually becoming more balanced...!\ |
|
|
3.Divide URG\
|
|
|
urban-rural integration zone\
|
|
|
urban-rural transition zone\
|
|
|
traditional rural zone\
|
|
|
peripheral rural zone\
|
|
|

|
|
|
Results:\
|
|
|
Spatial and Temporal Patterns of RLUFs\
|
|
|
RLUFs index rose steadily (2000–2020), with higher values in southern Jiangsu.\
|
|
|
Urban–rural integration zones saw the largest increases in living and ecological functions.\
|
|
|
Production function improved in traditional zones due to agricultural modernization and land protection.\
|
|
|
LUDFC Transition Along the Urban–Rural Gradient\
|
|
|
LUDFC transformation expanded from 33.9% to 41.4% across two decades.\
|
|
|
Integration zones had the highest transformation rates and strongest urban–rural interaction.\
|
|
|
Policy-driven shifts reinforced production in traditional zones, while other zones gained multifunctionality.\
|
|
|

|
|
|

|
|
|
Description:\
|
|
|
The trend of RLUFs transformation\
|
|
|
RLUFs shifted toward multifunctional development.\
|
|
|
Modernization and policies drove land transitions.\
|
|
|
LUDFC changes reflect structural adjustment.\
|
|
|
The impact of URG on rural development\
|
|
|
Urban radiation shapes rural functions through differentiated land use and industrial integration.\
|
|
|
Integration zones show multifunctional growth; peripheries improve ecological and cultural functions.\
|
|
|
Gradient-aware strategies are key to balanced and high-quality urban–rural development.\ |