Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Land use change and its corresponding ecological responses: A review

  • Landscape Ecology
  • Published:
Journal of Geographical Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews the research on land use change and its corresponding ecological responses. Patterns of land use changes in spatio-temporal level are produced by the interaction of biophysical and socio-economic processes. Nowadays, the studies derived from different socioeconomic conditions and scales show that at short-term scale, human activities, rather than natural forces, have become a major force in shaping the environment, while biophysical factors control the trends and processes of land use change under the macro environmental background. Providing a scientific understanding of the process of land use change, the impacts of different land use decisions, and the ways that decisions are affected by a changing environment and increasing ecological variability are the priority areas for research: (1) explanation of scale dependency of drivers of land use change; (2) quantification of driving factors of land use change; (3) incorporation of biophysical feedbacks in land use change models; and (4) underlying processes and mechanisms of ecological impacts of land use change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achard F, Eva H D, Stibig H Jet al., 2002. Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests.Science, 297: 999–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts J C J H, Eisinger E, Heuvelink G B Met al., 2003. Using linear integer programming for multi-site land-use allocation.Geographical Analysis, 35(2): 148–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agustín M, Pérez-Batallón P, Macías F, 2004. Responses of soil organic matter and greenhouse gas fluxes to soil management and land use changes in a humid temperate region of southern Europe.Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 36(6): 917–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arai T, Akiyama T, 2004. Empirical analysis for estimating land use transition potential functions: case in the Tokyo metropolitan region.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28(1-2): 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ares J, 2004. Estimating pesticide environmental risk scores with land use data and fugacity equilibrium models in Misiones, Argentina.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 103(1): 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aspinall R, 2004. Modelling land use change with generalized linear models: a multi-model analysis of change between 1860 and 2000 in Gallatin Valley, Montana.Journal of Environmental Management, 72(1–2): 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assouline S, Ben-Hur M, 2003. Effects of water applications and soil tillage on water and salt distribution in a vertisol.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 67(3): 852–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai Wanqi, Ding Xianzhong, 2003. Modeling land use change in Naiman County of Inner Mongolia.Resources Science, 25(2): 73–76. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai Wanqi, Zhang Yili, 2002. Role of traditional cultural factors in land use changes in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.Resources Science, 24(4): 11–15. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker E, 2005. Uncertainty and learning in a strategic environment: global climate change.Resource and Energy Economics, 27(1): 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker M M, Govers G, Kosmas Cet al., 2005. Soil erosion as a driver of land-use change.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 105(3): 467–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balbino L C, Bruand A, Cousin Iet al., 2004. Change in the hydraulic properties of a Brazilian clay Ferralsol on clearing for pasture.Geoderma, 120(3–4): 297–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper Pet al., 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature.Science, 297: 950–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartholy J, Pongracz R, 2005. Extremes of ground-based and satellite measurements in the vegetation period for the Carpathian Basin.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 30(1–3): 81–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berenzen N, Lentzen-Godding A, Probst Met al., 2005. A comparison of predicted and measured levels of runoff-related pesticide concentrations in small lowland streams on a landscape level.Chemosphere, 58(5): 683–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard A E, Jin-Yong C, Jon Het al., 2003. Web-based DSS for hydrologic impact evaluation of small watershed land use changes.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 39(3): 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björn P, 2004. Remote sensing-based quantification of land-cover and land-use change for planning.Progress in Planning, 61(4): 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bousquet F, Page C L, 2004. Multi-agent simulations and ecosystem management: a review.Ecological Modelling, 176(3–4): 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brentrup F, Küsters J, Kuhlmann Het al., 2004. Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment methodology: I. theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to crop production.Europ. J. Agronomy, 20 (3): 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronick C J, Lal R, 2005. Soil structure and management: a review.Geoderma, 124(1–2): 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown J H, Whitham T G, Ernest S K Met al., 2001. Complex species interactions and the dynamics of ecological systems: long-term experiments.Science, 293: 643–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner A G, Gullison R E, Rice R Eet al., 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity.Science, 291: 125–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burel F, Baudry J, Lefeuvre J C, 1993. Landscape structure and the control of water runoff. In: Bunce R G H, Ryszkowski L, Paoletti M G (eds.), Landscape Ecology and Agroecosystems. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, 41–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgos A, Maass J M, 2004. Vegetation change associated with land-use in tropical dry forest areas of western Mexico.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 104(3): 475–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao Z H, Huang J F, Zhang C Set al., 2004. Soil quality evolution after land use change from paddy soil to vegetable land.Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 26: 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardille J A, Foley J A, 2003. Agricultural land-use change in Brazilian Amazonia between 1980 and 1995: evidence from integrated satellite and census data.Remote Sensing of Environment, 87(1): 551–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Célia F, Brondízio E S, 2003. Land reform and land-use changes in the lower Amazon: implications for agricultural intensification.Human Ecology, 31(3): 369–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celik I, 2004. Land-use effects on organic matter and physical properties of soil in a southern Mediterranean highland of Turkey.Soil & Tillage Research. (in press)

  • Cernusca A, Bahn M, Chemini Cet al., 1998. Ecomont: a combined approach of field measurements and process-based modelling for assessing effects of land-use changes in mountain landscapes.Ecological Modelling, 113(1–3): 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemini C, Rizzoli A, 2003. Land use change and biodiversity conservation in the Alps.J. Mt. Ecol., 7: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Xi, Hu Qi, 2004. Groundwater influences on soil moisture and surface evaporation.Journal of Hydrology, 297(1–4): 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Xiongwen, Zhang Xinshi, Li Bailian, 2005. Influence of Tibetan Plateau on vegetation distributions in East Asia: a modeling perspective.Ecological Modelling, 181(1): 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng Guodong, 2005. A roadbed cooling approach for the construction of Qinghai-Tibet Railway.Cold Regions Science and Technology. (in press)

  • Clarke R A, Stanley C D, McNeal B Let al., 2002. Impact of agricultural land use on nitrate levels in Lake Manatee, Florida.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 57(2): 106–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran L M, Trigg S N, Donald M A Ket al., 2003. Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo.Science, 303: 1000–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes W R, Gilfedder M, Walker G Ret al., 2004. Biophysical modelling of catchment-scale surface water and groundwater response to land-use change.Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 64(1): 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deal B, Schunk D, 2004. Spatial dynamic modeling and urban land use transformation: a simulation approach to assessing the costs of urban sprawl.Ecological Economics, 51(1-2): 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Almeid C M, Batty M, Monteiro A M Vet al., 2003. Stochastic cellular automata modeling of urban land use dynamics: empirical development and estimation.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27(5): 481–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jager A, 2005. Participatory technology, policy and institutional development to address soil fertility degradation in Africa.Land Use Policy, 22(1): 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Koning G H J, Veldkamp A, Fresco L O, 1998. Land use in Ecuador: a statistical analysis at different aggregation levels.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 70(2–3): 231–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Menocal P B, 2001. Cultural responses to climate change during the Late Holocene.Science, 292: 667–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denham T P, Haberle S G, Lentfer Cet al., 2003. Origins of agriculture at Kuk swamp in the highlands of New Guinea.Science, 301: 189–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Nijs T C M, de Niet R, Crommentuijn L, 2004. Construction of spatially detailed land use maps of the Netherlands in 2030 from socioeconomic and demographic scenarios.Journal of Environmental Management. (in press)

  • Dezso Z, Bartholy J, Pongracz Ret al., 2005. Analysis of land-use/land-cover change in the Carpathian region based on remote sensing techniques.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 30 (1–3): 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’haeze D, Deckers J, Raes Det al., 2005. Environmental and socio-economic impacts of institutional reforms on the agricultural sector of Vietnam land suitability assessment for Robusta coffee in the Dak Gan region.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 105(1–2): 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorner B, Lertzman K, Fall J, 2002. Landscape pattern in topographically complex landscapes: issues and techniques for analysis.Landscape Ecology, 17(3–4): 729–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubroeucq D, Livenais P, 2004. Land cover and land use changes in relation to social evolution: a case study from northern Chile.Journal of Arid Environments, 56 (2): 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dungan J L, Perry J N, Dale M Ret al., 2002. A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis.Ecography, 25: 626–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eswaran H, Kimble J, 2003. Land quality assessment and monitoring: the next challenge for soil science.Pedosphere, 13(1): 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans T P, Kelley H, 2004. Multi-scale analysis of a household level agent-based model of land cover change.Journal of Environmental Management, 72(1–2): 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evenson R E, Gollin D, 2003. Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000.Science, 300: 758–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewert F, Rounsevell M D A, Reginster Iet al., 2005. Future scenarios of European agricultural land use (I): estimating changes in crop productivity.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 107(2–3): 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan Jie, Xu Yudong, Shao Yang, 2003. The human geography view of land use study and new proposition.Progress in Geography, 22(1): 1–9. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang Peng, Huang Xianjin, Chen Zhiganget al., 2003. Response of farm households’ behavior to regional rural land transfer and agricultural land use change: a case study of Suzhou, Nanjing and Yangzhou in Jiangsu Province.Journal of Natural Resources, 18(3): 319–325. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang Shoufan, Gertner G Z, Sun Zhanliet al., 2004. The impact of interactions in spatial simulation of the dynamics of urban sprawl.Landscape and Urban Planning. (in press)

  • Farrow A, Winograd M, 2001. Land-use modelling at the regional scale: an input to rural sustainability indicators for Central America.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 85(1–3): 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felkner J S, 2000. A GIS/Spatial Statistical Predictive Model of Land Use Change in a Developing Country Context Using a Tree Classification Approach. Canada: 4th International Conference on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling (GIS/EM4). http://www.colorado.edu/research/cires/banff/pubpapers/52

  • Fischer G, Sun L, 2001. Model based analysis of future land use development in China.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 85(1–3) 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frédéric A, Hugh D E, Hans-Jürgen Set al., 2002. Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests.Science, 297: 999–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fridolin K, Helmut H, Niels B Set al., 2003. Land-use change and socio-economic metabolism in Austria (Part I): driving forces of land-use change: 1950–1995.Land Use Policy, 20(1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu B, Gulinck H, Masum M Z, 1994. Loess erosion in relation to land use changes in the Ganspoel catchment, central Belgium.Land Degradation & Rehabilitation, 5(4): 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu Bojie, Ma Keming, Zhou Huafenget al., 1999. The effect of land use structure on the distribution of soil nutrients in the hilly area of the Loess Plateau, China.Chinese Science Bulletin, 44(8): 732–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu Bojie, Liu Shiliang, Lu Yiheet al., 2003a. Comparing the soil quality changes of different land uses determined by two quantitative methods.Journal of Environmental Sciences, 15(2): 167–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu Bojie, Wang Jun, Chen Lidinget al., 2003b. The effects of land use on soil moisture variation in the Danangou catchment of the Loess Plateau, China.Catena, 54(1–2): 197–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-oliva F, Masera O R, 2004. Assessment and measurement issues related to soil carbon sequestration in land-use, land-use change, and forestry projects under the Kyoto Protocol.Climatic Change, 65: 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Ruiz J M, Arn’aez J, Beguería Set al., 2005. Runoff generation in an intensively disturbed, abandoned farmland catchment, Central Spanish Pyrenees.Catena, 59(1): 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautam A P, Webb E L, Shivakoti G Pet al., 2003. Land use dynamics and landscape change pattern in a mountain watershed in Nepal.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 99(1–3): 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geerlings H, Stead D, 2003. The integration of land use planning, transport and in European policy and research.Transport Policy, 10(3): 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geist H J, Lambin E F, 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation.Bioscience, 52(2): 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemma D, Giovanni P, Maria G, 2003. Land use change effects on abandoned terraced soils in a Mediterranean catchment, NE Spain.Catena, 52(1): 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemma D, Giovanni P, Maria G, 2004. The role of land use and cover on runoff generation and sediment yield at a microplot scale, in a small Mediterranean catchment.Journal of Arid Environments, 57(2): 99–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geoghegan J, Villar S V, Kiepeis Pet al., 2001. Modeling tropical deforestation in the southern Yucatán peninsular region: comparing survey and satellite data.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 85(1–3): 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerowitt B, Isselstein J, Marggraf R, 2003. Rewards for ecological goods: requirements and perspectives for agricultural land use.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 98(1–3): 541–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurs K T, van Wee B, 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions.Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2): 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grau R H, Aide M T, Zimmerman J Ket al., 2003. The ecological consequences of socioeconomic and land-use changes in postagricultural Puerto Rico.Bioscience, 53(12): 1159–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor L, Anette R, 2002. Land use driven conditions for habitat structure: a case study from the Ecuadorian Andes.Danish Journal of Geography, 102: 79–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grey C N B, Nieuwenhuijsen M J, Golding Jet al., 2005. The use and disposal of household pesticides.Environmental Research, 97: 109–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groombridge B, Jenkins M D, 2000. Global Biodiversity: Earth’s Living Resources in the 21st Century. Cambridge, UK: World Conservation Monitoring Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grünbühel C M, Haberl H, Schandl Het al., 2003. Socioeconomic metabolism and colonization of natural processes in Sang Saeng Village.Human Ecology, 31(1): 53–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E J, Zollner P A, Sturtevant B Ret al., 2004. Influence of forest management alternatives and land type on susceptibility to fire in northern Wisconsin, USA.Landscape Ecology, 19: 327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberl H, Erb K H, Krausmann Fet al., 2003. Land-use change and socio-economic metabolism in Austria (Part II): land-use scenarios for 2020.Land Use Policy, 20(1): 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale M L, Lurz P W W, Shirley M D Fet al., 2001. Impact of landscape management on the genetic structure of red squirrel populations.Science, 293: 2246–2248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart M R, Quin B F, Nguyen M L, 2004. Phosphorus runoff from agricultural land and direct fertilizer effects: a review.Journal of Environmental Quality, 33(6): 1954–1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harveson R M, Smith J A, Stroup W W, 2005. Improving root health and yield of dry beans in the Nebraska Panhandle with a new technique for reducing soil compaction.Plant Disease, 899(3): 279–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedstrom N R, Granger R J, Pomeroy J Wet al., 2001. Enhanced Indicators of Land Use Change and Climate Variability Impacts on Prairie Hydrology Using the Cold Regions Hydrological Model. Ottawa: 58th Eastern Snow Conference.

  • Heilig G K, 1996. Who is changing the land? lifestyles, population, and global land-use change. In: Ramphal S, S W Sinding (eds.), Population Growth and Environmental Issues. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hengsdijk H, van Keulen H, 2002. The effect of temporal variation on inputs and outputs of future-oriented land use systems in West Africa.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 91(1–3): 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermansen J E, Strudsholm K, Horsted K, 2004. Integration of organic animal production into land use with special reference to swine and poultry.Livestock Production Science, 90(1): 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herold M, Couclelis H, Clarke K C, 2005. The role of spatial metrics in the analysis and modeling of urban land use change.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(4): 369–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hietala-Koivu R, Järvenpää T, Helenius J, 2004. Value of semi-natural areas as biodiversity indicators in agricultural landscapes.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 101(1): 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hites R A, Foran J A, Carpenter D Oet al., 2004. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon.Science, 303: 226–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland J, Birkett T, Begbie Met al., 2003. The spatial dynamics of predatory arthropods and the importance of crop and adjacent margin habitats.Landscape Management for Functional Biodiversity, 26 (4): 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope R A, Jewitt G P W, Gowing J W, 2004. Linking the hydrological cycle and rural livelihoods: a case study in the Luvuvhu catchment, South Africa.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. (in press)

  • Hoshi T, Hoshino S, Nomura I, 1998. Application of GKSEM Model for estimating the changes of land use and land cover. http://www.gisdevelopment.net/aars/acrs/l998/ps3/ps3007.shtml

  • Huang Jikun, Rozelle S, Pray Cet al., 2002. Plant biotechnology in China.Science, 295: 674–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubacek K, Sun Laixiang, 2000. Land Use Change at the National and Regional Level in China: A Scenario Analysis Based on Input-Output Modeling. Interim Report.

  • Hubacek K, Sun Laixiang, 2001. A scenario analysis of China’s land use and land cover change: incorporating biophysical information into input-output modeling.Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 12(4): 367–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubacek K, Vazquez J. 2002. The Economics of Land Use Change. Interim Report.

  • Hudgens B R, Haddad N M, 2003. Predicting which species will benefit from corridors in fragmented landscapes from population growth models.The American Naturalist, 161(5): 808–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huigen M G A, 2004. First principles of the Mameluke multi-actor modelling framework for land use change, illustrated with a Philippine case study.Journal of Environmental Management, 72(1–2): 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman J A, Breuer L, Frede H G, 2004. Sensitivity of simulated hydrological fluxes towards changes in soil properties in response to land use change.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 29(11–12): 749–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hundecha Y, Bárdossy A, 2004. Modeling of the effect of land use changes on the runoff generation of a river basin through parameter regionalization of a watershed model.Journal of Hydrology, 292(1–4): 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibitayo O O, Mushkatel A, Pijawka K D, 2004. Social and political amplification of technological hazards: The case of the PEPCON explosion.Journal of Hazardous Materials, 114(1–3): 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ierodiaconou D, Laurenson L, Leblanc Met al., 2005. The consequences of land use change on nutrient exports.Journal of Environmental Management, 74(4): 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin E G, Bell K P, Geoghegan J, 2003. Modeling and managing urban growth at the rural-urban fringe: a parcel-level model of residential land use change.Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 32(1): 83–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin E G, Bockstael N E, 2004. Land use externalities, open space preservation, and urban sprawl.Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(6): 705–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jager A D, 2005. Participatory technology, policy and institutional development to address soil fertility degradation in Africa.Land Use Policy, 22(1): 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James S, Pärtel M, Wilson S Det al., 2003. Temporal heterogeneity of soil moisture in grassland and forest.Journal of Ecology, 91: 234–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeanneret Ph, Schüpbach B, Luka H, 2003. Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 98(1–3): 311–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeanneret Ph, Schüpbach B, Pfiffher Let al., 2003. Arthropod reaction to landscape and habitat features in agricultural landscapes.Landscape Ecology, 18: 253–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins M, 2003. Prospects for Biodiversity.Science, 302: 1175–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins T N, 2002. Chinese traditional thought and practice.Ecological Economics, 40(1): 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt G P W, Garratt J A, 2004. Water resources planning and modelling tools for the assessment of land use change in the Luvuvhu Catchment, South Africa.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 29(15–18): 1233–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jia Yanan, Yuan Daoxian, 2004. The influence of land use change on karst water quality of Shuicheng Basin in Guizhou Province.Journal of Geographical Sciences, 14(2): 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jian X G, Kuninori O, 1999. A new approach to modeling land-use change applicable to a limited data set. Proceedings of 1999 NIES Workshop on Information Based and Modeling for Land-Use and Land-Cover Changes in East Asia, 27–34.

  • Jikun H, Ruifa H, Hans van Met al., 2004. Biotechnology boosts to crop productivity in China: trade and welfare implications.Journal of Development Economics, 75(1): 27–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordán F, Báldi A, Orci K Met al., 2003. Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of aPholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation.Landscape Ecology, 18: 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce B A, Wallender W W, Angermann Tet al., 2004. Using infiltration enhancement and soil water management to reduce diazinon runoff.Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 40(4): 1063–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung A, Kardeván P, Tökei L, 2005. Detection of urban effect on vegetation in a less built-up Hungarian city by hyperspectral remote sensing.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 30(1–3): 255–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaloudis S, Tocatlidou A, Lorentzos N Aet al., 2005. Assessing wildfire destruction danger: a decision support system incorporating uncertainty.Ecological Modelling, 181(1): 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karl T R, Trenberth K E, 2003. Modern global climate change.Science, 302: 1719–1723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann R K, Seto K C, 2001. Change detection, accuracy, and bias in a sequential analysis of landsat imagery: econometric techniques.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 85(1–3): 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelsey H, Porter D E, Scott Get al., 2004. Using geographic information systems and regression analysis to evaluate relationships between land use and fecal coliform bacterial pollution.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 298(2): 197–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyzer M, Ermoliev Y, 1998. Modelling producer decisions on land use in a spatial continuum. Interim Report.

  • Kim H K, Sohn D W, 2002. An analysis of the relationship between land use density of office buildings and urban street configuration: case studies of two areas in Seoul by space syntax analysis.Cities, 19(6): 409–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline J D, 2003. Characterizing land use change in multidisciplinary landscape-level analyses.Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 32(1): 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kockelman K M, Jin L, Zhao Yet al., 2005. Tracking land use, transport, and industrial production using random-utility-based multiregional input-output models.Journal of Transport Geography. (in press)

  • Kok K, Veldkamp A, 2001. Evaluating impact of spatial scales on land use pattern analysis in Central America.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 85(1–3): 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok K, 2004. The role of population in understanding Honduran land use patterns.Journal of Environmental Management, 72(1–2): 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konagaya K, 1999. The generalized Thunen-Alonso model for land use change in Sumatra Island.Geographical & Environmental Modelling, 3(2): 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster R D, Dirmeyer P A, Guo Zhichanget al., 2004. Regions of strong coupling between soil moisture and precipitation.Science, 305: 1138–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann F, Haberl H, Erb K H etal., 2004. Resource flows and land use in Austria 1950–2000: using the MEFA framework to monitor society-nature interaction for sustainability.Land Use Policy, 21(3): 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Niles J O, Dalton M Get al., 2000. Economic incentives for rain forest conservation across scales.Science, 288: 1828–1832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kueppers L, Baer P, Harte Jet al., 2004. A decision matrix approach to evaluating the impacts of land-use activities undertaken to mitigate climate change.Climatic Change, 63: 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvarnström M E, Morel C A L, Krogstad T, 2004. Plant-availability of phosphorus in filter substrates derived from small-scale wastewater treatment systems.Ecological Engineering, 22(1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lado M, Paz A, Ben-Hur M, 2004. Organic matter and aggregate size interactions in infiltration, seal formation, and soil loss.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68(3): 935–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin E F, Rounsevell M, Geist H, 2000. Are agricultural land use models able to predict changes in land use intensity?Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 1653(1–3): 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasanta-Martínez T, Vicente-Serrano S M, Cuadrat-Prats J M, 2005. Mountain Mediterranean landscape evolution caused by the abandonment of traditional primary activities.Applied Geography, 25(1): 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton R O, Nair U S, Pielke R A Sr elal., 2001. Climatic impact of tropical lowland deforestation on nearby montane cloud forests.Science, 294: 584–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifeld J, Kögel-Knabner I, 2005. Soil organic matter fractions as early indicators for carbon stock changes under different land-use?Geoderma, 124(1–2): 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitch C, Harbor J, 1999. Impacts of land use change on freshwater runoff into the near-coastal zone, Holetown Watershed, Barbados: comparisons of long-term to single-storm effects.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 54(3): 584–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lens L, van Dongen S, Norris Ket al., 2002. Avian persistence in fragmented rainforest.Science, 298: 1236–1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lespez L, 2003. Geomorphic responses to long-term land use changes in Eastern Macedonia (Greece).Catena, 51 (3–4): 181–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy P E, Cannell M G R, Friend A D, 2004. Modelling the impact of future changes in climate, CO2 concentration and land use on natural ecosystems and the terrestrial carbon sink.Global Environmental Change, 14(1): 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Huixia, He Xiaorong, Liu Shuzhenet al., 2004a. An analysis on the effect of household’s actions on rural incomes: taking Gaize County of Tibet as an example.Economic Geography, 24(2): 281–284. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Jinggang, He Chunyang, Shi Peijunet al., 2004b. Change process of cultivated land and its driving forces in northern China during 1983–2001.Acta Geographica Sinica, 59(2): 274–282. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Xiubin, 2002. Explanation of land use change.Progress in Geography, 21(3): 195–203. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Xiubin, Wang Xiuhong, 2003. Changes in agricultural land use in China: 1981–2000.Asian Geographer, 22 (1–2): 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Yi, Shao Mingan, Wang Quanjiuet al., 2003. Open-hole effects of perforated plastic mulches on soil water evaporation.Soil Science, 168(11): 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ligtenberg A, Wachowicz M, Bregt A Ket al., 2004. A design and application of a multi-agent system for simulation of multi-actor spatial planning.Journal of Environmental Management, 72(1–2): 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limanond T, Niemeier D, 2004. Effect of land use on decisions of shopping tour generation: a case study of three traditional neighborhoods in WA.Transportation, 31: 153–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin G C S, Ho S P S, 2003. China’s land resources and land-use change: insights from the 1996 land survey.Land Use Policy, 20 (2): 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin X G, Yin R, Zhang H Yet al., 2004. Changes of soil microbiological properties caused by land use changing from rice-wheat rotation to vegetable cultivation.Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 26: 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu S, Kairé M, Wood Eet al., 2004. Impacts of land use and climate change on carbon dynamics in south-central Senegal.Journal of Arid Environments, 59(3): 583–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Xiangnan, Xu Hongmei, Cao Wen, 2001. An analysis on spatial difference or land use change in Qianguo County of Jilin Province.Progress in Geography, 20(1): 60–66. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Xiuhua, Liu Yong, Shao Jingan, 2003. Research on the process and social driving forces of land use and land cover change in Chongqing.Journal of Chongqing University (Social Sciences Edition), 9(2): 17–20. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti Pet al., 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges.Science, 294: 804–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luijten J C, 2003. A systematic method for generating land use patterns using stochastic rules and basic landscape characteristics.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 95 (2–3): 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madari B, Machado P L O A, Torres Eet al., 2005. No tillage and crop rotation effects on soil aggregation and organic carbon in a Rhodic Ferralsol from southern Brazil.Soil & Tillage Research, 80(1–2): 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahapatra K, Kant S, 2005. Tropical deforestation: a multinomial logistic model and some country-specific policy prescriptions.Forest Policy and Economics, 7(1): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahe G, Paturel J E, Servat Eet al., 2005. The impact of land use change on soil water holding capacity and river flow modelling in the Nakambe River, Burkina-Faso.Journal of Hydrology, 300(1–4): 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood R, Hubbard K G, 2003. Simulating sensitivity of soil moisture and evapotranspiration under heterogeneous soils and land uses.Journal of Hydrology, 280(1–4): 72–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood R, Hubbard K G, 2004. An analysis of simulated long-term soil moisture data for three land uses under contrasting hydroclimatic conditions in the Northern Great Plains.Journal of Hydrometeorology, 5: 160–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mando A, Ouattara B, Sédogo Met al., 2005. Long-term effect of tillage and manure application on soil organic fractions and crop performance under Sudano-Sahelian conditions.Soil & Tillage Research, 80(1–2): 95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marco G A H, 2003. Agent Based Modeling in Land Use and Land Cover Change Studies. Interim Report.

  • Marco G A H, 2004. First principles of the MameLuke multi-actor modelling framework for land use change, illustrated with a Philippine case study.Journal of Environmental Management, 72(1–2): 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medley K E, 2004. Measuring performance under a landscape approach to biodiversity conservation: the case of USAID/Madagascar.Progress in Development Studies, 4(4): 319–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael D T, Jennifer S M, James M Set al., 2003. Effects of land use on ground water quality in the Anoka Sand Plain Aquifer of Minnesota.Ground Water, 41(4): 482–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell G, 2005. Mapping hazard from urban non-point pollution: a screening model to support sustainable urban drainage planning.Journal of Environmental Management, 74(1): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mo Xingguo, Liu Suxia, Lin Zhonghuiet al., 2004. Simulating temporal and spatial variation of evapotranspiration over the Lushi basin.Journal of Hydrology, 285(1–4): 125–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montera E, 2005. Rényi dimensions analysis of soil particle-size distributions.Ecological Modelling, 182(3–4): 305–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montoro J A, Rogel J A, Querejeta Jet al., 2000. Three hydro-seeding revegetation techniques for soil erosion control on anthropic steep slopes.Land Degrad. Develop., 11: 315–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller D, Zeller M, 2003. Land use dynamics in the central highlands of Vietnam: a spatial model combining village survey data with satellite imagery interpretation.Agricultural Economics, 27(3): 333–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulumba L N, 2004. Land use effects on soil quality and productivity in the Lake Victoria Basin of Uganda. The Ohio State University, the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation.

  • Murova O I, Trueblood M A, Coble K H, 2004. Measurement and explanation of technical efficiency performance in Ukrainian agriculture, 1991–1996.Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 36(1): 185–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachabe M, Shah N, Ross Met al., 2005. Evapotranspiration of two vegetation covers in a shallow water table environment.Soil Science Society of American Journal, 69(2): 492–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagendra H, Munroe D K, Southworth J, 2004. From pattern to process: landscape fragmentation and the analysis of land use/land cover change.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 101(2–3): 111–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neill H, Gutiérrez M, Aley T, 2004. Influences of agricultural practices on water quality of Tumbling Creek cave stream in Taney County, Missouri.Environmental Geology, 45: 550–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemoto J, Goto M, 2004. Technological externalities and economies of vertical integration in the electric utility industry.International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22 (1): 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogunseitan O A, 2003. Biotechnology and industrial ecology: new challenges for a changing global environment.African Journal of Biotechnology, 2(12): 596–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olesen J E, Bindi M, 2002. Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use and policy.European Journal of Agronomy, 16(4): 239–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olgerts N, Simon B, Ineta Get al., 2005. The impact of economic, social and political factors on the landscape structure of the Vidzeme Uplands in Latvia.Landscape and Urban Planning, 70(1–2): 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson S, Regnéll J, Persson Aet al., 1997. Sediment-chemistry response to land-use change and pollutant loading in a hypertrophic lake, southern Sweden.Journal of Paleolimnology, 17: 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke E, 2005. Socio-natural interaction and landscape dynamics in the Burren, Ireland.Landscape and Urban Planning, 70 (1–2): 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxley T, McIntosh B S, Winder Net at., 2004. Integrated modelling and decision-support tools: a Mediterranean example.Environmental Modelling & Software, 19(1): 999–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oztas T, Fayetorbay F, 2003. Effect of freezing and thawing processes on soil aggregate stability.Catena, 52(1): 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan W K Y, Bilsborrow R E, 2005. The use of a multilevel statistical model to analyze factors influencing land use: a study of the Ecuadorian Amazon.Global and Planetary Change. (in press)

  • Pan W K Y, Walsh S J, Bilsborrow R Eet al., 2004. Farm-level models of spatial patterns of land use and land cover dynamics in the Ecuadorian Amazon.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 101(2–3): 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker D C, Manson S M, Janssen M Aet al., 2003. Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: a review.Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(2): 314–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick L, Antonis K, 2003. Advanced process systems design technology for pollution prevention and waste treatment.Advances in Environmental Research, 8(2): 229–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patz J A, Daszak P, Tabor G Met al., 2004. Unhealthy landscapes: policy recommendations on land use change and infectious disease emergence.Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(10): 1092–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauleit S, Ennos R, Golding Y, 2005. Modeling the environmental impacts of urban land use and land cover change: a study in Merseyside, UK.Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(2–4): 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavón D, Ventura M, Ribas Aet al., 2003. Land use change and socio-environmental conflict in the Alt Empordà county (Catalonia, Spain).Journal of Arid Environments, 54(3): 543–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrotti A, Pauletto E A, Crestana Set al., 2005. Evaluation of bulk density of Albaqualf soil under different tillage systems using the volumetric ring and computerized tomography methods.Soil & Tillage Research, 80 (1–2): 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennanen J, Greene D F, Fortin M Jet al., 2004. Spatially explicit simulation of long-term boreal forest landscape dynamics: incorporating quantitative stand attributes.Ecological Modelling, 180 (1): 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington D W, Potting J, Finnveden Get al., 2004. Life cycle assessment (Part 2): current impact assessment practice.Environment International, 30(5): 721–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phua M H, Minowa M, 2005. A GIS-based multi-criteria decision making approach to forest conservation planning at a landscape scale: a case study in the Kinabalu Area, Sabah, Malaysia.Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(2–4): 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke R A, Marland G, Betts R Aet al., 2002. The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Land., 360(10): 1705–1719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Place F, Otsuka K, 2001. Population, tenure, and natural resource management: the case of customary land area in Malawi.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41(1): 13–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polasky S, Costello C, McAusland C, 2004. On trade, land-use, and biodiversity.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48(2): 911–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polsky C, Easterling III W E, 2001. Adaptation to climate variability and change in the US Great Plains: a multi-scale analysis of Ricardian climate sensitivities.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 85(1–3): 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pope K O, Pohl M E D, Jones J Get al., 2001. Origin and Environmental Setting of Ancient Agriculture in the Lowlands of Mesoamerica.Science, 292: 1370–1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pucher J, Renne J L, 2003. Socioeconomics of Urban Travel.Transportation Quarterly, 57(3): 49–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulleman M M, Marinissen J C Y, 2004. Physical protection of mineralizable C in aggregates from long-term pasture and arable soil.Geoderma, 120(3–4): 273–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim M, Zilberman D, 2003. Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries.Science, 299: 900–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quetier F, Marty P, Lepart J, 2005. Farmers’ management strategies and land use in an agropastoral landscape: Roquefort cheese production rules as a driver of change.Agricultural Systems, 84(2): 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachman A, Anderson S H, Gantzer C Jet al., 2003. Influence of long-term cropping systems on soil physical properties related to soil erodibility.Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 67: 637–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman S, 2002. Technological change and food production sustainability in Bangladesh agriculture.Asian Profile, 30: 233–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht Ret al., 2004. Life cycle assessment (Part 1): framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications.Environment International, 30(5): 701–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid R S, Kruska R L, Muthui Net al., 2000. Land-use and land-cover dynamics in response to changes in climatic, biological and socio-political forces: the case of southwestern Ethiopia.Landscape Ecology, 15: 339–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renato G, Tommaso A, Matteo Get al., 2004. Biomass distribution of two subalpine dwarf-shrubs in relation to soil moisture and nutrient content.Journal of Vegetation Science, 15: 457–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds K M, Hessburg P F, 2005. Decision support for integrated landscape evaluation and restoration planning.Forest Ecology and Management, 207(1–2): 263–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoton F E, Romkens M J M, Bigham J Met al., 2003. Ferrihydrite influence on infiltration, runoff, and soil loss.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 67(4); 1220–1226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricardo D, 1951-1973. The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo. 11 Volumes. P Sraffa, M H Dobb (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley H C F, Bleken M A, Abrahamsen Set al., 2005. Effects of alternative tillage systems on soil quality and yield of spring cereals on silty clay loam and sandy loam soils in the cool, wet climate of central Norway.Soil & Tillage Research, 80(1–2): 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissler L J, Wilbur H M, Taylor D R, 2004. The influence of ecology and genetics on behavioral variation in Salamander populations across the Eastern Continental Divide.The American Naturalist, 164(2): 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronda R J, van den Hurk B J J M, Holtslag A A M, 2002. Spatial heterogeneity of the soil moisture content and its impact on surface flux densities and near-surface meteorology.Journal of Hydrometeorology, 3: 556–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roo A D, Schmuck G, Perdigao Vet al., 2003. The influence of historic land use changes and future planned land use scenarios on floods in the Oder catchment.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 28(33–36): 1291–1300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosamond L N, Walter P F, Robert M Get al., 2004. Biotechnology in the developing world: a case for increased investments in orphan crops.Food Policy, 29(1): 15–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rustigian H L, Santelmann M V, Schumaker N H, 2003. Assessing the potential impacts of alternative landscape designs on amphibian population dynamics.Landscape Ecology, 18: 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sankararamakrishnan N, Sharma A K, Sanghi R, 2005. Organochlorine and organophosphorous pesticide residues in ground water and surface waters of Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India.Environment International, 31(1): 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanzidur R, 2003. Environmental impacts of modern agricultural technology diffusion in Bangladesh: an analysis of farmers’ perceptions and their determinants.Journal of Environmental Management, 68(2): 183–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki T, 2003. Options, uncertainty and sunk costs: an empirical analysis of land use change.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46 (1): 86–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider N, Eugster W, Schichler B, 2004. The impact of historical land-use changes on the near-surface atmospheric conditions on the Swiss Plateau.Earth Interactions, 8(12): 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semwal R L, Nautiyal S, Sen K Ket al., 2004. Patterns and ecological implications of agricultural land-use changes: a case study from central Himalaya, India.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 102(1): 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serageldin I, 1999. Biotechnology and food security in the 21st century.Science, 285: 387–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serneels S, Lambin E F, 2001. Proximate causes of land use change in Narok district Kenya: a spatial statistical model.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 85(1–3): 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shao Jingan, Huang Xueqin, Gao Minget al., 2004. Fragment land use change and its effects under engineer stress in Reservoir area. Beijing: The 4th International Colloquium on Land Use/Land Cover Change and Environmental Issues in Asia (Programs and Abstracts), pp110.

  • Shao Jingan, Huang Xuexia, Gao Minget al., 2005. Response of CF4 emission from paddy fields to land management practices at a microcosmic cultivation scale.Journal of Environmental Science. (in press)

  • Shao Jingan, Liu Xiuhua, Wei Chaofu, 2003. Study on land consolidation and land use and cover change in county.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 17(6): 9–13. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shao Jingan, Wei Chaofu, Xie Deti, 2005. Sustainable land use planning based on ecological health: case study of Beiwenquan Town, Chongqing, China.Chinese Geographical Science. (in press)

  • Sharma P, Rai S C, Sharma Ret al., 2004. Effects of land-use change on soil microbial C, N and P in a Himalayan watershed.Pedobiologia, 48 (1): 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw R M, Zavaleta E S, Chiariello N Ret al., 2002. Grassland responses to global environmental changes suppressed by elevated CO2.Science, 298: 1997–1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh A L, Asgher M S, 2005. Impact of brick kilns on land use/land cover changes around Aligarh city, India.Habitat International, 29(3): 591–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith D R, Moore P A, Jr Miles D Met al., 2004. Decreasing phosphorus runoff losses from land-applied poultry litter with dietary modifications and Alum Addition.Journal of Environmental Quality, 33(6): 2210–2216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solan M, Cardinale B J, Downing A Let al., 2004. Extinction and ecosystem function in the marine benthos.Science, 306: 1177–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solé R V, Alonso D, Saldana J, 2004. Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity collapse in neutral communities.Ecological Complexity, 1(1): 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solecki W D, Oliveri C, 2004. Downscaling climate change scenarios in an urban land use change model.Journal of Environmental Management, 72(1–2): 105–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan P, Roland E, Yvonne G, 2005. Modeling the environmental impacts of urban land use and land cover change: a study in Merseyside, UK.Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(2–4): 295–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens P A, Pretty J N, Sutherland W J, 2003. Agriculture, transport policy and landscape heterogeneity.Trend in Ecology and Evolution, 18(11): 555–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoorvogel J J, Antle J M, Crissman C C, 2004. Trade-off analysis in the Northern Andes to study the dynamics in agricultural land use.Journal of Environmental Management, 72(1–2): 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugita H, Nakamura H, Shimada T, 2005. Microbial communities associated with filter materials in recirculating aquaculture systems of freshwater fish.Aquaculture, 243(1–4): 403–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suleiman A A, Ritchie J T, 2003. Modeling soil water redistribution during second-stage evaporation.Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 67: 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan A, Ternan J L, Williams A G, 2004. Land use change and hydrological response in the Camel catchment, Cornwall.Applied Geography, 24: 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sveistrup T E, Haraldsen T K, Langohr Ret al., 2005. Impact of land use and seasonal freezing on morphological and physical properties of silty Norwegian soils.Soil & Tillage Research, 81(1): 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tachibana T, Nguyen T M, Otsuka K, 2001. Agricultural intensification versus extensification: a case study of deforestation in the Northern-Hill Region of Vietnam.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41 (1): 44–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi T, 2004. The fate of industrial carbon dioxide.Science, 305: 352–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan R R, 2005. Rule-based life cycle impact assessment using modified rough set induction methodology.Environmental Modelling & Software, 20(5): 509–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang Z, Engel B A, Pijanowski B Cet al., 2005. Forecasting land use change and its environmental impact at a watershed scale.Journal of Environmental Management. (in press)

  • Tanrivermis H, 2003. Agricultural land use change and sustainable use of land resources in the mediterranean region of Turkey.Journal of Arid Environments, 54(1): 553–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenge A J, De Graaff J, Hella J P, 2004. Social and economic factors affecting the adoption of soil and water conservation in West Usambara Highland, Tanzania.Land Degrad. Develop., 15: 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terborgh J, Lopez L, Nuñez P Vet al., 2001. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments.Science, 294: 1923–1926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas G, 2003. Landslide occurrence as a response to land use change: a review of evidence from New Zealand.Catena, 51(3–4): 297–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton P K, Jones P G, 1998. A conceptual approach to dynamic agricultural land-use modelling.Agric. Syst., 57(4): 505–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff Bet al., 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change.Science, 292: 282–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin Det al., 1997. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes.Science, 277: 1300–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinnera W, André F L, Ammann Bet al., 2003. Climatic change and contemporaneous land-use phases north and south of the Alps 2300 BC to 800 AD.Quaternary Science Reviews, 22(14): 1447–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomich T P, Chomitz K, Francisco Het al., 2004a. Policy analysis and environmental problems at different scales: asking the right questions.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 104(1): 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomich T P, Thomas D E, van Noordwijk M, 2004b. Environmental services and land use change in Southeast Asia: from recognition to regulation or reward?Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 104(1): 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomo’omi K, Saitoh T M, Sato Yet al., 2005. Annual water balance and seasonality of evapotranspiration in a Bornean tropical rainforest.Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 128(1–2): 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treitz P, Rogan J, 2004. Remote sensing for mapping and monitoring land-cover and land-use change: an introduction.Progress in Planning, 61(4): 269–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M G, 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 20: 171–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M, Carpenter S, 1998. At last: a journal devoted to ecosystems.Ecosystems, 11: 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner II B L, Kasperson R E, Meyer W Bet al., 1990b. Two types of global environmental change: definitional and spatial-scale issues in their human dimensions.Global Environmental Change, 1(1): 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner II B L, Moss R H, Skole D L, 1993. Relating land use and global land-cover change: a proposal for an IGBP-HDP Core Project. IGBP Report No.24. HDP Report No.5. Stockholm: International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme.

  • Udawatta R P, Motavalli P P, Garrett H E, 2004. Phosphorus loss and runoff characteristics in three adjacent agricultural watersheds with claypan soils.Journal of Environmental Quality, 33: 1709–1719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdo K, Ülo M, 1999. Ecotechnological measures to control nutrient losses from catchments.Wat. Sci. Tech., 40 (10): 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Beek L P H, van Asch T H W J, 2004. Regional assessment of the effects of land-use change on landslide hazard by means of physically based modelling.Natural Hazards, 31: 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Putten W H, de Ruiter P C, Bezemer T Met al., 2004. Trophic interactions in a changing world.Basic and Applied Ecology, 5 (6): 487–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Jaarsveld A S, Freitag S, Chown S Let al., 1998. Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies.Science, 279: 2106–2108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rossum F, de Sousa S C, Triest L, 2004. Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation in an agricultural landscape on the common Primula veris, and comparison with its rare congener, P. vulgaris.Conservation Genetics, 5: 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanacker V, Govers G, Barros Set al., 2003. The effect of short-term socio-economic and demographic change on landuse dynamics and its corresponding geomorphic response with relation to water erosion in a tropical mountainous catchment, Ecuador.Landscape Ecology, 18: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varjoa E, Liikanenb A, Salonena V Pet al., 2003. A new gypsum-based technique to reduce methane and phosphorus release from sediments of eutrophied lakes.Water Research, 37 (1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velázquez A, Durán E, Ramirez Iet al., 2003. Land use-cover change processes in highly biodiverse areas: the case of Oaxaca, Mexico.Global Environmental Change, 13 (3): 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldkamp A, Fresco L O, 1997. Reconstructing land use drivers and their spatial scale dependence for Costa Rica (1973 and 1984).Agricultural Systems, 55(1): 19–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg P H, Soepboer W, Veldkamp Aet al., 2002. Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use: the CLUE-S model.Environment Management, 30(3): 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg P H, van Eck J R R, de Nijs T C Met al., 2004. Determinants of land-use change patterns in the Netherlands.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31: 125–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg P H, Veldkamp A, 2004a. Editorial: spatial modeling to explore land use dynamics.International Journal of GIS. (in press)

  • Verburg P H, Veldkamp A, 2004b. Projecting land use transitions at forest fringes in the Philippines at two spatial scales.Landscape Ecology, 19: 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg P H, Veldkamp A, 2005. Editorial: introduction to the spatial issue on spatial modeling to explore land use dynamics.International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 19(2): 99–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogtländer J G, Lindeijer E, Witte J P Met al., 2004. Characterizing the change of land-use based on flora: application for EIA and LCA.Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(1): 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagendorp T, Gulinck H, Coppin Pet al., 2005. Land use impact evaluation in life cycle assessment based on ecosystem thermodynamics.Energy. (in press)

  • Walsh M E, de la Torre D G U, Shapouri Het al., 2003. Bioenergy crop production in the United States.Environmental and Resource Economics, 24: 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh S J, Crawford T W, Welsh W Fet al., 2001. A multiscale analysis of LULC and NDVI variation in Nang Rong district, northeast Thailand.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 85(1–3): 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Jingai, He Chunyang, Dong Yanchunet al., 2002. Analysis of land use/over driving forces in the urban fringe of Beijing city.Advance in Earth Sciences, 17(2): 201–209. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Xinhao, Yu Sheng, Huang G H, 2004. Land allocation based on integrated GIS-optimization modeling at a watershed level.Landscape and Urban Planning, 66(2): 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardle D A, Hörnberg G, Zackrisson Oet al., 2003. Long-term effects of wildfire on ecosystem properties across an island area gradient.Science, 300: 972–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardle D A, Yeates G W, Barker G M etal., 2003b. Island biology and ecosystem functioning in epiphytic soil communities.Science, 301: 1717–1720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wassenaar T, Lagacherie P, Legros J Pet al., 1999. Modelling wheat yield responses to soil and climate variability at the regional scale.Clim. Res., 11: 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weng Qihao, 2002. Land use change analysis in the Zhujiang Delta of China using satellite remote sensing, GIS and stochastic modeling.Journal of Environmental Management, 64(3): 273–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams M R, Filoso S, Lefebvre P, 2004. Effects of land-use change on solute fluxes to floodplain lakes of the central Amazon.Biogeochemistry, 68: 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson D J, Western A W, Grayson R B, 2005. A terrain and data-based method for generating the spatial distribution of soil moisture.Advances in Water Resources, 28(1): 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood D, Lenné J M, 2005. ‘Received Wisdom’ in agricultural land use policy: 10 years on from Rio.Land Use Policy, 22(2): 75–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood E C, Tappan G G, Hadj A, 2004. Understanding the drivers of agricultural land use change in south-central Senegal.Journal of Arid Environments, 59(3): 565–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu Jianguo, Huang Jianhui, Han Xingguoet al., 2003. Three-Gorges Dam: experiment in habitat fragmentation?Science, 300: 1239–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu Wanru, Geller M A, Dickinson R E, 2002. The response of soil moisture to long-term variability of precipitation.Journal of Hydrometeorology, 3: 604–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia L, Yeh A G, 2000. Modelling sustainable urban development by the integration of constrained cellular automata and GIS.International Journal of Geographic Information Science, 14: 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao Jieying, Shen Yanjun, Ge Jingfenget al., 2005. Evaluating urban expansion and land use change in Shijiazhuang, China, by using GIS and remote sensing.Landscape and Urban Planning. (in press)

  • Xing Kexia, Guo Huaicheng, Sun Yanfenget al., 2005. Assessment of the spatial-temporal eutrophic character in the Lake Dianchi.Journal of Geographical Sciences, 15(1): 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan Weijin, Zhang Shen, Sun Puet al., 2003. How do nitrogen inputs to the Changjiang basin impact the Changjiang River nitrate: a temporal analysis for 1968–1997.Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 17(4): 1091–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Changming, Yang Linzhang, Ouyang Zhu, 2005. Organic carbon and its fractions in paddy soil as affected by different nutrient and water regimes.Geoderma, 124(1–2): 133–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalidis G, Stamatiadis S, Takavakoglou Vet al., 2002. Impacts of agricultural practices on soil and water quality in the Mediterranean region and proposed assessment methodology.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 88(2): 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavaleta E S, Hulvey K B, 2004. Realistic species losses disproportionately reduce grassland resistance to biological invaders.Science, 306: 1175–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zebisch M, Wechsung F, Kenneweg H, 2004. Landscape response functions for biodiversity: assessing the impact of land-use changes at the county level.Landscape and Urban Planning, 67(1–4): 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeller V, Bardgett R D, Tappeiner U, 2001. Site and management effects on soil microbial properties of subalpine meadows.Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 33(4–5): 639–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Chunlai, Gong Jirui, Zou Xueyonget al., 2003a. Estimates of soil movement in a study area in Gonghe Basin, north-east of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.Journal of Arid Environments, 53(3): 85–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Lei, Liu Yi, 2004. An analysis on man-land relationship of eastern China.Acta Geographica Sinica, 59(2): 311–319. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Xuelei, Tan Manzhi, Chen Jieet al., 2005. Impact of land use change on soil resources in the peri-urban area of Suzhou city.Journal of Geographical Sciences, 15(1): 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Yongmin, Zhao Shidong, Verbueg P H, 2003b. CLUE-S and its application for simulating temporal and spatial change of land use in Naiman Banner.Journal of Natural Resources, 18(3): 310–318. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Lin, Ping C L, Yang Daqinget al., 2004. Changes of climate and seasonally frozen ground over the past 30 years in Qinghai-Xizang (Tibetan) Plateau, China.Global and Planetary Change, 43(1–2): 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng Fenli, Merrill S D, Huang Chihuaet al., 2004. Runoff, soil erosion, and erodibility of conservation reserve program land under crop and hay production.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68: 1332–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Lihua, Fan Shengyue, Yang Linet al., 2002. Study on the household’s income and its economic behavior: a case study in the middle of Heihe River Bain.Economic Geography, 22(6): 740–743. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Resource and Environment, Southwest Agricultural University, 400716, Chongqing, China

    Shao Jingan Ph.D., Ni Jiupai, Wei Chaofu & Xie Deti

  2. Chongqing Key Lab. of Digital Agriculture, 400716, Chongqing, China

    Shao Jingan Ph.D., Ni Jiupai, Wei Chaofu & Xie Deti

Authors
  1. Shao Jingan Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ni Jiupai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei Chaofu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xie Deti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jingan, S., Jiupai, N., Chaofu, W. et al. Land use change and its corresponding ecological responses: A review. J. Geogr. Sci. 15, 305–328 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02837519

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02837519

Key words

Search

Navigation