Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Impact assessment of land use planning driving forces on environment

Chen, Longgao; Yang, Xiaoyan; Chen, Longqian; Li, Long

Published in:Environmental Impact Assessment Review

DOI:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.08.001

Publication date:2015

Document Version:Final published version

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Chen, L., Yang, X., Chen, L., & Li, L. (2015). Impact assessment of land use planning driving forces onenvironment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 55, 126-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.08.001

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Download date: 01. Apr. 2020

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /e ia r

Impact assessment of land use planning driving forces on environment

Longgao Chen a,⁎, Xiaoyan Yang a,b, Longqian Chen b, Long Li c

a Institute of Land Resources, Jiangsu Normal University (JSNU), Xuzhou 221116, Chinab School of Environment and Spatial Informatics, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, Chinac Department of Geography, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels 1050, Belgium

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: chenlonggao@163.com (L. Chen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.08.0010195-9255/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 4 February 2015Received in revised form 26 July 2015Accepted 2 August 2015Available online 14 August 2015

Keywords:Land use planningLand use planning environmental impactassessmentState–impact–state modelEnvironmental driving force

Land use change may exert a negative impact on environmental quality. A state–impact–state (SIS) modeldescribing a state transform under certain impacts has been integrated into land use planning (LUP) environ-mental impact assessment (LUPEA). This logical model is intuitive and easy to understand, but the explorationof impact is essential to establish the indicator system and to identify the scope of land use environmental impactwhen it is applied to a specific region. In this study, we investigated environmental driving forces from land useplanning (LUPF), alongwith the conception, components, scope, and impact of LUPF. Thismethodwas illustratedby a case study in Zoucheng, China. Through the results, we concluded that (1) the LUPF on environment areimpacts originated from the implementation of LUP on a regional environment, which are characterized byfour aspects: magnitude, direction, action point, and its owner; (2) various scopes of LUPF on individual environ-mental elements based on different standards jointly define the final scope of LUPEA; (3) our case study inZoucheng demonstrates the practicability of this proposed approach; (4) this method can be embedded intoLUPEA with direction, magnitudes, and scopes of the LUPF on individual elements obtained, and the identifiedindicator system can be directly employed into LUPEA and (5) the assessment helps to identify key indicatorsand to set up a corresponding strategy to mitigate the negative impact of LUP on the environment, which aretwo important objectives of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in LUP.

© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The relative shortage of land resources with increasing humandemand for food or service leads to the excessive use of land, a funda-mental resource to human development, resulting in considerable envi-ronmental problems on various perspectives. Thus, it is essential to planland use patterns and distribution carefully with the consideration ofthese environmental challenges. Environmental impact assessment(EIA), a means to identify potential environmental and social impactsof human actions, has been widely used in various human activitiesincluding land use planning processes (Coleby et al., 2012). EIA aimsto examine, analyze, and assess the planned activities to ensure envi-ronmentally sound and sustainable development (Ramanathan, 2001).To minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive impactson the environment, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) hasbeen used to integrate EIA in land use and planning (Jiricka andPröbstl, 2008), and several practical frameworks have been introducedor developed. For example, Loiseau et al. (2013) adapted a revisedframework based on lifecycle assessment (LCA) to land use planning en-vironmental impact assessment (LUPEA)with a theoretical case studyof aterritory; Barral andOscar (2012) developed amethodological protocol of

SEA to incorporate the value of ecosystem services in LUP and García-Montero et al. (2008) developed a screening method to rapidly evaluatethe LUPEA. Other frameworks or methodologies, such as the healthindex/risk evaluation tool (HIRET) (Bien et al., 2004) and the land suitabil-ity index (LSI) (Marull et al., 2007), have been introduced into LUPEA aswell (Bien et al., 2004; Marull et al., 2007). Some assessment methods/frameworks related to LUPEA are listed in Table 1.

Spatial land planning is amethod for allocating land to different usesin the future (Sutanta et al., 2013). Land use planning considers spatio-temporal arrangement of land resources according to regional develop-ment strategies, especially at a county level. In recent years, geographi-cal information system (GIS) techniques have been widely applied toacquire indicator values for the spatial assessment of LUP (CampagnaandMatta, 2014; Chen et al., 2009a), and have provided a visual and sce-nario tool for LUPEA (Bishop and Stock, 2010; Bishop and Miller, 2007;Rivas Casado et al., 2014). But many early studies (e.g. Tao et al., 2007;Barral and Oscar, 2012; Geneletti, 2012; Amir et al., 1997) ignored theextended spatial influence of LUP, which is the externality of land use en-vironmental impact. Another important but often ignored challenge inLUPEA is the dynamic impacts during the implementation of LUP.Some assessments (e.g. García-Montero et al., 2008; Barral and Oscar,2012;Marull et al., 2007) calculated the impact after the implementa-tion of LUP and compared it with the environmental quality in the baseyear, but seldom investigated the dynamic environmental states

Table 1Summary of assessment methods/framework of land use environmental impact assessment.

Method/framework Researcher Major achievement Study area/case

Health index/risk evaluation tool (HIRET) Bien et al.(2004)

Dynamic human health risk assessment in long-term periodrelated to land use planning was spatially performed within aGIS framework.

A site contaminated by benzene.

Land Suitability Index (LSI) assessment tool Marull et al.(2007)

Quantitative and cartographic assessment of the suitability forland development is executed with GIS calculation.

The municipal urban plans in theBarcelona Metropolitan Region(BMR).

Environmental screening tool García-Monteroet al. (2008)

With the usage of GIS raster screening model, the criticalenvironmental areas to limit the area involved in the land useplans were` identified.

Spanish Transport InfrastructurePlan (PIT 2000–2007) guidelines.

Integrated methodology containing SEA procedure,sustainable assessment framework, and an SEAmanagement system

Chen et al.(2009)

The comprehensive impacts of six possible scenarios by 2011 onecology, society, and economy are simultaneously assessed.

Golf Course Installation Policy inTaiwan

A fuzzy matter-element model and factor-overlaymethod in eco-environmental sensitivityassessment for LUP.

Zhang et al.(2011)

Categorized eco-environmental sensitivity was spatially figuredout with GIS based factor-overlay.

Yicheng City in China

Ecosystem services valuation based methodologicalprotocol

Barral andOscar (2012)

Achieve the ecosystem services provision and assessed theecological contribution of lands.

Balcarce, Southeast PampasRegion (Argentina)

Life cycle assessment (LCA) embedded in LUPEA Loiseau et al.(2013)

Achieve the environmental impacts and the goods and servicesof associated land use scenario.

A theoretical case study ofterritory

State–impact–state (SIS) model Chen et al.(2014)

Obtain the spatial and multi-temporal assessment of LUPenvironmental impact.

Zoucheng County in China.

Minimum indicator set with value-function basedapproach

Recatalá andSacristán(2014)

Be capable to predict environmental impacts on naturalresources at low cost.

Valencian region, a representativearea of the European MediterraneanRegion.

127L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

impacted by the implementation of LUP, resulting in the incomplete-ness of process evaluation in LUPEA.

We developed a state–impact–state (SIS) model as an easy tool forboth theoretical analysis and the application of LUPEA (Chen et al.,2014). Table 2 describes the procedure of LUPEA using the SIS modeland the function/purpose of each step. To apply the SIS model to theLUPEA of other regions, one should explore the impact from LUP on theenvironment before constructing the indicator system and identifyingthe scope of land use environmental impact in target areas. The drivingforces from LUP (LUPF) on the environment require to be systematicallyanalyzed to guide its application to other areas.

The assessment of LUPF helps to build the indicator system and pro-vide the impact scope of individual environmental elements and indicatorvalue for LUPEA.With SEA embedded in LUP, the indicator systemand in-dicator values can be directly employed into LUPEA, and the SEA scopecan be obtained based on the overlay of individual environmental ele-ments. The LUPF assessment is also capable of identifying key indicatorsand of formulating corresponding strategies to mitigate the negativeimpact on the environment, the two important issues that need to bedealt with in SEA. In this study, we first explored the theory of LUPF, in-cluding its conception, components, types, and scope, and then assessed

Table 2The procedure of LUPEA using the SIS model and the function/purpose of each step.Chen et al. (2014)

Steps Function & purpose

Analysis of LUP impact on the environmentThe analysis is basedenvironment and theconstructing environ

Identification of impacted environmental elementsThe environmental cmajor impacted elemelements are develop

Definition of the environmental states in the base year anddifferent planning years.

Based on the concernSIS model. The statesLUPEA.

Calculation of selected indicator valuesSelected indicator vaobtain integrated andbe identified in the st

Assessment of LUP environmental impactThis step obtains theindividual states, the

Identification of key indicators, development of environmentalmitigation measures and alternative LUP scheme.

This step is optional sindicators, developmLUP scheme are rathe

the environmental LUPF by a case study in Zoucheng County, China, totest the feasibility of the model.

2. Conceptualizing the LUPF on the environment

Chen et al. (2014) introduced a SIS model to be integrated intoLUPEA. This model is a conceptual framework describing the structureand object transformation from one state to another under certain LUPimpacts. For example, a regional environment is an object with several el-ements, such as atmosphere,water, soil, and landscape, andhas a functionto purify the pollutant and guarantee the development of society. Objectcan be described and assessed based on certain temporal states and thetransform between states. Each state is described and analyzed basedon the contribution of individual interior elements, in other words, it isdescribed as an overall assessment of a system containing several charac-teristics/indicators. In practice, GIS techniques provide a power tool forthe assessment of LUPF. The spatial and dynamic impacts of LUPF on theenvironment can be determined using spatial analysis, 3D, and collabora-tive virtual analysis (Bishop and Stock, 2010; Bishop and Miller, 2007;Rivas Casado et al., 2014).

on the LUP scheme and regional environmental features. The LUPFs on theenvironmental concerns are figured out in this step. It aims at building the basis formental structure with the environmental elements.oncerns due to LUPFs help to identify the impacted environmental elements. Theents are identified and corresponding indicators reflecting the quality of individualed in this step.s of relevant participants or criterions, the environmental states are defined using theusually contain a base year and different planning years. It sets the checking time for

lues in each checking time are assessed. They provide the data base for LUPEA tocomprehensive results. The major impacted indicators and correlated elements caneps.final assessment of LUP on the environment. With the comparison of each result inenvironmental change and its spatio-temporal dynamics are figured out.ince the assessment is obtained in the previous step. However, identification of keyent of environmental mitigation measures and even the development of alternativer important to mitigate the environmental impact.

128 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

2.1. The conception and components of LUPF on the environment

In a broad context, driving forces can be external forces fromanotherobject or internal forces from the object itself. Both the external andinternal forces may result in a state transformation. Interaction withanother object can cause an object to undergo a certain change suchas position movement, direction shift, or geometrical deformation. Thedriving forces from the object itself can cause the object to transferfrom one state to another. For example, as external forces on the envi-ronment, the LUP driving forces on the environment are the impactsfrom land use and the implementation of land use planning on regionalenvironment, while climate change and geographical movement lead-ing to the environmental change are attributed to the internal force ofthe environment. Based on this definition, we consider LUPF as externalforces for the implementation of LUP on a regional environment, andclimate change and geographical movements as internal forces fromthe environment itself.

Based on the general concept of force in physics, we define the fourcharacteristics of LUPF on environment: 1) magnitude, the intensity oftransformation from one state to another; 2) direction, the way inwhich the transformation occurs; 3) action point, the efficiency of thetransformation; and 4) its owner, which is land use planning. Thisallows LUPF to be expressed asf(m,D,p,o), where m is the magnitude,D is direction, whichmight be north (N), east (E) and vertical (Z) direc-tions or the positive or negative direction depending on the environ-mental state change, p is the action point, and o is land use planning,respectively.

2.2. Spatio-temporal scope of LUPF on the environment

The environment is characterized by a large spatial coverage and theLUPF impact on the environment can be at a global or a local scale. Forexample, a coal power plant may have a widely spread impact bydischarging exhaust gas that pollutes an entire region. In contrast, thewaste water discharged by a coal power plant may be confined withincertain watersheds, affecting only a few communities (Howard et al.,2013). Therefore, we define the scope of a driving force as the spatio-temporal range of an impact on the environment. Fig. 1 shows the spatialscope of force fi on object N. We use Si∈⟨a ,b⟩ to represent the scope offorce fi, where a is the lower bound and b the upper bound of Si includingtime and space.

Fig. 1.Major land use types in Zoucheng County in 2000. T

2.3. Impact of LUPF on the environment

The magnitude of force is described as mf(t,N,E,Z) and determinedby the source intensity. The source intensity of the owner is given bysi(t,N,E,Z), where t is time and N, E and Z are the location of the sourceor individual spots of the influenced object defined above. The impact isdetermined by the magnitude of LUPF (mf) and the tolerance of envi-ronment (To), and is generallymanifested as the change of environmen-tal indicator value. Therefore, the relationships between impact (if),magnitude (mf), and tolerance (To) are represented as if= f(mf,To).Since the magnitude is determined by the source intensity,if= f(mf,To)can be reformulated asif=g(si,To). It represents the relationshipbetween the impact of LUPF, the source intensity of the owner, andthe tolerance of the environment. The magnitude of To varies with thecharacteristics of the environment. For example, when assessing theenvironmental impact of land use, the To of steep terrain to arableland is less than that to a residential land. An overview of the variablesin LUPF and their symbols is listed in Table 3.

3. Forces driving environmental changes

From the perspective of a land use planner, forces driving environ-mental changes can be divided into land use forces and non-land useforces. Understanding these forces is essential to identify the LUPF onthe environment. As a result of the implementation of LUP, parts of en-vironmental elements are affected and an environmental state changemay occur.

3.1. Non-land use forces on the environment

Environmental elements are interrelated interactions between dif-ferent elements that force an environmental state change. For example,evapotranspiration is largely governed by temperature, and bothprecipitation and temperature have impacts on soil moisture stress,plant production (Peng et al., 2012), the expansion of vegetation cover(Poulter et al., 2013), and the species richness (Ortiz-Yusty et al.,2013). External non-land use driving forces have a wide range offorms. For example, an increase in population promotes climatechange, and brings increased waste water and gas production (O'Neillet al., 2012). Vehicles using fossil fuels emit carbon oxides, hydrocar-bons, and nitrogen oxide, hence aggravating the air pollution (Liu and

he two insets show the location of Zoucheng County.

Table 3Explanation of the variables in LUPF and their symbols.

Symbols Variables Description Formula/representation

Si Scope The scope features the spatio-temporal impact of LUPF on environment, where i describes the force i ( fi). Si∈⟨a ,b⟩a Lower

boundThe temporal lower bound indicates the initiative time when the LUPF has impact on the environment, while spatial lowerbound indicates the N, E and Z coordinates with smallest values.

b Upperbound

The temporal upper bound indicates the end time when the LUPF has impact on the environment, while spatial upper boundindicates the N, E and Z coordinates with highest values.

mf Magnitudeof force

Magnitude of force describes the intensity of LUPF on the environment, where f indicates the force. mf (t,N,E,Z)

N, E andZ

N, E and Zcoordinates

The symbols N, E and Z represent the coordinates to the north, east direction, and the height.

t Time The symbol t represents the time when LUPF has impact on the environment. In general, it is the checking time when theenvironmental state be assessed.

Si Sourceintensity

Source intensity determines the magnitude of force. It is capable to be obtained using certain methods such as field survey orpollutant inventory.

si (t,N,E,Z)

if Impact Impact of LUPF on the environment represents the influence intensity. Function f describes the relationship between the dependentvariable and independent variablesmf and To. Function g is the relationship between if and independent variables Si and To.

if= f (mf,To)if=g(si,To)

To Tolerance The symbol To is the tolerance of the environment represented with object o. It is generally determined by the nature ofenvironmental elements and the related land use pattern.

129L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

Barth, 2012) even though the area of land for transportation does notchange. In contrast, advances in science and technology contribute toreducing exhaust emissions, avoiding the over-usage of pesticide andchemical fertilizer, and developing the modern measure to treat pollu-tion with rather high efficiency.

3.2. Land use forces on the environment

LUP regulates and guides future land use in terms of pattern and dis-tribution in an efficient and ethical manner. Depending on its patternand distribution, land use has various impacts on local environmentsin direction and magnitude. Both the proportions and distribution ofland use control energy exchange, material circulation, and informationfeedback among different environmental elements. They also directlychange the indicator values of landscape, such as landscape diversity,patch characteristics, and landscape spatial relationship.

Land use types have varied environmental impacts. For example, inaddition to noise pollution, transportation land leads to large gas emis-sion to soil. It also creates a barrier to local ecosystems. Residential areasdischarge large amounts ofwastewater, gas, and othermaterials duringdaily activities. Industrial zones produce waste materials, noise, and ra-diation, all of which potentially threaten the health of nearby habitantsunless they are treated properly. Some specific industrial land use, suchas energyscape, the complex spatial and temporal combination of thesupply, demand, and infrastructure for energy within a landscape,leads to anthropogenic climate change and affects the local landscapeat a range of scales, from local to national and global (Howard et al.,2013). The land forwater facilities affects the hydrological environmentvia the changes in the shape of water body and the layout of basin.Arable land has positive or negative impacts on the environment, de-pending on how it is managed. Forests reduce sediment and nutrientloading, decrease storm-water runoff and the risk of debris flow, and in-crease the recharge of the ground water (Matteo et al., 2006; Köplinet al., 2013). Grassland may adjust the soil moisture, decrease soilerosion, and improve the water system (Qiu et al., 2011). Wetlands in-fluence the balance between land and water processes (Schmid et al.,2005), reduce flood damage, provide habitat for species, etc. (Gonget al., 2009). Therefore, it is of critical importance to consider the typeof land use in assessing LUP impact on the environment.

3.3. LUP driving forces on the environment

Table 4 lists the major environmental elements that have a closeimpact on humans, and their respective indicators. Only key elementsare considered to simplify the LUPEA process in a more economical andless time-consuming manner. However, we did not consider soil typebecause it is usually unavailable in most cases.

As components of LUP are constrained by spatial arrange and area offuture land use, and land use regulations, the driving forces from LUPare accordingly classified into three categories (Table 5): proportionsof land use, layout of individual types of land use, and land use policyregulations. For each driving force type, itsmostly affected environmentalfactors are also provided and listed in Table 5.

4. A case study at a county level from China

Themethod was demonstrated by a case study of Zoucheng County,Shandong Province, China (Fig. 1). With an area of 1619 km2, Zouchengis ranked as one of the top eight coal production bases in China. Wastewater and exhaust, resulting from annual coalmining and power gener-ating processes, have posed a huge challenge to the environment. Thediffusion of these pollutants is further complicated by the diverse topog-raphy of this county, namely low mountains, hills, plains, depressions,and water body.

Spatial data in this study include a digital elevation model of SRTM(Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) at a spatial resolution of 90 m,and a Landsat image acquired in 2000. The Zoucheng LUP scheme(2000–2010) alongwith data on environmentalmonitoring, hydrology,mineral and geology, demography, and economy, was collected from thelocal government departments. Particularly, the LUP scheme providesdetailed information on how the land would be used in periods fromthe base year of 2000, to the near future year of 2005, and to the targetyear of 2010, including the proportion arrangement for each land usetype, layout of land use, protection of primary farmland, arrangement ofkey projects, land consolidation and rehabilitation, and how regulationsenhance the implementation of this scheme.

To spatially calculate the scope of LUPF and the extending spatial im-pact on the environment, we limited our study area to the whole countyand its adjacent areas (indicated in yellow color in Fig. 1). For a practicableassessment of the LUP environmental impact, we focused on indicatorchanges, instead of themagnitude of LUPF. Indicator values can be obtain-ed by using certainmodelsmodified for LUPEA based on the LUP and dataon environmental monitoring, population, traffic, economy, etc.

During field investigation of environmental challenges and inter-views with local government officials and residences, we found thatnoise and radiation do not pose an issue and they were thus ignoredin the assessment of LUP environmental impact.

4.1. Driving forces of LUP on atmosphere

Weused concentrations of SO2 (CSO2) and smoke&dust (CSD) as in-dicators for LUP on atmosphere. In Zoucheng, lands for coal mining &power generation, and for transportation have increasingly contributedto atmospheric pollution. Meanwhile, the massive use of boilers and

Table 4LUPEA environmental elements and their indicators.

LUPEAenvironmentalelements

Indicators Descriptions

Atmosphere

Total suspendedparticle (TSP)Inhalable particles(IP)Main chemicalpollutants (MCPsA)

Indicators of TSP, IP and MCPs aregenerally described using concentrationvalue per year since the land use planningis the scheme of land use in forward years.

Water

Dissolved oxygen(DO)Chemical oxygendemand (COD)Heavy metalcontamination(HMC)Other main chemicalpollutants (MCPsW)

Indicators of DO, COD, HMC and MCPs aredescribed using concentration value peryear as well.

Land

Land degradation(LDe)Arable land security(ALS)Development of landfor construction(DLC)

The LDe reflects the degradation risk ofagricultural land and the land forresidential use. ALS is presented usingarea of prime farmland per capita (PPF) orarea of arable land per capita (PAL). DLC ispresented using incremental land forconstruction per capita (PCC), the area ofarable land which would be used forconstruction per capita, and so on.

Biodiversity

Ecological carryingcapacity (ECC)ForestWetland/waterGrassland

The elements of biodiversity are assessedby ECC, Forest, Wetland and Grasslandsince the majority of living beings are in anatural environment. ECC is presentedusing the ratio of natural reserve to totalarea. Forest is presented using coveragerate of forest and the ratio of naturalforest to woodland. Grassland ispresented using coverage rate ofgrassland and the ratio of naturalgrassland to total grassland.Wetland/water is presented using the rateof wetland/water to total area.

Landscape

Landscape diversity(LD)Patch characteristics(PC)Landscape spatialrelationship (LSR)

The indicator of LD is generally presentedusing diversity index or dominance index.The indicator of PC contains the patcharea, patch length, patch number, patchshape index, and so on. The indicator ofLSR contains landscape connectivity indexand the landscape minimum distanceindex (Zhu and Xu, 2005).

Noise &Radiation

NoiseRadiation

Noise and Radiation is assessed according tothe local standards of noise and radiation.

130 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

stoves burning coal in residential areas inwinter aggravates air contam-ination. As a result, the LUPF on atmosphere took transportation, coalmining & power plant, residential land into account. We collected thedata of source pollution for key plots, such as plants producing coal,

Table 5Environmental LUPF and corresponding affected environmental elements.

Inventories of LUP Sub-regulation of LUP

Proportions of land useGlobal proportions of all land useProportion of individual types of land to tota

Layout of individual types of land use

Arable land layoutLand for construction layoutForest layoutGrassland layoutWater layout

Land use policy regulations

Arable land protection regulationsEcological and environmental regulationsMonitoring regulations of LUP implementatiSupporting regulations of LUP implementati……

electricity, cement, and steel. The rank of roads in Zoucheng was usedto assess the source intensity of transportation based on the relatedtechnical standards for road design. The pollution monitoring data inresidential areas were used to assess the source intensity of residentialland. All these data were input into a long-term and multi-source airpollution dispersing model to assess LUPF on atmosphere (Chen et al.,2012).

The scopes were determined based on the atmospheric quality stan-dards in China to classify air quality into three levels based on CSO2 andCSD. The corresponding scopes for these levelsweremapped individually(Fig. 2). Table 6 shows the results of LUPF on atmosphere. The forcescopes on atmosphere vary based on the LUP scheme and different stan-dards in the Ambient air quality standard in China (GB 3095-1996).

4.2. Driving forces of LUP on water

The major water pollutants found in Zoucheng were COD and wastewater associated with coal mining, power generation, and daily life oflocal residents. The indicators for water quality employed include CODand waste water (CWW) due to accessibility to environmental monitor-ing data on water. Investigations into water pollution and analysis ofLUP in Zoucheng reveal that the LUPF on water came mainly from theconstruction land and the ecological/environmental regulations.

As pollutant dispersion in water may occur upstream or under-ground, and is affected by a number of factors, such as weather, terrain,soil, vegetation, and agricultural system, it is a time-consuming andexpensive task to assess this process using models, such as the soiland water assessment tool (SWAT), especially in the area where dataavailability is difficult. For the LUPEA in a large area or over a long timespan, it is essential to take the time investment and financial resourcesinto consideration. We incorporated a 0-dimension (0-D) model into adispersion model (Chen et al., 2009b) to assess the LUPF on water envi-ronment in this study. Based on the assumption that pollutant dispersioninto the scope where water is served (that is the drainage basin) is ho-mogenous, the average burdening pollutants in each drainage basin arecalculated using the 0-D dispersion model.

Fig. 3 and Table 7 show the magnitude and scope of LUPF on water.As no standards exist to regulate the burdening capacity of pollutants ondrainage basin, the scopes were determined based on natural breaks toclassify the data into different types and automatically identify the clas-sification characteristic of each type.

4.3. Driving forces of LUP on land, biodiversity, and landscape

The indicators for LUP impact on land used in this case study includearable land (PAL) and construction land per capita (PCC). The propor-tion and layout of the arable land and land for construction, arableland protection regulations, andmonitoring and supporting regulationsof LUP implementation have impacts on the land elements. The scope ofthese forces is the entire area of this county because the arable land and

Mostly affected environmental elements

Landscape.l area Atmosphere; Water; Land; Biodiversity; Landscape; Noise & Radiation.

Water; Land; Biodiversity; Landscape.Atmosphere; Water; Land; Landscape; Noise & Radiation.Atmosphere; Water; Biodiversity; Landscape.Water; Land; Biodiversity; Landscape.Water; Biodiversity; Landscape.Land; LandscapeAll the elements.

on All the elements.on All the elements.

……

Fig. 2. LUPF on atmosphere based on CSO2 & CSD in Zoucheng County in 2000, 2005, and 2010.

131L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

construction land are widely distributed within the county (the LUPwas also applied to the whole county). Using the land use data in2000, LUP scheme and demographic data, we calculated the values ofPAL and PCC.

As natural reserve planning is notmandatory at a county level LUP inChina, it is problematic to obtain biodiversity indicators of ecologicalcarrying capacity (ECC). Instead, we proposed to use the areal ratio offorest and of wetland/water to the total area of this county. The propor-tion and layout of the forest and water, and monitoring and supportingregulations of LUP implementation have impacts on the biological ele-ments. Since the forest or wetland/water may have rather complicatedexternalities on biodiversity outside of the county, the scope of LUPFon biodiversity was defined as the entire county.

Landscape diversity (LD) and shape index value of patch element(SIPE) were the indicators for LUP impact on landscape. The proportionand layout of individual land use types, and monitoring and supportingregulations of LUP implementation have impact on the landscape.

Table 8 shows the LUPF on land, biodiversity, and landscape inZoucheng. Generally, the scopes of driving forces on the elements arelimited within the county area. The indicators of magnitude/valuewere calculated based on the land use data, LUP scheme and populationdata.

5. Discussion

SEA should be considered as a way of implementing the concept ofsustainable development (Therivel, 1993). It is a systematic processconcerning the environmental aspects in making policies, plans, andprograms. SEA provides a comprehensive assessment of environmentalimpacts when embedded into LUP as LUPEA, making the project EIA re-dundant (Wood and Dejeddour, 1992). LUP has the spatio-temporalcharacteristic regulating the future land use. The environmental impactassessment of LUP should make a specific and explicit result to supportspatial decision. It is of great significance to employ a spatio-temporalmethodology in LUPEA.

With technical advances, including remote sensing and GIS, theassessment of LUPF on environment obtained the spatio-temporalobjectives with the results of spatial scope in several time points andthe dynamic change of magnitude. GIS and visibility assessment mayhelp determine the affected areas and the probability of the visualimpact, and thus enhance the landscape assessments and support thedecision making for land use planning and policies (Carver et al.,2013; Bishop and Miller, 2007; Rivas Casado et al., 2014; Milner et al.,2015). For example, collaborative virtual environments in GIS environ-ment allow involved parties to play out multiple planning scenarios to

Table 6LUPF on atmosphere in Zoucheng County in 2000, 2005, and 2010.

Scope

Forces (environmental direction) Magnitude/value Area (percentage to Zoucheng area)⁎ Indicator Level (reference value) Year

Within Zoucheng Outside Zoucheng

1. Transportation (negative);2. Coal mining & power plants (negative);3. Residential land (negative);4. Ecological and environmental regulations (positive);5. Monitoring & supporting regulations of LUP implementation

(positive).

N0.02 517.30 (31.95) 15.95 (0.99) CSO2 1st (0.02) 2000398.79 (24.63) 5.33 (0.33) 2005300.73 (18.58) 4.51 (0.28) 2010

N0.06 117.09 (7.23) 0.44 (0.03) 2nd (0.06) 200093.75 (5.79) 0.06 (0) 200554.28 (3.35) 0.03 (0) 2010

N0.10 57.38 (3.54) 0.19 (0.01) 3rd (0.10) 200046.75 (2.89) 0.03 (0) 200548.43 (2.99) 0 (0) 2010

N0.08 2.96 (0.18) 0.06 (0) CSD 1st (0.08) 20000.91 (0.06) 0 (0) 20050.84 (0.05) 0 (0) 2010

N0.20 0.48 (0.03) 0 (0) 2nd (0.20) 20000.17 (0.01) 0 (0) 20050.06 (0) 0 (0) 2010

N0.30 0.17 (0.01) 0 (0) 3rd (0.30) 20000.04 (0) 0 (0) 20050 (0) 0 (0) 2010

Unit: km2, mg/L, %.

Fig. 3. LUPF on water based on CWW & COD in Zoucheng County in 2000, 2005, and 2010.

132 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

Table 7LUPF on water in Zoucheng County in 2000, 2005, and 2010.

Forces (environmental direction) Magnitude/valueScope (percentage to Zoucheng area)

Indicator YearWithin Zoucheng Outside Zoucheng

1. Coal mining & power plants (negative);2. Residential land (negative);3. Ecological and environmental regulations (positive);4. Monitoring & supporting regulations of LUP implementation (positive).

N0.21537.20 (94.95) 916.69 (56.62)

COD

20001366.94 (84.44) 549.87 (33.97) 20051600.85 (98.89) 958.05 (59.18) 2010

N1.0772.58 (47.72) 216.56 (13.38) 2000765.68 (47.30) 152.4 (9.41) 2005765.68 (47.30) 152.4 (9.41) 2010

N0.61537.2 (94.95) 916.69 (56.62)

CWW

20001600.85 (98.89) 958.05 (59.18) 20051600.85 (98.89) 958.05 (59.18) 2010

N6.0849.82 (52.49) 328.99 (20.32) 2000772.58 (47.72) 216.56 (13.38) 20051366.94 (84.44) 549.87 (33.97) 2010

Unit: mg/m2, %.

133L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

gather instant feedback in the process (Bishop and Stock, 2010). As apowerful tool in developing detailed planning policies and actions forwild land conservation and management, GIS models were employedto map wildness, supporting decisions about planning, policy, andmanagement in protected landscapes in Scotland (Carver et al., 2012).We assessed the LUPF environmental impact in Zoucheng County withtraditional GIS based spatial analysis. The GIS-related techniques, suchas 3D analysis and collaborative virtual environments, would strengthenthe assessment with rather intuitionistic and interactive advantages,and therefore improve the LUPEA in practice.

Since future land use is regulated by the land use planning scheme,LUPF on the environment is the impact from the implementation of LUPon a regional environment. As environmental quality has continuousimpact onhumanhealth, it is necessary to assess the environmental influ-ence during the implementation of LUP.When it is integratedwith the SISmodel, this method provides an applicable way of evaluating the processin LUPEA, which is generally ignored by many assessments (e.g. García-Montero et al., 2008; Barral and Oscar, 2012; Marull et al., 2007). Thethree-temporal impacts in the base year, near future year, and targetyear of LUP in Zoucheng were obtained in the case study, validating thecapability of process evaluation. It extends the traditional definition ofLUPEA to a multi-temporal assessment in practice.

Land uses have externality (Andrews, 1992; Irwin and Bockstael,2004; Zhang et al., 2005). For example, the impact of land use on theenvironment may be extended to nearby areas. It is essential to assessthe extended impact, especially the negative impact when executingthe LUPEA. Our method obtains the extended spatial impact of LUP on

Table 8LUPF on land, biodiversity, and landscape in Zoucheng County.

Forces (environmental direction)Environmentaelement

1. Proportion and layout of the arable land (positive)2. and land for construction (negative);3. Arable land protection regulations (positive);4. Monitoring and supporting regulations of LUP implementation (positive).

Land

1. Proportion and layout of the forest and water (positive);2. Monitoring and supporting regulations of LUP implementation (positive).

Biodiversity

1. Proportion and layout of individual land use type (dual);2. Monitoring and supporting regulations of LUP implementation (positive).

Landscape

Unit: m2/per capita, %.

environment, in contrast to many assessments that generally neglectthe externality of LUP environmental impact.

More than a concept, LUPF is a method that can be embedded intoLUPEA. Several studies discussed the impact on environment but fo-cused on the qualitative analysis, screening the assessment, or construc-tion of indicator system to help assess the influence of the environment(Reid et al., 2000; García-Montero et al., 2008; Koellner and Scholz,2008; Geneletti, 2012; Tang et al., 2005). We developed a quantitativeand explicit assessment of LUPF by defining its four components andclassify LUPF on the environment into individual categories accordingto the LUP inventories.

The LUPF assessment in Zoucheng obtains the scopes, magnitudes,directions of individual impacts on environment, and key indicatoridentification and corresponding mitigations. In the assessment ofLUPF on atmosphere in Zoucheng using CSO2, the affected scopeswere found in the western towns where the majority of coal miningand power generation plants were located. This result validates the ra-tionality of driving force analysis on scopes and suggests the necessityto avoid the allocation of residential land in this area or to develop thecorresponding mitigating measures on the environment. A decrease inthe scope of CSO2 and CSD indicates the reduction of pollutions due tothe LUP scheme. The driving force scope in CSO2 outside Zoucheng dem-onstrates the external influences of air pollution although the coverage ofLUP was limited only in Zoucheng. The scopes in CSD were distributed inthe towns of Zoucheng, Tangcun, and Beisu, which own coal mining andpower generation plants, indicating a prominent presence of the influ-ence on air pollution with CSD in Zoucheng County.

lIndicator Magnitude/value Scope Year

PAL1050.4

Whole Zoucheng county2000

1026.6 2005965.2 2010

PCC152.9

Whole Zoucheng county2000

152.1 2005159.1 2010

Rate of forest (PFr)4.63

Whole Zoucheng county2000

9.08 20059.07 2010

Rate of wetland/water (PWt)3.46

Whole Zoucheng county2000

3.54 20053.50 2010

LD0.45

Whole Zoucheng county2000

0.44 20050.45 2010

SIPE2.71

Whole Zoucheng county2000

2.18 20052.17 2010

134 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

Wealso observed change in the scopes of CODand CWW in the LUPFon water based on different magnitude standards. The change in scopewith COD over 0.2 mg/m2 indicates that the implementation of LUPreduced the negative impact on water in 2005 but aggravated thenegative impact in 2010. However, the scope change over 0.1 mg/m2

suggests that the influence on water would decrease continuouslyduring the planning period. According to the indicator of CWW, boththe scopes inside and outside Zoucheng show some increases, indicatinggrowing stresses for waste water treatment. The outside scopes werefound according to each standard, suggesting that the external influenceneeds to be given more consideration since water pollutants disperse indrainage basin but not in administrative coverage. Therefore, the treat-ment of waste water requires more consideration for the increasing dis-charge during the planning period.

The value change of PAL is a sign of the lower capacity of self-sufficiency as a direct result of constantly increasing population. Toreduce the negative impact on food security in the planning period,certain measures need to be developed, such as the quality monitoringand protection measures for arable land, improved farming system,and new techniques (e.g. precision agriculture) and agricultural equip-ment. The increase in PCC indicates more challenges for environmentalprotection from construction land since it is the source of themajority ofpollutants. Both the rate of forest (PFr) and rate ofwetland/water (PWt)values show a certain increase, indicating the positive impact of LUP onbiodiversity. The LD change suggests that the LUPF impact on landscapediversity is firstly negative, then positive. Certain environmentalmitiga-tion measures are necessary to reduce the negative impact during theplanning period according to the decreasing pattern of LD from 2000to 2005. The decrease in SIPE values indicates that the shape of patcheswould be simplified. It may reduce the capacity of material and energyexchange. The LUP in Zoucheng would have a negative impact on land-scape according to the indicator of SIPE. Since the external impacts ofLUPF on land, biodiversity and landscape are complicated, we definethe scope as the whole county area to simplify the assessment.

The methodology quantifies the magnitude, direction, and scope ofLUPF on individual environmental elements, and builds the basis forLUPEA using certain methodologies. The impacted scope of LUPF can bedesignated as the assessment scope of SEA in LUP. It is the combinationof various scopes on individual elements based on different standardsand can be determined using the overlay of scope maps in GIS. The iden-tified indicator systems can be directly employed into LUPEA with a cer-tain framework, such as the SIS model or the Pressure–State–Response(PSR) framework. In addition, the assessment of LUPF helps identify keyindicators and set up corresponding mitigation to decrease the negativeimpact on the environment, achieving the important objective of SEA inLUP. Themethod presented here can be transferred to other regions if en-vironmental elements affected by LUP are identified and environmentmonitoring and other data required by assessment are available.

6. Conclusions

In this study, we introduced LUPF, a driving force of future land useon the environment, which is characterized by magnitude, direction,action point, and its owner. As the LUP forces come from both withinand outside the involved area, it is therefore necessary to take the envi-ronmental external influence into the consideration when assessingLUPEA. Our method is capable of obtaining the magnitude, direction,and spatial scope of LUPF on environmental elements with multi-temporal states. The combination of various scopes on individual ele-ments determines the assessment scope of SEA in LUP.

Environmental elements considered in the assessment of LUPF impactin Zoucheng were determined by means of different processes. The LUPFin Zoucheng have various impacts on individual environmental elements.The impact scopes of force on atmosphere indicate the positive impactboth in indicators of CSO2 and CSD. In contrast, the scopes in CODand CWW show various changing characteristics based on different

magnitude standards, suggesting the dual impact on water. Therefore,the treatment of waste water especially in residential land needs to betaken more into consideration to fit for increased discharge during theplanning period, while the impact on landscape with the indicator of LDis basically stable despite a slight decrease from 2000 to 2005.

Assessment of LUPF on the environment can be embedded intoLUPEA for a spatial and dynamic analyses. It helps to identify key indica-tors for the LUPEA implementation and to formulate measures todecrease the negative impact on the environment, both of which are im-portant issues in SEA. Although the model is illustrated by a case study ina county in China, this study has methodological implications for otherLUPEA studies.

Acknowledgments

Thework is a contribution to Project “Study on themodel of land useplanning environmental multi-temporal states assessment at a countylevel” (No: 41271121), funded by the National Natural Science Founda-tion of China. It is also support by A Project Funded by the PriorityAcademic ProgramDevelopment of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions(PAPD), and “A study on the realization mechanism of ‘production cityfusion’ of the urban New District in China” (15AJL014) funded by theNational Social Science Fund of China. The non-spatial data used in thisstudy were largely acquired from the Zoucheng government, and theSRTM DEM and Landsat data were freely provided by the InternationalScientific Data Service Platform of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Theauthors wish to thank Dr. Yingkui Li from the University of Tennesseefor his constructive advice, and Dr. Alan Bond for his sincere and valuablecomments.

References

Amir, S., Frenkel, A., Law-Yone, H., Shefer, D., Trop, T., 1997. Integration of environmentalassessment into the regional development planning process of the Galilee. Environ.Manage. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002679900005.

Andrews, C.J., 1992. The marginality of regulating marginal investments. Energy Policyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(92)90067-C.

Barral, M.P., Oscar, M.N., 2012. Land-use planning based on ecosystem service assess-ment: a case study in the Southeast Pampas of Argentina. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.154, 34–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.07.010.

Bien, J.D., TerMeer, J., Rulkens,W.H., Rijnaarts, H.H.M., 2004. A GIS-based approach for thelong-term prediction of human health risks at contaminated sites. Environ. Model.Assess. 9, 221–226.

Bishop, I.D., Miller, D.R., 2007. Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: the influenceof distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renew. Energy 32, 814–831.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.03.009.

Bishop, I.D., Stock, C., 2010. Using collaborative virtual environments to plan wind energyinstallations. Renew. Energy 35, 2348–2355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.04.003.

Campagna, M., Matta, A., 2014. Geoinformation technologies in sustainable spatial plan-ning: a geodesign approach to local land-use planning. Proc. SPIE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2066189.

Carver, S., Comber, A., McMorran, R., Nutter, S., 2012. A GISmodel for mapping spatial pat-terns and distribution of wild land in Scotland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104, 395–409.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.016.

Carver, S., Tricker, J., Landres, P., 2013. Keeping it wild: mapping wilderness character inthe United States. J. Environ. Manage. 131, 239–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.046.

Chen, C.-H., Wu, R.-S., Liu, W.-L., Su, W.-R., Chang, Y.-M., 2009a. Development of a meth-odology for strategic environmental assessment: application to the assessment of golfcourse installation policy in Taiwan. Environ. Manage. 43, 166–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9222-3.

Chen, L., Chen, L., Yang, X., 2009b. On the land use water environment contamination as-sessment based on drainage area in Zoucheng county. Territ. Nat. Resour. Study 4,40–41 (in Chinese).

Chen, L., Yang, X., Chen, L., Potter, R., Li, Y., 2014. A state–impact–state methodology forassessing environmental impact in land use planning. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.46, 1–12.

Chen, L., Yang, X., Kang, J., 2012. A case study of land use planning environmental assess-ment based on the air pollution analysis. In: Lee, G. (Ed.), Advances in ComputationalEnvironment Science SE-39, Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing. Springer,Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 319–328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978–3–642–27957-7_39.

Coleby, A.M., van der Horst, D., Hubacek, K., Goodier, C., Burgess, P.J., Graves, A., Lord, R.,Howard, D., 2012. Environmental Impact Assessment, Ecosystems Services and theCase of Energy Crops in England. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.6039.

135L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

García-Montero, L.G., Otero Pastor, I., Quintana, S.M., Casermeiro, M.A., 2008. An environ-mental screening tool for assessment of land use plans covering large geographicareas. Environ. Sci. Policy 11, 285–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.10.002.

Geneletti, D., 2012. Environmental assessment of spatial plan policies through land usescenarios. A study in a fast-developing town in rural Mozambique. Environ. ImpactAssess. Rev. 32, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.015.

Gong, Z.N., Gong, H.L., Li, X.J., Zhao, W.J., Zhang, Y.Q., 2009. Ecological Environment EffectAnalysis of Wetland Change in Beijing Region Using GIS and RS, in: 2009 Joint UrbanRemote Sensing Event. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/URS.2009.5137644.

Howard, D.C., Burgess, P.J., Butler, S.J., Carver, S.J., Cockerill, T., Coleby, A.M., Gan, G.,Goodier, C.J., Van der Horst, D., Hubacek, K., Lord, R., Mead, A., Rivas-Casado, M.,Wadsworth, R.A., Scholefield, P., 2013. Energyscapes: linking the energy system andecosystem services in real landscapes. Biomass Bioenergy 55, 17–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.05.025.

Irwin, E.G., Bockstael, N.E., 2004. Land use externalities, open space preservation, and urbansprawl. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 34, 705–725http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2004.03.002.

Jiricka, A., Pröbstl, U., 2008. SEA in local land use planning— first experience in the AlpineStates. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28, 328–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.002.

Koellner, T., Scholz, R.W., 2008. Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment.Part 2: generic characterization factors for local species diversity in Central Europe. Int.J. Life Cycle Assess. 13, 32–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.12.292.2.

Köplin, N., Schädler, B., Viviroli, D., Weingartner, R., 2013. The importance of glacier andforest change in hydrological climate-impact studies. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17,619–635. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-619-2013.

Liu, H., Barth, M., 2012. Identifying the effect of vehicle operating history on vehicle run-ning emissions. Atmos. Environ. 59, 22–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.05.045.

Loiseau, E., Roux, P., Junqua, G., Maurel, P., Bellon-Maurel, V., 2013. Adapting the LCAframework to environmental assessment in land planning. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.18, 1533–1548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0588-y.

Marull, J., Pino, J., Mallarach, J., Cordobilla, M., 2007. A Land Suitability Index for StrategicEnvironmental Assessment in metropolitan areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 81, 200–212.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.11.005.

Matteo, M., Randhir, T., Bloniarz, D., 2006. Watershed-scale impacts of forest buffers onwater quality and runoff in urbanizing environment. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag.http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2006)132:3(144).

Milner, S., Holland, R.A., Lovett, A., Sunnenberg, G., Hastings, A., Smith, P., Wang, S., Taylor,G., 2015. Potential Impacts on Ecosystem Services of Land Use Transitions to SecondGeneration Bioenergy Crops in GB. GCB Bioenergy n/a–n/a http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12263.

O'Neill, B.C., Ren, X., Jiang, L., Dalton, M., 2012. The effect of urbanization on energy use inIndia and China in the iPETS model. Energy Econ. 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.04.004.

Ortiz-Yusty, C.E., Páez, V.P., Zapata A, F., Paez, V., Zapata, F., 2013. Temperature and precip-itation as predictors of species richness in northern Andean amphibians fromColombia. Caldasia 35, 65–80.

Peng, J., Dong, W., Yuan,W., Zhang, Y., 2012. Responses of grassland and forest to temper-ature and precipitation changes in Northeast China. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 29, 1063–1077.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00376-012-1172-2.

Poulter, B., Pederson, N., Liu, H., Zhu, Z., D'Arrigo, R., Ciais, P., Davi, N., Frank, D., Leland, C.,Myneni, R., Piao, S., Wang, T., 2013. Recent trends in Inner Asian forest dynamics totemperature and precipitation indicate high sensitivity to climate change. Agric.For. Meteorol. 178-179, 31–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.12.006.

Qiu, G.Y., Yin, J., Tian, F., Geng, S., 2011. Effects of the “Conversion of Cropland to Forestand Grassland Program” on the water budget of the Jinghe River catchment inChina. J. Environ. Qual http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2010.0263.

Ramanathan, R., 2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environ-mental impact assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 63, 27–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0455.

Recatalá, L., Sacristán, D., 2014. A minimum indicator set for assessing resources quality andenvironmental impacts at planning level in a representative area of the European Med-iterranean Region. Ecol. Indic. 45, 160–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.010.

Reid, R.S., Kruska, R.L., Muthui, N., Taye, A., Wotton, S., Wilson, C.J., Mulatu, W., 2000.Land-use and land-cover dynamics in response to changes in climatic, biologicaland socio-political forces: the case of southwestern Ethiopia. Landsc. Ecol. 15,339–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008177712995.

Rivas Casado, M., Mead, A., Burgess, P.J., Howard, D.C., Butler, S.J., 2014. Predicting the im-pacts of bioenergy production on farmland birds. Sci. Total Environ. 476-477, 7–19.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.080.

Schmid, T., Koch, M., Gumuzzio, J., 2005. Multisensor approach to determine changes ofwetland characteristics in semiarid environments (Central Spain). IEEE Transactionson Geoscience and Remote Sensing, pp. 2516–2525 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2005.852082.

Sutanta, H., Rajabifard, A., Bishop, I.D., 2013. Disaster risk reduction using acceptable riskmeasures for spatial planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 56, 761–785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.702314.

Tang, Z., Engel, B.A., Pijanowski, B.C., Lim, K.J., 2005. Forecasting land use change and itsenvironmental impact at a watershed scale. J. Environ. Manage. 76, 35–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.006.

Tao, T., Tan, Z., He, X., 2007. Integrating environment into land-use planning through stra-tegic environmental assessment in China: towards legal frameworks and operationalprocedures. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 27, 243–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.10.002.

Therivel, R., 1993. Systems of strategic environmental assessment. Environ. Impact Assess.Rev. 13, 145–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0195-9255(93)90029-B.

Wood, C., Dejeddour, M., 1992. Strategic Environmental Assessment: EA OF POLICIES,PLANS AND PROGRAMMES. Impact Assess http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1992.9725728.

Zhang, J., Wang, K., Chen, X., Zhu,W., 2011. Combining a fuzzymatter-elementmodel with ageographic information system in eco-environmental sensitivity and distribution ofland use planning. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8, 1206–1221. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8041206.

Zhang, S., Wen, Z., Jiao, F., 2005. Externalities of the environmental impact of land use andcorresponding approaches. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 12 (1), 39–42 (in Chinese).

Zhu, J., Xu, H., 2005. Analysis and evaluation on forest landscape patterns of Gejiu City ofYunnan province. J. West China For. Sci. 34 (4), 67–71 (in Chinese).

LonggaoChen is an associate professor of Land Resource andManagement at JiangsuNor-mal University (JSNU), Xuzhou, China. Dr. Chen obtained his PhD from China University ofMining and Technology (CUMT) in 2009 andhasworked at JSNU as of 1999.He focuses hisresearch on the land use and its environmental impact, and has published several articlesand books in the fields of environmental assessment, land use planning, the application ofremote sensing and geographical information science in land use andmanagement. He al-so has long experience working with local governments in land use planning and land in-formation system design.

Xiaoyan Yang is a PhD student at CUMT in Land resource and its Management. She alsoworks at the Department of Land Resource and Management of JSNU as of 2000 with re-search interests in land use planning and land ecology. She obtained her Master's degreein Geographical Information Science from CUMT in 2007. She has published several arti-cles in thefields of landuse planning, landuse policy and the application of remote sensingand geographical information science in land use and management.

Longqian Chen is a professor of Land Resource andManagement at CUMT. Formore than20 years, his research has focused on the area of land resource use and environmentalmonitoring. One of his wide research interests is the application of various spatial tech-niques to investigate land-use/land-cover dynamics and environmental changes. He haspublished 11 books andmore than160 articles in thefields of landuse assessment, ecolog-ical reconstruction, land reclamation, land use policy, and natural resources.

Long Li is a PhD student at the Department of Geography of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.His research interests include landuse planning and urban heat island bymeans of remotesensing and geographical information system techniques. He is currently working on spectraof lava flows of different volcanoes using satellite images combined with field spectroscopydata.