Impact of Port Construction on the Spatial Pattern of Land Use in Coastal Zones Based on CLDI and LUT Models: A Case Study of Qingdao and Yantai
<p>Geographic distribution map of the study area (Landsat-8 OLI image, 2020).</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of the grid division.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Distribution of the LDI in the study areas of Qingdao and Yantai.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Schematic diagram of the LUT sequence samples in the Qingdao coastal zone (BL: building land; Wa: waters; CL: cultivated land; GP: garden plot; FL: forestland; OL: other land; AS: aquaculture and salt field).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Schematic diagram of the LUT sequence samples in the Yantai coastal zone (BL: building land, Wa: waters, CL: cultivated land, GP: garden plot, FL: forestland, OL: other land and AS: aquaculture and salt field).</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Distribution of the important CLDI sequences in the Qingdao coastline zone.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Distribution of the important CLDI sequences in the Yantai coastline zone.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Research Data
2.3. Remote Sensing Image Classification
2.4. Association Rule Mining Method
2.4.1. CLDI Model
2.4.2. LUT Model
3. Results
3.1. The Land Use Patterns in the Qingdao Port Area
3.1.1. Association Rules between Coastline Change and Land Development Intensity in Qingdao
3.1.2. Association Rules of Land Use Transfer in Qingdao
3.2. The Land Use Patterns in the Yantai Port Area
3.2.1. Association Rules between Coastline Change and Land Development Intensity in Yantai
3.2.2. Association Rules of Land Use Transfer in Yantai
4. Discussion
4.1. Characteristics of Land Use Patterns in the Qingdao Port Area
4.2. Characteristics of Land Use Patterns in the Yantai Port Area
4.3. The Impacts of Port Construction on the Spatial Pattern of Land Utilization and Suggestions
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Akhavan, M. Development dynamics of port-cities interface in the Arab Middle Eastern world The case of Dubai global hub port-city. Cities 2017, 60, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Z.J.; Zhang, Y.J. Research on international trade ports and the regional industrial development of Japan. Urban Rural Plan 2019, 1, 106–116. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X. The Interactive radiation effect between port city and hinterland city in Ningbo bay area. J. Ningbo Univ. (Lib. Ed.) 2020, 33, 110–121. [Google Scholar]
- Yagoub, M.M.; Kolan, G.R. Monitoring coastal zone land use and land cover changes of Abu Dhabi using remote sensing. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2006, 34, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uenlue, T. Transformation of a Mediterranean port city into a ‘city of clutter’: Dualities in the urban landscape The case of Mersin. Cities 2013, 30, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karen, M.P.; Jesus, G.F.; Jairo, R.T.; Laura, P.A. Defining and characterizing urban logistics spaces: Insights from a port city and generalization issues. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference in Information Systems, Logistics and Supply Chains, Austin, TX, USA, 22 April 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Debrie, J.; Raimbault, N. The port–city relationships in two European inland ports: A geographical perspective on urban governance. Cities 2016, 50, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martín-Antón, M.; Campo, J.M.; Negro, V.; Luengo Frades, J.; Moreno Blasco, L.J.; Jiménez Verdejo, J.R. Land use and port-city integration in reclamation areas: A comparison between Spain and Japan. J. Coast Res. 2020, 95, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magarotto, M.G.; da Costa, M.F.; Tenedório, J.A.; Silva, C.A. Vertical growth in a coastal city: An analysis of Boa Viagem (Recife, Brazil). J. Coast Conserv. 2016, 20, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha, J.; Ferreira, J.C.; Simões, J.; Tenedório, J.A. Modelling coastal and land use evolution patterns through neural network and cellular automata integration. J. Coast. Res. 2007, 827–831. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26481698 (accessed on 27 May 2021).
- Freire, S.; Santos, T.; Tenedório, J.A. Recent urbanization and land use/land cover change in Portugal the influence of coastline and coastal urban centers. J. Coast. Res. 2009, 1499–1503. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25738039 (accessed on 27 May 2021).
- Morueta-Holme, N.; Svenning, J.C. Geography of plants in the new world: Humboldt’s relevance in the age of big data. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 2018, 103, 315–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Misra, A.; Balaji, R. A study on the shoreline changes and land-use/ land-cover along the south Gujarat coastline. Procedia Eng. 2015, 116, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ozturk, D.; Sesli, F.A. Shoreline change analysis of the Kizilirmak Lagoon Series. Ocean Coast Manag. 2015, 118, 290–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setiawan, Y.; Lubis, M.I.; Yusuf, S.M.; Prasetyo, L.B. Identifying change trajectory over the Sumatra’s forestlands using moderate image resolution imagery. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2015, 24, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, C.; Jie, B.; Chen, W.; Pan, L. Association rule analysis of factors contributing to extraordinarily severe traffic crashes in China. J. Saf. Res. 2018, 67, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rauch, J. Logic of association rules. Appl. Intell. 2005, 22, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nourani, V.; Molajou, A. Application of a hybrid association rules/decision tree model for drought monitoring. Glob Planet Chang. 2017, 159, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludwig, C.; Fendrich, S.; Zipf, A. Regional variations of context-based association rules in OpenStreetMap. Trans. GIS 2020, 27, 602–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Fan, Y.; Dong, X.; Xu, B. Improving association rules by optimizing discretization based on a hybrid GA: A case study of data from forest ecology stations in China. In Proceedings of the 2013 Fourth International Conference on Emerging Intelligent Data and Web Technologies, Xi’an, China, 9 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bembenik, R.; Ruszczyk, A.; Protaziuk, G. Discovering collocation rules and spatial association rules in spatial data with extended objects using delaunay diagrams. In Proceedings of the Joint Rough Set SymposiumInternational Conference on Rough Sets and Emerging Intelligent Systems Paradigms, Madrid, Spain, 9 July 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Abbes, A.B.; Hemissi, S.; Farah, I.R. An efficient knowledge-based approach for random variation interpretation in NDVI time series. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gharbi, A.; Runz, C.D.; Faiz, S.; Akdag, H. Towards Association Rules as a Predictive Tool for Geospatial Areas Rvolution. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 1975; ISBN 978-3-211-81378-2. [Google Scholar]
- Ferrarini, A.; Tomaselli, M. A new approach to the analysis of adjacencies: Potentials for landscape insights. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221, 1889–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anputhas, M.; Janmaat, J.J.A.; Nichol, C.F.; Wei, X.A. Modelling spatial association in pattern based land use simulation models. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Z.; Liao, X.; Su, F.Z.; Fu, D. Mining coastal land use sequential pattern and its land use associations based on association rule mining. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ding, Z.; Su, F.Z.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Tang, X. Clustering coastal land use sequence patterns along the sea–land direction: A case study in the coastal zone of Bohai Bay and the Yellow River Delta, China. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Qingdao Institute of Local History. General Situation of Qingdao. Available online: http://qdsq.qingdao.gov.cn/n15752132/n15752711/160812110726762883.html (accessed on 3 February 2021).
- Yantai Municipal People’s Government. General Situation of Yantai. Available online: http://www.yantai.gov.cn/col/col11751/index.html (accessed on 3 February 2021).
- United States Geological Survey. EarthExplorer. Available online: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ (accessed on 29 July 2020).
- Jackson, T.J.; Chen, D.; Cosh, M.; Li, F.; Hunt, E.R. Vegetation water content mapping using Landsat data derived normalized difference water index for corn and soybeans. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 92, 475–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goward, S.N.; Markham, B.; Dye, D.G.; Dulaney, W.; Yang, J. Normalized difference vegetation index measurements from the advanced very high resolution radiometer. Remote Sens. Environ. 1991, 35, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.H.; Yan, J.F. Research on extraction method of building land based on multivariate information. Beijing Surv. Mapp. 2018, 32, 1393–1396. [Google Scholar]
- Sanchez, D.; Vila, M.A.; Cerdaa, L.; Serrano, J.M. Association rules applied to credit card fraud detection. Expert Syst. Appl. Int. J. 2009, 36, 3630–3640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaki, M.J. Mining non-redundant association rules. Data Min Knowl. Discov. 2004, 9, 223–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, J.F.; Xiao, R.M.; Su, F.Z.; Wang, T. Mining the association rules between port shoreline and land utilization intensity: A case study in the coastal zone of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Geocarto Int. 2020, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Z.; Qi, S.; Chenchang, D. Study on the influencing factors of spatial and temporal evolution of urban industrial land:take Qingdao as an example. In Proceedings of the Annual National Planning Coference, Chongqing, China, 6 March 2019; p. 13. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, J.W. Study on the Characteristics of Integrated Development of Qingdao Port, Industry and City. Master’s Thesis, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, N. The Research of Yantai City Government Function on the Interanction Development of Port and City. Master’s Thesis, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Elvira, N.; Maria, P. Strategic vision of a Euro-Mediterranean port city: A case study of Palermo. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3941–3959. [Google Scholar]
- Li, M.; Zhang, Z.; Lo Seen, D.; Sun, J.; Zhao, X. Spatiotemporal Characteristics of Urban Sprawl in Chinese Port Cities from 1979 to 2013. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Classification | Building Land | Forestland | Water | Cultivated Land | Aquaculture and Salt Field | Other Land | Garden Plot |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Building land | 92.89 | 9.38 | 0 | 4.54 | 0.27 | 17.14 | 0 |
Forestland | 0.02 | 80.92 | 0 | 0.02 | 0 | 0 | 6.58 |
Water | 0 | 0 | 93.35 | 0 | 7.11 | 0 | 0 |
Cultivated land | 3.01 | 9.54 | 6.65 | 91.54 | 0.54 | 1.14 | 14.56 |
Aquaculture and salt field | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 91.42 | 0 | 0 |
Other land | 4.09 | 0.16 | 0 | 0.62 | 0.67 | 81.72 | 0 |
Garden plot | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.28 | 0 | 0 | 78.86 |
Overall accuracy = 85.87% Kappa coefficient = 0.82 |
Classification | Building Land | Forestland | Water | Cultivated Land | Aquaculture and Salt Fields | Other Land | Garden Plot |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Building land | 81.84 | 0 | 1.95 | 0 | 0 | 18.49 | 0 |
Forestland | 0 | 84.14 | 0 | 2.67 | 0 | 0 | 11.83 |
Water | 4.05 | 0 | 87.96 | 0 | 6.78 | 0 | 0 |
Cultivated land | 0.07 | 4.27 | 0 | 94.99 | 0.35 | 0 | 7.41 |
Aquaculture and salt fields | 0 | 0 | 10.1 | 0 | 91.99 | 0 | 0 |
Other land | 14.04 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.88 | 81.51 | 0 |
Garden plot | 0 | 11.59 | 0 | 2.34 | 0 | 0 | 80.75 |
Overall accuracy = 85.67% Kappa coefficient = 0.82 |
Period | Rule | Support | Confidence |
---|---|---|---|
1990–2000 | Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Extremely Strong > Strong > Medium > Weak | 3.41% | 100.00% |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Medium > Extremely Strong > Strong > Medium > Weak | 3.41% | 100.00% | |
Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Extremely Strong > Weak | 2.27% | 66.67% | |
Weak Change Coastline -> Medium > Weak > Strong | 2.27% | 66.67% | |
Medium Change Coastline -> Weak > Medium > Weak | 2.27% | 66.67% | |
Medium Change Coastline -> Medium > Strong > Weak | 2.27% | 66.67% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Extremely Strong > Medium > Weak | 2.27% | 100.00% | |
2000–2010 | Weak Change Coastline -> Extremely Strong > Medium > Weak | 5.68% | 100.00% |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Strong > Medium > Weak | 5.68% | 83.33% | |
Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Strong > Weak | 3.41% | 100.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Weak > Extremely Strong > Strong > Medium | 3.41% | 100.00% | |
Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Medium > Extremely Strong > Medium > Weak | 2.27% | 100.00% | |
Weak Change Coastline -> Medium > Extremely Strong > Medium > Weak | 2.27% | 100.00% | |
Medium Change Coastline -> Strong > Medium > Weak > Medium | 2.27% | 66.67% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Medium > Strong > Medium > Weak | 2.27% | 100.00% | |
Strong Change Coastline -> Strong > Weak > Medium > Weak | 2.27% | 50.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Strong > Weak > Medium > Weak | 2.27% | 50.00% | |
2010–2020 | Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Weak > Medium > Weak | 5.68% | 71.43% |
Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Strong > Medium | 5.68% | 100.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Extremely Strong > Strong > Medium > Weak | 5.68% | 100.00% | |
Medium Change Coastline -> Strong > Medium > Weak | 4.55% | 80.00% | |
Strong Change Coastline -> Strong > Medium > Weak > Medium | 4.55% | 80.00% | |
Medium Change Coastline -> Strong > Extremely Strong > Medium | 3.41% | 75.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Strong > Weak > Medium > Weak | 3.41% | 100.00% | |
Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Medium > Strong > Weak | 2.27% | 100.00% | |
Medium Change Coastline -> Medium > Strong > Medium | 2.27% | 100.00% | |
Medium Change Coastline -> Medium > Extremely Strong > Medium > Weak > Medium | 2.27% | 100.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Extremely Strong > Medium > Weak | 2.27% | 66.67% |
Period | Rule | Support | Confidence |
---|---|---|---|
1990–2000 | CL → GP | 10.84% | 100.00% |
CL → BL | 6.02% | 100.00% | |
AS → BL > CL → GP | 6.02% | 100.00% | |
Wa → OL > Wa → AS > CL → GP | 3.61% | 100.00% | |
Wa → AS > CL → GP > CL → BL > CL → GP | 2.41% | 100.00% | |
Wa → AS > CL → BL > GP → BL > CL → BL > CL → GP > CL → BL > CL → GP | 2.41% | 100.00% | |
Wa → OL > OL → BL > CL → GP | 2.41% | 100.00% | |
Wa → BL > CL → BL > CL → GP > CL → BL > FL → GP > CL → GP > OL→ GP > GP → CL > CL → GP | 2.41% | 100.00% | |
Wa → BL > CL → BL > FL → CL > CL → BL | 2.41% | 100.00% | |
Wa → BL > CL → BL > GP → BL > CL → BL > CL → GP > FL → CL > CL→ GP > FL → CL | 2.41% | 100.00% | |
CL → AS > CL → GP > CL → AS > CL → GP > CL → BL > CL → GP | 2.41% | 100.00% | |
CL → GP > AS → BL | 2.41% | 100.00% | |
FL → BL > CL → BL > FL → CL | 2.41% | 100.00% | |
2000–2010 | CL → BL | 19.74% | 100.00% |
GP → CL > CL → BL | 9.21% | 100.00% | |
GP → CL | 7.89% | 100.00% | |
GP → BL | 6.58% | 100.00% | |
Wa → BL > CL → BL | 5.26% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > GP → BL > CL → GP | 3.95% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > GP → BL > CL → BL > CL → GP | 3.95% | 100.00% | |
Wa → BL > CL → BL > FL → CL > CL → BL > CL → GP | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > GP → BL > CL → BL | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
GP → CL > CL → BL > CL → GP | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
GP → BL > CL → BL > GP → CL > CL → BL > CL → GP | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
GP → BL > CL → BL > GP → CL > CL → BL > GP → CL | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
2010–2020 | CL → BL | 10.87% | 100.00% |
AS → BL > CL → BL | 8.70% | 100.00% | |
Wa → OL > AS → OL > AS → BL | 3.26% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > AS → BL | 3.26% | 100.00% | |
AS → OL > AS → BL > CL → BL > GP → CL | 3.26% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > GP → BL > CL → BL | 2.17% | 100.00% | |
AS → OL > AS → BL | 2.17% | 100.00% | |
AS → BL > CL → BL > AS → BL > CL → BL | 2.17% | 100.00% | |
AS → BL > AS → CL > CL → BL | 2.17% | 100.00% | |
GP → CL > Wa → CL > GP → CL | 2.17% | 100.00% | |
GP → BL > CL → BL | 2.17% | 100.00% |
Period | Rule | Support | Confidence |
---|---|---|---|
1990–2000 | Weak Change Coastline -> Medium > Strong > Medium > Strong | 5.56% | 100.00% |
Medium Change Coastline -> Weak > Medium > Strong > Medium | 3.33% | 100.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Strong > Weak > Strong | 3.33% | 100.00% | |
Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Medium > Strong > Extremely Strong | 2.22% | 100.00% | |
Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Strong > Medium > Weak | 2.22% | 66.67% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Medium > Weak > Strong | 2.22% | 100.00% | |
Strong Change Coastline -> Strong > Extremely Strong > Strong > Medium | 2.22% | 100.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Strong > Extremely Strong > Strong | 2.22% | 100.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Strong > Extremely Strong > Strong > Extremely Strong > Medium | 2.22% | 100.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Extremely Strong > Strong > Medium | 2.22% | 100.00% | |
2000–2010 | Strong Change Coastline -> Extremely Strong > Strong > Medium > Weak > Medium | 6.67% | 85.71% |
Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Medium > Strong > Medium | 5.56% | 100.00% | |
Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Strong > Medium | 5.56% | 100.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Strong > Medium > Strong > Medium | 3.33% | 100.00% | |
Strong Change Coastline -> Medium > Weak > Medium > Weak | 2.22% | 50.00% | |
2010–2020 | Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Extremely Strong > Strong > Weak | 4.44% | 100.00% |
Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Strong > Medium | 3.33% | 100.00% | |
Weak Change Coastline -> Weak > Medium > Strong > Weak | 2.22% | 100.00% | |
Weak Change Coastline -> Strong > Medium > Strong > Weak | 2.22% | 66.67% | |
Medium Change Coastline -> Strong > Weak > Medium > Weak | 2.22% | 50.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Medium > Weak > Medium > Weak | 2.22% | 50.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Strong > Weak > Medium > Weak | 2.22% | 50.00% | |
Extremely Strong Change Coastline -> Extremely Strong > Medium > Weak | 2.22% | 100.00% |
Period | Rule | Support | Confidence |
---|---|---|---|
1990–2000 | OL → CL > FL → CL | 14.77% | 100.00% |
FL → CL | 13.64% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > FL → CL | 10.23% | 100.00% | |
FL → CL > OL → CL | 6.82% | 100.00% | |
FL → CL > CL → BL > FL → CL | 5.68% | 100.00% | |
Wa → AS > CL → BL > OL → CL | 3.41% | 100.00% | |
Wa → OL > FL → CL > CL → OL > FL → CL | 3.41% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > FL → CL > OL → CL | 3.41% | 100.00% | |
OL → BL > CL → BL > FL → CL | 3.41% | 100.00% | |
OL → CL > FL → CL > FL → OL > FL → CL | 2.27% | 100.00% | |
FL → CL > OL → CL > FL → CL > CL → BL > OL → CL | 2.27% | 100.00% | |
2000–2010 | CL → BL > FL → CL | 35.53% | 100.00% |
CL → BL > FL → CL | 35.53% | 35.53% | |
FL → CL | 9.21% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > OL → CL | 7.89% | 100.00% | |
AS → BL > CL → BL > CL → GP > FL → CL | 3.95% | 100.00% | |
AS → BL > FL → CL | 3.95% | 100.00% | |
CL → GP > CL → BL > FL → CL | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > FL → CL > CL → BL | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > FL → CL > CL → BL > CL → GP > OL → CL | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > FL → CL > OL → CL | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > FL → CL > OL → CL > FL → CL | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
OL → CL > FL → CL | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
FL → CL > CL → BL > FL → CL | 2.63% | 100.00% | |
2010–2020 | CL → BL > FL → CL | 19.05% | 100.00% |
CL → BL | 17.86% | 100.00% | |
CL → GP | 3.57% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > CL → GP | 3.57% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > FL → OL | 3.57% | 100.00% | |
AS → OL > CL → BL | 3.57% | 100.00% | |
FL → GP > AS → BL > CL → BL | 3.57% | 100.00% | |
Wa → CL > CL → BL | 2.38% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > GP → CL > CL → GP | 2.38% | 100.00% | |
CL → BL > GP → BL > GP → CL > FL → CL | 2.38% | 100.00% | |
OL → BL > CL → BL > FL → CL | 2.38% | 100.00% | |
FL → GP > CL → BL > FL → CL | 2.38% | 100.00% | |
GP → BL > Wa → CL | 2.38% | 100.00% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yan, J.; Xiao, R.; Su, F.; Bai, J.; Jia, F. Impact of Port Construction on the Spatial Pattern of Land Use in Coastal Zones Based on CLDI and LUT Models: A Case Study of Qingdao and Yantai. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3110. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13163110
Yan J, Xiao R, Su F, Bai J, Jia F. Impact of Port Construction on the Spatial Pattern of Land Use in Coastal Zones Based on CLDI and LUT Models: A Case Study of Qingdao and Yantai. Remote Sensing. 2021; 13(16):3110. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13163110
Chicago/Turabian StyleYan, Jinfeng, Ruiming Xiao, Fenzhen Su, Jinbiao Bai, and Feixue Jia. 2021. "Impact of Port Construction on the Spatial Pattern of Land Use in Coastal Zones Based on CLDI and LUT Models: A Case Study of Qingdao and Yantai" Remote Sensing 13, no. 16: 3110. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13163110
APA StyleYan, J., Xiao, R., Su, F., Bai, J., & Jia, F. (2021). Impact of Port Construction on the Spatial Pattern of Land Use in Coastal Zones Based on CLDI and LUT Models: A Case Study of Qingdao and Yantai. Remote Sensing, 13(16), 3110. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13163110