Ecological Land Adaptive Planning in Macroscale, Mesoscale, and Microscale of Shanghai

Home , Chongming Island, Qingpu District, Songjiang District

sustainability

Article Ecological Land Adaptive Planning in Macroscale, Mesoscale, and Microscale of Shanghai

Wuyi Jiang 1, Jiawei Xu 2, Yongli Cai 1,3,* and Zhiyong Liu 2,*

1 School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China; [email protected] 2 State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School for Radiological and Interdisciplinary Sciences (RAD-X) and Collaborative Innovation Centre of Radiation Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China; [email protected] 3 School of Design, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200240, China * Correspondence: [email protected] (Y.C.); [email protected] (Z.L.); Tel.: +86-512-65883945

Received: 4 January 2020; Accepted: 6 March 2020; Published: 10 March 2020

Abstract: The urban ecosystems in China have been compromised during the process of urbanization. The declining services of ecological lands have hindered the sustainable development of cities and the current ecological land management (regulations, rules, and laws) in China cannot meet the demand of future development. In this paper, a new multiscale systematic adaptive ecological land planning method is proposed. Shanghai, a typical mega-city in China, was chosen as the research area. To scientifically and adaptively manage ecological land, downscale management was used and macroscales (city), mesoscales (town), and microscales (community) were chosen. In different scales, different indicators were chosen as evaluation criteria to evaluate the services of the lands. At the mesoscale, habitat quality, carbon sequestration, water conservation, and soil fertility maintenance were chosen. At the mesoscale, habitat quality, carbon sequestration capacity, water production service and food supply were chosen as the evaluation criteria. These indicators are used to evaluate the importance levels of corresponding areas. Based on the importance levels of macroscales and mesoscales, three different scenarios with different targets of Changtian Community were proposed. All three scenarios were judged by stakeholders (residents and managers) of the community and a final scenario was proposed to meet all the requirements. This research not only provides theoretical reference and technical support for ecological land management in different scales of Shanghai, but also provides a new method of adaptive ecological land planning in megacities.

Keywords: ecological land; evaluation; classiﬁcation; adaptive planning; Shanghai

1. Introduction Urbanization is an important issue in the economy development of China. The urban population keeps increasing during the urbanization. In 1979, the urban population made up 19% of the total population (~9.75 billion) and, by 2017, the urban population made up 58.5% of the total population (~13.90 billion) after rapid population growth. Urbanization leads to the great social and economic progresses, but also brings pressure on the environment and ecology. Previous studies [1,2] show that pollutions and contaminations have brought pressure on nature systems and resources and lead to climate change and deterioration of ecological environment, though no evidence shows that economic growth does harm to the natural habitat. In the study of urbanization in China, researchers found that the urbanization has expanded in recent decades but the urbanization levels are still lower than industrialized countries. [3] The construction lands in cities have been expanding during the rapid developing processes, which leads to a disordered land-use situation [2]. Especially in mega cities

Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142; doi:10.3390/su12052142 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 2 of 25

(provincial capital cities), the ecological pressure has been loading on the cities because ecological lands, such as forest lands, wetlands, and farmlands, are taking place during the fast expansion of the cities [4–6]. A city is a complicated ecological system, which has a certain complexity and fragility.[7] Compared to normal cities, mega cities are facing much more ecological pressures. The primary ecological problem is the pollution problem. Pollutions such as air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, and waste discharges are damaging the quality of the whole ecosystem, which directly leads to the living condition problems of human beings [8,9]. Also, the changes in the environment cause the change in the climate, and commonly regional climates worsen during the urbanization [10,11]. Meanwhile, the changes in the ecosystem compromise the cities’ ability against natural disasters [12]. Overall, the problems in the ecosystem of urban areas damage the ecological services, which hinders the sustainable development of cities and impact human life [13,14]. To maintain the healthy operation of urban ecosystems, it is highly required to change the land-use methods and enhance the efficiency and serviceability of different lands [15]. Nowadays, China is now in a critical period of social and economic development. The country has come up with a concept of ecological development with high-quality, low energy consumption and ecological environmental protection. In 2015, the government issued a unified plan for the reformation of the whole ecological system, which cleared the boundary between urban and rural areas and proposed classifications and managements of the ecological lands. However, the management method of ecological land in China is static, coarse, and lacks details of supports and refinements, which brings difficulties during the applications in mesoscale and microscale management. At the meantime, the current concept of ecological land in China is vague and not unified, which is difficult for ecological land-use management. The present ecological land-use management in China is mainly aimed at macroscale, which is city scale, and the coarse management method cannot apply in land-use management in mesoscale and microscale, which are town and community scale, respectively. The present management methods bring the problems of effectiveness of ecological land management. Therefore, it is necessary to build an adaptive management of ecological land in cities, which suits both the ecosystem level and administrative levels to improve the ecosystem quality and meet the requirements of multiple land uses.

2. Study Area, Methods, and Data

2.1. Study area

Shanghai (120◦510–122◦120 E, 30◦400–31◦530 N) is located in the east of China (as shown in Figure1) and the junction area where the Yangtze River and the Huangpu River meet. As the largest city in China, Shanghai has a population of ~24,237,800 (by the end of 2018) and a land area of 6340 km2. The city’s main land-use types are estuarine lands, eastern coastal plain, and western lagoon–marsh deposits area. The city is under the impact of subtropical monsoon climate, which brings ample precipitation. Meanwhile, Shanghai also has large open water areas (697 km2 in total, which accounts for ~11% of the city’s area) and lots of rivers run through the city. In this paper, Liantang Town in Shanghai was selected to further conduct the ecological land planning. Liantang Town is located in the southwest of Shanghai. The area is a low-lying land in the area of the lagoon–marsh deposits and has concentrated lakes and marshes. The town has an area of 92.90 km2 and 25 administrative villages and four communities. Among these, Changtian Community was selected to conduct microscale ecological land-use planning. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 3 of 25 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 26

FigureFigure 1. 1.Maps Maps ofof ChinaChina and and Shanghai. Shanghai.

2.2. Data andIn this Methods paper, Liantang Town in Shanghai was selected to further conduct the ecological land planning. Liantang Town is located in the southwest of Shanghai. The area is a low-lying land in the In this study, land-use evaluation and adaptive planning were applied in three different scales and area of the lagoon–marsh deposits and has concentrated lakes and marshes. The town has an area of different evaluating methods and indicators. Most indicators were calculated by the InVEST model. 92.90 km2 and 25 administrative villages and four communities. Among these, Changtian The InVESTCommunity (Integrated was selected Valuation to conduct of Ecosystem microscaleServices ecological and land Tradeo-use planning.ffs) model was developed by the Natural Capital Project and has been used in over 60 countries to quantify and value local ecosystem services2.2. forData decision-makers and Methods [16]. In this study, land-use evaluation and adaptive planning were applied in three different scales 2.2.1. Macroscale and different evaluating methods and indicators. Most indicators were calculated by the InVEST Inmodel. macroscale, The InVEST Level (Integrated One classification Valuation standard of Ecosystem of ecological Services land and TM Tradeoffs) images ofmodel Shanghai was (of the yearsdeveloped 1990, by 2000, the andNatural 2010) Capital was Project used to and classify has been the used ecological in over land60 countries in the cityto quantify area. Land-use and data ofvalue 2018 local is ecosystem from the Resourceservices for and decision Environment-makers.[16 Data] Center of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Land-use data of these four years all have the resolution of 30 m. The land-use classifications are arable 2.2.1. Macroscale land, forest land, grassland, wetland, and nonecological land. At the meantime, meteorological data, such as precipitation,In macroscale, evaporation, Level One classification solar radiation standard data, of ecological from 1981 land to 2010TM image are alsos of used.Shanghai DEM (of data the years 1990, 2000, and 2010) was used to classify the ecological land in the city area. Land-use data with the resolution of 30 m were collected from the Geospatial Data Cloud Platform of Computer of 2018 is from the Resource and Environment Data Center of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Land- Network Information Center of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Soil data are from the Harmonized use data of these four years all have the resolution of 30 m. The land-use classifications are arable Worldland, Soil forest Database. land, grassland, wetland, and nonecological land. At the meantime, meteorological data, Tosuch reveal as precipitation, the spatial distributionevaporation, solar of ecological radiation landdata, andfrom evaluate 1981 to 2010 the importanceare also used. level DEM of data the land in macroscale,with the resolution four indicators of 30 m were were chosen, collected which from arethe carbon Geospatial sequestration Data Cloud service, Platform water of Computer conservation services,Network habitat Information quality, andCenter soil of erosion. Chinese DuringAcademy the of carbonSciences. sequestration Soil data are servicefrom the calculation Harmonized of the InVESTWorld model, Soil Database. several parameters from previous researches were chosen [17–20] and the carbon densities ofTo direvealfferent the landsspatial are distribution listed in of Table ecological1. land and evaluate the importance level of the land in macroscale, four indicators were chosen, which are carbon sequestration service, water conservation services,Table habitat 1. Carbon quality densities, and of soil di ff erosion.erent land During in Shanghai the carbon (t/hm sequestration2). service calculation of the InVEST model, several parameters from previous researches were chosen [17–20] In Aboveground In Belowground andLand the Types carbon densities of different lands are listed in Table 1. In Soil In Dead Matter Biomass Biomass

Arable land 3.87 3.27 98.30 5.00 Forest land 44.80 128.60 14.05 46.10 Grassland 35.30 86.50 99.90 2.00 Water area 0 0 0 0 Construction area 3.19 0.64 7.385 0 Unconstructed area 0 0 18.1 0 Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 4 of 25

Habitat quality is one of the supporting ecosystem services in InVEST. This indicator quantiﬁes the combination information of land use/land cover (LULC) and threats to biodiversity. It refers to the ecosystem’s ability to provide conditions appropriate for individuals and population persistence based on the resources in the ecosystem [15]. Raster data, such as baseline land cover, current land cover, folder containing threat rasters, and sensitivity of land cover types to each threat, were put into the model. Considering the situation in Shanghai, this study took arable land, residential land, industrial and mining land, and transportation land as threats to habitat quality. Meanwhile, forest land, grassland, and water area in the city are taken as habitat. Some parameters of this procedure are shown in Tables2 and3, which take previous research [21–23], including studies in China, into consideration [16].

Table 2. Threat sources and their maximum inﬂuence distance and weight.

Maximum Inﬂuence Type of Decay over Threats Weight Distance Space of the Threats Arable land 6 0.5 Linear Residential land 10 1 Exponential Industrial and mining land 9 0.9 Exponential Transportation land 8 0.8 Linear

Table 3. Sensitivity of diﬀerent habitats in Shanghai to diﬀerent threat factors.

Residential Industrial and Transportation Land Types Habitat Score Arable Land Land Mining Land Land Arable land 0.6 0.2 1 0.75 0.6 Forest land 0.95 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.65 Grassland 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.52 Water area 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.8 0.4 Construction land 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 Un-used area 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3

Water conservation in this study used the annual water yield model from the InVEST model to estimate the annual water depth of Shanghai and was modified by topographic index, soil saturated hydraulic conductivity, and flow coefficient. The annual water yield model takes the LULC changes into consideration and the parameters of the model are listed in Table4, which are combined by previous studies of China [17].

Table 4. Parameters of the water conservation model in Shanghai.

Land-Use Type Evapotranspiration Index Root-Restricting Layer Depth Velocity Arable land 0.65 300 2012 Forest land 1 2000 200 Grass land 0.7 700 500 Water land 1 1 2012 Construction land 0.01 1 2012 Unused land 0.03 1 500

Soil erosion is used to evaluate the soil maintenance in Shanghai and, in this study, RUSLE (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) was adopted to calculate soil erosion. The method follows Agriculture Handbook 282 and Agricultural Handbook 537. The parameters in this study also follow previous researches in Shanghai and are listed in Table5. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 5 of 25

Table 5. C-factor and P-factor in RUSLE of Shanghai.

Parameters Arable Land Forest Land Grassland Water Area Construction Land Unused Land C-factor 0.18 0.006 0.014 0 0.20 0.06 P-factor 0.3 0.9 0.75 0 0.01 0.04

The importance level is calculated by spatial analysis function of GIS and the equation is shown as follows: tuv Y4 ESj = 4 Si (1) i=1 where ESi is the comprehensive evaluation index of ecological services of ecological land, and Si is the normalized value of certain ecological services (carbon sequestration service, water conservation services, habitat quality, and soil erosion). The ESi values are divided into four diﬀerent levels, which are extremely important (0.85–1), important (0.75–0.85), generally important (0.65–0.75), and unimportant (0–0.65).

2.2.2. Mesoscale In mesoscale, data with higher resolution are used. Images with 1 m resolution from Gaofen-2 Satellite and basic information of Liantang Town were used. At the meantime, meteorological data, soil data and socioeconomic data are used as auxiliary data. In mesoscale, four indicators are selected to evaluate the basic ecological services of the town, and they are carbon sequestration service, habitat quality, water production service, and food supply service. The habitat quality service, water production service (water yield), and carbon sequestration service take the same method of macroscale (Section 2.2.1). The food supply service is based on the previous study of Xie et al. [24] to evaluate the grain production capacity of different types of land in Liantang Town, and some of the parameters are modified by local researches, which are listed in Table6.

Table 6. Grain production capacity of unit area in Liantang Town.

Grain Production Grain Production Land Types Land Types Capacity Capacity Dry land 1 Shrub Land 0.34 Paddy field 1 Sparse woodland 0.35 Agricultural facility land 0.95 Grassland 0.43 Fish pond 0.65 River 0.53 Orchard 0.6 Pond 0.5 Vegetable field 0.9 Ditch 0.49 Forest land 0.33 Tidal flat and wetland 0.36

2.2.3. Microscale In microscale, three main types of data are used, which are geographic information data, social information data, and site survey and questionnaire survey data. The geographic information data of Changtian Community includes land-use types, altitudes, et al. Social information data includes population size, number of households, land ownership, and incomes. The site survey is conducted by authors to check the reliability of the data, and the questionnaire survey is mainly to collect the voice of residents and community managers.

2.2.4. The Planning System of Multiscale Ecological Land To show the main process of this study, the ﬂow/system is shown in Figure2. The detailed processes are presented in the following sections. Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 26

2.2.4. The Planning System of Multiscale Ecological Land

SustainabilityTo show2020 , the12, 2142 main process of this study, the flow/system is shown in Figure 2. The detailed6 of 25 processes are presented in the following sections.

FigureFigure 2.2. Planning system ofof thethe multiscalemultiscale ecologicalecological land.land.

InIn traditionaltraditional landland managementmanagement in China,China, the methodsmethods are mostlymostly static,static, which lacks flexible adaptionadaption onon locallocal ecological ecological environments, environments, political political managements managements and and public public demands. demands. Therefore, Therefore, the adaptivethe adaptive planning planning and management and management are proposed are proposed in this study in to this meet study thedemands to meet of the management demands of of differentmanagement scales of and different reduce the scales adverse and effects reduce of the uncertain adverse factors effects on urban of uncertain ecological factors land. on From urban the wholeecological city scale,land. theFrom ecological the whole land city planning scale, the is a ecological complete systemland planning that can is be a executedcomplete through system differentthat can scalesbe executed and different through levels different and optimized scales and to different meet the levels requirements and optimized of the dynamic to meet changes the requirements of cities. of the dynamicThis study changes is mainly of cities. about the ecological land-use planning and management of Shanghai, which focusesThis on study the adaptive is mainly planning about the in multipleecological scales land- anduse planning multiple levels. and management The adaptive of Shanghai, planning takeswhich the focuses main on characteristics the adaptive ofplanning the study in areamultiple and scales the di ffanderences multiple between levels. di Thefferent adaptive land types planning into consideration.takes the main Forcharacteristics example, in of the the mesoscale study area study, and the the differences grain production between supply different was land chosen types as into one indicatorconsideration. because For Liantang example, Town in the is amesoscale typical agricultural study, the productiongrain production area in supply Shanghai. was Overall, chosen spatialas one scale,indicator administration because Liantang level, objects Town et is al. a should typical be agricultural included in production the adaptive area planning. in Shanghai. Overall, spatialIn discale,fferent administration spatial scales, level, the researchobjects et scope, al. should the main be included characteristics, in the adaptive and data planning. resolutions vary widely.In different Therefore, spatial it is necessaryscales, the toresearch match scope, the ecological the main land characteristics spatial scale, and with data the resolut correspondingions vary administrativewidely. Therefore, scale. it is necessary to match the ecological land spatial scale with the corresponding administrativeAdministrative scale. level is an important factor which influences the direction of the ecological landAdministrative planning. Administrative level is an important level can befactor divided which into influences decision-making the direction level, of managementthe ecological level, land andplanning. execution Administrative level, which level are responsible can be divided for di ffintoerent decision duties.-making level, management level, and executionAlso, dilevel,fferent which objects are haveresponsible different for management different duties. rules. For example, arable land and forest land are underAlso, thedifferent department objects of have agriculture different and management forestry, respectively, rules. For example, so that they arable are underland and diff foresterent managementland are under rules. the Therefore, department the of adaptive agriculture method and will forestry be changed, respectively due to di, sofferent that objects. they are under differentThe adaptivemanagement method rules. should Therefore, also consider the adaptive the future method of will the ecologicalbe changed land, due whichto different includes objects. the appeal of main ecological functions of the ecosystem, the economic development direction, and the decisionSustainability made 2019,by 11, thex; doi: rule-makers FOR PEER REVIEW (residents and government). www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability The detailed results are shown in the following section. Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 26

The adaptive method should also consider the future of the ecological land, which includes the appeal of main ecological functions of the ecosystem, the economic development direction, and the Sustainabilitydecision 2020made, 12 ,by 2142 the rule-makers (residents and government). 7 of 25 The detailed results are shown in the following section. 3. Processings in Different Scales 3. Processings in Different Scales 3.1. Evaluation and Planning of Ecological Land Use at City (Macro) Scale 3.1. Evaluation and Planning of Ecological Land Use at City (Macro) Scale Figure3 shows the land use of Shanghai (macroscale) in 2018. Table7 is the land utilization Figure 3 shows the land use of Shanghai (macroscale) in 2018. Table 7 is the land utilization situation of Shanghai in four different years (1990, 2000, 2010, 2018), and Table8 is the proportion matrix situation of Shanghai in four different years (1990, 2000, 2010, 2018), and Table 8 is the proportion of land-use transfer in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018. In 2018, the main land-use types of Shanghai were matrix of land-use transfer in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018. In 2018, the main land-use types of cultivated lands and construction lands, which account for over 90% of the total area. The cultivated Shanghai were cultivated lands and construction lands, which account for over 90% of the total area. area is mainly distributed in the south of the city and Chongming Island. During the period of The cultivated area is mainly distributed in the south of the city and Chongming Island. During the 1990–2000, arable area decreased by 8.5% and grassland decreased by 60.1%. The constructive area period of 1990–2000, arable area decreased by 8.5% and grassland decreased by 60.1%. The increased significantly, with an increasing rate of 38.7%. From the land transfer matrix, the lost arable constructive area increased significantly, with an increasing rate of 38.7%. From the land transfer land was mostly transferred into constructive area, while 18.9% of the grassland was transferred into matrix, the lost arable land was mostly transferred into constructive area, while 18.9% of the constructive area. The matrix also shows that 44% of the grassland was transferred into the water grassland was transferred into constructive area. The matrix also shows that 44% of the grassland area. During the period of 2000–2010, the constructive areas increased rapidly with a rate of 58.1%. was transferred into the water area. During the period of 2000–2010, the constructive areas increased In the meantime, the arable area decreased substantially by 18.6%, and the decreased area was mostly rapidly with a rate of 58.1%. In the meantime, the arable area decreased substantially by 18.6%, and changed into the constructive area. Other types of land (expect unused land) were transferred into the decreased area was mostly changed into the constructive area. Other types of land (expect unused constructive areas in different degrees. During the period of 2010–2018, the constructive area still land) were transferred into constructive areas in different degrees. During the period of 2010–2018, increased with a relatively smaller rate of 21.4%. In this period, grassland increased unprecedentedly the constructive area still increased with a relatively smaller rate of 21.4%. In this period, grassland with a rate of 506%. The water area and unused land increased as well. Meanwhile, the transfer rates increased unprecedentedly with a rate of 506%. The water area and unused land increased as well. between different types of lands slowed down. In this period, the arable area still was the main source Meanwhile, the transfer rates between different types of lands slowed down. In this period, the arable of constructive land and ~14% of the arable area, along with 7.3% of water area, 9.6% of forest land and area still was the main source of constructive land and ~14% of the arable area, along with 7.3% of 25.1% of grassland, changed into constructive land. water area, 9.6% of forest land and 25.1% of grassland, changed into constructive land.

Figure 3. Land-use map of Shanghai in 2018. Figure 3. Land-use map of Shanghai in 2018.

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 8 of 25

Table 7. Land-use condition of Shanghai of 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2018.

1990 2000 2010 2018 Land-Use Type Area Ratio Area Ratio Area Ratio Area Ratio km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 % Arable land 4855.91 77.98 4443.94 71.36 3616.99 58.08 3115.53 49.98 Forest land 100.84 1.62 98.57 1.58 97.06 1.56 81.92 1.31 Grass land 16.69 0.27 6.57 0.11 5.92 0.10 35.93 0.58 Water area 217.83 3.50 241.40 3.88 235.63 3.78 238.37 3.82 Constructive area 1035.90 16.63 1436.67 23.07 2271.55 36.48 2760.74 44.29 Unused land 0.34 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.59 0.01

Table 8. Matrix of land transfer in Shanghai from 1990–2018 (%).

Period Land Type Arable Land Forest Land Grass Land Water Area Constructed Area Unused Area Arable land 91.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 8.2 0.0 Forest land 0.1 97.5 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.0 Grass land 0.1 0.0 37.0 44.0 18.9 0.0 1990–2000 Water area 0.1 0.0 0.1 99.7 0.1 0.0 Constructed area 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.9 0.0 Unused area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 99.5 Arable land 81.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 18.3 0.0 Forest land 0.0 90.4 0.0 0.2 9.3 0.0 Grass land 9.4 29.8 56.5 2.1 2.1 0.0 2000–2010 Water area 2.3 0.3 0.9 91.5 4.9 0.0 Constructed area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Unused area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Arable land 84.5 0.0 0.6 0.6 14.1 0.0 Forest land 2.4 82.7 4.0 1.3 9.6 0.0 Grass land 11.6 0.0 49.7 13.5 25.1 0.0 2010–2018 Water area 4.3 0.2 0.3 87.9 7.3 0.0 Constructed area 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.2 97.8 0.0 Unused area 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Arable land 63.6 0.1 0.6 0.9 34.8 0.0 Forest land 2.7 75.4 0.4 1.3 20.1 0.0 Grass land 18.5 2.0 24.6 15.6 39.3 0.0 1990–2018 Water area 4.4 0.3 0.5 84.7 10.2 0.0 Constructed area 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.3 98.9 0.0 Unused area 0.5 0.0 0.0 99.5 0.0 0.0

From 1990 to 2018, the areas of arable land and forest land decreased by 35.9% and 18.8%, respectively. Constructive area, grassland, water area, and unused land increased by 166.3%, 115.1%, 9.3%, and 72%, respectively. In this period, 35% of arable area, 20% of forest land, and 40% of grassland have been transferred into constructive areas, which results in the continuous increase of constructive area in about 30 years. In the spatial distribution of carbon sequestration (Figure4), southern Shanghai and Chongming Island have better ability of carbon sequestration, while the downtown and its surrounding area have lower carbon sequestration. With the expansion of the urban areas, the low carbon sequestration area spreads from 1990 to 2018. All the districts of Shanghai show an overall decrease in carbon sequestration (Table9). During the period, Chongming Island, Pudong District, and Fengxian District have higher carbon sequestration, with average carbon sequestrations of 11.39 Tg, 9.17 Tg, and 6.26 Tg. The downtown area has the lowest carbon sequestration of all years, with an average of 0.4 T. For the carbon sequestration per area, Chongming Island, Fengxian District, and Qingpu District have the highest values, which are 9.05 t/km2, 6.94 t/km2, and 6.8 t/km2 respectively. The downtown area still has the lowest carbon sequestration per area, with a value of 1.25 t/km2. Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 26

The correlations between the carbon sequestration and different land types in Shanghai in four different years are shown in Table 10. As seen in the table, lands with high carbon density, such as arable land and forest land, have significant high correlations with carbon sequestrations. Arable land and forest land are the areas with high carbon density, which slow down the losing rate of carbon sequestration in Shanghai. Though grassland has high carbon density, the area of grassland is too small to influence the carbon sequestration in the ecosystem. The constructive area has significant negative correlations with carbon sequestration in the period (−0.822, −0.915, −0.556, −0.911). The increasing area of constructive land in Shanghai leads to loss of carbon sequestration directly. In the urbanization progress of Shanghai, the area of ecosystem is shrinking continuously, which compromises the carbon sequestration ability of Shanghai. The loss of carbon sequestration in Shanghai is contributed to expansion of constructive land and compromise of arable land. Also, due Sustainabilityto the strict2020 farmland, 12, 2142 protection regulations, the compensation of arable land is from forest land9 of and 25 grassland, which also leads to the reduction of the carbon sequestration level of the ecosystem.

Figure 4. Carbon Sequestration Service of ecosystem in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018 (Mg). Figure 4. Carbon Sequestration Service of ecosystem in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018 (Mg). Table 9. Carbon sequestration of districts in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018 (Tg). Table 9. Carbon sequestration of districts in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018 (Tg). District 1990 2000 2010 2018 District 1990 2000 2010 2018 Baoshan 2.13 1.59 0.98 0.58 Chongming 12.00Baoshan 2.13 11.40 1.59 0.98 0.58 11.13 11.01 Fengxian 6.70Chongming 12.00 6.65 11.40 11.13 11.01 5.86 5.83 Jiading 4.36Fengxian 6.70 3.87 6.65 5.86 5.83 2.71 1.97 Jinshan 5.75Jiading 4.36 5.68 3.87 2.71 1.97 5.04 4.83 Minhang 2.90Jinshan 5.75 2.43 5.68 5.04 4.83 1.49 0.89 Pudong 11.44Minhang 2.90 10.15 2.43 1.49 0.89 8.32 6.78 Qingpu 5.72Pudong 11.44 5.47 10.15 8.32 6.78 4.68 4.15 Downtown 0.61Qingpu 5.72 0.35 5.47 4.68 4.15 0.33 0.31 SongJiang 5.90Downtown 0.61 5.54 0.35 0.33 0.31 4.35 3.87 SongJiang 5.90 5.54 4.35 3.87 The correlations between the carbon sequestration and different land types in Shanghai in four differentTable years 10. are Correlations shown in Tablebetween 10 different. As seen land in thetypes table, and carbon lands sequestration with high carbon in different density, years such. as arable land and forest land, have significant high correlations with carbon sequestrations. Arable land Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability and forest land are the areas with high carbon density, which slow down the losing rate of carbon sequestration in Shanghai. Though grassland has high carbon density, the area of grassland is too small to influence the carbon sequestration in the ecosystem. The constructive area has significant negative correlations with carbon sequestration in the period ( 0.822, 0.915, 0.556, 0.911). The increasing − − − − area of constructive land in Shanghai leads to loss of carbon sequestration directly. In the urbanization progress of Shanghai, the area of ecosystem is shrinking continuously, which compromises the carbon sequestration ability of Shanghai. The loss of carbon sequestration in Shanghai is contributed to expansion of constructive land and compromise of arable land. Also, due to the strict farmland protection regulations, the compensation of arable land is from forest land and grassland, which also leads to the reduction of the carbon sequestration level of the ecosystem. Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 26

Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 Land type 1990 2000 2010 2018 10 of 25 Arable land 0.660 * 0.802 ** 0.511 * 0.827 ** Table 10. CorrelationsForest between land di fferent0.684 landtypes * and0.636 carbon * sequestration0.629 * 0.719 in di **fferent years. Grass land 0.387 0.314 −0.024 0.405 Land TypeWater 1990 area 0.074 2000−0.503 −0.135 2010 0.084 2018 Arable landConstructed 0.660 * area −0.822 0.802 ** **−0.915 ** −0.556 0.511 * *−0.911 ** 0.827 ** Forest landUnused 0.684 area * −0.029 0.636 *−0.089 0.122 0.629 *0.267 0.719 ** Grass land 0.387 0.314 0.024 0.405 − * CorrelationWater area is significant at 0.074 the 0.01 level (2-tailed)0.503; **Correlation is significant0.135 at the 0.05 level 0.084 (two-tailed). − − Constructed area 0.822 ** 0.915 ** 0.556 * 0.911 ** The habitat quality results− of four years −are shown in Figure −5, and the detailed− habitat qualities Unused area 0.029 0.089 0.122 0.267 of each district in Shanghai− are shown in Table− 11. Habitat quality ranges from 0 to 1, and the values * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). closer to 1 show the better habitat quality of the areas. The better habitat quality indicates that the city has a relatively complete ecosystem, which can maintain the biodiversity of the area. The average habitatThe habitat quality quality of Shanghai results in of 2018 four is years 0.35, are which shown is the in Figure lowest5 ,value and the from detailed 1990. habitatHabitat qualities qualities of of eachdifferent district districts in Shanghai in Shanghai are shown in four in Tabledifferent 11. Habitatyears are quality shown ranges in Table from 11 0 and to 1, habitat and the qualities values of closerdifferent to 1 show land the types better are habitatshown qualityin Table of 12 the. Th areas.e downtown The better area habitat has the quality worst indicates habitat quality that the and city the hasarea a relatively expands complete through the ecosystem, years. In which the year can of maintain 1990, Qingpu the biodiversity District, Chongming of the area. Island, The average Fengxian habitatDistrict quality, and of Jinshan Shanghai District in 2018 were is 0.35,the four which district is the areas lowest having value the from highest 1990. habitat Habitat quality qualities values. of diffWierentth the districts development in Shanghai of the in city, four Chongming different years Island, are shownQingpu in District Table 11, and and Jinshan habitat District qualities are of the diffthreeerent districts land types with are the shown highest in Table habitat 12. Thequalities downtown in the areayear has of 2018. the worst The habitatresults qualityalso indicate and the that areaChongming expands through Island theis the years. least In influenced the year ofdistrict 1990, Qingpuin Shanghai District,, while Chongming Minhang Island,District Fengxian is the most District,influenced and Jinshan district Districtby the urbanization. were the four district areas having the highest habitat quality values. With theIn development nearly 30 years, of the the city, massive Chongming-scale human Island, activities Qingpu District, in Shanghai and Jinshan had led District to an increase are the threein land- districtsuse intensity with the and highest weakened habitat the qualities quality in of the the year ecological of 2018. environment The results also in indicateShanghai. that Especially, Chongming in the Islanddowntown is the least area, influenced the population district density in Shanghai, and construction while Minhang density District are ismuch the mosthigher influenced than other district districts by theof Shanghai, urbanization. which leads to the declining quality of the ecosystem.

FigureFigure 5. Habitat 5. Habitat quality quality distribution distribution of Shanghaiof Shanghai from from 1990 19 to90 2018. to 2018.

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 11 of 25

Table 11. Habitat qualities of districts and Shanghai in 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2018.

District 1990 2000 2010 2018 Average Baoshang 0.38 0.29 0.17 0.13 0.24 Chongming 0.58 0.56 0.54 0.53 0.55 Fengxian 0.55 0.54 0.45 0.42 0.49 Jiading 0.50 0.44 0.29 0.22 0.36 Jinshang 0.55 0.54 0.47 0.45 0.51 Minhang 0.41 0.34 0.20 0.15 0.27 Pudong 0.51 0.44 0.35 0.29 0.40 Qingpu 0.60 0.57 0.49 0.44 0.52 Downtown 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.13 Songjiang 0.54 0.50 0.37 0.33 0.44 Shanghai 0.51 0.47 0.39 0.35 0.43

Table 12. Habitat quality index of diﬀerent land types in Shanghai.

1990 2000 2010 2018 Land Type Habitat Change Habitat Change Habitat Change Habitat Change Quality Ratio (%) Quality Ratio (%) Quality Ratio (%) Quality Ratio (%) Arable land 0.58 87.45 0.56 84.88 0.53 79.15 0.53 74.41 Forest land 0.93 2.93 0.92 3.06 0.87 3.47 0.86 3.18 Grass land 0.79 0.41 0.78 0.17 0.78 0.19 0.77 1.26 Water area 0.88 5.97 0.86 7.03 0.82 7.91 0.80 8.67 Constructed area 0.10 3.23 0.10 4.85 0.10 9.28 0.10 12.47 Unused area 0.89 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.87 0.01 0.72 0.02

In nearly 30 years, the massive-scale human activities in Shanghai had led to an increase in land-use intensity and weakened the quality of the ecological environment in Shanghai. Especially, in the downtown area, the population density and construction density are much higher than other districts of Shanghai, which leads to the declining quality of the ecosystem. The water conservation index (indicator) is mainly measured by precipitation interception, runoﬀ regulation, evapotranspiration, water puriﬁcation, etc. The results of water conservation are listed in Table 13 and shown in Figure6. From Table 13, water conservation in all districts of Shanghai shows an overall decreasing trend from 1990 to 2018 and in 2018, Shanghai has a water yield of 7.54 108 t. × The average water depth decreases 22.52 mm and Baoshan District has the largest decrease in water depth, which is 62.79 mm. Meanwhile, Chongming Island lost 8.9 mm in water depth during ~30 years, which indicates its important role in maintaining the water conservation service in Shanghai. By the end of 2018, the districts with water depths over 120 mm are only Jinshan District, Fengxian District, Qingpu District, Songjiang District, and Chongming Island. From the spatial distribution (Figure6), the water conservation index decreases gradually from north to south. Jinshan District, Qingpu District, Songjiang District, Fengxian District, and Chongming Island have larger water conservation indexes.

Table 13. Water conservation (water depth and yield) of districts in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018.

1990 2000 2010 2018 District Depth (mm) Yield (108t) Depth (mm) Yield (108t) Depth (mm) Yield (108t) Depth (mm) Yield (108t) Baoshan 107.53 0.34 86.05 0.27 61.27 0.19 44.74 0.14 Chongming 133.13 1.53 128.69 1.48 125.62 1.44 124.34 1.43 Fengxian 171.69 1.24 170.66 1.23 156.32 1.13 154.01 1.11 Jiading 128.53 0.65 116.83 0.59 87.83 0.44 68.25 0.34 Jinshan 201.46 1.26 200.01 1.25 185.93 1.16 181.28 1.14 Minhang 124.46 0.52 110.84 0.46 81.86 0.34 63.01 0.26 Pudong 139.72 1.82 127.79 1.67 110.19 1.44 95.59 1.25 Qingpu 147.82 1.08 143.54 1.05 129.89 0.95 120.44 0.88 Downtown 54.82 0.18 44.71 0.14 43.73 0.14 42.90 0.14 Songjiang 165.26 1.11 158.61 1.07 135.73 0.91 126.16 0.85 Shanghai 143.86 9.72 136.23 9.21 120.58 8.15 111.46 7.54 Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 12 of 25 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 26

Figure 6. Water conservation service in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018 (mm). Figure 6. Water conservation service in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018 (mm). The water conservation services of different land types change due to human activities. Therefore, water conservationTable 13. Water services conservation of diff erent(water lands depth in and Shanghai yield) of indistricts the last in threeShangh decadesai from are1990 calculated to 2018. and listed in Table 14. As seen1990 in the table, forest2000 land is the one with2010 the highest water depth2018 per area (276.76District mm). GrasslandDepth comesYield second, Depth and arable Yield land comesDepth third, withYield 226.82 mmDepth and 166.84Yield mm water depth, respectively.(mm) The(10 loss8t) of ecological(mm) land(10 (forest8t) land,(mm) grassland, (10 etc.)8t) is the(mm) main reason(108t) for theBaoshan decreasing water107.53 conservation 0.34 service.86.05 The correlations0.27 between61.27 land types0.19 and water44.74 conservation0.14 serviceChongming indexes are133.13 listed in Table1.53 15. The128.69 table shows1.48 that forest125.62 land and1.44 grassland 124.34 have significant1.43 positiveFengxian correlations 171.69 with water1.24 conservation170.66 during1.23 the period156.32 and the1.13 primary 154.01 reason is that1.11 the Jiading 128.53 0.65 116.83 0.59 87.83 0.44 68.25 0.34 plant layer can effectively intercept precipitation, increasing moisture in the soil and promoting the Jinshan 201.46 1.26 200.01 1.25 185.93 1.16 181.28 1.14 ability of water conservation. The reason for the low correlation between constructed land and water Minhang 124.46 0.52 110.84 0.46 81.86 0.34 63.01 0.26 conservationPudong service139.72 is that construction1.82 127.7 land9 destroys1.67 the structure110.19 of soil1.44 and the95.59 compaction 1.25 and crustingQingpu of soil make147.82 the water1.08 content 143.54 in soil decrease1.05 continuously.129.89 Overall,0.95 the changes120.44 in land-use0.88 influenceDowntown the water54.82 capacity 0.18 of the underlying44.71 surface0.14 and43.73 then influence0.14 the water42.90 conservation 0.14 serviceSongjiang in the city.165.26 If the worsening1.11 of water158.61 conservation 1.07 services135.73 continues, 0.91 the water126.16 cycle in nature0.85 wouldShanghai change and143.86 endanger 9.72 the security136.23 of ecosystem 9.21 in Shanghai.120.58 8.15 111.46 7.54

Table 14.14. Water conservationconservation ofof ecosystemecosystem inin didifferentﬀerent landland typestypes fromfrom 19901990 toto 2018.2018.

19901990 20002000 20102010 20182018 Land Type 8 8 8 8 Land typeDepth (mm) DepthYield (10 t)YieldDepth (mm)DepthYield (10 Yieldt) Depth (mm)DepthYield (10Yieldt) Depth Depth (mm) Yield Yield (10 t) Arable land 163.93 86.45 164.88 79.50 165.20 64.55 165.88 55.63 8 8 8 8 Forest land 275.02(mm) 2.96 (10 t) 275.15 (mm) 2.89(10 t) 275.10(mm) 2.85(10 t) 273.56(mm) 2.37(10 t) Grass land 211.09 0.21 215.09 0.11 213.31 0.10 238.49 0.88 WaterArable area land 109.32163.93 2.53 86.45 108.20 164.88 2.6979.50 109.40165.20 2.7164.55 110.77165.88 2.7955.63 ConstructedForest area land 44.91275.02 5.11 2.96 43.69275.15 6.902.89 45.28275.10 11.312.85 45.20273.56 13.722.37 Unused area 157.40 0.00 157.89 0.00 157.89 0.00 157.68 0.01 Grass land 211.09 0.21 215.09 0.11 213.31 0.10 238.49 0.88 Water area 109.32 2.53 108.20 2.69 109.40 2.71 110.77 2.79 Constructed area 44.91 5.11 43.69 6.90 45.28 11.31 45.20 13.72 Unused area 157.40 0.00 157.89 0.00 157.89 0.00 157.68 0.01

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability SustainabilitySustainability2020 2019, 12, 11, 2142, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1313 of of 25 26

Table 15. Correlations between land types and water conservation in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018. Table 15. Correlations between land types and water conservation in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018. Land type 1990 2000 2010 2018 LandArable Type land 19900.467 20000.109 0.272 2010 0.432 2018 ArableForest land land 0.4670.808 ** 0.1090.733 ** 0.703 0.272 ** 0.773 0.432 ** ForestGrass land land 0.8080.511 ** * 0.7330.544 ** ** 0.7030.652 *** 0.687 0.773 *** GrassWater land area 0.5110.244 * 0.5440.363 ** 0.6520.399 * 0.207 0.687 * WaterConstructed area area 0.244−0.600 * 0.363−0.719 * −0.696 0.399 * −0.815 0.207 * Constructed area 0.600 * 0.719 * 0.696 * 0.815 * − − − − UnusedUnused area area 0.2180.218 0.1930.193 0.382 0.382 0.445 0.445 * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); **Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The soil erosion in Shanghai was analyzed and Figure 7 is the spatial distribution of soil erosion The soil erosion in Shanghai was analyzed and Figure7 is the spatial distribution of soil erosion modules. As shown in the figure, the downtown area and its surrounding area have a less amount of modules. As shown in the ﬁgure, the downtown area and its surrounding area have a less amount of soil erosion, while the south of the city has a large amount of soil erosion. The area with less soil soil erosion, while the south of the city has a large amount of soil erosion. The area with less soil erosion erosion expands through the period. Table 16 lists the soil erosion amounts of all the districts in expands through the period. Table 16 lists the soil erosion amounts of all the districts in Shanghai. Shanghai. The total amount of soil erosion of Shanghai reduced from 1120.63 × 104 t to 743.17 × 104 t, The total amount of soil erosion of Shanghai reduced from 1120.63 104 t to 743.17 104 t, which which indicates that the soil maintenance improved during this period.× × indicates that the soil maintenance improved during this period. Table 17 shows the soil erosion amount of different types of lands. From 1990 to 2018, arable Table 17 shows the soil erosion amount of diﬀerent types of lands. From 1990 to 2018, arable land land provided ~95% of soil erosion, while forest provided the least soil erosion. The lost area of the provided ~95% of soil erosion, while forest provided the least soil erosion. The lost area of the arable area arable area might contribute to the decreasing trend of soil erosion in the study period. Also, the might contribute to the decreasing trend of soil erosion in the study period. Also, the districts with larger districts with larger areas of arable lands, such as Chongming Island, Pudong District, and Fengxian areas of arable lands, such as Chongming Island, Pudong District, and Fengxian District, have larger District, have larger annual soil erosion amount. The arable land provides food to the local annual soil erosion amount. The arable land provides food to the local community, and converting community, and converting farmlands into forests in the premise that food is sufficient for the farmlands into forests in the premise that food is sufficient for the community is suggested. community is suggested.

Figure 7. Soil erosion modules in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018 (t/km2 a). · Figure 7. Soil erosion modules in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018 (t/km2∙a).

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 26 Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 14 of 25

Table 16. Soil erosion modules (104 t) and ratios of districts in Shanghai from 1990 to 2018. 4 Table 16. Soil erosion1990 modules (10 t) and2000 ratios of districts in Shanghai2010 from 1990 to 2018.2018 District Total Soil Total Soil Total Soil Total Soil 1990% 2000% 2010% 2018 % Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion Total Soil Total Soil Total Soil Total Soil District % % % % Baoshan Erosion42.47 3.79 Erosion30.76 2.98 Erosion17.58 2.07 Erosion8.20 1.10 Chongming 205.38 18.33 196.42 19.03 190.75 22.41 188.27 25.33 Baoshan 42.47 3.79 30.76 2.98 17.58 2.07 8.20 1.10 ChongmingFengxian 205.38137.74 18.3312.29 196.42136.46 19.0313.22 190.75118.72 22.4113.95 188.27110.84 25.3314.91 FengxianJiading 137.7487.28 12.297.79 136.4677.15 13.227.47 118.7251.38 13.956.04 110.8434.14 14.914.59 JinshanJiading 87.28127.10 7.7911.34 77.15125.54 7.4712.16 51.38110.52 6.0412.99 34.14103.73 4.5913.96 MiJinshannhang 127.1057.23 11.345.11 125.5447.10 12.164.56 110.5227.02 12.993.17 103.7314.77 13.961.99 Minhang 57.23 5.11 47.10 4.56 27.02 3.17 14.77 1.99 PudongPudong 221.06221.06 19.7319.73 195.31195.31 18.9218.92 157.33157.33 18.4818.48 126.38126.38 17.0117.01 QingpuQingpu 112.68112.68 10.0610.06 107.00107.00 10.3710.37 89.4089.40 10.5010.50 78.6878.68 10.5910.59 DowntownDowntown 10.0610.06 0.900.90 4.474.47 0.430.43 3.933.93 0.460.46 3.553.55 0.480.48 SongjiangSongjiang 119.63119.63 10.6710.67 112.00112.00 10.8510.85 84.4684.46 9.929.92 74.6074.60 10.0410.04 ShanghaiShanghai 1120.631120.63 1032.221032.22 851.10851.10 743.17743.17

4 TableTable 17. 17Total. Total soil soil erosion erosion (10 (10)4) and and ratios ratios (%) (%) of of di differentﬀerent land land types types in in Shanghai Shanghai from from 1990 1990 to to 2018. 2018.

19901990 20002000 20102010 2018 2018 Land Type Total Soil Total Soil Total Soil Total Soil Land Type Total Soil % Total Soil % Total Soil % Total Soil% Erosion % Erosion % Erosion % Erosion % Erosion Erosion Erosion Erosion ArableArable land land 1106.371106.37 98.7298.72 1013.121013.12 98.1498.14 821.34821.34 96.4996.49 705.73705.73 94.95 94.95 Forest land 0.75 0.07 0.73 0.07 0.72 0.08 0.60 0.08 ForestGrass land land 0.460.75 0.040.07 0.240.73 0.020.07 0.220.72 0.030.08 1.770.60 0.24 0.08 GrassWater land area 0.000.46 0.000.04 0.000.24 0.000.02 0.000.22 0.000.03 0.001.77 0.00 0.24 ConstructedWater area area 13.170.00 1.180.00 18.230.00 1.770.00 28.910.00 3.400.00 35.130.00 4.73 0.00 Unused area 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 Constructed area 13.17 1.18 18.23 1.77 28.91 3.40 35.13 4.73 Unused area 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 Based on the four indicators above, the indicators of 2018 are chosen and normalizations of these four indicatorsBased on the are four made indicators to determine above, the the importance indicators of level 2018 of are the chosen ecosystem and normalizations services in Shanghai of these (Figurefour indicators8). The normalization are made to resultsdetermine are dividedthe importance into four level ranks of inthe Shanghai ecosystem (extremely services important,in Shanghai important,(Figure 8). generally The normalization important, andresults unimportant) are divided and into the four results ranks are in shown Shanghai in Figure (extremely9. The importantimportant, andimportant, unimportant general ecologically important land covers, and overunimportant) 80% of the and area the in Shanghai, results are while shown extremely in Figure important 9. The ecologicalimportant land and coversunimportant less than ecological 4% of the land total covers area. over 80% of the area in Shanghai, while extremely important ecological land covers less than 4% of the total area.

FigureFigure 8. 8.Normalization Normalization of of ecosystem ecosystem services services in in Shanghai. Shanghai.

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020 12 SustainabilitySustainability 2019 2019, , ,11 11,, 2142 ,x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 151515 of of of 25 26 26

Figure 9. Importance level of ecosystem services in Shanghai. FigureFigure 9. 9. Importance Importance level level of of eco ecosystemsystem services services in in Shanghai Shanghai. . According to the importance level of ecosystem services, it can be seen that the ecological services of ShanghaiAccordingAccording present to to athe the typical importance importance circle pattern, level level of withof ecosystem ecosystem the main services, urbanservices, area it it as can can the be be center seen seen and that that the the the importance ecological ecological levelservicesservices upgrades ofof ShanghaiShanghai through presentpresent the center aa typicaltypical downtown circlecircle pattern,pattern, area to withwith the the outsidethe mainmain area. urbanurban Based areaarea asas on thethe this centercenter feature andand and thethe theimportanceimportance current situation level level upgrades upgrades of Shanghai, through through the citythethe centerarea center is downtownroughly downtown divided area area to into to the the four outside outside main area.functional area. Based Based areas on on this this as shownfeaturefeature in and and Figure the the 10 current current (ecological situation situation bottom of of line Shanghai, Shanghai, area, ecological the the city city coordination area area is is roughly roughly area, divided ecologicaldivided into into conservation four four main main area,functionalfunctional and center areas areas construction asas shown shown in in area). Figure Figure The 10 10 center (ecological(ecological construction bottom bottom area line lineis area, area, the main ecological ecological construction coordination coordination area of area, area, the city,eecologicalcological which conservationisconservation unimportant areaarea ecological, , andand centercenter land. constructionconstruction This area is area).area). mostly TheThe used centercenter for construction commercialconstruction purposesareaarea isis thethe (such mainmain asconstructionconstruction commerce centers, area area of of the o theffi ce city, city, buildings, which which is is and unimportant unimportant residential ecological ecological quarters) land.and land. lacks This This enough area area is is mostlygreen mostly space used used for for for localcommercialcommercial residents purposes purposes (lower than(such (such per as as commerce capitacommerce public centers, centers, green office office area bui asbui reportedldingsldings, ,and and in theresidentialresidential government quarters) quarters) report and and of lacks lacks the eleventhenoughenough green five-yeargreen spacespace plan). forfor Thelocallocal ecological residentsresidents coordination (lower(lower thanthan per areaper capitacapita is usually publicpublic the greengreen boundary areaarea as areaas reportedreported surrounding inin thethe thegovernmentgovernment center construction reportreport ofof area, thethe eleventheleventh which is five mainlyfive--yearyear used plan).plan). as a TheThe coordination ecologicalecological area coordinationcoordination for recreation areaarea and isis usuallyusually leisure forthethe residentsboundaryboundary and area area ecological surrounding surrounding protection the the center center (such construction construction as emergency area, area, evacuation which which is is and mainly mainly flood used used diversion). as as a a coordination coordination The ecological area area conservationforfor recreation recreation area and and is leisure leisure the basic for for ecologicalresidents residents and and space ecological ecological of Shanghai protection protection and plays (such (such an as as important emergency emergency role evacuation evacuation in water andand and soilfloodflood conservation, diversion). diversion). floodThe The ecological ecological regulation conservation conservation and storage, area windarea is is and the the typhoonbasic basic ecolo ecolo resistance,gicalgical space space and of of habitat Shanghai Shanghai maintenance. and and plays plays Humananan importantimportant activities, rolerole such inin waterwater as construction andand soilsoil conservation,conservation, activities for floodflood commercial regulationregulation purpose, andand storage,storage, should windwind be limited andand typhoontyphoon in an ecologicalresistanceresistance, conservation ,and and habitat habitat maintenance. maintenance. area to protect Human Human its ecological activities, activities, functions. such such as as construction Theconstruction ecological activities activities bottom for linefor commercial commercial area is an extremelypurpose,purpose, should importantshould bebe limi arealimitedted of theinin anan ecosystem. ecologicalecological This conservationconservation area has a areaarea significant toto protectprotect role itsits in ecologicalecological an ecosystem. functions.functions. The area TheThe providesecologicalecological services bottom bottom such line line area asarea water is is an an supplyextremely extremely and important important biodiversity area area protection. of of the the ecosystem. ecosystem. Therefore, This This the area area ecological has has a a significant significant bottom linerolerole area inin anan should ecosystem.ecosystem. be protected. TheThe areaarea providesprovides servicesservices suchsuch asas waterwater supplysupply aandnd biodiversitybiodiversity protection.protection. Therefore,Therefore, the the ecological ecological bottom bottom line line area area should should be be protected. protected.

Figure 10. Ecological functional area in Shanghai. FigureFigure 10. 10. Ecological Ecological functional functional area area in in Shanghai Shanghai. .

SustainabilitySustainability 2019 2019, ,11 11, ,x; x; doi: doi: FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainabilitysustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 16 of 25 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 26

3.2. Evaluation and P Planninglanning of E Ecologicalcological L Landand U Usese at the TownTown (Meso)(Meso) ScaleScale

2 In the mesoscale study of ecologicalecological land use, townstowns withwith thethe areasareas ofof 50~20050~200 kmkm2 are usually chosen. In In this this paper, paper, Liantang Liantang Town Town was chosen in the mesoscale study. As As shown shown in in Figure Figure 1111aa,, the macroscale ecological land-useland-use planning plays a guiding role in mesoscale, including the divi divisionsion of the the main main functional functional areas areas and and the implementationthe implementation of overall of overall control control indicators. indicators. In the main In the function main functiondivision atdivision the macroscale, at the macroscale, it can be it seen can be that seen most that of most the area of the of area Liantang of Liantang Town isTown deﬁned is defined as the asecological the ecological conservation conservation area, while area a small, while part a of small the town part in of the the east town is deﬁned in the as east the isecological defined bottom as the ecologicalline area, which bottom is located line area, in the which upstream is located water source in the protection upstream area water of Huangpu source River. protection In Figure area 11 ofb, Huangpumost of the River. area ofIn LiantangFigure 11 Townb, most belongs of the toarea important of Liantang ecological Town land.belongs A smallto important proportion ecological of the land.town A area small belongs proporti to extremelyon of the town important area belongs land, which to extremely is also mainlyimportant in theland, drinking which is water also mainly source protectionin the drinking area. The water construction source protection land of the area. town The belongs construction to the unimportant land of the ecological town belongs land. to the unimportant ecological land.

(a)

(b)

Figure 11. MacroscaleMacroscale guidance to the the ecological ecological functional zoning and importance levels of Liantang Town.Town. (a) ecological functional zoning;zoning; ((b)) importanceimportance levels.levels.

The current land use of Liantang Town is shown in Figure 1212.. The main land use of the town is arable land, construction land land,, a andnd water area, which accounts for 68% of the total area. The arable area covers ~40% of the town. The The construction construction land covers only 18% of the total area. The water area covers 21% of the area, area, which which is is relatively relatively large. large. To To evaluate evaluate the the ecological ecological services services of of Liantang Liantang Town, Town, four indicators indicators are are selected, selected, including including water production water production capacity, habitat capacity, quality, habitat carbon quality, sequestration carbon sequestrationcapacity, and graincapacity production, and grain capacity. production The resultscapacity. are The shown results in Figure are shown 13. in Figure 13.

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 26

The water production service of Liantang Town (Figure 13a) displays obvious regional differences. The nonecological area has high water production capacity, because precipitation can easily turn into a runoff on the impervious layer. Forest land has low water production capacity because of low water yield and rainfall interception. The water area also has low water production capacity because of the high evaporation. Also, the water area can effectively contain the water source, which can control floods and resist droughts. The habitat quality of Liantang Town is shown in Figure 13b. The value of habitat quality indicates the habitat’s ability to resist the influence of stresses. As seen in the figure, the nonecological land has relatively low habitat quality, as the area is highly influenced by human activities. Water area and forest land in Liantang Town have relatively higher habitat qualities because those areas are less influenced by human activities. As shown in Figure 13c, the ecological land with the best carbon sequestration service is forest land, which provides more than 60% of carbon sequestration in less than 10% of the area of Liantang Town. Grassland also has good carbon sequestration service, while arable land has the lowest carbon sequestration ability. The land in Liantang Town is mainly arable land, which limits the carbon sequestration capacity. The land with the highest grain yield in Liantang Town is arable land, followed by the water area. Notably, the water area provides 17% of the grain yield, which is related to the large water area and large amounts of fish ponds. According to the evaluation and analysis of grain production capacity, Liantang Town is a typical agricultural production town, along with the aquaculture Sustainabilityindustry.2020 , 12, 2142 17 of 25

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 26 Figure 12. The land-use status of Liantang Town in 2018. Figure 12. The land-use status of Liantang Town in 2018.

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Figure 13. Spatial distribution of key ecosystem services of Liantang Town in 2018. (a) The water Figure 13. Spatial distribution of key ecosystem services of Liantang Town in 2018. (a) The water production capacity; (b) Habitat quality; (c) Carbon sequestration capacity; (d) Grain production capacity. production capacity; (b) Habitat quality; (c) Carbon sequestration capacity; (d) Grain production caThepaci waterty. production service of Liantang Town (Figure 13a) displays obvious regional diﬀerences. The nonecological area has high water production capacity, because precipitation can easily turn into a Table 17. The ecosystem services of different land types in Liantang Town.

Land Habitat Grain Carbon Water

Land Type Structure Quality Production Sequestration Production Area/km2 % index index % Mg % Depth/mm % Arable land 37.44 39.64 0.41 0.98 68.1 0.01 24.5 882.49 47.5 Garden 2.85 3.01 0.75 0.50 2.5 0.02 2.49 912.35 3.7 Forest land 9.67 10.24 0.89 0.34 5.9 0.11 63.4 802.26 11.2 Grassland 5.73 6.07 0.70 0.43 4.5 0.03 9.65 873.50 7.2 Water area 19.69 20.85 0.90 0.51 17.2 0 0 19.17 0.5 Residence 11.59 12.27 0.11 0.04 0.9 0 0 1129.86 18.8 Traffic land 4.01 4.24 0 0.09 0.6 0 0 987.82 5.7 Unused land 3.47 3.67 0 0.03 0.2 0 0 1059.76 5.3

On the basis of the evaluation and analysis, four indicators were normalized and divided into four levels of importance (Figure 14 and Figure 15), which are extremely important (0.85~1), important (0.75~0.85), generally important (0.65~0.75), and unimportant (0~0.65). The result shows that the ecosystem services of Liantang Town are mainly extremely important and important, which accounts for 57% of the total area, while generally important area accounts for 24% of the total area. The generally important and unimportant areas are located in the constructed area and its surroundings. After comparing the importance level of macroscale and mesoscale, the importance level areas mostly match. In macroscale, Liantang Town is mainly classified into extremely important and important ecological land as well. The further detailed importance division lists the generally important and unimportant ecological land for further management.

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 18 of 25 runoff on the impervious layer. Forest land has low water production capacity because of low water yield and rainfall interception. The water area also has low water production capacity because of the high evaporation. Also, the water area can effectively contain the water source, which can control floods and resist droughts. The habitat quality of Liantang Town is shown in Figure 13b. The value of habitat quality indicates the habitat’s ability to resist the influence of stresses. As seen in the figure, the nonecological land has relatively low habitat quality, as the area is highly influenced by human activities. Water area and forest land in Liantang Town have relatively higher habitat qualities because those areas are less influenced by human activities. As shown in Figure 13c, the ecological land with the best carbon sequestration service is forest land, which provides more than 60% of carbon sequestration in less than 10% of the area of Liantang Town. Grassland also has good carbon sequestration service, while arable land has the lowest carbon sequestration ability. The land in Liantang Town is mainly arable land, which limits the carbon sequestration capacity. The land with the highest grain yield in Liantang Town is arable land, followed by the water area. Notably, the water area provides 17% of the grain yield, which is related to the large water area and large amounts of fish ponds. According to the evaluation and analysis of grain production capacity, Liantang Town is a typical agricultural production town, along with the aquaculture industry.(Table 18)

Table 18. The ecosystem services of diﬀerent land types in Liantang Town.

Land Habitat Grain Carbon Water Structure Quality Production Sequestration Production Land Type Area/km2 % index index % Mg % Depth/mm % Arable land 37.44 39.64 0.41 0.98 68.1 0.01 24.5 882.49 47.5 Garden 2.85 3.01 0.75 0.50 2.5 0.02 2.49 912.35 3.7 Forest land 9.67 10.24 0.89 0.34 5.9 0.11 63.4 802.26 11.2 Grassland 5.73 6.07 0.70 0.43 4.5 0.03 9.65 873.50 7.2 Water area 19.69 20.85 0.90 0.51 17.2 0 0 19.17 0.5 Residence 11.59 12.27 0.11 0.04 0.9 0 0 1129.86 18.8 Traﬃc land 4.01 4.24 0 0.09 0.6 0 0 987.82 5.7 Unused land 3.47 3.67 0 0.03 0.2 0 0 1059.76 5.3

On the basis of the evaluation and analysis, four indicators were normalized and divided into four levels of importance (Figures 14 and 15), which are extremely important (0.85~1), important (0.75~0.85), generally important (0.65~0.75), and unimportant (0~0.65). The result shows that the ecosystem services of Liantang Town are mainly extremely important and important, which accounts for 57% of the total area, while generally important area accounts for 24% of the total area. The generally important and unimportant areas are located in the constructed area and its surroundings. After comparing the importance level of macroscale and mesoscale, the importance level areas mostly match. In macroscale, Liantang Town is mainly classiﬁed into extremely important and important ecological land as well. The further detailed importance division lists the generally important and unimportant ecological land for further management.

3.3. Planning and Implementation of Ecological Land Use at a Community (Micro) Scale At the microscale, Changtian Community was selected as the research area. In this scale, ﬁeld surveys and interviews with residents were carried out to obtain development wishes and planning requirements of residents. The layout of microscale land planning involves the interests of the public, which often determine the future direction of the social and economic development of the community. However, there are some uncertainties in the development goals of the communities. Therefore, multiple schemes/scenarios need to be compared to determine a relatively better practical scheme. Four schemes of diﬀerent development goals and public demands are designed. SustainabilitySustainability 20192020, 11, 12, x, FOR 2142 PEER REVIEW 19 19of of26 25

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 26

FigureFigure 14. 14. NormalizationNormalization of of indicators indicators of ecosystem of ecosystem services services in Liantang in Liantang Town. Town. Figure 14. Normalization of indicators of ecosystem services in Liantang Town.

Figure 15. Importance level of ecosystem in Liantang Town. Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 20 of 25

The ﬁrst scheme (Figure 16c) is an environmental improvement plan, which is aiming to renovate the ecological environment and build a clean community. According to the requirements of Shanghai environment improvement for rural areas, the environmental improvement plan is carried out with the purpose of beautifying the community environment and improving the living condition. According to this, this environmental improvement scheme contains ﬁve aspects of the key design: reduce the illegal construction land occupation and clear the main homestead area; regulate the waterfront ecological space and clear the riverside; widen the road in front of residence, reduce unnecessary hardened grounds and increase the green space; transfer the waste construction land into ecological Sustainabilityland; keep 2019 the, cultivated11, x FOR PEER land, REVIEW garden, forest land, and maintain their original layout. 21 of 26

Figure 16. Land-use schemes of different objectives. (a) Changtian community; (b) environmental Figure 16. Land-use schemes of different objectives. (a) Changtian community ; (b) environmental improvement plan, (c) farmland protection plan, (d) the ecotourism plan. improvement plan ,(c) farmland protection plan ,(d) the ecotourism plan. The second scheme (Figure 16b) is a farmland protection plan, which is mainly to improve agriculturalTo compare function the and present protect layout cultivated and three land schestrictly.mes, According the land to uses the ofrequirements different situations of macro and are calculatedmeso ecological and listed land-use in Table planning, 18. The Liantang present Town land bears use great of the pressure Changtian on the Community farmland protection. is mainly cultivatedTherefore, land the main and water design area, principle which is account to protect for basic 60% offarmland the total and area increase of the the community. proportion The of environmentalcultivated land improvem area. Theent scheme plan containsaims to fourprotect aspects the environment of the key design: and increase turn the the current area idleof arbor land forest,into cultivated avenue, grassland land to increase, and community the ratio ofpark. cultivated The main land; purpose turn theof the idle farmland fish ponds protection into cultivated plan is toland improve or paddy the production field; carry capacity out the high-standard of agricultural farmlandproducts transformationby increasing the to area improve of arable the farmlandland and improvingcultivation; grain carry productivity. out the basic The comprehensive ecotourism plan improvement is mainly to of increase community the main environment area of community to improve parks,the living orchards standard and of flowers residents., and emphasize the value of ecosystem services for sightseeing and entertainment.The third scheme (Figure 16d) is the ecotourism plan, which aims to optimize the ecological environment and develop rural tourism. Liantang Town is famous for its red tourism and rural Table 18. The areas of different land types in present layout and three schemes. tourism. Changtian Community is close to the urban centralized construction area and has the location Present Farmland Protection Environmental Ecotourism Land Type Layout (hm2) Plan (hm2) Improvement Plan (hm2) Plan (hm2) Paddy field 25.6 35.3 25.9 21.7 Ditch 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 Orchard 0 0 0 13.4 Ridge 1.9 1.7 1.7 0.9 Flower 0 0 0 4.1 Pond 12.0 8.4 10.6 8.1 Arbor forest 4.7 6.7 9.3 3.7 Avenue 2.0 1.8 3.9 2.0 River 19.5 17.3 19.9 19.5 Community park 0.0 0.9 1.6 2.2

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 21 of 25 advantage for the development of rural tourism. In the process of investigation, it is found that local residents also have the demand for developing rural tourism and the economy. The main design methods are as follows: renovate the natural rivers in the north and east, construct the waterfront leisure green space and form the waterfront ecotourism footpath; utilize the existing fish ponds, change the shape of them for tourism and sightseeing; adjust part of the cultivated land into orchards, increase the planting area of fruit forest, flowers and other crops, such as pear tree, peach tree, etc., and carry out picking events; optimize community public green space, improve the community’s infrastructure supporting, and improve the residential environment to development homestay economy. Through the above designs, the ecosystem, tourism, and economics are integrated to achieve the development of a community economy on the basis of not damaging the natural environment. To compare the present layout and three schemes, the land uses of different situations are calculated and listed in Table 19. The present land use of the Changtian Community is mainly cultivated land and water area, which account for 60% of the total area of the community. The environmental improvement plan aims to protect the environment and increase the area of arbor forest, avenue, grassland, and community park. The main purpose of the farmland protection plan is to improve the production capacity of agricultural products by increasing the area of arable land and improving grain productivity. The ecotourism plan is mainly to increase the main area of community parks, orchards and flowers, and emphasize the value of ecosystem services for sightseeing and entertainment.

Table 19. The areas of diﬀerent land types in present layout and three schemes.

Farmland Environmental Present Layout Ecotourism Plan Land Type Protection Plan Improvement Plan (hm2) (hm2) (hm2) (hm2) Paddy ﬁeld 25.6 35.3 25.9 21.7 Ditch 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 Orchard 0 0 0 13.4 Ridge 1.9 1.7 1.7 0.9 Flower 0 0 0 4.1 Pond 12.0 8.4 10.6 8.1 Arbor forest 4.7 6.7 9.3 3.7 Avenue 2.0 1.8 3.9 2.0 River 19.5 17.3 19.9 19.5 Community park 0.0 0.9 1.6 2.2 Attached green space 0.4 0.6 2.2 0.7 Grassland 4.8 3.7 5.9 0.8 Hard ground in residential area 8.6 8.5 5.9 8.5 Residential building 6.0 6.1 4.8 5.2 Road 8.3 8.2 7.4 8.3 Idle space 1.5 0 0 0 Bare land 3.5 0 0 0

To solicit opinions from local residents and managers, questionnaires were developed and distributed. The questionnaire results show that residents support ecotourism plan > environmental improvement plan > farmland protection plan. The residents suggested two aspects for future development: improve the living environment and basic service facilities of the community; improve the tourism industry in the future. The results from managers are different and they support the environmental improvement plan > farmland protection plan > ecotourism plan. There are five suggestions proposed. Firstly, arrangements of administrative tasks and basic land management policies of the state should be obeyed; difficult work of land function adjustment and coordination should be avoided in planning and design; basic farmland should be protected and pollution sources should be controlled to maintain and improve river water quality; community environmental improvement is a compulsory task, which needs to be actively implemented and completed; development of tourism industry in the community should be promoted. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 22 of 25

Based on the opinions of residents and managers in Changtian Community, consensuses on future development can be formed: 1. Improve the community environment and dismantle illegal buildings; 2. Keep the current function of landscape and avoid changes of land function; 3. Increase the compound function of existing land and enhance the tourism value and economic value of the community; 4. On the basis of farmland and ecosystem protection, adjust some of the lands, change the crop types, and develop a characteristic economy. To compare three schemes qualitatively, ecosystem service values are calculated and compared (Figure 17). As shown in Figure 15, supply service, regulating service, supporting service, and cultural service of three schemes and present land use are compared. Four service values of diﬀerent schemes diﬀer from each other. Therefore, considering one service value is far from enough. All aspects should beSustainability considered, 2019 so, 11 that, x FOR its PEER comprehensive REVIEW value can be maximized and the community can serve better.23 of 26

Figure 17. Comparisons of ecosystem service values under four scenarios. Figure 17. Comparisons of ecosystem service values under four scenarios. Based on the comments from residents and managers of the community, an optimized scheme is proposedBased on and the the comments layout is from shown residents in Figure and 15 managers. The optimized of the community, scheme is an shown optimized in Figure scheme 17. Theis proposed optimized and scheme the layout includes is shown five aspects in Figure of the 15. suggestions: The optimized scheme is shown in Figure 17. The optimized scheme includes five aspects of the suggestions: 1. The optimized scheme takes environmental renovation and ecotourism into account to realize the 1. balanceThe optimized between scheme protection takes and environmental economic development; renovation and ecotourism into account to realize 2. Delimitthe balance clear between main functional protection areas and to economic form functional development; blocks with different characteristics; 3.2. KeepDelimit the clear existing main cultivated functional landareas area to form and functional improve theblocks quality with ofdifferent cultivated characteristics; land; keep the 3. boundaryKeep the and existing reduce cultivated the diffi culty land of area land-use and improve adjustment; the quality of cultivated land; keep the 4. Utilizeboundary the landand reduce types suchthe difficulty as garden of and land fish-use pond, adjustment; increase the leisure tourism functions such 4. asUtilize sightseeing, the land picking, types such recreation, as garden etc., and which fish havepond, less increase impact the on leisure the environment; tourism functions such 5. Focusas sightseeing, on the improvement picking, recreation, of waterfront etc., space,which combine have less the impact ecological on the restoration environment; with sightseeing 5. Focus on the improvement of waterfront space, combine the ecological restoration with and recreation functions, and enhance the cultural value of the waterfront space. sightseeing and recreation functions, and enhance the cultural value of the waterfront space. The optimized scheme (Figure 18) combines the present land use and future development, which The optimized scheme (Figure 18) combines the present land use and future development, includes environmental protection, farmland protection, and ecotourism. It suits the administration which includes environmental protection, farmland protection, and ecotourism. It suits the policy and the anticipation of residents. administration policy and the anticipation of residents.

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 23 of 25 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 26

Figure 18. Optimized scheme of Liantang Town.Town.

4.4. Discussion and Conclusionsconclusion The ecological landland and its protection have been a hot spot of our society for years. In In this this paper, paper, urbanurban ecological land refers to the landland/area/area that can directlydirectly oror indirectlyindirectly provideprovide ecologicalecological serviceservice (such(such asas environmentalenvironmental materialmaterial supply,supply, climateclimate regulation,regulation, ecologicalecological support)support) toto thethe city to protect andand stabilize stabilize the the regional regional ecosystem ecosystem [25 ].[25 Currently,]. Currently, the concept the concept of ecological of ecological land is land not clearly is not defined clearly indefin landed managementin land management in countries in countries other than other China. than However,China. However, the concept the concept of ecology of ecology has been has in land-typebeen in land division-type division and land and management land management for years. for In years. 1981, RoweIn 1981, et al.Rowe used et theal. used techniques the techniques of aerial photographingof aerial photographing to identify to and identify classify and land classify types land based types on the based relevant on the theories relevant of ecology theories [26 of]. ecology In 1983, an[26 American]. In 1983, ecologistan American named ecologist Bailey named took land Bailey as a took composite land as ecological a composite system ecological and, in system the process and, ofin classifyingthe process it, of he classifying integrated it, thehe integrated land of ecological the land significance of ecological into significance a larger geographical into a largerunit geographical and built connectionsunit and buil witht connections surrounding with geographical surrounding units geographical [27]. In 1990, Zonneveld units [27]. from In 1990, Holland Zonneveld discussed from the spatialHolland levels discussed of ecological the spatial environment, levels of ecological land piece environment, and land system land based piece onand the land theory system of landscape based on ecologythe theory [28 ]. of Klijn landscape and Haes ecology constructed [28]. Klijnthe classification and Haes systemconstructed and standard the classif ofication ecological system land and and elaboratedstandard of the ecological application land value and elaborated and significance the application of the classification value and significance system [29]. of the classification systemAt [ present,29]. the common land classification systems include LUCC (Land-use and Land-cover Change),At present, Anderson the common of USGS land (U.S. classification Geological systems Survey) include and CORINE LUCC (Land of the-use European and Land Union.-cover TheseChange), systems Anderson are all of basedUSGS on(U.S. the Geological theories of Survey) ecology and and CORINE geography of the and European classify landUnion. types These by geomorphicsystems are all characteristics, based on the ecologicaltheories of functions,ecology and land geography covers, et and al. Theseclassify studies land types have by not geomorphic concluded thecharacteristics, unified concept ecological of ecological functions, land, land but covers, researchers et al. These focused studies on have the land not concluded layout managements the unified andconcept ecological of ecological land divisions land, but to researchers evaluate the focused ecological on the suitability land layout of land managements and explore and the ecological dynamic evolutionland divisions process to evaluate of vegetation the ecological cover of suitability ecological of land. land and explore the dynamic evolution process of vegetationThis study cover takes of ecological Shanghai asland. a case study and discusses the ecological land evaluation and managementThis study in three takes di Shanghaifferent scales. as a caseOn the study macroscale, and discusses a 30 m the resolution ecological remote land sensing evaluation image and of Shanghaimanagement and in the three InVEST different model scales. is used On the to interpret macroscale, the a main 30 m land-use resolution situation remote andsensing evaluate image the of importanceShanghai and level. the InInVEST mesoscale, model the is 1used m resolution to interpret satellite the main remote land sensing-use situation image of and Liantang evaluate Town the wasimportance used and level. four In indicators mesoscale, (carbon the 1 sequestration m resolution capacity, satellite habitatremote quality,sensing water image production of Liantang capacity, Town andwas grainused production and four indicators capacity) were (carbon chosen sequestration to evaluate the capacity, ecological habitat land quality, of the town. water In production microscale, Changtiancapacity, and Community grain production in Liantang capaci Townty) waswere chosen chosen as to a caseevaluate study. the Multiple ecological schemes land of were the proposed town. In andmicroscale, optimized Changtian after consulting Community with in managers Liantang and Town residents. was chosen as a case study. Multiple schemes were proposed and optimized after consulting with managers and residents.

Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 24 of 25

The adaptive evaluation and planning of ecological land in Shanghai are the key process and result of this study. Previous land-use managements use one single method to classify and manage different lands, which would lead to the problems of adaptabilities in different scales and different regions. China is a country with extensive lands and one method is too simple to manage this country. Therefore, this strategy of adaptively managing ecological lands can meet the demands of ecology and economic development. The management of ecological land cannot be done in one process and it needed to be evaluated and decided by different decision-makers. This is, far and away, the most important point of ecological land management.

Author Contributions: The following statements should be used “conceptualization, W.J. and Y.C.; methodology, W.J. and Y.C.; software, W.J.; validation, W.J. and Y.C.; formal analysis, W.J.; investigation, W.J.; resources, W.J. and Y.C.; data curation, W.J.; writing—original draft preparation, W.J.; writing—review and editing, J.X.; visualization, W.J. and J.X.; supervision, Y.C. and Z.L.; project administration, Z.L.; funding acquisition, Z.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation of China (41773004), China National Key R&D Programmes (2016YFC0502701-2), the Jiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD). Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

References

1. Gu, Z.L. Climate change and adaptive urban planning. Constr. Sci. Technol. 2010, 13, 28–29. 2. Grossman, G.M.; Krueger, A.B. Economic growth and the environment. Q. J. Econ. 1995, 110, 353–377. [CrossRef] 3. Liu, Y.; Lin, J.B. Some considerations on the strategy of Chinese urbanization during the eleventh five-year planning period. Urban Stud. 2006, 13, 85–89. 4. Cao, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.Y.; Li, S.K.; Liu, Z.F. Spatial analysis to capital cities between urbanization quality and eco-environment pressure in China. J. Anhui Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2016, 39, 70–76. 5. Foley, J.A.; Defries, R.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Coe, M.T.; Daily, G.C.; Gibbs, H.K. Global consequences of land use. Science 2005, 309, 570–574. [CrossRef] 6. Zhang, H.; Zhai, C.; Zhang, X. Forecasting Water Resources Demand Based on Complex System Dynamics: A Case Study of Tianjin City. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Seminar on Future Biomedical Information Engineering, Wuhan, China, 18 December 2008; pp. 420–422. 7. Wang, L.M.; Ou, M.H.; Shao, X.M.; Wang, J.; Wu, M.F. Building the public participation expression mechanism on land-use planning. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 1, 38–41. 8. Chen, J.; Shi, P.J. Discussion on functional land use classification system. J. Beijing Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2005, 41, 536–540. 9. Xu, J.M. How does the Government Support Cooperative Development Scientifically and Effectively; China Farmer’s Cooperatives: Beijing, China, 2016; pp. 1674–5914. 10. Li, Y.; Gu, Z.L. Japan’s urban environmental problems and improvement: Policies and planning. Chin. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 3, 45–49. 11. Shen, Q.J. Theoretical discussion on urban ecological restoration: Concept system, working mechanisms and scientific problems. Urban Plan. Forum 2017, 4, 30–38. 12. Yuan, H.H. Construction of Urban Green Space System with the Disaster Prevention in Hangzhou. Master’s Thesis, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, 2009. 13. Radford, K.G. Changes in the value of ecosystem services along a rural-urban gradient: A case study pf Greater Manchester, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 117–127. [CrossRef] 14. Yu, F.; Li, X.B.; Zhang, L.J.; Xu, W.H.; Fu, R.; Wang, H. Study of ecological land in China: Conception, classification and spatialtemporal pattern. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 4931–4943. 15. Hall, L.S.; Krausman, P.R.; Morrison, M.L. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1997, 25, 173–182. 16. Huang, L.X.; Du, S. Integrated urban eco-system and China’s urban development. Urban Plan. Int. 2009, 24, 30–36. 17. Sharp, R.; Ricketts, T.; Guerry, A.D. InVEST 3.2.0 Beta User’s Guide. In The Natural Capital Project; Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2015. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2142 25 of 25

18. Sun, X.; Li, F. Spatiotemporal assessment and trade-offs of multiple ecosystem services based on land use changes in Zengcheng, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 6, 69–81. [CrossRef] 19. Li, K.R.; Wang, S.Q.; Cao, M.K. Carbon storage of vegetation and soil in China. Sci. China (Ser. D) 2003, 33, 72–80. [CrossRef] 20. Fan, L.H.; Zhu, J.H.; Li, Q.; Feng, Y.; Xiao, W.F. Effects of changes in land use and cover on carbon storage in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. J. Nanjing For. Univ. (Nanjing Sci. Ed.) 2018, 42, 53–60. 21. Feng, S.; Sun, R.; Chen, L.D. Spatio-temporal variability of habitat quality based on land use pattern change in Beijing. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2018, 38, 4167–4179. 22. Chu, L.; Zhang, X.R.; Wang, T.W.; Li, Z.X.; Cai, C.F. Spatial-temporal evolution and prediction of urban landscape pattern and habitat quality based on CA-Markov and InVEST model. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 29, 4106–4118. 23. Zhong, L.; Wang, J. Evaluation on effect of land consolidation on habitat quality based on InVEST model. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. (Trans. CSAE) 2017, 33, 250–255. 24. Xie, G.D.; Zhen, L.; Lu, C.X.; Xiao, Y.; Chen, C. Expert knowledge based valuation method of ecosystem services in China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 13, 1315–1318. 25. Long, H.L.; Liu, Y.Q.; Li, T.T.; Wang, J.; Liu, A.X. A primary study on ecological land use classification. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2015, 24, 1–7. 26. Rowe, J.S.; Sheard, J.W. Ecological land classification: A survey approach. Environ. Manag. 1981, 5, 451–464. [CrossRef] 27. Bailey, R.G. Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environ. Manag. 1983, 7, 365–373. [CrossRef] 28. Zonneveld, I.S. Scope and Concepts of Landscape Ecology as an Emerging Science; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 3–20. 29. Klijn, F.; Udo de Haes, H.A. A hierarchical approach to ecosystems and its implications for ecological land classification. Landsc. Ecol. 1994, 9, 89–104. [CrossRef]

© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).