Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Impact assessment of land use planning driving forces on environment

Longgao Chen a,⁎, Xiaoyan Yang a,b, Longqian Chen b, Long Li c
a
Institute of Land Resources, Jiangsu Normal University (JSNU), Xuzhou 221116, China
b
School of Environment and Spatial Informatics, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
c
Department of Geography, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels 1050, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Land use change may exert a negative impact on environmental quality. A state–impact–state (SIS) model
Received 4 February 2015 describing a state transform under certain impacts has been integrated into land use planning (LUP) environ-
Received in revised form 26 July 2015 mental impact assessment (LUPEA). This logical model is intuitive and easy to understand, but the exploration
Accepted 2 August 2015
of impact is essential to establish the indicator system and to identify the scope of land use environmental impact
Available online 14 August 2015
when it is applied to a specific region. In this study, we investigated environmental driving forces from land use
Keywords:
planning (LUPF), along with the conception, components, scope, and impact of LUPF. This method was illustrated
Land use planning by a case study in Zoucheng, China. Through the results, we concluded that (1) the LUPF on environment are
Land use planning environmental impact impacts originated from the implementation of LUP on a regional environment, which are characterized by
assessment four aspects: magnitude, direction, action point, and its owner; (2) various scopes of LUPF on individual environ-
State–impact–state model mental elements based on different standards jointly define the final scope of LUPEA; (3) our case study in
Environmental driving force Zoucheng demonstrates the practicability of this proposed approach; (4) this method can be embedded into
LUPEA with direction, magnitudes, and scopes of the LUPF on individual elements obtained, and the identified
indicator system can be directly employed into LUPEA and (5) the assessment helps to identify key indicators
and to set up a corresponding strategy to mitigate the negative impact of LUP on the environment, which are
two important objectives of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in LUP.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The relative shortage of land resources with increasing human
demand for food or service leads to the excessive use of land, a funda-
mental resource to human development, resulting in considerable envi-
ronmental problems on various perspectives. Thus, it is essential to plan
land use patterns and distribution carefully with the consideration of
these environmental challenges. Environmental impact assessment
(EIA), a means to identify potential environmental and social impacts
of human actions, has been widely used in various human activities
including land use planning processes (Coleby et al., 2012). EIA aims
to examine, analyze, and assess the planned activities to ensure envi-
ronmentally sound and sustainable development (Ramanathan, 2001).
To minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive impacts
on the environment, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has
been used to integrate EIA in land use and planning (Jiricka and
Pröbstl, 2008), and several practical frameworks have been introduced
or developed. For example, Loiseau et al. (2013) adapted a revised
framework based on lifecycle assessment (LCA) to land use planning en-
vironmental impact assessment (LUPEA) with a theoretical case study of a
territory; Barral and Oscar (2012) developed a methodological protocol of
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chenlonggao@163.com (L. Chen).
SEA to incorporate the value of ecosystem services in LUP and García-
Montero et al. (2008) developed a screening method to rapidly evaluate
the LUPEA. Other frameworks or methodologies, such as the health
index/risk evaluation tool (HIRET) (Bien et al., 2004) and the land suitabil-
ity index (LSI) (Marull et al., 2007), have been introduced into LUPEA as
well (Bien et al., 2004; Marull et al., 2007). Some assessment methods/
frameworks related to LUPEA are listed in Table 1.
Spatial land planning is a method for allocating land to different uses
in the future (Sutanta et al., 2013). Land use planning considers spatio-
temporal arrangement of land resources according to regional develop-
ment strategies, especially at a county level. In recent years, geographi-
cal information system (GIS) techniques have been widely applied to
acquire indicator values for the spatial assessment of LUP (Campagna
and Matta, 2014; Chen et al., 2009a), and have provided a visual and sce-
nario tool for LUPEA (Bishop and Stock, 2010; Bishop and Miller, 2007;
Rivas Casado et al., 2014). But many early studies (e.g. Tao et al., 2007;
Barral and Oscar, 2012; Geneletti, 2012; Amir et al., 1997) ignored the
extended spatial influence of LUP, which is the externality of land use en-
vironmental impact. Another important but often ignored challenge in
LUPEA is the dynamic impacts during the implementation of LUP.
Some assessments (e.g. García-Montero et al., 2008; Barral and Oscar,
2012; Marull et al., 2007) calculated the impact after the implementa-
tion of LUP and compared it with the environmental quality in the base
year, but seldom investigated the dynamic environmental states

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.08.001
0195-9255/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135 127

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

Method/framework Researcher Major achievement Study area/case

Health index/risk evaluation tool (HIRET) Bien et al. Dynamic human health risk assessment in long-term period A site contaminated by benzene.
(2004) related to land use planning was spatially performed within a
GIS framework.
Land Suitability Index (LSI) assessment tool Marull et al. Quantitative and cartographic assessment of the suitability for The municipal urban plans in the
(2007) land development is executed with GIS calculation. Barcelona Metropolitan Region
(BMR).
Environmental screening tool García-Montero With the usage of GIS raster screening model, the critical Spanish Transport Infrastructure
et al. (2008) environmental areas to limit the area involved in the land use Plan (PIT 2000–2007) guidelines.
plans were` identified.
Integrated methodology containing SEA procedure, Chen et al. The comprehensive impacts of six possible scenarios by 2011 on Golf Course Installation Policy in
sustainable assessment framework, and an SEA (2009) ecology, society, and economy are simultaneously assessed. Taiwan
management system
A fuzzy matter-element model and factor-overlay Zhang et al. Categorized eco-environmental sensitivity was spatially figured Yicheng City in China
method in eco-environmental sensitivity (2011) out with GIS based factor-overlay.
assessment for LUP.
Ecosystem services valuation based methodological Barral and Achieve the ecosystem services provision and assessed the Balcarce, Southeast Pampas
protocol Oscar (2012) ecological contribution of lands. Region (Argentina)
Life cycle assessment (LCA) embedded in LUPEA Loiseau et al. Achieve the environmental impacts and the goods and services A theoretical case study of
(2013) of associated land use scenario. territory
State–impact–state (SIS) model Chen et al. Obtain the spatial and multi-temporal assessment of LUP Zoucheng County in China.
(2014) environmental impact.
Minimum indicator set with value-function based Recatalá and Be capable to predict environmental impacts on natural Valencian region, a representative
approach Sacristán resources at low cost. area of the European Mediterranean
(2014) Region.

impacted by the implementation of LUP, resulting in the incomplete-
ness of process evaluation in LUPEA.
We developed a state–impact–state (SIS) model as an easy tool for
both theoretical analysis and the application of LUPEA (Chen et al.,
2014). Table 2 describes the procedure of LUPEA using the SIS model
and the function/purpose of each step. To apply the SIS model to the
LUPEA of other regions, one should explore the impact from LUP on the
environment before constructing the indicator system and identifying
the scope of land use environmental impact in target areas. The driving
forces from LUP (LUPF) on the environment require to be systematically
analyzed to guide its application to other areas.
The assessment of LUPF helps to build the indicator system and pro-
vide the impact scope of individual environmental elements and indicator
value for LUPEA. With SEA embedded in LUP, the indicator system and in-
dicator values can be directly employed into LUPEA, and the SEA scope
can be obtained based on the overlay of individual environmental ele-
ments. The LUPF assessment is also capable of identifying key indicators
and of formulating corresponding strategies to mitigate the negative
impact on the environment, the two important issues that need to be
dealt with in SEA. In this study, we first explored the theory of LUPF, in-
cluding its conception, components, types, and scope, and then assessed
the environmental LUPF by a case study in Zoucheng County, China, to
test the feasibility of the model.
2. Conceptualizing the LUPF on the environment
Chen et al. (2014) introduced a SIS model to be integrated into
LUPEA. This model is a conceptual framework describing the structure
and object transformation from one state to another under certain LUP
impacts. For example, a regional environment is an object with several el-
ements, such as atmosphere, water, soil, and landscape, and has a function
to purify the pollutant and guarantee the development of society. Object
can be described and assessed based on certain temporal states and the
transform between states. Each state is described and analyzed based
on the contribution of individual interior elements, in other words, it is
described as an overall assessment of a system containing several charac-
teristics/indicators. In practice, GIS techniques provide a power tool for
the assessment of LUPF. The spatial and dynamic impacts of LUPF on the
environment can be determined using spatial analysis, 3D, and collabora-
tive virtual analysis (Bishop and Stock, 2010; Bishop and Miller, 2007;
Rivas Casado et al., 2014).

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

Steps Function & purpose

Analysis of LUP impact on the environment
Identification of impacted environmental elements
Definition of the environmental states in the base year and
different planning years.
Calculation of selected indicator values
Assessment of LUP environmental impact
Identification of key indicators, development of environmental
mitigation measures and alternative LUP scheme.
The analysis is based on the LUP scheme and regional environmental features. The LUPFs on the
environment and the environmental concerns are figured out in this step. It aims at building the basis for
constructing environmental structure with the environmental elements.
The environmental concerns due to LUPFs help to identify the impacted environmental elements. The
major impacted elements are identified and corresponding indicators reflecting the quality of individual
elements are developed in this step.
Based on the concerns of relevant participants or criterions, the environmental states are defined using the
SIS model. The states usually contain a base year and different planning years. It sets the checking time for
LUPEA.
Selected indicator values in each checking time are assessed. They provide the data base for LUPEA to
obtain integrated and comprehensive results. The major impacted indicators and correlated elements can
be identified in the steps.
This step obtains the final assessment of LUP on the environment. With the comparison of each result in
individual states, the environmental change and its spatio-temporal dynamics are figured out.
This step is optional since the assessment is obtained in the previous step. However, identification of key
indicators, development of environmental mitigation measures and even the development of alternative
LUP scheme are rather important to mitigate the environmental impact.
128 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135
2.1. The conception and components of LUPF on the environment
In a broad context, driving forces can be external forces from another
object or internal forces from the object itself. Both the external and
internal forces may result in a state transformation. Interaction with
another object can cause an object to undergo a certain change such
as position movement, direction shift, or geometrical deformation. The
driving forces from the object itself can cause the object to transfer
from one state to another. For example, as external forces on the envi-
ronment, the LUP driving forces on the environment are the impacts
from land use and the implementation of land use planning on regional
environment, while climate change and geographical movement lead-
ing to the environmental change are attributed to the internal force of
the environment. Based on this definition, we consider LUPF as external
forces for the implementation of LUP on a regional environment, and
climate change and geographical movements as internal forces from
the environment itself.
Based on the general concept of force in physics, we define the four
characteristics of LUPF on environment: 1) magnitude, the intensity of
transformation from one state to another; 2) direction, the way in
which the transformation occurs; 3) action point, the efficiency of the
transformation; and 4) its owner, which is land use planning. This
allows LUPF to be expressed asf(m, D, p, o), where m is the magnitude,
D is direction, which might be north (N), east (E) and vertical (Z) direc-
tions or the positive or negative direction depending on the environ-
mental state change, p is the action point, and o is land use planning,
respectively.
2.2. Spatio-temporal scope of LUPF on the environment
The environment is characterized by a large spatial coverage and the
LUPF impact on the environment can be at a global or a local scale. For
example, a coal power plant may have a widely spread impact by
discharging exhaust gas that pollutes an entire region. In contrast, the
waste water discharged by a coal power plant may be confined within
certain watersheds, affecting only a few communities (Howard et al.,
2013). Therefore, we define the scope of a driving force as the spatio-
temporal range of an impact on the environment. Fig. 1 shows the spatial
scope of force fi on object N. We use Si ∈ 〈a , b〉 to represent the scope of
force fi, where a is the lower bound and b the upper bound of Si including
time and space.
Fig. 1. Major land use types in Zoucheng County in 2000. The two insets show the location of Zoucheng County.
2.3. Impact of LUPF on the environment
The magnitude of force is described as mf(t, N, E, Z) and determined
by the source intensity. The source intensity of the owner is given by
si(t, N, E,Z), where t is time and N, E and Z are the location of the source
or individual spots of the influenced object defined above. The impact is
determined by the magnitude of LUPF (mf) and the tolerance of envi-
ronment (To), and is generally manifested as the change of environmen-
tal indicator value. Therefore, the relationships between impact (if),
magnitude (mf), and tolerance (To) are represented as if = f(mf, To).
Since the magnitude is determined by the source intensity,if = f(mf, To)
can be reformulated asif = g(si, To). It represents the relationship
between the impact of LUPF, the source intensity of the owner, and
the tolerance of the environment. The magnitude of To varies with the
characteristics of the environment. For example, when assessing the
environmental impact of land use, the To of steep terrain to arable
land is less than that to a residential land. An overview of the variables
in LUPF and their symbols is listed in Table 3.
3. Forces driving environmental changes
From the perspective of a land use planner, forces driving environ-
mental changes can be divided into land use forces and non-land use
forces. Understanding these forces is essential to identify the LUPF on
the environment. As a result of the implementation of LUP, parts of en-
vironmental elements are affected and an environmental state change
may occur.
3.1. Non-land use forces on the environment
Environmental elements are interrelated interactions between dif-
ferent elements that force an environmental state change. For example,
evapotranspiration is largely governed by temperature, and both
precipitation and temperature have impacts on soil moisture stress,
plant production (Peng et al., 2012), the expansion of vegetation cover
(Poulter et al., 2013), and the species richness (Ortiz-Yusty et al.,
2013). External non-land use driving forces have a wide range of
forms. For example, an increase in population promotes climate
change, and brings increased waste water and gas production (O'Neill
et al., 2012). Vehicles using fossil fuels emit carbon oxides, hydrocar-
bons, and nitrogen oxide, hence aggravating the air pollution (Liu and
 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135 129

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

Symbols Variables Description Formula/representation

Si Scope The scope features the spatio-temporal impact of LUPF on environment, where i describes the force i ( fi). Si ∈ 〈a , b〉
a Lower The temporal lower bound indicates the initiative time when the LUPF has impact on the environment, while spatial lower
bound bound indicates the N, E and Z coordinates with smallest values.
b Upper The temporal upper bound indicates the end time when the LUPF has impact on the environment, while spatial upper bound
bound indicates the N, E and Z coordinates with highest values.
mf Magnitude Magnitude of force describes the intensity of LUPF on the environment, where f indicates the force. mf (t, N, E, Z)
of force
N, E and N, E and Z The symbols N, E and Z represent the coordinates to the north, east direction, and the height.
Z coordinates
t Time The symbol t represents the time when LUPF has impact on the environment. In general, it is the checking time when the
environmental state be assessed.
Si Source Source intensity determines the magnitude of force. It is capable to be obtained using certain methods such as field survey or si (t, N, E, Z)
intensity pollutant inventory.
if Impact Impact of LUPF on the environment represents the influence intensity. Function f describes the relationship between the dependent if = f (mf, To)
variable and independent variables mf and To. Function g is the relationship between if and independent variables Si and To. if = g(si, To)
To Tolerance The symbol To is the tolerance of the environment represented with object o. It is generally determined by the nature of
environmental elements and the related land use pattern.

Barth, 2012) even though the area of land for transportation does not
change. In contrast, advances in science and technology contribute to
reducing exhaust emissions, avoiding the over-usage of pesticide and
chemical fertilizer, and developing the modern measure to treat pollu-
tion with rather high efficiency.
3.2. Land use forces on the environment
LUP regulates and guides future land use in terms of pattern and dis-
tribution in an efficient and ethical manner. Depending on its pattern
and distribution, land use has various impacts on local environments
in direction and magnitude. Both the proportions and distribution of
land use control energy exchange, material circulation, and information
feedback among different environmental elements. They also directly
change the indicator values of landscape, such as landscape diversity,
patch characteristics, and landscape spatial relationship.
Land use types have varied environmental impacts. For example, in
addition to noise pollution, transportation land leads to large gas emis-
sion to soil. It also creates a barrier to local ecosystems. Residential areas
discharge large amounts of waste water, gas, and other materials during
daily activities. Industrial zones produce waste materials, noise, and ra-
diation, all of which potentially threaten the health of nearby habitants
unless they are treated properly. Some specific industrial land use, such
as energyscape, the complex spatial and temporal combination of the
supply, demand, and infrastructure for energy within a landscape,
leads to anthropogenic climate change and affects the local landscape
at a range of scales, from local to national and global (Howard et al.,
2013). The land for water facilities affects the hydrological environment
via the changes in the shape of water body and the layout of basin.
Arable land has positive or negative impacts on the environment, de-
pending on how it is managed. Forests reduce sediment and nutrient
loading, decrease storm-water runoff and the risk of debris flow, and in-
crease the recharge of the ground water (Matteo et al., 2006; Köplin
et al., 2013). Grassland may adjust the soil moisture, decrease soil
erosion, and improve the water system (Qiu et al., 2011). Wetlands in-
fluence the balance between land and water processes (Schmid et al.,
2005), reduce flood damage, provide habitat for species, etc. (Gong
et al., 2009). Therefore, it is of critical importance to consider the type
of land use in assessing LUP impact on the environment.
3.3. LUP driving forces on the environment
Table 4 lists the major environmental elements that have a close
impact on humans, and their respective indicators. Only key elements
are considered to simplify the LUPEA process in a more economical and
less time-consuming manner. However, we did not consider soil type
because it is usually unavailable in most cases.
As components of LUP are constrained by spatial arrange and area of
future land use, and land use regulations, the driving forces from LUP
are accordingly classified into three categories (Table 5): proportions
of land use, layout of individual types of land use, and land use policy
regulations. For each driving force type, its mostly affected environmental
factors are also provided and listed in Table 5.
4. A case study at a county level from China
The method was demonstrated by a case study of Zoucheng County,
Shandong Province, China (Fig. 1). With an area of 1619 km2, Zoucheng
is ranked as one of the top eight coal production bases in China. Waste
water and exhaust, resulting from annual coal mining and power gener-
ating processes, have posed a huge challenge to the environment. The
diffusion of these pollutants is further complicated by the diverse topog-
raphy of this county, namely low mountains, hills, plains, depressions,
and water body.
Spatial data in this study include a digital elevation model of SRTM
(Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) at a spatial resolution of 90 m,
and a Landsat image acquired in 2000. The Zoucheng LUP scheme
(2000–2010) along with data on environmental monitoring, hydrology,
mineral and geology, demography, and economy, was collected from the
local government departments. Particularly, the LUP scheme provides
detailed information on how the land would be used in periods from
the base year of 2000, to the near future year of 2005, and to the target
year of 2010, including the proportion arrangement for each land use
type, layout of land use, protection of primary farmland, arrangement of
key projects, land consolidation and rehabilitation, and how regulations
enhance the implementation of this scheme.
To spatially calculate the scope of LUPF and the extending spatial im-
pact on the environment, we limited our study area to the whole county
and its adjacent areas (indicated in yellow color in Fig. 1). For a practicable
assessment of the LUP environmental impact, we focused on indicator
changes, instead of the magnitude of LUPF. Indicator values can be obtain-
ed by using certain models modified for LUPEA based on the LUP and data
on environmental monitoring, population, traffic, economy, etc.
During field investigation of environmental challenges and inter-
views with local government officials and residences, we found that
noise and radiation do not pose an issue and they were thus ignored
in the assessment of LUP environmental impact.
4.1. Driving forces of LUP on atmosphere
We used concentrations of SO2 (CSO2) and smoke & dust (CSD) as in-
dicators for LUP on atmosphere. In Zoucheng, lands for coal mining &
power generation, and for transportation have increasingly contributed
to atmospheric pollution. Meanwhile, the massive use of boilers and
130 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

Table 4 electricity, cement, and steel. The rank of roads in Zoucheng was used
LUPEA environmental elements and their indicators. to assess the source intensity of transportation based on the related
LUPEA technical standards for road design. The pollution monitoring data in
environmental Indicators Descriptions residential areas were used to assess the source intensity of residential
elements land. All these data were input into a long-term and multi-source air
Total suspended pollution dispersing model to assess LUPF on atmosphere (Chen et al.,
particle (TSP) Indicators of TSP, IP and MCPs are 2012).
Inhalable particles generally described using concentration
Atmosphere The scopes were determined based on the atmospheric quality stan-
(IP) value per year since the land use planning
Main chemical is the scheme of land use in forward years. dards in China to classify air quality into three levels based on CSO2 and
pollutants (MCPsA) CSD. The corresponding scopes for these levels were mapped individually
Dissolved oxygen (Fig. 2). Table 6 shows the results of LUPF on atmosphere. The force
(DO) scopes on atmosphere vary based on the LUP scheme and different stan-
Chemical oxygen
demand (COD) Indicators of DO, COD, HMC and MCPs are
dards in the Ambient air quality standard in China (GB 3095-1996).
Water Heavy metal described using concentration value per
contamination year as well. 4.2. Driving forces of LUP on water
(HMC)
Other main chemical
The major water pollutants found in Zoucheng were COD and waste
pollutants (MCPsW)
The LDe reflects the degradation risk of water associated with coal mining, power generation, and daily life of
Land degradation agricultural land and the land for local residents. The indicators for water quality employed include COD
(LDe) residential use. ALS is presented using and waste water (CWW) due to accessibility to environmental monitor-
Arable land security area of prime farmland per capita (PPF) or ing data on water. Investigations into water pollution and analysis of
Land (ALS) area of arable land per capita (PAL). DLC is
Development of land presented using incremental land for
LUP in Zoucheng reveal that the LUPF on water came mainly from the
for construction construction per capita (PCC), the area of construction land and the ecological/environmental regulations.
(DLC) arable land which would be used for As pollutant dispersion in water may occur upstream or under-
construction per capita, and so on. ground, and is affected by a number of factors, such as weather, terrain,
The elements of biodiversity are assessed
soil, vegetation, and agricultural system, it is a time-consuming and
by ECC, Forest, Wetland and Grassland
since the majority of living beings are in a expensive task to assess this process using models, such as the soil
natural environment. ECC is presented and water assessment tool (SWAT), especially in the area where data
Ecological carrying using the ratio of natural reserve to total availability is difficult. For the LUPEA in a large area or over a long time
capacity (ECC) area. Forest is presented using coverage span, it is essential to take the time investment and financial resources
Biodiversity Forest rate of forest and the ratio of natural
Wetland/water forest to woodland. Grassland is
into consideration. We incorporated a 0-dimension (0-D) model into a
Grassland presented using coverage rate of dispersion model (Chen et al., 2009b) to assess the LUPF on water envi-
grassland and the ratio of natural ronment in this study. Based on the assumption that pollutant dispersion
grassland to total grassland. into the scope where water is served (that is the drainage basin) is ho-
Wetland/water is presented using the rate
mogenous, the average burdening pollutants in each drainage basin are
of wetland/water to total area.
The indicator of LD is generally presented calculated using the 0-D dispersion model.
Landscape diversity using diversity index or dominance index. Fig. 3 and Table 7 show the magnitude and scope of LUPF on water.
(LD) The indicator of PC contains the patch As no standards exist to regulate the burdening capacity of pollutants on
Patch characteristics area, patch length, patch number, patch drainage basin, the scopes were determined based on natural breaks to
Landscape
(PC) shape index, and so on. The indicator of
classify the data into different types and automatically identify the clas-
Landscape spatial LSR contains landscape connectivity index
relationship (LSR) and the landscape minimum distance sification characteristic of each type.
index (Zhu and Xu, 2005).
Noise & Noise Noise and Radiation is assessed according to 4.3. Driving forces of LUP on land, biodiversity, and landscape
Radiation Radiation the local standards of noise and radiation.

stoves burning coal in residential areas in winter aggravates air contam-
ination. As a result, the LUPF on atmosphere took transportation, coal
mining & power plant, residential land into account. We collected the
data of source pollution for key plots, such as plants producing coal,
The indicators for LUP impact on land used in this case study include
arable land (PAL) and construction land per capita (PCC). The propor-
tion and layout of the arable land and land for construction, arable
land protection regulations, and monitoring and supporting regulations
of LUP implementation have impacts on the land elements. The scope of
these forces is the entire area of this county because the arable land and

Table 5
Environmental LUPF and corresponding affected environmental elements.

Inventories of LUP Sub-regulation of LUP Mostly affected environmental elements

Global proportions of all land use Landscape.

Proportions of land use
Layout of individual types of land use
Land use policy regulations
Proportion of individual types of land to total area Atmosphere; Water; Land; Biodiversity; Landscape; Noise & Radiation.
Arable land layout Water; Land; Biodiversity; Landscape.
Land for construction layout Atmosphere; Water; Land; Landscape; Noise & Radiation.
Forest layout Atmosphere; Water; Biodiversity; Landscape.
Grassland layout Water; Land; Biodiversity; Landscape.
Water layout Water; Biodiversity; Landscape.
Arable land protection regulations Land; Landscape
Ecological and environmental regulations All the elements.
Monitoring regulations of LUP implementation All the elements.
Supporting regulations of LUP implementation All the elements.
…… ……
 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135
Fig. 2. LUPF on atmosphere based on CSO2 & CSD in Zoucheng County in 2000, 2005, and 2010.
construction land are widely distributed within the county (the LUP
was also applied to the whole county). Using the land use data in
2000, LUP scheme and demographic data, we calculated the values of
PAL and PCC.
As natural reserve planning is not mandatory at a county level LUP in
China, it is problematic to obtain biodiversity indicators of ecological
carrying capacity (ECC). Instead, we proposed to use the areal ratio of
forest and of wetland/water to the total area of this county. The propor-
tion and layout of the forest and water, and monitoring and supporting
regulations of LUP implementation have impacts on the biological ele-
ments. Since the forest or wetland/water may have rather complicated
externalities on biodiversity outside of the county, the scope of LUPF
on biodiversity was defined as the entire county.
Landscape diversity (LD) and shape index value of patch element
(SIPE) were the indicators for LUP impact on landscape. The proportion
and layout of individual land use types, and monitoring and supporting
regulations of LUP implementation have impact on the landscape.
Table 8 shows the LUPF on land, biodiversity, and landscape in
Zoucheng. Generally, the scopes of driving forces on the elements are
limited within the county area. The indicators of magnitude/value
were calculated based on the land use data, LUP scheme and population
data.
131
5. Discussion
SEA should be considered as a way of implementing the concept of
sustainable development (Therivel, 1993). It is a systematic process
concerning the environmental aspects in making policies, plans, and
programs. SEA provides a comprehensive assessment of environmental
impacts when embedded into LUP as LUPEA, making the project EIA re-
dundant (Wood and Dejeddour, 1992). LUP has the spatio-temporal
characteristic regulating the future land use. The environmental impact
assessment of LUP should make a specific and explicit result to support
spatial decision. It is of great significance to employ a spatio-temporal
methodology in LUPEA.
With technical advances, including remote sensing and GIS, the
assessment of LUPF on environment obtained the spatio-temporal
objectives with the results of spatial scope in several time points and
the dynamic change of magnitude. GIS and visibility assessment may
help determine the affected areas and the probability of the visual
impact, and thus enhance the landscape assessments and support the
decision making for land use planning and policies (Carver et al.,
2013; Bishop and Miller, 2007; Rivas Casado et al., 2014; Milner et al.,
2015). For example, collaborative virtual environments in GIS environ-
ment allow involved parties to play out multiple planning scenarios to
132 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135

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

Scope

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

Within Zoucheng Outside Zoucheng

1. Transportation (negative); N0.02 517.30 (31.95) 15.95 (0.99) CSO2 1st (0.02) 2000
2. Coal mining & power plants (negative); 398.79 (24.63) 5.33 (0.33) 2005
3. Residential land (negative); 300.73 (18.58) 4.51 (0.28) 2010
4. Ecological and environmental regulations (positive); N0.06 117.09 (7.23) 0.44 (0.03) 2nd (0.06) 2000
5. Monitoring & supporting regulations of LUP implementation 93.75 (5.79) 0.06 (0) 2005
(positive). 54.28 (3.35) 0.03 (0) 2010
N0.10 57.38 (3.54) 0.19 (0.01) 3rd (0.10) 2000
46.75 (2.89) 0.03 (0) 2005
48.43 (2.99) 0 (0) 2010
N0.08 2.96 (0.18) 0.06 (0) CSD 1st (0.08) 2000
0.91 (0.06) 0 (0) 2005
0.84 (0.05) 0 (0) 2010
N0.20 0.48 (0.03) 0 (0) 2nd (0.20) 2000
0.17 (0.01) 0 (0) 2005
0.06 (0) 0 (0) 2010
N0.30 0.17 (0.01) 0 (0) 3rd (0.30) 2000
0.04 (0) 0 (0) 2005
0 (0) 0 (0) 2010

Unit: km2, mg/L, %.

Fig. 3. LUPF on water based on CWW & COD in Zoucheng County in 2000, 2005, and 2010.
 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135 133

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

Scope (percentage to Zoucheng area)

Forces (environmental direction) Magnitude/value Indicator Year
Within Zoucheng Outside Zoucheng

1537.20 (94.95) 916.69 (56.62) 2000

N0.2 1366.94 (84.44) 549.87 (33.97) 2005
1600.85 (98.89) 958.05 (59.18) 2010
COD
772.58 (47.72) 216.56 (13.38) 2000
1. Coal mining & power plants (negative); N1.0 765.68 (47.30) 152.4 (9.41) 2005
2. Residential land (negative); 765.68 (47.30) 152.4 (9.41) 2010
3. Ecological and environmental regulations (positive); 1537.2 (94.95) 916.69 (56.62) 2000
4. Monitoring & supporting regulations of LUP implementation (positive). N0.6 1600.85 (98.89) 958.05 (59.18) 2005
1600.85 (98.89) 958.05 (59.18) 2010
CWW
849.82 (52.49) 328.99 (20.32) 2000
N6.0 772.58 (47.72) 216.56 (13.38) 2005
1366.94 (84.44) 549.87 (33.97) 2010

Unit: mg/m2, %.

gather instant feedback in the process (Bishop and Stock, 2010). As a
powerful tool in developing detailed planning policies and actions for
wild land conservation and management, GIS models were employed
to map wildness, supporting decisions about planning, policy, and
management in protected landscapes in Scotland (Carver et al., 2012).
We assessed the LUPF environmental impact in Zoucheng County with
traditional GIS based spatial analysis. The GIS-related techniques, such
as 3D analysis and collaborative virtual environments, would strengthen
the assessment with rather intuitionistic and interactive advantages,
and therefore improve the LUPEA in practice.
Since future land use is regulated by the land use planning scheme,
LUPF on the environment is the impact from the implementation of LUP
on a regional environment. As environmental quality has continuous
impact on human health, it is necessary to assess the environmental influ-
ence during the implementation of LUP. When it is integrated with the SIS
model, this method provides an applicable way of evaluating the process
in LUPEA, which is generally ignored by many assessments (e.g. García-
Montero et al., 2008; Barral and Oscar, 2012; Marull et al., 2007). The
three-temporal impacts in the base year, near future year, and target
year of LUP in Zoucheng were obtained in the case study, validating the
capability of process evaluation. It extends the traditional definition of
LUPEA to a multi-temporal assessment in practice.
Land uses have externality (Andrews, 1992; Irwin and Bockstael,
2004; Zhang et al., 2005). For example, the impact of land use on the
environment may be extended to nearby areas. It is essential to assess
the extended impact, especially the negative impact when executing
the LUPEA. Our method obtains the extended spatial impact of LUP on
environment, in contrast to many assessments that generally neglect
the externality of LUP environmental impact.
More than a concept, LUPF is a method that can be embedded into
LUPEA. Several studies discussed the impact on environment but fo-
cused on the qualitative analysis, screening the assessment, or construc-
tion of indicator system to help assess the influence of the environment
(Reid et al., 2000; García-Montero et al., 2008; Koellner and Scholz,
2008; Geneletti, 2012; Tang et al., 2005). We developed a quantitative
and explicit assessment of LUPF by defining its four components and
classify LUPF on the environment into individual categories according
to the LUP inventories.
The LUPF assessment in Zoucheng obtains the scopes, magnitudes,
directions of individual impacts on environment, and key indicator
identification and corresponding mitigations. In the assessment of
LUPF on atmosphere in Zoucheng using CSO2, the affected scopes
were found in the western towns where the majority of coal mining
and power generation plants were located. This result validates the ra-
tionality of driving force analysis on scopes and suggests the necessity
to avoid the allocation of residential land in this area or to develop the
corresponding mitigating measures on the environment. A decrease in
the scope of CSO2 and CSD indicates the reduction of pollutions due to
the LUP scheme. The driving force scope in CSO2 outside Zoucheng dem-
onstrates the external influences of air pollution although the coverage of
LUP was limited only in Zoucheng. The scopes in CSD were distributed in
the towns of Zoucheng, Tangcun, and Beisu, which own coal mining and
power generation plants, indicating a prominent presence of the influ-
ence on air pollution with CSD in Zoucheng County.

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

Environmental
Forces (environmental direction) Indicator Magnitude/value Scope Year
element

1050.4 2000
1. Proportion and layout of the arable land (positive) PAL 1026.6 Whole Zoucheng county 2005
2. and land for construction (negative); 965.2 2010
Land
3. Arable land protection regulations (positive); 152.9 2000
4. Monitoring and supporting regulations of LUP implementation (positive). PCC 152.1 Whole Zoucheng county 2005
159.1 2010
4.63 2000
Rate of forest (PFr) 9.08 Whole Zoucheng county 2005
1. Proportion and layout of the forest and water (positive); 9.07 2010
Biodiversity
2. Monitoring and supporting regulations of LUP implementation (positive). 3.46 2000
Rate of wetland/water (PWt) 3.54 Whole Zoucheng county 2005
3.50 2010
0.45 2000
LD 0.44 Whole Zoucheng county 2005
1. Proportion and layout of individual land use type (dual); 0.45 2010
Landscape
2. Monitoring and supporting regulations of LUP implementation (positive). 2.71 2000
SIPE 2.18 Whole Zoucheng county 2005
2.17 2010

Unit: m2/per capita, %.

134 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135
We also observed change in the scopes of COD and CWW in the LUPF
on water based on different magnitude standards. The change in scope
with COD over 0.2 mg/m2 indicates that the implementation of LUP
reduced the negative impact on water in 2005 but aggravated the
negative impact in 2010. However, the scope change over 0.1 mg/m2
suggests that the influence on water would decrease continuously
during the planning period. According to the indicator of CWW, both
the scopes inside and outside Zoucheng show some increases, indicating
growing stresses for waste water treatment. The outside scopes were
found according to each standard, suggesting that the external influence
needs to be given more consideration since water pollutants disperse in
drainage basin but not in administrative coverage. Therefore, the treat-
ment of waste water requires more consideration for the increasing dis-
charge during the planning period.
The value change of PAL is a sign of the lower capacity of self-
sufficiency as a direct result of constantly increasing population. To
reduce the negative impact on food security in the planning period,
certain measures need to be developed, such as the quality monitoring
and protection measures for arable land, improved farming system,
and new techniques (e.g. precision agriculture) and agricultural equip-
ment. The increase in PCC indicates more challenges for environmental
protection from construction land since it is the source of the majority of
pollutants. Both the rate of forest (PFr) and rate of wetland/water (PWt)
values show a certain increase, indicating the positive impact of LUP on
biodiversity. The LD change suggests that the LUPF impact on landscape
diversity is firstly negative, then positive. Certain environmental mitiga-
tion measures are necessary to reduce the negative impact during the
planning period according to the decreasing pattern of LD from 2000
to 2005. The decrease in SIPE values indicates that the shape of patches
would be simplified. It may reduce the capacity of material and energy
exchange. The LUP in Zoucheng would have a negative impact on land-
scape according to the indicator of SIPE. Since the external impacts of
LUPF on land, biodiversity and landscape are complicated, we define
the scope as the whole county area to simplify the assessment.
The methodology quantifies the magnitude, direction, and scope of
LUPF on individual environmental elements, and builds the basis for
LUPEA using certain methodologies. The impacted scope of LUPF can be
designated as the assessment scope of SEA in LUP. It is the combination
of various scopes on individual elements based on different standards
and can be determined using the overlay of scope maps in GIS. The iden-
tified indicator systems can be directly employed into LUPEA with a cer-
tain framework, such as the SIS model or the Pressure–State–Response
(PSR) framework. In addition, the assessment of LUPF helps identify key
indicators and set up corresponding mitigation to decrease the negative
impact on the environment, achieving the important objective of SEA in
LUP. The method presented here can be transferred to other regions if en-
vironmental elements affected by LUP are identified and environment
monitoring and other data required by assessment are available.
6. Conclusions
In this study, we introduced LUPF, a driving force of future land use
on the environment, which is characterized by magnitude, direction,
action point, and its owner. As the LUP forces come from both within
and outside the involved area, it is therefore necessary to take the envi-
ronmental external influence into the consideration when assessing
LUPEA. Our method is capable of obtaining the magnitude, direction,
and spatial scope of LUPF on environmental elements with multi-
temporal states. The combination of various scopes on individual ele-
ments determines the assessment scope of SEA in LUP.
Environmental elements considered in the assessment of LUPF impact
in Zoucheng were determined by means of different processes. The LUPF
in Zoucheng have various impacts on individual environmental elements.
The impact scopes of force on atmosphere indicate the positive impact
both in indicators of CSO2 and CSD. In contrast, the scopes in COD
and CWW show various changing characteristics based on different
magnitude standards, suggesting the dual impact on water. Therefore,
the treatment of waste water especially in residential land needs to be
taken more into consideration to fit for increased discharge during the
planning period, while the impact on landscape with the indicator of LD
is basically stable despite a slight decrease from 2000 to 2005.
Assessment of LUPF on the environment can be embedded into
LUPEA for a spatial and dynamic analyses. It helps to identify key indica-
tors for the LUPEA implementation and to formulate measures to
decrease the negative impact on the environment, both of which are im-
portant issues in SEA. Although the model is illustrated by a case study in
a county in China, this study has methodological implications for other
LUPEA studies.
Acknowledgments
The work is a contribution to Project “Study on the model of land use
planning environmental multi-temporal states assessment at a county
level” (No: 41271121), funded by the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China. It is also support by A Project Funded by the Priority
Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
(PAPD), and “A study on the realization mechanism of ‘production city
fusion’ of the urban New District in China” (15AJL014) funded by the
National Social Science Fund of China. The non-spatial data used in this
study were largely acquired from the Zoucheng government, and the
SRTM DEM and Landsat data were freely provided by the International
Scientific Data Service Platform of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The
authors wish to thank Dr. Yingkui Li from the University of Tennessee
for his constructive advice, and Dr. Alan Bond for his sincere and valuable
comments.
References
Amir, S., Frenkel, A., Law-Yone, H., Shefer, D., Trop, T., 1997. Integration of environmental
assessment into the regional development planning process of the Galilee. Environ.
Manage. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002679900005.
Andrews, C.J., 1992. The marginality of regulating marginal investments. Energy Policy
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(92)90067-C.
Barral, M.P., Oscar, M.N., 2012. Land-use planning based on ecosystem service assess-
ment: a case study in the Southeast Pampas of Argentina. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
154, 34–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.07.010.
Bien, J.D., Ter Meer, J., Rulkens, W.H., Rijnaarts, H.H.M., 2004. A GIS-based approach for the
long-term prediction of human health risks at contaminated sites. Environ. Model.
Assess. 9, 221–226.
Bishop, I.D., Miller, D.R., 2007. Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: the influence
of distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renew. Energy 32, 814–831.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.03.009.
Bishop, I.D., Stock, C., 2010. Using collaborative virtual environments to plan wind energy
installations. Renew. Energy 35, 2348–2355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.
04.003.
Campagna, M., Matta, A., 2014. Geoinformation technologies in sustainable spatial plan-
ning: a geodesign approach to local land-use planning. Proc. SPIE. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1117/12.2066189.
Carver, S., Comber, A., McMorran, R., Nutter, S., 2012. A GIS model for mapping spatial pat-
terns and distribution of wild land in Scotland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104, 395–409.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.016.
Carver, S., Tricker, J., Landres, P., 2013. Keeping it wild: mapping wilderness character in
the United States. J. Environ. Manage. 131, 239–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2013.08.046.
Chen, C.-H., Wu, R.-S., Liu, W.-L., Su, W.-R., Chang, Y.-M., 2009a. Development of a meth-
odology for strategic environmental assessment: application to the assessment of golf
course installation policy in Taiwan. Environ. Manage. 43, 166–188. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s00267-008-9222-3.
Chen, L., Chen, L., Yang, X., 2009b. On the land use water environment contamination as-
sessment based on drainage area in Zoucheng county. Territ. Nat. Resour. Study 4,
40–41 (in Chinese).
Chen, L., Yang, X., Chen, L., Potter, R., Li, Y., 2014. A state–impact–state methodology for
assessing environmental impact in land use planning. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
46, 1–12.
Chen, L., Yang, X., Kang, J., 2012. A case study of land use planning environmental assess-
ment based on the air pollution analysis. In: Lee, G. (Ed.), Advances in Computational
Environment Science SE-39, Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing. Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 319–328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978–3–642–27957-7_39.
Coleby, A.M., van der Horst, D., Hubacek, K., Goodier, C., Burgess, P.J., Graves, A., Lord, R.,
Howard, D., 2012. Environmental Impact Assessment, Ecosystems Services and the
Case of Energy Crops in England. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.6039.
 L. Chen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55 (2015) 126–135
García-Montero, L.G., Otero Pastor, I., Quintana, S.M., Casermeiro, M.A., 2008. An environ-
mental screening tool for assessment of land use plans covering large geographic
areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 11, 285–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.10.002.
Geneletti, D., 2012. Environmental assessment of spatial plan policies through land use
scenarios. A study in a fast-developing town in rural Mozambique. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 32, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.015.
Gong, Z.N., Gong, H.L., Li, X.J., Zhao, W.J., Zhang, Y.Q., 2009. Ecological Environment Effect
Analysis of Wetland Change in Beijing Region Using GIS and RS, in: 2009 Joint Urban
Remote Sensing Event. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/URS.2009.5137644.
Howard, D.C., Burgess, P.J., Butler, S.J., Carver, S.J., Cockerill, T., Coleby, A.M., Gan, G.,
Goodier, C.J., Van der Horst, D., Hubacek, K., Lord, R., Mead, A., Rivas-Casado, M.,
Wadsworth, R.A., Scholefield, P., 2013. Energyscapes: linking the energy system and
ecosystem services in real landscapes. Biomass Bioenergy 55, 17–26. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.05.025.
Irwin, E.G., Bockstael, N.E., 2004. Land use externalities, open space preservation, and urban
sprawl. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 34, 705–725http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2004.
03.002.
Jiricka, A., Pröbstl, U., 2008. SEA in local land use planning — first experience in the Alpine
States. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28, 328–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.
2007.05.002.
Koellner, T., Scholz, R.W., 2008. Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment.
Part 2: generic characterization factors for local species diversity in Central Europe. Int.
J. Life Cycle Assess. 13, 32–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.12.292.2.
Köplin, N., Schädler, B., Viviroli, D., Weingartner, R., 2013. The importance of glacier and
forest change in hydrological climate-impact studies. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17,
619–635. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-619-2013.
Liu, H., Barth, M., 2012. Identifying the effect of vehicle operating history on vehicle run-
ning emissions. Atmos. Environ. 59, 22–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.
2012.05.045.
Loiseau, E., Roux, P., Junqua, G., Maurel, P., Bellon-Maurel, V., 2013. Adapting the LCA
framework to environmental assessment in land planning. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
18, 1533–1548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0588-y.
Marull, J., Pino, J., Mallarach, J., Cordobilla, M., 2007. A Land Suitability Index for Strategic
Environmental Assessment in metropolitan areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 81, 200–212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.11.005.
Matteo, M., Randhir, T., Bloniarz, D., 2006. Watershed-scale impacts of forest buffers on
water quality and runoff in urbanizing environment. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2006)132:3(144).
Milner, S., Holland, R.A., Lovett, A., Sunnenberg, G., Hastings, A., Smith, P., Wang, S., Taylor,
G., 2015. Potential Impacts on Ecosystem Services of Land Use Transitions to Second
Generation Bioenergy Crops in GB. GCB Bioenergy n/a–n/a http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
gcbb.12263.
O'Neill, B.C., Ren, X., Jiang, L., Dalton, M., 2012. The effect of urbanization on energy use in
India and China in the iPETS model. Energy Econ. 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
eneco.2012.04.004.
Ortiz-Yusty, C.E., Páez, V.P., Zapata A, F., Paez, V., Zapata, F., 2013. Temperature and precip-
itation as predictors of species richness in northern Andean amphibians from
Colombia. Caldasia 35, 65–80.
Peng, J., Dong, W., Yuan, W., Zhang, Y., 2012. Responses of grassland and forest to temper-
ature and precipitation changes in Northeast China. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 29, 1063–1077.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00376-012-1172-2.
Poulter, B., Pederson, N., Liu, H., Zhu, Z., D'Arrigo, R., Ciais, P., Davi, N., Frank, D., Leland, C.,
Myneni, R., Piao, S., Wang, T., 2013. Recent trends in Inner Asian forest dynamics to
temperature and precipitation indicate high sensitivity to climate change. Agric.
For. Meteorol. 178-179, 31–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.12.006.
Qiu, G.Y., Yin, J., Tian, F., Geng, S., 2011. Effects of the “Conversion of Cropland to Forest
and Grassland Program” on the water budget of the Jinghe River catchment in
China. J. Environ. Qual http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2010.0263.
Ramanathan, R., 2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environ-
mental impact assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 63, 27–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1006/jema.2001.0455.
Recatalá, L., Sacristán, D., 2014. A minimum indicator set for assessing resources quality and
environmental impacts at planning level in a representative area of the European Med-
iterranean Region. Ecol. Indic. 45, 160–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.
010.
135
Reid, R.S., Kruska, R.L., Muthui, N., Taye, A., Wotton, S., Wilson, C.J., Mulatu, W., 2000.
Land-use and land-cover dynamics in response to changes in climatic, biological
and socio-political forces: the case of southwestern Ethiopia. Landsc. Ecol. 15,
339–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008177712995.
Rivas Casado, M., Mead, A., Burgess, P.J., Howard, D.C., Butler, S.J., 2014. Predicting the im-
pacts of bioenergy production on farmland birds. Sci. Total Environ. 476-477, 7–19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.080.
Schmid, T., Koch, M., Gumuzzio, J., 2005. Multisensor approach to determine changes of
wetland characteristics in semiarid environments (Central Spain). IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, pp. 2516–2525 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.
2005.852082.
Sutanta, H., Rajabifard, A., Bishop, I.D., 2013. Disaster risk reduction using acceptable risk
measures for spatial planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 56, 761–785. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/09640568.2012.702314.
Tang, Z., Engel, B.A., Pijanowski, B.C., Lim, K.J., 2005. Forecasting land use change and its
environmental impact at a watershed scale. J. Environ. Manage. 76, 35–45. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.006.
Tao, T., Tan, Z., He, X., 2007. Integrating environment into land-use planning through stra-
tegic environmental assessment in China: towards legal frameworks and operational
procedures. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 27, 243–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
eiar.2006.10.002.
Therivel, R., 1993. Systems of strategic environmental assessment. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 13, 145–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0195-9255(93)90029-B.
Wood, C., Dejeddour, M., 1992. Strategic Environmental Assessment: EA OF POLICIES,
PLANS AND PROGRAMMES. Impact Assess http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07349165.
1992.9725728.
Zhang, J., Wang, K., Chen, X., Zhu, W., 2011. Combining a fuzzy matter-element model with a
geographic information system in eco-environmental sensitivity and distribution of
land use planning. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8, 1206–1221. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph8041206.
Zhang, S., Wen, Z., Jiao, F., 2005. Externalities of the environmental impact of land use and
corresponding approaches. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 12 (1), 39–42 (in Chinese).
Zhu, J., Xu, H., 2005. Analysis and evaluation on forest landscape patterns of Gejiu City of
Yunnan province. J. West China For. Sci. 34 (4), 67–71 (in Chinese).
Longgao Chen is an associate professor of Land Resource and Management at Jiangsu Nor-
mal University (JSNU), Xuzhou, China. Dr. Chen obtained his PhD from China University of
Mining and Technology (CUMT) in 2009 and has worked at JSNU as of 1999. He focuses his
research on the land use and its environmental impact, and has published several articles
and books in the fields of environmental assessment, land use planning, the application of
remote sensing and geographical information science in land use and management. He al-
so has long experience working with local governments in land use planning and land in-
formation system design.
Xiaoyan Yang is a PhD student at CUMT in Land resource and its Management. She also
works at the Department of Land Resource and Management of JSNU as of 2000 with re-
search interests in land use planning and land ecology. She obtained her Master's degree
in Geographical Information Science from CUMT in 2007. She has published several arti-
cles in the fields of land use planning, land use policy and the application of remote sensing
and geographical information science in land use and management.
Longqian Chen is a professor of Land Resource and Management at CUMT. For more than
20 years, his research has focused on the area of land resource use and environmental
monitoring. One of his wide research interests is the application of various spatial tech-
niques to investigate land-use/land-cover dynamics and environmental changes. He has
published 11 books and more than 160 articles in the fields of land use assessment, ecolog-
ical reconstruction, land reclamation, land use policy, and natural resources.
Long Li is a PhD student at the Department of Geography of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
His research interests include land use planning and urban heat island by means of remote
sensing and geographical information system techniques. He is currently working on spectra
of lava flows of different volcanoes using satellite images combined with field spectroscopy
data.