Table 1.
The standard to assess different levels of the LGC.
Figure 1.
The dynamic calculation flow of the basic LGC based on GIS.
Figure 1 illustrates the computing flow and the connection between the GIS data operations and the basic LGC calculation. It shows the dynamic selection of assessment units, dynamic adjustment of the assessment scope and dynamic selection of the assessment index.
Figure 2.
The operating interface of the LGC calculation tool.
Figure 2 illustrates the operating interface of the LGC calculation tool. The visual graphical data operation renders the calculation of the basic LGC more intuitive and user-friendly. The data for calculating the basic LGC in GIS are the graphical data and all of the indices of each assessment unit at each level.
Table 2.
National LGCSpatial results using district and province calculation units.
Figure 3.
District LGCSpatial in province units.
Figure 3 is the LGCSpatial of the three main land use types for each study year in the four districts using province units at the district level.
Figure 4.
District LGCSpatial of the three main land use types in 2008.
Figure 4 depicts a sample of the results from 2008, which demonstrates that the LGC can be visualized and portrayed using the ArcGIS platform.
Figure 5.
The district LGCSpatial values and associated trends of built-up land.
The results indicate that the LGCSpatial values of built-up land in the West District are larger than 0.70; therefore, the distribution of built-up land in this region is completely unequal. In the East, these values are between 0.29 and 0.35, indicating that the distribution of built-up land is reasonable. In the Northeast, the LGCSpatial values are between 0.20 and 0.22, which indicate that the distribution of this type of land is relatively equal. In the Middle District, the values are less than 0.2, demonstrating that the distribution is absolutely equal. The trends varied across districts. The built-up land is increasingly concentrated in the East with an approximate 0.05 increase in LGCSpatial, more evenly distributed in the Middle and West Districts with approximate decreases in LGCSpatial of 0.01 and 0.02, respectively, and stable in the Northeast.
Figure 6.
The district LGCSpatial values and trends of the unused land.
The LGCSpatial values of unused land in the West District are between 0.3 and 0.4, indicating that the distribution of unused land is reasonable. In the Middle District, the values are between 0.18 and 0.22, suggesting that the distribution of unused land is relatively equal. In the East and Northeast Districts, the values are less than 0.2, indicating an absolutely equal distribution. The trend observed in the East District is unique, as it repeatedly changed: first tending to disperse, then returning to the original level with an approximate LGCSpatial change of 0.03. The Middle District is becoming increasingly concentrated with a LGCSpatial increase of approximately 0.03. The Northeast District is becoming less concentrated with a LGCSpatial decrease of approximately 0.02. The concentration of the distribution of unused land in the West District has slightly increased.
Figure 7.
The district LGCSpatial values and trends of the farmland.
The distributions and trends of farmland are different than those of built-up and unused land. The LGCSpatial values of farmland are less than 0.2 in every district, indicating that farmland is absolutely equally distributed in all districts. In the Northeast, Middle and West Districts, farmland remained virtually stable, while in the East, it remained stable with slight fluctuations.