Advertisement

GeoJournal

pp 1–16 | Cite as

Implications of urban expansion on land use and land cover: towards sustainable development of Mega Manila, Philippines

  • Binaya Kumar Mishra
  • Kafungwa Mebeelo
  • Shamik Chakraborty
  • Pankaj KumarEmail author
  • Arjun Gautam
Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Planning of land use and infrastructure in advance for a population that is projected to grow rapidly is highly important for its sustainable development. A correlative approach of land use shifts and infrastructure design is perhaps the best sustainable urban development option that can be made at present. This paper is aimed at suggesting policy foresight, in terms of infrastructure and land use management of Mega Manila. Using Land Change Modeller, this study assessed landscape pattern, change process and future scenario of land changes in the study area. The land use/landscape change pattern, with vulnerability analysis and predicting 2030 land use maps, enabled us to understand impacts of urban expansion on different land use sectors. Overall analysis of gains and losses in different land use categories across different sectors between 1989 and 2010 indicated that built-up area experienced the highest net gain of 90.96%. Two future scenario maps were projected to indicate the potential effects of urban expansion on forested areas near study area. Urban expansion was predicted to expand by 897.16 sq. km (36% gain) with protected area scenario. Contributions to this gain were projected to come from agricultural land of 274.94 sq. km, identified as one of the major contributors to urban expansion. Following the analysis, the paper argues that land use management plan should be revised in the Mega Manila city to reduce the loss of protected areas and anthropogenic impacts.

Keywords

Land use change Vulnerability Urban planning Manila 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Several sources including Water and Urban Initiative (WUI) project of the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS) were consulted for accessing necessary data and information. The WUI was focused on enhancing the urban water environment in developing countries in Asia. The authors would like to thank WUI and others for enabling this research successful.

Funding

No source of funding was provided.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors of this paper shows no conflict of interest and have consent for submitting this paper.

References

  1. Afroz, R., Masud, M. M., Akhtar, R., & Duasa, J. B. (2014). Water pollution challenges and future direction for water resource management policies in Malaysia. Environment and Urbanization Asia,5(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogaert, J., Ceulemans, R., & Salvador-Van Eysenrode, D. (2004). Decision tree algorithm for detection of spatial processes in landscape transformation. Environmental Management,33(1), 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bren d’Amour, C. B., Reitsma, F., Baiocchi, G., Barthel, S., Güneralp, B., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., Creutzig, F., & Seto, K. C. (2017). Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., daFonseca, G. A., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J. F., et al. (2006). Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science,313, 58–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng, J., & Masser, I. (2003). Urban growth pattern modeling: a case study of Wuhan City, PR China. Landscape and Urban Planning,62(4), 199–217.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00150-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (2006). Chapter 12, maximum entropy. Elements of information theory, 2edn. Wiley. ISBN 0471241954.Google Scholar
  7. DeFries, R. S., Rudel, T., Uriarte, M., & Hansen, M. (2010). Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience,3(3), 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fox, J., Castella, J. C., Ziegler, A. D., & Westley, S. B. (2014). Rubber plantations expand in mountainous Southeast Asia: What are the consequences for the environment? AsiaPacific Issues,114(4), 1–8.Google Scholar
  9. Gao, J., & Li, S. (2011). Detecting spatially non-stationary and scale-dependent relationships between urban landscape fragmentation and related factors using Geographically Weighted Regression. Applied Geography,31(1), 292–302.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbs, H. K., Ruesch, A. S., Achard, F., Clayton, M. K., Holmgren, P., Ramankutty, N., et al. (2010). Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA,107(38), 16732–16737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., et al. (2013). High resolution global maps of 21st Century forest cover change. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 342, 6160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heino, M., Kummu, M., Makkonen, M., Mulligan, M., Verburg, P. H., Jalava, M., et al. (2015). Forest loss in protected areas and intact forest landscapes: A global analysis. PLoS ONE,10, e0138918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Helming, K., Marta, P.-S., & Paul, T. (2008). Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes, ISBN 978-3-540-78647-4. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Hughes, A. C. (2017). Understanding the drivers of Southeast Asian biodiversity loss. Ecosphere,8(1), 01624.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Human Development Report. (2016). Human development for everyone, United Nations Development Programme, USA, pp. 286. ISBN: 978-92-1-126413-5.Google Scholar
  16. Iizuka, K., Johnson, B. A., Onishi, A., Magcale-Macandog, D. B., Endo, I., & Bragais, M. (2017). Modeling future urban sprawl and landscape change in the Laguna de Bay Area, Philippines. Land,6(2), 26.  https://doi.org/10.3390/land6020026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. The contribution of working groups I, II and III to the Fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. (80 pp, 4.2 M, About PDF) EXIT [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.Google Scholar
  18. IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. EXIT contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  19. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2008). Climate change 2007. Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report. In: R. K. Pachauri, A. Reisinger (Eds.) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva-Switzerland, p.104.Google Scholar
  20. Ismail, R. (2014). South-east Asian urbanisation and the challenge to sustainability: implications for the environment and health. Environmental Policy and Law,44(1), 55.Google Scholar
  21. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) And National Economic Development Authority (NEDA). (2014). Roadmap for transport infrastructure development for metro manila and its surrounding areas (Region III & Region IV-A), Final Report Summary, Almec Corporation.Google Scholar
  22. Kenworthy, J. R. (2019). Urban transport and eco-tourism: A global comparative study of cities with a special focus on five larger Swedish urban regions. Urban Science,3, 25.  https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3010025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDonald, R. I., Kareiva, P., & Forman, R. T. (2008). The implications of current and future urbanisation for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation,141(6), 1695–1703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miettinen, J., Shi, C., & Liew, S. C. (2011). Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Global Change Biology,17(7), 2261–2270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mundhe, N. N., & Jaybhaye, R. G. (2014). Impact of urbanization on land use/land covers change using Geo-spatial techniques. International journal of Geomatics and Geosciences,5(1), 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., DaFonseca, G. A., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature,403(67722), 853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patra, S., Sahoo, S., Mishra, P., & Mahapatra, S. C. (2018). Impacts of urbanization on land use/cover changes and its probable implications on local climate and groundwater level. Journal of urban management,7(2), 70–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pearce, F. (2007). Bog barons: Indonesia’s carbon catastrophe. New Scientist,196(4), 50–53.Google Scholar
  29. Saatchi, S., et al. (2011). Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. PNAS June 3, 2011.Google Scholar
  30. Seto, K. C., Sánchez-Rodríguez, R., & Fragkias, M. (2010). The new geography of contemporary urbanisation and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,35(1), 167–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shlomo, A., Parent, J., Civco, D. L., Blei, A., & Potere, D. (2011). The dimensions of global urban expansion: Estimates and projections for all countries, 2000–2050. Progress in Planning,75(2), 53–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. The 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesGoogle Scholar
  33. The Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations’s Global Forest Resources Assessment. (2015). Country Report, the Philippines, Prepared as a contribution to the FAO publication, The Philippines report, FAO as official government documents. http://www.fao.org/3/a-au190e.pdf.
  34. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (UN DESA), World Urbanization Prospects: the 2014 Revision, ST/ESA/SER.A/366, 2015, p. 517.Google Scholar
  35. United Nations Environment Programme—World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). (2004). Protected Areas, Plant and animal biodiversity—World Database on Protected Areas.Google Scholar
  36. United Nations, World Economic and Social Survey 2013. Sustainable Development Challenges. E/2013/50/Rev. 1. ST/ESA/344. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. ISBN-13: 978-9211091670Google Scholar
  37. Wang, Z., Chai, J., & Li, B. (2016). The impacts of land use change on resident’s living based on urban metabolism: a case study in Yangzhou city of Jiangsu province China. Sustainability,8, 1004.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wells, K., Lakim, M. B., & O’Hara, R. B. (2014). Shifts from native to invasive small mammals across gradients from tropical forest to urban habitat in Borneo. Biodiversity and Conservation,23(2), 2289–2303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. WWF-Greater Mekong. 2013. Ecosystems in the Greater Mekong: past trends, current status, possible futures. wwf.panda.org/greatermekong.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Binaya Kumar Mishra
    • 1
  • Kafungwa Mebeelo
    • 2
  • Shamik Chakraborty
    • 3
  • Pankaj Kumar
    • 4
    Email author
  • Arjun Gautam
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EngineeringPokhara UniversityLekhnathNepal
  2. 2.Lusaka Water Security InitiativeLusakaZambia
  3. 3.Faculty of Sustainability StudiesHosei UniversityTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Natural Resources and Ecosystem ServicesInstitute for Global Environmental StrategiesKanagawaJapan

Personalised recommendations