3.1 Impacts of coastal land use scenarios on future land use patterns and ES supply
Simulation results of the impacts of UBS, UGS, PLAS and LRS were presented as future land use patterns and ES supply in the region (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). The impacts of UBS on future land use patterns and ES supply are presented by comparing with the status of the current land use pattern (Fig. 4). Under urbanization influence, built-up area showed prominent expansion towards the southern edges and mid-east portions of the landscape compared to the current land use pattern. The expansion of built-up area mostly displaced mangroves, palm swamp forests, bog plains and food crop areas which were neighboring land uses along the same area of the coastal landscape. However, food crop areas located towards the northern edges of the landscape were moderately influenced by intensifying urbanization within a 50-year timescale. Similarly, mixed swamp forests and water bodies located on the mid-west portions of the landscape remained relatively intact and less influenced by urbanization land use patterns. The integration of the simulated land use patterns with the ES assessment matrix (Table 4) displays the potential ES supply of the region, influenced by the scenarios. Considering urbanization scenario at decadal timescale, the results revealed decreased potential of the region to supply food, fuelwood, carbon sequestration and recreation benefits compared to the current status. Except for carbon sequestration which remained constant, the region’s potential to supply food, fuelwood and recreation benefits further declined due to intensifying urbanization (Fig. 4).
Table 4: Final assessment matrix showing normalized values for land use types and their potential to supply ecosystem services from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest)
LULC
|
Ecosystem Services
|
|
Food
|
Fuelwood
|
Carbon Sequestration
|
Recreation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mangrove swamp
|
100
|
100
|
48
|
100
|
Mixed swamp forest
|
33
|
50
|
47
|
27
|
Palm swamp forest
|
33
|
5
|
50
|
21
|
Bog plain
|
10
|
1
|
50
|
41
|
Shrubland
|
5
|
22
|
7
|
95
|
Rubber
|
0
|
8
|
52
|
6
|
Coconut
|
5
|
29
|
28
|
27
|
Oil Palm
|
4
|
37
|
28
|
17
|
Bare surface
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Built up
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
81
|
Water
|
9
|
0
|
5
|
87
|
Food crop
|
100
|
11
|
100
|
6
|
The simulation results of UGS compared to the current land use pattern are shown in Fig. 5. Both 10-year and 50-year timescales of urban greening showed expanded built-up areas on the southern edges of the landscape. Furthermore, under the influence of UGS, bog plains in the current land use pattern transitioned to shrublands within the vicinity of built-up spaces. In contrast to urbanization, UGS resulted in slight expansion of mixed swamp forests. Except recreation benefits which remained relatively stable between the current land use and 10-year urban greening timescale, the overall ES balance of the region was negatively influenced by UGS as shown in the spider chart (Fig. 5).
As shown in Fig. 6, the simulation results of PLAS in comparison to the current land use pattern revealed key trends in rubber plantation expansion over the landscape. Bog plains, oil palm and coconut located along the southern boundary of the landscape transitioned to rubber by plantation agriculture over 10-year timescale. With the intensification of plantation agriculture over a 50-year timescale, rubber became prominent and dominated land uses along the fringes of mixed swamp forests. The resultant impacts of PLAS on the region’s potential to supply ES showed mixed results as depicted in the spider chart. Whereas the region’s potential to supply food remained constant between the current land use and PLAS at 10-year timescale, food supply potential decreased with intensification of PLAS at 50-year timescale. Fuelwood supply potential initially increased under 10-year PLAS but later decreased with intensification of PLAS at 50-year timescale. On the other hand, carbon sequestration potential increased progressively from the current land use to PLAS at 10-year and 50-year timescales. On the contrary, the overall influence of PLAS on recreation benefits was negative as depicted by decreasing values in the balance tables.
In Fig. 7, the simulated results of the impacts of LRS on future land use patterns and ES supply are shown by comparing with the current land use. Mixed swamp forest expanded in the mid-west portions of the landscape under the influence of landscape restoration over a 10-year timescale. Intensification of restoration at 50-year timescale was accompanied by greater expansion of mixed swamp forest on the mid-west and east portions of the landscape. Similarly, rubber showed progressive expansion, particularly along the fringes of mixed swamp forest considering landscape restoration at 10-year and 50-year timescales. As shown by decreasing values in the ES balance tables, the overall influence of landscape restoration on the region’s potential to supply food and recreation benefits was negative. Conversely, the region’s potential to sequester carbon and supply fuelwood increased under the influence of landscape restoration compared to the current land use.
3.2 Impacts of coastal land use scenarios on spatial extent of critical habitats and arable land uses across temporal scales
Differences in the impacts of the scenarios on the spatial extent of critical coastal habitats (mangrove swamp, mixed swamp forest, palm swamp forest, bog plain and water) and interconnected terrestrial habitats (shrublands) were revealed by comparing scenarios across 10-year and 50-year timescales (Table 5 and Table 6). Regarding 10-year timescale, mangrove swamp decreased slightly in spatial extent and by the same magnitude under the influences of UBS and UGS (-0.9%). Similarly, mangroves decreased in spatial extent under LRS (-0.5%) but remained unchanged under PLAS influence. Furthermore, considering 50-year timescale, mangroves exhibited further decline in spatial extent under UBS (-1.5%) and LRS (-0.8%) respectively, as shown in Table 6. Conversely, mixed swamp forests increased in spatial extent under UGS (0.8%) and LRS (2.6%) and remained stable under UBS and PLAS influences, considering 10-year timescale. In addition, mixed swamp forests recorded 4.3% and 8.3% increase in spatial extent respectively, under the influences of UGS and LRS, considering 50-year timescale, which represent triple and five-fold expansion in the spatial extent of mixed swamp forests. Palm swamp forests remained stable under the influences of all the scenarios and their temporal scales. Bog plain declined under the influences of all the scenarios and their temporal scales, except UBS which exhibited zero influence on bog plain. The influence of all the scenarios on water in the region was not significant as its spatial extent remained stable across the respective temporal scales and scenarios.
As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, UBS and UGS significantly and inversely influenced changes in the spatial extent of shrubland and built-up areas. Considering 10-year timescale, shrubland declined in spatial extent under UBS (-24.9%) and UGS (-23.3%), whereas built-up areas simultaneously increased by 28.2% and 30.5% under the respective scenarios. Shrubland further declined in spatial extent under the influences of UBS (-29.3%) and UGS (-26.6%) with concomitant increase in built-up areas by 33.6% and 33.3% under the respective scenarios considering 50-year timescale.
Regarding arable land uses, rubber increased under the influence of PLAS (2.6%) and LRS (1.6%), considering 10-year timescale but recorded 11% and 2% respectively under the influence of same scenarios considering 50-year timescale. However, the influences of UBS and UGS on rubber plantation were neutral across all temporal scales. While the influence of PLAS on the spatial extent of food crop remained zero across temporal scales, food crop decreased between 2.3% and 2.6% in spatial extent across UBS, UGS and LRS considering all temporal scales.
Table 5. Areal change (%) of LULC types under UBS, UGS, PLAS and LRS over 10-year timescale. The temporal scale signifies the period required for land use transitions to manifest in reality. The values indicate the difference (%) in the areal coverage of LULC types compared to the areal coverage of same LULC types in the current land use map (Fig.3).
LULC Types
|
Scenarios
|
Change (%) in spatial extent of LULC types
|
UBS
|
UGS
|
PLAS
|
LRS
|
Mangrove swamp
|
-0.93
|
-0.93
|
0
|
-0.54
|
Mixed swamp forest
|
0
|
0.82
|
0
|
2.6
|
Palm swamp forest
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Bog plain
|
0
|
-2.44
|
-1.67
|
-0.15
|
Shrub land
|
-24.9
|
-23.28
|
-5.97
|
0.53
|
Rubber
|
0
|
0
|
2.58
|
1.55
|
Coconut
|
0
|
-2.22
|
-0.68
|
-1.49
|
Oil palm
|
0
|
0
|
5.73
|
-0.05
|
Bare surface
|
-0.09
|
-0.1
|
0
|
0
|
Built-up
|
28.24
|
30.46
|
0
|
0
|
Water
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
-0.06
|
Food crop
|
-2.33
|
-2.33
|
0
|
-2.36
|
Table 6 Areal change (%) of LULC types under UBS, UGS, PLAS and LRS over 50-year timescale. The temporal scale signifies the period required for land use transitions to manifest in reality. The values indicate the difference (%) in the areal coverage of LULC types compared to the areal coverage of same LULC types in the current land use map (Fig.3).
LULC Types
|
Scenarios
|
Change (%) in spatial extent of LULC types
|
UBS
|
UGS
|
PLAS
|
LRS
|
Mangrove swamp
|
-1.54
|
-0.93
|
0
|
-0.76
|
Mixed swamp forest
|
0
|
4.31
|
0
|
8.32
|
Palm swamp forest
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Bog plain
|
0
|
-2.6
|
-2.58
|
-0.3
|
Shrub land
|
-29.29
|
-26.61
|
-6.08
|
-4.59
|
Rubber
|
0
|
0
|
10.52
|
2.01
|
Coconut
|
0
|
-5.03
|
-1.85
|
-1.92
|
Oil palm
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
-0.08
|
Bare surface
|
-0.1
|
-0.1
|
0
|
0
|
Built-up
|
33.55
|
33.27
|
0
|
0
|
Water
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
-0.06
|
Food crop
|
-2.62
|
-2.33
|
0
|
-2.61
|