Urbanization is considered as the key driver for land use and land cover (LULC) changes across the globe and Delhi is no exception to this phenomenon. The population of Delhi has almost doubled from 8.4 million in 1991 to 16.3 million in 2011. Correspondingly, the built-up area has also increased from 336.82 to 598.22 km2 during 1999–2018. This urban expansion has led to emergence of serious ecological risk and fragmentation of the landscape. In this context, it is imperative to analyse the level of risks induced by such urban expansion and its underlying associations with other factors. This article quantifies the LULC changes in Delhi during 1999–2018 using Landsat 5 (TM) and Landsat 8 (OLI) data. A spatio-temporal sprawl induced risk assessment index has been developed by combining landscape fragmentation score and land use land cover vulnerability score. The landscape fragmentation score was based on four landscape metrics, whereas the vulnerability score was computed from LULC data. The article also assesses the association between risk areas and economic activities, environmental and infrastructural amenities that are considered key drivers of urban expansion in Delhi. To estimate spatio-temporal variability between risk areas and key drivers, ordinary least square regression and geographical weighted regression (GWR) were used. The GWR results reveal that sprawl-induced ecological risk in Delhi is strongly associated with economic activity, infrastructural accessibility and environmental amenities. This spatial empirical assessment also shows that urban growth incentives or services such as roads, metro rail, schools and hospitals can also create pressure on the landscape if local authorities arbitrarily provide these services across space without considering the associated risks.
AndersonJ. R., HardyE. E., RoachJ. T. & WitmerR. E. (1976). A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. USGS Professional Paper 964. A revision of the land use classification system as presented in the USGS Circular 671.
2.
CanedoliC., CroccoF., ComolliR., & Padoa-SchioppaE. (2017). Landscape fragmentation and urban sprawl in the urban region of Milan. Landscape Research, 6397(August), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1336206
3.
ErsayinK., & TagilS. (2017). Ecological sensitivity and risk assessment in the Kizilirmak Delta. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 26, 6508–6516.
4.
FengY., LiuY., & TongX. (2018). Spatiotemporal variation of landscape patterns and their spatial determinants in Shanghai, China. Ecological Indicators, 87(December2017), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.034
5.
FengZ., PengJ., & WuJ. (2020). Using DMSP/OLS nighttime light data and K–means method to identify urban–rural fringe of megacities. Habitat International, 103(2199). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102227
6.
FormanR. (1995). Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press.
7.
FotheringhamA. S., CharltonM. E., & BrunsdonC. (1998). Geographically weighted regression: A natural evolution of the expansion method for spatial data analysis. Environment and Planning A, 30(11), 1905–1927. https://doi.org/10.1068/a301905
8.
GibsonJ., OliviaS., & Boe-GibsonG. (2020). Night lights in economics: Sources and uses. Working Papers hal-02453838, HAL. https://hal.uca.fr/hal-02453838/document
9.
GyenizseP., BognárZ., CzigányS., & ELekesT. (2014). Landscape shape index, as a potential indicator of urban development in Hungary. Acta Geographica Debrecina. Landscape and Environment Series, 8(2), 78–88. http://landscape.geo.klte.hu/pdf/agd/2014/2014v8is2_4.pdf
10.
HouM., GeJ., GaoJ., MengB., LiY., YinJ., LiuJ., FengQ., & LiangT. (2020). Ecological risk assessment and impact factor analysis of alpine wetland ecosystem based on LUCC and boosted regression tree on the Zoige Plateau, China.
11.
HSMI-NIUA (2017). Urban India: Status of demography, economy, social structure, housing and basic infrastructure. National Institute of Urban Affairs & HUDCO-HSMI, New Delhi.
12.
JainM., DawaD., MehtaR., DimriA. P., & PanditM. K. (2016). Monitoring land use change and its drivers in Delhi, India using multi-temporal satellite data. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 2(19). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0075-0
13.
KunduD., PandeyA., & SharmaP. (2019). Making cities work: Policies and programmes. National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi.
14.
LiJ., PuR., GongH., LuoX., YeM., & FengB. (2017). Evolution characteristics of landscape ecological risk patterns in coastal zones in Zhejiang province, China. Sustainability, 9, 584.
15.
LiZ. Y., ZhangN., TangJ., JiY., & LiuJ. L. (2011). Analysis on the landscape ecological risk of Jilin coal mining area. Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), 41, 207–214.
16.
LinY., HuX., ZhengX., HouX., ZhangZ., ZhouX., QiuR., & LinJ. (2019). Spatial variations in the relationships between road network and landscape ecological risks in the highest forest coverage region of China. Ecological Indicators, 96, 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind
17.
McGarigalK. (2015). Fragstats help. University of Massachusetts.
18.
MoW., WangY., ZhangY., & ZhuangD. (2017). Impacts of road network expansion on landscape ecological risk in a megacity, China: A case study of Beijing. Science of the Total Environment, 574, 1000–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.048
19.
NakayaT., FotheringhamS., CharltonM., & BrunsdonC. (2009). Semiparametric geographically weighted generalised linear modelling in GWR4.0. Proc. Geocomputation, 1e5(online).
20.
PengJ., ZongM., HuY. N., LiuY., WuJ. (2015). Assessing landscape ecological risk in a mining city: A case study in Liaoyuan city, China. Sustainability. 7, 8312–8334. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078312
21.
QuS., HuS., LiW., WangH., ZhangC., & LiQ. (2020). Interaction between urban land expansion and land use policy: An analysis using the DPSIR framework. Land Use Policy, 99(June), 104856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104856
22.
ReisJ. P., SilvaE. A., & PinhoP. (2016). Spatial metrics to study urban patterns in growing and shrinking cities. Urban Geography, 37(2), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1096118
23.
RiittersK. H., O’NeillR. V., HunsakerC. T., WickhamJ. D., YankeeD. H., TimminsS. P., JonesK. B., & JacksonB. L. (1995). A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology, 10(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00158551
24.
SaundersD., HobbsR., & MargulesC. (1991). Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology, 5, 18–32. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x/full
25.
SavardJ. P. L., ClergeauP., & MennechezG. (2000). Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00037-2
26.
SinhaS. K. (2018). Urban growth of Noida city, Uttar Pradesh. RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary, 3(10), 162–165.
27.
TaubenböckH., WegmannM., RothA., MehlH., & DechS. (2009). Urbanization in India: Spatiotemporal analysis using remote sensing data. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 33(3), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2008.09.003
28.
TorresA., JaegerJ. A., & AlonsoJ. C. (2016). Multi-scale mismatches between urban sprawl and landscape fragmentation create windows of opportunity for conservation development. Landscape Ecology, 31, 2291–2305.
29.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018). World Urbanization Prospects (WUP): The 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). United Nations, New York.
30.
WangB., DingM., LiS., LiuL., & AiJ. (2020). Assessment of landscape ecological risk for a cross-border basin: A case study of the Koshi River Basin, central Himalayas. Ecological Indicators, 117(March), 106621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106621
31.
WuD. (2020). Spatially and temporally varying relationships between ecological footprint and influencing factors in China’s provinces Using Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR). Journal of Cleaner Production, 261, 121089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121089
32.
XieH. L., WangP., & HuangH. S. (2013). Ecological risk assessment of land use change in the Poyang lake eco-economic zone, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10, 328–346.
33.
XueL., ZhuB., WuY., WeiG., LiaoS., YangC., WangJ., ZhangH., RenL., & HanQ. (2019). Dynamic projection of ecological risk in the Manas River basin based on terrain gradients. Science of the Total Environment, 653, 283–293.
34.
YanesA., BoteroC. M., ArrizabalagaM., & VasquezJ. G. (2019). Methodological proposal for ecological risk assessment of the coastal zone of Antioquia, Colombia. Ecological Engineering, 130, 242–251.
35.
YangH. O., ChenW. B., & ChenX. P. (2017). Regional ecological network planning for biodiversity conservation: A case study of China’s Poyang lake eco-economic region. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 26, 1825–1833.
36.
YueW., LiuY., & FanP. (2013). Measuring urban sprawl and its drivers in large Chinese cities: The case of Hangzhou. Land Use Policy, 31, 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.07.018
37.
ZhangW., ChangW. J., ZhuZ. C., & HuiZ. (2020). Landscape ecological risk assessment of Chinese coastal cities based on land use change. Applied Geography, 117(February), 102174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102174
