Abstract

As metropolitan areas (MAs) become increasingly complex, reconciling land development with ecological protection has become a major challenge in spatial governance. Although ecological security patterns (ESPs) are widely used to assess ecological networks, they are often treated as diagnostic outputs after simulation rather than directly incorporated into land use/land cover (LULC) simulation processes. In addition, conventional ecosystem health assessments commonly assign uniform values to broad LULC classes, thereby overlooking variations among patches within the same class. This study proposes a spatially explicit framework that integrates forest-centered ESPs into LULC simulation as scenario-specific conversion constraints. It also applies a modified Pressure–Vitality–Organization (P–V–O) model that incorporates explicit socioeconomic pressures instead of relying on uniform, class-based resilience values and assesses ecosystem health separately for each LULC type. The framework was applied to the Tokyo, Chubu, and Kinki MAs in Japan. From 2000 to 2020, forest-corridor configurations evolved differently among the three MAs. Declines in forest connectivity were more pronounced in Tokyo and Chubu, whereas Kinki remained comparatively stable. Patch-scale ecosystem health showed marked spatial heterogeneity within cultivated land, grassland, and shrubland, and its temporal trends varied among MAs and LULC types. Simulations for 2050 under the Urban Priority, Business-as-Usual, and Ecological Priority scenarios showed that increasing levels of ecological protection imposed progressively broader constraints on land conversion, resulting in region-specific patterns of urban expansion, cultivated land change, and forest retention. The proposed framework shows how ESPs and patch-level ecosystem health information can be operationalized as spatial planning constraints, providing a practical basis for comparing development and conservation priorities and supporting differentiated LULC planning across MAs.

IPC Classification

Keywords