Urban growth models: progress and perspective

Urban growth models have been developed and extensively adopted to study urban expansion and its impact on the ambient environment. These models can be employed in urban policymaking or analyses of development scenarios. In this paper, we provide a systematic review of urban growth models, including the evolution of urban models and associated theories and the common framework of different models and their applications. Three typical classes of urban growth models, namely, the land use/transportation model, the cellular automata (CA) model and the agent-based model, were introduced. Their relationships were explained, considering their modelling mechanisms, data requirements and application scales. Based on the extensively utilized urban CA models, we proposed four perspectives for improvements, including the adjustment of the basic spatial unit, the incorporation of temporal contexts, public platforms to support model comparison, and scenario analyses. New opportunities (e.g., open social data and integrated assessment models) have emerged to assist model development and application.

摘要

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic €32.70 /Month

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Similar content being viewed by others

Multiscale Urban Analysis and Modelling for Local and Regional Decision-Makers

Chapter © 2021

Defining urban growth: a meta-synthesis of studies

Article 24 August 2024

Urbanisation and Land Use Change

Chapter © 2021

Explore related subjects

References

  1. United Nations (2015) World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision
  2. Clinton N, Gong P (2013) MODIS detected surface urban heat islands and sinks: global locations and controls. Remote Sens Environ 134:294–304 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Zhang GJ, Cai M, Hu A (2013) Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America. Nat Clim Change 3:466–470 ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
  4. Zhang Q, He K, Huo H (2012) Policy: cleaning China’s air. Nature 484:161–162 ADSCASGoogle Scholar
  5. Gong P, Liang S, Carlton EJ et al (2012) Urbanisation and health in China. Lancet 379:843–852 ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. DeFries RS, Rudel T, Uriarte M et al (2010) Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nat Geosci 3:178–181 ArticleADSCASGoogle Scholar
  7. Si Y, Xin Q, Prins HHT et al (2015) Improving the quantification of waterfowl migration with remote sensing and bird tracking. Sci Bull 60:1984–1993 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Li X, Clinton N, Si Y et al (2015) Projected impacts of climate change on protected birds and nature reserves in China. Sci Bull 60:1644–1653 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Wang L, Li CC, Ying Q et al (2012) China’s urban expansion from 1990 to 2010 determined with satellite remote sensing. Chin Sci Bull 57:2802–2812 ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  10. Seto KC, Kaufmann RK, Woodcock CE (2000) Landsat reveals China’s farmland reserves, but they’re vanishing fast. Nature 406:121 ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  11. Turner BL, Lambin EF, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:20666–20671 ArticleADSCASGoogle Scholar
  12. Li X, Chen Y, Liu X et al (2011) Concepts, methodologies, and tools of an integrated geographical simulation and optimization system. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 25:633–655 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Gong P (2012) Remote sensing of environmental change over China: a review. Chin Sci Bull 57:2793–2801 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Schneider A, Friedl MA, Potere D (2010) Mapping global urban areas using MODIS 500-m data: new methods and datasets based on ‘urban ecoregions’. Remote Sens Environ 114:1733–1746 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Gong P, Howarth PJ (1990) The use of structural information for improving land-cover classification accuracies at the rural–urban fringe. Photogramm Eng Rem S 56:67–73 Google Scholar
  16. Weng Q (2012) Remote sensing of impervious surfaces in the urban areas: requirements, methods, and trends. Remote Sens Environ 117:34–49 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Baker W (1989) A review of models of landscape change. Landsc Ecol 2:111–133 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Wegener M (1994) Operational urban models state of the art. J Am Plan Assoc 60:17–29 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Wegener M (2004) Overview of land-use transport models. Handb Transp Geogr Spat Syst 5:127–146 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunt JD, Kriger DS, Miller E (2005) Current operational urban land-use-transport modelling frameworks: a review. Transp Rev 25:329–376 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Batty M (1997) Cellular automata and urban form: a primer. J Am Plan Assoc 63:266–274 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Santé I, García AM, Miranda D et al (2010) Cellular automata models for the simulation of real-world urban processes: a review and analysis. Landsc Urban Plan 96:108–122 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA et al (2003) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: a review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93:314–337 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Matthews RB, Gilbert NG, Roach A et al (2007) Agent-based land-use models: a review of applications. Landsc Ecol 22:1447–1459 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Heppenstall AJ, Crooks AT, See LM et al (2012) Agent-based models of geographical systems. Springer, New York
  26. Li A (2012) Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: review of agent-based models. Ecol Model 229:25–36 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Schaldach R, Priess JA (2008) Integrated models of the land system: a review of modelling approaches on the regional to global scale. Living Rev Landsc Res 2:1–34 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Irwin EG (2010) New directions for urban economic models of land use change: incorporating spatial dynamics and hetrogeneity. J Reg Sci 50:65–91 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Environmental Protection Agency (2000) A summary of models for assessing the effects of community growth and change on land-use patterns. Office of Research and Development, Washington Google Scholar
  30. Agarwal C, Green GM, Grove JM et al (2002) A review and assessment of land-use change models: dynamics of space, time, and human choice. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station Newton Square BookGoogle Scholar
  31. Brockmann D, Helbing D (2013) The hidden geometry of complex, network-driven contagion phenomena. Science 342:1337–1342 ArticleADSCASGoogle Scholar
  32. Anderson WP, Kanaroglou PS, Miller EJ (1996) Urban form, energy and the environment: a review of issues, evidence and policy. Urban Stud 33:7–35 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Batty M (2009) Urban modeling. International encyclopedia of human geography. Elsevier, Oxford Google Scholar
  34. Berling-Wolff S, Wu J (2004) Modeling urban landscape dynamics: a review. Ecol Res 19:119–129 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Batty M (2008) The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science 319:769–771 ArticleADSCASGoogle Scholar
  36. National Research Council (2013) Advancing land change modeling: opportunities and research requirements. The National Academies Press, Washington Google Scholar
  37. Wan L, Jin Y (2014) Review on applied urban modeling and new trends of urban spatial policy modeling. Urban Plan Forum 1:81–91
  38. Burgess EW (1967) The growth of the city: an introduction to a research project. The Univeristy of Chicago Press, Chicago
  39. Hoyt H (1939) The structure and growth of residential neighborhoods in American cities. Federal Housing Administration, Washington DC
  40. Harris CD, Ullman EL (1945) The nature of cities. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 242:7–17
  41. Christaller W, Baskin CW (1966) Die Zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland. Central places in Southern Germany (trans: Baskin CW). Prentice-Hall
  42. He C, Zhao Y, Tian J et al (2013) Modeling the urban landscape dynamics in a megalopolitan cluster area by incorporating a gravitational field model with cellular automata. Landsc Urban Plan 113:78–89 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Plan Assoc 25:73–76 Google Scholar
  44. Wilson AG (1970) The use of the concept of entropy in system modelling. Oper Res Q 21:247–265 ArticleADSMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Foot D (1981) Operational urban models: an introduction. Methuen, London Google Scholar
  46. Irwin EG, Geoghegan J (2001) Theory, data, methods: developing spatially explicit economic models of land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85:7–24 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Putman SH (1986) Future directions for urban systems models: some pointers from empirical investigations. Elsevier, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  48. Lowry IS (1964) A model of metropolis. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica Google Scholar
  49. Alonso W (1964) Location and land use: towards a general theory of land rent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge BookGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhao L, Peng Z-R (2012) LandSys: an agent-based cellular automata model of land use change developed for transportation analysis. J Transp Geogr 25:35–49 ArticleMathSciNetCASGoogle Scholar
  51. Allen PM, Sanglier M (1979) A dynamic model of growth in a central place system. Geogr Anal 11:256–272 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Benenson I (1998) Multi-agent simulations of residential dynamics in the city. Comput Environ Urban 22:25–42 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. De La Barra T, Rickaby P (1982) Modelling regional energy use: a land use, transport and energy evaluation model. Environ Plan B 9:429–443 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Echenique MH, Flowerdew ADJ, Hunt JD et al (1990) The MEPLAN models of Bilbao, Leeds and Dortmund. Transp Rev 10:309–322 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Landis JD (1994) The California urban futures model: a new generation of metropolitan simulation models. Environ Plan B 21:399 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Landis JD, Zhang M (1998) The second generation of the California urban futures model. Part 2: specification and calibration results of the land-use change submodel. Environ Plan B 25:795–824 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Landis JD, Zhang M (1998) The second generation of the California urban futures model. Part 1: model logic and theory. Environ Plan B 25:657–666 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Martínez F (1996) MUSSA: land use model for Santiago city. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1552:126–134 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Martínez F, Donoso P (2004) MUSSA: a behavioural land use equilibrium model with location externalities, planning regulations and pricing policies. U Chile-SECTRA
  60. Anderson SP, De Palma A, Thisse JF (1992) Discrete choice theory of product differentiation. MIT Press, Cambridge MATHGoogle Scholar
  61. Li X, Liu X (2007) Defining agents’ behaviors to simulate complex residential development using multicriteria evaluation. J Environ Manag 85:1063–1075 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. White RW (1974) Sketches of a dynamic central place theory. Econ Geogr 50:219–227 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Waddell P (2002) UrbanSim: modeling urban development for land use, transportation, and environmental planning. J Am Plan Assoc 68:297–314 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Allen PM, Sanglier M (1981) Urban evolution, self-organization, and decisionmaking. Environ Plan A 13:167–183 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. De Keersmaecker M-L, Frankhauser P, Thomas I (2003) Using fractal dimensions for characterizing intra-urban diversity: the example of Brussels. Geogr Anal 35:310–328 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolfram S (1984) Universality and complexity in cellular automata. Phys D 10:1–35 ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  67. Brady M, Irwin E (2011) Accounting for spatial effects in economic models of land use: recent developments and challenges ahead. Environ Resour Econ 48:487–509 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Verburg PH, Soepboer W, Veldkamp A et al (2002) Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use: the CLUE-S model. Environ Manage 30:391–405 ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
  69. Tobler WR (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geogr 46:234–240
  70. Kocabas V, Dragicevic S (2006) Assessing cellular automata model behaviour using a sensitivity analysis approach. Comput Environ Urban 30:921–953 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Stevens D, Dragicevic S (2007) A GIS-based irregular cellular automata model of land-use change. Environ Plan B 34:708–724 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. van Vliet J, White R, Dragicevic S (2009) Modeling urban growth using a variable grid cellular automaton. Comput Environ Urban 33:35–43 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Li X, Liu X, Yu L (2014) A systematic sensitivity analysis of constrained cellular automata model for urban growth simulation based on different transition rules. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 28:1317–1335 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. White R, Engelen G (1993) Cellular automata and fractal urban form: a cellular modelling approach to the evolution of urban land-use patterns. Environ Plan A 25:1175–1199 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Wu F (2002) Calibration of stochastic cellular automata: the application to rural–urban land conversions. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 16:795–818 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Clarke K, Hoppon S, Gaydos L (1997) A self-modifying cellular automaton model of historical. Environ Plan B 24:247–261 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Pijanowski BC, Brown DG, Shellito BA et al (2002) Using neural networks and GIS to forecast land use changes: a land transformation model. Comput Environ Urban 26:553–575 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. White R, Engelen G, Uljee I (1997) The use of constrained cellular automata for high-resolution modelling of urban land-use dynamics. Environ Plan B 24:323–343 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Yeh AG-O, Li XIA (1998) Sustainable land development model for rapid growth areas using GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 12:169–189 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Wu F (1998) Polycentric urban development and land-use change in a transitional economy: the case of Guangzhou. Environ Plann A 30:1077–1100 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Li X, Yang Q, Liu X (2008) Discovering and evaluating urban signatures for simulating compact development using cellular automata. Landsc Urban Plan 86:177–186 ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  82. Li X, Gar-On Yeh A (2004) Data mining of cellular automata’s transition rules. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 18:723–744 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Liu X, Li X, Liu L et al (2008) A bottom-up approach to discover transition rules of cellular automata using ant intelligence. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 22:1247–1269 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Liu X, Li X, Shi X et al (2010) Simulating land-use dynamics under planning policies by integrating artificial immune systems with cellular automata. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 24:783–802 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Liu X, Li X, Shi X et al (2008) Simulating complex urban development using kernel-based non-linear cellular automata. Ecol Model 211:169–181 ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
  86. Engelen G, White R, Uljee I et al (1995) Using cellular automata for integrated modelling of socio-environmental systems. Environ Monit Assess 34:203–214 ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  87. He C, Shi P, Chen J et al (2005) Developing land use scenario dynamics model by the integration of system dynamics model and cellular automata model. Sci China Ser D Earth Sci 48:1979–1989 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Jenerette GD, Wu J (2001) Analysis and simulation of land-use change in the central Arizona-Phoenix region, USA. Landsc Ecol 16:611–626 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Clarke KC, Gaydos LJ (1998) Loose-coupling a cellular automaton model and GIS: long-term urban growth prediction for San Francisco and Washington/Baltimore. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 12:699–714 ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  90. Liu Y, Phinn SR (2003) Modelling urban development with cellular automata incorporating fuzzy-set approaches. Comput Environ Urban 27:637–658 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. Chen J, Gong P, He C et al (2002) Assessment of the urban development plan of Beijing by using a CA-based urban growth model. Photogramm Eng Rem S 68:1063–1072 Google Scholar
  92. Al-Kheder S, Wang J, Shan J (2008) Fuzzy inference guided cellular automata urban-growth modelling using multi-temporal satellite images. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 22:1271–1293 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  93. Al-Ahmadi K, See L, Heppenstall A et al (2009) Calibration of a fuzzy cellular automata model of urban dynamics in Saudi Arabia. Ecol Complex 6:80–101 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Xie Y (1996) A generalized model for cellular urban dynamics. Geogr Anal 28:350–373 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Ligtenberg A, Bregt AK, van Lammeren R (2001) Multi-actor-based land use modelling: spatial planning using agents. Landsc Urban Plan 56:21–33 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  96. Torrens PM, Benenson I (2005) Geographic automata systems. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 19:385–412 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Li X, Liu X (2008) Embedding sustainable development strategies in agent-based models for use as a planning tool. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 22:21–45 ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
  98. Liu Y, Kong X, Liu Y et al (2013) Simulating the conversion of rural settlements to town land based on multi-agent systems and cellular automata. PLoS One 8:e79300 ArticleADSCASGoogle Scholar
  99. Crooks A, Castle C, Batty M (2008) Key challenges in agent-based modelling for geo-spatial simulation. Comput Environ Urban 32:417–430 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2002) Interacting agents, spatial externalities and the evolution of residential land use patterns. J Econ Geogr 2:31–54 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  101. Tian G, Ouyang Y, Quan Q et al (2011) Simulating spatiotemporal dynamics of urbanization with multi-agent systems—a case study of the Phoenix metropolitan region, USA. Ecol Model 222:1129–1138 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  102. Ettema D (2011) A multi-agent model of urban processes: modelling relocation processes and price setting in housing markets. Comput Environ Urban 35:1–11 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  103. Crooks AT (2010) Constructing and implementing an agent-based model of residential segregation through vector GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 24:661–675 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Xie Y, Fan S (2014) Multi-city sustainable regional urban growth simulation—MSRUGS: a case study along the mid-section of Silk Road of China. Stoch Environ Res Risk A 28:1–13 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Yu C, Peuquet DJ (2009) A Geoagent-based framework for knowledge-oriented representation: embracing social rules in GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 23:923–960 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  106. Hosseinali F, Alesheikh AA, Nourian F (2013) Agent-based modeling of urban land-use development, case study: simulating future scenarios of Qazvin city. Cities 31:105–113 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Chen Y, Li X, Wang S et al (2012) Defining agents’ behaviour based on urban economic theory to simulate complex urban residential dynamics. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 26:1155–1172 ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  108. Bone C, Dragicevic S, White R (2011) Modeling-in-the-middle: bridging the gap between agent-based modeling and multi-objective decision-making for land use change. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 25:717–737 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  109. Hu Z, Lo CP (2007) Modeling urban growth in Atlanta using logistic regression. Comput Environ Urban 31:667–688 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  110. Sohl TL, Sayler KL, Drummond MA et al (2007) The FORE-SCE model: a practical approach for projecting land cover change using scenario-based modeling. J Land Use Sci 2:103–126 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  111. Liu J, Zhan J, Deng X (2005) Spatio-temporal patterns and driving forces of urban land expansion in China during the economic reform era. AMBIO 34:450–455 ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Li X, Liu X (2006) An extended cellular automaton using case-based reasoning for simulating urban development in a large complex region. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20:1109–1136 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  113. White R, Uljee I, Engelen G (2012) Integrated modelling of population, employment and land-use change with a multiple activity-based variable grid cellular automaton. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 26:1251–1280 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  114. Soares-Filho BS, Coutinho Cerqueira G, Lopes Pennachin C (2002) Dinamica—a stochastic cellular automata model designed to simulate the landscape dynamics in an Amazonian colonization frontier. Ecol Model 154:217–235 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  115. Li X, Gong P, Liang L (2015) A 30-year (1984–2013) record of annual urban dynamics of Beijing city derived from Landsat data. Remote Sens Environ 166:78–90 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  116. Song X-P, Sexton JO, Huang C et al (2016) Characterizing the magnitude, timing and duration of urban growth from time series of Landsat-based estimates of impervious cover. Remote Sens Environ 175:1–13 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  117. Batty M, Torrens PM (2005) Modelling and prediction in a complex world. Futures 37:745–766 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  118. Goodchild M (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69:211–221 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  119. Connors JP, Lei S, Kelly M (2011) Citizen science in the age of neogeography: utilizing volunteered geographic information for environmental monitoring. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 102:1267–1289 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  120. Hu T, Yang J, Li X et al (2016) Mapping urban land use by using Landsat images and open social data. Remote Sens 8:151 ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
  121. Li F, Bao Y, Wang D et al (2015) Smartphones for sensing. Sci Bull 60:190–201 Google Scholar
  122. Li R, Li Z, Gao W et al (2014) Diurnal, seasonal, and spatial variation of PM2.5 in Beijing. Chin Sci Bull 59:387–395 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  123. Zhang J, Wu L, Yuan F et al (2015) Mass human migration and Beijing’s urban heat island during the Chinese New Year holiday. Sci Bull 60:1038–1041 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  124. Zhang J, Wu L (2015) Modulation of the urban heat island by the tourism during the Chinese New Year holiday: a case study in Sanya City, Hainan Province of China. Sci Bull 60:1543–1546 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  125. Jantz CA, Goetz SJ, Donato D et al (2010) Designing and implementing a regional urban modeling system using the SLEUTH cellular urban model. Comput Environ Urban 34:1–16 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  126. Engelen G, White R, Nijs T (2003) Environment explorer: spatial support system for the integrated assessment of socio-economic and environmental policies in the Netherlands. Integr Assess 4:97–105 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  127. Delden Hv, Gutiérrez ER, Vliet Jv et al (2008) Xplorah, a multi-scale integrated land use model. In: Proceedings of the iEMSs2008: International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software, Barcelona, Catalonia, July 7–10
  128. Pijanowski BC, Tayyebi A, Doucette J et al (2014) A big data urban growth simulation at a national scale: configuring the GIS and neural network based land transformation model to run in a high performance computing (HPC) environment. Environ Model Softw 51:250–268 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  129. Seto KC, Güneralp B, Hutyra LR (2012) Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:16083–16088 ArticleADSCASGoogle Scholar
  130. Sleeter BM, Sohl TL, Bouchard MA et al (2012) Scenarios of land use and land cover change in the conterminous United States: Utilizing the special report on emission scenarios at ecoregional scales. Global Environ Change 22:896–914 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  131. Gong P, Wang J, Yu L et al (2013) Finer resolution observation and monitoring of global land cover: first mapping results with Landsat TM and ETM+ data. Int J Remote Sens 34:2607–2654 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  132. Long Y, Shen Z (2013) Disaggregating heterogeneous agent attributes and location. Comput Environ Urban 42:14–25 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  133. Shi W, Pang MYC (2000) Development of Voronoi-based cellular automata—an integrated dynamic model for geographical information systems. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14:455–474 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  134. Sohl T, Sayler K (2008) Using the FORE-SCE model to project land-cover change in the southeastern United States. Ecol Model 219:49–65 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  135. Meentemeyer RK, Tang W, Dorning MA et al (2012) FUTURES: multilevel simulations of emerging urban–rural landscape structure using a stochastic patch-growing algorithm. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 103:785–807 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  136. Chen Y, Li X, Liu X et al (2014) Modeling urban land-use dynamics in a fast developing city using the modified logistic cellular automaton with a patch-based simulation strategy. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 28:234–255 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  137. Yeh AG-O, Li X (2006) Errors and uncertainties in urban cellular automata. Comput Environ Urban 30:10–28 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  138. García AM, Santé I, Crecente R et al (2011) An analysis of the effect of the stochastic component of urban cellular automata models. Comput Environ Urban 35:289–296 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  139. Breiman L (1996) Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 24:123–140 MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  140. Pontius R Jr, Boersma W, Castella J-C et al (2008) Comparing the input, output, and validation maps for several models of land change. Ann Reg Sci 42:11–37 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  141. Verburg P, Overmars K (2009) Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling: exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model. Landsc Ecol 24:1167–1181 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  142. Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Koch J et al (2011) An integrated approach to modelling land-use change on continental and global scales. Environ Model Softw 26:1041–1051 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  143. Petrov LO, Lavalle C, Kasanko M (2009) Urban land use scenarios for a tourist region in Europe: applying the MOLAND model to Algarve, Portugal. Landsc Urban Plan 92:10–23 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  144. Li X, Yeh AG-O (2000) Modelling sustainable urban development by the integration of constrained cellular automata and GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14:131–152 ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
  145. Letourneau A, Verburg PH, Stehfest E (2012) A land-use systems approach to represent land-use dynamics at continental and global scales. Environ Model Softw 33:61–79 ArticleGoogle Scholar

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the Special Fund for Meteorology Scientific Research in the Public Welfare (GYHY201506023) of China.