Natural forest loss and its transformation characteristics along the Thailand-Laos border during 1987-2015

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2023.06.2021243

Abstract

Abstract:

Geo-economic cooperation has driven or is driving land use/cover changes in national border areas globally.However, quantitative examination of bilateral impact-response and their relationship remains insufficient, or in an initial stage. Using the SERVIR-Mekong land-cover products provided by the United States Agency for International Development, the loss of natural forest and its transformation processes towards cropland and plantations (including orchards) as well as their border-proneness in the border area (a buffer of 60 km) of Thailand and Laos from 1987 to 2015 were analyzed with GIS-based methods. The results showed: (1) Over 3.18×10⁴ km² of natural forest (including forest and mixed forest) loss was seen in the border areas in the past 30 years. The forest loss driven by farmland expansion in the Thai side was dominant, with a reduction of 72%; while the plantations (including orchards) caused over 2/3 of forest loss in the Laotian side. (2) Deforestation due to the expansion of cropland and plantations was significantly notable circa 2000, or between 1999 and 2003 in both sides, accounting for over 40%, which was concentrated in the surrounding area of major border cities (e.g.,Vientiane) or crossing ports (e.g., Chiang Khong and Nongkhai, Thailand).(3) The loss amount of forest and mixed forest on both sides increased as it gets closer to the borderline. The deforestation of forest and mixed forest due to farmland conversion and the conversion of forest into plantations (including orchards) in the Laotian side displayed a more obvious border-proneness; while the deforestation of mixed forest because of the conversion into plantations (including orchards) in both sides displayed strong convergence.(4) The forest/mixed forest reduction caused by the expansion of farmland was primarily seen within 45 km on both sides, while the forest loss (within 13 km) caused by the expansion of plantations (including orchards) was more significant than that of mixed forests.

Key words: Thailand-Laos border, natural forest, geo-economic cooperation, cropland expansion, plantations, deforestation

摘要：

地缘经济合作已经或正在驱动国家间边境地区土地利用变化，但其互动关系（如影响-响应）定量研究仍显不足。利用美国国际开发署SERVIR-Mekong项目土地覆被产品，基于ArcGIS研究了泰老两国边境地区1987—2015年自然林减少及其向农田和种植园的转换过程与特征。结果表明：①泰老边境地区近30年自然林（含森林与混交林）减少3.18×10⁴ km²。其中，泰国一侧以农田转换为主，减幅72%；老挝一侧以种植园转换为主，减幅超2/3强。②2000年前后（1999—2003年）边境两侧自然林减少最为显著，占比2/5，且集中发生在边境城镇（万象）或口岸（泰国清孔、廊开口岸）地区。③泰老边境两侧森林/混交林减少量距国界越近规模越大，趋边性明显。其中老挝一侧因农田扩张的森林/混交林毁林、因种植园增加的森林转出尤甚；而泰老两侧因种植园转换的混交林毁林则表现为强趋同性。④因农田扩张造成的森林/混交林减少集中在泰老边境两侧45 km以内，而种植园扩张引起的森林（13 km以内）较混交林毁林趋边更显著。

关键词: 泰老边境, 自然林, 地缘经济合作, 农田扩张, 种植园, 毁林

Peng LI, Jinghui FENG, Chiwei XIAO, Xia LI. Natural forest loss and its transformation characteristics along the Thailand-Laos border during 1987-2015[J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(6): 51-62.

李鹏, 冯京辉, 肖池伟, 李霞. 1987—2015年泰国-老挝边境地区自然林减少及其转换特征[J]. 世界地理研究, 2023, 32(6): 51-62.

Figures/Tables 7

Fig.1 Geo-economic cooperation between Thailand and Laos （and neighboring countries） since 1987

Fig. 2 Maps showing the 60 km buffer area of Thai-Lao border and its topography

Fig.3 Land cover types of the buffer area of the Thai-Lao border during 1987-2015

Fig.4 Spatial changes in the loss of forest and mixed forest due to agricultural expansion during 1987-2015

Fig.5 Spatial changes in the loss of forest and mixed forest due to agricultural intensification during 1987-2015

Fig.6 Loss of forest and mixed forest due to agricultural expansion with the distance to the borderline during 1987-2015

Fig.7 Loss of forest and mixed forest due to agricultural intensification with the distance to the borderline during 1987-2015

References 39

1	胡志丁, 骆华松, 李灿松, 等. 地缘安全视角下国家边界的"三重功能"及其优化组合. 人文地理, 2012, 27(3): 73-77.
	HU Z, LUO H, LI C, et al. Triple functions of country border and its concerning optimized combination under the perspective of geopolitical security. Human Geography, 2012, 27(3): 73-77.
2	胡伟, 于畅. 区域协调发展战略背景下中国边境经济合作区发展研究. 区域经济评论, 2020(2): 44-55.
	HU W, YU C. Study on China's border economy cooperate districts under the background of regional coordinative development strategy. Regional Economic Review, 2020(2): 44-55.
3	黎鹏.提升沿边开放与加强跨国区域合作研究:以CAFTA背景下中国西南边境跨国区域为例.北京: 经济科学出版社,2012.
	LI P. Research on Promoting Border Opening and Strengthening Transnational Regional Cooperation: A Case Study of China's Southwest Border Region under the Background of CAFTA.Beijing: Economic Science Press, 2012.
4	刘郑伟,付梅臣,丁茜.边境贸易地区土地利用变化驱动力演变研究.资源科学,2018,40(4):729-736.
	LIU Z, FU M, DING Q.Driving force evolution of land use change in a border trade area of China.Resources Science, 2018, 40(4): 729-736.
5	宋涛, 程艺, 刘卫东, 等. 中国边境地缘经济的空间差异及影响机制. 地理学报, 2017, 72(10): 1731-1745.
	SONG T, CHENG Y, LIU W, et al. The spatial disparity and impact mechanism of geo-economy in the border areas of China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017, 72(10): 1731-1745.
6	LI P, XIAO Z.Impervious surface expansion in the China-Laos border area under the context of geo-economic cooperation: A case study of the Mohan-Boten Economic Cooperation Zone.GIScience & Remote Sensing, 2022, 59(1): 2184-2201.
7	李鹏, 祁月基, 封志明,等.地缘合作背景下柬老越发展三角区农进林退动态特征.资源科学,2021,43(12):2416-2427.
	LI P, QI Y, FENG Z, et al.Dynamic characteristics of "agricultural expansion and forest loss" in the Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam Development Triangle Area (CLV-DTA) under the context of geo-cooperation.Resources Science, 2021, 43(12): 2416-2427.
8	黄宇, 葛岳静, 刘晓凤. 基于库仑引力模型的中美日地缘经济关系测算. 地理学报, 2019, 74(2): 285-296.
	HUANG Y, GE Y, LIU X. Calculation of the geoeconomic relationships between China, the USA and Japan based on Coulomb force model. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019, 74(2): 285-296.
9	LUTTWAK E N. From geopolitics to geo-economics: Logic of conflict,grammar of commerce.National Affairs,Inc, 1990: 17-23.
10	李秋萍, 陆汝成, 李冠, 等. 边境土地利用变化及其与贸易发展互动关系研究进展. 中国土地科学, 2015, 29(8): 16-23.
	LI Q, LU R, LI G, et al. Research progress on regional land-use change along national border and it's interactive relationship with frontier trade development. China Land Sciences, 2015, 29(8): 16-23.
11	冯京辉, 李鹏, 肖池伟, 等. 地缘经济背景下泰国及其毗邻国家边境农业扩张与集约化抵边特征. 地球信息科学学报, 2021, 23(3): 479-491.
	FENG J, LI P, XIAO C, et al. Border-prone characteristics of agricultural expansion and intensification in the borders of Thailand and its neighboring countries (Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar) under the context of geo-economy. Journal of Geo-Information Science, 2021, 23(3): 479-491.
12	李鹏, 封志明. 地缘经济背景下的老挝橡胶林地扩张监测及其影响研究综述. 地理科学进展, 2016, 35(3): 286-294.
	LI P, FENG Z. Review of remote sensing monitoring and socioeconomic and environmental impacts of rubber plantation expansion in Laos in the geoeconomic context. Progress in Geography, 2016, 35(3): 286-294.
13	毛汉英.中国周边地缘政治与地缘经济格局和对策.地理科学进展,2014, 33(3): 289-302.
	MAO H.Geopolitical and geoeconomic situation in the surrounding areas and China's strategies. Progress in Geography, 2014, 33(3): 289-302.
14	MURRAY D.'From battlefield to market place'—Regional economic co-operation in the Mekong zone. Geography, 1994, 79(4): 350-353.
15	GIRI C, DEFOURNY P, SHRESTHA S. Land cover characterization and mapping of continental Southeast Asia using multi-resolution satellite sensor data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 2003, 24(21): 4181-4196.
16	廖谌婳, 封志明, 李鹏, 等. 中南半岛森林覆被变化研究进展. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(6): 853-864.
	LIAO C, FENG Z, LI P, et al. Progress of research on forest land cover change in the Indo-China Peninsula. Progress in Geography, 2014, 33(6): 853-864.
17	ZENG Z, ESTES L, ZIEGLER A D, et al. Highland cropland expansion and forest loss in Southeast Asia in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience, 2018, 11(8): 556-562.
18	LI P, YANG Y. Swidden agriculture landscape mapping using MODIS vegetation index time series and its spatio-temporal dynamics in Northern Laos. Remote Sensing, 2022, 14(23): 6173.
19	LI P, FENG Z, XIAO C, et al. Detecting and mapping annual newly-burned plots (NBP) of swiddening using historical Landsat data in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia (MMSEA) during 1988-2016. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(9): 1307-1328.
20	LI P, FENG Z. Extent and area of Swidden in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia: Estimation by multi-step thresholds with Landsat-8 OLI Data. Remote Sensing, 2016, 8(1): 44.
21	XIAO C, LI P, FENG Z, et al. Latest 30-m map of mature rubber plantations in Mainland Southeast Asia and Yunnan province of China: Spatial patterns and geographical characteristics. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 2021, 45(5): 736-756.
22	LI Z, FOX J. Mapping rubber tree growth in mainland Southeast Asia using time-series MODIS 250 m NDVI and statistical data. Applied Geography, 2012, 32(2): 420-432.
23	HURNI K, FOX J. The expansion of tree-based boom crops in mainland Southeast Asia: 2001 to 2014. Journal of Land Use Science, 2018, 13(1-2): 198-219.
24	张君珏, 苏奋振, 周成虎, 等. 不同海岸地貌背景下的南海周边岸带35年建设用地扩张分析. 地理学报, 2016, 71(1): 104-117.
	ZHAN J, SU F, ZHOU C, et al. Construction land expansion in coastal zone around the South China Sea based on different geomorphologic backgrounds in the past 35 years. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016, 71(1): 104-117.
25	廖谌婳, 封志明, 李鹏, 等. 中老缅泰交界地区土地利用变化信息挖掘与国别对比. 自然资源学报, 2015, 30(11): 1785-1797.
	LIAO C, FENG Z, LI P, et al. Information detecting and inter-national comparison of land use changes in the border region of China, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand. Journal of Natural Resources, 2015, 30(11): 1785-1797.
26	刘晓娜, 封志明, 姜鲁光. 中老缅泰"黄金四角"地区土地利用与土地覆被变化研究进展. 地理科学进展, 2013, 32(2): 191-202.
	LIU X, FENG Z, JIANG L. Review of land use and land cover change of Golden Economic Quadrangle Region in the border of China, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand. Progress in Geography, 2013, 32(2): 191-202.
27	肖池伟,饶滴滴,刘怡媛,等.地缘经济合作背景下的中国磨憨-老挝磨丁口岸地区建设用地扩张.地球信息科学学报,2019,21(10):1576-1585.
	XIAO C, RAO D, LIU Y, et al.Construction land expansion in the Mohan-Boten Port Area between China and Laos in the geoeconomic cooperation context.Journal of Geo-Information Science,2019,21(10):1576-1585.
28	谢志鹏. 泰国与老挝的边境经贸关系. 南洋问题研究, 1993(3): 39-43.
	XIE Z. Border economic and trade relations between Thailand and Laos. Southeast Asian Affairs, 1993(3): 39-43.
29	黄兴球. 老挝、泰国跨境民族形成模式及跨境特征. 广西民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2008, 30(2): 75-81.
	HUANG X. On the formation models and the characteristics of the Lao-Thai Cross-border ethnic groups. Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Science Edition), 2008, 30(2): 75-81.
30	THALEMANN A. Laos: Between battlefield and marketplace. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 1997, 27(1): 85-105.
31	MAHBUBANI K, SNG J. The ASEAN Miracle: A Catalyst for Peace. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, 2017.
32	WISAIJORN T. The inescapable territorial trap in international relations: borderland studies and the Thai-Lao border from 1954 to the present. Geopolitics, 2019, 24(1): 194-229.
33	STJOHN R B. The Land Boundaries of Indochina Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, Durham: Department of Geography, University of Durham, 1998.
34	FLESCH A D, EPPS C W, CAIN III J, et al. Potential effects of the United States-Mexico border fence on wildlife. Conservation Biology, 2010, 24(1): 171-181.
35	ISHIDA M. Border Economies in the Greater Mekong Sub-region. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
36	LEISZ S J, ROUNDS E, BICH YEN N THI, et al. Telecouplings in the east-west economic corridor within borders and across. Remote Sensing, 2016, 8(12): 1012.
37	BANFI S, FILIPPINI M, HUNT L C. Fuel tourism in border regions: The case of Switzerland. Energy Economics, 2005, 27(5): 689-707.
38	Bank World. Cross-Border trade within the Central Asia regional economic cooperation. (2007-08-20)[2023-0606]. .
39	COHEN S B. Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations (Second edition). Washington DC: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, 2008.

[1]	Xuanyu LIU, Guoyu CHENG, Yungang LIU. Measurement and analysis of Sino-Japanese resource trade relations from the perspective of geo-economy [J]. World Regional Studies, 2022, 31(6): 1227-1239.
[2]	Haiyan WANG. Comparative research on geo-economic cooperation between China and Central Asian countries from the perspective of OBOR [J]. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(1): 18-29.