A multivariate analysis integrating ecological, socioeconomic and physical characteristics to investigate urban forest cover and plant diversity in Beijing, China

- Establishing relationship among socio-ecological indicators across urban structural units.
- Green space cover within USUs declines exponentially with distance to urban center.
- Ecological, social and economic indicators are closely related to each other.
- Forest cover and urban surfaces are responsible for variance across all land use types.
- Correlation between herb richness is higher with tree/shrub density than with tree/shrub richness.

Understanding the factors driving the variation in urban green space and plant communities in heterogeneous urban landscapes is crucial for maintaining biodiversity and important ecosystem services. In this study, we used a combination of field surveys, remote sensing, census data and spatial analysis to investigate the interrelationships among geographical and social-economic variables across 328 different urban structural units (USUs) and how they may influence the distributions of urban forest cover, plant diversity and abundance, within the central urban area of Beijing, China. We found that the urban green space coverage varied substantially across different types of USUs, with higher in agricultural lands (N = 15), parks (N = 46) and lowest in utility zones (N = 36). The amount of urban green space within USUs declines exponentially with the distance to urban center. Our study suggested that geographical, social and economic factors were closely related with each other in urban ecological systems, and have important impacts on urban forest coverage and abundance. The percentage of forest as well as high and low density urban areas were mainly responsible for variations in the data across all USUs and all land use/land cover types, and thus are important constituents and ecological indicators for understanding and modeling urban environment. Herb richness is more strongly correlated with tree and shrub density than with tree and shrub richness (r = −0.472, p < 0.05). However, other geographic and socioeconomic factors showed no significant relationships with urban plant diversity or abundance.