Investigation of Spatial Coupling Coordination Development: Identifying Land System States from the Adaptation–Conflict Perspective

Abstract

With the advancement of global urbanization, ecosystem conservation and sustainable land development have become major issues. In this context, the uncoordinated and imbalanced development of the land-centered human–environment system requires urgent attention, especially in rust belt cities that pose critical challenges to regional land system sustainability. Therefore, taking Changchun City from 1990 to 2020 as an example, we identified and evaluated the ecosystem service (ES) balance and land use conflict from the perspectives of internal support and external development pressure. Based on the land system adaptation and conflict results, a coupling coordination degree model (CCDM) was constructed to investigate the spatio-temporal characteristics of land system development. The results indicated that there was an obvious downward trend in the regional ES balance, while areas with higher ES balance were mainly distributed in the eastern ecologically sound areas, and southern built-up areas presented deficient ES balance levels (i.e., demand exceeding supply), with a significant expansion trend from 1990 to 2020. Land use conflict was especially prominent in areas experiencing rapid rural–urban transformation, and the hot spots expanded noticeably. The spatio-temporal differences in the coupling coordination degree of ES balance and land use conflict were significant, whereas the land system of the study area has always been dominated by a balanced development pattern throughout the research period, except for the urban center, which tended to be in a stage of uncoordinated development, with the ES balance blocked. These findings suggest that it is necessary to coordinate urban and adjacent regions through regionally integrated efforts to alleviate the ES imbalance. This research can provide a scientific reference for analyzing regional land system states, coordinating the sustainable spatial development of ecosystems, and implementing revitalization strategies to achieve win-win land system goals.

Realization of Ecological Product Value, Land Use Change and Environment

“…The so-called three-area space (hereinafter referred to as "three-area space") refers to the urban space, agricultural space, and ecological space that directly to the geographical function division and development strategy requirements of urban development, food security, and ecological environmental protection in the provincial main function zones (Wang et al, 2023;, they serve as important technology approach for undertaking macro-scale (main function zones) and micro-scale (land use). Moreover, it aligns with the 11th goal of United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) "Build inclusive, safe, risk-resistant and sustainable cities and human settlements" released in 2015 (Allen et al, 2020).…”

Study on multi-scenarios regulating strategy of land use conflict in urban agglomerations under the perspective of “three-zone space”: a case study of Harbin-Changchun urban agglomerations, China

“…Existing studies have shown that ecosystems with simple food chain structures and low biodiversity indices are relatively vulnerable (Peng et al, 2020). From the perspective of landscape ecology and concerning existing results (Zhou et al, 2015a), the landscape vulnerability of the "three-zone spaces" is ranked from strong to weak as urban space, agricultural space, and ecological space (Wang et al, 2023); (Table 3). 3) Spatial stability index (SI): In general, the higher the degree of fragmentation of the spatial pattern of the landscape, the less stable and the stronger the spatial conflict (Jiang S et al, 2021), while the fragmentation of land use type patches is reflected in the clustering and increasing density of point-like space or the diffusion of linear space and the fragmentation of face-like patch space (Wang et al, 2023).…”

“…From the perspective of landscape ecology and concerning existing results (Zhou et al, 2015a), the landscape vulnerability of the "three-zone spaces" is ranked from strong to weak as urban space, agricultural space, and ecological space (Wang et al, 2023); (Table 3). 3) Spatial stability index (SI): In general, the higher the degree of fragmentation of the spatial pattern of the landscape, the less stable and the stronger the spatial conflict (Jiang S et al, 2021), while the fragmentation of land use type patches is reflected in the clustering and increasing density of point-like space or the diffusion of linear space and the fragmentation of face-like patch space (Wang et al, 2023). Therefore, patch density (PD) is usually chosen to measure the land use stability index, with higher patch density leading to higher spatial fragmentation and therefore lower spatial stability (Table 3).…”

“…The so-called three-area space (hereinafter referred to as "three-area space") refers to the urban space, agricultural space, and ecological space that directly to the geographical function division and development strategy requirements of urban development, food security, and ecological environmental protection in the provincial main function zones (Wang et al, 2023;Wang et al, 2019), they serve as important technology approach for undertaking macro-scale (main function zones) and micro-scale (land use). Moreover, it aligns with the 11th goal of United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) "Build inclusive, safe, risk-resistant and sustainable cities and human settlements" released in 2015 (Allen et al, 2020).…”

“…1) Qualitative methods such as public participation and game theory have been effective in exploring the evolution process and driving mechanisms of land use conflicts (Alston et al, 2000;Brown and Raymond, 2014;Adam et al, 2015), but which cannot effectively quantify conflict levels. 2) Quantitative measurement methods include multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) methods (Rahman et al, 2014;Kim and Arnhold, 2018), pressurestate-response (PSR) models (Nyangena, 2000) and land system complexity-Vulnerability-dynamic landscape ecological risk assessment method (Peterseil et al, 2004;Wang et al, 2023). Among them, the landscape ecological risk assessment method of land system complexity-vulnerability-dynamics can be updated and implemented in detail at the grid level, and is more suitable for flexible integration with land use simulation models.…”