Coupled Human and Natural Cube: A novel framework for analyzing the multiple interactions between humans and nature

doi:10.1007/s11442-020-1732-9

Abstract

Abstract:

Understanding the interactions between humans and nature in the Anthropocene is central to the quest for both human wellbeing and global sustainability. However, the time-space compression, long range interactions, and reconstruction of socio-economic structures at the global scale all pose great challenges to the traditional analytical frameworks of human-nature systems. In this paper, we extend the connotation of coupled human and natural systems (CHANS) and their four dimensions—space, time, appearance, and organization, and propose a novel framework: “Coupled Human and Natural Cube” (CHNC) to explain the coupling mechanism between humans and the natural environment. Our proposition is inspired by theories based on the human-earth areal system, telecoupling framework, planetary urbanization, and perspectives from complexity science. We systematically introduce the concept, connotation, evolution rules, and analytical dimensions of the CHNC. Notably there exist various “coupling lines” in the CHNC, connecting different systems and elements at multiple scales and forming a large, nested, interconnected, organic system. The rotation of the CHNC represents spatiotemporal nonlinear fluctuations in CHANS in different regions. As a system continually exchanges energy with the environment, a critical phase transition occurs when fluctuations reach a certain threshold, leading to emergent behavior of the system. The CHNC has four dimensions—pericoupling and telecoupling, syncoupling and lagcoupling, apparent coupling and hidden coupling, and intra-organization coupling and inter-organizational coupling. We mainly focus on the theoretical connotation, research methods, and typical cases of telecoupling, lagcoupling, hidden coupling, and inter-organizational coupling, and put forward a human-nature coupling matrix to integrate multiple dimensions. In summary, the CHNC provides a more comprehensive and systematic research paradigm for understanding the evolution and coupling mechanism of the human-nature system, which expands the analytical dimension of CHANS. The CHNC also provides a theoretical support for formulating regional, sustainable development policies for human wellbeing.

Key words: Coupled Human and Natural Cube, human-environment systems, social-ecological systems, pericoupling and telecoupling, climate change, urbanization, human activity, complexity science, sustainability science

LIU Haimeng, FANG Chuanglin, FANG Kai. Coupled Human and Natural Cube: A novel framework for analyzing the multiple interactions between humans and nature[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(3): 355-377.

Figures/Tables 9

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Table 1

Comparison of different coupling types in the Coupled Human and Natural Cube"

Conceptual framework	Analysis dimensions	Coupling type	Concept	Research methods	Typical cases
“CHNC”	Space	Intracoupling	Interaction between subsystems, as well as the elements within the particular areal system.	Statistics, coupling degree, coupling coordination degree, etc.	Omitted
	Space	Telecoupling	Interaction between humans and nature in different remote areal systems, or in different spatial scales. Two categories: Multi- regional telecoupling (MRTC) and multi- scale telecoupling (MSTC).	Multi-region input-output model, spatial Durbin model, hierarchical spatial autoregressive model, network analysis, material flow analysis, energy flow analysis, etc.	MRTC: Water diversion, industry transfer, tourism, international trade, technology transfer, investment; MSTC: Local responses to climate change, global diffusion of local pollution
	Time	Syncoupling	Interaction effect between humans and nature occurring in a similar time section.	Statistics, coupling degree, coupling coordination degree, time series analysis, etc.	Omitted
	Time	Lagcoupling	Interaction and feedback between humans and nature in different time periods; the causal chain has relative long time intervals.	Time-delay model, dynamic general equilibrium model, multi-level temporal autoregressive modeling, etc.	The time lag effect of environmental investment on local eco-environment; the 1.5 C global warming target in the Paris Agreement has important effect for current policy.
	Appear- ance	Apparent coupling	Direct interaction between subsystems; elements within the CHANS and causal chain are A→B	Correlations analysis, linear regression analysis, coupling degree, coupling coordination degree, etc.	Omitted
	Appear- ance	Hidden coupling	Interaction between elements or systems is not direct, but works indirectly through a mediator or through an implied system or element, and the causal chain is A→C→B or A(C)→B.	Mediating effects model, multi-region input-output model, environmental footprint, life cycle assessment, etc.	A→C→B: Urbanization has indirect effects on carbon emissions by influencing the structure and intensity of energy consumption; A(C)→B: Pollutants, carbon emissions, virtual water hidden in international trade.
	Organization	Intra- organizational coupling	Interaction between humans and nature in a particular organization.	Statistics, game theory, etc.	Omitted
	Organization	Inter- organizational coupling	Complex interest game to tradeoff human development and environment between different organizations and stakeholders.	Game theory, multi-agent modeling, complex adaptive systems theory, multicenter self-organization theory, complex networks, big data analysis, etc.	Stakeholders such as government, farmers, medias and NGOs have different roles and behavioral responses in ecological compensation.

Table 1

Table 2

References 112

[1]	Adachi S A, Kimura F, Kusaka H et al., 2013. Comparison of the impact of global climate changes and urbanization on summertime future climate in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area. Journal of Applied Meteorology & Climatology, 51(8):1441-1454.
[2]	Adger W N, Benjaminsen T A, Brown K et al., 2001. Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses. Development and Change, 32(4):681-715.
[3]	Agyeman J, Bullard R D, Evans B , 2002. Exploring the nexus: Bringing together sustainability, environmental justice and equity. Space & Polity, 6(1):77-90.
[4]	Alberti M , 2008. Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems. New York: Springer.
[5]	Alberti M , 2015. Eco-evolutionary dynamics in an urbanizing planet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(2):114-126. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.11.007 pmid: 25498964
[6]	An L, Zvoleff A, Liu J G et al., 2014. Agent-based modeling in coupled human and natural systems (CHANS): Lessons from a comparative analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(4):723-745.
[7]	Armitage D R, Plummer R, Berkes F et al., 2009. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(2):95-102.
[8]	Bäckstrand K , 2003. Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 3(4):24-41.
[9]	Bai X, Mcphearson T, Cleugh H et al., 2016. Linking urbanization and the environment: Conceptual and empirical advances. Annual Review of Environment & Resources, 42(1):215-240.
[10]	Bak P , 2013. How Nature Works: The Science of Self-organized Criticality. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
[11]	Batty M , 2013. The New Science of Cities. Boston: MIT Press.
[12]	Bodin Ö , 2017. Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352). doi: 10.1126/science.aan1114.
[13]	Boumans R, Roman J, Altman I et al., 2015. The multiscale integrated model of ecosystem services (MIMES): Simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems. Ecosystem Services, 12:30-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.004
[14]	Brenner N , 2000. The urban question: Reflections on Henri Lefebvre, urban theory and the politics of scale. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(2):361-378.
[15]	Brenner N , 2013. Theses on urbanization. Public Culture, 25(1):85-114.
[16]	Brenner N, Schmid C , 2011. Planetary urbanization. In: Gandy M. Urban Constellations. Berlin: Jovis.
[17]	Brenner N, Schmid C , 2014. Implosions/Explosions: Towards a Study of Planetary Urbanization. Berlin: Jovis.
[18]	Buckley M, Strauss K , 2016. With, against and beyond Lefebvre: Planetary urbanization and epistemic plurality. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(4):617-636.
[19]	Carlson A, Zaehringer J, Garrett R et al., 2018. Toward rigorous telecoupling causal attribution: A systematic review and typology. Sustainability, 10(12):4426.
[20]	Carlson A K, Taylor W W, Liu J et al., 2017. The telecoupling framework: An integrative tool for enhancing fisheries management. Fisheries, 42(8):395-397.
[21]	Chapin F S, Power M E, Pickett S T et al., 2011. Earth stewardship: Science for action to sustain the human-earth system. Ecosphere, 2(8):1-20.
[22]	Clark W C, Van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L et al., 2016. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17):4570-4578. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1601266113 pmid: 27091979
[23]	Costanza R, Wainger L, Folke C , et al., 1993. Modeling complex ecological economic systems: Toward an evolutionary, dynamic understanding of people and nature. BioScience, 43(8):545-555.
[24]	Cui X, Fang C, Liu H et al., 2019. Assessing sustainability of urbanization by a coordinated development index for an urbanization-resources-environment complex system: A case study of Jing-Jin-Ji region, China. Ecological Indicators, 96:383-391. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.009
[25]	Daily G C , 1997. Nature’s Services. Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
[26]	Dalin C, Hanasaki N, Qiu H et al., 2014. Water resources transfers through Chinese interprovincial and foreign food trade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(27):9774-9779. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1404749111 pmid: 24958864
[27]	Daly H E , 1995. On Wilfred Beckerman's critique of sustainable development. Environmental Values, 4(1):49-55. doi: 10.3197/096327195776679583
[28]	Deines J M, Liu X, Liu J , 2016. Telecoupling in urban water systems: An examination of Beijing’s imported water supply. Water International, 41(2):251-270. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(199808)41:2&lt;251::aid-jbm10&gt;3.0.co;2-o pmid: 9638530
[29]	Dietz T , 2017. Drivers of human stress on the environment in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Environment & Resources, 42(1):189-213.
[30]	Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern P C , 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652):1907-1912. doi: 10.1126/science.1091015 pmid: 14671286
[31]	Dong G, Harris R , 2015. Spatial autoregressive models for geographically hierarchical data structures. Geographical Analysis, 47(2):173-191.
[32]	Fan J, Wang Y, Ouyang Z et al., 2017. Risk forewarning of regional development sustainability based on a natural resources and environmental carrying index in China. Earth’s Future, 5(2):196-213.
[33]	Fang B, Tan Y, Li C et al., 2016a. Energy sustainability under the framework of telecoupling. Energy, 106:253-259. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.055
[34]	Fang C, Liu H, Li G , 2016b. International progress and evaluation on interactive coupling effects between urbanization and the eco-environment. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 26(8):1081-1116. doi: 10.1007/s11442-016-1317-9
[35]	Fang C, Liu H, Li G et al., 2015. Estimating the impact of urbanization on air quality in China using spatial regression models. Sustainability, 7(11):15570-15592.
[36]	Fang C, Ren Y , 2017. Analysis of emergy-based metabolic efficiency and environmental pressure on the local coupling and telecoupling between urbanization and the eco-environment in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. Science China-Earth Sciences, 60(6):1083-1097.
[37]	Fang C, Yang Y , 2006. Basic laws of the interactive coupling system of urbanization and ecological environment. Arid Land Geography, 29(1):1-8. (in Chinese)
[38]	Fang K, Heijungs R, de Snoo G R , 2014. Theoretical exploration for the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: Overview of a footprint family. Ecological Indicators, 36:508-518.
[39]	Folke C , 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3):253-267.
[40]	Friedman T L , 2005. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. London: Macmillan.
[41]	Fu B, Wang S, Zhang J , et al., 2019. Unravelling the complexity in achieving the 17 sustainable development goals. National Science Review, 6(3):386-388.
[42]	Fu H, Liu X , 2017. Research on the phenomenon of Chinese residents’ spiritual contagion for the reuse of recycled water based on SC-IAT. Water, 9(11):846. doi: 10.3390/w9110846
[43]	Glaser M, Krause G, Ratter B M et al., 2012. Human-nature Interactions in the Anthropocene: Potentials of Social-ecological Systems Analysis. London: Routledge.
[44]	Goudie A S , 2013. The Human Impact on the Natural Environment: Past, Present, And Future. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
[45]	Gunderson L H, Holling C S , 2001. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
[46]	Hau J L, Bakshi B R , 2004. Promise and problems of emergy analysis. Ecological Modelling, 178(1/2):215-225.
[47]	Holling C S , 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4(5):390-405.
[48]	Hummel D, Adamo S, Sherbinin A D et al., 2013. Inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to population-environment research for sustainability aims: A review and appraisal. Population & Environment, 34(4):481-509.
[49]	Jiang B, Ma D , 2018. How complex is a fractal? Head/tail breaks and fractional hierarchy. Journal of Geovisualization & Spatial Analysis, 2(1):1-6.
[50]	Kates R W, Clark W C, Corell R et al., 2001. Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517):641-642. doi: 10.1126/science.1059386 pmid: 11330321
[51]	Kripalani R H, Kulkarni A , 2001. Monsoon rainfall variations and teleconnections over South and East Asia. International Journal of Climatology, 21(5):603-616.
[52]	Leach M, Reyers B, Bai X et al., 2018. Equity and sustainability in the Anthropocene: A social-ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Global Sustainability, 1(e13):1-13.
[53]	Lee S, Ho C H, Yun G L et al., 2013. Influence of transboundary air pollutants from China on the high-PM₁₀ episode in Seoul, Korea for the period October 16-20, 2008. Atmospheric Environment, 77(3):430-439. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.05.006
[54]	Li J , 2016. Exploring the logic and landscape of the knowledge system: Multilevel structures, each multiscaled with complexity at the mesoscale. Engineering, 2(3):276-285. doi: 10.1016/J.ENG.2016.03.001
[55]	Li R, Dong L, Zhang J et al., 2017a. Simple spatial scaling rules behind complex cities. Nature Communications, 8(1):1841. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01882-w pmid: 29184073
[56]	Li X, Cheng G, Lin H et al., 2018. Watershed system model: The essentials to model complex human-nature system at the river basin scale. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(6):3019-3034. doi: 10.1002/jgrd.v123.6
[57]	Li X, Yang Y, Liu Y , 2017b. Research progress in man-land relationship evolution and its resource-environment base in China. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 27(8):899-924. doi: 10.1007/s11442-017-1412-6
[58]	Liu H, Fang C, Mao H et al., 2016a. Mechanism of oasis urbanization: A theoretical framework based on complexity theory. Geographical Research, 35(2):242-255. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9888(200002)35:2&lt;242::AID-JMS935&gt;3.0.CO;2-E pmid: 10679987
[59]	Liu H, Fang C, Miao Y et al., 2018a. Spatio-temporal evolution of population and urbanization in the countries along the Belt and Road 1950-2050. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 28(7):919-936.
[60]	Liu H, Fang C, Sun S , 2017a. Digital inequality in provincial China. Environment and Planning A, 49(10):2179-2182.
[61]	Liu H, Fang C, Zhang X et al., 2017b. The effect of natural and anthropogenic factors on haze pollution in Chinese cities: A spatial econometrics approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165:323-333.
[62]	Liu H, Shi P, Yang X et al., 2014a. Self-organization evolution simulation and empirical study of Human-water System. Journal of Natural Resources, 29(4):709-718. (in Chinese)
[63]	Liu J , 2017. Integration across a metacoupled world. Ecology and Society, 22(4):29. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2019.00025 pmid: 31379521
[64]	Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter S R et al., 2007a. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844):1513-1516. doi: 10.1126/science.1144004 pmid: 17872436
[65]	Liu J, Hull V, Batistella M et al., 2013. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecology and Society, 18(2):26.
[66]	Liu J, Hull V, Godfray H C J et al., 2018b. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 1(9):466.
[67]	Liu J, Hull V, Moran E et al., 2014b. Applications of the telecoupling framework to land-change science. In: Rethinking Global Land Use in an Urban Era. Boston: MIT Press.
[68]	Liu J, Li S, Ouyang Z et al., 2008. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28):9477-9482. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706436105 pmid: 18621700
[69]	Liu J, Mooney H, Hull V et al., 2015. Sustainability: Systems integration for global sustainability. Science, 347(6225):1258832 doi: 10.1126/science.1258832 pmid: 25722418
[70]	Liu J, Yang W , 2013. Integrated assessments of payments for ecosystem services programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(41):16297-16298. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1316036110 pmid: 24072648
[71]	Liu J, Yang W, Li S , 2016b. Framing ecosystem services in the telecoupled Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment, 14(1):27-36.
[72]	Liu J G, Dietz T, Carpenter S R et al., 2007b. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844):1513-1516. doi: 10.1126/science.1144004 pmid: 17872436
[73]	Long H, Liu Y, Hou X et al., 2014. Effects of land use transitions due to rapid urbanization on ecosystem services: Implications for urban planning in the new developing area of China. Habitat International, 44:536-544.
[74]	Malhi Y , 2017. The concept of the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42:77-104.
[75]	Marzluff J M, Shulenberger E, Endlicher W et al., 2008. An International Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans and Nature. New York: Springer.
[76]	McDonald R I, Kareiva P, Formana R T T , 2008. The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 141(6):1695-1703.
[77]	McHale M R, Pickett S T A, Barbosa O et al., 2015. The new global urban realm: Complex, connected, diffuse, and diverse social-ecological systems. Sustainability, 7(5):5211-5240.
[78]	Meng J, Liu J, Xu Y et al., 2016. Globalization and pollution: Tele-connecting local primary PM_2.5 emissions to global consumption. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 472(2195). doi: 10.1098/rspa.2016.0380. doi: 10.1098/rspa.2016.0380 pmid: 27956874
[79]	Mi Z, Wei Y-M, Wang B et al., 2017. Socioeconomic impact assessment of China’s CO₂ emissions peak prior to 2030. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142:2227-2236. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.055
[80]	Morzillo A T, de Beurs K M, Martin-Mikle C J , 2014. A conceptual framework to evaluate human-wildlife interactions within coupled human and natural systems. Ecology and Society, 19(3):44.
[81]	Nagendra H, Bai X, Brondizio E S et al., 2018. The urban south and the predicament of global sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 1(7):341. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)92156-c pmid: 1975859
[82]	Newig J, Fritsch O , 2009. Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3):197-214. doi: 10.1002/eet.v19:3
[83]	Ostrom E , 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939):419-422. doi: 10.1126/science.1172133 pmid: 19628857
[84]	Preacher K J, Kelley K , 2011. Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychol Methods, 16(2):93-115. doi: 10.1037/a0022658
[85]	Qi J G, Chen J Q, Wan S Q et al., 2012. Understanding the coupled natural and human systems in Dryland East Asia. Environmental Research Letters, 7(1):15202-15207.
[86]	Ruf F, Schroth G, Doffangui K , 2015. Climate change, cocoa migrations and deforestation in West Africa: What does the past tell us about the future? Sustainability Science, 10(1):101-111.
[87]	Sherbinin A D, Vanwey L, Mcsweeney K et al., 2008. Rural household demographics, livelihoods and the environment. Global Environmental Change, 18(1):38-53. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.05.005 pmid: 19190718
[88]	Steffen W, Leinfelder R, Zalasiewicz J et al., 2016. Stratigraphic and earth system approaches to defining the Anthropocene. Earth’s Future, 4(8):324-345.
[89]	Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J et al., 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223):736. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855.
[90]	Steffen W, Sanderson R A, Tyson P D et al., 2006. Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet under Pressure. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
[91]	Tobler W , 2004. On the first law of geography: A reply. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(2):304-310.
[92]	Tscherning K, Helming K, Krippner B et al., 2012. Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making? Land Use Policy, 29(1):102-110.
[93]	Turner B L, Kasperson R E, Matson P A et al., 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14):8074-8079. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1231335100 pmid: 12792023
[94]	Wang R, Feng L, Dan H et al., 2011. Understanding eco-complexity: Social-economic-natural complex ecosystem approach. Ecological Complexity, 8(1):15-29. pmid: 11590765
[95]	Wang Z, Ye X, Lee J et al., 2018. A spatial econometric modeling of online social interactions using microblogs. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 70:53-58.
[96]	Warf B , 2008. Time-space Compression: Historical Geographies. London: Routledge.
[97]	Warner K , 2010. Global environmental change and migration: Governance challenges. Global Environmental Change, 20(3):402-413. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0359-0 pmid: 30134979
[98]	Werner B, McNamara D , 2007. Dynamics of coupled human-landscape systems. Geomorphology, 91(3):393-407.
[99]	Wu B, Liu P, Xu X , 2017. An evolutionary analysis of low-carbon strategies based on the government-enterprise game in the complex network context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141:168-179.
[100]	Wu C . 1991. Research core of geography: The human-earth areal systems. Economic Geography, 11(3):1-6. (in Chinese)
[101]	Wu J , 2013. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6):999-1023.
[102]	Wu J, Xiang W N, Zhao J , 2014. Urban ecology in China: Historical developments and future directions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125:222-233.
[103]	Xiang W N , 2016. Ecophronesis: The ecological practical wisdom for and from ecological practice. Landscape and Urban Planning, 155:53-60.
[104]	Xiao Y, Xie G, Zhen L et al., 2017. Identifying the areas benefitting from the prevention of wind erosion by the key ecological function area for the protection of desertification in Hunshandake, China. Sustainability, 9(10):1820.
[105]	Xu J, Chen L, Lu Y et al., 2006. Local people's perceptions as decision support for protected area management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(4):362-372. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.05.003 pmid: 16154684
[106]	Yang D, Cai J, Hull V et al., 2016. New road for telecoupling global prosperity and ecological sustainability. Ecosystem Health & Sustainability, 2(10):e01242.
[107]	York R, Rosa E A, Dietz T , 2003. STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46(3):351-365.
[108]	Zhang D D, Brecke P, Lee H F et al., 2007. Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(49):19214-19219. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0703073104 pmid: 18048343
[109]	Zhao S, Peng C, Jiang H et al., 2006. Land use change in Asia and the ecological consequences. Ecological Research, 21(6):890-896.
[110]	Zhao X, Liu J, Liu Q et al., 2015. Physical and virtual water transfers for regional water stress alleviation in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112(4):1031-1035. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1404130112 pmid: 25583516
[111]	Zheng S, Yi H, Li H , 2015. The impacts of provincial energy and environmental policies on air pollution control in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49:386-394.
[112]	Zimmerer K S, Bassett T J , 2003. Political Ecology: An Integrative Approach to Geography and Environment-development Studies. New York: Guilford Press.

Analysis dimension	Space	Time	Appearance	Organization
Space	Intracoupling or telecoupling	Intracoupling or telecoupling + syncoupling or lagcoupling	Intracoupling or telecoupling + apparent or hidden coupling	Intracoupling or telecoupling + intra-organizational or inter- organizational coupling
Time	Syncoupling or lagcoupling + intracoupling or telecoupling	Syncoupling or lagcoupling	Syncoupling or lagcoupling + apparent or hidden coupling	Syncoupling or lagcoupling + intra-organizational or inter-organizational coupling
Appearance	Apparent or hidden coupling + intracoupling or telecoupling	Apparent or hidden coupling + syncoupling or lagcoupling	Apparent or hidden coupling	Apparent or hidden coupling + intra-organizational or inter-organizational coupling
Organization	Intra-organizational or inter-organizational coupling + intracoupling or telecoupling	Intra-organizational or inter-organizational coupling + syncoupling or lagcoupling	Intra-organizational or inter- organizational coupling + apparent or hidden coupling	Intra-organizational or inter-organizational coupling