EN中文

Journal of Geographical Sciences >

2024 , Vol. 34 >Issue 6: 1109 - 1127

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-024-2241-z

Research Articles

Differential evolution of territorial space and effects on ecological environment quality in China’s border regions

  • GU Guanhai , 1 ,
  • WU Bin , 1, * ,
  • LU Shengquan 1 ,
  • ZHANG Wenzhu 1 ,
  • TIAN Yichao 2 ,
  • LU Rucheng 1 ,
  • FENG Xiaoling 1 ,
  • LIAO Wenhui 1
Expand
  • 1. School of Natural Resources and Surveying, Nanning Normal University, Nanning 530100, China
  • 2. School of Resources and Environment, Beibu Gulf University, Qinzhou 535011, China
*Wu Bin, PhD and Associate Professor, specialized in land use and regional development. E-mail:

Gu Guanhai, Master, specialized in land use and regional development. E-mail:

Received date: 2023-06-09

  Accepted date: 2023-12-27

  Online published: 2024-09-11

Supported by

National Natural Science Foundation of China(42261043)

National Natural Science Foundation of China(42361047)

The Central Government Guides Local Funds For Science and Technology Development(ZY23055016)

Nanning Normal University High-Level Talent Team Project on Territorial Space Use and Geopolitical Security

Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Doctoral and Master’s Graduate Education Innovation Plan Funding Project(YCSW2023433)

Fold

Abstract

The use of territories in border areas is sensitive, unique, and ecologically fragile. A scientific understanding of the transformation of the national territorial space and its ecological and environmental responses is crucial for optimizing spatial patterns and promoting sustainable utilization. This study focused on 45 cities in the land border areas of China and employed techniques such as the land transfer matrix, Theil index, and ecological environment index to explore the spatiotemporal evolution process and eco-environmental effects of territorial space from three dimensions: spatial pattern, structural transformation, and ecological response. The results show that: (1) During the study period, there was an increasing trend in living and production space, along with a decrease in ecological space, and a significant pattern of "one belt, three districts, and multipoints" emerged. (2) In the urbanization process, population growth and industrial agglomeration have led to the transformation and conflict of territorial spaces, with the conversion of ecological spaces into production spaces being the primary form of land-use transformation. Rapid development has resulted in spatial differentiation of the territorial space between regions. (3) During this period, the ecological quality in China’s border areas deteriorated, yet the distribution pattern of ecological space remained stable, exhibiting a “high value in the southeast, low value in the northwest” pattern. (4) Improvements and degradation of the ecology coexist in different border areas; transforming agricultural production space into green and potential ecological spaces has positively contributed to enhancing ecological quality. In contrast, converting green ecological space into potential ecological space, agricultural production space, and aquatic ecological space has become a key factor in ecological degradation. Therefore, the border areas of China should utilize national preferential policies and strategies, recognize the vast and varied expanse of China’s border areas, and adopt differentiated planning and management measures in different regions to achieve the coordinated development of the PLES, thus promoting a positive trend in eco-environmental quality.

Key words： production-living-ecological space; evolution of the pattern; multidimensional characteristics; ecological environment quality; China’s land border belt

Cite this article

GU Guanhai , WU Bin , LU Shengquan , ZHANG Wenzhu , TIAN Yichao , LU Rucheng , FENG Xiaoling , LIAO Wenhui . Differential evolution of territorial space and effects on ecological environment quality in China’s border regions[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2024 , 34(6) : 1109 -1127 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-024-2241-z

1 Introduction

China’s borders are vast and diverse, ranging from the arid Gobi Desert in the northwest to the frigid desert of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and karst mountains in the southwest. Each border zone has a distinct ecosystem and environmental conditions. These regions serve as windows for national economic development and critical zones for ecological security, and they exhibit a fragile and diverse ecological environment that is highly sensitive to human activities in various ways. With the initiation of the reform and opening up policy in 1978, China’s border areas have increasingly become focal points for reform and pivotal channels for both domestic and international economic circulation (Lin et al., 2022). Under the impetus of rapid economic growth and urbanization, there has been a profound transformation and restructuring of the Production-Living-Ecological Space (PLES) pattern in these border areas (Song et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2022). These changes inevitably lead to a range of ecological and environmental issues (Lin et al., 2022; 2023), the complexity and variability of which pose unprecedented challenges to managing territorial space and protecting the ecological environment in border regions. Therefore, this study uncovers the characteristics of territorial spatial transformation and its ecological effects in China’s terrestrial border areas since the reform and opening up and delves into the interactive mechanisms between PLES transformation and ecological environmental quality. This is of great reference value for balancing regional economic development with ecological and environmental protection and for enacting targeted land use and ecological conservation policies.
The concept of territorial spatial structure was initially introduced to address the spatial arrangement of agriculture across the Taiwan Province in China, with the objective of maintaining the balance between agricultural production and ecological landscape preservation. Over time, the concept of territorial space was proposed, which considers China’s national circumstances and includes the production, living, and ecological spaces that form the territorial structure, encompassing the entire land system, human activities, and natural ecosystems (Burke and Holford, 1966; Zhu et al., 2021; Jiang et al., 2022). The evolutionary characteristics of territorial space are the subject of further research on land use change. These studies have addressed changes in structural characteristics in the dimensions of production, living, and ecological spaces (Yang et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2022). Commonly used research methods include land-use dynamic attitude, the land transfer matrix, and hotspot analysis to reveal the contradictions of the national territorial space and optimize the foundation of the territory’s spatial pattern (Yang et al., 2020; 2022). Factors influencing the evolution of territorial space differ, owing to different regional resource endowments and levels of economic development. Studies exploring the driving mechanisms of territorial spatial changes often consider multidimensional factors, such as policies, regulations, humanities, and economic and natural environments. RS and GIS technologies have been used to combine mathematical models, such as multiple linear regression models, geographical detectors, and spatial regression models (Feng et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Peng et al., 2022). Studies evaluating territorial spatial functions have adopted qualitative or quantitative methods to examine the functions of territorial spatial patterns. The hierarchical analysis, Delphi, and entropy power methods were comprehensively scored in the regional territorial space. Statistical models, including the Gini coefficient and Theil index, have been used to examine the heterogeneity of territorial spatial pattern functions across various regions (Verburg et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2020). Research on optimizing territorial spaces has focused on the optimal allocation of territorial resources. The primary research approach was to construct a comprehensive evaluation index system to measure the efficiency of land use based on the territory space theory. This study also analyzed conflicts within the land-use structure by integrating land-use and DEM data, as demonstrated in previous studies (Ma et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2021). Coordination and optimization measures have been proposed based on structural and spatial patterns (Jiang et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015; Song et al., 2020). Research on the utilization of territorial space and ecological protection has been grounded in the concept of sustainable development. Land ecological resources provide the material foundation for constructing and developing the human economy and society and serve as a vital prerequisite for achieving sustainable development goals. This research holds immense significance for the high-quality and green development of the region (Song et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020; Tao et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022).
The spatial pattern of national land has been predominantly studied in national, provincial, city, watershed, and urban clusters by reviewing the existing literature. Research on terrestrial border areas distant from political and cultural centers is currently scarce, with a particular lack of investigation into the contribution of terrestrial space transformation to the ecological environment. However, against the backdrop of China’s opening-up transformation and the complex geopolitical environment of its periphery, the border regions serve as key support areas for implementing China’s opening-up strategy and sensitive areas for the ecological environment under rapid development. Beyond its economic, social, and ecological functions, the territorial spatial structure also exhibits features of territorial security essential for maintaining border stability. Therefore, it is imperative to comprehensively depict the evolution of the territorial spatial structure of China’s inland border areas and examine its ecological environmental effects. This study holds significant theoretical and practical importance for realizing comprehensive openness in border regions and constructing harmonious surrounding environments.
Taking China’s land border region as an example, this study explored the “spatial pattern - structural transformation - regional differences - ecological environmental effects” of territorial space based on three dimensions: spatial pattern, structural transformation, and ecological response. This study employed tools such as the land transfer matrix, Theil index, and ecological environment index for this purpose. These findings deepen our understanding of the transformation of territorial space in China’s border regions since the economic reform and opening-up, supplement research on changes in PLES and their ecological environmental effects in border areas, optimize the territorial spatial pattern of China’s land border region, and provide theoretical guidance for the high-quality development of these areas.

2 Research methods and data sources

2.1 Research area and data source

Building on existing literature on China’s border areas (Song and Zhu, 2020; Gu et al., 2022) and considering the variations in the natural geographical environment and socioeconomic status within the research zone, we divided China’s land border areas into 5 distinct regions (Figure 1): the Northeast Border Region (comprising three provinces in the northeast), the Northern Border Areas (including Inner Mongolia and Gansu), the Northwest Border Areas (encompassing Xinjiang), the Xizang Border Area, and the Southwest Border Area (covering Yunnan and Guangxi). This study used multiple data sources, including spatial, statistical, and topographic data, to assess the PLES and potential influencing factors (Table 1).
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the study area (China’s border areas)

Note: Numbers 1 to 45 represent the following respectively: 1. Dandong City, 2. Tonghua City, 3. Baishan City, 4. Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, 5. Mudanjiang City, 6. Jixi City, 7. Jiamusi City, 8. Shuangyashan City, 9. Hegang City, 10. Yichun City, 11. Heihe City, 12. Daxing’anling Prefecture, 13. Hulunbuir City, 14. Xing’an League, 15. Xilinkuole League, 16. Ulanqab City, 17. Baotou City, 18. Bayannur City, 19. Alxa League, 20. Jiuquan City, 21. Hami City, 22. Changji Hui Autonomous Prefecture, 23. Altay Prefecture, 24. Tacheng Prefecture, 25. Bortala Mongol Autonomous Prefecture, 26. Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture, 27. Aksu Prefecture, 28. Kizilsu Kirghiz Autonomous Prefecture, 29. Kashgar Prefecture, 30. Hotan Prefecture, 31. Ngari Prefecture, 32. Shigatse City, 33. Shannan City, 34. Nyingchi City, 35. Nujiang Lisu Autonomous Prefecture, 36. Baoshan City, 37. Dehong Dai and Jingpo Autonomous Prefecture, 38. Lincang City, 39. Pu’er City, 40. Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture, 41. Honghe Hani and Yi Autonomous Prefecture, 42. Wenshan Zhuang and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, 43. Baise City, 44. Chongzuo City, 45. Fangchenggang City. The map is derived from the standard map with approval number GS(2019)1822 obtained from the Ministry of Natural Resources website, with an unaltered base map.

Table 1 Data sources and description in this study
Data name Data description Data source
Land use/cover data Raster data Data Center for Resources and Environmental
Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (RESDC) (http://www.resdc.cn/)
NDVI Raster data
GPP Raster data
Socioeconomic data Statistical data of prefecture-level cities in border areas National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (http://www.stats.gov.cn/)
DEM data Raster data Geospatial Data Cloud (http://www.gscloud.cn/)
Administrative boundary Vector Geographical lnformation Monitoring Cloud Platform (http://www.dsac.cn/)

2.2 Division of the territorial spatial structure

Based on the principles of functional dominance and operability, and using the abovementioned land-use data, the current data obtained were divided by territorial spatial structure and land-use type along China’s land border to build a classification system (Table 2), in which the third-level category corresponds to the existing land-use classification (Liu et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2022).
Table 2 Classification system of the territorial space in China’s border areas
First classification Secondary classification Land use type
Production space
(PS)		 Agricultural production space(APS) Paddy field, dry land
Industrial and mining production space (IPS) Industrial and mining land and its subsidiary
transportation land
Living space
(LS)		 Urban living space (ULS) Urban land
Rural living space (RLS) Rural residents land
Ecological space
(ES)		 Greenland ecological space (GES) Forestland, shrubs, sparse forestland, other forestland, high-coverage grassland, medium-coverage grassland, low-coverage grassland
Waters ecological space (WES) Channel, lakes, pit ponds, beaches, beaches,
beaches
Potential ecological space (PES) Naked land, nude rock texture, sand land,
saline-alkali land, other unused land

2.3 Classification system of the territorial space in China’s border areas

2.3.1 Territory use dynamic index

The dynamics of territory space are the changes in various territorial spaces during a certain period and reflect the increase or decrease in a particular land-use type (Mustafa et al., 2021).
$D=\frac{{{A}_{i}}-{{A}_{ii}}}{{{A}_{ii}}}\times \frac{1}{T}\times 100%$
where D is the dynamic attitude index of the spatial structure of the territory, Ai and Aii refer to the transferred and non-transferred areas after the change in the territory space, and T is the time interval.

2.3.2 Territory structure transfer matrix model

The transfer matrix model (Wang et al., 2021) was used to achieve the structural transformation of the PLES using the following mathematical formula:
${{S}_{ij}}=\left| \begin{matrix} {{S}_{11}} & {{S}_{12}} & \cdots & {{S}_{1n}} \\ {{S}_{21}} & {{S}_{22}} & \cdots & {{S}_{2n}} \\ \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ {{S}_{n1}} & {{S}_{n2}} & \cdots & {{S}_{nn}} \\ \end{matrix} \right|$
where Sij represents the total area of category i territorial space in the early stage of the study, which is transferred to category j territorial space in the late stage; n refers to the number of land-space utilization types.

2.3.3 Theil index

The Theil index is a commonly used metric for characterizing individual, structural, and regional differences. In this study, the Theil index was employed to examine the spatiotemporal differences in the evolution of territorial space in China’s border areas (Yin et al., 2018). Its formulation is as follows:
$T=\frac{1}{n}\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{\frac{{{Y}_{i}}}{\overline{Y}}}\log \left( \frac{{{Y}_{i}}}{Y} \right)$
${{T}_{b}}=\sum\nolimits_{K=1}^{K}{{{Y}_{k}}}\log \left( \frac{{{Y}_{k}}}{{nk}/{n}\;} \right)$
${{T}_{k}}=\sum\nolimits_{K=1}^{K}{{{Y}_{k}}}\left( \sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{\frac{{{Y}_{i}}}{{{Y}_{k}}}}\log \left( \frac{{{{Y}_{i}}}/{{{Y}_{k}}}\;}{{1}/{nk}\;} \right) \right)$
where T represents the Theil index, Yi represents the territorial space area, and $\overline{Y}$represents the average territorial space areas of different regions. Tb and Tk represent the intragroup and intergroup gaps, respectively, and Yk represents the territorial space area of k.

2.4 Eco-environmental index

The ecological environment index represents the spatial quality of ecosystems at the core of natural ecological systems and is influenced by human societal activities. It serves to uphold regional ecological security, provide ecological goods and services, and gauge the level of ecological services providing species habitats. In this study, we quantified the ecological environment index using three key indices: ecological quality, normalized difference vegetation index, and total ecosystem primary productivity (Table 3) (Zhang et al., 2020). To depict the extent to which different land-use practices disrupt the quality and arrangement of ecological services, we introduced the ecological contribution rate of land-use transitions. This rate quantifies the alteration in regional ecological quality resulting from changes in specific land-use types (Zhang et al., 2020).
$EEI=\alpha F(EQI)+\beta F(NDVI)+\lambda F(GPP)$
$LEI=(L{{E}_{t+1}}-L{{E}_{t}})\times {{S}_{i}}/S$
Table 3 Inicator system for measuring the ecological environment index
Indicators Indicator Interpretation Data processing
Ecological Quality Index (EQI) The quantitative relationship between land use/land cover and ecological environment quality is constructed to characterize the overall ecological environment quality in the region $EQ{{I}_{t}}=\left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{LU{{A}_{i,t}}\times E{{V}_{i,t}}} \right)/\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{LU{{A}_{i,t}}}$ (8)
where EVt represents the corresponding ecological environmental quality assignment at time t for category i land use type; LUAt represents the area at time t for category i land use type.
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) Indicators reflecting the degree of surface vegetation cover and the state of vegetation growth calculated by remote sensing data. $NDVI=\left( NIR-R \right)/\left( NIR+R \right)$ (9)
where NIR denotes the reflectance in the near-infrared band, and R denotes the reflectance in the red light band.
Total primary productivity of the ecosystem (GPP) It is used to study the differences in productivity of different regions and ecosystems and to assess the functioning and stability of ecosystems. $GPP=PAR\times FPAR\times \varepsilon $ (10)
where PAR is photosynthetically active radiation, FPAR is the ratio of photosynthetically active radiation absorbed by vegetation, and ε is the realistic light energy utilization rate based on the GPP concept.
where EEI represents the eco-environmental index, and α, β, and λ represent the weights of the three indices, which are as important as they are in this study, so they are taken as 1/3. LEI is the eco-contribution rate; LEt+1 and LEt are the eco-environmental indices at the end and beginning of the change reflected by the type of territorial spatial change, respectively.${{S}_{i}}$is the change type, LEI is the ecological contribution rate, and LEt+1 and Et are the ecological environment indices at the end and beginning of the change reflected by the type of land space change, respectively; Si is the area of the change type of land space, and S is the total area of the study area.

3 Results

3.1 Spatiotemporal variation of PLES along China’s border

China’s border areas exhibited an increase in production and living space, while ecological space decreased from 1980 to 2020. Greenfield ecological space and potential ecological space areas accounted for more than 51.32% and 32.93%, respectively, totaling approximately 90% (Table 4). The distribution of territorial space in China’s border areas shows a “one belt, three districts, and multipoints” pattern (Figure 2). The “one belt” is an ecological barrier composed of mountains and rivers. The “three districts” are multiple concentrated areas of production space, namely, contiguous areas of Dandong-Heihe-Baotou City, Hami-Tacheng-Kashi City, and Nujiang Lisu Autonomous Prefecture-Baoshan-Chongzuo City. “Multipoints” refer to areas with concentrated living spaces, mainly scattered along the northeastern, central part of the northern, northwestern, and southwestern borders. From 1980 to 2020, the overall pattern of ecological space in China’s border areas was stable, and the pattern of “one belt, three districts, and multipoints” became significant. Considering the three different spaces yields the following observations: (1) While the ecological space has been slightly reduced since 1980, it is still the base of the land structure in the border areas. Many lakes, rivers, and mountains have become ecological barriers that provide a buffer area for national security and protect ecologically sensitive areas, such as the four major border lakes and 15 major international rivers. (2) Living spaces are mainly distributed on hills, plains, or mountains. The living spaces in urban areas and towns often cover the city; however, the distribution of rural living spaces is relatively sporadic, with a group distribution pattern. The living space as a whole presented a tendency to expand during the study period, but there is spatial heterogeneity in the approach, embodied in the clustering of rural communities in the form of belts focused around urban living spaces and the economic expansion of the relatively developed city living space. (3) Studies have found that the territorial spatial function of the production space is mainly agriculture. The concentrated joints were distributed around the living space. Typical areas were concentrated at the edge of the border between the northeast, southwest, and northwest.
Table 4 The proportion of territorial space area in China’s border areas from 1980 to 2020 (%)
PLES 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
PS IPS 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.15
APS 6.47 6.91 7.5 8.18 8.49
LS ULS 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.14
RLS 0.33 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.4
ES GES 57.6 57.26 56.58 51.32 52.34
PES 33.06 32.93 32.96 37.57 36.09
WPS 2.46 2.46 2.5 2.39 2.41
Figure 2 Territorial spatial pattern of China’s border areas from 1980 to 2020

3.2 The difference in territorial space along China’s border

According to the Theil index of the PLES in the border areas from 1980 to 2020 (Table 5), the production and living space values in the Theil index increased before 2000 and then decreased significantly. The Theil index value of the ecological space showed a steadily rising trend in the first four periods but slightly decreased in the last period. This indicates that production and living space in the border areas first increased and then decreased. From the perspective of the Theil index in various regions, in terms of production space, the five-phase Theil index value of the southwest border area was small, and the changing trend slowed annually. In terms of living space, the differences between the northeastern and Xizang borders are small. From the perspective of changes, the overall changes in the five border areas decreased after increasing in the first two phases. In terms of ecological space, in addition to the essentially unchanged border in the southwest, the rest of the regions showed a steady increase, indicating that the differences in ecological space between regions increased. This is consistent with the conclusion of the transformation from ecological to living and production spaces in the land structure, as indicated above. Because the imbalance of regional development entails the occupation of ecological land to different degrees, there is spatial differentiation in the heterogeneity of the ecological spatial pattern. Overall, the differences between the border areas were consistent with the changes in China’s border areas. This is because the border areas have been further developed since the reform and opening up, but the endowment of resources and production factors in various regions has caused regional development differences. Therefore, production and living spaces continue to expand at this stage, and the differences between the regions are increasing.
Table 5 China’s Land Border Area Territory spatial pattern from the Patrol Theil Index for 1980-2020
Terr Index Territorial space 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Group
Thiel Index		 PS 0.3567 0.3675 0.3774 0.3371 0.3324
LS 0.3690 0.3654 0.3351 0.2670 0.2344
ES 0.1984 0.2030 0.2080 0.2101 0.2091
Tama
Thiel Index		 PS 0.1121 0.1243 0.1413 0.1221 0.1130
LS 0.3581 0.3548 0.3376 0.2851 0.2659
ES 0.3313 0.3378 0.3443 0.3437 0.3497
Northeast Border Thiel Index PS 0.3149 0.3429 0.3640 0.3806 0.3498
LS 0.1284 0.1100 0.1040 0.0774 0.0775
ES 0.2108 0.2276 0.2429 0.2436 0.2483
Northern Border Theil index PS 0.3718 0.3923 0.4199 0.3359 0.3271
LS 0.3834 0.3844 0.3809 0.3425 0.2960
ES 0.3372 0.3379 0.3412 0.3438 0.3409
Northwest Border Thiel Index PS 0.2871 0.2857 0.2869 0.2578 0.2531
LS 0.4161 0.4180 0.3434 0.2979 0.2788
ES 0.1706 0.1707 0.1714 0.1773 0.1788
Xizang Border Thiel Index PS 0.9965 0.9966 0.9962 0.7109 0.6263
LS 0.2492 0.2491 0.2726 0.2050 0.1460
ES 0.1256 0.1256 0.1256 0.1274 0.1274
Southwest Border Thiel Index PS 0.2217 0.2217 0.2182 0.2268 0.2824
LS 0.6108 0.6143 0.5635 0.4136 0.3527
ES 0.1356 0.1359 0.1363 0.1364 0.1278

3.3 Structural transformation of PLES along China’s border

From 1980 to 2020, as China’s border areas experienced shifts and transformations in territorial space, the number of other types of spatial structures increased except for the decrease in green land and water ecological space. The growth rates of industrial and mining production spaces and urban living spaces were as high as 616.5% and 151.05%, respectively, while the lowest growth rate for potential ecological spaces was 9.13%. However, the rate of decrease for green land ecological space was -9.15%, and its area was reduced by as much as 179,186.95 km², making it the largest type of land transferred out.
To further analyze the distribution of various types of land conversion, a structural conversion diagram of the PLES of China’s land border was drawn for the four periods during 1980-2020 (Figure 3). Since China’s reform and opening-up, the main transformation types of territorial space in China’s border areas have been the mutual transformation of production and ecological spaces, which were mainly distributed in the northeast and southwest regions in the early stages and then gradually spread to all border regions. Second, the living and production spaces are intertwined and distributed in the southwest, northwest, and northeast border areas. The land structure conversion with the smallest area was the conversion between ecological and living spaces, which was concentrated in the northwestern and northern border areas and scattered in other areas. There are differences in the transformation of the land structure during different periods: (1) From 1980 to 1990, the main type of transformation was the change from ecological space to production space, mainly in the northeast and southwest border areas. (2) The type of land structure conversion between 1990 and 2000 was consistent with that of the previous period. (3) The period from 2000 to 2010 experienced the greatest structural transformation in the PLES. The main conversion types were ecological and production spaces. (4) The main conversion types and spatial distribution in 2010-2020 were not significantly different from those in the previous phase; however, there was a significant decline in the area of production and living space in the ecological space.
Figure 3 Territorial spatial structure conversion along China’s border areas from 1980 to 2020

Note: PS, LS, ESL, APS, IPS, ULS, RLS, GES, WES and PES refer to the territorial classification rules in Table 2.

3.4 Eco-environmental response of territory use transition

From 1980 to 2020, the ecological environment quality index in China’s border regions decreased continuously from 0.59 to 0.57. Despite an overall deterioration in quality, the overall distribution pattern remained stable, delineating an overarching spatial pattern characterized by “higher values in the southern and eastern sectors and lower values in the northern and western regions” (Figure 4). From 1980 to 2020, the ecological quality index rankings for the different regions were as follows: northeastern border > southwestern border > Xizang border > northern border > northwestern border. Influenced by diverse topographical features, China’s border areas have been subject to industrial and urban development restrictions. Collectively, these regions exhibited relatively high ecological quality. This can be attributed to the abundance of lakes, rivers, and mountain ranges, which serve as critical ecological barriers. Noteworthy features encompass four major border lakes, including Tianchi Lake on Changbai Mountains, Xingkai Lake, Baikal Lake, and Bangong Lake, as well as 15 major international rivers, including the Yalu River, Tumen River, Aksu River, Lancang River-Mekong River, Yuanjiang River-Honghe River, Left River, and Beilun River. Moreover, prominent mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, Kunlun Mountains, Tianshan Mountains, Hengduan Mountains, Da Hinggan Range, Changbai Mountains, and Ten Thousand Mountains add to the ecological significance of China’s terrestrial border regions. These areas encompass a substantial ecological domain, are characterized by relatively stable ecological functions, and have substantial potential for delivering ecological goods and services.
Figure 4 Spatio-temporal changes of the eco-environmental quality index in China’s border areas

Note: a-e represent the spatial distribution changes of the eco-environmental quality index from 1980 to 2020, while f depicts the boxplot changes of the eco-environmental quality index.

Variations in the quality index and their respective contributions concerning major land-use categories in China’s border regions from 1980 to 2020 have been shown in Table 6. These parameters play pivotal roles in enhancing and degrading the ecological environment. The conversion of agricultural production spaces into green and potential ecological spaces has emerged as the predominant driving factor for ecological improvement. Notably, ecological transformation in the territorial space contributed 9.7615% to the overall ecological enhancement. Conversely, the transformation of green ecological spaces into potential ecological spaces, agricultural production spaces, and aquatic ecological spaces emerged as a crucial factor responsible for the deterioration of ecological quality, collectively accounting for a substantial 89.83% of the total contribution. In summary, from 1980 to 2020, the contribution rate of land space transformation to ecological quality in China’s border regions exhibited a negative trend, signifying the simultaneous presence of ecological improvement and deterioration. However, it is essential to emphasize that the trend of ecological improvement has remained considerably weaker than that of ecological deterioration, leading to an overall decline in China’s ecological quality index. Looking forward, it is imperative for China to place environmental concerns at the forefront of socioeconomic development in its terrestrial border areas and strike a harmonious balance between economic growth and ecological preservation.
Table 6 Main territorial spatial transformations affecting the quality of the eco-environment and contribution rates
Lead to the improvement of the ecological environment Lead to the deterioration of the ecological environment
Structural
transformation		 Index movement Proportion (%) Structural transformation Index
movement		 Proportion (%)
RPS-GES 0.005921624 5.5524 GES-PES -0.042690174 72.7881
PES-GES 0.000754629 2.3360 GPS-APS -0.042690174 10.8501
APS-PES 0.005921624 1.4004 GES-WES -0.042690174 6.1888
PES-WPS 0.000754629 0.2097 GES-RLS -0.042690174 0.2560
RPS-RLS 0.005921624 0.1516 WES-GES -0.000275107 0.0622
APS-WPS 0.005921624 0.0851 WPS-PES -0.000275107 0.0464
PES-APS 0.000754629 0.0168 GES-IPS -0.042690174 0.0231
APS-ULS 0.005921624 0.0063 GES-ULS -0.042690174 0.0156
APS-IPS 0.005921624 0.0033 WES-APS -0.000275107 0.0052
Summation 9.7615 Summation 90.2355

4 Discussion and conclusions

4.1 Discussion

4.1.1 The interactive mechanism between PLES transformation and the ecological
environment

The impact of the PLES transformation on the ecological environment is a multilevel, interactive process (Figure 5). It is not only limited by the attributes of PLES but is also simultaneously influenced by a multitude of factors, including natural conditions, policy frameworks, and environmental protection standards (Zhang et al., 2020). The interactions and mechanisms between the factor system, PLES, and the ecological environment have been widely discussed in geography, ecology, and urban planning. The ecological environmental conditions of China’s border areas are generally poor and exhibit significant regional differences. Over the past 40 years, there has been a substantive transformation in PLES utilization patterns and the ecological and environmental qualities of China’s border regions. The sustainability of ecosystems in China’s border areas requires a balance between spatial use, ecological environmental protection, and economic development. Against the backdrop of rapid development in border areas, the transformation of PLES by altering the structure and function of ecosystems has directly resulted in a decline in ecological environmental quality. Depending on the different border regions and their evolutionary nature, the impact of the PLES transformation on the ecological environment can be either positive or negative. For example, in the Ali region of Xizang, where ecosystems are naturally fragile, the expansion of living and production spaces caused by population growth and economic activities has significantly deteriorated the ecological environmental quality. Meanwhile, the Chinese government has implemented various ecological restoration policies tailored to local conditions in different border zones. In the border areas of Xinjiang, ecological environmental quality has been improved through sand prevention and control as well as afforestation projects. In Chongzuo City, Guangxi, thanks to the return of farmland to forest and grassland and the treatment of karst desertification, the quality of the ecological environment has also significantly improved.
Figure 5 The mechanism of action between PLES and the ecological environment
There is considerable natural background variation in China’s border areas, which necessitates differentiated planning and management to promote the harmonious coexistence of PLES and drive the positive dynamics of ecological environmental quality. The interaction between the element system of China’s border regions, PLES, and the ecological environment is characterized by the following relationships: (1) Natural environmental factors within the element system provide the basic conditions and boundaries for the PLES, whereas human disturbance factors restructure and change the PLES through various economic and social activities. (2) The static characteristics of PLES determine the structure and function of regional ecosystems, whereas dynamic transformation leads to habitat fragmentation and degradation of soil and water environments, which are the main driving forces affecting ecological environmental quality (Li et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2021). (3) The oversupply or shortage of production and living spaces can lead to overexploitation or underutilization of land resources, reducing ecological service functions and exacerbating ecological footprints. The supply and demand imbalance in the land market reflects the overconsumption of natural capital, which further diminishes ecosystem integrity and resilience. (4) By controlling the use of land space, optimizing the layout of the PLES, and preventing overdevelopment in ecologically fragile areas, it is possible to improve ecological environmental quality and sustainable development (Hu et al., 2023). (5) The feedback of ecological environmental quality on human activities is reflected in the capacity to supply ecological services; environmental degradation leading to reduced services, in turn, requires a change in human use patterns of PLES and resource management strategies (Deng et al., 2021). Under the comprehensive effects of multiple systems, ecological environmental quality tends to develop negatively (Fu et al., 2022), but humans also enhance the service functions of ecosystems through ecological restoration activities, such as afforestation and wetland restoration (Zhang et al., 2024).

4.1.2 The ecological environment’s response to public policy

The rapid development of China’s border regions began with the reform and opening up in the late 1980s and accelerated in the 21st century with the advancement of the Belt and Road Initiative. Benefiting from key national development policies and a series of infrastructure investments, economic activities, such as the construction of roads, railways, ports, and cross-border economic cooperation zones, have greatly expanded the production and living spaces in these regions (Guo et al., 2023), leading to varying degrees of shrinkage in ecological spaces across different border zones. Additionally, policies implemented by the Chinese government, such as the Western Development Strategy and the Prosperous Border Initiative, have propelled the rapid socioeconomic development of China’s border areas and triggered habitat fragmentation and ecological niche compression. By controlling the scale of construction land, the Chinese government delineates urban development boundaries, designates ecological protection redlines, sets boundaries for basic farmland, and strictly regulates the scope of production, living, and ecological spaces to protect and restore green mountains and clear waters. Although these spatial land-use control strategies have achieved certain effects in some areas, they have not effectively alleviated the contradictions and conflicts between production, living, and ecological spaces.
Land management and ecological protection policies should adopt diverse and location-specific strategies to achieve the dual goals of economic development and ecological protection in the border areas. Differentiated land-use policies should be formulated according to the ecological functions and development potential of different regions, with stricter land-use control and ecological protection redline policies implemented in ecologically sensitive and fragile border areas. Simultaneously, economic incentive policies such as ecological compensation and environmental taxation should be implemented to encourage the development of green industries and eco-friendly land use. Moreover, incorporating ecological encroachment into national land law enforcement, enhancing the formulation and supervision of environmental regulations, and ensuring the strict legal protection of the ecological environment is crucial. In terms of land management, the scope of living and production construction should be precisely delineated to ensure that ecological space is not encroached upon by disorderly expansion. Second, integrating border customs and natural landscapes to vigorously develop eco-agrarian-cultural-tourism industries can promote green industry development and reduce pressure on ecological spaces. Third, implementing ecological product value accounting and using it in local government performance evaluations can help promote the inclusion of the total value of ecological products as an important reference for the natural resource asset departure audits of leading cadres. Regions are guided to balance economic development and ecological protection by refining their green performance evaluation systems through performance assessments. Through such a comprehensive set of measures, it is possible to effectively protect and improve the ecological environment of the border regions while promoting economic and social development.

4.1.3 Regional development recommendations

China’s border areas are vast, with significant differences in natural foundations and ecological conditions among different regions. It is necessary to adopt differentiated planning and management approaches to achieve the coordinated development of production, living, and ecological spaces, thus promoting a positive trend in ecological environmental quality. Under the long-term coupling of economic activities and the natural environment, different border regions face various land-use issues and ecological and environmental challenges. The northeastern border area, encompassing the borders of the Liaoning, Jilin, and Heilongjiang provinces, has experienced prominent ecological issues, such as the reduction of forest resources and lower forest coverage due to the dual development of industry and agriculture. In the northern border areas, overgrazing and agricultural reclamation have caused degradation of the grassland ecosystem, leading to sparse grassland vegetation, desertification, and land desertification. The ecological plight of the northwestern border areas mainly stems from its arid climate and uneven water resource distribution, leading to serious surface ecological degradation challenges. Human activity-induced living space expansion continuously exacerbates this region’s ecological environmental burden. Ecological and environmental issues in the Xizang border areas are mainly caused by the unique natural conditions of the Tibetan Plateau, with ecosystem vulnerability, soil erosion, and grassland degradation being the main ecological problems. The southwestern border area, located at the intersection of China’s three-step terrain with significant topographical changes, has suffered serious rocky desertification and soil erosion owing to long-term over-cultivation and irrational land use (Wei et al., 2021).
The following suggestions are proposed in response to the characteristics and ecological environmental problems of each border area in China. The northeastern border area should promote sustainable agricultural practices, advance the transformation and upgrading of the agricultural industry structure, improve land use efficiency, and ensure harmonious coexistence between regional economic and social development and environmental protection. The northern border areas should deepen grassland ecological protection projects, implement strict nature reserve management and rotational grazing systems, enhance the efficacy of desertification prevention and control, and create a new sustainable development model centered on energy and ecological tourism to lead the regional economy toward quality and efficiency transformation. For the northwestern border area, the construction of oasis ecological shelterbelt systems should be strengthened, and scientific planning should actively develop clean energy industries such as solar and wind power to build a green development system adapted to regional characteristics. Considering the unique plateau ecological environment of Xizang, it is suggested to increase the assessment and monitoring of ecosystem service functions, perfect and deepen the ecological protection redline system, develop suitable high-altitude crop planting and animal husbandry models, and promote a positive interaction between economic and social development and ecological environmental protection. The southwestern border area should actively promote the implementation of ecological migration and conversion of sloping farmland to forest projects, strictly prohibit the setting of mining rights in ecologically sensitive areas and key water source areas, accelerate land remediation and vegetation restoration of bare land blocks, and improve the habitat quality of vegetation and aquatic ecosystems. By implementing these targeted management strategies, it is possible to stimulate the economic and social vitality of the border areas while improving and strengthening the protection of the ecological environment and providing support for the sustainable development of each border region (Sun et al., 2017).

4.2 Conclusions

This study is based on a classification system for the production-living-ecological space of China’s border region. Considering the aspects of temporal and spatial evolution, structural transformation, and differences in territorial space patterns, a systematic study was conducted on the characteristics of territorial space evolution, transformation, and their impact on the quality of the ecological environment from 1980 to 2020. The conclusions are as follows.
(1) The territorial space in China’s border areas is distributed in a “one belt, three districts, and multipoints” pattern. Human activities and social development accelerate changes in the shape of territorial space, promote changes in the landscape pattern and ecological effects of the land’s spatial structure, and improve the fusion of sectors with different functions. In terms of the number of territorial spaces, the production and living spaces in China’s border areas increased from 1980 to 2020, and the ecological space gradually decreased. The territorial space changed from a pattern of production space development dominated by economic development to the harmonious development of production, living, and ecological spaces, supporting the need for food, construction, and ecology. These cases are similar to those of the Yellow River Basin, middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, Hubei province, Fujian province, Guangxi Beibu Gulf Urban Group, Hengduan Mountains, and Guangxi border region. These changes are necessary for high-quality development and ecological progress in the new era. They also offer a scientific proposition that must be addressed urgently to build a beautiful China (Kuang et al., 2019; Zhuang et al., 2021).
(2) During the study period, the differences in ecological space in the border areas showed no significant changes, and regional differences in production and living spaces declined. From the perspective of the Theil index in different border areas, although the territorial space in various regions shows spatial differentiation, the differences in the layout of production and living spaces as a whole show a trend of fluctuation and reduction, whereas the differences in territorial space in other regions are growing. This is because the Chinese economy has entered a rapid development stage in the 21st century. With the implementation of the strategy of cross-border economic cooperation zones and the “Plan to revitalize border areas and enrich people,” the country’s support for border areas has increased. The coordinated development process has gradually decreased, but the “siphon effect” between regions will still widen the gap.
(3) The development of the border area has transitioned from economic construction to leading the development of production, living, and ecology, and land conflicts have been reduced. During the research period, other land types showed a growth trend except for a decrease in green land and water space. From the perspective of the transfer of land types, the conversion type was mainly based on the mutual conversion of production and ecological spaces, followed by the mutual conversion of living and production spaces concentrated in the northeast, southwest, and northwestern regions. However, the rate and scale of the decrease in ecological space gradually decreased during the later period. At a certain level, the concept of ecological protection, in which “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets,” has become deeply rooted in people’s hearts. The number of land types also decreased on a large scale, indicating increased population and agglomeration of border areas. The territorial space in the border area is developing toward a harmonious symbiosis.
(4) The ecological and environmental qualities of China’s border regions decreased from 0.59 in 1980 to 0.57 in 2020, indicating a slight deterioration in environmental quality. However, the distribution pattern of the ecological space remained stable, exhibiting a spatial configuration characterized by higher values in the southeast and lower values in the northwest. Due to the ecological barrier functions of border lakes, international rivers, and significant mountain ranges, a considerable portion of the border zones maintain a relatively high level of ecological quality. During the study period, the contribution of land space transformation in China’s border areas to ecological quality exhibited a negative trend. However, these results suggest that ecological improvement and degradation occur simultaneously across different regions. The transformation of agricultural production spaces into green and potential ecological spaces has a positive effect on ecological quality. Conversely, converting green ecological spaces into potential ecological, agricultural production, and aquatic ecological spaces has emerged as a key factor contributing to ecological degradation. Achieving a balance between economic development and ecological protection is an important strategy for China’s border regions.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Deng Y, Yang R, 2021. Influence mechanism of production-living-ecological space changes in the urbanization process of Guangdong province, China. Land, 10(12): 1357.

[2]
Feng R, Wang F, Wang K, 2021. Spatial-temporal patterns and influencing factors of ecological land degradation-restoration in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Science of The Total Environment, 794: 148671.

[3]
Fu J, Bu Z, Jiang D et al., 2022. Sustainable land use diagnosis based on the perspective of production-living-ecological spaces in China. Land Use Policy, 122: 106386.

[4]
Gu G, Wu B, Zhang W G et al., 2022. Spatial and temporal variation and driving mechanism of construction land development intensity in China’s border area. China Land Science, 36(7): 94-105. (in Chinese)

[5]
Guo Y, Song T, Sun M, 2023. The territorial function evolution and time segmentation of Chinese border in the context of security, development and opening up nexus. Geographical Research, 42(10): 2574-2591. (in Chinese)

[6]
Hu C, Song M, Zhang A, 2023. Dynamics of the eco-environmental quality in response to land use changes in rapidly urbanizing areas: A case study of Wuhan, China from 2000 to 2018. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 33(2): 245-266.

[7]
Hu Q, Zhang Z, Niu L et al., 2022. Identification and evolution of territorial space from the perspective of composite functions. Habitat International, 128: 102662.

[8]
Jiang G, Wang X, Yun W et al., 2015. A new system will lead to an optimal path of land consolidation spatial management in China. Land Use Policy, 42: 27-37.

[9]
Jiang S, Meng J, Zhu L et al., 2021. Spatial-temporal pattern of land use conflict in China and its multilevel driving mechanisms. Science of the Total Environment, 801: 149697.

[10]
Jiang Z, Wu H, Lin A et al., 2022. Optimizing the spatial pattern of land use in a prominent grain-producing area: A sustainable development perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 843: 156971.

[11]
Kuang W, 2019. Issues regarding spatial pattern change of national land space and its overall implementation on beautiful vision in new era. Resources Science, 41(1): 23-32. (in Chinese)

[12]
Li H, Fang C, Xia Y et al., 2022. Multi-scenario simulation of production-living-ecological space in the Poyang Lake area based on remote sensing and RF-Markov-FLUS model. Remote Sensing, 14(12): 2830.

[13]
Li J, Gong Y, Li G, 2019. Spatial patterns of village and town built areas in the Pearl River Delta: A land-use perspective. Progress in Geography, 38(6): 829-839. (in Chinese)

[14]
Lin S, Lu R, Ye Z et al., 2022. Spatial evolution and coupling coordination of territorial space functions in China-Vietnam border area. China Land Science, 36(9): 90-101. (in Chinese)

[15]
Lin S, Zhu P, Lu R et al., 2023. The influence of trade-economy-population system on regional differences of territorial space pattern evolution in border areas: Take the China-Vietnam border zone as a case. Journal of Natural Resources, 38(6): 1550-1569. (in Chinese)

[16]
Liu J L, Liu Y S, Li Y R, 2017. Classification evaluation and spatial-temporal analysis of “production-living-ecological” spaces in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(7): 1290-1304. (in Chinese)

[17]
Ma W, Jiang G, Chen Y et al., 2020. How feasible is regional integration for reconciling land use conflicts across the urban-rural interface? Evidence from Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei metropolitan region in China. Land Use Policy, 92: 104433.

[18]
Mustafa E K, Liu G, Abd El-Hamid H T et al., 2021. Simulation of land use dynamics and impact on land surface temperature using satellite data. GeoJournal, 86(3): 1089-1107.

[19]
Peng W, Fan Z, Duan J et al., 2022. Assessment of interactions between influencing factors on city shrinkage based on geographical detector: A case study in Kitakyushu, Japan. Cities, 131: 103958.

[20]
Shi Z, Deng W, Zhang S, 2018. Spatial pattern and spatio-temporal change of territory space in Hengduan Mountains region in recent 25 years. Geographical Research, 37(3): 607-621. (in Chinese)

[21]
Song T, Cheng Y, Liu W et al., 2017. Spatial difference and mechanisms of influence of geo-economy in the border areas of China. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 27: 1463-1480.

[22]
Song Y, Xue D, Dai L et al., 2020. Land cover change and eco-environmental quality response of different geomorphic units on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Journal of Arid Land, 12(1): 29-43.

[23]
Song Z, Zhu Q, 2020. Spatio-temporal pattern and driving forces of urbanization in China’s border areas. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 30(5): 775-793.

[24]
Sun J, Zhou Y, He R, 2017. Economic development in China’s border areas: The current situation, problems and measures. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, (2): 28-38. (in Chinese)

[25]
Tao J, Lu Y, Ge D et al., 2022. The spatial pattern of agricultural ecosystem services from the production-living-ecology perspective: A case study of the Huaihai Economic Zone, China. Land Use Policy, 122: 106355.

[26]
Verburg P H, Van De Steeg J, Veldkamp A et al., 2009. From land cover change to land function dynamics: A major challenge to improve land characterization. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(3): 1327-1335.

[27]
Wang J, Wang S, Zhou C, 2021. Quantifying embodied cultivated land-use change and its socioeconomic driving forces in China. Applied Geography, 137: 102601.

[28]
Wang Y, Li J, Ren X, 2022. Optimization of landscape ecological security patterns and planning in low hilly areas: A case study of Beigong town, Fengtai district, Beijing city, China. Current Urban Studies, 10(3): 426-439.

[29]
Wei S, Lu R, Lin X, 2021. Study on the evolution and mechanism of territorial space pattern of land border area in Guangxi. China Land Science, 35(12): 98-108. (in Chinese)

[30]
Wu B, Gu G, Zhang W et al., 2022. Multi-scale influencing factors and prediction analysis: Dongxing port-city relationship. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(15): 9068.

[31]
Yang X, Chen X, Qiao F et al., 2022. Layout optimization and multi-scenarios for land use: An empirical study of production-living-ecological space in the Lanzhou-Xining city cluster, China. Ecological Indicators, 145: 109577.

[32]
Yang Y, Bao W, Liu Y et al., 2020. Coupling coordination analysis of rural production-living-ecological space in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Ecological Indicators, 117: 106512.

[33]
Yin C, He Q, Liu Y et al., 2018. Inequality of public health and its role in spatial accessibility to medical facilities in China. Applied Geography, 92: 50-62.

[34]
Zhang X, Song W, Lang Y et al., 2020. Land use changes in the coastal zone of China’s Hebei province and the corresponding impacts on habitat quality. Land Use Policy, 99: 104957.

[35]
Zhang Y, Zhao X, Gong J et al., 2024. Effectiveness and driving mechanism of ecological restoration efforts in China from 2009 to 2019. Science of The Total Environment, 910: 168676.

[36]
Zhao J, Zhao Y, Yang X, 2022. Evolution characteristics and driving mechanism of the territorial space pattern in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. Land, 11(9): 1447.

[37]
Zhou D, Xu J, Lin Z, 2017. Conflict or coordination? Assessing land use multi-functionalization using production-living-ecology analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 577: 136-147.

[38]
Zhou Y, Li X, Liu Y, 2020. Land use change and driving factors in rural China during the period 1995-2015. Land Use Policy, 99: 105048.

[39]
Zhu C, Dong B, Li S et al., 2021. Identifying the trade-offs and synergies among land use functions and their influencing factors from a geospatial perspective: A case study in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314: 128026.

[40]
Zhuang R, Song H, Zhang X, 2021. The strategic thinking of China’s border opening up: Historical logic and the advancing direction. Intertrade, 7: 45-52. (in Chinese)

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉