Multidimensional analysis of Inner-Mongolia ecology

Multidimensional analysis of Inner-Mongolia ecology: Comparison

Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Conner Chen and Version 1 by Jiquan Zhang.

There is increasing focus on the difficult challenge of realizing coordinated development of production, living and ecological spaces within the regional development process. An ecological–production–living space (EPLSs)evaluation index system was established in this study based on the concept of EPLSs and the relationship between land use function, land use type and the national standard of land use classification, to reveal the driving forces and patterns of variation in EPLSs in Inner Mongolia.

ecological space, production space, living space
,land use
,driving force

Dear author, the following contents are excerpts from your papers. They are editable.

There has been a gradual increase in tension between people and land as spatial structure has become increasingly unbalanced, production space has become inefficient and living spaces and the ecological environment have gradually deteriorated. Land is the basis of human civilization, and at a macro scale, there are three general categories of residential space ^[1]. Since having undergone reform and joining the global community, China has achieved widely recognized industrialization and urbanization achievements. However, this progress has also resulted in a series of sustainable development challenges. There have been increasing conflicts and contradictions between production, living and ecological spaces. The 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed the concept of construction of three categories of living spaces, namely ecological, production and living spaces (EPLSs), defined as ecological space that is left unspoiled, space reserved for intensive and efficient production, and living space that is sufficient in size and conducive to human well-being, respectively.

There has been a gradual increase in tension between people and land as spatial structure has become increasingly unbalanced, production space has become inefficient and living spaces and the ecological environment have gradually deteriorated. Land is the basis of human civilization, and at a macro scale, there are three general categories of residential space [1]. Since having undergone reform and joining the global community, China has achieved widely recognized industrialization and urbanization achievements. However, this progress has also resulted in a series of sustainable development challenges. There have been increasing conflicts and contradictions between production, living and ecological spaces. The 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed the concept of construction of three categories of living spaces, namely ecological, production and living spaces (EPLSs), defined as ecological space that is left unspoiled, space reserved for intensive and efficient production, and living space that is sufficient in size and conducive to human well-being, respectively.

The concept of these three categories of living spaces has become increasingly prevalent in related academic research and practice since being proposed (

Figure 1). Although this concept is rarely used internationally, there have been related studies on regional or urban functional space, including the Linear City Theory proposed by Arturo Soria, a Spanish engineer and urban planner [2,3], the Garden City Theory proposed by Ebenezer Howard in the United Kingdom [4] and the Organic Decentralization Theory proposed by Eliel Saarinen, a Finnish–American architect [5]. Global urban development began to face new challenges after the mid-20th century, during which the construction of large cities expanded significantly and urban problems have become more prominent. Consequently, there has been increasing research on urban growth borders, regulation of green belts and other related fields. At the same time, there has been an increasing focus on ecological and environmental problems encountered during the process of urban development and the realization that protection of the ecological environmental plays an important role in urban construction and development. In summary, while studies on urban functional spaces and multifunctional land use outside of China have rarely used the three living spaces categorization to define regional or urban functional spaces, these studies have many similarities with studies in China that have utilized the three living spaces categorization. Studies on living spaces in China started relatively late compared to international studies, and within the context of a planned economy, there was an excessive emphasis in China on production space, whereas other spatial functions in the region were largely ignored. Subsequent to China rejoining the global community, reform of the economic system resulted in increasing attention on ecological functions. Thus, relevant studies based on the recognition of three categories of living spaces have become popular within geography. Chinese scholars have since conducted a lot of research related to ecological, production and living spaces (EPLSs), and have achieved considerable research insights.

). Although this concept is rarely used internationally, there have been related studies on regional or urban functional space, including the Linear City Theory proposed by Arturo Soria, a Spanish engineer and urban planner ^[2][3], the Garden City Theory proposed by Ebenezer Howard in the United Kingdom ^[4] and the Organic Decentralization Theory proposed by Eliel Saarinen, a Finnish–American architect ^[5]. Global urban development began to face new challenges after the mid-20th century, during which the construction of large cities expanded significantly and urban problems have become more prominent. Consequently, there has been increasing research on urban growth borders, regulation of green belts and other related fields. At the same time, there has been an increasing focus on ecological and environmental problems encountered during the process of urban development and the realization that protection of the ecological environmental plays an important role in urban construction and development. In summary, while studies on urban functional spaces and multifunctional land use outside of China have rarely used the three living spaces categorization to define regional or urban functional spaces, these studies have many similarities with studies in China that have utilized the three living spaces categorization. Studies on living spaces in China started relatively late compared to international studies, and within the context of a planned economy, there was an excessive emphasis in China on production space, whereas other spatial functions in the region were largely ignored. Subsequent to China rejoining the global community, reform of the economic system resulted in increasing attention on ecological functions. Thus, relevant studies based on the recognition of three categories of living spaces have become popular within geography. Chinese scholars have since conducted a lot of research related to ecological, production and living spaces (EPLSs), and have achieved considerable research insights.

Figure 1. Conceptual diagram representing the relationships between ecological, production and living spaces (EPLSs).

Conceptual diagram representing the relationships between ecological, production and living spaces (EPLSs).

Research on EPLS has mainly focused on two aspects. The first is research on the connotation and definition of EPLS. Although the increasing focus on land use/land cover change (LUCC) research has resulted in varying interpretations of EPLS among different scholars, they have all proposed theoretical frameworks based on the spatial structure and the function of land use. While there has been a large amount of empirical research, there remains no unified definition and classification standard for EPLS [6]. The second aspect of EPLS research relates to the evolution and drivers of EPLS. While there have been many studies on the spatial patterns of EPLS, the majority of these studied the evolution and drivers of EPLS vertically, with insufficient attention focused on the core elements during the EPLS development process. There is clearly a need for research to characterize the evolution and drivers of EPLSs [7].

Research on EPLS has mainly focused on two aspects. The first is research on the connotation and definition of EPLS. Although the increasing focus on land use/land cover change (LUCC) research has resulted in varying interpretations of EPLS among different scholars, they have all proposed theoretical frameworks based on the spatial structure and the function of land use. While there has been a large amount of empirical research, there remains no unified definition and classification standard for EPLS ^[6]. The second aspect of EPLS research relates to the evolution and drivers of EPLS. While there have been many studies on the spatial patterns of EPLS, the majority of these studied the evolution and drivers of EPLS vertically, with insufficient attention focused on the core elements during the EPLS development process. There is clearly a need for research to characterize the evolution and drivers of EPLSs ^[7].

Ecological, production and living spaces are not isolated and are clearly closely related and influence each other. Production space is a fundamental driving force which provides economic support for living and ecological spaces. Efficient use of production space optimizes industrial structure, promotes social and economic development and ultimately facilitates quality of life and the maintenance of ecological space for humans as well as for other organisms [8,9,10]. The ultimate goal of coordinated and optimized development of EPLSs is to maintain the well-being of residents, and the realization of this goal is mainly reflected in living space. Ecological space is the foundation of EPLS, and the support of living space and production space for the realization of their own functions is the key to coordinating the relationship between human development and land, and even to realizing regional sustainable development [11]. The ecological space provides ecosystem goods and services, for example, natural water purification, and ensures stable development of the region. At the same time, the quality of the ecological space is directly affected by living and production spaces [12].

Ecological, production and living spaces are not isolated and are clearly closely related and influence each other. Production space is a fundamental driving force which provides economic support for living and ecological spaces. Efficient use of production space optimizes industrial structure, promotes social and economic development and ultimately facilitates quality of life and the maintenance of ecological space for humans as well as for other organisms ^[8][9][10]. The ultimate goal of coordinated and optimized development of EPLSs is to maintain the well-being of residents, and the realization of this goal is mainly reflected in living space. Ecological space is the foundation of EPLS, and the support of living space and production space for the realization of their own functions is the key to coordinating the relationship between human development and land, and even to realizing regional sustainable development ^[11]. The ecological space provides ecosystem goods and services, for example, natural water purification, and ensures stable development of the region. At the same time, the quality of the ecological space is directly affected by living and production spaces ^[12].

EPLS is a paradigm under which people can protect and utilize nature to realize their own development and reflects the ability of humans to transform nature and their own development level. The division of space within EPLS is intuitive and easy to identify. The identification and description of the internal drivers of spatial development is of great significance. An imbalance within EPLS is an important driver of environmental pollution, frequent disasters, over exploitation of energy resources and degradation of ecosystem functions. The bottom-up implementation of a spatial development strategy is needed to maintain the coordinated development of EPLS, with measures adjusted for local conditions and based on science and the coordination of the contradiction between protection and development.

EPLS in China currently faces many challenges. The ecological space has undergone continual erosion, resulting in an imbalance between ecological and urban spaces. The extensive use and poor management of production space has resulted in serious environmental pollution. There is currently an imbalance in the supply structure of living space, and development remains insufficient and unbalanced. The current study focused on the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region that is characterized by a fragile and sensitive ecological environment. A classification system was established for EPLS in Inner Mongolia based on land use data for 1990 to 2015. Spatiotemporal variations in EPLS were analyzed and driving forces of the evolution of EPLS were identified. It is hoped that the results of the present study can provide a reference for rational utilization of land and coordinated development of EPLSs to facilitate sustainable development within Inner Mongolia.

References

Shi, Z.Q.; Deng, W.; Zhang, S.Y. Spatial pattern and spatio-temporal change of territory space in Hengduan Mountains region in recent 25 years. Geogr. Res. 2018, 37, 607–621.
Huang, J.C.; Lin, H.X.; Qi, X.X. A literature review on optimization of spatial development pattern based on ecological-production-living space. Prog. Geogr. 2017, 36, 378–391.
Collins, G.R. Linear planning throughout the world. J. Soc. Archit. Historians 1959, 18, 74–93.
Howard, G. Civitas by Design Building Better Bommunities, from the Garden City to the New Urbanism; The Penguin Press: London, UK, 2010.
Zhu, N.; Ren, Y.Y. Western architectural context and rational thinking. Archit. Cult. 2016, 10, 112–113.
Li, G.D.; Fang, C.L. Quantitative function identification and analysis of urban ecological-production-living spaces. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2016, 71, 49–65.
Zhang, H.Q.; Xu, E.Q.; Zhu, H.Y. An ecological-living-industrial land classification system and its spatial distribution in China. Resour. Sci. 2015, 37, 1332–1338.
Smeraldo, S.; Bosso, L.; Fraissinet, M.; Bordignon, L.; Brunelli, M.; Ancillotto, L.; Russo, D. Modelling risks posed by wind turbines and power lines to soaring birds: The black stork (Ciconia nigra) in Italy as a case study. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 1959–1976.
Alkishe, A.; Cobos, M.E.; Peterson, A.T.; Samy, A. Recognizing sources of uncertainty in disease vector ecological niche models: An example with the tick Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 18, 91–102, doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2020.03.002.
Johnson, E.; Escobar, L.E.; Zambrana-Torrelio, C. An Ecological Framework for Modeling the Geography of Disease Transmission. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019, 34, 655–668, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.03.004.
Kates, R.W.; Clark, W.C.; Corell, R. Sustainability science. Science 2001, 292, 641–642.
Zhu, Y.Y.; Yu, B.; Zeng, J.X.; Han, Y. Spatial optimization from three spaces of production, living and ecology in national restricted zones–a case study of Wufeng county in Hubei province. Econ. Geogr. 2015, 35, 26–32.