MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404610333 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112816

Trade-offs and synergies for urban Production-Living-Ecological spatial Patterns-Comparison study between Fuzhou, China, and Saskatoon, Canada

2024· article· en· W4404610333 on OpenAlexaffabout
X. L. Wang, Xiaomei Li, Jinming Sha, Hao Zhang, Eshetu Shifaw, Xulin Guo, Shuhui Lai, Jinliang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersDepartment of Education, Fujian ProvinceMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsEcologyChinaGeographyProduction (economics)Spatial ecologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid industrialization and urbanization have significantly changed urban spatial patterns, resulting in the urban ecosystem degradation and urban spatial conflicts. The challenge requires the urban spatial planning more sophisticated for developing eco-city models in the perspective of urban land multifunctionality. The Production-Living-Ecological(PLE) spatial pattern is proposed for effective eco-city planning in Chinese urban cases. Given the differing climatic and cultural contexts, are the PLE spatial patterns comparable between cities from different continents? This study aims to compare the characteristics of PLE spatial patterns and the trade-offs & synergies of PLE spaces between Fuzhou city, China and Saskatoon, Canada for developing the eco-city models. First, the paper identified the PLE spaces by integrating multi-source data, then analyzed the PLE spatial agglomeration characteristics by using the average nearest neighbor and kernel density analysis, finally detected the trade-offs and synergies between functional spaces by Spearman correlation and bivariate spatial autocorrelation. The results showed the distinctly different PLE spatial patterns and the trade-offs & synergies of PLE spaces between the two eco-cities in Fuzhou, China and Saskatoon, Canada in 2022. (1) For the PLE space composition, the percentages of ecological space in Fuzhou and Saskatoon were 64.6% and 36.4%, respectively, while the proportions of the most suitable residential space in two cities from POI data were 2.4% and 4.1%, respectively. (2) For PLE spatial agglomeration, ecological space in Fuzhou was characterized with a random distribution with the average nearest neighbor index of 1.19, and scattered as small patches in urban hilly area covered with ever-green broadleaf trees, while in Saskatoon the index was less than 1.00 with a clustered distribution in numerous city parks covered with grass and shrubs; Fuzhou’s multifunctional spaces were clustered in the central urban area surrounded by ring roads and in Changle District, while Saskatoon’s were dispersed with large patches. (3) For the trade-offs & synergies of PLE space, the ecological spaces in two cities were suppressed. In Fuzhou, the trade-off area ratio of the ecological space to other fuctional spaces was ranged 50% to 58%, while in Saskatoon, it was 40% to 47%. (4) The PLE spatial pattern can clearly sketch the different eco-city frameworks in different continents. Fuzhou’s eco-city model was characterized by “high ecological space/compacted living space/strong trade-off between ES and other spaces” and Saskatoon’s was featured with “low ecological space/spacious residential space with high livability/ weak trade-off between ES and other spaces”. Therefore, Fuzhou faced more challenges of intense spatial competition in the context of dense population. Our findings reveals the practical requirements for optimizing urban space and functions in terms of economic, ecological, and livability considerations. Additionally, they would provide valuable insights for long-term urban spatial planning and development strategies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological IndicatorsSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207