Optimizing sustainability of land resource utilization: a comprehensive analysis of practices in the Tarim Basin, China

Figures & data

Table 1. Definition of the indicators.

Indicators	Symbol	Description	References
Matching coefficient between water and land resources	X1	Reflect quantitative matching ratio of water resources to the cultivated land resources (total water resources/cultivated land area)	Guo et al. (2016)
Per capita water resources	X2	Reflect the extent of available water resources in the area (total water resources/total population)	Fu et al. (2009)
Per capita water supply	X3	Reflect the extent of accessibility to water resources in the region (total water supply/total population)	Fu et al. (2009)
Water stress level	X4	Reflect the proportion of water consumption to available water resources (total water supply/total water resources)	Fu et al. (2009)
Agricultural output per unit area	X5	Reflect the economic effects of agricultural production (agricultural output/cultivated land area)	Zhang et al. (2018)
Water consumption for agricultural irrigation per 100 ha	X6	Reflect the degree of dependence of crops on water (irrigation water consumption/irrigation area)	Jiang (2011)
Proportion of domestic water	X7	Reflect the consumption degree of domestic water in water resources (domestic water consumption/total water consumption)	Jiang et al. (2011)
Per capita cultivated area	X8	Reflect the support of the total amount of cultivated land to the regional population (total cultivated area/total population)	Jiang et al. (2011)
Urbanization	X9	Reflect the level of local social development (urban population/total population)	Jiang (2011)
Economic Density	X10	Reflect the level of economic benefits per unit area of land (GDP/total area)	Jiang (2011)
Percentage of primary production	X11	Reflect the proportion of agricultural product in the total domestic product, the larger the proportion, the smaller the degree of industrialization (output of primary industry/total GDP)	Jiang (2011)
Water consumption of 10 k Yuan GDP	X12	Reflect the extent to which water resources are utilized in economic activities (total water consumption/10,000 YUAN GDP)	Jiang (2011)
Population density	X13	Reflect the strength of land to support the population in the area (total population/total area)	Jiang (2011)
Per capita GDP	X14	Reflect the support of the regional economy to the population (GDP/total population)	Jiang (2011)
Proportion of forest cover	X15	Reflect the actual level of regional forest resources (forests/total land area)	Jiang (2011)
Utilization rate of land resources	X16	Reflect the utilization degree of land resources (used land/total land)	Jiang (2011)

Table 2. Final weights of the indicators in each subsystem.

Subsystem	Indicators	Entropy	AHP	FW
Resource subsystem	Matching coefficient of water and land resources*	0.054	0.035	0.0445
	Per capita water resources*	0.070	0.055	0.0625
	Per capita water supply	0.050	0.035	0.0425
	Water stress levels	0.046	0.065	0.0555
	Agricultural output per unit area*	0.071	0.025	0.0480
	Water consumption for agricultural irrigation per 100 ha	0.072	0.082	0.0770
	Proportion of domestic water	0.054	0.079	0.0665
	Per capita cultivated area*	0.084	0.035	0.0595
Socioeconomic subsystem	Urbanization*	0.041	0.130	0.0855
	Economic density*	0.076	0.021	0.0485
	Percentage of primary production	0.056	0.093	0.0745
	Water consumption per 10k Yuan GDP	0.043	0.036	0.0395
	Population density	0.081	0.022	0.0515
	Per capita GDP*	0.068	0.141	0.1045
Eco-environmental Subsystem	Proportion of forest cover*	0.074	0.036	0.0550
	Utilization rate of land resources*	0.060	0.110	0.0850

Note: Here, * represents positive indicators, while others are negative ones.

Figure 1. Location and overview of the study area, the Tarim Basin in Xinjiang, China.

Table 3. Sustainable utilization degree (SUD).

Division	SUD degrees
0.8–1.0	Excellent
0.6–0.8	Good
0.4–0.6	General
0.2–0.4	Poor
0.0–0.2	Very poor

Figure 2. Flowchart of the system dynamic (SD) model.

Figure 3. Land use changes from 2006 to 2018: (a) croplands, (b) forests, (c) irrigated area and (d) rangelands.

Figure 4. (a) Supply and demand of water resources in each sub-region in 2018 and (b) total water consumption and total water resources in the basin from 2006 to 2018.

Table 4. Per capita water consumption (PCWC) and water consumption per 10,000 yuan GDP (WCPG) in each sub-region.

Year	Bazhou		Aksu		Kezhou		Kashgar		Hotan
	PCWC (m^3)	WCPG (m^3)	PCWC (m^3)	WCPG (m^3)	PCWC (m^3)	WCPG (m^3)	PCWC (m^3)	WCPG (m^3)	PCWC (m^3)	WCPG (m^3)
2006	3579	1038	4294	5119	1587	3900	2841	6519	2177	7308
2007	3323	867	4596	4374	1626	3428	3003	5160	2147	6350
2008	3252	696	4666	3851	1651	3071	3098	4695	2294	5880
2009	3239	796	4501	3238	1569	2562	2792	3804	2337	5161
2010	3316	688	4270	2530	1628	2271	2929	3244	2301	4483
2011	3030	517	4257	2010	1515	1749	2682	2619	2076	3394
2012	4249	643	4975	1948	2144	1969	3046	2444	2241	3231
2013	4110	567	4825	1712	1903	1409	2952	2022	2146	2716
2014	4020	502	4412	1489	2146	1434	2601	1696	2025	2304
2015	3882	520	4234	1322	2089	1242	2659	1536	1851	2001
2016	4405	598	4326	1368	1886	1130	2616	1552	1903	1969
2017	3974	505	4232	1177	1814	948	2466	1370	1765	1673
2018	3574	410	4090	1019	1759	852	2214	1192	1691	1401

Table 5. Water consumption in primary, secondary and tertiary industries in each sub-region.

Sub-region	Primary industry (10^9m^3)		Secondary Industry (10^9m^3)		Third industry (10^9m^3)
	2006	2018	2006	2018	2006	2018
Bazhou	36	41.06	0.7	1.26	0.11	0.15
Aksu	97.44	102.2	1.08	1.81	0.1	0.03
Kezhou	7.43	11.19	0.06	0.19	0.02	0.02
Kashgar	103.9	102.7	0.74	0.62	0.15	0.21
Hotan	36.85	40.55	0.29	0.14	0.09	0.03

Table 6. Domestic and eco-environmental water consumption in each sub-region.

Sub-region	Domestic water consumption (10^9m^3)		Eco-environmental Water consumption (10^9m^3)
	2006	2018	2006	2018
Bazhou	0.34	0.80	5.42	1.13
Aksu	0.53	0.67	0.05	0.07
Kezhou	0.12	0.33	0.06	0.26
Kashgar	0.88	1.98	1.18	0.60
Hotan	0.27	0.64	2.95	1.45

Table 7. Reliability of simulation.

Indicators	Year	Simulated value	Actual value	Difference (error) (%)
Population (100 k persons)	2015	1155	1155	0
	2016	1170	1129	3
	2017	1186	1157	2
	2018	1201	1175	2
GDP (100 million Yuan)	2015	2963	2963	0
	2016	3169	2782	12
	2017	3351	3127	6
	2018	3591	3434	4.3
Forests (km^2)	2015	39,743	39,949	−0.5
	2016	39,974	40,009	−0.08
	2017	40,366	40,075	0.7
	2018	41,428	40,638	1.9
Croplands (km^2)	2015	57,544	57,516	0.04
	2016	57,839	57,952	−0.19
	2017	57,932	57,972	−0.06
	2018	58,183	58,948	−1.3
Average				2.13

Table 8. Thresholds of decision variables within Scenario 1 for different prefectures.

Decision variables	Bazhou	Aksu	Kezhou	Hotan	Kashgar
Rural domestic water quota (L/person-day)	90	41.7	116	60.4	81.3
Urban domestic water quota (L/person-day)	200	128	242	95.5	220
Primary industry growth rate (%)	6	2.9	2.84	3.6	7.3
Secondary industry growth rate (%)	1.4	11.4	11	14.6	6.3
Tertiary industry growth rate (%)	9	10	5	11.3	7.8
Crop plantation area growth rate (%)	0.13	1.87	0.3	−1	−0.3
Urbanization rate (%)	1.08	0.5	0.25	0.9	0.16
Population growth rate (%)	1	1	1.56	2.6	1.2
Water consumption for secondary production of 10 k Yuan (m^3)	23.74	46	25	38	28
Water consumption for tertiary production of 10 k Yuan (m^3)	4.8	0.78	1.64	3.12	5.41

Figure 5. Results of the sustainable utilization degree (SUD) under three different scenarios. Note: Scenario 1—traditional development (TD), Scenario 2—economic priority (EP) and Scenario 3—harmonious development (HD).

Guo, Y. (2016). Research on the optimal allocation of water and land resources for ecosystem services: A case study of Zhengzhou City (PhD dissertation). Zhengzhou University (in Chinese). https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=b4E8SuETvlKAghmWdJCrEa-d7xhxOyXVZgDcFh__Gmu1aaRzwJ25bRfKKM94FkWZsBjdjplx8E3WB-exLvjDzkDswbIJYrhJnpTEDGjOoDHNMsDxo1SSV86iMrcYxcRZbhA7WZ90ueR1RJMQSKgjvw==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS

 Google Scholar

Fu, K. (2009). Research on sustainable development based on the carrying capacity of water and land resources in Zhumadian City (PhD dissertation). Lanzhou University (in Chinese). https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=b4E8SuETvlIuVui8Wq-utH7U5d43k4wityTpuyU5byWx1ov0enyk6nwS2FDfjtnwuV9I-9HHWiSetPW3twRltjCi_B8jvZmwYqvRZJtOBRKSeQy8Y6_JnQw1eJ4KQVY0JTEM5SB7rYQm4tQ8E2sAmw==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS

 Google Scholar

Zhang, M., Liu, Y., Wu, J., & Wang, T. (2018). Index system of urban resource and environment carrying capacity based on ecological civilization. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 68, 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.11.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jiang, Q. (2011). Evaluation of land and water carrying capacity in the Sanjiang Plain and simulation of its sustainable use. (PhD dissertation). Northeast Agricultural University (in Chinese). https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=b4E8SuETvlL9UT3Ocrk_SzjTaUXv5BAwlUcI3e78aUpfLYbmjkFoRN38yr69FmSx001NKR2VqsqrfYXd2eXH-7DZsN9sw3vtfDZ74-yRc3I-Ef1MO8TdsEtwPv8kyatCNB2fZyCwQm7xiVrfVwX6sQ==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.