Assessment using PAM clustering identifies eco-economic differences in the China-Russia border area, suggesting enhanced cooperation.
The China–Russia northeast–far east transboundary region is ecologically complex and economically promising, but fragmented cross-border management poses challenges to ecological security and regional sustainable development. To scientifically reveal functional differentiation and support bilateral cooperation, this study established a comprehensive evaluation system comprising 21 indicators across five categories: natural, ecological, economic, social, and resource. Using the Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) clustering algorithm at the grid scale, eight initial clusters with distinct eco-economic characteristics across administrative boundaries were identified. Based on these results, spatial patterns were refined using expert knowledge from both China and Russia, ultimately delineating ten core eco-economic functional zones. The study finds that (1) the results of the eco-economic zoning scheme reveal clear spatial functional differentiation, with the northern part of the region focusing on ecological conservation and resource development, and the southern part on agricultural and forestry production as well as port trade; and (2) China and Russia show significant differences in natural resource endowments, infrastructure levels, and population distribution, indicating strong potential for functional complementarity and coordinated development. Further, this study breaks through traditional administrative-unit-based zoning approaches and proposes a grid-scale eco-economic zoning scheme across administrative boundaries, providing spatial support for ecological protection, resource development, and regional governance in the border areas between China and Russia. The findings may also serve as a methodological reference and practical demonstration for eco-economic zoning scheme and coordinated management in other complex transboundary regions around the world.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: