Randomized trial assesses coupling coordination in Tibet, indicating significant ecological imbalance.
Maintaining balanced interactions between humans and ecosystems in plateau regions is critical to achieving global sustainable development. However, existing methodologies are insufficient to fully elucidate the complex coupling and coordination relationships between human activities and ecosystems, as well as the sustainable development thresholds of anthropogenic impacts. This study proposes an enhanced coupling coordination degree (CCD) model that integrates the Euclidean distance method to address classification errors and the low precision inherent in traditional models. Using this enhanced model, we quantitatively assess the coupling coordination relationships between human activities and ecosystems on the Tibet autonomous region (TAR) from 2000 to 2022 and identify the corresponding sustainable development thresholds. The results reveal an unbalanced growth trajectory between human activities and ecosystems on the TAR, accompanied by significant spatial heterogeneity in coupling coordination patterns. Conflict zones are primarily concentrated in the Yarlung Zangbo River and its two tributaries (YZRT), encompassing approximately 10.66%–12.54% of the total TAR area. Between 2000 and 2022, the CCD of the TAR exhibited a slight decline of 0.34%, with the declining regions accounting for approximately 10.72% of the total TAR area. Constraint analysis and elasticity coefficient results indicate that human activities in Lhasa, Shigatse, and Shannan have significantly exceeded the optimal thresholds for coupling coordination. It is recommended to optimize population distribution in the YZRT, enhance grazing practices, and strengthen ecological management along transportation corridors. This study provides not only a scientific foundation for regional policy formulation but also a theoretical innovation and practical paradigm for cross‐regional and interdisciplinary studies on coupling coordination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: