Identification of Territorial Spatial Pattern Conflicts in Aksu River Basin, China, from 1990 to 2020

Abstract

The change in land use leads to territorial spatial conflict. Territorial spatial conflicts mainly show that the boundaries of agricultural space, urban space, and ecological space overlap each other and interfere with each other’s functions, which will have a negative impact on regional high-quality development. The Aksu River, the most principal source of the Tarim River, the largest instream river in China, is a key area for maintaining ecological security in Northwestern China. It is highly significant to identify the spatial conflict characteristics of land use in this region to promote the sustainable use of regional land resources, optimization of spatial patterns, and the balance between economic construction and ecological environmental protection in mountainous areas. This paper takes the Aksu River Basin as the research area. Using Arcgis 10.8 software, Yaahp software, and SPSSAU software, it builds a land use spatial conflict measurement model based on a quantitative analysis of land use changes from 1990 to 2020 and explores the spatial and temporal evolution characteristics of land use conflicts in the Aksu River Basin. The results show that: (1) From 1990 to 2020, the spatial conflict pattern of the study area was dominated by ecological spatial conflicts. The spatial conflict area shows dynamic changes, but the overall trend is decreasing. (2) The spatial conflict pattern of territorial space in the Aksu River Basin has basically formed, and the three types of spatial conflicts are closely related to the level of local economic development. (3) Ecological spatial conflicts are mainly distributed in high-altitude mountains, river valleys, and oasis-to-desert transition areas. Urban spatial conflicts are mainly distributed in the middle and lower reaches of the Aksu River plain oasis. Agricultural spatial conflicts are scattered but large in scale, with small differences in the proportion of conflict distribution among the counties.

1. Introduction

Since China’s reform and opening up, the rapid development has also given rise to the drawbacks of disorderly land space utilization, control, and imbalance of power and responsibility [1,2]. The conflicting territorial spatial patterns have directly exposed the deficiencies, such as the insufficiently detailed investigation of the spatial background conditions and the low overlap of planning contents and objectives [3,4]. How to eliminate the conflict in the use of territory space on the basis of the reasonable assessment of risks and challenges has become an urgent problem [5].

Suitability evaluation is done through a comprehensive assessment of natural and social factors of the territorial space [6,7]. It elucidates the productive potential that land attributes have, as well as its suitability and limitations for biological growth and other uses in various industries, such as agriculture, forestry, and livestock, and the differences in their degree. In a broad sense, land suitability evaluation refers to land suitability and limitations for human production and living activities. The suitability of land refers to the degree of suitability of land for a certain use within a certain range under certain conditions. The land restriction is the degree of suitability for a certain use of land under certain conditions due to the existence of certain negative factors of the land. Previous studies on land suitability evaluations were mainly carried out for agricultural spatial land, but now, the evaluation of land suitability for other land uses such as urban spatial land, ecological spatial land, and tourism land has increased.

The word “conflict” originated from sociology. The original meaning is the mutual exclusion of two social subjects and its resulting conflict. The “territorial conflict” is now mainly considered to have started with the study of land management conflicts conducted by the English Countryside Society in the 1970s. The essence of territorial spatial conflict is the process of spatiotemporal competition and game between various land use subjects and stakeholders with land in the same spatial location as the core resource element [8]. Its connotation is the evolution of various conflicting contradictions and multiple land use types (functions) epitomized by the game of spatial restrictiveness and suitability game of land use. At present, the research on territorial space conflict is mainly based on the suitability evaluation results. Scholars of different countries have different interpretations and definitions of this concept based on different national conditions and realities. For example, Yahia et al. proposed that, in the development and utilization of territorial space, different subjects are affected by property rights, boundaries, and interest distribution, resulting in development and utilization conflicts [9]. Henderson et al. believed that land use conflicts were caused by the competition for land rights and interests [10]. In terms of conflict diagnosis and generation mechanism, Cristian et al. studied Bucharest’s conflict diagnosis on the basis of a multicriteria analysis by constructing an index system [11]. Sauer et al. analyzed the conflict mechanism of a coastal recreation area and watershed farming area based on an actor network [12]. China began to study territorial spatial conflicts in the 1980s. Chen Wenhui et al. believed that the disharmony in the process of land use is territorial spatial conflict [13]. Zhou Guohua et al. measured the spatial conflict intensity of land use in the Changsha–Zhuzhou–Xiangtan urban agglomeration based on ecological security [14]. Zhao Jie et al., based on population and social development, used a comprehensive measurement model to evaluate the intensity of land use conflict in Nanchang [15]. Zhou De et al. established a spatial conflict measurement model to quantitatively measure conflict intensity [16,17].

China’s territorial space conflict is mainly based on the “three regions and three lines”, and the “three regions” refers to the three types of spaces (agricultural space, urban space, and ecological space) [17,18], while “three lines” refers to the permanent basic farmland, urban development boundary, and ecological protection red line defined according to space [19]. Urban space is the main function space to ensure urban economic and social development and meet the production and living requirements of urban residents [20]. Agricultural space is the main function of preserving agricultural production and rural life and bears the mission of high-quality regional development [21]. Ecological space is the natural background for coordinating regional sustainable development and mainly provides ecological well-being [22]. The three types of space focus on the construction of functional areas, which is the resource agglomeration and background planning of the tertiary and ecological functions. On the basis of reflecting the internal differentiation of regions, it also takes into account the rationality and integrity of the structure and function of territorial space [23].

Watersheds are one of the most intricate areas regarding ecological vulnerability and ecosystem service values [23,24]. It is an extremely important and vital ecological principal functional arena [25]. The study of territorial spatial conflicts on the watershed scale is beneficial for preserving the overall ecosystem integrity of the watershed. The unique natural environmental conditions of arid area watersheds make ecological conservation studies particularly crucial [26]. The Aksu River Basin is a typical inland river basin in the arid region of China. The good soil and water conditions provide a good living environment for the survival and development of various plants and animals and effectively prevents the expansion of the Taklamakan Desert, which is a key area for maintaining ecological security in the northwest of China [27]. However, with the rapid increase and expansion in population, urbanization, and land for production and living, natural ecosystems such as grasslands, wetlands, and woodlands, which provide a variety of functions and services for human beings, are facing serious threats and increasing pressure in regional sustainable development [28,29].

Therefore, taking the Aksu River Basin as an example, this paper explores the spatial and temporal evolution characteristics of three types of space and the mechanism of spatial conflict identification in the Aksu River Basin from 1990 to 2020 by using a comprehensive geographic analysis method from the perspective of sustainable development. The quantitative identification of the types, scale, and scope of spatial conflicts in the basin from the evaluation of the suitability of the “three types of space” provides a new solution to the spatial conflicts in the basin in the arid area and is an example of watershed exploration of the protection theory of the ecological environment in the arid area, which has practical significance for the allocation and management of land resources in the arid area [30]. It also has important theoretical significance for adjusting and optimizing the spatial structure and alleviating the conflict between resource conservation and regional development [31,32].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Aksu River is the largest and the only source that can supply the water of the Tarim River all year round. The Aksu River, by the Kumu Aizhik River and Toshgan River two tributaries’ confluence, the two rivers arrive at Pahe Village, Wensu Country after the beginning of the Aksu River. It joins the Yarqiang River and the Hotan River and enters the Tarim River. The basin is located in the west of the middle part of the southern piedmont of the Tianshan Mountains, and the terrain of the northwestern edge of the Tarim Basin is high in the north and west and low in the south and east. The Aksu River Basin flows through six counties and cities, including Aheqi County, Wushi County, Wentsu County, Awatii County, Aksu City, and Arar City. The area of the study area is about 57,000 km² and as shown in Figure 1.

The Aksu River Basin is located in the deep poverty area but is also an important barrier of ecological security in Southern Xinjiang, bearing the dual pressure of development and protection. The economic structure of the counties and cities in Aksu Valley is an economic system with grain and cotton production as the main production and orderly growth of light and heavy industries and service industries. By the end of 2019, the region’s GDP was 73.767 billion RMB, the registered population was 1.55 million, and the per capita disposable income of urban and rural residents in the basin reached 32,800 RMB. However, the long-term unbalanced and insufficient high-speed development also makes the conflict of the territorial spatial pattern increasingly severe.

2.2. Data Resource

Land use data, meteorological (precipitation and temperature) data, normalized differential vegetation index (NDVI), soil erosion data, main road data, and rivers and lakes data (all with a spatial resolution of 30 m) were obtained from Data Center for Resources and Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (http://www.resdc.cn, accessed on 18 September 2022) [33]. Digital elevation model data (DEM): 30-m resolution data from geospatial data cloud platform space (http://www.gscloud.cn/) [34]. Soil data were obtained from China 1:1 million Soil Database, Nanjing Institute of Soil Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Geological disaster data, ecological protection red line, administrative divisions, etc. were obtained from the Natural Resources Bureau of Kizilsu Kirghiz Autonomous Prefecture and Aksu District Natural Resources Bureau.

Other relevant data are from the Statistical Yearbook of Xinjiang (1989–2020), Statistical Yearbook of Aksu Region (1990–2020), Statistical Yearbook of Kizilsu Kirgiz Autonomous Prefecture (1990–2020), China Urban and Rural Construction Statistical Yearbook (1990–2020), China Rural Statistical Yearbook (1990–2020), and The Aksu River Basin Annals.

2.3. Methodology

2.3.1. Land Use Classification of Watershed Territorial Space

On the basis of existing theories and field investigation, this paper adopts the “three-area” classification method to divide the territorial space of the study area into three categories according to the land category [35]. The classification is shown as

Table 1. Classification table of territorial space and land use in the Aksu River Basin.

The Primary Classification	The Secondary Classification
Urban space	Urban land; Land for industrial and mining construction.
Agricultural space	Land for rural settlements; Paddy land; Irrigated land.
Ecological space	Forest land; Shrub land; Sparse wood; the woodland; High coverage grassland; Moderate coverage grassland; Low coverage grassland; Canal; Lake; Reservoir; Glacier; Shoaly land; Sand land; Saline land; Marshland; Bare land; Bare rock and gravel land.

. This division is more conducive to the realization of territorial space function and use control in arid oases with complex terrain and interlacing regional spatial functions [36].

2.3.2. Construct a Suitability Evaluation Index System

The indicators constructed in this paper for suitability evaluation are mainly based on the technical process specifications issued by the National Development and Reform Commission and the State Land and Resources of China [35,36,37,38]. The Technical Regulations for Provincial Main Functional Areas proposes that the evaluation of indicators should consider the differences in regional natural conditions and resource endowments. The Technical Specification and Preparation Guidelines for Municipal and County Economic and Social Development Master Plans start from the suitability of land development and combine the negative list of spatial development (basic farmland, nature reserves, etc.) based on the resource and environmental carrying capacity. The Essentials of Provincial Territorial Planning focuses on the land carrying capacity without considering water resources, the environment, and other factors. The spatial suitability of land takes into account the three dimensions of urban, agricultural, and ecological factors. Subsequently, the Ministry of Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China promulgated the “Technical Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Suitability of Resource and Environment Carrying Capacity and Territorial Spatial Development” to form a set of nationwide unified technical methods at the technical level but also emphasized regional differences and required that the relevant indicators must be selected and adjusted according to local conditions.

This paper classifies the results of the evaluation system into four categories (corresponding to the assigned scores of 4, 3, 2, and 1) based on the actual Aksu River Basin: the most suitable, suitable, less suitable, and unsuitable areas [39]. The classification of the evaluation elements was based on previous studies of ecological protection importance evaluations and combined with the classification results of the natural interruption method in Arcgis 10.8.

In this paper, eight indexes, including the soil sand content, river distance, slope, township road distance, accumulated temperature, altitude, erosion intensity, and current land category, were selected to construct the agricultural suitability evaluation index system of the Aksu River Basin [40]. Based on the actual situation that the study area is located in the arid area, this paper selected five indicators, including slope, vegetation coverage, altitude, undulation, and soil erodibility were selected to evaluate the suitability of ecological space. Seven indicators were selected, including geological disaster, slope, population density, GDP, distance of traffic trunk lines, freshwater resource richness, and altitude, to construct an evaluation index system of urban spatial suitability [41]. Three types of space suitability evaluation systems constructed in this paper are shown in

Table 2. Table of three types of spatial suitability evaluation index systems.

The Target Layer	Index Layer	The Classification Standard
Ecological space suitability	Slope	≥25° = 4 points; 25°~15° = 3 points; 5°~15° = 2 points; <5° = 1 point
	Vegetation coverage	≥0.7 = 4 points; 0.56~0.7 = 3 points; 0.41~0.55 = 2 points; <0.4 = 1 point
	Altitude	<1600 = 4 points; 1600~2600 = 3 points; 2600~3700 = 2 points; >3700 = 1 point
	Relief amplitude	<5 = 4 points; 5~15 = 3 points; 15~35 = 2 points; >35 = 1 point
	Soil erodibility	Slight, mild = 4 points; Moderate and intense = 3 points; Very severe = 2 points; Extremely severe = 1 point
Spatial suitability of agriculture	Sand content of soil	<10% = 4 points; 10%~40% = 3 points; 40%~65% = 2 points; ≥65% = 1 points
	River in the distance	<1100 m = 4 points; 1100~3300 m = 3 points; 3300~5000 m = 2 points; >5000 m = 1 points
	Slope	<6° = 4 points; 6°~15° = 3 points; 15~25° = 2 points; ≥25° = 1 points
	Township roads distance	<200 m = 4 points; 200~500 m = 3 points; 500~900 m = 2 points; >1000 m = 1 points
	Accumulated temperature	>40,000 = 4 points; 40,000~38,000 = 3 points; 38,000~36,000 = 2 points; ≤36,000 = 1 points
	Altitude	<1100 m = 4 points; 1100~1300 m = 3 points; 1300~1500 m = 2 points; >1500 m = 1 points
	Erosion intensity	Very mild = 4 points; Mild and below = 3 points; Moderate to intense = 2 points; Extremely intense = 1 points
	Land use status	Arable land (including garden land) = 4 points; facility agricultural land = 3 points; Woodland and meadows =2 points; Other land classes =1 points
Urban spatial suitability	Geological disaster	No occurrence area = 4 points; Low occurrence area = 3 points; Middle occurrence area = 2 points; High occurrence area = 1 point
	Slope	<8° = 4 points; 8°~15° = 2 points; 15°~25° = 1 point; ≥25° = 1 point
	Population density	>3000 = 4 points; 1000~3000 = 3 points; 1000~500 = 2 points; <500 = 1 point
	GDP	>800 = 4 points; 800~500 = 3 points; 500~300 = 2 points; <300 = 1 point
	Distance of traffic trunk lines	<1000 = 4 points; 1000~3000 = 3 points; 3000~6000 = 2 points; >6000 = 1 point
	Freshwater resource richness	>130 =4 points; 90~130 = 3 points; 60~90 = 2 points; ≤60 = 1 point
	Altitude	<1100 = 4 points; 1100~1300 = 3 points; 1300~1500 = 2 points; >1500 = 1 point

.

2.3.3. Weight Definition

The suitability evaluation weights in this paper are determined by the newly formed combined weight method based on the AHP entropy weight method implemented by, for example, Yaahp software and SPSSAU software. The combination of subjective method and objective method makes the newly formed combined weights. On the one hand, it is better to overcome the disadvantages of the objective weights deviating from reality, and on the other hand, it makes the subjectivity of the subjective weights framed in a reasonable range. This makes the final calculated weight values better match the actual study area.

(1)

Analytic hierarchy process

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a kind of comprehensive comparison method, which is characterized by hierarchical, multi-objective, and multi-scheme operations. It can fully consider the main advantages of expert opinions and suggestions, so that the index weight has a relatively strong inheritability [42,43]. The steps of the index weight system constructed by the analytic hierarchy process are as follows:

Step one: Construct the judgment matrix:

N evaluation indicators: X = {X₁, X₂, X₃, …, Xi}; among them, i = 1, 2, 3, …, n.

Step two: Calculate the maximum eigen root λmax of the judgment matrix:

$${\mathit{\lambda }}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}={{\displaystyle \sum }}_{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathit{n}}\frac{\mathit{A}{\mathit{W}}_{\mathit{i}}}{\mathit{n}{\mathit{W}}_{\mathit{I}}}$$

(1)

Step three: Calculate the consistency index ratio:

$$\mathit{C}\mathit{R}=\mathit{C}\mathit{I}/\mathit{E}\mathit{I}$$

(2)

When CR < 0.1, it is generally considered to have passed the test. When the value is bigger than 0.1, the previously constructed judgment matrix needs to be adjusted until CR < 0.1 is met.

(2)

Entropy weight method

In essence, the entropy weight method is a kind of objective weight determination method. Its biggest advantage lies in the fact that human beings cannot intervene in the calculation process [44,45,46]. The steps of the evaluation index weight system constructed by the entropy weight method are as follows:

Step one: Standardization of the data.

The formulas of the positive indicators and negative indicators of the index data are shown in Equations (3) and (4):

$${\mathit{X}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}={\mathit{X}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}-{\mathit{X}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{i}\mathit{n}}/{\mathit{X}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}-{\mathit{X}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{i}\mathit{n}}$$

(3)

$${\mathit{X}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}={\mathit{X}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}-{\mathit{X}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}/{\mathit{X}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{a}\mathit{x}}-{\mathit{X}}_{\mathit{m}\mathit{i}\mathit{n}}$$

(4)

where X_ij is the original value, X_max is the maximum value, and X_min is the minimum value.

Step two: Calculate the entropy value, as shown in Formulas (5) and (6):

$${\mathit{E}}_{\mathit{i}}=-\mathbf{1}/\mathit{L}\mathit{n}\left(\mathit{m}\right)\ast {{\displaystyle \sum }}_{\mathit{i}=\mathbf{1}}^{\mathit{m}}{\mathit{a}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}\mathit{L}\mathit{n}\left({\mathit{a}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}\right)$$

(5)

$${\mathit{a}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}={\mathit{x}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}^{\prime }/{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{\mathit{i}=\mathbf{1}}^{\mathit{m}}{\mathit{x}}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}$$

(6)

Step three: Calculate the difference coefficient, as shown in Formula (7):

$${\mathit{G}}_{\mathit{i}}=\mathbf{1}-{\mathit{E}}_{\mathit{i}}$$

(7)

Step four: The weight value can be obtained, as shown in Formula (8):

$${\mathit{W}}_{\mathit{i}}={\mathit{G}}_{\mathit{i}}/{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{\mathit{i}=\mathbf{1}}^{\mathit{m}}{\mathit{G}}_{\mathit{i}}$$

(8)

Synthesis index method of the weight.

It can be expressed as Formula (9):

$${\mathit{x}}_{\mathit{i}}=\frac{{\mathit{z}}_{\mathit{i}}{\mathit{y}}_{\mathit{i}}}{\mathit{m}}$$

(9)

Revised to:

$${\mathit{x}}_{\mathit{i}}=\frac{{\mathit{z}}_{\mathit{i}}+{\mathit{y}}_{\mathit{i}}}{\mathit{m}}$$

(10)

The final derivation is:

$${\mathit{x}}_{\mathit{i}}=\frac{\mathit{z}\mathit{i}+\mathit{y}\mathit{i}}{\mathbf{2}}$$

(11)

2.3.4. Conflict Identification Method

The specific ideas of urban–agricultural–ecological spatial conflict identification in this paper are mainly derived from the relevant technical specifications issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China. The method chosen in this paper is based on the precise overlay method of ARCGIS to achieve urban–agricultural–ecological spatial conflict identification in the Aksu River Basin. The overall identification process is to identify urban–agricultural–ecological spatial conflicts in the Aksu River Basin by stacking the results of the urban–agricultural–ecological spatial suitability assessment in SHP format with the current state of territorial spatial use and various spatial plans at all levels (in this case, spatial plans that have been officially accepted, are valid, and have not been revoked).

The specific process is: Firstly, the data are standardized and fused, intersected, resampled, and reclassified by ARCGIS and then unified into 30-m precision SHP format data and raster format data. Secondly, based on the reclassification function of Arcgis 10.8, the four phases of data: 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2022 were divided into the most suitable, suitable, less suitable, and unsuitable areas according to the suitability evaluation index system. Finally, using the intersection function, intersecting the results of the urban–agricultural–ecological spatial suitability evaluation with the current state of the spatial utilization of the territory, the red line of the urban development boundary, the red line of the permanent basic farmland, and the red line of the ecological protection, the extracted areas are the conflict areas.

3. Results

3.1. Weight Results

The index evaluation combination weight system constructed in this paper is shown in

Table 3. Combined weight table.

Region	Ecological Space Combined Weights					Agricultural Spatial Combined Weights								Combined Weights of Urban Space
	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	6	7	8	9	10	11	1	2	12	13	14	15	16
A	0.09	0.31	0.24	0.06	0.09	0.08	0.03	0.15	0.08	0.23	0.17	0.07	0.09	0.05	0.05	0.08	0.04	0.19	0.07	0.15
B	0.08	0.25	0.24	0.04	0.07	0.07	0.06	0.14	0.05	0.18	0.14	0.08	0.07	0.03	0.03	0.07	0.05	0.16	0.08	0.13
C	0.11	0.12	0.29	0.03	0.07	0.11	0.01	0.15	0.04	0.21	0.16	0.06	0.12	0.07	0.07	0.08	0.04	0.17	0.06	0.14
D	0.07	0.12	0.3	0.02	0.06	0.05	0.07	0.11	0.03	0.22	0.12	0.03	0.05	0.02	0.03	0.11	0.12	0.32	0.11	0.2
E	0.08	0.12	0.29	0.031	0.06	0.02	0.06	0.15	0.04	0.22	0.11	0.03	0.06	0.03	0.03	0.1	0.13	0.18	0.09	0.15
F	0.06	0.42	0.22	0.05	0.08	0.04	0.07	0.1	0.07	0.16	0.16	0.04	0.08	0.02	0.02	0.07	0.03	0.17	0.09	0.15

A. Wensu; B. Wushi; C. Awati; D. Alaer; E. Aksu; F. Akqi. 1. Altitude; 2. Slope; 3. Vegetation coverage; 4. Relief amplitude; 5. Soil erodibility; 6. Country roads; 7. Soil erosion intensity; 8. Land use status; 9. River; 10. Sand content of soil; 11. Accumulated temperature; 12. Geological disasters; 13. Population density; 14. freshwater resource richness; 15. Distance of main road; 16. GDP.

.

Ecological spatial suitability is generally evaluated based on both erosion sensitivity and the importance of water-supporting functions. Since the ecological protection red line in Xinjiang is delineated based on the importance of water-conserving functions, this study includes the areas within the ecological protection red line in the suitability evaluation results. Therefore, this study focuses on the evaluation based on erosion sensitivity, so the indicators of slope, vegetation cover, and soil erodibility are given much weight.

The agricultural spatial suitability reflects the degree of land support for agricultural spaces and is influenced by various factors, such as soil conditions and agricultural production conditions. Agricultural production and living suitability are influenced by a combination of natural and social factors—among which, the factor of agricultural production conditions has the most profound impact. Considering the unique geographical circumstances formed by humans and nature for thousands of years within the Aksu River Basin, the eight indicators, such as the current status of land use, rivers, accumulated temperature, and distance of country roads, are given higher weight.

Urban spatial suitability refers to the extent to which the territorial space can support urban development and the construction of ancillary facilities. The Aksu Basin is located in an arid area, and the basic town policy has been “water-based” for many years. Therefore, the urban spatial suitability is evaluated by adding the indicator of freshwater abundance together with the other six indicators.

3.2. Results of Suitability Evaluation

3.2.1. Evaluation Results of Ecological Protection Importance

The ecological spatial suitability of the Aksu River Basin was divided into most suitable areas, suitable areas, less suitable areas, and unsuitable areas, with areas of 5984.17 km², 16,221.52 km², 13,090.16 km², and 21,696.94 km², respectively. The proportion of national land area accounted for 10.50%, 28.46%, 22.97%, and 38.07%, respectively (

Table 4. Table of ecological spatial suitability structure in the Aksu River Basin (area: km²).

Region	Most Suitable Area		Suitable Area		Less Suitable Area		Unsuitable Area
	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion
Wensu	1571.84	26.27%	4922.89	30.35%	3615.35	27.62%	4062.03	18.72%
Wushi	616.75	10.31%	2797.48	17.25%	2249.42	17.18%	3249.97	14.98%
Awati	661.62	11.06%	1115.78	6.88%	1464.24	11.19%	9717.41	44.79%
Alaer	1361.56	22.75%	685.61	4.23%	755.21	5.77%	1113.77	5.13%
Aksu	775.26	12.96%	1015.78	6.26%	2267.86	17.32%	1849.80	8.53%
Akqi	997.15	16.66%	5683.98	35.04%	2738.07	20.92%	1703.96	7.85%
Total	5984.17	100%	16,221.52	100%	13,090.16	100%	21,696.94	100%

). The most suitable area and the suitable area of ecological space are mainly distributed in the region of soil and water loss in the middle and lower reaches of rivers, the alpine snow cover area, and the slope land in the transition between mountain and flat land. The most suitable area and the suitable area are close in space. From the perspective of administrative units, the most suitable and suitable areas in Wensu County and Akqi County are all more than 50% of the county area, mainly because of the vast areas of water conservation ecological red line areas, soil and water loss ecological red line conservation areas, and ecological red line conservation areas for windbreak and sand fixation in the two counties. Awatii County has the highest proportion of unsuitable areas, because most of its territory is located in the hinterland of Taklimakan Desert, which has a large area, almost no surface vegetation cover, and large fluctuation (Figure 2).

From the perspective of the geographical unit, the most suitable area and suitable area of the ecological space are mainly distributed in the northern high mountain area and the water and soil area in the middle and lower reaches of the river of the Aksu River Basin. The most suitable ecological areas in Ahqi, Wushi, and Wensu Counties are mostly high-altitude mountains at the southern foot of the Tianshan Mountains with a large glacier area, which is an important ecological protection red line area, accounting for 51% of the whole most suitable area—among which, Akqi County is the most. In the middle and lower reaches of Aksu City and Awai County, there are also more ecological spatial most suitable areas and suitable areas, because the surface vegetation coverage is high mainly beside agricultural areas and pastures.

3.2.2. Evaluation Results of for Agricultural Production Suitability

According to the evaluation criteria, the agricultural suitability evaluation of the Aksu River Basin can be divided into four categories: most suitable area, suitable area, less suitable area, and unsuitable area, with an area of 955.14 km², 2515.39 km², 939.97 km², and 286.57 km², respectively. The proportions of the current situation were 20.33%, 53.55%, 20.01%, and 6.10%, respectively (

Table 5. Table of agricultural spatial conditions in the Aksu River Basin (area: km²).

Region	Most Suitable Area		Suitable Area		Less Suitable Area		Unsuitable Area
	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion
Wensu	256.19	26.82%	485.67	19.31%	167.29	17.80%	75.92	26.49%
Wushi	335.67	35.14%	230.95	9.18%	243.42	25.90%	53.47	18.66%
Awati	164.24	17.19%	766.67	30.48%	88.94	9.46%	12.02	4.19%
Alaer	58.32	6.11%	413.73	16.45%	49.44	5.26%	4.81	1.68%
Aksu	133.52	13.98%	601.57	23.92%	209.23	22.26%	40.70	14.20%
Akqi	7.20	0.75%	16.80	0.67%	181.65	19.32%	99.66	34.78%
Total	955.14	100.00%	2515.39	100.00%	939.97	100.00%	286.57	100.00%

). The most suitable and suitable areas for agricultural production were mainly distributed in the oasis plain and irrigated agricultural area in the middle and lower reaches of the Aksu River, accounting for 66.38%. The unsuitable areas are mainly on the gully and high slope and the transitional zone extending from oasis to desert and also include part of the current urban built-up areas.

In terms of the administrative units in the basin (Figure 3), the unsuitable areas for the current agricultural production and living in Awati County account for 4.19%, the lowest among all county-level units, and the elements of agricultural production and living conditions have superior collocation. Wensu County, Akqi County, Wushi County, and other places have many high mountains. Akqi County, in particular, has had a geographical generalization of “nine mountains, half water and half farmland” since ancient times. It is difficult to develop agriculture there, resulting in low suitability for regional agricultural production and living.

3.2.3. Evaluation Results of Urban Construction Suitability

According to the evaluation criteria, the urban spatial suitability evaluation of the land space in the Aksu River Basin is divided into the most suitable area, suitable area, less suitable area, and unsuitable area, with an area of 7064.41 km², 15,499.63 km², 21,723.96 km², and 12,433.88 km², respectively. The proportions were 12.45%, 27.33%, 38.30%, and 21.92%, respectively (

Table 6. Table of the spatial types of the towns in the Aksu River Basin (area: km²).

Region	Most Suitable Area		Suitable Area		Less Suitable Area		Unsuitable Area
	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion
Wensu	317.87	4.50%	5605.80	36.17%	4087.33	18.81%	4106.11	33.02%
Wushi	972.80	13.77%	5166.81	33.34%	1788.71	8.23%	982.47	7.90%
Awati	76.91	1.09%	0.00	0.00%	7205.69	33.17%	556.92	4.79%
Alaer	2094.77	29.65%	0.00	0.00%	1556.96	7.17%	194.46	1.56%
Aksu	3550.03	50.25%	1035.14	6.68%	3547.10	16.33%	1278.88	10.29%
Akqi	52.02	0.74%	3691.89	23.82%	3538.16	16.29%	3272.01	26.30%
Total	7064.41	100%	15,499.63	100%	21,723.96	100%	12,433.88	100%

). Unsuitable areas and less suitable areas are mainly distributed in Akqi County, Wensu County, Awati County, and other places. On the one hand, most of Awati belongs to the hinterland of Taklimakan Desert, with insufficient natural background, a harsh climate, and prominent contradictions between resource supply and demand. The distribution of unsuitable areas in Wensu County and Akqi County is mainly in the high-altitude glacier snow cover area and the heaving valleys in the border area. Most of the other areas are on river flats and high slopes, which are mainly hidden dangers of geological disasters. The unsuitable areas and less suitable areas are mainly distributed in the desert zone, the transition zone between oasis and desert, and the transition zone between mountain and valley. The suitable areas are mainly distributed in oasis and irrigation areas in the middle and lower reaches of the basin, with flat terrain, sufficient water, suitable altitude, less geological disasters, and convenient transportation (Figure 4).

From the point of view of all county-level units, the proportion of unsuitable areas in Wensu County and Akqi County in the total county land area exceeds the average value in the basin. There are a large number of areas with weak natural conditions for urban space construction in Akqi County and Wentsu County, and a high proportion of areas are not suitable for large-scale and high-intensity development. The proportion of suitable areas in Aksu City and Alaer City in the southeast of the basin is much higher than other towns in the basin, the transportation is convenient, and the overall development conditions are good.

3.3. Results of Spatial Conflict Recognition

3.3.1. Territorial Space Contradiction Conflict Distribution

The territorial space contradiction conflict distribution of Aksu River Basin from 1990–2020 (Figure 5), divided into agricultural space conflict zone, urban space conflict zone, and ecological conflict zone. Ecological conflict zone takes the most part of the study area, then urban space conflict zone, later agricultural space conflict zone.

3.3.2. County Land Spatial Pattern Conflict

The spatial conflict zone of the Aksu River Basin is characterized by overall dispersion and fragmentation and detailed agglomeration. The conflict situation of each year is divided into three levels for spatial layout (Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9).

From the perspective of urban spatial conflict areas, there were three counties with low conflict (less than 2 km²) in 1990 (

Table 7. Table of spatial conflict in the Aksu River Basin in 1990 (area: km²).

Region	Urban Space Conflict		Agricultural Space Conflict		Ecological Space Conflict
	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion
Wensu	1.85	6.04%	7.33	0.15%	3980.45	7.55%
Wushi	0.08	0.25%	19.39	0.39%	3179.56	6.03%
Awati	3.02	9.82%	2.36.	0.05%	9659.17	18.32%
Akqi	0.79	2.58%	18.12	0.37%	1670.62	3.17%
Alaer	0.00	0.00%	0.00	0.00%	1099.95	2.09%
Aksu	7.2	23.42%	14.36	0.29%	1803.69	3.42%
Total	12.94	42.10%	61.56	1.25%	21,393.44	40.58%

), which were Akqi County, Wushi County, and Alaer City. In 2000 (

Table 8. Table of spatial conflict in the Aksu River Basin in 2000 (area: km²).

Region	Urban Space Conflict		Agricultural Space Conflict		Ecological Space Conflict
	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion
Wensu	2.18	6.16%	7.65	0.13%	3970.72	7.66%
Wushi	0.05	0.14%	17.00	0.29%	3183.54	6.14%
Awati	3.02	8.52%	2.36	0.04%	9651.96	18.61%
Akqi	0.83	2.35%	19.46	0.34%	1668.85	3.22%
Alaer	1.41	3.99%	0.00	0.00%	1095.81	2.11%
Aksu	6.77	19.11%	19.95	0.35%	1784.12	3.44%
Total	14.26	40.26%	66.42	1.15%	21,355.01	41.17%

), there were three also, Akqi County, Wushi County, and Arar City. In 2010 (

Table 9. Table of spatial conflict in the Aksu River Basin in 2010 (area: km²).

Region	Urban Space Conflict		Agricultural Space Conflict		Ecological Space Conflict
	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion
Wensu	5.71	4.93%	17.62	0.22%	3955.31	7.95%
Wushi	3.64	3.14%	18.79	0.24%	3182.27	6.40%
Awati	9.85	8.51%	4.92	0.06%	9683.95	19.47%
Akqi	1.13	0.97%	17.47	0.22%	1676.07	3.37%
Alaer	2.04	1.76%	2.55	0.03%	1080.87	2.17%
Aksu	34.88	30.11%	22.38	0.29%	1759.60	3.54%
Total	57.25	49.43%	83.73	1.07%	21,338.07	42.91%

), there was one low-conflict county, Ahechi County. In 2020 (

Table 10. Table of spatial conflict in the Aksu River Basin in 2020 (area: km²).

Region	Urban Space Conflict		Agricultural Space Conflict		Ecological Space Conflict
	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion	Area	Proportion
Wensu	15.12	9.60%	20.00	0.23%	3794.15	7.79%
Wushi	4.00	2.54%	18.78	0.21%	3159.39	6.48%
Awati	0.85	0.54%	6.29	0.071%	9612.94	19.73%
Akqi	1.12	0.71%	17.44	0.20%	1673.10	3.43%
Alaer	2.84	1.80%	3.27	0.04%	1053.24	2.16%
Aksu	37.65	23.89%	22.79	0.26%	1671.27	3.43%
Total	61.57	39.06%	88.56	1.01%	20,964.09	43.03%

), there were two low-conflict counties, which were Awati County and Akqi County. In 1990, Wensu County was the middle conflict (2–4 km²). In 2000 and 2010, there were three, respectively, which were Wensu County, Awati County, and Wushi County, Alaer City. Alaer City was low-conflict in 2020. In 1990, Aksu City and Awati County were the counties with high conflict (>4 km²). In 2000, it was Aksu City. In 2010, it was Aksu City, Awati County, and Wushi County. In 2020, Wushi County, Wensu County, and Aksu City were high conflict.

From the perspective of agricultural space conflict areas, there were two counties with low conflict (less than 7 km²) in 1990–2020, which were Awati County and Alaer City. In 1990, Wensu County had middle conflict (7–15 km²). In 1990, Akqi County and Wushi County were the counties with high conflict (>15 km²). In 2000, it was Aksu City, Akqi County, and Wushi County. In 2020, Wushi County, Wensu County, and Aksu City had high conflict.

The distribution range of ecological spatial conflicts is relatively stable. In 1990–2010, Alaer City had low conflict (less than 1100 km²). In 2020 were Aksu City and Alaer City. In 1990–2020, only Wensu County was the middle conflict (1100–1700 km²). In 1990–2010, Akqi County, Aksu City, Awati County, and Wushi County were the counties with high conflict (>1700 km²). In 2020, Wushi County, Wensu County, and Awati County had high conflict.

The spatial conflicts of towns, agriculture, and ecology in the Aksu River Basin from 1990 to 2020 were very different. However, from the perspective of the overall spatial distribution, the conflict areas are generally concentrated and have strong spatiotemporal correlations. The unreasonable development situation has been moderated in recent years, but it is greatly influenced by policies, and the future variables are still large. At present, we can only say that risks still exist, but we can retain relatively optimistic expectations in the future. According to the research results, it is consistent with the overall trend of the territorial spatial conflict analysis in oases in arid areas by Zhang Yunxia et al. [47].

4. Discussion and Implication

4.1. Discussion

The spatial conflict pattern of the territorial space in the Aksu River Basin has been formed, and the suitability zoning is strongly related to the natural resource endowment and socioeconomic functioning conditions. It also has a vast oasis and is an important commercial grain and cotton-producing area. The transportation network system in the basin is perfect, which is the only way to communicate between North and South Xinjiang. The study area has a borderline, and the border trade development advantage is apparent, and a new port economy pattern is forming. This paper explores the evolution of spatial conflicts in arid region watersheds by diagnosing the characteristics of the urban–agricultural–ecological spatial layout and identifying the conflict areas. From a microscopic point of view, the four categories of the most suitable, suitable, less suitable, and unsuitable areas in the watershed are delineated by using a comprehensive subjective and objective weighting method. This will lay the foundation for balancing the development pattern of urban space, agricultural space, and ecological space and alleviating the conflicts between the social system, economic system, and ecosystem in the future.

Natural resource endowment is an important support to maintain the territorial space and a decisive condition for the upper limit of territorial space development in a certain region. The more unequal the distribution of various resources in a region, the greater the constraints on the spatial sustainability of agriculture and urban development in the domain [48]. An open and embracing social environment, sustained stability, and people living and working in peace and contentment are the leading forces in the socioeconomic development of a region. The social environmental factors in this paper mainly deal with economic development, which promotes demographic change and land use structure change and is the most important aspect to be dealt with in spatial development and conservation [49]. When the level of socioeconomic development is not synchronized with the current scale of construction, two situations will occur: First, when the rate of socioeconomic development is faster than the rate of land growth for development and construction, it will lead to the excessive intensity of spatial development. Secondly, when the rate of socioeconomic development significantly lags behind the rate of development and construction growth, there will be a low efficiency of space utilization [50,51]. The regional development claim is a way to break the current dilemma that wants to be explored when the development needs are not compatible with their own endowment conditions [52]. Territorial spatial planning plays a mandatory and fundamental role in the coordination of the land functions and the arrangement of uses, thus having a profound impact on the spatial layout of the territorial space [53,54]. Regarding the controversial areas in the program for the delineation of ecological protection red line and basic farmland in Xinjiang, the scope of rigid protection space and flexible protection space should be argued based on fine-tuning. Natural endowment conditions, social and environmental factors, regional development demands, and inadequate territorial spatial planning guidance have profoundly affected the territorial spatial structure of the Aksu River Basin. Natural endowment conditions are the core driver and play a fundamental and leading role in the delineation of the territorial spatial pattern. The socioenvironmental factors, regional development demands, and the guidance of territorial spatial planning are the key inducing factors to promote insufficient and unbalanced development. The three intertwine and influence each other, interacting in the layout of the development and protection of the territorial space (Figure 10).

4.2. Practice Implication

This study is based on the exploration and practice of territorial spatial pattern conflict identification at the medium and macro scales. Taking the Aksu River Basin in Xinjiang, China, as an example, the innovative construction of the thought model focuses on the issues of spatial division at the basin scale, the precision of spatial conflict identification, and the elemental game relationship among different spatial subjects, providing a new perspective for the study of medium and macro-scale territorial space optimization. It enriches the theory of integrated coordination and sustainable development of arid areas watersheds and provides experience and reference for promoting integrated coordination and sustainable development and the utilization of arid areas watersheds. It also provides a scientific basis for the rational development of watershed land planning, environmental protection, and other departments.

4.3. Limitation and Future Directions

Given the time constraint, the completeness of data collection and the limited knowledge of individuals, there is still room for optimization in the study area. For example, the determination of the weighting method of the study area, most current researchers use the hierarchical analysis method to correct the results obtained by the entropy method, while this paper chose the entropy method to correct the results obtained by the hierarchical analysis method. If the two can do a comparison to achieve and then choose the optimal weights, it will make the article more hierarchical.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, the Aksu River Basin, a typical arid river basin, was selected as the study area. A new index evaluation system suitable for the actual situation of the Aksu River Basin was constructed to explore the changes of the territorial spatial pattern and the evaluation results of the suitability of territorial spatial utilization. On this basis, the land space conflicts were identified and diagnosed for different types of land use changes and suitability classification, and the following conclusions were drawn:

(1)

The suitability of an ecological space, agricultural space, and urban space in the Aksu River Basin varied significantly but was always in dynamic balance over the 30-year period.

(2)

The potential territorial spatial conflict intensity in the Aksu River Basin is mainly classified as low conflict, medium conflict, and high conflict. The prevalence of high- and medium-conflict intensity indicates that the basin is developing rapidly and also indicates that the territorial spatial layout of Guigang needs to be further optimized, and the risk of converting high conflict to very high conflict needs to be paid attention to.

(3)

From 1990 to 2020, the three types of spatial conflicts in the Aksu River Basin generally decreased. Overall, ecological spatial conflicts continue to dominate, although their share is gradually decreasing. The ecological spatial conflict distribution is concentrated in the alpine glacial snow cover area in the northern and northwestern areas of the Aksu River Basin, the desert oasis transition zone in the south, the valley slope area, and the edge of the irrigated area. The agricultural spatial conflicts are mainly in the southeastern plain oasis, the middle and lower reaches of the river with flat topography, and parts of the upper valleys. The urban spatial conflicts are mainly concentrated in the areas with rich fresh water resources, gentle terrain, and convenient transportation in the oasis. According to the administrative division, the agricultural spatial conflict areas are mainly distributed in Aksu City, Wensu county, Alaer city, and Awati county. The ecological spatial conflict areas are mainly distributed in Akqi County, Wensu County, and Awati County. The urban spatial conflict areas are mainly distributed in Aksu City and Wensu County.