Conflicts at the Crossroads: Unpacking Land-Use Challenges in the Greater Bay Area with the “Production–Living–Ecological” Perspective

Under the influence of factors such as extreme weather and accelerated urbanization, China has witnessed a sharp escalation in conflicts between various land-use functions, leading to a significant rise in tensions between people and land. The coordination of production, living, and ecological functions is particularly important for strengthening ecological civilization and achieving regional high-quality development. The concept of &ldquo:Production&ndash:Living&ndash:Ecological&rdquo: (PLE) Spaces, proposed as part of China&rsquo:s ecological civilization initiative, refers to a spatial framework that integrates production spaces (land for agriculture, industry, and commerce), living spaces (land for housing, consumption, and public services), and ecological spaces (land supporting ecosystem regulation and biodiversity). Based on this perspective, this paper investigates the current situation and potential of land-use function conflicts in the Guangdong&ndash:Hong Kong&ndash:Macao Greater Bay Area in 2020. Utilizing the multi-criteria evaluation analysis method, the study develops a land-use function-evaluation model. Furthermore, the paper establishes a diagnostic model for the intensity of land-use function conflicts based on the different permutations and combinations of land unit function intensities. The land-use function conflicts are categorized into ten types and four stages. The main findings are as follows: (1) In 2020, the overall production, living, and ecological functions of Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao Greater Bay Area were at high, medium-high, and low levels, respectively. The land in the stable and controllable stage, the largely controllable stage, the largely out-of-control stage, and the severely out-of-control stage accounted for 39.22%, 28.73%, 25.41%, and 6.64%. The focal points of the intensity of land-use function conflicts were mainly located in Guangzhou, Foshan, Shenzhen, and Dongguan. (2) The study area was exposed to varying degrees of risk from land-use function conflicts, and the area proportion of low conflict potential area, with the proportions of low, general, higher, and high-conflict-potential areas being 47.88%, 23.43%, 22.14%, and 6.54%, respectively. (3) The primary hotspots of conflict potential were concentrated in Dongguan City and the administrative border areas of &ldquo:Foshan&ndash:Zhaoqing&rdquo:, &ldquo:Foshan&ndash:Jiangmen&rdquo:, and &ldquo:Guangzhou&ndash:Zhongshan&rdquo:.