Correction: Zhou et al. The Synergistic Effect of Urban and Rural Ecological Resilience: Dynamic Trends and Drivers in Yunnan. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8285

The authors regret that there are the following problems of clarity in the published paper [1]. But these problems do not affect the conclusion of the paper. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused for the readers.

The index system in the paper is mainly used to measure and evaluate the coordinated development of urban and rural ecological resilience. However, the reasons for citing economic indicators and per-capita water supply as ecological governance indicators in the system are not clear enough, which may cause a misunderstanding for readers.

In the weight calculation and analysis of urban ecological resilience and rural ecological resilience in Section 3.1, there may be a misunderstanding in terms of data reading because the rounding procedure of the data is not described; the weight of C14 is higher, which may cause confusion for readers.

In the paper, the description of Formula (11) is wrong; it should explain that αji and βji are 1.1 times the maximum and minimum values of ej, respectively. For the data processing method used in this paper, one should refer to the 32nd reference. This is only a description error and does not affect the data calculation or results of the article.

Based on these, the authors would like to make the following corrections to the published paper [1]. The changes are as follows:

(1)

We would like to replace the following passage in “Section 2.2. Index System Construction”:

The principles of scientificity, comprehensiveness, systematization, and data availability of indicators were adhered to in this study based on the existing research foundations [32,40,41] of urban resilience and rural resilience at home and abroad. The actual situation in Yunnan Province was also considered. A comprehensive measurement system for the coordinated development level of urban and rural ecological resilience was constructed. The system evaluates the ecological resilience of urban and rural regions from the perspective of three dimensions: natural ecological environment, environmental resource protection, and ecological environment governance capacity. In terms of the natural ecological environment, C1–C6 and V1–V6 indicators were selected to reflect the ecological impact. In terms of environmental resource protection, C7–C10 and V7–V10 indicators were selected to reflect ecological adaptability. In terms of ecological environment governance capacity, C11–C15 and V11–V15 indicators were selected to reflect ecological resilience, as shown in Table 1.

with

This study draws on the existing index system construction framework of urban–rural resilience integration development [32], rural ecological resilience [40], and urban ecological resilience [41] at home and abroad, and constructs a comprehensive measurement system for the coordinated development level of urban–rural ecological resilience, as shown in Table 1. The index system follows the principles of scientificity, comprehensiveness, systematization, and data availability, and also fully considers the actual situation of Yunnan Province. For example, there are water bottlenecks in Yunnan Province. In order to solve this dilemma, Yunnan Province has adopted strategies such as strengthening the construction of water conservancy infrastructure, in the hope that the urban and rural water supply capacity will be greatly improved. Considering regional reasons, the index system selects the per-capita water supply to detect and evaluate the water supply capacity and find the most reasonable degree of water resource allocation. The system evaluates the ecological resilience of urban and rural regions from the perspective of three dimensions: natural ecological environment, environmental resource protection, and ecological environment governance capacity. In terms of the natural ecological environment, C1–C6 and V1–V6 indicators were selected to reflect the ecological impact. In terms of environmental resource protection, C7–C10 and V7–V10 indicators were selected to reflect ecological adaptability. In terms of ecological environment governance capacity, since economic development is closely related to ecological environment governance capacity, indicators such as per-capita GDP and the per-capita net income of farmers [42,43] were selected in C11-C15 and V11-V15 to reflect the potential financial capacity to cope with ecological risks. At the same time, these indexes can also be used as indirect driving forces to assist other ecological indicators to jointly reflect their ecological resilience.

(2)

We would like to replace the following passage in “Section 3.1. Weight Calculation and Analysis of Urban Ecological Resilience and Rural Ecological Resilience”:

The urban ecological data and rural ecological data were analyzed using Formulas (1)–(7) in the entropy weight resilience measurement model. The index weights of urban ecological data and rural ecological data were obtained. The specific weights are shown in Table 3. The greater the weight, the greater the contribution value of the index to the comprehensive measurement of urban ecological resilience or rural ecological resilience.

with

The urban ecological data and rural ecological data were analyzed using Formulas (1)–(7) in the entropy weight resilience measurement model. The index weights of urban ecological data and rural ecological data were obtained. The specific weights are shown in Table 3. The table shows rounded values for readability. Before rounding, the original entropy-based weight sum was exactly 1.000. The greater the weight in the table, the greater the contribution value of the index to the comprehensive measurement of urban ecological resilience or rural ecological resilience.

(3)

We would like to replace the following passage in “Section 3.1. Weight Calculation and Analysis of Urban Ecological Resilience and Rural Ecological Resilience”:

Based on the results of weight measurement, from the perspective of the subsystem layer, the weight of urban ecological resilience and rural ecological adaptability is the largest, followed by rural ecological resilience and urban ecological adaptability, and finally, rural and urban ecological impact. The weight of urban ecological resilience and rural ecological adaptability is relatively large, indicating that urban ecological resilience and rural ecological adaptability substantially contribute to the comprehensive measurement of urban ecological resilience and rural ecological resilience, respectively. From the perspective of the index layer, the weight of the processing capacity of industrial waste gas treatment facilities is the largest, followed by the garden area, waters, and water conservancy facilities land area, and the smallest weight is that of industrial wastewater emissions and urban sewage discharge. The processing capacity of industrial waste gas treatment facilities contributes the most to the comprehensive measurement of urban ecological resilience, while the garden area contributes the most to the comprehensive measurement of rural ecological resilience.

with

Based on the results of weight measurement, from the perspective of the subsystem layer, the weight of urban ecological resilience and rural ecological adaptability is the largest, followed by rural ecological resilience and urban ecological adaptability, and finally, rural and urban ecological impact. The weight of urban ecological resilience and rural ecological adaptability is relatively large, indicating that urban ecological resilience and rural ecological adaptability substantially contribute to the comprehensive measurement of urban ecological resilience and rural ecological resilience, respectively. From the perspective of the index layer, the weight of the processing capacity of industrial waste gas treatment facilities is the largest, followed by the garden area, waters, and water conservancy facilities land area, and the smallest weight is that of industrial wastewater emissions and urban sewage discharge. The processing capacity of industrial waste gas treatment facilities contributes the most to the comprehensive measurement of urban ecological resilience, while the garden area contributes the most to the comprehensive measurement of rural ecological resilience. The treatment capacity of industrial waste gas treatment facilities has a large weight, which is due to the introduction of a series of air quality improvement and industrial pollution control policies in Yunnan Province during the study period, which has increased the investment in industrial gas treatment facilities and increased the control of urban industrial pollution, such as ultra-low-emission transformation requirements, ecological environment zoning control, comprehensive volatile organic compound (VOC) treatment, and so on. Therefore, C14 made a great contribution to the comprehensive measurement of urban ecological resilience during the study period.

(4)

We would like to replace the following passage in “Section 2.3.2. Collaborative Degree Model of the Composite System”:

where e_j = (e_j1, e_j2, …, e_jn) is the order parameter (1 ≤ n) and α_ji and β_ji are taken as 1.1 times the maximum value and 0.9 times the minimum value, respectively (i = 1, 2, …, n). It was assumed in this work that e_j = (e_j1, e_j2, …, e_jl) is a positive indicator and e_j = (e_j(l+1), …, e_jn) is a negative indicator.

with

where e_j = (e_j1, e_j2, …, e_jn) is the order parameter (1 ≤ n) and α_ji and β_ji are taken as 1.1 times the maximum value and the minimum value, respectively (i = 1, 2, …, n). It was assumed in this work that e_j = (e_j1, e_j2, …, e_jl) is a positive indicator and e_j = (e_j(l+1), …, e_jn) is a negative indicator.

(5)

We would like to replace reference 41:

41.

Huang, Q.; Cui, Z.Y. Measurement, Differences Decomposition, Dynamic Evolution and Obstacle Factor Identification of Urban Resilience Development Level in China. Stat. Decis. 2023, 39, 106–111. https://doi.org/10.13546/j.cnki.tjyjc.2023.13.019.

with

41.

Liu, D.R.; Yang, K.; Sun, S. Spatio-temporal Dvnamic Characteristics of Digital Economy and Urban Ecological Resilience and its Coupling Coordination: An Empirical Analysis in the Pearl River Delta Region. West Forum Econ. Manag. 2023, 34, 1–14+99. https://doi.org/10.12181/jjgl.2023.06.01.

(6)

We would like to add the following references:

42.

Liu, X.X.; Li, Z.F.; Guo, B.C. The measurement, spatial variation and agglomeration characteristics of the ecological civilization construction in the provinces in China. J. Hainan Univ. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2024, 42, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.15886/j.cnki.hnus.202211.0104.

43.

Liu, Y. Study on Youxian Rural Ecological Environmental Evaluation. Master’s Thesis, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha, China, 2020. https://doi.org/10.27662/d.cnki.gznlc.2020.000535.

With this correction, the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.