## 2 Methodology
### Economic Urbanization
#### 2.3.3 Ecological Environment Indicator System
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**System** & **Indicator** & **Indicator Description** & **Unit** & **Objective Weight** & **Subjective Weight** & **Comprehensive Weight** & **Source** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Environmental pressure} & Wastewater discharge (-) & Sewage discharge divided by the total population & Cubic & \multirow{2}{*}{0.173} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.126} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.150} & \multirow{2}{*}{China Statistical Yearbook} \\  & Sulfur dioxide & So2 emissions divided by the total population & & & & & \\  & Cod (Chemical Oxygen & & & & & \\  & Cod emissions (-) & Demand) emissions divided by the total population & & & & & \\  & & This is represented by the & & & & & \\  & Landscape & density of traffic lines. The & & & & & \\  & fragmentation (-) & denser the traffic network, & & & & & \\  & the more fragmented & & & & & & \\  & the landscape. & & & & & & \\  & General industrial & General industrial solid waste generation (-) & & & & & \\  & Ecological risk & different ecological risk & & & & & \\  & index (-) & intensity coefficients & & & & & \\  & Habitat & This reflects the vulnerability & Habitat degradation & & & & \\  & degradation (-) & of the ecological environment & per square kilometer & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Ecological status} & Habitat quality & The habitat quality varies by & Habitat quality per & 0.212 & 0.374 & 0.293 & \multirow{8}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } \\  & Forest cover rate & The forest area as a & \% & 0.210 & 0.203 & 0.207 & \multirow{8}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } \\  & Per capita water & The total water resources & Cubic & & & & \\  & resources & divided by the & meters/person & & 0.162 & 0.227 & 0.195 & \multirow{8}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } \\  & & total population & & & & & & \\  & Per capita public & The urban green area divided by the total population & Square & & & & \\  & green space & by the total population & meters/person & & 0.205 & 0.074 & 0.140 & Environmental \\  & Ecosystem & Ecosystem restoration & & & & & & \\  & resilience & coefficients are different for & & & & & & \\  & different land use types & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Environmental response} & Domestic waste & The total waste divided by & & & & & \\  & removal volume & the total population & & & & & \\  & Comprehensive & The amount of general & & & & & \\  & utilization rate of & industrial solid waste & & & & & \\  & industrial & generated divided by the & & & & \\  & solid waste & & & & & \\  & R\&D expenditure as a & & & & & \\  & & percentage of & & & & & \\  & & fiscal expenditure & & & & & \\  & Expenditure on & & & & & & \\  & energy & conservation and & & & & & \\  & conservation and & environmental protection & & & & & \\  & environmental & expenditure in & & & & & Yearbook \\  & protection & fiscal expenditure & & & & & \\  & Completed & The ratio of completed & & & & & \\  & investment in industrial & investment in industrial & & & & & \\  & industrial & pollution control to the & & & & & \\  & pollution control & total population & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Ecological services} & Value of & Multiplies the value of & & & & & & \\  & ecosystem services by the & & & & & & \\  & corresponding area & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The ecological environment indicator system and its weights. In this study, the area multiplied by the ecosystem resilience factor was used to calculate ecosystem resilience based on the contribution and role of different land use types, drawing on the study by [PERSON] et al. [3]. We believe that forests, water, and grasslands are more likely to recover from disturbances than, for example, cropland and building land disturbed by humans.