## 1 Introduction
For economic effects, the impacts of the land transfer scale, land price, and land marketization level on economic growth are analyzed at the national, regional, and provincial levels via classical economic growth models, such as the Cobb-Douglas production function [14], the Harold-Domar model [15], the Solow model [16], the Ramsey model [17], and the Arrow model [18], as well as new models such as the translog production function, multivariate linear regression, spatial panel regression, and ridge regression [19; 20; 21; 22]. Considering that urban LPRO affects the scale and efficiency of industries, which further influences the layout and development of regional industries, domestic scholars have explored the interactive relationships between land supply and industrial restructuring and upgrading [23; 24]. Scholars have focused mainly on the effects of land transfer on the population, housing prices, secure housing and level of urbanization development to measure the social benefits of LPRO [25; 26; 27]. Studies on resource effects have investigated the impacts of intensive land use and land use efficiency [28; 29; 30]. In addition, previous studies have revealed the role of land resource arrangements in promoting energy efficiency, concluding that land marketization helps improve energy efficiency by optimizing the industrial structure and encouraging technological innovation and that the impacts of land marketization on increasing energy efficiency levels vary greatly during distinct phases of reform and among multilevel central and peripheral cities [31]. The present literature on the ecological and environmental effects of LPR transfer shows that the unreasonable spatial and temporal distributions of LPR transfer and the mismatch of land resources result in environmental pollution and that different LPR transfer modes and land use structures tend to introduce polluting enterprises to add to the deterioration of the environment [32]. Research on the macro effects of LPRO has gradually shifted from individual economic benefits to comprehensive benefits, and existing studies have established several frameworks through which to assess the performance of LPRO in terms of different aspects [33; 34; 35; 36], refined the benefits of the land supply system into several indicators for comprehensive and quantitative evaluation, and further measured the effects of transferring the existing LPRs, mainly through the Terfel method, hierarchical analysis, principal component analysis, data envelopment method, and comprehensive evaluation [37]. Previous evaluation indices for the comprehensive benefit assessment of LPR transfer have gradually diversified, and the evaluation methodology has shifted from static to dynamic. For practical applications, the evaluation of the comprehensive benefits of LPR transfer in cities in the eastern, middle and western regions of China, which temporally changes from a single time point to dynamic temporal evolution and spatially shifts from a single region to spatial differentiation, has been performed. However, LPR transfer is just one link in the LPRO chain; few studies have systematically explored the influence of the whole life cycle operation covering multiple LPR links on its ultimate macro effects [19; 20; 21; 22; 23], and research on the spatiotemporal heterogeneity of its operational mechanism is even rarer. The macro control of LPRO plays a comprehensive regulatory role in the economic structure, resource utilization efficiency, social security, and ecological environment improvement, among other aspects, and the comprehensive performance of these goals is not a simple linear combination. Therefore, a comprehensive and rational framework for assessing LPRO's macro effects should be constructed to accurately measure and visualize the ultimate value realization of LPRO.