## 3 Results
### Modeling the Quantitative Measurement of LPRO's Macro Effects
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Code** & **Term** & **St. Error** & **St. Coefficient** & **t** & **Sig.** & **Tolerance** & **VIF** \\ \hline - & Intercept & 0.006 & 0.192 *** & 31.432 & 0 & — & — \\ X1 & Change rate of transfer scale & 0 & \(-\)0.023* & \(-\)2.36 & 0.018 & 0.617 & 1.622 \\ X2 & Distance from city center & 0 & \(-\)0.041 *** & \(-\)5.153 & 0 & 0.885 & 1.13 \\ X3 & Scale of commerce land & 0 & \(-\)0.113 *** & \(-\)6.126 & 0 & 0.166 & 6.017 \\ X4 & Scale of residence land & 0 & 0.07 * & 2.016 & 0.044 & 0.482 & 2.073 \\ X5 & Scale of public management & 0 & 0.082 *** & 6.248 & 0 & 0.333 & 2.999 \\ X6 & Scale of transportation land & 0 & 0.042 & 3.025 & 0.073 & 0.292 & 3.429 \\ X7 & Percentage of commerce land & 0.008 & \(-\)0.026 * & \(-\)2.035 & 0.045 & 0.495 & 2.02 \\ X8 & Percentage of industry and & 0.024 & \(-\)0.043 & \(-\)3.096 & 0.052 & 0.208 & 4.811 \\ X9 & Percentage of residential land & 0.024 & \(-\)0.013 & \(-\)1.368 & 0.098 & 0.28 & 3.577 \\ X10 & Percentage of transportation & 0.024 & 0.16 *** & 15.647 & 0 & 0.141 & 7.079 \\ X11 & Scale of low-quality land & 0 & \(-\)0.063 *** & \(-\)7.185 & 0 & 0.739 & 1.354 \\ X12 & Land price & 0 & 0.484 *** & 46.374 & 0 & 0.52 & 1.922 \\ X13 & Transformation index & 0.009 & 0.034 *** & 4.42 & 0 & 0.94 & 1.064 \\ X14 & Rationalization index & 0.007 & 0.029 ** & 3.228 & 0.001 & 0.711 & 1.406 \\ X15 & Gentrification index & 0.003 & 0.312 *** & 28.031 & 0 & 0.457 & 2.187 \\ X16 & Bidding transfer scale & 0 & \(-\)0.028 ** & \(-\)3.042 & 0.002 & 0.648 & 1.543 \\ X17 & Land marketization level & 0.003 & 0.092 *** & 7.774 & 0 & 0.404 & 2.475 \\ X18 & Given FAR value & 0 & 0.037 *** & 4.199 & 0 & 0.727 & 1.375 \\ X19 & Set upper and lower limits for & 0 & 0.134 *** & 12.146 & 0 & 0.464 & 2.157 \\ X20 & Set lower limit for FAR & 0 & 0.022 & 1.684 & 0.051 & 0.177 & 5.659 \\ X21 & Value of upper limit of FAR & 0 & \(-\)0.03 *** & \(-\)3.559 & 0 & 0.789 & 1.268 \\ X22 & Average value of upper and & 0 & \(-\)0.014 & \(-\)1.38 & 0.168 & 0.589 & 1.698 \\ X23 & Transfer income & 0 & 0.007 & 0.745 & 0.456 & 0.694 & 1.441 \\ X24 & Scale of medium quality land & 0 & 0.006 & 0.61 & 0.542 & 0.512 & 1.954 \\ X25 & Value of the given FAR & 0 & \(-\)0.004 & \(-\)0.503 & 0.615 & 0.818 & 1.222 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Regression analysis of LPRO’s macro effects. Figure 2: Model fit of LPRO’s macro effects and the contribution of each dimension of LPRO. (Table 4). Specifically, the land price, the public management land scale, the residential land scale, the proportion of transportation land in the transfer link, the advanced index, the transformation index and the rationalization index in the utilization link, and the degree of land marketization, the upper and lower limits of the FAR, given the FAR value, and the lower limits of the FAR in the supervision link are shown to be significantly positively correlated with LPRO's macro effects, indicating that these elements in different links of the LPRO system are conducive to the promotion of LPRO's macro effects. In addition, the contributions of the land price and the advanced utilization index are as high as 38.18% and 22.62%, respectively, followed by the role of the land marketization level in terms of the macro effects (4.78%) and the contributions of the scale of public management land (3.11%), the residential land scale (2.43%), and the upper and lower limits of the FAR (2.11%). In contrast, the change rates of the transfer scale, distance to the city center, commercial land scale and its percentage, proportion of residential land, percentage of industry and mining land, low-quality land scale in the transfer link, upper limit of the FAR, and scale of bidding transfer in the supervision link present significant negative correlations with LPRO's macro effects.