A framework for land use conflicts identification and zoning based on “scale-function-pattern”: Theory and application

• Construct a theoretical framework for LUCs based on “scale–function–pattern”. • Propose a multi-dimensional and multi-scale LUCs identification methodology. • Reveal spatiotemporal patterns of multi-dimensional LUCs in NSEBTM (2000–2020). • Define five zoning types to support sustainable land management. • Validate the new framework’s rationality and applicability. Land use conflicts (LUCs) represent the evolving interactions between human activities and land systems, posing critical challenges to sustainable land management. These conflicts typically manifest in mismatches of development scale, functional allocation, and spatial patterns. However, existing research often adopts single-dimensional or single-scale approaches, lacking a unified framework that integrates these key dimensions. To address this gap, we propose a multi-dimensional, multi-scale framework grounded in the “scale–function–pattern” paradigm. This framework systematically defines the conceptual connotations of LUCs, establishes identification methods, and develops zoning strategies by integrating a three-dimensional cube model and a triangular coordination model, supporting the delineation of conflict zones and targeted governance directions. Taking the Northern Slope Economic Belt of Tianshan Mountains (NSEBTM) as a case study, the results show that from 2000 to 2020, overall LUCs exhibited a declining trend, with higher conflict intensity in the west and lower in the east. Specifically: (1) Scale conflicts of land use significantly decreased, with severe cases mainly in developed but ecologically fragile areas; (2) Function conflicts of land use remained widespread but mild, with mild-conflict zones increasing from 51.08% to 76.27%; (3) Pattern conflicts of land use gradually declined, with moderate to severe cases concentrated in urbanized and rapidly urbanizing regions. Based on integrated classification, five zoning types were identified: key remediation zone (0.2%), functional optimization zone (52.75%), pattern adjustment zone, development regulation zone and strategic reserve zone. These findings offer a scientific basis for the coordinated management of LUCs and territorial spatial planning. This study deepens the understanding of LUCs from a multi-dimensional perspective and provides practical insights for sustainable land management.