Coupled Sustainable Management Zoning of Ecological Vulnerability and Soil Erosion in the Eastern Dabie Mountains

Mountain–hill–plain transition zones combine terrain sensitivity, agricultural land use, and construction pressure and therefore require spatially differentiated management. This study develops a pressure-oriented framework that distinguishes composite ecological vulnerability from soil-erosion pressure and translates their multi-period co-occurrence into management demand. Using multi-source raster data for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 on a common 30 m reference grid, we constructed an ecological vulnerability index (EVI) from 14 ecological, environmental, and human-activity indicators using a sensitivity–resilience–pressure framework, combined analytic hierarchy process (AHP)–entropy weighting, and unified natural breaks. Soil erosion intensity was estimated with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) using digital elevation model (DEM)-derived flow accumulation, a capped effective slope length, and a fractional vegetation cover (FVC)-based cover-management factor. The EVI and RUSLE dimensions were integrated through a two-dimensional pressure matrix, a Coupled Pressure Index (CPI), and an Integrated Management Demand Index (IMDI). High vulnerability was concentrated in northern, urban-fringe, and selected agricultural areas, whereas moderate-or-above erosion was concentrated on slopes, in gullies, and on hilly farmland; areas subject to both pressures were spatially selective. The largest EVI weights were assigned to mean annual precipitation (0.3841), mean annual temperature (0.1727), ecosystem type (0.0820), biological abundance (0.0810), and built-up land ratio (0.0746). Non-vulnerable and slightly vulnerable areas increased from 40.62% to 64.27%, whereas highly and extremely vulnerable areas decreased from 38.98% to 23.29%. Moderate-or-above soil erosion accounted for 13.56% in 2020. The five-zone comprehensive management classification comprised stable conservation (40.19%), soil and water conservation priority (13.73%), ecological vulnerability regulation (27.94%), integrated management priority (1.48%), and transition management (16.66%). By linking ecological diagnosis, erosion-pressure identification, persistence analysis, and county-level zoning, the framework provides an interpretable spatial basis for prioritizing ecological conservation, soil and water conservation, and land-use management in mountain–hill–plain transition regions.