Urban fringe is an area characterized by intense human activities and unstable ecological and environmental conditions. Understanding the ecological risks and their underlying factors in the urban fringe is crucial for supporting territorial spatial planning and ecological restoration. While most previous studies have focused on analyzing ecological risks of land use in cities, provinces, basins, or regions, few have paid attention to the ecological risks of the urban fringe in megacities. The urban fringe is not only an area experiencing significant population changes but also a key area undergoing land use transformation. Unlike urban and non-urban areas, the landscape ecological risk in the urban fringe is driven by unique determinants. Additionally, previous studies have primarily focused on the spatial-temporal evolution and spatial heterogeneity of landscape ecological risks, but they have lacked quantitative analysis of the spatial correlation between landscape ecological risk and its determinants. A limited number of studies have explored the driving forces behind changes in landscape ecological risk using geographic detectors. However, some of these studies have utilized a unified classification system based on equal intervals or natural break point methods to set key parameters for geographical detectors. This approach may lead to biased or misleading evaluation results regarding the drivers of landscape ecological risk. To address these gaps, this study analyzed landscape ecological risk indexes in the urban fringe of Wuhan city based on land use data from 1995, 2005, 2015, and 2022. By employing an optimal parameters-based geographical detector model, we identified the determinants contributing to landscape ecological risk. The results revealed the following key findings: (1) The predominant land use types in the study area were cultivated land, water, and built-up land. Between 1995 and 2022, the area of cultivated land and water experienced significant decreases, while the area of built-up land expanded rapidly; (2) The landscape ecological risk index decreased from 0.54 to 0.36, indicating a notable decrease in the area of middle and high ecological risk zones and a corresponding increase in low ecological risk areas; (3) Factors such as GDP density, built-up land density, road density, distance from urban roads, distance from provincial development zones, and distance from lakes exhibited significant spatial correlations with landscape ecological risk during different periods. Therefore, to ensure environmental security, it is essential for the local government to prioritize the ecological risks associated with land use near lakes, main roads, and central business districts (CBDs). This can be achieved through strengthened law enforcement using spatial land use control tools and by guiding the aggregation and development of industry and economy with scientifically and reasonably planned territorial spatial and transportation planning.