| Literature DB >> 32764413 |
Kun Wang1, Yingkai Tang1, Yaozhi Chen1, Longwen Shang2, Xuanming Ji3, Mengchao Yao4, Ping Wang3.
Abstract
In recent years, urbanization has been developing rapidly. However, it is also accompanied by land management problems, such as low land use efficiency. In this research, we manage to explore the temporal and spatial evolution laws as well as characteristics of the coupling and coordinated development between urbanization and land use benefits. Through this, it is possible for us to provide policy recommendations for the sustainable development of the urbanization in Fujian Province. In this study, we take prefecture-level municipal districts and county-level cities in Fujian as the research subject. We construct an index system, based on data in 2002, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017, to evaluate the urban land use benefits and urbanization. Besides, we leverage the Gini coefficient weighting method to give weight to each index and calculate the value of its benefits. Moreover, it is the relative development degree and the coupling coordination degree model that we comprehensively leverage to study the spatiotemporal evolution law of the coupling coordination degree (CCD). The results show that: (1) Urban land use benefits and urbanization level are positively correlated with the regional administrative level and economic development status; (2) The CCD of urban land use benefits and urbanization level in various regions of Fujian is still low. However, the overall development direction is good; (3) From the perspective of spatial distribution, the CCD owns a "center-periphery" pattern that is based on the law of diminishing CCD power from three central cities of Fuzhou, Xiamen, and Sanming. Consequently, it requires governments to take action. Firstly, they should promote the intensive land use in the urbanization process. Meanwhile, they should also pay attention to ecological environment protection. Besides, it is recommendable to give full play to the radiating and leading effect of central cities on surrounding ones. Finally, they are required to provide appropriate policies and resource support to peripheral cities.Entities:
Keywords: Fujian Province; Gini coefficient weighting method; coupling coordination degree (CCD); land use benefits; urbanization
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32764413 PMCID: PMC7460428 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17165647
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The location of the study area.
Basic economic information of Fujian Province.
| Year | GDP (Trillion yuan) | PCDIUR (yuan) | PCDIRR (yuan) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 0.45 | 9189 | 3539 |
| 2005 | 0.66 | 12,321 | 4450 |
| 2010 | 1.47 | 21,781 | 7427 |
| 2015 | 2.6 | 33,275 | 13,793 |
| 2017 | 3.22 | 39,001 | 16,335 |
GDP—Gross Domestic Product; PCDIUR—the Per Capita Disposable Income of Urban Residents; PCDIRR—the Per Capita Disposable Income of Rural Residents.
Evaluation index system of urban land use benefits and urbanization level.
| Item | Primary Index | Secondary Index | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urban land use benefits | Economic benefits | GDP per unit area (CNY 10,000) | 0.1050 |
| Investment in fixed assets per unit area (CNY 10,000) | 0.0998 | ||
| gross industrial output value per unit area (CNY 10,000) | 0.1084 | ||
| Social benefits | urban population density (person /km2) | 0.0657 | |
| Urban road area per capita (m2/person) | 0.0258 | ||
| Developed area per capita (m2/person) | 0.0479 | ||
| Ecological benefits | Park area per capita (m2/person) | 0.0156 | |
| Developed coverage rate in the built-up area (%) | 0.0062 | ||
| urban green land rat (%) | 0.0078 | ||
| Environmental benefits | Sewage treatment rate (%) | 0.0181 | |
| Harmless treatment rate of domestic garbage (%) | 0.0087 | ||
| Urbanization level | Economic urbanization | GDP per capita (1000 yuan/person) | 0.0289 |
| Industrial production value per capita (1000 yuan/person) | 0.0426 | ||
| Proportion of tertiary industry (%) | 0.0183 | ||
| Social urbanization | Number of hospital beds per 10,000 people (per 10,000 people) | 0.0378 | |
| Number of buses per 10,000 people (vehicles/10,000 people) | 0.0535 | ||
| Total wages of urban employees on the job (yuan) | 0.0101 | ||
| Number of ordinary teachers per 10,000 people (people /10,000 people) | 0.0154 | ||
| Population urbanization | Population urbanization rate (%) | 0.0234 | |
| Non-agricultural population (10,000 people) | 0.0717 | ||
| Spatial urbanization | Urban construction land area (km2) | 0.0859 | |
| Proportion of construction land (%) | 0.1034 |
GDP—Gross Domestic Product; CNY—China Yuan.
Discriminating standards of the coupling coordination degree.
| Stage | Category | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–0.099 | Extremely uncoordinated | |
| Uncoordinated development | 0.10–0.199 | Seriously uncoordinated |
| 0.20–0.299 | Moderately uncoordinated | |
| 0.30–0.399 | Slightly uncoordinated | |
| Transitional development | 0.40–0.499 | At the edge of being uncoordinated |
| 0.50–0.599 | Barely coordinated | |
| 0.60–0.699 | Slightly coordinated | |
| Coordinated development | 0.70–0.799 | Moderately coordinated |
| 0.80–0.899 | Well-coordinated | |
| 0.90–1.00 | Perfectly coordinated |
Weights of primary indices.
| Primary Index | Weight |
|---|---|
| Economic benefits | 0.3132 |
| Social benefits | 0.1394 |
| Ecological benefits | 0.0296 |
| Environmental benefits | 0.0268 |
| Economic urbanization | 0.0898 |
| Social urbanization | 0.1168 |
| Population urbanization | 0.0951 |
| Spatial urbanization | 0.1893 |
Figure 2The relative development degree of urban land use efficiency and urbanization level.
Figure 3Comprehensive value of urban land use benefits and urbanization level by region in 2017.
Coupling coordination degree (CCD) of urban land use benefits and urbanization level in various regions.
| City | 2002 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2017 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | D | C | D | C | D | C | D | C | D | |
| Fuzhou | 0.990 | 0.551 | 0.981 | 0.542 | 0.917 | 0.485 | 0.964 | 0.526 | 0.977 | 0.492 |
| Fuqing | 0.962 | 0.289 | 0.993 | 0.278 | 0.996 | 0.300 | 0.985 | 0.341 | 0.963 | 0.332 |
| Changle | 0.995 | 0.282 | 0.996 | 0.311 | 0.981 | 0.320 | 0.988 | 0.360 | ||
| Xiamen | 0.994 | 0.539 | 0.988 | 0.532 | 0.814 | 0.427 | 0.907 | 0.513 | 0.932 | 0.514 |
| Putian | 0.980 | 0.487 | 0.978 | 0.495 | 0.999 | 0.331 | 0.992 | 0.394 | 0.999 | 0.392 |
| Sanming | 0.997 | 0.391 | 0.999 | 0.381 | 0.981 | 0.389 | 0.998 | 0.419 | 0.989 | 0.420 |
| Yongan | 0.993 | 0.333 | 0.995 | 0.335 | 0.996 | 0.354 | 0.999 | 0.372 | 0.998 | 0.377 |
| Quanzhou | 0.999 | 0.463 | 1.000 | 0.466 | 0.981 | 0.441 | 0.986 | 0.507 | 0.974 | 0.539 |
| Shishi | 0.994 | 0.402 | 0.971 | 0.418 | 0.967 | 0.367 | 0.993 | 0.503 | 0.990 | 0.500 |
| Jinjiang | 0.997 | 0.385 | 0.983 | 0.372 | 0.979 | 0.498 | 0.982 | 0.409 | 0.980 | 0.411 |
| Nanan | 0.993 | 0.239 | 0.997 | 0.238 | 1.000 | 0.287 | 1.000 | 0.327 | 0.995 | 0.317 |
| Zhangzhou | 0.995 | 0.405 | 0.999 | 0.450 | 0.991 | 0.407 | 0.991 | 0.474 | 0.990 | 0.478 |
| Longhai | 0.999 | 0.226 | 0.983 | 0.216 | 0.999 | 0.260 | 1.000 | 0.300 | 0.999 | 0.316 |
| Nanping | 0.998 | 0.335 | 0.998 | 0.337 | 1.000 | 0.334 | 1.000 | 0.333 | 0.999 | 0.324 |
| Shaowu | 0.973 | 0.300 | 0.991 | 0.321 | 0.983 | 0.338 | 0.849 | 0.262 | 0.999 | 0.359 |
| Wuyishan | 0.999 | 0.328 | 0.966 | 0.310 | 0.930 | 0.288 | 0.977 | 0.315 | 0.996 | 0.298 |
| Jianou | 0.963 | 0.220 | 0.960 | 0.224 | 0.969 | 0.237 | 0.992 | 0.251 | 0.980 | 0.250 |
| Jianyang | 0.978 | 0.264 | 0.983 | 0.259 | 0.996 | 0.271 | ||||
| Ningde | 0.993 | 0.305 | 0.995 | 0.296 | 0.999 | 0.310 | 0.998 | 0.348 | 0.998 | 0.354 |
| Fuan | 0.997 | 0.222 | 0.994 | 0.239 | 0.998 | 0.256 | 0.997 | 0.292 | 0.998 | 0.285 |
| Fuding | 0.989 | 0.220 | 0.966 | 0.249 | 0.983 | 0.275 | 0.990 | 0.297 | 0.993 | 0.287 |
| Longyan | 1.000 | 0.391 | 0.997 | 0.382 | 0.988 | 0.388 | 0.995 | 0.362 | 0.996 | 0.367 |
| Zhangping | 0.997 | 0.250 | 0.979 | 0.239 | 0.988 | 0.272 | 0.998 | 0.281 | 0.991 | 0.300 |
C—the Coupling Degree of Urban Land Use Benefits and Urbanization; D—the Coupling Coordination Degree of Urban Land Use Benefits and Urbanization.
Figure 4The spatial distribution diagram of the regional coupling coordination degree. (a)—The spatial distribution diagram of coupling coordination degree in 2002.; (b)—The spatial distribution diagram of coupling coordination degree in 2005. (c)—The spatial distribution diagram of coupling coordination degree in 2010.; (d)—The spatial distribution diagram of coupling coordination degree in 2015.; (e)—The spatial distribution diagram of coupling coordination degree in 2017.; (f)—The spatial distribution diagram of Variation type of coupling coordination degree.