| Literature DB >> 34071373 |
Zixin Dou1, Yanming Sun1,2, Tao Wang3, Huiyin Wan4, Shiqi Fan5.
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the development trend of the manufacturing industry of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (from 2008 to 2018) by constructing an evaluation system. On the basis of push-pull-mooring theory, we analyze these factors by using an entropy and cluster model. The results show the following: (1) Technological development had an obvious spatial distribution pattern of core regional radiation, while others did not. (2) Economic development was based on the city's existing industrial development system, while environmental development depended on governmental policies. (3) Compared with the environmental factor, the development trends of the economic and technological factors were more similar. Lastly, we provide four strategies for the development of the manufacturing industry in different cities.Entities:
Keywords: PPM theory; economic factor; environmental factor; manufacturing industry; technological factor
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34071373 PMCID: PMC8198759 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18115800
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Conceptual framework of a regional advanced manufacturing industry (AMI).
Evaluation system for a regional AMI.
| Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Economic development | Development level of the manufacturing industry | Industrial added value above a designated size (X1) |
| Marketization degree of the manufacturing industry | Total profits of industrial enterprises above a designated size (X2) | |
| Environmental development | Green sustainability of the manufacturing industry | Wastewater discharge of the industrial added value per unit scale (X3) |
| Exhaust emissions of the industrial added value per unit scale (X4) | ||
| Solid production discharge of the industrial added value per unit scale (X5) | ||
| Technological development | Technological development level of the manufacturing industry | Value added of the advanced manufacturing (X6) |
| Value added of the high-tech industry (X7) | ||
| Investment in the manufacturing technology | Internal expenditure on R&D of industrial enterprises above a designated size (X8) | |
| New product development capability | Output value of new products of industrial enterprises above a designated size (X9) |
Selected cities.
| Abbreviation | City | Abbreviation | City | Abbreviation | City |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GZ | Guangzhou | FS | Foshan | ZS | Zhongshan |
| SZ | Shenzhen | HZ | Huizhou | JM | Jiangmen |
| ZH | Zhuhai | DG | Dongguan | ZQ | Zhaoqing |
Evaluation scores of the economic factor.
| GZ | SZ | ZH | FS | HZ | DG | ZS | JM | ZQ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Score | 7.70 | 10.00 | 1.09 | 6.96 | 1.64 | 2.66 | 2.34 | 2.10 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 2 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 9 | |
| 2012 | Score | 7.46 | 10.00 | 1.25 | 8.22 | 2.00 | 3.13 | 2.34 | 1.00 | 1.37 |
| Rank | 3 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 7 | |
| 2013 | Score | 8.10 | 10.00 | 1.44 | 8.27 | 2.14 | 3.19 | 1.91 | 1.00 | 1.34 |
| Rank | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 8 | |
| 2014 | Score | 6.99 | 10.00 | 1.42 | 7.70 | 1.99 | 3.08 | 1.70 | 1.00 | 1.21 |
| Rank | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 8 | |
| 2015 | Score | 6.36 | 10.00 | 1.13 | 7.30 | 1.94 | 2.78 | 1.53 | 1.00 | 1.02 |
| Rank | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 8 | |
| 2016 | Score | 6.41 | 10.00 | 1.61 | 7.61 | 2.36 | 3.35 | 1.60 | 1.15 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 3 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| 2017 | Score | 5.88 | 10.00 | 1.90 | 6.49 | 2.54 | 4.14 | 1.44 | 1.42 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 3 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| 2018 | Score | 5.99 | 10.00 | 1.89 | 6.37 | 2.04 | 3.87 | 1.41 | 1.43 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 3 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 9 |
Evaluation scores of the environmental factor.
| GZ | SZ | ZH | FS | HZ | DG | ZS | JM | ZQ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Score | 3.21 | 4.73 | 1.30 | 8.85 | 1.00 | 10.00 | 1.33 | 8.21 | 4.07 |
| Rank | 6 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 5 | |
| 2012 | Score | 6.07 | 2.56 | 2.79 | 10.00 | 1.00 | 8.85 | 4.12 | 7.65 | 6.66 |
| Rank | 5 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 4 | |
| 2013 | Score | 10.00 | 4.85 | 4.64 | 9.35 | 4.95 | 9.92 | 1.00 | 6.93 | 5.27 |
| Rank | 1 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 9 | 4 | 5 | |
| 2014 | Score | 9.87 | 4.37 | 5.56 | 8.98 | 2.24 | 10.00 | 1.00 | 7.22 | 5.54 |
| Rank | 2 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 9 | 4 | 6 | |
| 2015 | Score | 9.92 | 6.27 | 4.80 | 6.97 | 2.36 | 10.00 | 1.00 | 5.66 | 4.84 |
| Rank | 2 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 9 | 5 | 6 | |
| 2016 | Score | 10.00 | 4.03 | 4.85 | 8.90 | 1.00 | 9.56 | 1.29 | 3.54 | 3.94 |
| Rank | 1 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 6 | |
| 2017 | Score | 9.97 | 4.53 | 4.70 | 7.71 | 4.78 | 10.00 | 1.00 | 4.13 | 4.12 |
| Rank | 2 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 9 | 7 | 8 | |
| 2018 | Score | 10.00 | 3.65 | 4.89 | 8.28 | 2.82 | 9.81 | 1.00 | 4.13 | 4.47 |
| Rank | 1 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 5 |
Evaluation scores of the technological factor.
| GZ | SZ | ZH | FS | HZ | DG | ZS | JM | ZQ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Score | 4.06 | 10.00 | 1.46 | 2.59 | 2.05 | 2.28 | 1.57 | 1.23 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 2 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 9 | |
| 2012 | Score | 3.92 | 10.00 | 1.41 | 2.75 | 2.27 | 2.46 | 1.60 | 1.07 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 2 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 9 | |
| 2013 | Score | 3.76 | 10.00 | 1.42 | 2.80 | 2.45 | 2.77 | 1.52 | 1.06 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 2 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 9 | |
| 2014 | Score | 3.66 | 10.00 | 1.40 | 2.78 | 2.21 | 2.84 | 1.47 | 1.09 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 2 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 9 | |
| 2015 | Score | 3.59 | 10.00 | 1.42 | 2.69 | 2.19 | 2.80 | 1.46 | 1.13 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 2 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 9 | |
| 2016 | Score | 3.25 | 10.00 | 1.44 | 2.57 | 2.12 | 3.20 | 1.39 | 1.14 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 2 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| 2017 | Score | 3.08 | 10.00 | 1.52 | 2.56 | 2.21 | 3.53 | 1.41 | 1.22 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 3 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| 2018 | Score | 2.97 | 10.00 | 1.52 | 2.51 | 2.08 | 3.62 | 1.33 | 1.24 | 1.00 |
| Rank | 3 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
Figure 2Typical situations of the manufacturing industries in regional cities.
Cluster result of the regional cities.
| GZ | SZ | ZH | FS | HZ | DG | ZS | JM | ZQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The economic factor | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| The environmental factor | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| The technological factor | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Figure 3Economic spatial distribution of the nine cities.
Figure 4Environmental spatial distribution of the nine cities.
Figure 5Technological spatial distribution of the nine cities.