| Literature DB >> 35742427 |
Yue Li1, Chengmeng Zhang1, Yan Tong1, Yalu Zhang1, Gong Chen2.
Abstract
The old-age dependency ratio (ODR) is an important indicator reflecting the degree of a regional population's aging. In the context of aging, this study provides a timely and effective method for predicting the ODR in Chinese cities. Using the provincial ODR from the Seventh National Population Census and Defense Meteorological Satellite Program/Operational Linescan System (DMSP/OLS) nighttime light data, this study aims to predict and analyze the spatial correlation of the municipal ODR in Chinese cities. First, the prediction model of the ODR was established with curve regression. Second, the spatial structure of the municipal ODR was investigated using the Moran's I method. The experimental results show the following: (1) the correlation between the sum of the nighttime light and ODR is greater than the mean of nighttime light in the study areas; (2) the Sigmoid model fits better than other regression models using the provincial ODR in the past ten years; and (3) there exists an obvious spatial agglomeration and dependence on the municipal ODR. The findings indicate that it is reasonable to use nighttime light data to predict the municipal ODR in large and medium-sized cities. Our approach can provide support for future regional censuses and spatial simulations.Entities:
Keywords: curve regression model; large and medium-sized cities; nighttime light data; old-age dependency ratio; spatial correlation analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35742427 PMCID: PMC9223023 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19127179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Flowchart of the research method.
Descriptions of data sources.
| Name | Source | Information |
|---|---|---|
| Population age structure and dependency ratios | National Bureau of Statistics of China ( | xls format |
| Global DMSP/OLS nighttime light data | NOAA official data center ( | TIF format, WGS-84 projection |
| Spatial population and spatial GDP grid data | Resource and environment science and data center ( | Gird format, Albers projection |
| Provincial and municipal administrative divisions | National geomatics center of China ( | Shapefile format |
Figure 2Provincial administrative division map and nighttime light image in China. (a) Provincial administrative division map; (b) Provincial nighttime light image.
Curve regression models.
| No. | Model | Expression | No. | Model | Expression |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Linear |
| 7 | Power |
|
| 2 | Logarithmic |
| 8 | Sigmoid |
|
| 3 | Inverse |
| 9 | Growth |
|
| 4 | Quadratic |
| 10 | Exponential |
|
| 5 | Cubic |
| 11 | Logistic |
|
| 6 | Compound |
|
Correlation coefficients (R2) of different prediction models using the provincial ODR in China in the past ten years.
| Model | ODR_2011 | ODR_2012 | ODR_2013 | ODR_2014 | ODR_2015 | ODR_2016 | ODR_2017 | ODR_2018 | ODR_2019 | ODR_2020 | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear | 0.043 | 0.031 | 0.029 | 0.050 | 0.064 | 0.067 | 0.076 | 0.135 | 0.121 | 0.075 | 0.069 |
| Logarithmic | 0.120 | 0.089 | 0.084 | 0.119 | 0.164 | 0.179 | 0.165 | 0.213 | 0.192 | 0.206 | 0.153 |
| Inverse | 0.177 | 0.153 | 0.171 | 0.169 | 0.238 | 0.280 | 0.226 | 0.234 | 0.217 | 0.302 | 0.217 |
| Quadratic | 0.062 | 0.038 | 0.030 | 0.061 | 0.100 | 0.106 | 0.102 | 0.144 | 0.130 | 0.141 | 0.091 |
| Cubic | 0.259 | 0.190 | 0.205 | 0.230 | 0.225 | 0.218 | 0.191 | 0.252 | 0.217 | 0.257 | 0.224 |
| Compound | 0.058 | 0.043 | 0.038 | 0.073 | 0.068 | 0.076 | 0.077 | 0.129 | 0.115 | 0.073 | 0.075 |
| Power | 0.170 | 0.127 | 0.123 | 0.178 | 0.201 | 0.234 | 0.198 | 0.253 | 0.228 | 0.244 | 0.196 |
| Sigmoid | 0.254 | 0.221 | 0.254 | 0.254 | 0.314 | 0.398 | 0.301 | 0.326 | 0.304 | 0.412 | 0.304 |
| Growth | 0.058 | 0.043 | 0.038 | 0.073 | 0.068 | 0.076 | 0.077 | 0.129 | 0.115 | 0.073 | 0.075 |
| Exponential | 0.058 | 0.043 | 0.038 | 0.073 | 0.068 | 0.076 | 0.077 | 0.129 | 0.115 | 0.073 | 0.075 |
| Logistic | 0.058 | 0.043 | 0.038 | 0.073 | 0.068 | 0.076 | 0.077 | 0.129 | 0.115 | 0.073 | 0.075 |
Prediction results of the municipal ODR in large and medium-sized cities in China.
| No. | City | Municipal SUM of DN | Municipal ODR (%) | No. | City | Municipal SUM of DN | Municipal ODR (%) | No. | City | Municipal SUM of DN | Municipal ODR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Suzhou | 373,261 | 18.076 | 23 | Wuxi | 186,016 | 15.948 | 45 | Jiaxing | 145,137 | 14.865 |
| 2 | Tianjin | 349,408 | 17.923 | 24 | Yulin | 180,977 | 15.838 | 46 | Xi’an | 144,576 | 14.847 |
| 3 | Beijing | 348,231 | 17.915 | 25 | Nanjing | 180,621 | 15.830 | 47 | Dongguan | 140,280 | 14.702 |
| 4 | Shanghai | 334,746 | 17.819 | 26 | Zhengzhou | 176,195 | 15.728 | 48 | Yan’an | 140,273 | 14.701 |
| 5 | Chongqing | 300,330 | 17.538 | 27 | Shijiazhuang | 174,421 | 15.686 | 49 | Jinhua | 139,724 | 14.682 |
| 6 | Harbin | 265,159 | 17.182 | 28 | Jinan | 173,470 | 15.663 | 50 | Taizhou | 139,068 | 14.659 |
| 7 | Guangzhou | 256,275 | 17.078 | 29 | Shenyang | 170,688 | 15.595 | 51 | Qiqihar | 138,330 | 14.633 |
| 8 | Tangshan | 254,191 | 17.053 | 30 | Handan | 170,627 | 15.593 | 52 | Xingtai | 136,448 | 14.566 |
| 9 | Weifang | 249,205 | 16.990 | 31 | Jining | 170,199 | 15.582 | 53 | Yangzhou | 136,258 | 14.559 |
| 10 | Ningbo | 232,518 | 16.765 | 32 | Wuhan | 170,083 | 15.580 | 54 | Binzhou | 136,179 | 14.556 |
| 11 | Nantong | 230,225 | 16.731 | 33 | Foshan | 169,524 | 15.566 | 55 | Taizhou | 135,832 | 14.543 |
| 12 | Chengdu | 223,101 | 16.624 | 34 | Huizhou | 167,721 | 15.520 | 56 | Hulunbeir | 135,027 | 14.513 |
| 13 | Yantai | 218,269 | 16.548 | 35 | Xuzhou | 166,657 | 15.492 | 57 | Luliang | 133,380 | 14.452 |
| 14 | Qingdao | 214,348 | 16.483 | 36 | Dalian | 157,692 | 15.249 | 58 | Changzhou | 133,260 | 14.447 |
| 15 | Linyi | 211,939 | 16.443 | 37 | Fuzhou | 156,327 | 15.210 | 59 | Jiangmen | 132,327 | 14.412 |
| 16 | Quanzhou | 210,609 | 16.420 | 38 | Kunming | 155,533 | 15.187 | 60 | Hefei | 132,237 | 14.409 |
| 17 | Hangzhou | 208,367 | 16.381 | 39 | Nanyang | 152,235 | 15.089 | 61 | Heze | 131,710 | 14.388 |
| 18 | Cangzhou | 200,063 | 16.230 | 40 | Langfang | 150,066 | 15.022 | 62 | Dezhou | 130,769 | 14.352 |
| 19 | Changchun | 197,844 | 16.188 | 41 | Daqing | 149,761 | 15.013 | 63 | Shaoxing | 126,333 | 14.174 |
| 20 | Baoding | 189,983 | 16.032 | 42 | Suihua | 146,411 | 14.907 | 64 | Changsha | 123,222 | 14.043 |
| 21 | Yancheng | 188,884 | 16.009 | 43 | Wenzhou | 145,549 | 14.879 | 65 | Dongying | 115,762 | 13.706 |
| 22 | Ordos | 187,564 | 15.981 | 44 | Zhangzhou | 145,227 | 14.868 |
Figure 3Municipal SUM of DN and municipal ODR in large and medium-sized cities in China. (a) Municipal SUM of DN in large and medium-sized cities; (b) Municipal ODR in large and medium-sized cities.
Figure 4Global spatial autocorrelation analysis of the municipal ODR. (a) Significance distribution of the z value; (b) Scatter plot of the global Moran’s I.
Figure 5Local spatial autocorrelation and cold–hot spot analysis of the municipal ODR. (a) LISA cluster map; (b) LISA significance map; (c) Gi* cluster map.
ODR values in the hot spot cities.
| No. | City | Municipal ODR (%) | No. | City | Municipal ODR (%) | No. | City | Municipal ODR (%) | No. | City | Municipal ODR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Suzhou | 18.076 | 22 | Shijiazhuang | 15.686 | 43 | Heze | 14.388 | 64 | Zhongshan | 12.231 |
| 2 | Tianjin | 17.923 | 23 | Jinan | 15.663 | 44 | Dezhou | 14.352 | 65 | Hengshui | 12.216 |
| 3 | Beijing | 17.915 | 24 | Handan | 15.593 | 45 | Shaoxing | 14.174 | 66 | Pingdingshan | 12.103 |
| 4 | Shanghai | 17.819 | 25 | Jining | 15.582 | 46 | Dongying | 13.706 | 67 | Datong | 11.513 |
| 5 | Harbin | 17.182 | 26 | Foshan | 15.566 | 47 | Xinxiang | 13.596 | 68 | Chengde | 11.051 |
| 6 | Guangzhou | 17.078 | 27 | Huizhou | 15.520 | 48 | Lianyungang | 13.574 | 69 | Zaozhuang | 10.961 |
| 7 | Tangshan | 17.053 | 28 | Xuzhou | 15.492 | 49 | Xinzhou | 13.430 | 70 | Xiamen | 10.823 |
| 8 | Weifang | 16.990 | 29 | Langfang | 15.022 | 50 | Zhenjiang | 13.404 | 71 | Rizhao | 10.822 |
| 9 | Ningbo | 16.765 | 30 | Daqing | 15.013 | 51 | Liaocheng | 13.404 | 72 | Longyan | 10.550 |
| 10 | Nantong | 16.731 | 31 | Suihua | 14.907 | 52 | Huai’an | 13.372 | 73 | Kaifeng | 9.968 |
| 11 | Yantai | 16.548 | 32 | Jiaxing | 14.865 | 53 | Zibo | 13.281 | 74 | Putian | 9.827 |
| 12 | Qingdao | 16.483 | 33 | Dongguan | 14.702 | 54 | Weihai | 13.164 | 75 | Songyuan | 9.614 |
| 13 | Linyi | 16.443 | 34 | Yan’an | 14.701 | 55 | Suqian | 13.162 | 76 | Shaoguan | 9.588 |
| 14 | Quanzhou | 16.420 | 35 | Jinhua | 14.682 | 56 | Linfen | 13.122 | 77 | Ma’anshan | 9.550 |
| 15 | Cangzhou | 16.230 | 36 | Taizhou | 14.659 | 57 | Hohhot | 12.910 | 78 | Puyang | 9.351 |
| 16 | Baoding | 16.032 | 37 | Xingtai | 14.566 | 58 | Jinzhong | 12.822 | 79 | Xuancheng | 8.701 |
| 17 | Yancheng | 16.009 | 38 | Yangzhou | 14.559 | 59 | Chuzhou | 12.660 | 80 | Yichun | 6.896 |
| 18 | Wuxi | 15.948 | 39 | Binzhou | 14.556 | 60 | Huzhou | 12.623 | 81 | Zhoushan | 6.095 |
| 19 | Yulin | 15.838 | 40 | Taizhou | 14.543 | 61 | Changzhi | 12.496 | 82 | Qitaihe | 5.565 |
| 20 | Nanjing | 15.830 | 41 | Luliang | 14.452 | 62 | Zhangjiakou | 12.471 | 83 | Yangquan | 4.734 |
| 21 | Zhengzhou | 15.728 | 42 | Changzhou | 14.447 | 63 | Tai’an | 12.466 | 84 | Tongchuan | 2.040 |
Correlations between the municipal ODR and nighttime light SUM of DN, spatial population, and spatial GDP.
| Municipal ODR | Municipal SUM of DN | Spatial Population | Spatial GDP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal ODR | 1 | |||
| Municipal SUM of DN | 0.820 ** | 1 | ||
| Spatial population | 0.675 ** | 0.674 ** | 1 | |
| Spatial GDP | 0.594 ** | 0.702 ** | 0.816 ** | 1 |
Note: ** significant correlation at 0.01 level (two-sided).
Distribution of the municipal ODR and municipal SUM of DN, spatial population, and spatial GDP.
| City | Municipal ODR (%) | City | Municipal SUM of DN | City | Spatial Population | City | Spatial GDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suzhou | 18.076 | Suzhou | 373,261 | Chongqing | 30,959,389 | Shanghai | 261,830,605 |
| Tianjin | 17.923 | Tianjin | 349,408 | Shanghai | 23,876,188 | Beijing | 217,296,830 |
| Beijing | 17.915 | Beijing | 348,231 | Beijing | 21,690,535 | Tianjin | 187,427,119 |
| Shanghai | 17.819 | Shanghai | 334,746 | Tianjin | 15,425,497 | Guangzhou | 180,167,046 |
| Chongqing | 17.538 | Chongqing | 300,330 | Chengdu | 15,220,175 | Chongqing | 147,182,175 |
| Harbin | 17.182 | Harbin | 265,159 | Guangzhou | 13,439,208 | Suzhou | 133,678,096 |
| Guangzhou | 17.078 | Guangzhou | 256,275 | Yichun | 12,562,974 | Chengdu | 96,746,196 |
| Tangshan | 17.053 | Tangshan | 254,191 | Baoding | 11,946,975 | Qingdao | 91,469,755 |
| Weifang | 16.990 | Weifang | 249,205 | Suzhou | 10,738,576 | Changsha | 90,364,523 |
| Ningbo | 16.765 | Ningbo | 232,518 | Wuhan | 10,568,583 | Wuxi | 86,232,644 |
| Nantong | 16.731 | Nantong | 230,225 | Linyi | 10,410,237 | Hangzhou | 86,143,887 |
| Chengdu | 16.624 | Chengdu | 223,101 | Handan | 10,220,940 | Yangzhou | 85,564,657 |
| Yantai | 16.548 | Yantai | 218,269 | Nanyang | 10,100,919 | Wuhan | 80,912,736 |
| Qingdao | 16.483 | Qingdao | 214,348 | Shijiazhuang | 10,077,521 | Foshan | 80,506,132 |
| Linyi | 16.443 | Linyi | 211,939 | Harbin | 9,278,484 | Dongguan | 79,439,884 |
| Quanzhou | 16.420 | Quanzhou | 210,609 | Weifang | 9,275,444 | Nanjing | 76,500,052 |
| Hangzhou | 16.381 | Hangzhou | 208,367 | Wenzhou | 9,063,728 | Ningbo | 76,441,765 |
| Cangzhou | 16.230 | Cangzhou | 200,063 | Qingdao | 8,989,079 | Shenyang | 70,454,732 |
| Changchun | 16.188 | Changchun | 197,844 | Zhoukou | 8,903,463 | Dalian | 69,840,050 |
| Baoding | 16.032 | Baoding | 189,983 | Heze | 8,793,076 | Zhengzhou | 69,838,666 |
Pearson correlations between ODR and nighttime light variables.
| Province | Provincial SUM of DN | Provincial MEAN of DN | Provincial ODR (%) | Province | Provincial SUM of DN | Provincial MEAN of DN | Provincial ODR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beijing | 348,231 | 21.22 | 17.77 | Hunan | 614,523 | 2.90 | 22.56 |
| Tianjin | 349,408 | 28.88 | 20.56 | Guangdong | 2,076,629 | 11.43 | 11.82 |
| Hebei | 1,609,944 | 8.54 | 21.14 | Guangxi | 661,632 | 2.79 | 19.01 |
| Shanxi | 981,743 | 6.26 | 18.24 | Hainan | 260,939 | 5.99 | 14.99 |
| Inner Mongolia | 941,327 | 0.82 | 17.90 | Chongqing | 300,330 | 3.65 | 25.48 |
| Liaoning | 1,034,012 | 6.98 | 24.37 | Sichuan | 804,188 | 1.65 | 25.28 |
| Jilin | 612,406 | 3.21 | 21.47 | Guizhou | 362,748 | 2.06 | 17.92 |
| Heilongjiang | 1,263,697 | 2.79 | 21.08 | Yunnan | 750,280 | 1.96 | 15.42 |
| Shanghai | 334,746 | 41.95 | 22.02 | Tibet | 49,183 | 0.04 | 8.13 |
| Jiangsu | 2,171,169 | 20.95 | 23.61 | Shaanxi | 862,672 | 4.20 | 19.21 |
| Zhejiang | 1,361,539 | 12.69 | 18.10 | Gansu | 487,820 | 1.15 | 18.50 |
| Anhui | 980,574 | 7.00 | 22.83 | Qinghai | 129,387 | 0.19 | 12.31 |
| Fujian | 881,809 | 7.06 | 15.95 | Ningxia | 214,371 | 4.13 | 13.74 |
| Jiangxi | 483,089 | 2.89 | 17.97 | Xinjiang | 874,442 | 0.54 | 11.12 |
| Shandong | 2,314,851 | 14.66 | 22.90 | Mean value | 850,516.26 | 7.80 | 18.83 |
| Henan | 1,500,920 | 9.06 | 21.28 | Correlation coefficient | 0.260 * | 0.258 * | |
| Hubei | 747,395 | 4.02 | 21.11 | Significance of the correlation coefficients | 0.040 | 0.041 |
Note: * significant correlation at 0.05 level (two-sided).
Summary and parameter estimates for all models (the provincial SUM of DN as an argument).
| Summary | Parameter Estimates | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Model |
|
| Adjusted |
| df1 | df2 | Sig. | Constant | b1 | b2 | b3 |
| 1 | Linear | 0.273 | 0.075 | 0.043 | 2.336 | 1 | 29 | 0.137 | 17.143 | 1.985 × 10−6 | ||
| 2 | Logarithmic | 0.453 | 0.206 | 0.178 | 7.501 | 1 | 29 | 0.010 | −11.977 | 2.304 | ||
| 3 | Inverse | 0.549 | 0.302 | 0.278 | 12.542 | 1 | 29 | 0.001 | 20.421 | −6.493 × 105 | ||
| 4 | Quadratic | 0.376 | 0.141 | 0.080 | 2.303 | 2 | 28 | 0.119 | 14.716 | 8.328 × 10−6 | −2.788 × 10−12 | |
| 5 | Cubic | 0.507 | 0.257 | 0.175 | 3.117 | 3 | 27 | 0.043 | 10.412 | 2.958 × 10−5 | −2.682 × 10−11 | 7.021 × 10−18 |
| 6 | Compound | 0.271 | 0.073 | 0.041 | 2.296 | 1 | 29 | 0.141 | 16.488 | 1.000 | ||
| 7 | Power | 0.494 | 0.244 | 0.218 | 9.381 | 1 | 29 | 0.005 | 2.336 | 0.154 | ||
| 8 | Sigmoid | 0.642 | 0.412 | 0.392 | 20.336 | 1 | 29 | 0.000 | 3.019 | −4.644 × 104 | ||
| 9 | Growth | 0.271 | 0.073 | 0.041 | 2.296 | 1 | 29 | 0.141 | 2.803 | 1.205 × 10−7 | ||
| 10 | Exponential | 0.271 | 0.073 | 0.041 | 2.296 | 1 | 29 | 0.141 | 16.488 | 1.205 × 10−7 | ||
| 11 | Logistic | 0.271 | 0.073 | 0.041 | 2.296 | 1 | 29 | 0.141 | 0.061 | 1.000 | ||
Summary and parameter estimates for all models (the provincial MEAN of DN as an argument).
| Summary | Parameter Estimates | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Model |
|
| Adjusted |
| df1 | df2 | Sig. | Constant | b1 | b2 | b3 |
| 1 | Linear | 0.270 | 0.073 | 0.041 | 2.280 | 1 | 29 | 0.142 | 17.857 | 0.125 | ||
| 2 | Logarithmic | 0.538 | 0.289 | 0.265 | 11.812 | 1 | 29 | 0.002 | 16.657 | 1.609 | ||
| 3 | Inverse | 0.534 | 0.285 | 0.260 | 11.553 | 1 | 29 | 0.002 | 19.490 | −0.511 | ||
| 4 | Quadratic | 0.309 | 0.095 | 0.031 | 1.473 | 2 | 28 | 0.246 | 17.155 | 0.316 | −0.005 | |
| 5 | Cubic | 0.378 | 0.143 | 0.048 | 1.505 | 3 | 27 | 0.236 | 15.893 | 0.890 | −0.049 | 0.001 |
| 6 | Compound | 0.278 | 0.077 | 0.045 | 2.430 | 1 | 29 | 0.130 | 17.179 | 1.008 | ||
| 7 | Power | 0.597 | 0.357 | 0.335 | 16.095 | 1 | 29 | 0.000 | 15.757 | 0.109 | ||
| 8 | Sigmoid | 0.640 | 0.410 | 0.389 | 20.126 | 1 | 29 | 0.000 | 2.953 | −0.038 | ||
| 9 | Growth | 0.278 | 0.077 | 0.045 | 2.430 | 1 | 29 | 0.130 | 2.844 | 0.008 | ||
| 10 | Exponential | 0.278 | 0.077 | 0.045 | 2.430 | 1 | 29 | 0.130 | 17.179 | 0.008 | ||
| 11 | Logistic | 0.278 | 0.077 | 0.045 | 2.430 | 1 | 29 | 0.130 | 0.058 | 0.992 | ||