| Literature DB >> 35793355 |
Nan-Chen Chu1, Xiang-Li Wu1, Ping-Yu Zhang2,3.
Abstract
Under the background of "the Belt and Road" and "the economic corridor of China, Mongolia and Russia" initiatives, it has great value to study the temporal and spatial evolution characteristics of the coordinated development between the urbanization and ecological environment in eastern Russia (the Siberian Federal District and the Far East Federal District). In this paper, we studied the urbanization development level, eco-environment development level, and their coupling coordinated development degree during 2005-2018 in the eastern Russia from the perspectives of the 3D global trend and 2D plane analysis. First, combining with the Population-Economic-Sociology and Pressure-State-Response models, the urbanization development level and eco-environment development level were calculated by the comprehensive weighting method of entropy weight and variation coefficient for eastern Russia. Second, the coupling coordinated development degree of the urbanization development level and eco-environment development level was measured by the coupling coordination model for eastern Russia. Finally, the spatial differentiation of the urbanization development level, the eco-environment development level and their coupling coordinated development degree was performed respectively by the 3D global trend and 2D plane analysis using ArcGIS. The results are as following. First, the comprehensive urbanization development level of eastern Russia has increased from 2005 to 2018, and the economic urbanization is the main factor that affects the urbanization development in eastern Russia. The comprehensive eco-environment development level of eastern Russia has decreased from 2005 to 2018, and the eco-environment pressure is the main factor that affects the eco-environment development in eastern Russia. The coupling coordination degree of the urbanization development and eco-environment development has increased from 2005 to 2018. However, it is still in the uncoordinated stage. Second, from 2005 to 2018, the urbanization development level of the Siberian Federal District is higher than that of the Far East Federal District. The eco-environment development level of the Siberian Federal District is balanced to that of the Far East Federal District. The coupling coordination degree of the Siberian Federal District is higher than that of the Far East Federal District. Among the Siberian and Far East Federal Districts, most of the federal subjects belong to the uncoordinated stage of the urbanization development and the eco-environment development. Third, the urbanization development level, the eco-environment development level, and their coupling coordinated development level are all spatially imbalanced in the eastern Russia, which show the "High West, Low East" and "High Center, Low North and Low South" spatial pattern from the perspectives of the 3D global trend and 2D plane analysis. The areas with high levels are concentrated in the Novosibirsk Region, Altay Territory, Kemerovo Region, Krasnoyarsk Territory, and Irkutsk Region. The areas with low ones are mostly in the Republic of Altay and Chukotka Autonomous Area. Finally, we suggest policies and strategies that can boost the growth and development of the urbanization and the eco-environment in the Sino-Russian border areas.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35793355 PMCID: PMC9258840 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267272
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1Sketch map of the study area.
Note: a Omsk Region. b Tomsk Region. c Novosibirsk Region. d Altay Territory. e Kemerovo Region. f Republic of Khakasia. g Republic of Altay. h Republic of Tyva. i Krasnoyarsk Territory. j Irkutsk Region. k Republic of Buryatia. l Zabaikalsk Territory. m Republic of Sakha(Yakutia). n Chukotka Autonomous Area. o Kamchatka Territory. p Magadan Region. q Khabarovsk Territory. r Sakhalin Region. s Primorsky Territory. t Jewish Autonomous Area. u Amur Region. This drawing has not been previously copyrighted. The authors created the image themselves.
Evaluation system of the urbanization in eastern Russia.
| First-Level Indices | Second-Level Indices | Third-Level Indices, Unit | Attribute | Entropy weight | Variation weight | Comprehensive weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urbanization system | Population urbanization | Proportion of non-agricultural population, % | + | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
| Population size (year-end), thousands | + | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | ||
| Population density, person/km2 | + | 0.16 | 0.13 | 0.15 | ||
| Annual average number of employees, thousands | + | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | ||
| Economic urbanization | Proportion of non-agricultural industrial output value in GDP, % | + | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.003 | |
| Regional GDP, million rubles | + | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.12 | ||
| Integrated budget revenue, million rubles | + | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | ||
| Fixed capital investment (in real terms), million ruble | + | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.12 | ||
| Total retail trade volume (current price), million rubles | + | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.11 | ||
| Social urbanization | Highway operating mileage (at the end of the year), km | + | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | |
| Number of hospital beds per 10000 population | + | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.01 | ||
| Number of mobile radiotelephone connected user equipment per 1000 people, PCs | + | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | ||
| Number of students in general education institutions, thousands | + | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | ||
| Urban per capita residential housing area, m2 | + | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
Evaluation system of the eco-environment in eastern Russia.
| First-Level Indices | Second-Level Indices | Third-Level Indices, Unit | Attribute | Entropy weight | Variation weight | Comprehensive weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ecological environment system | Ecological environment pressure | Pollutants discharged into the air from fixed sources, thousand tons | - | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Polluted waste water discharged to surface water, million m3 | - | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | ||
| Area of forest fire, hm2 | - | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.16 | ||
| Ecological environment state | Sown area of crops, thousand hm2 | + | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.10 | |
| Total grain harvest, thousand tons | + | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.12 | ||
| Forest coverage, % | + | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | ||
| Area of forest land, thousand hm2 | + | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | ||
| Supply of fresh water, million m3 | + | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | ||
| Ecological environmental response | Share of captured and neutralized air pollutants in total waste pollutants in fixed pollution sources, % | + | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | |
| Recycled water capacity, million m3 | + | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.06 | ||
| Amount of pollutants collected from fixed sources, thousand tons | + | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | ||
| Reforestation area, thousand hm2 | + | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
Classification of coordinated development stages of urbanization and eco-environment.
| First-Level | Second-Level (Scope of | Third-Level(Comparison of | Symbol |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coordinated development | High-level coordinated development (0.8< | Eco-environment backwardness ( | Ⅰ1 |
| Urbanization backwardness ( | Ⅰ2 | ||
| Urbanization and eco-environment balance (0≤| | Ⅰ3 | ||
| Basic coordinated development (0.5< | Eco-environment backwardness ( | Ⅱ1 | |
| Urbanization backwardness ( | Ⅱ2 | ||
| Urbanization and eco-environment balance (0≤| | Ⅱ3 | ||
| Uncoordinated development | Basic uncoordinated development (0.3< | Eco-environment backwardness ( | Ⅲ1 |
| Urbanization backwardness ( | Ⅲ2 | ||
| Urbanization and eco-environment balance (0≤| | Ⅲ3 | ||
| Serious uncoordinated development (0< | Eco-environment backwardness ( | Ⅳ1 | |
| Urbanization backwardness ( | Ⅳ2 | ||
| Urbanization and eco-environment balance (0≤| | Ⅳ3 |
Note: Eco-environment backwardness means that the development level of eco-environment is lower than that of urbanization. Urbanization backwardness means that the development level of urbanization is lower than that of eco-environment.
Fig 2Urbanization and eco-environment development trend of eastern Russia from 2005 to 2018.
Fig 3Urbanization and eco-environment development trend of Siberian Federal District and Far East Federal District from 2005 to 2018.
Urbanization, eco-environment and their coupling coordination of each federal subject in eastern Russia in 2018.
| Federal subjects | Urbanization | Eco-environment | Coupling degree | Coordinated development degree | Coupling coordination stage | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Economic | Social | Comprehensive | Pressure | State | Response | Comprehensive | ||||
| Republic of Altay | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.28 | Serious uncoordinated |
| Republic of Tyva | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.35 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.30 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Republic of Khakasia | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.35 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.38 | 0.47 | 0.36 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Altay Territory | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.55 | 0.35 | 0.22 | 0.03 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.54 | Basic coordinated |
| Krasnoyarsk Territory | 0.20 | 0.42 | 0.17 | 0.79 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.55 | Basic coordinated |
| Irkutsk Region | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.16 | 0.62 | 0.26 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.53 | Basic coordinated |
| Kemerovo Region | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.14 | 0.72 | 0.26 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.54 | Basic coordinated |
| Novosibirsk Region | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.15 | 0.69 | 0.34 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.54 | Basic coordinated |
| Omsk Region | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.47 | 0.33 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.50 | Basic coordinated |
| Tomsk Region | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.27 | 0.34 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.42 | 0.49 | 0.41 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Republic of Buryatia | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.42 | 0.50 | 0.43 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) | 0.07 | 0.29 | 0.08 | 0.44 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.30 | 0.49 | 0.43 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Zabaikalsk Territory | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.40 | 0.49 | 0.40 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Kamchatka Territory | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.35 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.38 | 0.43 | 0.33 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Primorsky Territory | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.11 | 0.51 | 0.31 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.49 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Khabarovsk Territory | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.36 | 0.32 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.45 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Amur Region | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.35 | 0.50 | 0.39 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Magadan Region | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.35 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.39 | 0.40 | 0.31 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Sakhalin Region | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.04 | 0.30 | 0.35 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.38 | 0.50 | 0.41 | Basic uncoordinated |
| Jewish Autonomous Area | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.35 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.29 | Serious uncoordinated |
| Chukotka Autonomous Area | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.35 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.26 | Serious uncoordinated |
Fig 4Global trend changes of urbanization and eco-environment in eastern Russia from 2005 to 2018.
Fig 5Spatial pattern changes of urbanization and eco-environment in eastern Russia from 2005 to 2018.
Note: a Omsk Region. b Tomsk Region. c Novosibirsk Region. d Altay Territory. e Kemerovo Region. f Republic of Khakasia. g Republic of Altay. h Republic of Tyva. i Krasnoyarsk Territory. j Irkutsk Region. k Republic of Buryatia. l Zabaikalsk Territory. m Republic of Sakha(Yakutia). n Chukotka Autonomous Area. o Kamchatka Territory. p Magadan Region. q Khabarovsk Territory. r Sakhalin Region. s Primorsky Territory. t Jewish Autonomous Area. u Amur Region. This drawing has not been previously copyrighted. The authors created the image themselves.
Coupling coordination stage of urbanization and eco-environment in each federal subject in eastern Russia.
| Federal subjects | 2005 | 2010 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republic of Altay | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 |
| Republic of Tyva | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅲ2 |
| Republic of Khakasia | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 |
| Altay Territory | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅱ3 | Ⅱ3 | Ⅱ3 | Ⅱ3 | Ⅱ3 | Ⅱ3 |
| Krasnoyarsk Territory | Ⅲ2 | Ⅱ3 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 |
| Irkutsk Region | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅱ3 | Ⅱ3 | Ⅱ3 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 |
| Kemerovo Region | Ⅲ3 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 |
| Novosibirsk Region | Ⅲ3 | Ⅱ3 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 | Ⅱ1 |
| Omsk Region | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅱ3 |
| Tomsk Region | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 |
| Republic of Buryatia | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ3 |
| Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ1 |
| Zabaikalsk Territory | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 |
| Kamchatka Territory | Ⅳ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 |
| Primorsky Territory | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 |
| Khabarovsk Territory | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ3 |
| Amur Region | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ3 |
| Magadan Region | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 |
| Sakhalin Region | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ2 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 | Ⅲ3 |
| Jewish Autonomous Area | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 |
| Chukotka Autonomous Area | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 | Ⅳ2 |
Fig 6Global trend changes of coupling coordination degree between urbanization and eco-environment in eastern Russia from 2005 to 2018.
Fig 7Spatial pattern changes of coupling coordination degree between urbanization and eco-environment in eastern Russia from 2005 to 2018.
Note: a Omsk Region. b Tomsk Region. c Novosibirsk Region. d Altay Territory. e Kemerovo Region. f Republic of Khakasia. g Republic of Altay. h Republic of Tyva. i Krasnoyarsk Territory. j Irkutsk Region. k Republic of Buryatia. l Zabaikalsk Territory. m Republic of Sakha(Yakutia). n Chukotka Autonomous Area. o Kamchatka Territory. p Magadan Region. q Khabarovsk Territory. r Sakhalin Region. s Primorsky Territory. t Jewish Autonomous Area. u Amur Region. This drawing has not been previously copyrighted. The authors created the image themselves.