| Literature DB >> 36011657 |
Liang Geng1, Xinyue Zhao1, Yu An1, Lingtong Peng1, Dan Ye1.
Abstract
In order to study the interactive relationship between urban economic and ecological environment, taking Wuhan as an example, Landsat and MODIS remote sensing satellite data and social and economic data were fused with multisource data, and multidimensional indicators were selected to construct the comprehensive evaluation index system of urban economic and ecological environment. The weights were determined by combining subjective and objective methods. Then, the decoupling elasticity coefficient method and spatial autocorrelation model were used to evaluate the dynamic relationship and spatial relationship between economic development and ecological environment in Wuhan from 2014 to 2020. The results showed that there was an interaction between the urban economic and the ecological environment in Wuhan. The ecological level index had a spatial effect, the adjustment of industrial structure had a positive effect on the improvement of the ecological level, and the improvement of the ecological level was also helpful to promote economic development. The typical districts of Huangpi District, Xinzhou District, Jiangxia District, Hannan District, Caidian District, and Hongshan District had superior location and ecological advantages, as well as high development potential. Lastly, on the basis of the empirical analysis results, policy suggestions are made from four aspects: regional differentiated construction, green development, energy consumption, and wetland construction.Entities:
Keywords: decoupling elasticity coefficient method; ecological environment; multisource data fusion; spatial autocorrelation model
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011657 PMCID: PMC9407929 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610022
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Location of study area.
Evaluation index system of economy and ecological environment in Wuhan.
| Target Layer | Criterion Layer | Index Layer | Symbol |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive evaluation index | Economic development level | Per capita GDP (10,000 CNY/person) |
|
| Per capita gross industrial product (10,000 CNY/person) |
| ||
| Annual disposable income of urban residents (CNY) |
| ||
| Economic structure index | Proportion of secondary industry |
| |
| Proportion of tertiary industry |
| ||
| Growth rate of tertiary industry |
| ||
| GDP growth rate |
| ||
| Economic efficiency index | Energy consumption per unit of coal/GDP |
| |
| Fixed assets investment of the whole society (100 million CNY) |
| ||
| Total retail sales of consumer goods (100 million CNY) |
| ||
| Comprehensive evaluation index | Ecological carbon sequestration index | Net primary productivity (NPP) (g/m2/year) |
|
| Landover index | Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) |
| |
| Normalized difference building index (NDBI) |
| ||
| Normalized difference water index (NDWI) |
|
Weights of indices.
| Index Hierarchy | Index | Symbol | Subjective Weight | Objective Weight | Comprehensive Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Indicators of economic development level |
| 0.21 | 0.38 | 0.30 |
| Economic structure index |
| 0.55 | 0.24 | 0.38 | |
| Economic efficiency index |
| 0.24 | 0.38 | 0.32 | |
| Ecological carbon sequestration index |
| 0.67 | 0.74 | 0.70 | |
| Land-cover index |
| 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.30 | |
|
| Per capita GDP |
| 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.24 |
| Per capita gross industrial product |
| 0.50 | 0.57 | 0.54 | |
| Per capita disposable income of urban residents |
| 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.22 | |
| Proportion of secondary industry |
| 0.23 | 0.39 | 0.33 | |
| Proportion of tertiary industry |
| 0.23 | 0.45 | 0.35 | |
| Growth rate of tertiary industry |
| 0.40 | 0.13 | 0.25 | |
| GDP growth rate |
| 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.07 | |
| GDP energy intensity |
| 0.54 | 0.59 | 0.58 | |
| Investment in social fixed assets |
| 0.30 | 0.14 | 0.21 | |
| Total retail sales of consumer goods |
| 0.16 | 0.27 | 0.21 | |
| NPP |
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| NDVI |
| 0.55 | 0.77 | 0.67 | |
| NDBI |
| 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.14 | |
| NDWI |
| 0.29 | 0.12 | 0.19 |
Index and types of decoupling elasticity between Tapio urban economy and ecological environment.
| Decoupling Type | ∆X | ∆Y | Decoupling Index |
|---|---|---|---|
| Declining connection | <0 | <0 | (0.8,1.2) |
| Growth connectivity | >0 | >0 | (0.8,1.2) |
| recessive decoupling | <0 | <0 | (1.2,+∞) |
| Strong decoupling | <0 | >0 | (−∞,0) |
| Weak decoupling | >0 | >0 | (0,0.8) |
| Weak negative decoupling | <0 | <0 | (0,0.8) |
| Strong negative decoupling | >0 | <0 | (−∞,0) |
| Negative decoupling of growth | >0 | >0 | (1.2,+∞) |
Results of local Moran’s I test.
|
|
|
| Partition | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| >0 | >0 | >0 | HH | The ecological level of area |
| <0 | <0 | >0 | LL | The ecological level of area |
| <0 | >0 | <0 | LH | The ecological level of area |
| >0 | <0 | <0 | HL | The ecological level of area |
Decoupling index of urban economy and ecological environment in Wuhan city from 2015 to 2020.
| Year | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wuchang | −1.28 | −0.43 | −0.04 | −0.27 | −0.03 | −0.45 |
| Jianghan | −3.3 | −1.71 | −1.33 | −1.39 | −0.95 | −2.14 |
| Jiang’an | −2.62 | 0.02 | −0.1 | −0.34 | −0.1 | −0.42 |
| Hongshan | 0.16 | 0.32 | −0.23 | 0.1 | 0.11 | 0.17 |
| Qiaokou | −14.29 | −2.68 | −1.66 | −2.33 | −1.14 | −2.4 |
| Qingshan | 0.46 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.65 | 0.23 | 0.63 |
| Hannan | −0.04 | 0.02 | −0.02 | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.08 |
| Dongxihu | −0.63 | −0.05 | −1.43 | −0.21 | 0.01 | −0.14 |
| Huangpi | −0.95 | −0.23 | −0.64 | −0.29 | −0.02 | −0.04 |
| Xinzhou | 46.1 | 3.34 | −3.93 | −1.28 | −0.19 | −0.1 |
| Jiangxia | −0.06 | −0.21 | −0.14 | −0.17 | −0.15 | −0.09 |
| Hanyang | −0.16 | 0.53 | −0.2 | 4.36 | −0.13 | 4.07 |
| Caidian | −0.08 | −1.42 | 0.16 | −1.05 | 0.42 | 0.14 |
Single-variable global Moran’s I test results of ecological index.
| Particular Year | Moran’s I Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| 2020 | 0.353632 | 3.896291 | 0.000098 |
| 2019 | 0.342439 | 3.794738 | 0.000148 |
| 2018 | 0.385259 | 4.182494 | 0.000029 |
| 2017 | 0.384535 | 4.179121 | 0.000029 |
| 2016 | 0.393197 | 4.254598 | 0.000021 |
| 2015 | 0.436339 | 4.643034 | 0.000003 |
| 2014 | 0.443326 | 4.705794 | 0.000003 |
Figure 2Moran’s I scatterplot of ecological level in Wuhan City. (a) 2014. (b) 2020.
Figure 3LISA cluster map of ecological level in Wuhan. (a) 2014. (b) 2020.
Figure 4Quartile map of ecological level of Wuhan city. (a) 2014. (b) 2015. (c) 2019. (d) 2020.