Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2024, Vol. 61 ›› Issue (6): 1553-1560.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.06.030
• Animal Husbandry Veterinarian • Agricultural Eeconomy • Previous Articles
CAO Jian(), Ayijiamali Apaer, SONG Yulan(
)
Received:
2023-10-11
Online:
2024-06-20
Published:
2024-08-08
Correspondence author:
SONG Yulan
Supported by:
通讯作者:
宋玉兰
作者简介:
曹健(1983-),男,新疆乌鲁木齐人,副教授,博士,硕士生导师,研究方向为区域经济,(E-mail)59423111@qq.com
基金资助:
CAO Jian, Ayijiamali Apaer, SONG Yulan. Analysis of the coordination of the functions of the "production-living-ecological spaces" in four southern Xinjiang Prefectures[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(6): 1553-1560.
曹健, 阿依加玛力·阿帕尔, 宋玉兰. 新疆南疆四地州“三生空间”功能耦合协调度分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(6): 1553-1560.
目标层 Target layer | 指标层 Indicator layer | 指标性质 The nature of the indica- tors |
---|---|---|
生产空间功能(X) Production space function | 人均耕地面积(X1) | 正向 |
人均GDP(X2) | 正向 | |
地区生产总值(X3) | 正向 | |
年降水量(X4) | 正向 | |
年日照数(X5) | 正向 | |
红枣年总产量(X6) | 正向 | |
核桃年总产量(X7) | 正向 | |
生活空间功能(Y) Living space function | 农业机械总动力(X8) | 正向 |
农牧民人均纯收入(Y1) | 正向 | |
城乡居民人均可支配(Y2) | 正向 | |
居民拥有病床位数(Y3) | 正向 | |
人均用水量(Y4) | 正向 | |
普通中学专任教师数(Y5) | 正向 | |
生态空间功能(Z) Function of ecological space | 化肥使用量(Z1) | 正向 |
森林覆盖率(Z2) | 正向 | |
湿地覆盖率(Z3) | 正向 | |
水土流失治理面积(Z4) | 正向 | |
有效灌溉面积(Z5) | 正向 | |
地膜覆盖面积(Z6) | 正向 |
Tab.1 Functional evaluation index system of “product-living-ecological space”in the four southern Xinjiang regions
目标层 Target layer | 指标层 Indicator layer | 指标性质 The nature of the indica- tors |
---|---|---|
生产空间功能(X) Production space function | 人均耕地面积(X1) | 正向 |
人均GDP(X2) | 正向 | |
地区生产总值(X3) | 正向 | |
年降水量(X4) | 正向 | |
年日照数(X5) | 正向 | |
红枣年总产量(X6) | 正向 | |
核桃年总产量(X7) | 正向 | |
生活空间功能(Y) Living space function | 农业机械总动力(X8) | 正向 |
农牧民人均纯收入(Y1) | 正向 | |
城乡居民人均可支配(Y2) | 正向 | |
居民拥有病床位数(Y3) | 正向 | |
人均用水量(Y4) | 正向 | |
普通中学专任教师数(Y5) | 正向 | |
生态空间功能(Z) Function of ecological space | 化肥使用量(Z1) | 正向 |
森林覆盖率(Z2) | 正向 | |
湿地覆盖率(Z3) | 正向 | |
水土流失治理面积(Z4) | 正向 | |
有效灌溉面积(Z5) | 正向 | |
地膜覆盖面积(Z6) | 正向 |
耦合协调度 D值区间 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordination level | 耦合协调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|
(0.0~0.1) | 1 | 极度失调 |
[0.1~0.2) | 2 | 严重失调 |
[0.2~0.3) | 3 | 中度失调 |
[0.3~0.4) | 4 | 轻度失调 |
[0.4~0.5) | 5 | 濒临失调 |
[0.5~0.6) | 6 | 勉强协调 |
[0.6~0.7) | 7 | 初级协调 |
[0.7~0.8) | 8 | 中级协调 |
[0.8~0.9) | 9 | 良好协调 |
[0.9~1.0) | 10 | 优质协调 |
Tab.2 Classification criteria of coupling coordination level
耦合协调度 D值区间 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordination level | 耦合协调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|
(0.0~0.1) | 1 | 极度失调 |
[0.1~0.2) | 2 | 严重失调 |
[0.2~0.3) | 3 | 中度失调 |
[0.3~0.4) | 4 | 轻度失调 |
[0.4~0.5) | 5 | 濒临失调 |
[0.5~0.6) | 6 | 勉强协调 |
[0.6~0.7) | 7 | 初级协调 |
[0.7~0.8) | 8 | 中级协调 |
[0.8~0.9) | 9 | 良好协调 |
[0.9~1.0) | 10 | 优质协调 |
年份 Years | 耦合度 C值 Coupling C | 协调 指数 T值 Harmonis- ation index T | 耦合协调度 D值区间 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordin- ation level | 耦合协 调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 0.165 | 0.196 | 0.18 | 2 | 严重失调 |
2011 | 0.593 | 0.247 | 0.383 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2012 | 0.766 | 0.268 | 0.453 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2013 | 0.626 | 0.251 | 0.397 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2014 | 0.827 | 0.3 | 0.568 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2015 | 0.764 | 0.38 | 0.539 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2016 | 0.667 | 0.352 | 0.485 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2017 | 0.888 | 0.441 | 0.626 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2018 | 0.868 | 0.0458 | 0.631 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2019 | 0.861 | 0.586 | 0.711 | 8 | 中级协调 |
2020 | 0.928 | 0.833 | 0.879 | 9 | 良好协调 |
Tab.3 Calculation results of the coupling coordination degree of “product-living-ecological space”in Aksu region
年份 Years | 耦合度 C值 Coupling C | 协调 指数 T值 Harmonis- ation index T | 耦合协调度 D值区间 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordin- ation level | 耦合协 调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 0.165 | 0.196 | 0.18 | 2 | 严重失调 |
2011 | 0.593 | 0.247 | 0.383 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2012 | 0.766 | 0.268 | 0.453 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2013 | 0.626 | 0.251 | 0.397 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2014 | 0.827 | 0.3 | 0.568 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2015 | 0.764 | 0.38 | 0.539 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2016 | 0.667 | 0.352 | 0.485 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2017 | 0.888 | 0.441 | 0.626 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2018 | 0.868 | 0.0458 | 0.631 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2019 | 0.861 | 0.586 | 0.711 | 8 | 中级协调 |
2020 | 0.928 | 0.833 | 0.879 | 9 | 良好协调 |
年份 Years | 耦合度 C值 Coupling C | 协调 指数 T值 Harmonis- ation index T | 耦合协调度 D值区间 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordin- ation level | 耦合协 调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 0.183 | 0.283 | 0.228 | 3 | 中度失调 |
2011 | 0.594 | 0.234 | 0.373 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2012 | 0.818 | 0.583 | 0.69 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2013 | 0.799 | 0.346 | 0.526 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2014 | 0.872 | 0.629 | 0.741 | 8 | 中级协调 |
2015 | 0.666 | 0.363 | 0.492 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2016 | 0.699 | 0.378 | 0.514 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2017 | 0.7 | 0.405 | 0.533 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2018 | 0713 | 0.574 | 0.64 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2019 | 0.717 | 0.547 | 0.626 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2020 | 0.575 | 0.499 | 0.535 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
Tab.4 Calculation results of the coupling coordination degree of “product-living-ecological space”in Kashgar region
年份 Years | 耦合度 C值 Coupling C | 协调 指数 T值 Harmonis- ation index T | 耦合协调度 D值区间 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordin- ation level | 耦合协 调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 0.183 | 0.283 | 0.228 | 3 | 中度失调 |
2011 | 0.594 | 0.234 | 0.373 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2012 | 0.818 | 0.583 | 0.69 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2013 | 0.799 | 0.346 | 0.526 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2014 | 0.872 | 0.629 | 0.741 | 8 | 中级协调 |
2015 | 0.666 | 0.363 | 0.492 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2016 | 0.699 | 0.378 | 0.514 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2017 | 0.7 | 0.405 | 0.533 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2018 | 0713 | 0.574 | 0.64 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2019 | 0.717 | 0.547 | 0.626 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2020 | 0.575 | 0.499 | 0.535 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
年份 Years | 耦合度 C值 Coupling C | 协调 指数 T值 Harmonis- ation index T | 耦合协调度 D值区间 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordin- ation level | 耦合协 调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 0.169 | 0.171 | 0.17 | 2 | 严重失调 |
2011 | 0.537 | 0.192 | 0.321 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2012 | 0.559 | 0.201 | 0.335 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2013 | 0.664 | 0.283 | 0.433 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2014 | 0.789 | 0.393 | 0.557 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2015 | 0.807 | 0.327 | 0.514 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2016 | 0.746 | 0.408 | 0.552 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2017 | 0.711 | 0.618 | 0.663 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2018 | 0.613 | 0.618 | 0.616 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2019 | 0.606 | 0.728 | 0.664 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2020 | 0.598 | 0.757 | 0.673 | 7 | 初级协调 |
Tab.5 Calculation results of the coupling coordination degree of “product-living-ecological space”in Hotan region
年份 Years | 耦合度 C值 Coupling C | 协调 指数 T值 Harmonis- ation index T | 耦合协调度 D值区间 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordin- ation level | 耦合协 调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 0.169 | 0.171 | 0.17 | 2 | 严重失调 |
2011 | 0.537 | 0.192 | 0.321 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2012 | 0.559 | 0.201 | 0.335 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2013 | 0.664 | 0.283 | 0.433 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2014 | 0.789 | 0.393 | 0.557 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2015 | 0.807 | 0.327 | 0.514 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2016 | 0.746 | 0.408 | 0.552 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2017 | 0.711 | 0.618 | 0.663 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2018 | 0.613 | 0.618 | 0.616 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2019 | 0.606 | 0.728 | 0.664 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2020 | 0.598 | 0.757 | 0.673 | 7 | 初级协调 |
年份 Years | 耦合度 C值 Coupling C | 协调 指数 T值 Harmonis- ation index T | 耦合协调度 D值区间 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordin- ation level | 耦合协 调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 0.272 | 0.521 | 0.377 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2011 | 0.235 | 0.064 | 0.122 | 2 | 严重失调 |
2012 | 0.609 | 0.111 | 0.261 | 3 | 中度协调 |
2013 | 0.633 | 0.195 | 0.351 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2014 | 0.803 | 0.268 | 0.464 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2015 | 0.826 | 0.335 | 0.526 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2016 | 0.776 | 0.324 | 0.501 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2017 | 0.775 | 0.365 | 0.532 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2018 | 0.824 | 0.422 | 0.59 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2019 | 0.822 | 0.511 | 0.648 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2020 | 0.754 | 0.536 | 0.636 | 7 | 初级协调 |
Tab.6 Calculation results of the coupling coordination degree of “product-living-ecological space”in Kizilsu Kirgiz Autonomous Prefecture
年份 Years | 耦合度 C值 Coupling C | 协调 指数 T值 Harmonis- ation index T | 耦合协调度 D值区间 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordin- ation level | 耦合协 调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 0.272 | 0.521 | 0.377 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2011 | 0.235 | 0.064 | 0.122 | 2 | 严重失调 |
2012 | 0.609 | 0.111 | 0.261 | 3 | 中度协调 |
2013 | 0.633 | 0.195 | 0.351 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2014 | 0.803 | 0.268 | 0.464 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2015 | 0.826 | 0.335 | 0.526 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2016 | 0.776 | 0.324 | 0.501 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2017 | 0.775 | 0.365 | 0.532 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2018 | 0.824 | 0.422 | 0.59 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2019 | 0.822 | 0.511 | 0.648 | 7 | 初级协调 |
2020 | 0.754 | 0.536 | 0.636 | 7 | 初级协调 |
年份/ 协调类型 Years/ type of coordination | 耦合协调度 D值 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordin- ation level | 耦合协 调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|---|
2010 | 0.352 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2011 | 0.422 5 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2012 | 0.484 5 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2013 | 0.474 25 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2014 | 0.518 25 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2015 | 0.525 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2016 | 0.526 75 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2017 | 0.53 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2018 | 0.456 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2019 | 0.467 5 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2020 | 0.478 5 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
Tab.7 Coupling coordination by year in the four southern Xinjiang regions
年份/ 协调类型 Years/ type of coordination | 耦合协调度 D值 Coupling degree of coordination D part | 协调等级 Coordin- ation level | 耦合协 调度 Level of coupling coordination |
---|---|---|---|
2010 | 0.352 | 4 | 轻度失调 |
2011 | 0.422 5 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2012 | 0.484 5 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2013 | 0.474 25 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2014 | 0.518 25 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2015 | 0.525 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2016 | 0.526 75 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2017 | 0.53 | 6 | 勉强协调 |
2018 | 0.456 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2019 | 0.467 5 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
2020 | 0.478 5 | 5 | 濒临失调 |
影响因素 Impact factors | 面板Tobit随机效应模型 Kneading board tobit random effects model | |
---|---|---|
Coef | P值 | |
产业结构 Industrial structure | -0.386*(-1.83) | 0.067 |
地均固定资产投资总额 Total investment in fixed assets on average | 0.053***(4.83) | 0.000 |
人均社会消费品总额 Per capita social consumption goods | 0.147***(3.34) | 0.001 |
森林覆盖率 Forest coverage | -0.836(-1.00) | 0.319 |
年均降水量 Average annual precipitation | -0.201(-1.38) | 0.169 |
—Cons | -1.025***(-2.82) | 0.005 |
Wald chi2 | 56.54 | |
P | 0.0000 | |
N | 44 |
Tab.8 Tobit model analysis results
影响因素 Impact factors | 面板Tobit随机效应模型 Kneading board tobit random effects model | |
---|---|---|
Coef | P值 | |
产业结构 Industrial structure | -0.386*(-1.83) | 0.067 |
地均固定资产投资总额 Total investment in fixed assets on average | 0.053***(4.83) | 0.000 |
人均社会消费品总额 Per capita social consumption goods | 0.147***(3.34) | 0.001 |
森林覆盖率 Forest coverage | -0.836(-1.00) | 0.319 |
年均降水量 Average annual precipitation | -0.201(-1.38) | 0.169 |
—Cons | -1.025***(-2.82) | 0.005 |
Wald chi2 | 56.54 | |
P | 0.0000 | |
N | 44 |
[1] |
黄金川, 林浩曦, 漆潇潇. 面向国土空间优化的三生空间研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(3): 378-391.
DOI |
HUANG Jinchuan, LIN Haoxi, QI Xiaoxiao. A literature review on optimization of spatial development pattern based on ecological-production-living space[J]. Progress in Geography, 2017, 36(3): 378-391.
DOI |
|
[2] | 扈万泰, 王力国. 重庆市总体生态城市格局构建及其发展规划策略[J]. 规划师, 2014, 30(5): 37-41. |
HU Wantai, WANG Liguo. Chongqing city layout and development measure[J]. Planners, 2014, 30(5): 37-41. | |
[3] | 柳玉梅, 李九一. 水资源与粮食生产耦合关系研究现状与展望[J]. 节水灌溉, 2014,(12): 54-56, 59. |
LIU Yumei, LI Jiuyi. Current situation and prospect of research on relationship between water resources and food production[J]. Water Saving Irrigation, 2014,(12): 54-56, 59. | |
[4] | 刘苗苗, 潘佩佩, 任佳璇, 等. 京津冀粮食安全与农业用水安全耦合协调研究[J/OL]. 中国农业资源与区划:1-14[2022-09-30].https://kns-cnki-net--bjmu.jitui.me/kcms/detail/11.3513.s.20220525.0947.002.html |
LIU Miaomiao, PAN Peipei, REN Jiaxuan, et al. Study on the coupling and coordination of food security and agricultural water use in Beijing-Tianjin Wing[J/OL]. Agricultural Resources and Zoning in China: 1-14[2022-09-30].https://kns-cnki-net--bjmu.jitui.me/kcms/detail/11.3513.s.20220525.0947.002.html | |
[5] | 梁静晖, 杨钢桥, 黄丹, 等. 产业融合背景下农村土地多功能利用水平及耦合协调度[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(3): 244-252. |
LIANG Jinghui, YANG Gangqiao, HUANG Dan, et al. Land use functional levels and coupling coordination degrees under the background of rural industry convergence[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 29(3): 244-252. | |
[6] | 于辰, 王占岐, 杨俊, 等. 土地整治与农村“三生” 空间重构的耦合关系[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2015, 43(7): 447-451. |
YU Chen, WANG Zhanqi, YANG Jun, et al. Coupling relationship between land consolidation and rural “Sansheng” spatial reconstruction[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 43(7): 447-451. | |
[7] | 史丹, 白骏骄. 产业结构早熟对经济增长的影响及其内生性解释——基于互联网式创新力视角[J]. 中央财经大学学报, 2019,(6): 105-118. |
SHI Dan, BAI Junjiao. The impact of structure precocity on economic growth and its endogenous explanation: from a view of Internet innovation power[J]. Journal of Central University of Finance & Economics, 2019,(6): 105-118. | |
[8] | 江曼琦, 刘勇. “三生” 空间内涵与空间范围的辨析[J]. 城市发展研究, 2020, 27(4): 43-48, 61. |
JIANG Manqi, LIU Yong. Discussion on the concept definition and spatial boundary classification of “production-living-ecological” space[J]. Urban Development Studies, 2020, 27(4): 43-48, 61. | |
[9] |
李广东, 方创琳. 城市生态—生产—生活空间功能定量识别与分析[J]. 地理学报, 2016, 71(1): 49-65.
DOI |
LI Guangdong, FANG Chuanglin. Quantitative function identification and analysis of urban ecological-production-living spaces[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016, 71(1): 49-65.
DOI |
|
[10] | 邹艳, 张绍良, 谢译诣, 等. 徐州市三生空间分布格局与时空演化特征分析[J]. 测绘科学, 2020, 45(7): 154-162. |
ZOU Yan, ZHANG Shaoliang, XIE Yiyi, et al. Spatial distribution and evolution characters of production-living-ecological spaces in Xuzhou city[J]. Science of Surveying and Mapping, 2020, 45(7): 154-162. | |
[11] |
吴艳娟, 杨艳昭, 杨玲, 等. 基于“三生空间” 的城市国土空间开发建设适宜性评价——以宁波市为例[J]. 资源科学, 2016, 38(11): 2072-2081.
DOI |
WU Yanjuan, YANG Yanzhao, YANG Ling, et al. Land spatial development and suitability for city construction based on ecological-living-industrial space—take Ningbo City as an example[J]. Resources Science, 2016, 38(11): 2072-2081.
DOI |
|
[12] | 扈万泰, 王力国. 重庆市总体生态城市格局构建及其发展规划策略[J]. 规划师, 2014, 30(5):37-41 |
HU Wantai, WANG Liguo. Chongqing City Layout And Development Measure[J]. Planners, 2014, 30(5):37-41 | |
[13] | 周浩, 金平, 夏卫生. 省级国土空间“三生” 功能评价及其分区研究——以河南省为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2020, 34(8): 10-17. |
ZHOU Hao, JIN Ping, XIA Weisheng. Functional zoning of territorial space in provincial level based on the production-living-ecological functions: a case of Henan Province[J]. China Land Science, 2020, 34(8): 10-17. | |
[14] | 冯晓菁, 罗志军, 许巾, 等. 基于“三生空间”的城乡建设用地开发适宜性及空间格局匹配评价——以江西省乐平市为例[J]. 西南农业学报, 2021, 34(9): 2014-2024. |
FENG Xiaojing, LUO Zhijun, XU Jin, et al. Suitability evaluation of urban-rural construction land development and evaluation of spatial pattern matching based on ‘production-living-ecological’ space: case study of Leping city in Jiangxi Province[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 34(9): 2014-2024. | |
[15] | 樊杰. 我国主体功能区划的科学基础[J]. 地理学报, 2007, 62(4): 339-350. |
FAN Jie. The scientific foundation of major function oriented zoning in China[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2007, 62(4): 339-350. | |
[16] | 赖国华, 胡宝清, 李敏, 等. 桂西南-北部湾地区“三生空间”适宜性评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 2020, 40(6): 221-227, 331. |
LAI Guohua, HU Baoqing, LI Min, et al. Evaluation on spatial suitability of ecological-living-industrial in southwestern guangxi-beibu gulf region[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2020, 40(6): 221-227, 331. | |
[17] | 唐常春, 孙威. 长江流域国土空间开发适宜性综合评价[J]. 地理学报, 2012, 67(12): 1587-1598. |
TANG Changchun, SUN Wei. Comprehensive evaluation of land spatial development suitability of the Yangtze River Basin[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2012, 67(12): 1587-1598.
DOI |
|
[18] |
张引, 杨庆媛, 闵婕. 重庆市新型城镇化质量与生态环境承载力耦合分析[J]. 地理学报, 2016, 71(5): 817-828.
DOI |
ZHANG Yin, YANG Qingyuan, MIN Jie. An analysis of coupling between the bearing capacity of the ecological environment and the quality of new urbanization in Chongqing[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016, 71(5): 817-828.
DOI |
|
[19] | 李玲慧, 赵锐锋, 明思雨, 等. 黄河上游地区(陕甘宁青)“三生空间” 功能的演变特征及耦合协调分析[J]. 地球环境学报, 2022, 13(4): 449-464. |
LI Linghui, ZHAO Ruifeng, MING Siyu, et al. Evolvement characteristics and coupling coordination analysis of “production-living-ecological space” function in the upper reaches of the Yellow River[J]. Journal of Earth Environment, 2022, 13(4): 449-464. | |
[20] | 陈斌, 徐尚昭, 周阳阳, 等. “三生空间” 视角下宜昌市景观生态安全评价及其耦合特征分析[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(4): 344-351. |
CHEN Bin, XU Shangzhao, ZHOU Yangyang, et al. Evaluation and coupling coordination analysis of landscape ecological security of Yichang from the perspective of production-life-ecological space[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 29(4): 344-351. | |
[21] | 张雪松, 徐梓津. 少数民族聚集区“三生空间” 功能耦合协调度时空演变及与人类活动强度关系——以贵州省少数民族自治州为例[J]. 水土保持研究, 2021, 28(6): 268-273. |
ZHANG Xuesong, XU Zijin. Spatial temporal evolution of functional coupling coordination degree of production-living-ecological space and its relationship with human activity intensity in ethnic minority areas—taking minority autonomous prefecture of Guizhou as an example[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 28(6): 268-273. | |
[22] | 康庆, 郭青霞, 秦明星, 等. 山西省“三生” 功能耦合协调度时空分异[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(7): 209-216. |
KANG Qing, Guo Qingxia, Qin Mingxing, et al. Spatio-temporal difference of coupling coordination degree of “production-living-ecological” functions in Shanxi Province[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 49(7): 209-216. | |
[23] |
王成, 唐宁. 重庆市乡村三生空间功能耦合协调的时空特征与格局演化[J]. 地理研究, 2018, 37(6): 1100-1114.
DOI |
WANG Cheng, TANG Ning. Spatio-temporal characteristics and evolution of rural productionliving-ecological space function coupling coordination in Chongqing Municipality[J]. Geographical Research, 2018, 37(6): 1100-1114. | |
[24] | 国家统计局. 2010-2020年中国统计年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社. |
National Bureau of Statistics. China Statistical Yearbook2010-2020[M]. Beijing: China Statistics Press. | |
[25] | 国家统计局. 2010-2020年中国县域统计年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社. |
National Bureau of Statistics. China County Statistical Yearbook 2010-2020[M]. Beijing: China Statistics Press. | |
[26] | 倪维秋, 夏源, 赵宁宁. 乡村地域“三生空间” 功能演化与耦合协调度研究——以黑龙江省为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2022, 36(9): 111-119. |
NI Weiqiu, XIA Yuan, ZHAO Ningning. Functional evolution and coupling coordination measurement of production-living-ecological space in rural areas: taking Heilongjiang Province as an example[J]. China Land Science, 2022, 36(9): 111-119. |
No related articles found! |
Viewed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full text 34
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract 106
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||