新型城镇化质量测度指标体系及实证研究——以安徽省为例
|
摘要
对城镇化质量进行测度有助于了解城镇化质量的真实水平,有助于发现影响城镇化质量提升的制约因素。文章在梳理、解读新型城镇化时代内涵的基础上,从经济发展、人口发展、城市基础设施、环境保护、社会发展、城乡统筹等6个维度构建新型城镇化质量测度指标体系,运用熵值法对安徽16个地市的新型城镇化质量进行测度并依据指数值进行排序。结果表明,安徽16个地市在社会发展、人口发展两个维度的指数差异最为明显,社会发展指数最高的合肥市是排名最低宿州市的12倍,人口发展指数最高的铜陵市是排名最低亳州市的9.4倍;新型城镇化质量综合指数值最高的是合肥市,最低的阜阳市;新型城镇化质量在地理分布上存在着东部高而西部低的区域差异。依据SPSS软件对安徽新型城镇化质量进行聚类分析的结果,将安徽16个地市划分为四类:城镇化高质量地区、城镇化较高质量地区、城镇化中等质量地区、城镇化低质量地区。建议政府从加强城镇之间的协调发展、积极稳妥做好"人"的城镇化、加快产业转型发展、促进城乡协调发展等几个方面采取措施来提升安徽新型城镇化质量。
Measuring the quality of urbanization helps to understand the true level of urbanization and the constraint factors. Based on the new interpretation of urbanization on the connotation of the times, this paper constructs an evaluation index system with 6 indicators, including the economic development, the population development, the urban infrastructures, the environmental protection, the social development, and the integration of rural and urban areas. And then this paper applies the index system to measure the urbanization quality of 16 cities in Anhui Province using an entropy method. Results show that new urbanization quality of 16 cities in Anhui Province vary significantly in the social development and the population development. The social development index of Hefei, the highest one, is 12 times of that of Suzhou, the lowest one. The human development index of Tongling, the highest one, is 9.4 times of that of Bozhou,the lowest one. New urbanization quality index of Hefei is the highest and Fuyang is the lowest. This paper also finds that the new urbanization quality in Anhui also exhibits unbalanced geographical distribution, with high quality in the East and low quality in the West. According to the cluster analysis by SPSS software, the 16 cities in Anhui can be classified into four categories: high quality urbanization regions, medium high quality urbanization regions, medium quality urbanization regions, and low quality urbanization regions. In order to enhance the overall quality of the new urbanization in Anhui, we suggest that the Government should strengthen the coordination of development among different regions,prioritize the " people" urbanization, speed up industrial restructuring and development, and promote the coordinated development of urban and rural areas.
Measuring the quality of urbanization helps to understand the true level of urbanization and the constraint factors. Based on the new interpretation of urbanization on the connotation of the times, this paper constructs an evaluation index system with 6 indicators, including the economic development, the population development, the urban infrastructures, the environmental protection, the social development, and the integration of rural and urban areas. And then this paper applies the index system to measure the urbanization quality of 16 cities in Anhui Province using an entropy method. Results show that new urbanization quality of 16 cities in Anhui Province vary significantly in the social development and the population development. The social development index of Hefei, the highest one, is 12 times of that of Suzhou, the lowest one. The human development index of Tongling, the highest one, is 9.4 times of that of Bozhou,the lowest one. New urbanization quality index of Hefei is the highest and Fuyang is the lowest. This paper also finds that the new urbanization quality in Anhui also exhibits unbalanced geographical distribution, with high quality in the East and low quality in the West. According to the cluster analysis by SPSS software, the 16 cities in Anhui can be classified into four categories: high quality urbanization regions, medium high quality urbanization regions, medium quality urbanization regions, and low quality urbanization regions. In order to enhance the overall quality of the new urbanization in Anhui, we suggest that the Government should strengthen the coordination of development among different regions,prioritize the " people" urbanization, speed up industrial restructuring and development, and promote the coordinated development of urban and rural areas.
引文
[1]魏后凯.中国城镇化质量综合评价报告[J].经济研究参考,2013(31):3-32.
[2]杨蓉.甘肃省城市化质量差异研究[D].兰州:兰州大学,2009.
[3]叶裕民.中国城市化质量研究[J].中国软科学,2001(7):27-31.
[4]郭叶波.城镇化质量的本质内涵与评价指标体系[J].学习与实践,2013(3):13-20.
[5]李明秋.郎学彬.城市化质量的内涵及其评价指标体系的构建[J].中国软科学,2010(12):182-186.
[6]朱洪祥.山东省城镇化质量发展测度研究[J].城市发展研究,2007(5):37-44.
[7]袁晓玲,梁鹏,曹敏杰.基于可持续发展的陕西省城镇化质量发展测度[J].城市发展研究,2013(2):52-56.
[8]郭三党,韩雪山,黄燕刚.基于因子分析法的河南省农村城镇化水平研究[J].农业系统科学与综合研究,2010,26(4):448-452.
[9]绍大伟,张小林,吴殿鸣.知识城市评价体系的构建及我国省域差异的实证分析[J].经济地理,2010,30(3):414-419.
[10]陈明星,陆大道,张华.中国城市化水平的综合测度及其动力因子分析[J].地理学报,2009,64(4):387-398.
[11]梁振民,陈才,刘继生,等.东北地区城市化发展质量的综合测度与层级特征研究[J].地理科学,2013,33(8):926-934.
[12]吴耀,牛俊蜻,郝晋伟.区域城镇化综合发展水平评价研究[J].西北大学学报:自然科学版,2009,39(6):1042-1047.
[13]欧向军,甄峰,秦永东.区域城市化水平综合测度及其理想动力分析[J].地理研究,2008,27(5):994-997.
[14]何平,倪苹.中国城镇化质量研究[J].统计研究,2013(6):11-18.
[15]简新华,黄锟.中国城镇化水平和速度的实证分析与前景预测[J].经济研究,2010(3):28-39.
[2]杨蓉.甘肃省城市化质量差异研究[D].兰州:兰州大学,2009.
[3]叶裕民.中国城市化质量研究[J].中国软科学,2001(7):27-31.
[4]郭叶波.城镇化质量的本质内涵与评价指标体系[J].学习与实践,2013(3):13-20.
[5]李明秋.郎学彬.城市化质量的内涵及其评价指标体系的构建[J].中国软科学,2010(12):182-186.
[6]朱洪祥.山东省城镇化质量发展测度研究[J].城市发展研究,2007(5):37-44.
[7]袁晓玲,梁鹏,曹敏杰.基于可持续发展的陕西省城镇化质量发展测度[J].城市发展研究,2013(2):52-56.
[8]郭三党,韩雪山,黄燕刚.基于因子分析法的河南省农村城镇化水平研究[J].农业系统科学与综合研究,2010,26(4):448-452.
[9]绍大伟,张小林,吴殿鸣.知识城市评价体系的构建及我国省域差异的实证分析[J].经济地理,2010,30(3):414-419.
[10]陈明星,陆大道,张华.中国城市化水平的综合测度及其动力因子分析[J].地理学报,2009,64(4):387-398.
[11]梁振民,陈才,刘继生,等.东北地区城市化发展质量的综合测度与层级特征研究[J].地理科学,2013,33(8):926-934.
[12]吴耀,牛俊蜻,郝晋伟.区域城镇化综合发展水平评价研究[J].西北大学学报:自然科学版,2009,39(6):1042-1047.
[13]欧向军,甄峰,秦永东.区域城市化水平综合测度及其理想动力分析[J].地理研究,2008,27(5):994-997.
[14]何平,倪苹.中国城镇化质量研究[J].统计研究,2013(6):11-18.
[15]简新华,黄锟.中国城镇化水平和速度的实证分析与前景预测[J].经济研究,2010(3):28-39.
目录