Comprehensive Assessment of Production–Living– Ecological Space Based on the Coupling Coordination Degree Model
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
sustainability Article Comprehensive Assessment of Production–Living– Ecological Space Based on the Coupling Coordination Degree Model 1,2, 1,2,3, 1,2, 4, 4 Di Wang y, Dong Jiang y , Jingying Fu *, Gang Lin * and Jialun Zhang 1 Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; [email protected] (D.W.); [email protected] (D.J.) 2 College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China 3 Key Laboratory of Carrying Capacity Assessment for Resource and Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing 100101, China 4 College of Geoscience and Surveying Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (J.F.); [email protected] (G.L.); Tel.: +86-10-6488-9221 (J.F.); +86-010-6233-1293 (G.L.) These authors contributed equally to this work. y Received: 30 January 2020; Accepted: 1 March 2020; Published: 5 March 2020 Abstract: Production–living–ecological (PLE) space is the basic site of all human activities. The coordinated development of these three spaces is an important prerequisite for achieving sustainable development goals. However, a quantitative assessment of the overall coordination among these three spaces is limited in current research. This paper built an indicator system and a coupling coordination degree model to comprehensively assess the development status of PLE space in China. The statuses of 340 prefecture-level cities across the country from 2005 to 2015 were analyzed. The results showed that the national average first increased from 0.435 in 2005 to 0.452 in 2010 and then dropped to 0.445 in 2015. There was an obvious distribution line between slightly unbalanced cities and moderately balanced cities, close to the famous “Hu Huanyong Line.” Most provincial capital cities were between the slightly unbalanced class and barely balanced class. Only Fuzhou in Fujian Province exceeded the barely balanced class in 2015. This paper provides several references for other developing cities to achieve sustainable and coordinated development. Keywords: sustainable development; coupling coordination degree; production–living–ecology space; Hu Huanyong Line 1. Introduction The rapid development of industrialization and urbanization has led to intense competition and conflict between humans and nature, causing a range of issues such as global climate change, the energy crisis, and food security [1], especially in developing counties. In 2012, the United Nations created a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs) to respond to the above problems [2]. In 2015, 17 sustainable development goals were officially adopted [3], and the “New Urban Agenda” was released in 2016 [4]. China actively promotes SDGs through a comprehensive portfolio of large projects [5]. The concept of production–living–ecological (PLE) space was first proposed in the report of the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. It stressed that “the space for production should be intensive and highly efficient, the living space should be moderately liveable, and the ecological space should be unspoiled and beautiful.” PLE space was proposed for promoting sustainable economic and social development, which has attracted increasing attention in China. PLE space in a city essentially Sustainability 2020, 12, 2009; doi:10.3390/su12052009 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 21 material production and spiritual life [6]. Especially, human society engaging and economic activities imply that cities are artificial systems, not natural systems [7,8]. The relationships among the social, economic, and ecology spaces are not completely independent but are mutually restrictive and interconnected (Figure 1), which makes the system dynamic and complex [9–11]. Intensive and efficient development of production space allows for increased development space and alternative development modes to improve quality of life and ecological service functions Sustainabilityand is the2020 basis, 12, 2009of the liveability and ecology of living space. However, extensive economic2 of 18 development has resulted in serious environmental pollution problems, which threaten not only coversecological the scopequality of and the safety, space ofbut the also activities people’s that living are relatedenvironment to people’s [12]. Ecological material production space provides and spiritualproduction life factors, [6]. Especially, such as water, human land, society and engaging other resources, and economic for production activities activities. imply that Atcities the same are artificialtime, ecological systems, notspace natural is also systems an indispensable [7,8]. The relationships aspect of amongthe ability the social,for people economic, to enjoy and ecologynatural spacesexperiences are not and completely a healthy independentlife. Living space but arealso mutually provides restrictivelabour and and employment interconnected opportunities (Figure1 for), whicheconomic makes activities the system in the dynamic production and complexspace. Different [9–11]. quality of life levels attract different levels of capital, and thus restrict the urban industrial structure [13]. Figure 1. Coupling relationship among production space, living space, and ecological space. (Drawn byFigure authors). 1. Coupling relationship among production space, living space, and ecological space. (Drawn by authors). Intensive and efficient development of production space allows for increased development space and alternativeThe essence development of the PLE modesproblem to is improve the contradict qualityion of life between and ecological the limited service versatility functions of natural and is theresources basis of and the growing liveability demand. and ecology In sustainable of living development space. However, research, extensive exploring economic how developmentto use limited hasresources resulted toin better serious develop environmental the economy pollution and to problems,improve people’s which threaten quality notof life only under ecological the premise quality of andnot safety,destroying but also the people’s ecological living environment environment has [ 12become]. Ecological a popular space topic. provides Researchers production in factors,natural suchsciences as water, have land,also proposed and other many resources, frameworks for production for sustainable activities. development At the same indicators time, ecological system. space The ispressure–state–response also an indispensable aspect (PSR) ofmo thedel abilityproposed for peopleby the Organizatio to enjoy naturaln for Economic experiences Cooperation and a healthy and life.Development Living space in 1993 also providesis a classic labour framework and employment [14]. The PSR opportunities framework was for economicsubsequently activities extended in the to productiona driving space.force–stress–state–impact–response Different quality of life levels attract(DPSIR) diff erentframework, levels ofwhich capital, was and adopted thus restrict by thethe urbanEuropean industrial Environment structure Agency [13]. in 1999. In 1997, the United Nations Environment Programme and the UnitedThe essence States of Non-Governmental the PLE problem is Organization the contradiction proposed between a well-known the limited three-system versatility of model natural of resourcessocial, economic, and growing and environmental demand. In sustainable systems [15] development. The United research, Nations exploring Commission how on to useSustainable limited resourcesDevelopment to better established develop a theuniversal economy sustainable and to improve Development people’s indicator quality system of life under framework, the premise which ofis notcomposed destroying of four the ecologicalmajor systems: environment social, econ hasomic, become environmental, a popular topic. and Researchers institutional in [16]. natural The sciencesconcept haveof the also “water–energy–food proposed many frameworksnexus” was pr foroposed sustainable at the developmentBonn Conference indicators in 2011, system. which Thefocused pressure–state–response on how to balance the (PSR) relationship model proposed between by limited the Organization resources and for growing Economic demand Cooperation [17]. In and2014, Development a series of methods in 1993 is were a classic proposed framework by the [14 Food]. The and PSR Agriculture framework wasOrganization subsequently of the extended United toNations a driving (FAO) force–stress–state–impact–response [18] that were devoted to studying (DPSIR) how framework,to formulate which strategies was adoptedto develop by new the Europeantechnologies Environment and policies Agency under in this 1999. framework. In 1997, the Re Unitedgarding Nations how to Environment better resolve Programme this conflict and or thecontradiction, United States some Non-Governmental scholars believe that Organization the versatility proposed and limitation a well-known of land three-system resources are model the core of social,of the economic,contradiction and [19]. environmental In 2011, several systems internat [15]. Theional United organizations, Nations Commissionsuch as the United on Sustainable Nations DevelopmentEnvironment establishedProgramme, a universallaunched sustainablethe “Future Development Earth” plan, indicatorwith the systemGlobal