资源科学 ›› 2016, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (1): 50-61.doi: 10.18402/resci.2016.01.06

• • 上一篇    下一篇

中国主要城市建设用地扩张特征

童陆亿1,2(), 胡守庚1,2,3()   

  1. 1. 中国地质大学(武汉)公共管理学院,武汉 430074
    2. 国土资源部法律评价工程重点实验室,武汉 430074
    3. 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所,北京 100101
  • 收稿日期:2015-01-07 修回日期:2015-10-19 出版日期:2016-01-25 发布日期:2016-01-25
  • 作者简介:

    作者简介:童陆亿,男,湖北宜昌人,博士生,主要研究方向为城乡土地利用转型及其资源环境效应。E-mail:lytongc@gmail.com

  • 基金资助:
    基金项目:国家自然科学基金(41101535);教育部人文社会科学研究基金(14YJCZH192);博士后基金(2013M530709,2014T70115)

Characterizations of urban sprawl in major Chinese cities

TONG Luyi1,2(), HU Shougeng1,2,3()   

  1. 1. School of Public Administration,China University of Geosciences,Wuhan 430074,China
    2. The Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Land and Resources for Legal Evaluation Engineering,Wuhan 430074,China
    3. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research,Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing 100101,China
  • Received:2015-01-07 Revised:2015-10-19 Online:2016-01-25 Published:2016-01-25

摘要:

多维度城市扩张度量,是深刻揭示城市扩张规律及驱动力,实现高效城市扩张控制,推进中国新型城镇化及生态文明建设的重要基础。本文利用城市扩张自由度、蔓延度、感观优劣度指数对中国216个主要城市2000-2012年期间的扩张特征进行了综合度量。结果表明:①中国城市扩张总体趋于紧凑,但低约束扩张模式所催生的“低质量”城市发展态势严峻;②不同维度城市扩张特征不尽相同,东、中部地区是中国近年城市扩张的集中地,扩张自由度及蔓延度较高、区域差异明显,扩张模式不尽合理;广东、河北、山东、河南、安徽等省份“低质量”扩张现象较为严重,西部省份及少数民族自治区扩张模式整体较优;城市圈地区扩张紧凑度较高,但统筹协调程度较低,区域扩张差异明显,局部地区扩张质量较低;③内陆及城市圈地区将成为中国城市扩张的重要发生地;④广州、石家庄、济南、合肥、湘潭城市扩张感观优劣度相对较低。努力构建并完善“国家-地区-城市”多级城市扩张监管体系,是统筹协调区域城市建设用地开发利用,积极推进高质量城镇化,实现城市可持续发展的首要任务。

关键词: 城市化, 城市扩张, 自由度, 蔓延度, 感观优劣度, 中国

Abstract:

Synthetic multi-scale expansion measurements are essential to identifying inherent urban sprawl driving forces and dynamic principles,approaching effective national urban sprawl control,and facilitating neo-urbanization and ecological civilization construction in China. We characterized urban sprawl from 2000 to 2012 in 216 major cities in China using degree-of-freedom,degree-of-sprawl and conceptual degree-of-goodness metrics. We found that despite overall compact urbanization sprawl observed in China,the relatively low-quality urban growth contributed by the expansion under uncontrolled modes was still scared. This showed different characteristics of urban sprawl at varied scales;specifically,the major sites for sprawl in eastern and central China with high degree-of-freedom and degree-of-sprawl values, which were mixed in different areas, obtained less comfortable expansion. Relatively low-quality expansion processes were observed in Guangdong,Hebei,Shandong,Henan and Anhui,while autonomous and western regions experienced more amicable urban growth. Although general compact growth patterns were generated in metropolitan areas,they were less coordinated,i.e.,high heterogeneous expansion in space and low-quality urban growth in some local parts from a conceptual perspective. It is predicated that inland and metropolitan districts will be major sites where urban land will be developed in coming decades. At the city scale,Guangzhou,Shijiazhuang,Ji’nan,Hefei and Xiangtan have lower degree-of-goodness values for urban sprawl. Initiatives to achieve hierarchical (national,regional,and local city levels)urban sprawl monitoring and management frameworks are vital tasks for integrated and balanced urban land development in time and space,high quality urbanization patterns,and sustainable urban development in China.

Key words: urbanization, urban sprawl, degree-of-freedom, degree-of-sprawl, conceptual degree-of-goodness, China