Study on the Spatial-Temporal Characteristics and Divergence of Rural Human Settlement Quality of Mountainous Counties in Zhejiang, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Overview
3. Methods and Materials
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Methods
3.2.1. Establishment of the Evaluation Index System and Impact Factor Analysis System
- (1)
- Establishing an evaluation index system
- (2)
- Establishing an impact factor analysis system
3.2.2. Data Collection and Processing
4. Results
4.1. Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Rural Habitat Quality in Mountainous Counties of Zhejiang Province
4.1.1. Spatial and Temporal Evolution Characteristics of Rural Human Settlement in Mountainous Counties of Zhejiang Province
4.1.2. Evolutionary Characteristics of Rural Human Settlement Subsystems in Mountainous Counties of Zhejiang Province
4.2. Analysis of Influencing Factors
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Name of the Indicator | Meaning of Indicators | Calculation Method |
---|---|---|
Economy level (D1) | Shows the overall level of economic development of the study area. | Gross economic product/total population |
Level of agricultural development (D2) | The degree of development of the agricultural industry, which is the foundation of the village, can be visually demonstrated. | Agricultural output/rural population |
Degree of modernization in agriculture (D3) | Shows the agricultural capacity of the region. | Agricultural machinery power/rural population |
Residents’ employment situation (D4) | Chows the employment status of the area under study. | Number of rural employees/rural population*100% |
Residents’ income Situation (D5) | Visualizes the current income level of rural residents, and a good income level is the basis to guarantee living standards of rural residents. | (Total household income–income tax paid–social security expenditure paid by individuals–bookkeeping allowance)/household size |
Residents’ living consumption (D6) | Visually expresses the current consumption level of the study area and is an important indicator of the current living conditions of rural residents in the area. | (Annual income of the household–corporate income tax paid–social security expenses paid by individuals–bookkeeping allowance)/number of people in the household |
Livelihood assurance for residents (D7) | Expresses the living conditions of low-income groups in the study area. | Government Gazette for each year in each county |
Electricity consumption level (D8) | Shows the level of construction of power infrastructure. | Total electricity consumption in villages/number of people in villages |
Highway construction level (D9) | Shows the current level of road construction in the study area and the convenience for rural residents to go out for production, living, and recreation. | Road mileage/Number of rural population |
Construction level of convenient facilities (D10) | The study of the degree of construction of express points has a certain convenience, which is related to the convenience of life of the residents and their convenience in carrying out other activities. | Number of courier points/total number of villages |
Sanitary toilet penetration (D11) | Visually reflects the current construction of sanitary toilets and is a basic measurement element to ensure the sanitary life of rural residents. | Number of farm households using sanitary toilets/total number of households in the village |
Construction of primary medical institutions (D12) | Shows the current level of health construction in the study area. | Total number of primary health care institutions/villages |
Level of primary care services (D13) | Shows the current level of health services in the study area. | Number of health technicians/village population |
Beautiful Countryside Construction (D14) | Visually shows the current level of rural environment construction in the study area. | Number of beautiful villages/total number of villages*100% |
Scenic Area Construction (D15) | Reflects to some extent the current level of the built-up area of construction in the study area. | Number of national-level 3A and above scenic spots/total number of villages*100% |
Primary and secondary education level (D16) | Good construction of basic education can ensure that rural residents enjoy good educational conditions. | Number of primary and secondary school teachers/number of primary and secondary school students*100% |
Cultural Infrastructure Construction (D17) | Shows the level of construction of basic cultural service facilities in the study area. | Number of libraries and cultural stations/total number of villages*100%. |
Intensity of pesticide use in agriculture (D18) | An indicator of the degree of soil and water contamination in the study area. | Pesticide use/crop sown area |
Intensity of fertilizer use in agriculture (D19) | An indicator of the degree of soil and water contamination in the study area. | Agricultural fertilizer use/crop sown area |
Sewage treatment situation (D20) | Shows the current water treatment capacity of the study area. | Sewage treatment volume ÷ total sewage discharge*100% |
Air Quality (D21) | Visually reflects the current air quality level of the study area for that year. | Number of days with good air quality/total number of days of annual monitoring × 100% |
Level of forest cover (D22) | High forest cover and good ecological environment of the area. | Forest area/total land area*100% |
Appendix B
Respondent | Expertise | Sphere |
---|---|---|
R1 | Human geography | Researcher in Sun Yat-sen University |
R2 | Human geography | Staff of county management |
R3 | Human geography | Researcher in Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University |
R4 | Urban planning | Researcher in Zhengzhou University |
R5 | Urban planning | Researcher in Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University |
R6 | Urban planning | Designer working in ZUUP |
R7 | Urban planning | Designer working in ZUUP |
R8 | Urban planning | Staff of county management |
R9 | Urban planning | Staff of county management |
R10 | Tourism management | Researcher in Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University |
R11 | Tourism management | Researcher in Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University |
R12 | Forestry | Researcher in Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University |
R13 | Forestry | Researcher in Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University |
R14 | Landscape architecture | Designer working in ZUUP |
R15 | Landscape architecture | Designer working in ZUUP |
Appendix C
Z Score | p Value | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|
<−1.65 or >+1.65 | <0.10 | 90% |
<−1.96 or >+1.96 | <0.05 | 95% |
<−2.58 or >+2.58 | <0.01 | 99% |
References
- Wu, Q.B.; Yu, X.Y.; Chen, Q.H. The Development Course and Policy Supply of Rural Construction in Zhejiang Province in the New Period. Urban Plann. Forum 2017, 6, 76–86. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X. A Report on the Translation of White Paper on China’sCounty Economic Development. Master’s Thesis, Qufu Normal University, Shandong, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- He, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, H. A Study of Rurality Based on Evolutionary Cognition. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2021, 31, 158–166. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.H.; Zou, X.M.X.; Deng, Y. Analysis on Spatial Characteristics of Traditional Villages Based on the Relationship between Human and Land: A Case Study of the Clan Settlement of Minnan Basin Type. Modern Urban Res. 2020, 12, 29–35. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, R.F.; Zhang, W.Z.; Yu, J.H.; Wang, D.; Zhan, L. Review and Prospects of Habitat Research in Chinese Geography. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2014, 34, 1470–1479. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, X. Research on Rural Settlement Environment Construction Mode Based on Meso Spatial Perspective. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. Ed. 2018, 45, 765–772. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Z.; Luo, J.; Du, Z. “Network Collaboration” Model and It’s Implementation Mechanism of Rural Living Environmental Renovation. Planners 2021, 37, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, L. A Brief Review and Prospect of Human Settlements Science. J. Urban Reg. Plann. 2016, 8, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, Z.; Sun, J. The Comparison Between Human Settlements in China’s Developed and Underdeveloped Areas. Urban Plann. Forum 2007, 2, 62–66. [Google Scholar]
- Li, B.H.; Zeng, J.X.; Hu, J. Progress and Prospect of Research on Rural Human Settlements. Geogr. Geo-Inform. Sci. 2008, 24, 70–74. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, H.; Zhao, X. Quality Evaluation and Differentiated Governance Strategy of Rural Human Settlements in China. J. Xi’an Jiaotong Univ. Soc. Sci. 2019, 39, 105–113. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, N.; Wang, C.; Du, X. Evaluation of Rural Human Settlements Quality and Its Differentiated Optimization in Chongqing Municipality. Econ. Geogr. 2018, 38, 160–165+173. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, B.; Zhang, X.-L.; Ying, X. Evaluation of Rural Human Settlements Quality and Its Spatial Pattern in Jiangsu Province. Econ. Geogr. 2015, 35, 138–144. [Google Scholar]
- Zhan, H.; Li, J. Spatial Differentiation and Impact of Rural Human Settlements Quality in Dabie Mountain Area, Anhui Province. J. Urban Stud. 2020, 41, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, X.; Cai, Y.R.; Chen, Y.Q.; You, S.J.; Liu, F.X. Evaluation of Rural Human Settlements Construction Level Based on the Concept of Ecological Livability—A Case Study of 47 Sample Villages in Jinjiang City. J. Fujian Agric. For. Univ. Philos. Soc. Sci. 2022, 25, 54–62. [Google Scholar]
- Li, B.; Liu, P.; Dou, Y.; Wang, P. Study on the Evolutionary Characteristics and Impact Mechanism of Human Settlements in the Marginal Rural Tourist Attractions—A Case Study of the Great Nanyue Tourism Circle. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2014, 34, 1353–1360. [Google Scholar]
- Zhan, R. Research on the Evolution of Rural Human Settlement and Planning Strategy in Lake Tourism Area. Master’s Thesis, Qufu Normal University, Shandong, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Zhu, H.; Ouyang, H.; Song, L. Sustainable Development Level and Spatial Pattern of Rural Living Environment in Yangtez River Economic Zone. Resour. Ind. 2022, 24, 42–54. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Zhang, W. A Review of Habitat Evaluation Methods. Urban Dev. Stud. 2014, 21, 46–52. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, M.; Deng, C.; Peng, P.; Liu, D. Evaluation of the Difference in the Quality of Rural Habitat in Sichuan Province. Xiang Cun Ke Ji 2021, 12, 109–111. [Google Scholar]
- Kong, D.; Xie, S.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Y. Evaluation of Rural Human Settlement Environment based on AHP Methods. For. Invent. Plann. 2015, 40, 99–104. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H. The Analysis on the Existing State and Evaluation of Rural Human Settelments in Northern Zhejiang Province. Master’s Thesis, Zhejiang A & F University, Zhejiang, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, Q. Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Rural Human Settlement Quality in Hills in Southern China. Master’s Thesis, Gannan Normal University, Gannan, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, C.; Zhang, S. Evaluation of Rural Human settlement and Analysis of Spatial Pattern in Anhui Province. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plann. 2022, 43, 198–205. [Google Scholar]
- Bin, J.; Tang, X.; Chen, S. Spatial Distribution and Influencing Factors of Rural Human Settlement Quality in Guangdong Province. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 19, 203–223. [Google Scholar]
- Du, Y.; Li, S.; Qin, W.; Hu, Y. Rural Human settlement Based on Rural Revitalization Strategy Quality Evaluation and Optimization Research. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plann. 2021, 42, 248–255. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Ma, L.; Fang, F.; Zhu, Z. Research on the Evaluation of Rural Human Settlement Quality and District Governance Countermeasures: Based on the Cross-sectional Data of Village Survey in Jinchang City, GANSU Province. J. Nat. Sci. Hunan Norm. Univ. 2022, 45, 20–31. [Google Scholar]
- Zhuang, Q.; Wang, L.; Zheng, G. An Evaluation of National Park System Pilot Area Using the AHP-Delphi Approach: A Case Study of the Qianjiangyuan National Park System Pilot Area, China. Forests 2022, 13, 1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajabi, S.; El-Sayegh, S.; Romdhane, L. Identification and assessment of sustainability performance indicators for construction projects. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2022, 15, 100193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaefer, J.L.; Baierle, I.C.; Sellitto, M.A.; Siluk, J.C.M.; Furtado, J.C.; Nara, E.O.B. Competitiveness Scale as a Basis for Brazilian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Eng. Manag. J. 2021, 33, 255–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaefer, J.L.; Siluk, J.C.M.; de Carvalho, P.S. Critical success factors for the implementation and management of energy cloud environments. Int. J. Energy Res. 2022, 46, 13752–13768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pu, J.; Wang, Y.; Liu, S.; Gao, S.; Wang, S. Quality Evaluation of Rural Human Settlements and Its Influencing Factors at County Level in Hebei Province. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plann. 2022, 1–13. Available online: http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.3513.S.20220224.1125.002.html (accessed on 20 October 2022).
Objective Level | System Layer | Indicator Layer | Index Layer | Characteristics of Indicators | Comprehensive Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Settlement quality of rural villages in 26 counties in mountainous areas of Zhejiang Province (A) | Rural Production Settlement | Economy Development (C1) | Economy level (D1) | + | 0.0611 |
Agriculture Development (C2) | Level of agricultural development (D2) | + | 0.0843 | ||
Degree of modernization in agriculture (D3) | + | 0.0367 | |||
Rural Employment (C3) | Residents’ employment situation (D4) | + | 0.0712 | ||
Rural Living Settlement (B2) | Economy Life (C4) | Residents’ income situation (D5) | + | 0.0321 | |
Residents’ living consumption (D6) | + | 0.013 | |||
Livelihood assurance for residents (D7) | + | 0.0414 | |||
Infrastructure (C5) | Electricity consumption level (D8) | + | 0.0512 | ||
Highway construction level (D9) | + | 0.065 | |||
Construction level of convenient facilities (D10) | + | 0.0695 | |||
Healthcare (C6) | Sanitary toilet penetration (D11) | + | 0.0606 | ||
Construction of primary medical institutions (D12) | + | 0.0286 | |||
Level of primary care services (D13) | + | 0.035 | |||
Built-up Area Quality (C7) | Beautiful countryside construction (D14) | + | 0.0583 | ||
Scenic area construction (D15) | + | 0.0181 | |||
Culture and Education (C8) | Primary and secondary education level (D16) | + | 0.0512 | ||
Cultural infrastructure construction (D17) | + | 0.0159 | |||
Rural Ecological Settlement (B3) | Environmental pollution (C9) | Intensity of pesticide use in agriculture (D18) | + | 0.0803 | |
Intensity of fertilizer use in agriculture (D19) | + | 0.0328 | |||
Environmental Governance (C10) | Sewage treatment situation (D20) | + | 0.0494 | ||
Natural Condition (C11) | Air quality (D21) | + | 0.018 | ||
Level of forest cover (D22) | + | 0.0194 |
System Layer | Indicator Layer | Detection Factor |
---|---|---|
Economy | Economic development level | GDP per capita |
Industry structure | Second and third industries accounted for | |
Local financial level | Fiscal revenue per capita | |
Urban and rural development and social infrastructure | Agricultural modernization | Agricultural machinery power per capita |
Urban development | Urbanization rate | |
facilities | Traffic Density | |
Natural conditions and resource endowment | Arable land resources | Crop sown area per capita |
Tourism resources | Number of 3A-class scenic spots | |
Terrain characteristics | Average elevation of core residential area | |
Topography characteristics | Mountain coverage area |
Year | Average Score | Standard Deviation | Variable Values |
---|---|---|---|
2016 | 0.408 | 0.037 | 0.092 |
2017 | 0.456 | 0.041 | 0.090 |
2018 | 0.514 | 0.047 | 0.091 |
2019 | 0.569 | 0.048 | 0.084 |
2020 | 0.598 | 0.051 | 0.085 |
Year | Moran’s I | Variance | Z-Score | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
2016 | 0.0585 | 0.0189 | 0.7169 | 0.4734 |
2017 | 0.0436 | 0.0191 | 0.6052 | 0.5451 |
2018 | 0.1179 | 0.0183 | 1.1662 | 0.2435 |
2019 | 0.0690 | 0.0181 | 0.8095 | 0.4182 |
2020 | 0.0409 | 0.0185 | 0.5957 | 0.5514 |
System Layer | Indicator Layer | Detection Factor | Q |
---|---|---|---|
Economy | Economic development level | GDP per capita | 0.384 |
Industry structure | The second and third industries accounted for | 0.279 | |
Local financial level | Fiscal revenue per capita | 0.355 | |
Urban and rural development and social infrastructure | Agricultural modernization | Agricultural machinery power per capita | 0.466 |
Urban development | Urbanization rate | 0.143 | |
facilities | Density of the road network | 0.107 | |
Natural conditions and resource endowment | Arable land resources | Crop sown area per capita | 0.236 |
Tourism resources | Number of 3A-class scenic spots | 0.315 | |
Terrain characteristics | Average elevation of core residential area | 0.243 | |
Topography characteristics | Mountain coverage area | 0.309 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xu, F.; Zheng, G.; Zhuang, Q. Study on the Spatial-Temporal Characteristics and Divergence of Rural Human Settlement Quality of Mountainous Counties in Zhejiang, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15426. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215426
Xu F, Zheng G, Zhuang Q. Study on the Spatial-Temporal Characteristics and Divergence of Rural Human Settlement Quality of Mountainous Counties in Zhejiang, China. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):15426. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215426
Chicago/Turabian StyleXu, Fan, Guoquan Zheng, and Qianda Zhuang. 2022. "Study on the Spatial-Temporal Characteristics and Divergence of Rural Human Settlement Quality of Mountainous Counties in Zhejiang, China" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 15426. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215426