The Measurement of the Urban–Rural Integration Level of Resource-Exhausted Cities—A Case Study of Zaozhuang City, China

Abstract

Urban–rural integration is an inevitable course for the transformation and development of resource-exhausted cities, and it is also an internal requirement to achieve sustainable development goals. Taking Zaozhuang city as a case study, this paper constructed an “Economic–Spatial–Social” (ESS) evaluation index system of urban–rural integration according to the connotations. We used the TOPSIS and obstacle degree (OD) models to measure the urban–rural integration level, from 2009 to 2019, and diagnosed the obstacles. The results show that: (1) The overall level of urban–rural integration in Zaozhuang improves year by year and presents two stages: in the initial stage of integration from 2009 to 2012, the total integration degree slowly increases, but the internal indicators fluctuated. The period ranging from the years 2012 to 2019 was stable for integrated development, with the overall urban–rural integration level significantly increasing and the internal indicators steadily improving year by year. (2) The urban–rural economic integration degree of Zaozhuang has a good foundation, and the degree of economic integration presents the characteristics of decreasing at first and then increasing, attaining the lowest value in 2012 and then slowly increasing; the foundation of urban–rural social integration is weak, but the social integration degree growth rate is the highest. The degree of urban–rural spatial integration has rapidly increased year by year, and urban and rural area exchanges and interactions have been strengthened. (3) According to the diagnosis results of the obstacle degrees, the main obstacles that affect urban–rural integration in Zaozhuang are concentrated at the economic level. Finally, the suggestions are put forward to coordinate urban–rural integration and sustainable development for resource-exhausted cities.

1. Introduction

The urban–rural dual structure implemented by China for a long period of time is the main reason for the unbalanced development and wide wealth gap between urban and rural areas. Promoting the integration of urban and rural development is an effective way to solve the imbalance of regional economic development and inequality of income distribution. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the Chinese government has paid more attention to the solution and exploration of the imbalance between urban and rural development. It has successively promoted the implementation of major strategies, such as new urbanization, new rural construction, targeted poverty alleviation, and rural revitalization, so the overall development trend of urban–rural integration has improved, and the gap between urban and rural development has further narrowed. However, due to the historical development problems in the past, the current institutional obstacles of urban-rural dual structure have not been completely eliminated. The gap between urban and rural economic development in different regions and between urban and rural areas is still large, and the polarization between the rich and the poor still exists.

Resource-exhausted cities refer to those cities whose accumulative reserves of mineral resources have reached more than 70% of the recoverable reserves in the late stage of mineral resource development. The sustainable development of a city’s social ecosystem is influenced by the interaction between urban resources, resource users, public infrastructure providers, and public infrastructure [1]. Resource-exhausted cities, which rely on the exploitation of oil, coal, and other natural resources, have several problems, such as slow economic development, single industrial structures, and environmental pollution [2,3]. With the depletion of natural resources, the development of society, the economy, and industry in resource-exhausted cities will be restricted. If the old economic development system and measures are not reformed, it will be difficult to achieve sustainable development in urban and rural development practices [4]. In addition, with resource exploitation existing as the leading industry, the developed resource-based industry in urban areas has a weak role in promoting and expanding the rural economy, resulting in obvious urban–rural development segmentation and a large urban–rural wealth gap. Urban development and institutional change are inevitable processes, and we need to change the economic and industrial institutional process to adapt to the development of the present times [5,6,7]. The process of how a new industry appears in a region dominated by traditional industries can be understood through dialectics and social movement theory [8]. This is a severe development problem in the process of transformation and the development of resource-exhausted cities, they not only have to solve the problem of economic weakness and lack of momentum of development caused by resource depletion but also face the urban–rural separation caused by the special industrialization mode at an early stage; therefore, it is more difficult and urgent to achieve the goal of sustainable urban–rural development. In order to solve a series of development problems, China’s central and local governments have paid attention to, and formulated, relevant reform and development measures. It is clearly stated in China’s 14th Five-Year Plan and the outline of the long-term goals for 2035 that the system and mechanism of integrated development should be improved to promote integrated urban and rural developments. It has also been pointed out that the construction of sustainable development demonstration zones and transformation and innovation pilot zones in resource-based areas should be promoted.

Urban and rural integration has become a major issue in the process of urban sustainable development. In recent years, many scholars have conducted extensive research on urban–rural integration, mainly including the following aspects: firstly, the connotation and strategic development direction of urban–rural integrated development. Lichter believed that the space and society of urban and rural America were interpenetrating, and the boundaries became increasingly blurred and highly fluid [9,10]. Some scholars believe that new urbanization and rural revitalization processes have gradually become China’s development strategy. From “one-way flow” to “two-way interaction” in urban and rural areas and from “urban bias” to “urban–rural integration”, it is still necessary to promote the reform of rural grassroots democratic political systems and the equalization of public services further [11,12,13]. Secondly, regarding the analysis of obstacles to urban–rural integration, some scholars have pointed out that human and agency factors are the important factors in regional development processes [14]. Scholars believe that urban economic efficiency, urban resources and environment, urban social equity, and rural economic efficiency are the factors that hinder urban–rural integration [15]. Meanwhile, the flow of capital, labor, and technical factors, the distribution of the population, secondary and tertiary industries, and urban–rural medical insurance will also have an impact on the urban–rural integration process [16,17,18]. In addition, some scholars have pointed out that policy and institutional structure, economic development and urbanization level, bottom-up rural development, national government policies, and local human development state practices are the main driving factors affecting the balanced development of urban and rural areas in China [19,20,21]. Thirdly, regarding the evaluation of the level of urban–rural integration, in recent years, the evaluation of urban–rural integrated development has been an important part of the research conducted on urban–rural relations. Some scholars have established an evaluation model of the urban–rural quality of life, involving economic, social, environmental, and other indicators, to analyze the spatial patterns of urban–rural quality of life and the degree of urban–rural integration [22]. Azapagic (2004) developed a sustainability indicator framework, including economy, environment, society, and synthesis, as a tool to conduct evaluations and improvements [23]. Some scholars study China’s urban–rural integration from the perspective of spatial–temporal evolution and development characteristics [24,25]. Some scholars have also proposed an improved TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) method, based on relative entropy and gray relational degree, to evaluate the development level of urban–rural integration [26]. Fourthly, we address the research conducted on urban–rural integration path design. For example, France coordinated the interests of different stakeholders at different levels in cities and villages through the implementation of the overall spatial policy framework and integrated spatial planning system [27]. The implementation of China’s Rural Revitalization Strategy has created favorable conditions for promoting urban–rural integration. Some scholars have constructed a theoretical framework of urban–rural integration based on the population, land, industry, and the rights system between urban and rural areas, with the technical support of land engineering construction and land capacity building, as well as the policy support of rural land system reform and reconstruction for management [28]. Some scholars believe that the informatization of the agricultural economy enabled by “Internet +” is an important path to realize urban–rural integration [29]. These research results were beneficial for the development and research of urban–rural integration.

Scholars’ research concerning urban–rural integration has laid a solid foundation for coordinating urban–rural relations. However, the existing research on urban–rural integration is mainly based on theoretical analysis, and the research objects are focused on at a provincial level. In addition, the existing studies concerning resource-exhausted cities mainly focus on the transformation path analysis at a macro level; few empirical studies on urban–rural integration in resource–exhausted cities exist. In fact, urban–rural integrated development is the best method for the transformation and development of resource-exhausted cities, and it is also the internal requirement for achieving sustainable development.

As a resource-exhausted city, the development of Zaozhuang was once mainly dependent on the mining and utilization of natural resources, such as coal mines. Urban construction was concentrated in urban areas, while rural areas were neglected for a long period of time due to the lack of coal resources. As a result, the development of rural areas lagged far behind urban areas, resulting in large urban–rural income gaps and low urban–rural integration levels. With the continuous depletion of resources, Zaozhuang must attach great importance to the contradiction and gap between urban and rural development in the process of exploring transformation and development. It has become a major task for Zaozhuang to promote the integrated development of urban and rural areas, as well as narrow the gap of economic development and income between urban and rural. In view of this, this paper takes Zaozhuang as a case study to evaluate the urban–rural integration degree of resource-exhausted cities. We constructed three evaluation index systems of urban–rural economic, spatial, and social integrations of resource-exhausted cities, according to the connotation of urban–rural integration. The TOPSIS model is used to measure the urban–rural integration level of Zaozhuang, from 2009 to 2019, and diagnose the obstacle factors. The goal is to promote urban and rural economic and social sustainable development and a higher quality of urban–rural integration development to provide a decision-making reference. Compared with the existing research results, the innovation of this paper is mainly reflected in the following two aspects: one is to study the urban–rural integration of resource-exhausted cities to provide support for the transformation and development; secondly, based on the connotation of urban–rural integration development, the innovative construction of an urban–rural integration level evaluation index system of resource-exhausted cities.

2. Study Area and Data Sources

2.1. Overview of the Study Area

Zaozhuang is located in the southern part of Shandong Province, China, as we can see in Figure 1 the terrain is high in the north and low in the south, as well as high in the east and low in the west. The landform in the territory is relatively complex, forming many types of landform features such as low mountains, hills, piedmont plains, floodplains, and depressions along lakes. Rich in mineral resources, there are 12 kinds of minerals whose reserves have been identified, among which the coal reserves are 1717.71 million tons, including a city that was built and is rising because of coal, which is known as Lunan coal city. The history of coal mining can be traced back to 1500 years ago, and it is the birthplace of modern national industries in China. By the end of 2021, the permanent population of Zaozhuang was 3.8531 million, and the regional GDP was CNY 19.557 billion. As a city with a long history, the development of Zaozhuang was fueled by coal, but it is also limited by coal.

Long-term, large-scale, and high-intensity mining has increasingly exhausted coal and other resources. At present, the mining life of underground coal reserves has been less than 20 years. At the same time, problems, such as single energy structures, prominent urban–rural dual structures, and insufficient development potential, exist. The development predicament of resource-exhausted cities must explore the road of transformation and promote the integrated development of urban and rural areas. At present, Zaozhuang is listed as a National Resource-Exhausted City and National Rural Reform Pilot Zone by the Chinese government. In 2020, the Zaozhuang government promulgated the Sustainable Development Plan of Zaozhuang (2019–2030), and it was put forward that “by 2030, Zaozhuang will be built into a Demonstration Zone of transformation development and a Pilot Zone of Urban–rural Integration “, and “Urban-rural Integration” strategy will be one of the key directions for future development plans.

2.2. Data Sources

Zaozhuang is a typical resource-based city dominated by the coal energy industry. It was listed in the second group of national resource-exhausted cities in 2009. Therefore, this study used 2009 as the starting year and 2019 as the end year of the study through the latest available yearbook data. In order to ensure the authority and accuracy of the data, the data used were obtained from the Zaozhuang Statistical Yearbook and the government official statistical bulletin. In order to ensure the scientificity and accuracy of the evaluation results and avoid the problem of mutual influence among multiple independent variables, the variance inflation factor method was used to perform a multi-collinearity diagnosis, explanatory variables causing multi-collinearity were obtained and removed, and the actual price of the index was converted into the comparable price in 2009.

3. Methods

3.1. Construction of the Evaluation Index System

Urban–rural integrated development means focusing on the free flow of production factors between urban and rural areas and the rational allocation of public resources, complementing agriculture with industry and supporting rural areas with urban, promoting the sharing of basic public services between urban and rural areas, the integrated development of urban and rural infrastructure, the coordinated development of urban and rural industries, and the sustained growth of farmers’ income, so as to form a new type of industrial–agricultural–urban relationship, which complementarily coordinated development between urban and rural areas, as well as accelerated agricultural and rural modernization and revitalization.

A major problem facing the development of urban–rural integration is that the current urban–rural regional economic development and residents’ income gap are still large. Narrowing the gap between urban and rural economic and industrial development and the income gap between urban and rural residents is the meaning of promoting the coordinated and sustainable development of urban and rural economic integration. Another major problem faced by urban–rural integration development is urban–rural spatial segmentation. It is necessary to promote the free flow of various elements, break the space barrier of material and information circulation, promote the optimal allocation of resource elements, break the division of urban and rural spaces, and promote the integration of urban and rural spaces. It is an important channel, and the core content is to continuously reduce the gap between urban and rural residents’ material and spiritual living standards. In addition, the deeper problem is the difference between urban and rural social level. The root of urban and rural social division lies in the backwardness of rural productivity, which is manifested in the inequality of rural social security, culture, education, medical care, and public services. Therefore, the process of urban–rural integration should include the interaction of urban and rural economy, the coordinated development of urban and rural space, the improvement of urban and rural social security, and the equalization of public services. According to the connotation of urban–rural integration, considering the development characteristics of resource-exhausted cities and the scientification and accessibility of index selection, this paper constructed three evaluation index levels, namely the urban–rural economic–spatial–social (ESS) integration evaluation index system (

Table 1. Evaluation indicator system of urban–rural integration level.

Target Layer	Criterion Layer	Indicator Layer	Weight of Entropy Method	Corrected Weight	Nature of Indicator
urban–rural integration level	Economy integration	Per capita disposable income ratio of urban and rural residents	0.051	0.053	Moderate type
		Per capita wage income ratio of urban and rural residents	0.050	0.052	Moderate type
		Per capita property income ratio of urban and rural residents	0.051	0.052	Moderate type
		Ratio of per capita retail sales of consumer goods between urban and rural residents	0.052	0.052	Moderate type
		Comparative labor productivity ratio between urban and rural areas	0.053	0.053	Moderate type
	Spatial integration	Per capita area ratio of urban and rural construction land	0.050	0.050	Moderate type
		Ratio of mobile phones per 100 households in urban and rural areas	0.049	0.049	Moderate type
		Ratio of color TV sets per 100 households in urban and rural areas	0.052	0.051	Moderate type
		Accessibility of urban and rural roads	0.048	0.048	Positive type
		Ratio of urban and rural wired telephone accessibility	0.043	0.040	Moderate type
		Access ratio of urban and rural broadband networks	0.042	0.040	Moderate type
	Social integration	Engel coefficient ratio of urban and rural residents	0.050	0.050	Moderate type
		Per capita consumption expenditure ratio of urban and rural residents	0.049	0.049	Moderate type
		Per capita residential area ratio of urban and rural residents	0.052	0.052	Moderate type
		Per capita expenditure on culture, education, and entertainment of urban and rural residents	0.050	0.048	Moderate type
		Per capita health care expenditure ratio of urban and rural residents	0.052	0.053	Moderate type
		Average burden coefficient ratio of urban and rural residents	0.052	0.052	Moderate type
		Ratio of refrigerators per 100 households of urban and rural residents	0.052	0.052	Moderate type
		Ratio of urban and rural residents’ tap water penetration rate	0.051	0.051	Moderate type
		Per capita expenditure on subsistence allowances in urban and rural areas	0.051	0.053	Moderate type

).

Specifically, the index layer of economic integration mainly measures the overall economic situation and economic linkage between urban and rural areas, and it is composed of the per capita disposable income ratio, per capita wage-based income ratio, and other indicators. The urban–rural dual economic structure of resource-exhausted cities results in the spatial separation between cities and the countryside. This spatial separation is not only reflected in the physical space, namely the impeded circulation of urban and rural materials, but also in the information space, namely the information communication that occurs between urban and rural areas is not smooth. Therefore, urban–rural integration must reconstruct rural production, living, and ecological space [30]. Therefore, the index layer of spatial integration established in this paper not only measured urban and rural land agglomerations and transportation convenience but also the smoothness of the network information exchange, which is composed of urban and rural per capita construction land, road accessibility, and other indicators. The index layer of social integration mainly reflects the living conditions of urban and rural residents in terms of living standards and social living conditions. It is composed of urban and rural residents’ consumption expenditures: culture, education, entertainment, medical and health expenditures, and other indicators. The essence of the urban–rural integration is that the distribution and balance of interests continue to reduce the gap between urban and rural residents to enjoy material and spiritual civilization; the extent of human creation ultimately realizes sustainable development of urban–rural integration. Thus, the evaluation index system established in this paper was the rural–urban ratio relationship, and the nature of the indicators are moderate type, except for the Accessibility of urban and rural roads, which is positive type.

3.2. Research Methods

3.2.1. Index Standardization and Weight Determination

In order to eliminate the differences in the dimensions and dimensional units among different indicators, the range method was used to process the index data without dimensions, and each indicator was converted into a value between “0–1”. The index weight assignment can be divided into the objective and subjective weighting methods. The former calculates the weight based on the data, but it ignores expert experience knowledge, and the weight may not be consistent with the actual situation, while the subjective weighting method is entirely the reflection of expert experience, and the index weight is quite random. In view of the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods, based on the entropy value method used to calculate the index weight, the Delphi method is used to correct the weight. The steps of calculating index weight by the entropy method are as follows:

First, calculate the proportion of the $j$ index in the $i$-th year:

$$P_{ij}=\frac{X_{ij}}{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^m{X}_{ij}}}$$

(1)

Secondly, calculate the information entropy of the index:

$$E_j=-K{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^m\left(P_{ij}\times \ln P_{ij}\right)}$$

(2)

Thirdly, calculate the redundancy of index information entropy:

$$D_i=1-E_j$$

(3)

Finally, calculate the entropy weight of the index:

$$W_j=\frac{D_i}{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n{D}_i}}$$

(4)

where, m is the number of statistical years, n is the number of indicators, and it is the standardized value of indicators, $K=1/\ln m$.

Results of index weights calculated by the above calculation formula are shown in Table 1.

3.2.2. Measurement of Urban–Rural Integration Level

The TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) model is a method suitable to solve the decision aid of the multi-indicator criteria, which is extensively used by researchers and practitioners [31]. The main principle is to define a measure in the target space to measure the distance of the target near the positive ideal solution and away from the negative ideal solution, as well as to determine the ranking of evaluation objects by approximating the ideal solution. The TOPSIS model has the advantages of being unaffected by the amount of data and the data distribution form, making full use of original data, and resulting in less information loss. At the same time, it can more accurately reflect the degree of proximity between the sample status and ideal value, and the evaluation result has a high accuracy. Therefore, the TOPSIS model was used in this study to measure the level of urban–rural integration in Zaozhuang, and the calculation steps are as follows:

Firstly, build a standardized decision-making matrix; the calculation formula is as follows:

$$V=x_i\ast w_j$$

(5)

In the formula, $x_i$ represents the standardized value of an indicator and $w_j$ represents its weight.

Secondly, the positive and negative ideal solutions are determined: let $V^{+}$ represent the most preferred scheme (positive ideal solution) and $V^{-}$ represent the least preferred scheme (negative ideal solution); then, the calculation formula is as follows:

$$V^{+}=\left\{\underset{1\le i\le m}{\max }{v}_{ij}|i=1,2,\dots ,m\right\}=\left\{v_1^{+},v_2^{+},\dots ,v_m^{+}\right\}$$

(6)

$$V^{-}=\left\{\underset{1\le i\le m}{\min }{v}_{ij}|i=1,2,\dots ,m\right\}=\left\{v_1^{-},v_2^{-},\dots ,v_m^{-}\right\}$$

(7)

Thirdly, the distance is calculated: distance $D^{+}$ from the evaluation vector to the positive ideal solution and distance $D^{-}$ from the negative ideal solution in each year are calculated. The formulae are

$$D_j^{+}=\sqrt{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^m{\left(v_{ij}-v_i^{+}\right)}^2}(i=1,2,\dots ,)$$

(8)

$$D_j^{-}=\sqrt{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^m{\left(v_{ij}-v_i^{-}\right)}^2}(i=1,2,\dots ,)$$

(9)

where $v_{ij}$ represents the weighted standardized value of the $i$ index in the $j$-th year; $v_i^{+}$ represents the most preferred value of the $i$-th indicator in the evaluation over the years, and $v_i^{-}$ represents the least preferred value of the $i$-th indicator in the evaluation over the years.

Finally, calculate the closeness degree $C_j,$ which represents the closeness between the evaluation object and the optimal scheme over the years, and its formula is as follows:

$$C_j=\frac{D^{-}}{D^{-}+D^{+}},\left(1\le j\le n\right)$$

(10)

In the formula, the greater $C_j$ is, the closer the urban–rural integration level is to the optimal level in the $j$-th year. The closeness $C_j$ value range between 0–1: when $C_j$ = 1, the urban–rural integration development reaches the optimal state; when $C_j$ = 0, the level of urban–rural integration is the lowest and is in a highly divided state. According to the definition of the model principle and value interval of the degree of proximity, this study utilized the natural breakpoint grading method to divide the degree of proximity into four level intervals; each interval represents a level, forming a continuous ladder to represent the level of urban–rural integration as follow

Table 2. Level standards of urban–rural integration.

Proximity Value Range	Level of Urban–Rural Integration
≥0.00–0.30	Lower
≥0.31–0.60	Intermediate
≥0.61–0.80	Good
≥0.81–1.00	High quality

.

3.2.3. Diagnosis of Obstacle Factors

The measurement of the level of urban–rural integration in resource-exhausted cities can provide a reference for future development plans, but it is more important to determine the obstacle factors that restrict the urban–rural integration development process so as to propose targeted improvement measures and suggestions and to implement precise policies. This study introduced “index deviation degree” and “obstacle degree” (OD) models [32] to diagnose the obstacle factors present.

First, calculate the factor contribution:

$$F_j=R_i\ast W_j{W}_j$$

(11)

In the formula, $R_i$ represents the measurement result of the urban–rural integration level in each year; $W_j$ represents the index weight.

Secondly, construct the index deviation matrix (the gap between each index and the target of the urban–rural integration level during each year):

$$Y_j=1-F_j$$

(12)

Thirdly, calculate the obstacle degree of the $j$-th index for urban–rural integrated development:

$$O_j=[\left(Y_j\ast F_j\right)/{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{j=1}^m\left(Y_j\ast F_j\right)]\ast 100$$

(13)

Finally, according to the obstacle degree, the obstacle factors are categorized to determine the main obstacle factors affecting the urban–rural integration development process.

4. Results

This section includes the analysis of the measurement results of the level of urban–rural integration in Zaozhuang, including the analysis of the overall results of urban-rural integration, urban–rural economic integration, urban–rural spatial integration, and urban–rural social integration.

4.1. Analysis of the Overall Level of Urban–Rural Integration

As

Table 3. Measurement results of urban–rural integration.

Year	Economy Integration	Spatial Integration	Social Integration	Overall Integration
2009	0.592	0.199	0.163	0.250
2010	0.477	0.306	0.201	0.288
2011	0.316	0.399	0.307	0.345
2012	0.262	0.575	0.288	0.374
2013	0.308	0.615	0.506	0.495
2014	0.325	0.674	0.519	0.522
2015	0.424	0.713	0.797	0.694
2016	0.425	0.745	0.838	0.744
2017	0.491	0.790	0.873	0.764
2018	0.519	0.857	0.885	0.772
2019	0.527	0.863	0.891	0.786

and Figure 2 shows, during 2009–2019, the urban–rural integration occurring in Zaozhuang achieved good results, with the overall urban–rural integration degree increasing from 0.250 in 2009 to 0.786 in 2019, and the urban–rural integration level also increased from a low to good level. In 2009, Zaozhuang began to explore the possibility of transformation development. Since 2012, Zaozhuang promoted the construction of the national rural reform pilot zone. In the process of carrying out the new-type urbanization, Zaozhuang has taken the construction of small towns as the core, supported by industries, following the principle of “making work easier, making business easier, making farming easier and making tourism easier”, following the road of cluster development of “one town, one industry”, which means that enterprises and institutions related to a certain industry will concentrate in geographical space to produce economies of scale. Took actively promoted the transformation of urban and rural land use. It has promoted the factor flow and value convergence between urban and rural areas [33]. By the year 2019, Zaozhuang built approximately 50 characteristic industrial towns, such as industrial and mining service, agricultural industrialization, and tourism development towns, to increase rural development and promote urban–rural integration. From 2011 to 2019, Zaozhuang was successively recognized by the state as the National Rural Reform Experimental Zone, the National Modern Agriculture Demonstration Zone, and the National Agricultural Sustainable Development Experimental Demonstration Zone, and the support for agriculture, rural areas, and farmers continued to be strengthened. Through the project support and cultivation of new agricultural business entities, which refer to the professional farmers who are literate, skilled, and able to operate, as well as the agricultural operating organizations that have large-scale operations and high degrees of intensification and market competitiveness. By 2019, Zaozhuang built nearly 50 characteristic industrial towns, such as industrial and mining service type, agricultural industrialization type, and tourism development type, with 380 leading agricultural enterprises above the municipal level, 535 demonstration societies of farmers’ professional cooperatives above the municipal level, 155 demonstration farms above the municipal level, and 163 agricultural boutique parks. The construction of small towns radiates rural development, and urban–rural integration continues to advance.

In general, the urban–rural integration development of Zaozhuang is characterized by two stages:

(1).

The first stage represents the initial stage of integrated development (2009–2014).

At this stage, the total urban–rural integration degree in Zaozhuang slowly increased, but its internal indicators varied, among which urban and rural social and spatial integration factors presented an upward trend, whereas economic integration presented a downward trend. At this stage, Zaozhuang was at the initial stage of transformation, and the government focused on the optimization and adjustment of its industrial structure and paid less attention to urban–rural integration. However, the new urbanization construction was implemented at this stage; therefore, the total urban–rural integration degree was slightly improved, but the range was small.

(2).

The second stage is the stable period of integrated development (2014–2019).

At this stage, the total urban–rural integration degree in Zaozhuang improved considerably, and its internal indicators were steadily improved each year. In 2011, Zaozhuang was listed as one of the first batches of National Rural Reform Experimental Areas. In 2012, Shandong Province issued the Opinions on Supporting the Construction of National Rural Reform Experimental Areas in Zaozhuang City, which emphasized the principle and policy of “adhering to the overall planning of urban and rural areas and strengthening agriculture, benefiting agriculture and enriching agriculture, and focusing on solving the main contradictions and prominent problems restricting rural development”. Then, Zaozhuang promulgated the Implementation Opinions on the Construction of Rural Credit System Pilot Area and other supporting policies to ensure the smooth development of “agricultural management system and mechanism reform, urban and rural overall development”. Since 2014, the effect of various policies gradually appeared and continued to work, and the total degree of urban–rural integration occurring in Zaozhuang was considerably improved and maintained an upward trend each year.

4.2. Analysis of Disaggregated Results

4.2.1. Analysis of Urban–Rural Economic Integration

The urban–rural economic-integration degree in Zaozhuang showed a V-shaped structure and presented the behavior of firstly decreasing and then increasing from the years 2009 to 2012. Additionally, the economic-integration degree began to slowly increase each year from 2012 to 2019. The transformation and upgrading of the industrial structure is a relatively slow process; since 2009, Zaozhuang began to explore the method of industrial structure transformation; however, affected by the inertia of industrial development, Zaozhuang was still dominated by traditional industries, such as coal mining and cement production. In 2010, the proportion of the secondary industry was still as high as 60.1%, which was 13.3 percentage points higher than the national average. The dual economic structure of urban and rural areas remained strong, and the economic gap existing between urban and rural areas was expanding. Since 2012, Zaozhuang has stepped up the transformation of its industrial structures. From the years 2012 to 2013, 82 enterprises with high-energy-consumption values, such as cement, iron making, and coal, were eliminated. Until 2019, the proportion of the secondary industry decreased to 43.5%. During this period, Zaozhuang accelerated the cultivation of novel economic drivers with the rapid growth of high-end industries, the tourism industry, and the sustained development of the tertiary industry. Since 2011, Zaozhuang has practiced comprehensive rural economic reform, vigorously promoting the reform of the rural land property rights system, with “one certificate, one institution and one society” as the core, in such ways as issuing farmland use property rights certificates, establishing farmland use property rights exchanges, and developing land cooperatives. The reform revitalized rural land capital, solved the bottleneck problem of agricultural scale operation funds, and cultivated new agricultural subjects. Rural industries are booming, and farmers’ incomes are steadily increasing as the rural-revitalization strategy advances. By the year 2019, the per capita disposable income of Zaozhuang residents was CNY 26,291, a 67.98% increase over 15,651 in 2009. The urban–rural economic connection is increasingly close, and the dual structure of the urban–rural economy tends to be relaxed.

4.2.2. Analysis of Urban–Rural Spatial Integration

From the years 2009 to 2019, the urban–rural spatial-integration degree in Zaozhuang maintained a steady improvement trend each year. Rural roads and communication networks are the carriers of material and information exchange between urban and rural areas. Since the implementation of the transformation and development strategy, Zaozhuang has continuously increased its investment in the rural infrastructure, actively promoted the construction of “four good rural roads”, and vigorously implemented the project of connecting village roads to every household. By 2019, the total mileage of urban and rural roads opened to traffic increased from 6540 to 8925 km in 2019, a 36.46% increase. A total of 99.4% of the village residents have access to roads. At the same time, the construction of rural communication infrastructures has been accelerated, and the popularization of the 4G network, optical fiber broadband, and other information infrastructures in the rural areas has been continuously promoted. By 2019, Zaozhuang achieved continuous network coverage for urban areas and towns, as well as the effective coverage of 100% of administrative villages in the city. Targeted preferential products, such as broadband packages and mobile phones, have also been launched. The number of mobile phones per 100 households in rural areas increased from 146 in 2009 to 225 in 2019. The connections between urban and rural transportation and information continues to strengthen, and the spatial-integration level continues to improve.

4.2.3. Analysis of Urban–Rural Social Integration

The urban–rural social-integration degree in Zaozhuang increased from 0.163 in 2009 to 0.891 in 2019, indicating a significant improvement in the social fields. In 2012, Zaozhuang vigorously implemented the major task of replacing old and new growth drivers, gradually removed barriers for farmers to enter the city, improved the policies of benefiting and enriching farmers, such as transferring jobs and returning to their hometowns to start their own businesses, steadily implemented the comprehensive rural reform policies, and promoted the construction of beautiful countryside areas. “People-centered” is the core of Zaozhuang’s transformation and development. The report of the municipal government listed 20 facts that benefitted the people every year and focused on improving the lives of rural residents, making up the historical debts accrued in rural areas. It promoted rural social and economic development practices through the construction of small towns, increased financial investments to improve the rural infrastructure, and improved urban and rural social security systems. A total of 1.9546 million residents participated in basic old-age insurance policies, and 3.1843 million participated in basic medical insurance policies. With the expansion of the rural comprehensive reform experimental area, the national modern agriculture demonstration area, and the national agricultural sustainable development experimental demonstration area, Zaozhuang’s rural, social, and economic development has developed further, and the urban–rural social-integration degree continues to improve too.

5. Obstacle Factor Diagnosis

5.1. Diagnostic Results of Obstacle Factors

An obstacle factor refers to a factor that restricts and hinders the integrated development of urban and rural areas in Zaozhuang, calculated by the “obstacle degree” (OD) model. As a higher number of evaluation factors exist, we only listed the six major obstacle factors (

Table 4. Main obstacle factors and obstacle degrees.

Year	Ranking of Main Obstacle Factors						Total Obstacles
	Per Capita Property Income Ratio	Comparative Labor Productivity Ratio	Per Capita Retail Sales of Consumer Goods Ratio	Per Capita Wage Income Ratio	Per Capita Culture–Education–Entertainment Expenditure Ratio	Per Capita Disposable Income Ratio
2009	7.686	9.478	7.206	9.520	8.164	7.138	49.191
2010	8.194	9.508	8.545	9.557	8.527	7.214	51.546
2011	10.254	9.814	9.402	9.370	8.383	7.251	54.475
2012	10.996	9.776	10.215	9.367	8.859	7.372	56.586
2013	11.688	10.532	11.014	9.953	9.025	7.794	60.006
2014	11.991	10.812	11.056	10.021	9.053	7.810	60.744
2015	14.552	12.242	10.956	9.859	8.331	8.835	64.775
2016	15.082	12.714	12.094	10.227	7.293	8.629	66.040
2017	15.236	13.007	11.362	10.327	6.438	8.706	65.076
2018	15.222	14.458	10.646	10.272	6.596	8.614	65.808
2019	15.371	14.892	10.390	10.047	6.384	8.856	65.940
Index level	Eco-integration	Eco-integration	Eco-integration	Eco-integration	Soc-integration	Eco-integration

). From 2009 to 2019, the main obstacle factors affecting the urban–rural integrated development of Zaozhuang were as follows in order of the degrees: per capita property income, comparative labor productivity, per capita retail sales of consumer goods, per capita wage income, per capita cultural–educational–entertainment expenditure, and per capita disposable income. Out of the six major obstacles listed, five focused on the factor of economic level. The cumulative obstacle degree has increased each year, reaching a value greater than 50% since 2010 and increasing to 65.94% in 2019, indicating that the six major obstacle factors listed above have an increasing impact on urban–rural integration each year.

5.2. Obstacle Factors Analysis

From the diagnosis results of the obstacle factors (Table 4), it can be observed that the economic factor is the most important factor affecting the urban–rural integration occurring in Zaozhuang. The per capita property income ratio ranked first in the total obstacle degree, and the obstacle degree rapidly increased from 7.686% in 2009 to 15.371% in 2019. The per capita property income ratio in Zaozhuang presented an expanding trend and gradually became the most important obstacle affecting urban–rural integration. On the one hand, rural residents’ property income growth slowed down. In 2011, Zaozhuang began to conduct the rural comprehensive reform experiment. Through the reform of the farmland property rights system and other measures, the land transfer rental income of farmers has been improved to a certain extent. However, due to the low degree of recognition of land-use property rights certificates by state-owned commercial banks, narrow loan channels, small loan amounts, and the high cost of applying for guarantees, the capitalist effect of rural land property rights system reform in Zaozhuang is not significant, and it is still difficult for farmers to obtain profits from their land, housing, and other resources by means of a pledge or lease. In addition, since Zaozhuang began to explore other forms of transformations and developments after coal resources became exhausted, the expansion occurring at an urban scale slowed down, the area of land expropriation decreased, and the property income of farmers also decreased. In 2019, the property income of rural residents was only CNY 121, an 11% increase compared to 2018, with a small volume and slow growth rate. However, on the other hand, Zaozhuang urban resident per capita property income has rapidly increased. Zaozhuang is booming because of its coal, and all kinds of people are also gathering because of the coal industry. However, in the planned economy era, “production is emphasized and life is neglected”, and the living conditions of coal miners are generally poor. In addition, many enterprises become bankrupt, migrate, or shrink after the coal mines are exhausted, leaving a large number of shantytown areas. In 2010, Zaozhuang performed a large-scale shantytown reconstruction; the total number of shantytown reconstructions accounted for 50% of Shandong Province and required no less than 50% of monetized resettlement. A large amount of capital poured into the real estate market and affected the cyclical rise of national housing prices and other factors, so housing prices and rent in Zaozhuang continued to increase, and the housing prices of commercial housing increased by 10.2% in 2019. Accordingly, the per capita property income rapidly increased from CNY 398.68 in 2009 to CNY 1889 in 2019, with an average annual growth rate of 34.66%. As a result, the per capita property income ratio of urban and rural residents continued to increase.

The comparative labor productivity ratio ranked second in the total obstacle degree, and the obstacle degree rapidly increased. In 2009, its obstacle degree was 9.478%, ranking the highest of all obstacle factors, and in 2019, it increased by 14.892%, indicating that the comparative labor productivity ratio between urban and rural areas has always been a considerable constraint on the urban–rural integration development of Zaozhuang. During this period, the transformation and upgrading of industrial structures in Zaozhuang presented good results, the secondary industry maintained a good momentum, and the tertiary industry developed rapidly. From the years 2009 to 2019, the urban labor productivity increased from 1.37 to 1.51. Following the implementation of the comprehensive rural reform, the primary industry in Zaozhuang has also made great progress. From 2009 to 2019, the output value of the primary industry increased from CNY 10.381 to 15.887 billion. However, due to the lack of adequate employment in the city during the transformation period and the imperfect employment training service system in Zaozhuang, farmers’ employment skills are weak, and the number of transferred jobs is small. The total number of rural labor forces in 2009 was 1,624,600, and there were still 1,565,600 individuals in 2019, that is, there were only 59,000 transferred rural employment individuals in Zaozhuang during the 11 years, resulting in low rural labor productivity, eventually leading to a comparative labor productivity ratio and per capita salary income higher than usual.

The ratio of per capita retail sales of consumer goods, between urban and rural residents, was ranked in third place. The large gap between the per capita retail sales of consumer goods, between urban and rural residents, was one of the main reasons affecting the integrated development of urban and rural areas in Zaozhuang. Affected by the long-formed urban–rural division system, the consumption rates and shopping outlets in Zaozhuang are mainly concentrated in the urban areas of Zaozhuang, and the overall consumption rates and shopping environment areas in rural areas are poor. Moreover, affected by the factor of economic income, most rural residents have the habit of thrift consumption, and rural residents lack the internal motivation and external environment for shopping and consumption practices. Therefore, the total amount of social consumer goods per capita of rural residents is much lower than that of urban residents. In addition, urban and rural residents’ per capita wage income ratio, per capita disposable income ratio, and per capita expenditure on culture, education, and entertainment are also the main obstacle factors hindering the urban–rural integrated development of Zaozhuang. The employment training service system for farmers in Zaozhuang has not yet been perfected, the skills of farmers are lacking, there are few transferred jobs, and their wages are generally low. Therefore, the wage and disposable income values of rural residents in Zaozhuang are much lower than those of urban residents. The cultural, sports, entertainment, and other facilities in Zaozhuang are concentrated in the city center. In addition, the income is low and the consumption habits are conservative. The consumption habits of rural residents mainly involve material items, such as food, clothing, housing, and transportation, while the expenditure on culture, education, and entertainment sectors is reduced and far less than that of urban residents.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Conclusions of the Study

Based on the connotation of urban–rural integration development, this study constructed an urban–rural economic–spatial–social (ESS) evaluation index system according to the connotation of urban–rural integration. The TOPSIS and obstacle degree models were used to measure and analyze the urban–rural integration level in Zaozhuang, from 2009 to 2019, and to diagnose the obstacle factors. The conclusions are as follows:

• The overall level of urban–rural integration in Zaozhuang has been increasing each year, and it is characterized by two stages: the first is the initial development stage of urban–rural integration (2009–2012), where the total urban–rural integration degree slowly increased, but its internal indicators increased and decreased differently; the second stage is the stable development period of urban–rural integration (2012–2019), in which the total urban–rural integration degree significantly increased, and its internal indicators rapidly increased and improved each year.
• The economic integration has a good foundation in Zaozhuang, and the urban–rural economic-integration degree shows a characteristic of first decreasing and then increasing. Since the decline in 2009, to the lowest value in 2012, it then rebounded, but the increasing rate was relatively slow. It can be observed that the connection and coordinated development of urban and rural economies need to be enhanced further. The foundation of social integration is weak, but the growth range of social-integration degree is the greatest, reflecting the importance of the Zaozhuang municipal government to urban–rural societies and people’s livelihood and welfare, highlighting the “people-centered” transformation policy proposition. The spatial-integration degree rapidly increased each year, which indicates that the infrastructure between urban and rural areas in Zaozhuang, such as transportation roads and information networks, has been greatly improved, and the interaction between urban and rural residents has been enhanced.
• According to the obstacle factors diagnosis results, the main obstacle factors affecting urban–rural integration in Zaozhuang are as follows and in order: the ratio of per capita property income, the ratio of per capita labor productivity, the ratio of per capita retail sales of social consumer goods, the ratio of per capita wage income, the ratio of per capita cultural–educational–entertainment expenditure, and the ratio of per capita disposable income. The obstacle factors of urban–rural integration mainly focus on the level of economic integration, indicating that the economic factor is the most important influencing factor in the process of urban–rural integration and must be focused on to improve the economic development foundation and income of urban and rural residents.

6.2. Policy Recommendations

Based on the research conclusions and analyses presented above, in order to further promote the coordinated and sustainable development of urban–rural integration in resource-exhausted cities, the following policy recommendations are proposed.

6.2.1. Reform the Rural Property Rights System

Deepen the reform of the rural property rights system, increase the farmers’ property income rates, and provide dynamic support for the goal of sustainable urban–rural integration development. On the one hand, we should give full play to the leading role of farmers’ land cooperatives, steadily promote the market reform of collective, commercial construction land, and highlight the organizational and asset-based effects of the reform of the rural land property rights system. On the other hand, we should improve the rural property rights trading system, promote the construction of the rural financial market, rural collective property rights transfer trading market, and other related factor markets, as well as strengthen the mortgage financing effect of the reform, and effectively activate farmers’ property rights.

6.2.2. Further Implement the Rural-Revitalization Strategy

The government should further advance the rural-revitalization strategy and perform more targeted measures to address the issues related to agriculture, rural areas, and farmers, promote the development of the rural industry, actively develop modern agriculture, protect the rural ecosystem, control rural environmental pollution, and realize the harmonious coexistence of human beings and nature, as well as promote the development of rural culture and education, health, and other undertakings to improve basic rural public services, and improve the rural grassroots democracy and social security system.

6.2.3. Improve the Consumption Environment

We should optimize the consumption environment in urban and rural areas, improve the material and spiritual living standards of urban and rural residents, and promote the sharing of the fruits of reform and development by all people. First, we should optimize the business environment and expand the work of attracting investments. Second, we should increase fiscal subsidies to promote the use of automobiles, household appliances, and culture in rural areas. Third, we should improve the rural consumption environment, expand the coverage of e-commerce in rural areas, guide large commercial enterprises to set up shop in towns and townships, and expand the supply of quality goods and services.

6.2.4. Optimize Income Distribution Patterns

It is necessary to improve the income distribution pattern and narrow the income gap between urban and rural residents. We should strictly implement the minimum wage and wage guidelines system, actively increase employment, transfer surplus rural labor, accelerate the growth of rural income, and reduce the income gap between urban and rural areas. We should increase the intensity and precision of tax, social security, and transfer payment adjustments. The efforts of “industry feeds back agriculture” and “city feeds back countryside” strategies should be strengthened, the establishment of a compensation mechanism for urban and rural interests should be explored, and regional transfer payments to key ecological function areas, main grain-producing areas, and old revolutionary base areas should be increased to better perform the role of the third distribution. The high-quality coordinated development between urban and rural areas should be promoted, and the realization of common prosperity for all should be emphasized.

6.3. Research Deficiencies and Prospects

Compared with the existing research results in the literature, the research results and conclusions of this study have the following two contributions: first, the existing research generally suggests that the urban–rural gap that exists in China is reflected in the economic integration, spatial integration, and social integration between urban and rural areas. However, this study observed that the gap between urban and rural areas in Zaozhuang is mainly concentrated in the level of economic integration. It shows that, since the construction of new countryside in China, the gap between the living standards of rural and urban residents in Zaozhuang has gradually reduced, and external communication has become increasingly more convenient. In the future, efforts should be made to solve the income problem of rural residents. Secondly, it is further clarified that the main factor causing the obstacles for the integration of urban and rural economies is that the per capita property income ratio of urban and rural residents is too high, and the property income of urban residents is much higher than that of rural residents, that is, urban residents can make use of their movable and immovable properties to obtain a higher income, but it is difficult for rural residents to obtain income through movable and immovable properties. This highlights the direction for China to solve the income gap between urban and rural areas.

Of course, the two following problems and limitations still exist: first, they are affected by various objective factors, such as funding and data acquisition. Taking Zaozhuang as an example, the research scope was limited, and the urban–rural integration level of all resource-exhausted cities in China could not be studied and analyzed; second, the research data were only based on official statistics and published data, which failed to successfully penetrate the rural areas to conduct on-the-spot investigations and lacked first-hand data for the research and analysis. In the future, the research group should collect the urban–rural integration data for all resource-exhausted cities in China—through the statistical yearbook, data crawler, and other channels—and analyze and compare the urban–rural integration problems of all resource-exhausted cities. At the same time, through questionnaires, household interviews, and other forms, face-to-face communication with farmers, concerning the integration of urban and rural areas, was conducted to obtain more intuitive and detailed first-hand data, which could better reflect farmers’ suggestions and interests in the process of urban–rural integration.