环首都地区城乡融合水平时空分异及乡村振兴路径

Spatio-temporal differentiation of urban-rural integration level and rural revitalization path in the Capital Region

构建适于县域尺度的城乡融合评价指标体系,借助泰尔指数、ESDA方法分析1995—2018年间环首都地区县域尺度城乡融合水平时空分异特征,并划分出城乡融合发展类型区,提出差异化的乡村振兴路径。结果表明:(1)以2000年为拐点,环首都地区县域尺度城乡融合水平经历了先减后增的"U"型变化历程,整体趋势向好;城乡融合水平的区域差距先增后减,总体趋于缩小。北京及环京三市区域间的差异对总体城乡融合水平差异的贡献率略高于两类地区内部差异,环京三市内部差异是造成两类地区内部差异的主要原因;张家口市与保定市内部差异是影响环京三市城乡融合水平总体差异的主要原因,其中保定市内部差异占主导地位。(2)低水平融合区的数量波动减少,高水平融合区持续增加;城乡融合水平高、低值区的"核心—边缘"结构突出,且经历了"单组单核—多组多核—单组多核"的动态演变历程;城乡融合水平呈现显著的空间正相关性,集聚性先增后减;城乡融合热点区呈团簇状集聚在北京市域范围内,冷点区和次冷点区呈环形或带状布局在保定市中心城区外围,状态渐趋温和;城乡融合"冷热"空间格局与地理环境和社会经济发展背景联系紧密。(3)可将环首都地区划分为五类城乡融合区:城乡融合引领示范区、城乡融合先行发展区、城乡融合优化升级区、城乡融合转型提升区和城乡融合落后欠发达区,并根据各类型区特点,提出差异化的乡村振兴实施路径。

On the basis of constructing the urban-rural integration evaluation index system suitable for the county scale including economic development, social life and ecological environment, this paper analyzed the urban-rural integration at the county scale in the Capital Region from 1995 to 2018 by using the Theil index and the ESDA method. The study also identified the types of urban-rural integration and proposed differentiated rural revitalization paths. The results indicate that:(1) The urban-rural integration level at the county scale in the Capital Region, with the turning point of 2000, experienced a "U"-shaped change process of decreasing first and then increasing. The overall level of urban-rural integration tended to increase. The regional gap in urban-rural integration level increased first and then decreased,and the overall trend tended to shrink. The contribution rate to the overall urban-rural integration level difference between the two regions(Beijing and the three cities around Beijing) was slightly higher than the internal difference between the two types of regions, the internal difference in the three cities around Beijing was the main reason for the internal differences between the two types of regions. The internal differences between Zhangjiakou and Baoding were the main reasons that led to the overall difference in the level of urban-rural integration in the three cities around Beijing, and the internal difference in Baoding was dominant.(2) The number of low-level fusion zones was decreasing, and the high-level fusion zones continued to increase. The "core-edge" structure of high and low level urban-rural integration areas was prominent, and has experienced a dynamic evolution stage of "singlegroup single-core" to "multi-groups multi-cores" to "single-group multi-cores". The level of urban-rural integration showed a significant spatial positive correlation, and the agglomeration increased first and then decreased. The hot spots of urban-rural integration areas were clustered in Beijing, and the cold spots and sub-cold spots were arranged in a ring or strip shape outside the central urban district of Baoding, and its state was getting milder. The "cold and hot" spatial pattern of urban-rural integration level was closely related to the geographical environment and socio-economic development background.(3) The area around the Capital Region could be divided into five types of urban-rural integration areas: urban-rural integration leading demonstration area, urban-rural integration advance development area, urban-rural integration optimization and upgrading area, urban-rural integration transformation and promotion area and urban-rural integration underdeveloped area. According to the characteristics of each type of district, this paper proposed differentiated rural revitalization implementation paths.