摘要
【目的】以国家森林城市和国家园林城市为研究对象,对比分析两类城市的空间分布特征、规律以及相关影响因素,探究两者在全国尺度下空间分布的形态异同,为其宏观空间布局的优化完善、示范创建活动绩效以及远期城市建设内涵提升提供科学依据。【方法】采用最邻近指数、基尼系数、相关性分析、核密度分析以及叠加分析方法,比较研究国家森林城市与国家园林城市的空间分布规律及其影响因素。【结果】①两类城市整体分布形态均呈现凝聚型,国家园林城市在全国尺度上由西向东呈现由凝聚型向均匀型变化的趋势;②东西部两类城市的分布均衡性较差,两类城市的散布均为集中分布,国家园林城市的分布相对更集中;③对比核密度分布与叠加高密度区域发现,两类城市大体均分布在腾冲至黑河人口分界线东南一侧,且在华中与华北地区集中分布并部分重叠。但两类城市在具体空间分布形态上仍存在明显差异,国家森林城市的高密度连片区域呈现“C”形结构,国家园林城市的高密度连片区则呈现倒“U”形,且后者的密度分布区域更广。【结论】①从两类城市分布与相关自然影响因素的分析来看,不同地区的水热条件、森林覆盖率对两者的布局产生了显著影响,进一步对比两者发现,国家森林城市对气候条件、森林资源存量的要求相对较高;②从两类城市分布与相关社会经济影响因素的分析来看,国家森林城市的分布几乎与地区人口密度、人均GDP不相关,国家园林城市则相反;③两类城市的布局与城市建成区绿化率显著相关,与中国城市群的分布高度耦合。
【Objective】 This article took the national forest city and the national garden city as the research objects.Through comparative analysis of the spatial distribution characteristics, laws and related influencing factors of the two city types, the similarities and differences in the spatial distribution of the two city types are explored at the national scale. The article provides a relevant scientific basis for the optimization of the macro-spatial layout of the two city types,the performances of demonstration activities, and the enhancement of the connotations of long-term urban constructions.【Method 】 The nearest neighbor index, the Gini coefficient, correlation analysis, Kernel density analysis and superimposed analysis methods, ArcGIS 10.2 and SPSS 19.0 software were used. This study comparatively examined the spatial distribution rules and influencing factors of national forest cities and national garden cities. 【Result】 (1) Theoverall distribution patterns of the two city types were condensed, and the national garden cities showed a trend ofchanging from condensed to uniform at the national scale from west to east.(2) The distribution of the two city types inthe east and west was poorly balanced, and the distribution of the two types of cities was concentrated. The distribution ofnational garden cities was more concentrated.(3) By comparing the kernel density distribution with the superimposedhigh-density area, the two types of cities were generally distributed on the southeast side of the population boundary linefrom Tengchong to Heihe and were concentrated and partially overlapping in central and northern China. However, therewere significant differences in the spatial distribution of the two city types. The high-density contiguous areas of thenational forest cities presented a “C” structure, while the high-density contiguous areas of the national garden citiespresented an inverted “ U ” shape. The density distribution area of the national garden city was wider.【Conclusion】 (1) From the analysis of the distribution of the two types of cities and the related natural influencingfactors, in different areas the water and heat conditions and forest coverage have a significant impact on the layout ofboth. A further comparison shows that national forest cities have relatively high requirements on climatic conditions andforest resource stocks.(2) From the analysis of the distribution of the two city types and related social and economicfactors, the distribution of national forest cities is almost irrelevant to regional population density and per capita GDP,while the opposite is the case for the national garden cities.(3) The study found that the layout of the two city types issignificantly related to the greening rate of urban built-up areas, and is strongly coupled with the distribution of Chineseurban agglomerations.
作者
张建国
葛扬
ZHANG Jianguo;GE Yang(School of Economics and Management,Huzhou University,Huzhou 313000,China;College of Landscape Architecture,Zhejiang A&F University,Hangzhou 311300,China;Natural Resources and Planning Bureau of Changxing County of Huzhou City,Zhejiang Province,Changxing 313100,China)
出处
《南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2022年第3期41-49,共9页
Journal of Nanjing Forestry University：Natural Sciences Edition
基金
浙江省科技厅公益技术研究农业项目(2016C32017)
浙江省自然科学基金项目(LY16C160008)
诚邦生态环境股份有限公司委托项目(2019330101000075)
浙江大花园建设研究院专项课题(DHYA202008)。
关键词
国家森林城市
国家园林城市
空间分布
影响因素
对比研究
national forest city
national garden city
spatial distribution
influence factor
comparative study
