Spatio-temporal Differentiation and Driving Factors of Industrial Ecology of Restricted Development Zone from Adaptive Perspective: A Case Study of Shandong, China

Abstract

Based on the adaptive analysis paradigm, this paper constructs an evaluation index system and an evaluation model of the level of industrial ecology of a restricted development zone from the perspective of the industrial system and of the environmental system, and studies the spatial-temporal differentiation characteristics and the driving factors of the level of industrial ecology of the restricted development zone of the Shandong Province, China, by using a variety of measurement methods. The results show that: 1) In the temporal dimension, the level of industrial ecology of the research area increased from 2005 to 2017, while in the regional dimension, it was higher in the eastern coastal areas, followed by the northwestern area and the southwestern area; 2) In the spatial dimension, from 2005 to 2017 the level of industrial ecology of the research area had a clear spatial dependence, and the regional spatial agglomeration of the restricted development zones with similar industrial ecology levels become increasingly evident; 3) On the whole, the industrial ecology level in the study area had a clear spatial differentiation pattern, as it was higher in the north and in the east and lower in the south and in the west. Moreover, its evolution model changed from a 'three-core driven model' to a 'spatial scattered mosaic distribution model', and then to a 'single-core driven model'; 4) Industrial ecology was positively correlated with economic development, foreign investment, science and technology, and negatively correlated with the government role, while industrial structure and environmental regulation failed to pass the statistical significance test.

Environmental regulation, land use efficiency and industrial structure upgrading: Test analysis based on spatial durbin model and threshold effect

“…Both ER and LUE have certain spatial and temporal dynamics [ 50 ]. For the sake of test the robustness of the estimated results, the ER measures were replaced with ER+ 1 according to the measures of environmental regulation in the study by Guo F and Gao S [ 114 ] et al Replace the LUE measure, According to the measurement index of LUE [ 115 ] in the people on the impact of new urbanization on LUE, Replace it with LUE+ 1 . From the results ( Table 8 (2) (3)), Regardless of which indicator is used to measure LUE and ER, The core explanatory variables FER, IER as well as LUE remained significant, It shows that the ER index and LUE index are more suitable, It can well reflect the environmental policy changes and the fluctuations of LUE in the CYREB.…”

Eco-Environmental Effects of Changes in Territorial Spatial Pattern and Their Driving Forces in Qinghai, China (1980–2020)

“…This degradation is usually caused by the change of territorial spatial patterns due to land use transformation (Figure 7). Qinghai Province is located inland of north-west China, and most of its areas are restricted development zones (areas with weak resource and environment carrying capacities, with poor conditions for large-scale ag-glomeration of economy and population, but related to ecological security in a large area of the country) [62,63]. The causes of eco-environmental quality changes in Qinghai Province are consistent with those in regions and cities with rapid economic development and high urbanization rate in China, such as Yellow River Delta, Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, Yangtze River delta economic zone, etc.…”

Evaluation of Land-Use Changes Impact on Watershed Health Using Probabilistic Approaches

“…Land-use changes influence ecosystems by altering water cycles and WQ [38][39][40]. Many studies have confirmed that the land-use change alters regional hydrology [41][42][43], and WQ conditions and cities amplify ecosystem changes in natural watersheds [43][44][45] and urban sprawl impact on the agricultural area [46]. The results of the WH assessment show that its present land use is worse than its natural state in the past (Figure 6).…”