论文部分内容阅读
土地集约利用空间分异研究中指标标准化通常采用极差标准化等方法,这类方法默认各区域集约临界值相同,从而使得评价中区位好的区域土地集约水平高于区位差的区域。基于级差地租Ⅰ和级差地租Ⅱ理论提出新的指标标准化方法,指出传统指标标准化方法的问题,并以重庆市耕地集约利用空间分异为例进行实证比较。研究充分考虑了不同区域因禀赋差异造成的单项指标理想值(临界值)的差异,弥补了传统指标标准化方法的不足,有助于完善土地集约利用空间分异的研究。研究表明:土地利用集约度是一个相对概念,其参照物为区域土地集约临界点,理论基础是级差地租Ⅱ;区位不同导致区域间土地利用强度存在差异,它是级差地租Ⅰ的一类现象,这类差异可称为“禀赋差异”;每个区位点适度指标标准化值Y与该区位指标现状值x11和集约临界点x1有关,与其他区位指标现状值无关;传统标准化方法将指标现状值或现状平均值设为集约临界值,没有考虑不同区位集约临界点差异,因而空间分异结果更符合土地收益空间分异规律;重庆市耕地集约利用度空间分异研究表明该方法在空间分异、集约度绝对值和区县集约度比较等方面优于传统方法,更符合不同区县耕地利用实际。
In the study of spatial differentiation of intensive land use, the standardization of indicators usually adopts such methods as extreme standardization. By default, such methods have the same concentration criticality in each region, so that the regional land intensification in well-located regions is higher than that in poor regions. Based on the theory of differential rent Ⅰ and differential rent Ⅱ, a new index standardization method is proposed, and the problems of the traditional index standardization methods are pointed out. The spatial differentiation of intensive utilization of cultivated land in Chongqing is also taken as an example to make an empirical comparison. The study fully considered the differences of the ideal values (critical values) of individual indicators caused by the differences of endowments in different regions, which made up the deficiencies of the traditional methods of index standardization and was helpful to improve the research on spatial differentiation of intensive land use. The research shows that the degree of land use intensiveness is a relative concept. The reference is the critical point of intensive land use. The theoretical basis is the differential rent Ⅱ. The land use intensity varies with the location. It is a phenomenon of differential rent Ⅰ. Such differences can be referred to as “endowment differences”; the standardization value Y of the moderate index of each locality point is related to the current status value x11 of the locality index and the intensive critical point x1, and has nothing to do with the status quo of other locational indicators; the traditional standardization method compares the indicator status The average value of the current situation or the average value of the current situation as the critical value of the intensive, did not consider the different areas of intensive critical point difference, so the results of spatial differentiation more in line with the law of spatial differentiation of land benefits; spatial differentiation of intensive utilization of cultivated land in Chongqing shows that the method in space Different, the absolute value of intensive degree and the degree of county-level comparison is better than the traditional method, more in line with the actual use of cultivated land in different districts and counties.