Ecological Livability Assessment of Urban Agglomerations in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Evaluation Index System of Urban Ecological Livability
4. An Empirical Analysis of Urban Agglomeration in GBA
4.1. Data
4.2. Evaluation Method
4.3. Evaluation Results
4.4. Evaluation of the Factors of Urban Ecological Livability
4.5. Robustness Analysis
5. Conclusions
5.1. Findings
5.2. Policy Implications
5.3. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Liu, C.; Wang, T.; Guo, Q. Factors Aggregating Ability and the Regional Differences among China’s Urban Agglomerations. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ausubel, J.H. Can Technology Spare the Earth? Am. Sci. 1996, 84, 166–178. [Google Scholar]
- Ayres, R.U.; van den Bergh, J. A Theory of Economic Growth with Material/Energy Resources and Dematerialization: Interaction of Three Growth Mechanisms. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 55, 96–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Z.; Zhang, L.; Li, Y. Increased Dependence of Humans on Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krausmann, F.; Gingrich, S.; Eisenmenger, N.; Erb, K.H.; Haberl, H.; Fischer-Kowalski, M. Growth in Global Materials Use, GDP and Population during the 20th Century. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2696–2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D. Classifying and Valuing Ecosystem Services for Urban Planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furlan, R.; Petruccioli, A.; Major, M.D.; Zaina, S.; Zaina, S.; Al Saeed, M.; Saleh, D. The Urban Regeneration of West-Bay, Business District of Doha (State of Qatar): A Transit-Oriented Development Enhancing Livability. J. Urban Manag. 2019, 8, 126–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, W.; Fan, Z. Analysis of the Current Situation of Financial Support for the Construction of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area: An Empirical Study Based on Intercity Panel Data. Int. Econ. Trade Res. 2018, 34, 55–67. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.; Jin, R.; Ning, X.; Skitmore, M.; Zhang, T. Prioritizing the Sustainability Objectives of Major Public Projects in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lu, Y.; Gou, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Sarkar, C.; Zacharias, J. Do Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) and Established Urban Neighborhoods Have Similar Walking Levels in Hong Kong? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Wu, K. Spatial Differentiation and Influencing Factors of Housing Rents in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Geogr. Res. 2020, 39, 2081–2094. [Google Scholar]
- Cody, J.; Siravo, F. Historic Cities—Issues in Urban Conservation; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Camerin, F. From “Ribera Plan” to “Diagonal Mar”, Passing through 1992 “Vila Olimpica”. How Urban Renewal Took Place as Urban Regeneration in Poblenou Distict (Barcelona). Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 10422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gale, D.E. Capital City: Gentrification and the Real Estate State. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019, 41, 359–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sklair, L. The Icon Project: Architecture, Cities and Capitalist Globalization; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Fabris, L.M.F.; Camerin, F.; Semprebon, G.; Balzarotti, R.M. New Healthy Settlements Responding to Pandemic Outbreaks: Approaches from (and for) the Global City. Plan J. 2020, 5, 385–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19): Cities Policy Responses. OECD Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/cities-policy-responses-fd1053ff/ (accessed on 9 November 2021).
- Tian, S.B. A Review of Foreign Studies of Theories and Methods on Livable City. Econ. Geogr. 2008, 4, 535–538. [Google Scholar]
- Salzano, E. Seven Aims for the Livable City. In Making Cities Livable, Proceedings of the International Making Cities Livable Conferences, Freiburg, Germany, 5–9 September 1997; Lennard, S.H., von Ungern-Sternberg, S., Lennard, H.L., Eds.; Gondolier Press: California, CA, USA, 1997; pp. 22–23. [Google Scholar]
- Hahlweg, D. The City as a Family. In Making Cities Livable, Proceedings of the International Making Cities Livable Conferences, Freiburg, Germany, 5–9 September 1997; Lennard, S.H., von Ungern-Sternberg, S., Lennard, H.L., Eds.; Gondolier Press: California, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, P. Livable Cities? Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability; University of California Press Ltd.: Oakland, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Cities PLUS. A Sustainable Urban System: The Long-Term Plan for Greater Vancouver [EB/OL]. 2003. Available online: http://www.wd.gc.ca/ced/wuf/livable/default_e.asp (accessed on 7 March 2019).
- Berg, T.D. Reshaping Gotham: The City Livable Movement and the Redevelopment of New York City 1961–1998; Purdue University Graduate School: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 1999; pp. 1–54. [Google Scholar]
- Lennard, H.L. Principles for the Livable City. In Making Cities Livable, Proceedings of the International Making Cities Livable Conferences, Freiburg, Germany, 5–9 September 1997; Lennard, S.H., von Ungern-Sternberg, S., Lennard, H.L., Eds.; Gondolier Press: California, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, W. The Core Framework of the Livable City Construction. Geogr. Res. 2016, 35, 205–213. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, K.; Li, Q.; Wang, L.; Xiao, C. Coupling and Coordination Study of Livable City and Innovation City Development in the Yangtze River Delta. Geogr. Geo-Inf. Sci. 2019, 35, 120–126+134. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, D.; Yu, G.; Zhao, P.; Wen, Z. Eco-livable Assessment of Central Plains Urban Group. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 1, 351–354. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, F.; Chen, X. Research on the Evaluation of Ecological Livable City in Anhui Province Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Theory. J. Chongqing Tech. Bus. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Edi.) 2018, 35, 30–36. [Google Scholar]
- Cui, F.; Tang, H.; Zhang, Q. Urban Livability and Influencing Factors in Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei: An Empirical Study Based on Panel Data from 2010-2016. J. Beijing Normal Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2018, 54, 666–673. [Google Scholar]
- Quan, S.; Liu, Y. Evaluation of Livability on China’s Major Cities. J. Shanxi Normal Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2010, 24, 112–116. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Yang, H.; Jia, J.; Shen, Y.; Liu, J. Index system of sustainable rural development based on the concept of ecological livability. Environ. Impact Assess Rev. 2021, 86, 106478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Yu, M. Evaluation and determinants of satisfaction with rural livability in China’s less-developed eastern areas: A case study of Xianju County in Zhejiang Province. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 104, 711–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, F.; Hu, X. Construction of Index System of Urban Livability Evaluation. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 30, 42–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, C.; Wang, F. Quantitative Analysis on the Coordinated Development of Livability and Economy in Xinyang City. China Population. Resour. Environ. 2014, 24, 426–429. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Q.; Lin, Z.; Feng, N. A Study on the Quantitative Evaluation of the Spatial Difference of Urban Human Settlements in Jiangsu Province. Areal Res. Dev. 2005, 5, 30–33. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, H.; Lin, F. Evaluation and Analysis of Human Settlements in Anhui Province. Mod. Urban Res. 2005, 10, 54–58. [Google Scholar]
- Bro, R.; Smilde, A. Principal Component Analysis. Anal. Methods 2014, 6, 2812–2831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elhorst, J. Dynamic Spatial Panels: Models, Methods, and Inferences. J. Geogr. Syst. 2012, 14, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bivand, R.; Wong, D. Comparing implementations of global and local indicators of spatial association. Test 2018, 27, 716–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belotti, F.; Hughes, G.; Mortari, A. Spatial Panel-data Models Using Stata. Stata J. 2017, 17, 139–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yi, X.; Jue, W.; Huan, H. Does economic development bring more livability? Evidence from Jiangsu Province, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Concept | Source of Definition | Defining Points |
---|---|---|
Livable city | the long-term plan for Greater Vancouver (2003) | To bring physical, psychological and social benefits, personal development opportunities and rich spiritual and cultural wealth to the public; important principles: fairness, dignity, accessibility, cheerfulness, participation and rights protection [22]. |
Urban Livability | P. Evans (2002) | Survival and ecological sustainability; meet the survival needs of all citizens on the premise of protecting the ecological environment. |
Livable city | D. Hahlweg (1997) | Healthy life, convenient travel, safe and charming, shared by all. |
Livable city | E. Salzano (1997) | Connecting history and future, respecting historical footprints and future generations, sustainable development, providing material and social welfare, public space is the center of community and social life, and a network extending from downtown to suburb. |
Livable city movement | Timothy D. Berg (1999) | Reshape the urban environment, build roads and blocks suitable for pedestrians, realize the comprehensive functions of the city such as work, residence and retail, and enhance the diversity of the city [23]. |
Livable City | H.L. Lennard (1997) | Citizens feel the existence of each other and face-to-face communication. Citizens are involved in many activities and celebrations. They feel safe. Public space can be used as a learning place and each citizen can be a learning object. It has multiple functions such as economy, society and culture. Citizens respect each other, the urban environment has an aesthetic feeling, the opinions of citizens are respected and can participate in the process of urban development [24]. |
Evaluation index system of urban ecological livability | Lu et al. (2012) | It covers the connotation of urban sustainable development strategic objectives, comprehensively reflects the stability and health of the urban ecosystem, as well as all aspects of economic development, social development and ecological environment quality, objectively and truly reflects the urban ecological livability, and conforms to the concept, objectives and evaluation principles of urban sustainable development. |
Livable City | Zhang (2016) | A livable city should be a city with a healthy environment, safety, pleasant nature, harmonious society, convenient life, and convenient travel [25]. |
Livable City | Liu et al. (2019) | Livable City is a city with high quality of life and comfortable and pleasant living [26]. |
Ecological livable city | citizen | Survival | All survival needs such as security are met, and medical and pension systems are improved. |
development | Fair, respected, power guaranteed, participation in urban development process, personal development opportunities | ||
happiness | citizens can obtain rich spiritual and cultural wealth, comfortable mood, harmonious neighborhood and convenient life. | ||
ecology | environment | Beautiful living environment, healthy and clean air, water and soil | |
ecosystem | Stable and healthy | ||
development principles | Green, environmental protection and sustainability | ||
city | comprehensive functions | It has multiple functions such as work, residence and retail, and its infrastructure construction is perfect. | |
Development level | developed economy, harmonious society and prosperous culture |
Comprehensive Index | Dimension | First Level Index | Second Level Index | Proxy Variable | Mean | S.D. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
urban ecological livability | Citizen | Survival | Living space | Per capita living area of urban residents (m2) | 30.93 | 12.95 |
Accessibility | Permanent resident population density (person/km2) | 3926.48 | 5493.42 | |||
Residential quality | Proportion of real estate investment in GDP (%) | 10.98 | 6.23 | |||
Medical conditions | Number of beds in hospital per 10,000 people | 40.25 | 15.87 | |||
Pension services | Social endowment insurance coverage rate (%) | 51.79 | 24.21 | |||
Development | Employment opportunities | Registered urban unemployment rate (%) | 2.38 | 0.39 | ||
Education expenditure | Ratio of education expenditure to total financial expenditure (%) | 18.60 | 5.03 | |||
Talent density | Number of college students per 10,000 | 307.22 | 345.81 | |||
Faculty | Ratio of teachers to students in primary school | 0.05 | 0.01 | |||
Happiness | Spiritual culture | Number of cinemas | 38.88 | 31.80 | ||
Life convenience | Density of postal outlets (PCs./km2) | 0.17 | 0.18 | |||
Urban telephone penetration rate (including mobile phone) (Department/100 people) | 341.58 | 166.47 | ||||
Number of Internet users (10,000) | 255.54 | 186.06 | ||||
Public transport vehicles per 10,000 people | 11.39 | 5.64 | ||||
Ecology | Environment | Natural environment | Air quality compliance rate (%) | 90.25 | 8.96 | |
Water resources per capita (m3) | 591.05 | 909.10 | ||||
Average equivalent sound level of road traffic noise in daytime (DB) | 68.06 | 1.07 | ||||
Cultural environment | Per capita public library collection (volume) | 1.31 | 1.01 | |||
Environmental improvement | Sewage treatment rate (%) | 92.58 | 6.44 | |||
Green coverage rate of built-up area (%) | 46.10 | 10.72 | ||||
Per capita park green area (m2) | 11.92 | 6.47 | ||||
Ecosystem | Health | Comprehensive utilization rate of industrial solid waste (%) | 88.53 | 15.77 | ||
Harmless treatment rate of urban domestic waste (%) | 93.57 | 13.92 | ||||
City | Comprehensive function | Innovation | Number of invention patents authorized per 10,000 people | 3.96 | 4.05 | |
Infrastructure | Urban Road area per capita (m2) | 10.12 | 7.50 | |||
Water use penetration (%) | 98.72 | 2.65 | ||||
Density of drainage network (km/km2) | 6.75 | 4.98 | ||||
Development level | Economic | Proportion of output value of tertiary industry in GDP (%) | 55.23 | 20.13 | ||
GDP growth rate (%) | 9.33 | 5.05 | ||||
Logarithm GDP per capita (yuan) | 11.52 | 0.73 | ||||
Logarithm Per capita disposable income of urban residents (yuan) | 10.83 | 0.93 | ||||
Culture | Broadcast comprehensive population coverage (%) | 99.98 | 0.08 | |||
TV comprehensive population coverage (%) | 99.96 | 0.17 |
City | Year | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | |||||
Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | |
Hong Kong | 0.9445 | 2 | 1.0455 | 2 | 1.1284 | 2 | 1.0398 | 2 |
Macao | 1.5667 | 1 | 1.9394 | 1 | 2.1950 | 1 | 2.4926 | 1 |
Guangzhou | 0.1791 | 4 | 0.4091 | 4 | 0.3811 | 4 | 0.4461 | 4 |
Shenzhen | 0.2966 | 3 | 0.6677 | 3 | 0.7743 | 3 | 0.7714 | 3 |
Zhuhai | −0.2980 | 5 | −0.0224 | 5 | 0.0046 | 5 | 0.2484 | 5 |
Foshan | −1.2778 | 10 | −0.9757 | 8 | −0.9597 | 9 | −0.3805 | 7 |
Huizhou | −1.0298 | 6 | −0.7071 | 6 | −0.6351 | 6 | −0.7691 | 8 |
Dongguan | −1.0432 | 7 | −0.8670 | 7 | −0.7637 | 7 | −0.2304 | 6 |
Zhongshan | −1.1868 | 9 | −1.1407 | 9 | −1.2591 | 10 | −1.4238 | 10 |
Jiangmen | −1.1398 | 8 | −1.3420 | 10 | −0.8967 | 8 | −0.9427 | 9 |
Zhaoqing | −2.8853 | 11 | −2.1358 | 11 | −2.1687 | 11 | −1.9938 | 11 |
continue | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | ||||
Hong Kong | 1.2676 | 2 | 1.2857 | 2 | 1.3208 | 2 | 1.3573 | 2 |
Macao | 2.7424 | 1 | 2.8787 | 1 | 2.6834 | 1 | 2.6752 | 1 |
Guangzhou | 0.6082 | 4 | 0.7071 | 4 | 0.7274 | 4 | 1.1051 | 4 |
Shenzhen | 0.9852 | 3 | 1.0320 | 3 | 0.8080 | 3 | 1.1779 | 3 |
Zhuhai | 0.4309 | 5 | 0.7070 | 5 | 0.6441 | 5 | 0.4435 | 5 |
Foshan | −0.2774 | 7 | −0.0410 | 7 | 0.2092 | 7 | 0.2696 | 7 |
Huizhou | −0.7595 | 8 | −0.6168 | 8 | −0.9526 | 10 | −0.5573 | 9 |
Dongguan | −0.1520 | 6 | 0.1377 | 6 | 0.3852 | 6 | 0.4139 | 6 |
Zhongshan | −1.1662 | 10 | −0.7519 | 9 | −0.3340 | 8 | 0.0284 | 8 |
Jiangmen | −0.9113 | 9 | −0.8244 | 10 | −0.8330 | 9 | −0.6904 | 10 |
Zhaoqing | −1.6603 | 11 | −1.4700 | 11 | −1.6841 | 11 | −1.4046 | 11 |
Spatial Autocorrelation Index | Z | p-Value | Result | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Moran’s I | 0.074 | 3.251 | 0.001 | spatial autocorrelation exists |
Geary’s C | 0.547 | −6.871 | 0.000 | spatial autocorrelation exists |
Getis-Ord G | −1.615 | −3.251 | 0.001 | spatial autocorrelation exists |
Explanatory Variable (x) | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sdm_Re (Wx) | Sac_Fe | Sem_Re | Sem_Fe_Time | |
Residential area per capita | −0.04 *** (−0.01 **) | −0.09 *** | −0.06 *** | −0.05 *** |
Resident population density | 0.08 *** (−0.05 **) | −0.04 | 0.12 *** | 0.12 *** |
Proportion of real estate investment | 0.00 (−0.01) | 0.02 ** | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Hospital beds per 10,000 people | 0.02 * (−0.01) | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 *** |
Participation rate of social endowment insurance | 0.02 *** (−0.00) | 0.03 *** | 0.04 *** | 0.04 *** |
registered urban unemployment rate | −0.04 *** (−0.01 ***) | −0.05 *** | −0.06 *** | −0.06 *** |
Proportion of education expenditure | −0.11 *** (−0.03 ***) | −0.12 *** | −0.11 *** | −0.10 *** |
Number of college students per 10,000 | 0.05 *** (0.05 ***) | 0.05 | 0.06 *** | 0.05 *** |
Ratio of teachers to students in primary school | 0.07 *** (0.03 ***) | 0.08 *** | 0.04 *** | 0.06 *** |
Number of cinemas | 0.04 *** (0.01 ***) | 0.04 *** | 0.04 *** | 0.04 *** |
Density of postal outlets | 0.09 *** (0.03 ***) | 0.13 *** | 0.11 *** | 0.11 *** |
Telephone penetration | 0.08 *** (0.03 ***) | 0.07 *** | 0.06 *** | 0.06 *** |
Number of Internet users | −0.04 *** (−0.02 ***) | −0.06 *** | −0.03 *** | −0.03 *** |
Buses for every 10,000 people | 0.12 *** (0.02 ***) | 0.12 *** | 0.11 *** | 0.11 *** |
Air quality compliance rate | 0.01 *** (−0.00 **) | 0.00 *** | 0.00 ** | 0.01 *** |
Water resources per capita | −0.02 *** (0.01 ***) | −0.02 *** | −0.02 *** | −0.02 *** |
Traffic noise | 0.05 *** (0.02 ***) | 0.05 *** | 0.05 *** | 0.04 *** |
Per capita public library collection | 0.09 *** (0.01 **) | 0.09 *** | 0.12 *** | 0.14 *** |
Sewage treatment rate | 0.12 *** (0.03 ***) | 0.11 *** | 0.11 *** | 0.12 *** |
Green coverage of built-up area | 0.07 *** (0.02 *) | 0.11 *** | 0.07 *** | 0.07 *** |
Per capita park green area | −0.03 *** (−0.02 ***) | −0.03 *** | −0.05 *** | −0.03 *** |
Utilization rate of industrial solid waste | 0.08 *** (0.02 ***) | 0.09 *** | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** |
Harmless treatment rate of domestic waste | 0.06 *** (0.01 ***) | 0.07 *** | 0.06 *** | 0.07 *** |
Patent authorization per 10,000 people | 0.06 *** (0.01 ***) | 0.06 *** | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** |
Per capita urban road area | 0.05 *** (0.02 ***) | 0.05 *** | 0.05 *** | 0.05 *** |
Water use penetration | 0.09 *** (0.02 ***) | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** | 0.09 *** |
Density of drainage network | 0.08 *** (0.03 ***) | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** | 0.09 *** |
Proportion of output value of tertiary industry | 0.13 *** (0.08 ***) | 0.09 *** | 0.09 *** | 0.07 *** |
GDP growth rate | −0.09 *** (−0.03 ***) | −0.09 *** | −0.08 *** | −0.08 *** |
Per capita GDP | 0.13 *** (0.03 ***) | 0.12 *** | 0.13 *** | 0.13 *** |
Per capita disposable income of citizens | 0.12 *** (0.07 ***) | 0.14 *** | 0.09 *** | 0.12 *** |
Broadcast coverage | 0.08 *** (0.02 ***) | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** |
TV coverage | 0.07 *** (0.01 ***) | 0.06 *** | 0.06 *** | 0.06 *** |
Spatial coefficient | ||||
rho | −0.25 *** | −0.00 | ||
lambda | −0.40 *** | −0.11 * | −0.19 *** |
Explanatory Variable (x) | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sdm_Re (Wx) | Sac_Fe | Sem_Re | Sem_Fe_Time | |
Residential area per capita | −0.04 *** (−0.23) | −0.05 *** | −0.07 *** | −0.06 *** |
Resident population density | 0.10 *** (0.51) | 0.07 *** | 0.11 *** | 0.08 ** |
Proportion of real estate investment | −0.01 *** (−0.14) | −0.00 | −0.01 | −0.01 |
Hospital beds per 10,000 people | 0.01 (−0.14 *) | 0.03 ** | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Participation rate of social endowment insurance | 0.05 *** (0.41 ***) | 0.04 *** | 0.03 *** | 0.03 *** |
Registered urban unemployment rate | −0.06 *** (−0.15 ***) | −0.06 *** | −0.06 *** | −0.06 *** |
Proportion of education expenditure | −0.11 *** (−0.69 ***) | −0.12 *** | −0.11 *** | −0.11 *** |
Number of college students per 10,000 | 0.06 *** (0.39 *) | 0.10 *** | 0.06 *** | 0.09 *** |
Ratio of teachers to students in primary school | 0.03 ** (−0.12) | 0.06 *** | 0.05 *** | 0.05 *** |
Number of cinemas | 0.04 *** (0.19 ***) | 0.04 *** | 0.04 *** | 0.04 *** |
Density of postal outlets | 0.07 *** (−0.04) | 0.10 *** | 0.12 *** | 0.12 *** |
Telephone penetration | 0.05 *** (0.31 *) | 0.04 *** | 0.06 *** | 0.05 *** |
Number of Internet users | −0.03 *** (−0.18 **) | −0.04 *** | −0.04 *** | −0.04 *** |
Buses for every 10,000 people | 0.11 *** (0.62 ***) | 0.11 *** | 0.11 *** | 0.11 *** |
Air quality compliance rate | 0.00 *** (0.04 **) | 0.00 * | 0.00 | 0.00 ** |
Water resources per capita | −0.02 *** (0.08 *) | −0.02 *** | −0.02 *** | −0.02 *** |
Traffic noise | 0.05 *** (0.30 ***) | 0.04 *** | 0.05 *** | 0.04 *** |
Per capita public library collection | 0.11 *** (0.11) | 0.13 *** | 0.12 *** | 0.12 *** |
Sewage treatment rate | 0.12 *** (0.48 ***) | 0.11 *** | 0.11 *** | 0.11 *** |
Green coverage of built-up area | 0.07 *** (0.38 **) | 0.08 *** | 0.07 *** | 0.08 *** |
Per capita park green area | −0.05 *** (−0.02) | −0.04 *** | −0.04 *** | −0.04 *** |
Utilization rate of industrial solid waste | 0.08 *** (0.38 ***) | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** |
Harmless treatment rate of domestic waste | 0.06 *** (0.27 ***) | 0.06 *** | 0.06 *** | 0.07 *** |
Patent authorization per 10,000 people | 0.08 *** (0.04) | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** |
Per capita urban road area | 0.06 *** (0.23 ***) | 0.06 *** | 0.05 *** | 0.05 *** |
Water use penetration | 0.08 *** (0.40 ***) | 0.09 *** | 0.09 *** | 0.09 *** |
Density of drainage network | 0.07 *** (0.45 ***) | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** |
Proportion of output value of tertiary industry | 0.11 *** (0.69 ***) | 0.08 *** | 0.09 *** | 0.08 *** |
GDP growth rate | −0.09 *** (−0.42 ***) | −0.08 *** | −0.08 *** | −0.08 *** |
Per capita GDP | 0.12 *** (0.55 ***) | 0.13 *** | 0.13 *** | 0.12 *** |
Per capita disposable income of citizens | 0.17 *** (1.76 ***) | 0.13 *** | 0.10 *** | 0.13 *** |
Broadcast coverage | 0.08 *** (0.29 ***) | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** | 0.08 *** |
TV coverage | 0.07 ***(0.36 ***) | 0.06 *** | 0.06 *** | 0.06 *** |
Spatial coefficient | ||||
rho | −4.92 *** | −0.34 *** | ||
lambda | −7.28 *** | −5.23 ** | −7.17 *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fan, Z.; Wang, Y.; Feng, Y. Ecological Livability Assessment of Urban Agglomerations in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13349. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413349
Fan Z, Wang Y, Feng Y. Ecological Livability Assessment of Urban Agglomerations in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(24):13349. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413349
Chicago/Turabian StyleFan, Zengzeng, Yuanyang Wang, and Yanchao Feng. 2021. "Ecological Livability Assessment of Urban Agglomerations in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 24: 13349. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413349
APA StyleFan, Z., Wang, Y., & Feng, Y. (2021). Ecological Livability Assessment of Urban Agglomerations in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(24), 13349. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413349