4.7 Article

Analysis of material stock accumulation in China's infrastructure and its regional disparity

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 553-564

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s11625-012-0196-y

关键词

Material stock; Regional disparity; Theil index; Panel data; Multivariable regression

资金

  1. Environment Research and Technology Development Fund of the Ministry of Environment, Japan [S-6-4, K113002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Materials stocked in infrastructure provide necessary personal and economic services, and are also closely linked with massive resource extraction, energy consumption and waste generation. To support policy deliberations toward regional harmony and sustainable development, this paper examines the temporal change during 1978-2008 and spatial patterns of ten types of materials stocked in four major infrastructures (residential buildings, roads, railways, and water pipelines) in 31 provinces in China, and diagnoses regional disparity and driving factors by Theil index and multivariable regression based on panel data. It was found that the total material stock has boomed to 42.5 billion tons in 2008, with its per capita level increased by nine times over that in 1978. Over 90 % of materials are concentrated in residential buildings and roads, and are spatially inclined to decrease from coastal regions to inland areas. Since China has shifted its strategy from an inclined to harmonious regional development, the overall inequality of per capita material stock has been changing toward equality with its scale contributed mainly by inter-regional inequality, and downward trend affected dominantly by intra-regional inequality. To balance the growth speed across regions meanwhile, to develop economy and attract foreign investment in each region, would be a promising route towards reducing regional inequality. Moreover, the enhancement of governmental performance and construction of each sector's share would also be effective for decreasing inter-regional gaps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据