基于供需双侧路径的生态空间冲突诊断与协同策略——以合肥都市圈为例
DOI:
作者:
作者单位:

1.安徽建筑大学;2.安徽省地域环境健康与空间智慧感知工程研究中心;3.自然资源部江淮耕地资源保护与生态修复重点实验室

作者简介:

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

F301.24

基金项目:

安徽省社会科学创新发展研究课题(2024CX062)、自然资源部江淮耕地资源保护与生态修复重点实验室开放课题(ARPE-2023-KF04)、合肥市哲学社会科学规划项目(HFSKQN202523)


Eco-spatial Conflict Diagnosis and Synergistic Strategy in the Hefei Metropolitan Area Based on Bilateral Path of Supply and Demand
Author:
Affiliation:

Fund Project:

Research projects on the innovative development of social sciences in Anhui Province (2024CX062)、The open project of the Key Laboratory for the Protection and Ecological Restoration of Cultivated Land Resources in the Jianghuai region of the Ministry of Natural Resources (ARPE-2023-KF04)、Hefei Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project ( HFSKQN202523 )

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    [目的]诊断合肥都市圈生态空间冲突区域并提出协同策略,为区域生态保护和经济发展提供参考。[方法]通过形态学空间分析和最小阻力模型提取生态源地、生态廊道,构建生态安全格局;耦合供给适宜性和需求稀缺性,评价城镇空间、农业空间合理范围,识别非生态空间重点区域;采用叠置分析法,测算生态空间冲突指数。[结果](1)合肥都市圈生态景观中部、南部连通性较好,北部细碎化严重,生态源地、廊道呈南多北少特征,核心生态源地集中在南部山地丘陵区。(2)非生态空间分布呈圈层式分异,中心区开发需求和适宜性高,边缘区较低,郊区表现为过渡性。(3)生态空间冲突区具有“中心低、边缘高”的异质性,高冲突区(24.21%)集中分布于城郊过渡带,主要为生态敏感性与开发需求性冲突;中低冲突区(44.83%)位于生态本底良好、人类活动强度较低的缓冲区域。(4)生态空间冲突区宜建立“生态空间底线锁定—非生态空间弹性管控”协同机制,在保障核心生态功能的同时,建立有条件准入与动态适配策略,实现“金山银山”和“绿水青山”的有机衔接。[结论]都市圈生态空间冲突呈现“核心—边缘”梯度分异特征,生态空间、非生态空间协同配置及差异化治理是实现生态保护与高质量发展的主要路径。

    Abstract:

    [Objective] This study proposes a diagnostic framework and coordination strategy for ecological space conflicts in Hefei Metropolitan Area, aiming to reconcile regional ecological preservation with socioeconomic development. [Methods]We integrated morphological spatial pattern analysis (MSPA) with minimum cumulative resistance (MCR) modeling to delineate ecological sources/corridors and establish ecological security patterns. Spatial evaluation combined supply-demand equilibrium analysis to assess urban-agricultural space suitability and identify non-ecological priority zones. Conflict intensity was quantified through spatial overlay analysis using a newly developed ecological conflict index. [Results] (1)Central and southern regions exhibited superior ecological connectivity, contrasting with severe fragmentation in northern areas. Ecological sources and corridors demonstrated distinct south-north differentiation, with core sources aggregating in southern hilly regions. (2)Non-ecological spaces displayed concentric zonation: high development suitability and demand in central zones, transitional characteristics in suburbs, and lower values in peripheral areas.(3)Spatial conflicts manifested center-edge heterogeneity, with high-conflict zones (24.21%) concentrated in urban-rural transition areas reflecting ecological sensitivity-development demand contradictions. Medium-low conflict zones (44.83%) occupied buffer regions with favorable ecological conditions and limited human disturbance. (4)We propose a dual governance mechanism featuring “ecological red lines enforcement”and “adaptive non-ecological space management”, incorporating conditional access policies and dynamic adaptation strategies to reconcile ecological integrity with development needs.[Conclusion] The core-periphery gradient pattern of ecological conflicts underscores that coordinated spatial allocation and differentiated governance between ecological/non-ecological spaces constitute essential pathways for achieving sustainable development in metropolitan areas.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:2025-01-13
  • 最后修改日期:2025-04-29
  • 录用日期:2025-04-30
  • 在线发布日期:
  • 出版日期: