分级和权重分配方法对空间分区的影响评价及驱动机制

IF 5.4 2区 地球科学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Fangxin Chen , Yurui Li , Yansui Liu
{"title":"分级和权重分配方法对空间分区的影响评价及驱动机制","authors":"Fangxin Chen ,&nbsp;Yurui Li ,&nbsp;Yansui Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Rational spatial zoning is fundamental to effective territorial governance. However, inconsistencies in grading and weighting methods across existing studies compromise the accuracy and comparability of zoning schemes. To quantify the impact of methodological choices, this study, taking Lingbao County in Henan Province as a case, developed an evaluation index system. Twelve zoning schemes were derived by combined three grading methods (natural breakpoint, threshold, service value accumulation) and four weighting approaches (analytic hierarchy process, entropy weight, Delphi, equal weight). This study then compared the spatial discrepancies among the schemes and employed random forest regression with partial dependence plots to identify driving mechanisms underlying these variations. Results show that grading methods induced spatial inconsistencies up to 316.89 km<sup>2</sup>, with natural breaks favoring ecological spaces and threshold methods identifying more agricultural and urban spaces. Weighting methods caused 232.02 km<sup>2</sup> of variation, where analytic hierarchy process method favoring ecological and urban spaces. Combining grading and weight distribution methods amplifies discrepancies to 509.77 km<sup>2</sup> (13.94 % of the total area). The slope is identified as the most critical factor influencing zoning differences. This study equips researchers and planners with actionable insights to calibrate zoning methods, enhancing objectivity in China's territorial spatial planning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48396,"journal":{"name":"Applied Geography","volume":"184 ","pages":"Article 103758"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact assessment and driving mechanisms of grading and weight distribution methods on spatial zoning\",\"authors\":\"Fangxin Chen ,&nbsp;Yurui Li ,&nbsp;Yansui Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103758\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Rational spatial zoning is fundamental to effective territorial governance. However, inconsistencies in grading and weighting methods across existing studies compromise the accuracy and comparability of zoning schemes. To quantify the impact of methodological choices, this study, taking Lingbao County in Henan Province as a case, developed an evaluation index system. Twelve zoning schemes were derived by combined three grading methods (natural breakpoint, threshold, service value accumulation) and four weighting approaches (analytic hierarchy process, entropy weight, Delphi, equal weight). This study then compared the spatial discrepancies among the schemes and employed random forest regression with partial dependence plots to identify driving mechanisms underlying these variations. Results show that grading methods induced spatial inconsistencies up to 316.89 km<sup>2</sup>, with natural breaks favoring ecological spaces and threshold methods identifying more agricultural and urban spaces. Weighting methods caused 232.02 km<sup>2</sup> of variation, where analytic hierarchy process method favoring ecological and urban spaces. Combining grading and weight distribution methods amplifies discrepancies to 509.77 km<sup>2</sup> (13.94 % of the total area). The slope is identified as the most critical factor influencing zoning differences. This study equips researchers and planners with actionable insights to calibrate zoning methods, enhancing objectivity in China's territorial spatial planning.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Geography\",\"volume\":\"184 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103758\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Geography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014362282500253X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Geography","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014362282500253X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

合理的空间区划是有效治理国土的基础。然而,现有研究中分级和加权方法的不一致性损害了分区方案的准确性和可比性。为了量化方法选择的影响,本研究以河南省灵宝县为例,构建了评价指标体系。采用自然断点法、阈值法、服务价值累积法3种分级法和层次分析法、熵权法、德尔菲法、等权法4种加权法,得出12个分区方案。在此基础上,本研究比较了各方案之间的空间差异,并采用部分相关图的随机森林回归分析了这些差异的驱动机制。结果表明:分等方法导致的空间不一致性达316.89 km2,自然间隙有利于生态空间,阈值法有利于农业和城市空间。加权法导致232.02 km2的变异,其中层次分析法偏向生态空间和城市空间。结合分级和权重分配方法,差异扩大到509.77 km2(占总面积的13.94%)。坡度是影响区划差异的最关键因素。本研究为研究人员和规划者提供了可操作的见解,以校准分区方法,提高中国国土空间规划的客观性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact assessment and driving mechanisms of grading and weight distribution methods on spatial zoning
Rational spatial zoning is fundamental to effective territorial governance. However, inconsistencies in grading and weighting methods across existing studies compromise the accuracy and comparability of zoning schemes. To quantify the impact of methodological choices, this study, taking Lingbao County in Henan Province as a case, developed an evaluation index system. Twelve zoning schemes were derived by combined three grading methods (natural breakpoint, threshold, service value accumulation) and four weighting approaches (analytic hierarchy process, entropy weight, Delphi, equal weight). This study then compared the spatial discrepancies among the schemes and employed random forest regression with partial dependence plots to identify driving mechanisms underlying these variations. Results show that grading methods induced spatial inconsistencies up to 316.89 km2, with natural breaks favoring ecological spaces and threshold methods identifying more agricultural and urban spaces. Weighting methods caused 232.02 km2 of variation, where analytic hierarchy process method favoring ecological and urban spaces. Combining grading and weight distribution methods amplifies discrepancies to 509.77 km2 (13.94 % of the total area). The slope is identified as the most critical factor influencing zoning differences. This study equips researchers and planners with actionable insights to calibrate zoning methods, enhancing objectivity in China's territorial spatial planning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Geography
Applied Geography GEOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
2.00%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: Applied Geography is a journal devoted to the publication of research which utilizes geographic approaches (human, physical, nature-society and GIScience) to resolve human problems that have a spatial dimension. These problems may be related to the assessment, management and allocation of the world physical and/or human resources. The underlying rationale of the journal is that only through a clear understanding of the relevant societal, physical, and coupled natural-humans systems can we resolve such problems. Papers are invited on any theme involving the application of geographical theory and methodology in the resolution of human problems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信