“海上丝绸之路”沿海港口城市国际化水平评价——基于PROMETHEE方法的应用
|
摘要
本文以"一带一路"为视角,从港口、经济、人居环境和人文交流4个方面构建多维多层次港口城市国际化水平的指标体系,基于信息熵计算确定各指标的权重,采用PROMETHEE方法对我国海上丝绸之路沿海15个港口城市的国际化水平进行测度和分项评价。从综合得分来看,上海、深圳处于第一梯队,广州、天津、青岛和厦门位于第二梯队,宁波、大连、烟台和福州属于第三梯队,其余为第四梯队;从构成城市国际化水平的来源看,以港口贡献度为主的城市居多,基本形成以上海和深圳为中心"双峰"区间,但沿海港口城市国际化绝对潜在优势各有侧重点。基于"海上丝绸之路"沿海港口城市国际化发展中的优劣势,提出提升国际化水平的政策建议。
From the perspective of "one belt and one road",this paper constructs an mulit-dimensional and multilevel index system for the internationalization level of port cities from four aspects: port,economy,habitat environment and cultural. Based on information entropy,the weights of each index are determined. The international level of 15 port cities along the coastal of China's maritime silk road were measured and evaluated by PROMETHEE method. Judging from the comprehensive score,Shanghai and Shenzhen are in the first echelon,Guangzhou,Tianjin,Qingdao and Xiamen are in the second echelon,Ningbo,Dalian,Yantai and Fuzhou are in the third echelon,and the rest are in the fourth echelon; From the perspective of sources that make up the level of urban internationalization,most of the cities that are mainly contributing to the port. The "double peak"interval centered on Shanghai and Shenzhen is basically formed,but the absolute potentional advantages are different. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the internationalization development of the coastal port cities along the "Maritime Silk Road",we put forward some policy suggestions to upgrade the internationalization level.
From the perspective of "one belt and one road",this paper constructs an mulit-dimensional and multilevel index system for the internationalization level of port cities from four aspects: port,economy,habitat environment and cultural. Based on information entropy,the weights of each index are determined. The international level of 15 port cities along the coastal of China's maritime silk road were measured and evaluated by PROMETHEE method. Judging from the comprehensive score,Shanghai and Shenzhen are in the first echelon,Guangzhou,Tianjin,Qingdao and Xiamen are in the second echelon,Ningbo,Dalian,Yantai and Fuzhou are in the third echelon,and the rest are in the fourth echelon; From the perspective of sources that make up the level of urban internationalization,most of the cities that are mainly contributing to the port. The "double peak"interval centered on Shanghai and Shenzhen is basically formed,but the absolute potentional advantages are different. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the internationalization development of the coastal port cities along the "Maritime Silk Road",we put forward some policy suggestions to upgrade the internationalization level.
引文
[1]上海市政府.上海市城市总体规划(2017—2035)[EB/OL].(2016-8-22)[2017. 12-28]. http://www. shanghai. gov. cn/nw2/nw2314/nw2319/nw12344/u26aw48617. html.
[2]李立勋.城市国际化与国际城市[J].城市问题,1994(4):39.
[3]肖耀球.国际性城市评价体系研究[J].管理世界,2002(4):140.
[4]卢明华,李国平,孙铁山.东京大都市圈内各核心城市的职能分工及启示研究[J].地理科学,2003,23(2):150.
[5]王姝.我国城市国际化路径研究[J].世界经济情况,2008(4):66.
[6]沈金箴.东京世界城市的形成发展及其对北京的启示[J].经济地理,2003,23(4):571.
[7]周晔.郭春丽.朱超.世界城市发展中的问题经验及对北京的启示[J].经济问题探索,2012(3):41.
[8]易斌,于涛,翟国方.城市国际化水平综合评价体系构建与实证研究[J].经济地理,2013,33(9):37.
[9]李立勋.城市国际化与国际城市[J].城市问题,1994(4):39.
[10]汤正刚.国际城市的基本特征与形成条件[J].城市问题,1993(3):16.
[11]易斌,于涛,翟国方.城市国际化水平综合评价体系构建与实证研究[J].经济地理,2013,33(9):37.
[12]段霞,文魁.基于全景观察的世界城市指标体系研究[J].中国人民大学学报,2011,25(2):61.
[13]刘永红.国际化城市规划建设的指标体系建构[J].中国名城,2013(1):28.
[14]薛德升,孙丽萍,李志刚.广东城市国际化发展的水平与过程研究[J].地理科学,2006(5):5520.
[15]黄叶芳,梁怡,沈建法.全球化与城市国际化:国际城市的一项实证研究[J].世界地理研究,2007(2):1.
[16]张可云,项目.中国省会城市国际化水平比较研究[J].地域研究与开发,2011,30(4):51.
[17]周春山,王朝宇,吴晓松.广州城市国际化发展水平比较研究[J].城市观察,2016(4):5.
[18]梅琳,黄柏石,吕方,等.武汉城市国际化水平的比较评价与优化路径研究[J].华中师范大学学报(自然科学版),2017,51(2):231.
[19]宋炳林,陈琳.长三角五大都市圈中心城市国际化水平比较研究[J].浙江社会科学,2017(6):57.
[20]高新才,杨芳.丝绸之路经济带城市经济联系的时空变化分析:基于城市流强度的视角[J].兰州大学学报(社会科学版),2015,43(1):9.
[21]张旭亮,宁越敏.长三角城市群城市经济联系及国际化空间发展战略[J].经济地理,2011,31(3):353.
[22] BRANS J P,MARECHAL B. The PROMCALC&GAIA decision support system for multicriteria decision aid[J]. Decision Support Systems,1994(12):297.
[23]刘彬,朱庆华.基于绿色采购模式下的供应商选择[J].管理评论,2005,17(4):32.
[2]李立勋.城市国际化与国际城市[J].城市问题,1994(4):39.
[3]肖耀球.国际性城市评价体系研究[J].管理世界,2002(4):140.
[4]卢明华,李国平,孙铁山.东京大都市圈内各核心城市的职能分工及启示研究[J].地理科学,2003,23(2):150.
[5]王姝.我国城市国际化路径研究[J].世界经济情况,2008(4):66.
[6]沈金箴.东京世界城市的形成发展及其对北京的启示[J].经济地理,2003,23(4):571.
[7]周晔.郭春丽.朱超.世界城市发展中的问题经验及对北京的启示[J].经济问题探索,2012(3):41.
[8]易斌,于涛,翟国方.城市国际化水平综合评价体系构建与实证研究[J].经济地理,2013,33(9):37.
[9]李立勋.城市国际化与国际城市[J].城市问题,1994(4):39.
[10]汤正刚.国际城市的基本特征与形成条件[J].城市问题,1993(3):16.
[11]易斌,于涛,翟国方.城市国际化水平综合评价体系构建与实证研究[J].经济地理,2013,33(9):37.
[12]段霞,文魁.基于全景观察的世界城市指标体系研究[J].中国人民大学学报,2011,25(2):61.
[13]刘永红.国际化城市规划建设的指标体系建构[J].中国名城,2013(1):28.
[14]薛德升,孙丽萍,李志刚.广东城市国际化发展的水平与过程研究[J].地理科学,2006(5):5520.
[15]黄叶芳,梁怡,沈建法.全球化与城市国际化:国际城市的一项实证研究[J].世界地理研究,2007(2):1.
[16]张可云,项目.中国省会城市国际化水平比较研究[J].地域研究与开发,2011,30(4):51.
[17]周春山,王朝宇,吴晓松.广州城市国际化发展水平比较研究[J].城市观察,2016(4):5.
[18]梅琳,黄柏石,吕方,等.武汉城市国际化水平的比较评价与优化路径研究[J].华中师范大学学报(自然科学版),2017,51(2):231.
[19]宋炳林,陈琳.长三角五大都市圈中心城市国际化水平比较研究[J].浙江社会科学,2017(6):57.
[20]高新才,杨芳.丝绸之路经济带城市经济联系的时空变化分析:基于城市流强度的视角[J].兰州大学学报(社会科学版),2015,43(1):9.
[21]张旭亮,宁越敏.长三角城市群城市经济联系及国际化空间发展战略[J].经济地理,2011,31(3):353.
[22] BRANS J P,MARECHAL B. The PROMCALC&GAIA decision support system for multicriteria decision aid[J]. Decision Support Systems,1994(12):297.
[23]刘彬,朱庆华.基于绿色采购模式下的供应商选择[J].管理评论,2005,17(4):32.