海湾开发利用强度分析——以宁波市杭州湾、象山港与宁波市三门湾为例
|
摘要
海湾开发利用强度评估可反映海湾利用程度,是海湾开发潜力及其可持续开发研究的基础,对发展湾区经济意义重大.以1990—2015年每隔5 a共6期TM/ETM/OLI影像为数据源,提取宁波市杭州湾、象山港和宁波市三门湾各时期的岸线及土地利用数据,基于此从海湾岸线开发和土地利用两方面综合分析海湾开发利用强度及其变化特征.结果表明:1990—2015年间,宁波3湾岸线人工化程度不断加深,岸线人工化指数最高的海湾由象山港(0. 16)转变为宁波市三门湾(0. 61),部分淤泥岸段(尤其是宁波市杭州湾岸段)滩涂围垦强度弱于泥沙淤积强度,削弱了岸线人工化程度.整个研究期间,宁波市三门湾和宁波市杭州湾的岸线开发利用结构始终为单一主体结构,象山港则呈现出由单一主体依次向二元、多元结构演变的趋势. 1990—2015年间,宁波3湾的岸线和土地利用强度均有所增加,其中象山港岸线开发利用强度指数最大,达0. 42;宁波市杭州湾区域土地利用变动最为强烈,土地利用程度指数最大,达292. 300.区位和资源禀赋、社会经济水平及政策因素是造成宁波3湾区域开发利用程度差异的重要因素.
Exploitative intensity evaluation is the basis for potential and sustainable development of a bay,which can reflect the utilization level of the bay. It is of great significance to the economy development in bay area. The data resource is from 6 phases,in interval of 5 years,of TM/OLI remote sensing image in period of 1990 and2015,from which we can get coastline and land utilization data of Hangzhou Bay,Xiangshan Bay and Sanmen Bay in areas of Ningbo. Base on the data,the paper makes a comprehensive analysis of the characteristics and the changes in three bays from two aspects,the coastline exploitation and development and land utilizations of the bays.The results show that firstly the artificialization of Ningbo bays has been intensified from 1990 to 2015. And the highest index of artificial coastline has moved from Xiangshan Bay( 0. 16) to Sanmen Bay( 0. 61). The artificialization degree in some parts of tideland has been weakened for the intensity of reclamation is weaker than the intensity of sediment deposition. Secondly,for a long period the utilization structures of coastline in Hangzhou Bay andSanmen Bay of Ningbo have always been a monotonous main body structure while it has changed to binary or even multivariate structures in Xiangshan Bay. Thirdly,the intensity of land and coastline uses are increasing. Among them Xiangshan Bay has the highest intensity index of coastline utilization and it reaches 0. 42. And index of land use degree finds its maximum( 292. 300) in Hangzhou Bay of Ningbo where it gets the strongest land use changes.Fourthly,the zone bit,resources endowment,social economy level and policy factors are important factors modifying the development and utilization of the three bays.
Exploitative intensity evaluation is the basis for potential and sustainable development of a bay,which can reflect the utilization level of the bay. It is of great significance to the economy development in bay area. The data resource is from 6 phases,in interval of 5 years,of TM/OLI remote sensing image in period of 1990 and2015,from which we can get coastline and land utilization data of Hangzhou Bay,Xiangshan Bay and Sanmen Bay in areas of Ningbo. Base on the data,the paper makes a comprehensive analysis of the characteristics and the changes in three bays from two aspects,the coastline exploitation and development and land utilizations of the bays.The results show that firstly the artificialization of Ningbo bays has been intensified from 1990 to 2015. And the highest index of artificial coastline has moved from Xiangshan Bay( 0. 16) to Sanmen Bay( 0. 61). The artificialization degree in some parts of tideland has been weakened for the intensity of reclamation is weaker than the intensity of sediment deposition. Secondly,for a long period the utilization structures of coastline in Hangzhou Bay andSanmen Bay of Ningbo have always been a monotonous main body structure while it has changed to binary or even multivariate structures in Xiangshan Bay. Thirdly,the intensity of land and coastline uses are increasing. Among them Xiangshan Bay has the highest intensity index of coastline utilization and it reaches 0. 42. And index of land use degree finds its maximum( 292. 300) in Hangzhou Bay of Ningbo where it gets the strongest land use changes.Fourthly,the zone bit,resources endowment,social economy level and policy factors are important factors modifying the development and utilization of the three bays.
引文
[1]刘艳霞.国内外湾区经济发展研究与启示[J].城市观察,2014(3):155-163.
[2]国家发展改革委,外交部,商务部.推动共建丝绸之路经济带和21世纪海上丝绸之路的愿景与行动[N].人民日报,2015-03-29(4).
[3]国务院.国务院关于深化泛珠三角区域合作的指导意见[EB/OL].[2016-03-15]. http://www. gov. cn/zhengce/content/2016-03/15/content_5053647. htm.
[4]汤黎路,陈正兴,黄勇,等.“保护优先、有序开发”迫在眉睫:关于浙江省六大湾区保护与开发的调研报告[J].浙江经济,2017(6):34-38.
[5]李加林,刘永超.人工地貌学学科体系框架构建初探[J].地理研究,2016,35(12):2 203-2 215.
[6]叶梦姚,李加林,史小丽,等. 1990—2015年浙江省大陆岸线变迁与开发利用空间格局变化[J].地理研究,2017,36(6):1 159-1 170.
[7]王伟伟,王鹏,郑倩,等.辽宁省围填海海洋开发活动对海岸带生态环境的影响[J].海洋环境科学,2010,29(6):927-929.
[8] ANDERSEN J H,HALPERN B S,KORPINEN S,et al. Baltic Sea biodiversity status vs. cumulative human pressures[J]. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science,2015,161:88-92.
[9] MURRAY C C,AGBAYANI S,ALIDINA H M,et al. Advancing marine cumulative effects mapping:An update in Canada’s Pacific waters[J]. Marine Policy,2015,58:71-77.
[10]张丹丹,杨晓梅,苏奋振,等.基于PVS的海湾开发利用程度评价:以大亚湾为例[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(8):1 440-1 449.
[11]孙永光,赵冬至,高阳,等.海岸带人类活动强度遥感定量评估方法研究:以广西北海为例[J].海洋环境科学,2014,33(3):407-411.
[12]李延峰,宋秀贤,吴在兴,等.人类活动对海洋生态系统影响的空间量化评价:以莱州湾海域为例[J].海洋与湖沼,2015,46(1):133-139.
[13]李伟芳,陈阳,马仁锋,等.发展潜力视角的海岸带土地利用模式:以杭州湾南岸为例[J].地理研究,2016,35(6):1 061-1 073.
[14]慈溪市统计局,慈溪市统计学会.慈溪统计年鉴[M].宁波:宁波出版社,2005—2015.
[15]刘永超,李加林,袁麒翔,等.人类活动对港湾岸线及景观变迁影响的比较研究:以中国象山港与美国坦帕湾为例[J].地理学报,2016,71(1):86-103.
[16]吕华庆.象山港海域环境评价与发展[M].北京:海洋出版社,2015.
[17]中国海湾志编纂委员会.中国海湾志(第五分册)[M].北京:海洋出版社,1998.
[18]姚炎明,黄秀清.三门湾海洋环境容量及污染物总量控制研究[M].北京:海洋出版社,2015.
[19]国家海洋局908专项办公室,国家海洋局.海岛海岸带卫星遥感调查技术规程[M].北京:海洋出版社,2005.
[20]李猷,王仰麟,彭建,等.深圳市1978年至2005年海岸线的动态演变分析[J].资源科学,2009,31(5):875-883.
[21]徐谅慧.岸线开发影响下的浙江省海岸类型及景观演化研究[D].宁波:宁波大学,2015.
[22]寇征.海岸开发利用空间格局评价方法研究[D].大连:大连海事大学,2013.
[23]苏奋振.海岸带遥感评估[M].北京:科学出版社,2015.
[24]史作琦,李加林,姜忆湄,等.甬台温地区海岸带土地开发利用强度变化研究[J].宁波大学学报(理工版),2017,30(2):83-89.
[25]张海生.浙江省海洋环境资源基本现状[M].北京:海洋出版社,2013.
[26]殷存毅.区域发展与政策[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2011.
[27]浙江省海洋与渔业局.浙江省海洋功能区划(修编)[Z].杭州:浙江省海洋与渔业局,2016.
[2]国家发展改革委,外交部,商务部.推动共建丝绸之路经济带和21世纪海上丝绸之路的愿景与行动[N].人民日报,2015-03-29(4).
[3]国务院.国务院关于深化泛珠三角区域合作的指导意见[EB/OL].[2016-03-15]. http://www. gov. cn/zhengce/content/2016-03/15/content_5053647. htm.
[4]汤黎路,陈正兴,黄勇,等.“保护优先、有序开发”迫在眉睫:关于浙江省六大湾区保护与开发的调研报告[J].浙江经济,2017(6):34-38.
[5]李加林,刘永超.人工地貌学学科体系框架构建初探[J].地理研究,2016,35(12):2 203-2 215.
[6]叶梦姚,李加林,史小丽,等. 1990—2015年浙江省大陆岸线变迁与开发利用空间格局变化[J].地理研究,2017,36(6):1 159-1 170.
[7]王伟伟,王鹏,郑倩,等.辽宁省围填海海洋开发活动对海岸带生态环境的影响[J].海洋环境科学,2010,29(6):927-929.
[8] ANDERSEN J H,HALPERN B S,KORPINEN S,et al. Baltic Sea biodiversity status vs. cumulative human pressures[J]. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science,2015,161:88-92.
[9] MURRAY C C,AGBAYANI S,ALIDINA H M,et al. Advancing marine cumulative effects mapping:An update in Canada’s Pacific waters[J]. Marine Policy,2015,58:71-77.
[10]张丹丹,杨晓梅,苏奋振,等.基于PVS的海湾开发利用程度评价:以大亚湾为例[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(8):1 440-1 449.
[11]孙永光,赵冬至,高阳,等.海岸带人类活动强度遥感定量评估方法研究:以广西北海为例[J].海洋环境科学,2014,33(3):407-411.
[12]李延峰,宋秀贤,吴在兴,等.人类活动对海洋生态系统影响的空间量化评价:以莱州湾海域为例[J].海洋与湖沼,2015,46(1):133-139.
[13]李伟芳,陈阳,马仁锋,等.发展潜力视角的海岸带土地利用模式:以杭州湾南岸为例[J].地理研究,2016,35(6):1 061-1 073.
[14]慈溪市统计局,慈溪市统计学会.慈溪统计年鉴[M].宁波:宁波出版社,2005—2015.
[15]刘永超,李加林,袁麒翔,等.人类活动对港湾岸线及景观变迁影响的比较研究:以中国象山港与美国坦帕湾为例[J].地理学报,2016,71(1):86-103.
[16]吕华庆.象山港海域环境评价与发展[M].北京:海洋出版社,2015.
[17]中国海湾志编纂委员会.中国海湾志(第五分册)[M].北京:海洋出版社,1998.
[18]姚炎明,黄秀清.三门湾海洋环境容量及污染物总量控制研究[M].北京:海洋出版社,2015.
[19]国家海洋局908专项办公室,国家海洋局.海岛海岸带卫星遥感调查技术规程[M].北京:海洋出版社,2005.
[20]李猷,王仰麟,彭建,等.深圳市1978年至2005年海岸线的动态演变分析[J].资源科学,2009,31(5):875-883.
[21]徐谅慧.岸线开发影响下的浙江省海岸类型及景观演化研究[D].宁波:宁波大学,2015.
[22]寇征.海岸开发利用空间格局评价方法研究[D].大连:大连海事大学,2013.
[23]苏奋振.海岸带遥感评估[M].北京:科学出版社,2015.
[24]史作琦,李加林,姜忆湄,等.甬台温地区海岸带土地开发利用强度变化研究[J].宁波大学学报(理工版),2017,30(2):83-89.
[25]张海生.浙江省海洋环境资源基本现状[M].北京:海洋出版社,2013.
[26]殷存毅.区域发展与政策[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2011.
[27]浙江省海洋与渔业局.浙江省海洋功能区划(修编)[Z].杭州:浙江省海洋与渔业局,2016.