Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Mathematical Problems in Engineering / 2019 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 8206902 | 19 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8206902

Research on the Degree of Coupling between the Urban Public Infrastructure System and the Urban Economic, Social, and Environmental System: A Case Study in Beijing, China

Academic Editor: Konstantinos Karamanos
Received25 Jan 2019
Revised26 Aug 2019
Accepted31 Aug 2019
Published25 Sep 2019

Abstract

The coordinated development of urban public infrastructure system and urban economic, social, and environmental system is an important goal for the integrated management and sustainable development of urban public infrastructure system. This paper constructs a research model of the degree of coupling coordination between urban public infrastructure system and urban economic, social, and environmental system using the analytic network process (ANP), the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a combination evaluation method based on game theory, and a coupling coordination degree model. Using Beijing data from 2000 to 2016, the degree of coupling coordination between the Beijing urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system is empirically analyzed. This study finds that (1) the supply level of Beijing’s urban public infrastructure system has an obvious impact on the degree of coupling coordination between the two systems. (2) The global financial crisis reduced the supply speed of the urban public infrastructure system in Beijing, and put the dynamic coupling state of the two systems in the low-level symbiosis stage. Beijing needs to improve the supply of urban public infrastructure to support the development of the urban economic, social, and environmental system. (3) Improving the supply level of the urban environmental infrastructure in Beijing, especially improving sewage disposal capacity and increasing the number of special vehicles for urban sanitation and the amount of domestic waste clearance, will positively affect the degree of coupling coordination between two systems. (4) An increase in the GDP of Beijing has a direct positive impact on the degree of coupling coordination. In addition, the increase in the social development level of the employees in three industries in Beijing has a significant impact on the degree of coupling coordination.

1. Introduction

An infrastructure system consisting of subsystems such as energy, transportation, water resources, postal service and telecommunication, and environmental facilities is an important basis for economic productivity and population welfare [1]. As a supporting system and carrier of urban economic and social activities, urban infrastructure supply faces a series of pressures and challenges under global urbanization. Due to a wide range of economic, social, technological, and other factors, the demand for urban infrastructure is gradually increasing, and many investments have been made to meet the needs of urban public infrastructure. Since 1981, China’s fixed asset investment in urban public infrastructure has continued to increase, and its supply and service levels have continued to improve over the long term [2]. Nevertheless, the supply level of urban infrastructure still fails to meet social demand in China. After summer rainstorms, the drainage in cities is not adequate, and in the summer, “going to the city to see the sea” has become a phenomenon in many cities. Some cities are besieged by garbage; in some places, garbage is blown by the wind and sewage is evaporated, and other problems such as road zippers, traffic congestion, air and water pollution still exist. Improving the supply efficiency of urban infrastructure systems is an important problem for urban managers.

The urban public infrastructure system is a multibody, complex, and composite system of energy, transportation, postal services and telecommunications, the environment, water resources, and other subsystems. These subsystems are interdependent and interrelated and form the whole urban public infrastructure system together, providing the basic products and services needed for urban development [3, 4]. Infrastructure supply is affected by the human research view and the specialized division of urban public infrastructure supply, and traditionally, which is provided by each department alone, there is a lack of communication and contact between departments [3, 5, 6]. Over time, people have become increasingly aware that the various subsystems of urban public infrastructure are interrelated and interact, forming a system of urban public infrastructure. Only by including supply management in the system as a whole can we improve the overall supply level of urban public infrastructure in an orderly manner, so that the urban public infrastructure system can meet the needs of urban economic and social development. The United Kingdom proposed studying the relationship between the national infrastructure system and economic and social development and managing the future development plan of the national infrastructure system as a whole [7]. In 2017, China’s “13th Five-Year Plan for Urban Public Infrastructure Construction” propose for the first time to change the way in which previous departments compiled industry plans separately, to consider the overall planning of urban infrastructure in a systematic way and to coordinate the supply of products and services in all sectors to meet the requirements of urban economic and social development.

Understanding the interdependence of the various subsystems of urban public infrastructure is a prerequisite for studying the overall supply of urban public infrastructure systems. Different scholars define and classify the interdependence among subsystems of urban public infrastructure. Rinaldi believes that thee physical, information, spatial, and logical interdependence exists among the subsystems of urban public infrastructure [3]. Many scholars have summarized, classified, and simulated the interdependence of urban public infrastructure [810]. Jaime presents a System Safety Management System (SSMS) model to interdependency modelling for the case of the Mexico City Metro transport network, which highlights that interdependency in the Metro transportation network occurs vertically and horizontally [11]. The study of the interdependence of urban public infrastructure mainly focuses on the impact of urban public infrastructure interdependence when a sudden event occurs [12]. However, the interdependence of urban public infrastructure exists not only when an emergency arises but also in people’s daily lives, and the impact on the supply of urban public infrastructure products and services is equally important [13]. The research on the interdependence of the various subsystems of urban public infrastructure has been deepening. Tao proposes that the indispensability, completeness, and irreplaceability of the subsystems of urban public infrastructure are the essence and fundamental reasons for the interdependence of the subsystems of urban public infrastructure and an important basis for the formation of the overall supply management system of urban infrastructure. The interdependence of the various subsystems of urban public infrastructure is of great significance to the normal operation of urban public infrastructure and the integrated supply management of the system [4]. Due to the complexity of the interdependence of urban infrastructure systems and their subsystems, studying the role of interdependence of infrastructure systems and the supply management of infrastructure systems is challenging [14].

The urban public infrastructure system should promote the city’s economic growth, social welfare, and environmental quality development. An improvement in the supply level of urban public infrastructure systems will increase the labor productivity of the society, expand total social demand, increase the accumulation of fixed capital, increase the total output of the society, and guarantee the economic growth of the city [15, 16]. In addition, an increase in the supply level of urban public infrastructure will promote the convenience of urban production and living activities, attract foreign populations, increase employment opportunities, and improve the social welfare level of cities [17, 18]. The advancement of urbanization has put pressure on the urban environment to a certain extent. Urban public infrastructure can deal with urban garbage and sewage, reduce air pollution, slow the heat island effect, improve urban climate conditions, etc., and have a positive impact on the urban environment [1921]. On the one hand, an improvement in the urban public infrastructure supply level will increase the level of urban development and the growth of urban social wealth so that the city government will be stronger and have more funds to invest in the construction and operation of urban infrastructure. On the other hand, due to the advancement of urbanization, urban population concentration, economic growth, and environmental quality have put pressure on urban public infrastructure. Urban public infrastructure is interdependent and mutually influential. An urban public infrastructure system based on interdependence is a collection of human activities that actively arrange and integrate the physical facilities and activities of the subsystems of urban public infrastructure and ensure that the subsystems of the urban public infrastructure interact to improve the overall efficiency of the urban public infrastructure system. Through infrastructure management control, the collection of information regarding system infrastructure demand, a consideration of the interdependence between the subsystems of infrastructure, expert opinion and government decision-making, city governments engage in urban infrastructure supply management and make decisions to ensure the supply of urban public infrastructure system can meet to support the development of urban, economic, social, and environmental system. The interaction that occurs between urban public infrastructure systems and urban economic and social environmental systems is shown in Figure 1. The direct goal of coordinated development between urban public infrastructure system and urban economic, social, and environmental system is to realize the integrated management of the supply benefits of urban public infrastructure systems, to improve the economic growth, social welfare, and environmental quality of cities. The long-term goal of the coordinated development of urban public infrastructure systems and urban economic, social, and environmental systems is to achieve the rational allocation of resources to urban public infrastructure systems and realize the long-term sustainable development of cities.

There is no research on the coordinated development of infrastructure and the economic environment in foreign countries. In the UK, the Infrastructure Transformation Research Consortium (ITRC), which consists of researchers from seven universities, including Oxford, Cambridge, Newcastle, and Leeds, proposes that urban infrastructure systems are complex applied systems [22]. Through the use of system-of-system modeling (SOSM), this consortium simulates and studies the relationship between national infrastructure and economic and social development and conducts cross-sectoral performance evaluations of infrastructure systems that face an uncertain future [7]. We compare research on the coordinated development of infrastructure and social development with SOSM research and find the following.

The similarities between the two types of studies are as follows:(1)Both have comprehensive strategic objectives. The ultimate goal of both studies is to achieve sustainable regional or urban development through an orderly allocation of resources.(2)Both have received considerable attention at the national level. In the UK, the national infrastructure system is highly regarded, while the national finance department proposes using an integrated approach to the development of national infrastructure plans [7]. China’s Ministry of Construction proposes systematically studying the construction and management planning of urban public infrastructure and promoting solutions for urban problems.(3)Both have a similar research objective: ITRC focuses on the long-term supply management of energy, transportation, water resources, solid waste and wastewater clean-up and recycling, and data and information communication services. The main research objective related to China’s infrastructure and urban coordinated development is the relationship between the supply level of urban infrastructure systems and the level of urban development.

The differences between the two studies are as follows:(1)Their research focus is different. SOSM proposes managing the infrastructure system across departments as a whole for the purpose of transforming, storing, and transmitting infrastructure traffic by managing physical infrastructure entities and the corresponding human system behaviors to allow for the long-term performance evaluation of the various departments involved in infrastructure. Research on the coordinated development of urban infrastructure and urban economic, social, and environmental systems considers the overall supply of urban public infrastructure and the given resources and their ability to support sustainable urban development, mainly by considering the overall management of the interaction between the supply level of infrastructure systems and the level of urban development.(2)The scope of each type of research is different. The scope of research conducted using SOSM is limited to the UK’s national infrastructure because the UK’s infrastructure supply policy is made at the national level, and data on infrastructure supply, inputs, and outputs throughout the Commonwealth are available. Considering China’s vast geographical scope and regional differences, China’s research on the coordination of infrastructure and urban development mainly considers the synergistic relationship between the infrastructure provided by cities or regions and their jurisdiction and the development level of the cities or regions. Generally, coordinated development studies are not conducted at the national level.(3)The perspective of each type of research is different. The research framework of SOSM combines top-down infrastructure supply management with bottom-up infrastructure providers and the behavioral performance of service objects based on the quality of service of the infrastructure (such as reliability, cost, security, and environmental impact) and focuses on the long-term management of national infrastructure through the linkage and management of a large number of infrastructure service departments. Coordinated development research generally does not consider subjective demand and differences in infrastructure service objects. This research mainly examines the level of urban public infrastructure supply by considering the number of services provided by urban infrastructure (e.g., electricity supply and garbage removal) and explores the interaction between infrastructure supply levels and the level of urban development.(4)Each type of research has a different understanding of the interdependence of the infrastructure subsystems. SOSM is based on the premise that the interdependence of infrastructure subsystems is the basis for national infrastructure system integration modeling. It has been proposed that infrastructure involves more than the operation of a single specialized department. It is necessary to present the interdependence of various departments of the infrastructure using a cross-sectoral integration model and evaluate the cross-department performance of each subsystem of infrastructure. Existing research on urban coordinated development of infrastructure and the level of urban development does not recognize the interdependence of infrastructure subsystems and proposes that the urban public infrastructure system should support the level of urban development but not enforce an excessive level of urban development, which would waste social resources.

The earliest research on urban infrastructure and urban coordinated development was conducted by Zhang Junyong, who believes that urban infrastructure construction investment and economic development have a mutually reinforcing relationship [23]. At present, Chinese scholars’ research on the coordinated development of infrastructure and cities is divided into two categories: qualitative research and quantitative research. Qualitative research focus on the sharing, co-construction, and coordinated development of environmental infrastructure [24], interact with each other on transportation infrastructure and urbanization [25]. Scholars who conduct quantitative research mainly include the following: Yu et al. [26] construct an index system to evaluate economic and social development and analyze the coordinated development of Qingdao’s urban resources, infrastructure and economic society. Wu et al. [27]construct evaluation indicators for regional economic systems and calculate the coordination degree of the economic system and infrastructure system in various provinces and cities in China. Ying et al. [28] analyze the coordination of Hangzhou infrastructure and climate based on the coupling relationship between climate and green infrastructure.

In short, there is still a wide range of research fields that consider the coordinated development of domestic and foreign urban infrastructure supply and the level of urban development. (1) In terms of the evaluation index system, existing research is more focused on the coordinated development of the level of infrastructure supply and the level of urban development. This study incorporates indicators for the level of urban development measuring the environmental pressures in cities and constructs indicators for the urban economic, social, and environmental system by focusing on the three aspects of urban economic development, social welfare, and environmental pressure. This is a new breakthrough in the construction of an index system. (2) In terms of research methods, the methods used to generate the weights of the evaluation indicators are mainly limited to using the coupling coordination degree model. The dynamic coupling and coordination model has not been used. (3) In terms of the research design, this study focuses on the infrastructure system and the interdependence of the infrastructure subsystems. This study applies the network analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and considers the infrastructure of the interdependence of the subsystems to evaluate the supply level of the urban public infrastructure system.

This paper constructs a model of the coupling coordination degree of an urban infrastructure system and an urban economic, social, and environmental system using Beijing as an example. In addition, this paper provides a theoretical basis and discusses methods for ensuring the long-term and sustainable supply management of urban public infrastructure systems. The research design used in this paper is shown in Figure 2. The second part describes the research model used in this study, which involves AHP, ANP, the entropy method, a combination weight method based game theory, a coupling coordination degree model, and a dynamic coupling coordination degree model. The research model is used to evaluate the coordination of the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system. The last part of this paper describes the empirical analysis of data on Beijing from 2000 to 2016 using the research model.

2. Research Materials, Research Methods, and Model Construction

2.1. Research Materials
2.1.1. Research Object

Beijing is the capital of China. It is the political, economic, and cultural center of the country and has advanced and comprehensive urban public infrastructure. In addition, data on Beijing’s urban public infrastructure are abundant, typical, and representative. Research on the system integration supply management of Beijing’s urban public infrastructure shows that it can be used as a model for other cities.

2.1.2. Evaluation Index System

To measure the relationship between the urban infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system, this paper initially develops an index framework based on relevant references [2630]. Then, according to the specific situation of Beijing and the principles of appropriateness, comparability, and availability, a final evaluation of the index system is conducted. The urban infrastructure system consists of five subsystems, energy, transportation, environment, water resources, postal services and telecommunications, as well as 20 evaluation indicators. The urban economic, social, and environmental system includes three subsystems, the urban economic, social and environmental subsystems, as well as 12 evaluation indicators. The final evaluation indicators are shown in Tables 1 and 2.


Criteria layerSystem layerIndicator layerUnituIEWuANP

Economic benefitI1: energy facilities systemI11: per capita social electricity consumptionKilowatt-hours/person0.03070.02940.0298
I12: per capita energy consumptiontons of standard coal/person0.04210.06640.0593
I13: natural gas ratio%0.02060.01570.0171
I14: per capita heating aream2/person0.02650.01140.0158

Social benefitI2: road traffic systemI21: railway and highway facilities densitykm/km20.05860.15750.1287
I22: per capita urban road aream2/person0.02770.02410.0251
I23: number of public transportation linesNumber0.04910.04420.0456
I24: bus operation passenger volume10,000 persons0.05710.10110.0883

Environment benefitI3: environmental protection systemI31: per capita park green aream2/person0.04360.05800.0538
I32: sewage treatment capacity10,000 m3/day0.04040.03020.0332
I33: total number of urban sanitation special vehicle and equipmentunit0.03350.02170.0251
I34: household garbage clearance volume10,000 tons0.05190.09410.0818
I4: water resources and water supply and drainage systemI41: per capita annual water supplym3/person0.10200.09570.0975
I42: density of piped water supplykm/km20.04580.05900.0552
I43: per capita comprehensive water production capacity10 thousand m3/day person0.04000.03070.0334
I44: sewage pipe densitykm/km20.05420.02210.0314
I5: postal and telecommunication facilities systemI51: per capita postal and telecommunications volumeCNY/person0.07090.08640.0819
I52: mobile phone penetration rateHousehold/100 people0.03490.01510.0209
I53: mainline penetration rate%0.04660.00880.0198
I54: bureau number of post and telecommunicationsUnit0.12380.00280.0380

Note. The relevant data are from the Beijing Statistical Yearbook 2000–2016.

Dimension layerIndicator layerUnituIEWuAHP

S1: economic aspectS11: the actual value of gross domestic product100 million CNY0.07280.33650.2560
S12: the proportion of the tertiary industry%0.06460.05860.0604
S13: actual utilization of foreign direct investment10,000 USD0.13490.03420.0649
S14: fixed assets investment ratio%0.06340.11030.0960

S2: social aspectS21: per capita household disposable incomeCNY0.11940.05800.0767
S22: per capita consumption expenditureCNY0.11970.09410.1019
S23: number of employees in three industriesPerson0.07570.03020.0441
S24: urbanization rate%0.07250.02170.0372

S3: environmental aspectsS31: annual average of inhalable particlesmg/m30.06700.00780.0259
S32: total wastewater discharge10 thousand tons0.12340.07660.0909
S33: general industrial solid waste production10 thousand tons0.03750.02510.0289
S34: sulfur dioxide emissions10 thousand tons0.04920.01330.0243

Note. The relevant data are from the Beijing Statistical Yearbook 2000–2016.
2.2. Research Method
2.2.1. Preliminary Processing of Data

The relevant data on the supply level of various subsystems of Beijing’s infrastructure and on the development level of Beijing’s urban economic, social, and environmental system (2000–2016) were acquired from the Beijing Statistical Yearbook (Beijing Bureau of Statistics 2000–2016) through simple processing. All per capita indicators (including I11, I12, I14, I22, I41, I43, and I51) represent the corresponding statistical data divided by the number of permanent residents in that year. All density indicators (including I21, I42, and I44) represent the corresponding statistical data divided by the area of Beijing. The indicator I21 is the sum of railway mileage and highway mileage divided by the area of Beijing. The data are standardized using formulas (1) and (2) (as shown in Tables 3 and 4).Positive indicator:Negative indicator:where represents the observed value of the th index in the th year; represents the maximum observation; represents the minimum observation; and is a standardized value.


yearPer capita social electricity consumption I11Per capita energy consumption I12Natural gas ratio I13Per capita heating area I14Railway and highway facilities density I21Per capita urban road area I22Number of public transportation lines I23Bus operation passenger traffic I24Per capita park green area I31Sewage treatment capacity I32Total number of urban vehicle sanitation special equipment I33Domestic garbage removal volume I34Per capita annual water supply I41Tap water supply pipe density I42Per capita tap water comprehensive production capacity I43Sewage pipe density I44Per capita postal and telecommunications volume I51Mobile phone penetration rate I52Fixed line mainline penetration rate I53Bureau number of post and telecommunications I54

20000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.37350.00000.00000.00000.00000.00001.00000.00000.69060.00000.00000.00000.03750.0000
20010.03640.03550.41630.13230.03290.43550.00000.10520.06370.03100.18590.02380.87570.05730.67800.05150.00020.12140.20480.0047
20020.24860.19290.48710.23820.08781.00000.10880.20880.13980.10780.20480.04470.57180.10101.00000.13350.04050.23860.31060.0177
20030.37540.37750.44210.45980.09610.03470.19120.04870.27480.17890.25720.11400.59350.17830.93960.17410.09890.30870.50850.0250
20040.53461.00000.41670.54010.11690.39150.19410.22760.27800.26160.39690.19110.48060.25350.67260.17510.14060.39230.84640.0213
20050.61680.60460.59180.62810.12480.69580.20880.27150.36340.40430.38610.27560.42040.23750.27080.11080.21420.42341.00000.0273
20060.79350.82510.67770.68820.80500.52450.20290.15040.36340.41880.42710.42240.33930.45860.33650.25610.30420.44300.83620.0278
20070.84800.96600.83510.70560.83440.53600.27650.19910.45650.45400.43370.52920.28610.59050.33960.41490.47040.42650.77130.1077
20080.93480.56460.92420.79490.78520.81670.36470.45420.61180.41550.51390.62570.21000.69580.28890.43170.56850.40150.61430.1062
20090.61540.47360.91810.78430.83380.75220.42940.61610.75160.47050.50810.62480.15090.76780.28730.43780.64780.44300.54610.1202
20100.69770.50100.94820.78560.87590.66930.50590.69190.82920.48910.57680.58470.05880.91240.27620.43510.78660.50700.44710.1949
20110.66700.32210.90690.85260.91620.52810.61470.77200.87580.49820.63960.58710.05011.00000.34960.48250.16240.62290.40270.2003
20120.74930.32940.95350.86430.93880.48470.60000.86740.90680.53770.80460.61130.01100.68630.00000.64320.20560.77850.36520.3074
20130.79870.34750.93510.88490.96020.53080.80880.97290.93790.54710.85360.65180.00000.73610.11100.74720.29140.81760.30720.4034
20140.81860.33630.92930.91360.98170.58981.00001.00000.96890.61320.90780.75950.01750.78950.34430.77590.36961.00000.22530.4405
20150.83690.29230.97690.94050.98590.57390.99710.81070.98450.64320.96610.85740.03120.83510.33790.87870.57710.98350.14330.6948
20161.00000.40771.00001.00001.00000.63531.00000.80231.00001.00001.00001.00000.05190.86950.32641.00001.00000.93040.00000.8269


YearGross regional product actual value S11The proportion of the tertiary industries S12Actual use of foreign investment amount S13Fixed assets investment ratio S14Per capita household disposable income S21Per capita consumption expenditure S22Number of employees in three industries S23Urbanization rate S24Annual average inhalable particles S31Total wastewater discharge S32General industrial solid waste production volume S33Sulfur dioxide emissions S34

20000.00000.22100.00000.79780.00000.00000.00000.00000.94590.00000.70171.0000
20010.06740.29180.00350.82160.02620.01440.01600.05740.98650.00440.69760.8959
20020.12940.39380.01950.89780.04510.06020.09970.11271.00000.05320.58340.8572
20030.19520.13030.03431.00000.07530.08840.13980.16800.66220.05550.76640.8161
20040.28170.00000.11750.88400.11270.12450.39080.22190.77030.11160.92740.0000
20050.33150.31730.15670.75140.15560.15960.43060.67780.67570.14980.82560.8511
20060.38330.40230.24820.84700.20520.21270.50000.75740.93240.20161.00000.7837
20070.48620.35980.29340.72350.24800.22970.53830.77570.75680.23830.88860.6771
20080.54981.00000.24780.16410.30630.26770.60190.82050.40540.30910.72600.5501
20090.53500.30880.29340.69320.34920.31580.63080.83220.39190.66720.84420.5303
20100.63470.09920.38350.58910.39900.38440.68630.93840.39190.61000.88050.5136
20110.76410.50990.40860.33650.48060.45330.74970.96910.29730.72770.68320.4370
20120.80960.41360.46980.31460.55660.52260.81230.96520.22970.66020.65360.4190
20130.87070.37390.55750.25210.63870.59740.86830.97670.21620.71610.57110.3884
20140.87950.45610.64610.24600.71520.65570.89450.98780.32430.79590.53900.3519
20150.90020.79320.99710.17360.90590.94580.94341.00000.13510.80910.11110.3175
20161.00000.56941.00000.00001.00001.00001.00000.99910.00001.00000.00000.1482

2.2.2. The ANP Is Used to Evaluate the Interdependence of the Subsystems of Urban Public Infrastructure

The ANP is a multiobjective decision-making method developed by Professor Saaty TL and is based on the AHP, which is especially applicable to complex system decision-making problems with internal interdependence and feedback from indicator elements [31]. The ANP method is used to evaluate the decision-making of the interdependence subsystem in the network to obtain weights of subsystem in the paper.

2.2.3. The Weight of the Evaluation Index of Each Subsystem Is Obtained by Using a Combination Weighting Method Based on Game Theory

Game theory is an important part of operations research and is used for studying competitive elements. Drawing on game theory, relevant experts have developed a game theory combination weighting method [32, 33] that uses comprehensive subjective and objective weighting to overcome the limitations of subjective weighting and objective weighting. The paper uses a combined weight method based on game theory to calculate the weight of the evaluation indicators of the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic social and environmental system.

The calculation process of combination weighting method based on game theory is as follows:(1)Obtain n weights according to the n-type weighting method, and then construct a basic weight vector set These n vectors are arbitrarily linearly combined to form a possible set of weights:where u is a possible weight vector of a possible set of weight vectors and is the weight coefficient.

We use game theory to find the most satisfactory in the possible vector set. The most satisfactory weight vector can be transformed by optimizing the linear combination weight coefficient . The goal of optimization is to minimize the dispersion of from each . That is,

Based on the differential properties of the matrix, the first derivative condition of the optimization of equation (4) is

Equation (5) corresponds to a linear system of equations:

After obtaining using formula (6), we normalize it:

Finally, the combined weight is

2.3. Research Model Construction
2.3.1. Model Used to Evaluate the Supply Level of the Urban Public Infrastructure System

The model used to evaluate the supply level of the urban public infrastructure system (see Figure 3) is divided into three levels. The first level is the rule layer, which includes three aspects: economic growth, social welfare, and environmental pressure on urban public infrastructure systems. The second layer of the model is the network layer. Considering the purpose of the research, five subsystems of the public infrastructure system are included in the model, namely, water resources and water supply and drainage system (I1), transportation system (I2), postal power system (I3), environmental facilities system (I4), and energy facilities system (I5), which are consistent with Table 1. The third layer of the model is the system indicator layer, which consists of the evaluation indicators for the supply level of each subsystem.

The main process used to evaluate the supply level of the urban public infrastructure system is described below:

Step 1. According to the urban development orientation, the established stock of the urban public infrastructure and the interdependence of the public infrastructure determine the structural relationship of the urban public infrastructure system and act as the basis for constructing the structure of the urban public infrastructure system ANP management activities. This process needs to be conducted by experts.

Step 2. The ANP super matrix and the weighted super matrix are calculated. The evaluation criteria used for the ANP act as the basis for evaluating the relationships in the system and reflect the overall goal of the evaluation. Let the evaluation criteria in the ANP structure be . The system’s network layer has subsystems . For evaluating the supply level of urban public infrastructure systems and interdependence, Ci is used as a criterion to judge the interdependence of urban public infrastructure subsystems. On this basis, the judgment matrix is constructed to form the feature vector . When the feature vector passes the consistency test, it is expressed as a matrix form, and a local weight vector matrix is generated. m supermatrices are formed under the influence of the control criterion index Ci; however, is not a normalized matrix. To ensure the calculation results are objective and comparable, the supermatrix columns are normalized. The corresponding weighting factor is set, and the superweighted matrix is .
To accurately reflect the interaction between the subsystems, the stability of the supermatrix must be processed. Stability processing is performed on the superweighting matrix , generating an ANP limit matrix . The processing method is as follows:Equation (9) is convergent and unique, and the value of the corresponding column in the original matrix is the weight of the stability of the urban public infrastructure subsystem.

Step 3. After the subsystem weights are obtained, the weights of the internal indicators of each subsystem are obtained using AHP.

Step 4. The entropy method is used to obtain the evaluation index weight of each subsystem [34, 35].

Step 5. Using a combination weighting method based on game theory, the weights of the evaluation indexes of each subsystem are obtained.

Step 6. The supply level of each subsystem and the overall system are obtained.
The supply level of each subsystem and the system supply level are obtained by using index weights are calculated using a combination weighting method based on game theory.where represents the supply level of each subsystem; 1, 2, ..., 5 represent 5 different subsystems; i represents the year; and represents the weight of the combination index (which is based on game theory) for each subsystem.
The supply level of the urban public infrastructure system is obtained by using the following formula:where represents the supply level of the urban public infrastructure system and represents the weight of the combination index (which is based on game theory) of the urban public infrastructure system.

2.3.2. Coupling Coordination Analysis

(1) Coupling Coordination Model (CCM). Coupling is a term used in physics to indicate the degree to which two or more systems interact and affect each other to reach a degree of synergy. Coupling is used to measure the degree of agreement in terms of the level of system development. Liao was the first to develop a model to evaluate the degree of coupling coordination within a system or between different systems and further differentiated the levels of coupling coordination degree [36]. This paper constructs a CCM of the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic social and environmental system to analyze the degree of coordinated development between the urban public infrastructure system and the level of urban development. The calculation process of the CCM is as follows:(1)The evaluation value of the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system is calculated, which are represented by and , respectively. These are shown in Table 5.(2)The coupling degree of the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic social and environmental system is calculated:where represents the degree of the coupling between the two systems, , represents the degree of coordination between the two systems, , represents the comprehensive coordination index of the two systems, and a and b represent the contribution of the two systems. Let .


YearsUrban infrastructure system supply level ()Urban economic, social, and environmental system evaluation value ()

20000.13830.1590
20010.16750.1882
20020.22470.2310
20030.24130.2474
20040.32000.2683
20050.32040.3344
20060.44250.3979
20070.50450.4131
20080.53200.4138
20090.55280.4670
20100.58620.4884
20110.55190.5416
20120.55680.5556
20130.60760.5870
20140.66060.6210
20150.68600.6924
20160.63720.7097

(2) Dynamic Coupling Coordination Model (DCCM). The DCCM is used to determine the coupling degree of the composite system [37]. Li and Ding was the first to propose a DCCM and used it to evaluate the coordination of resource environment systems and social economic systems and then calculated the coordination degree of the composite system [38].

To clarify the relationship between the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system, this paper assumes that both of these systems and their relationship form a composite system. Based on theory of the evolution of subsystems in a general system, we construct a DCCM to analyze the evolution state and coupling state of the composite systems. The changes between the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system are nonlinear, so the evolution equation can be expressed aswhere is a nonlinear function of . The motion stability of a nonlinear system depends on the characteristic root property of the first approximation system. The high-order term can guarantee the stability of motion and be used to obtain an approximate linear system.

Using the above method, we establish the general function of the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system.

We assume that the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system and their relationship are in the same system, which has two elements and . According to Beta Langfi’s general system theory, the evolution equation of a composite system is expressed as

and are the evolutionary states of the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system under their own interaction and external conditions. and are the respective evolutionary speeds of the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system. In a composite system, because the entire system contains only two elements and , any changes in the subsystem that occur when and interact will cause the entire system to change. The evolution rate of a composite system can be seen as a function of and , so . Therefore, and are used as control variables; the coupling relationship between the composite system and the two subsystems can be obtained by studying the variation in V. Because the evolution of the entire system satisfies the S-type development mechanism, we assume that the dynamic coupling and coordination relationship between the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system is cyclical. Since a change in is caused by and , we analyze on the two-dimensional coordinate plane (, ). The change in is an ellipse in the coordinate system (the change in the urban economic, social, and environmental system is not as rapid as that of the urban public infrastructure system, and the amplitude is relatively small), as shown in Figure 4.

In this case, the variable is an ellipse. The variable represents the angle between and . According to the value of , we can determine the value of the dynamic coupling coordination degree of the composite system. Based on relevant research [38], this paper proposes the development stage and state of the dynamic coupling coordination degree of the composite system, as shown in Table 6.


Range of StageSystem development stageSystem status

ILow-level symbiosisAt this stage of development, the development speed of urban public infrastructure systems is very low, and the impact of urban public infrastructure systems on urban economic, social, and environmental systems is almost 0.

IIPrimary coordinated development stage The development speed of urban public infrastructure system is lower than that of urban economic, social, and environmental system. Urban public infrastructure system can not promote the development of urban economic, social, and environmental system, showing that urban infrastructure system can not carry the development of urban economic, social, and environmental system.

Coordinated development stage The speed of urban public infrastructure system is equal to the urban economic, social, and environmental system, and the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system are coordinated.

Coordinated development stage With the development of the urban public infrastructure system, the two systems began to interact with each other. The restrictions of the urban economic, social, and environmental system on the urban public infrastructure system began to appear, but it was not obvious.

IIIExtreme development stageWith the accelerated development of urban economic, social, and environmental systems, urban public infrastructure systems have increased the demand for urban development, and the contradiction between infrastructure systems and urban systems has emerged, and began to limit the improvement of urban development level.

IVHigh-level coordinated development stageThe composite system gradually transforms into a common development stage, and finally reaches the high-level coordinated development of the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system

The authors edited the table by themselves according to Li Chongming’s literature [38].

3. Empirical Research

3.1. Calculation of the Evaluation Value of the Supply Level of the Urban Public Infrastructure System
3.1.1. ANP Analysis of the Supply Weights of the Urban Public Infrastructure Subsystem

Under the constraints of the comprehensive development level of the economic, social, and environmental subsystems in cities, this paper uses Super Decisions software to evaluate the supply level of the urban public infrastructure. Taking into account the strong professionalism of the research questions, this paper selects eight experts, including senior management personnel and senior engineers, who have 10–20 years of experience in the urban public infrastructure field, to score the judgment matrix reflecting the supply structure management of the urban public infrastructure system. The experts evaluated based on a comparison of contribution rates, the principle of the universality rate and the principle of irreplaceability. The results are shown in Tables 714.


I1I2I3I4I5

I111/2253
I221364
I31/21/3142
I41/51/61/411/3
I51/31/41/231


I1I2I3I4I5

I111/2253
I221364
I31/21/3142
I41/51/61/411/3
I51/31/41/231


I1I2I3I4I5

121/235
1/211/324
23147
1/31/21/413
1/51/41/71/31


I2I3I4I5

I21426
I31/411/23
I41/2215
I51/61/31/51


I1I3I4I5

I11325
I31/311/23
I41/2214
I51/51/31/41


I1I2I4I5

I111/213
I22124
I411/213
I51/31/41/31


I1I2I3I5

I111/235
I22146
I31/31/413
I51/51/61/31


I1I2I3I4

I111/235
I22147
I31/31/413
I41/51/71/31

In the ANP model of the overall supply level of the urban public infrastructure system, evaluation criteria for economic growth (C1), social welfare (C2), and environmental pressure (C3) evaluation criteria are used to identify the interactions among the subsystems of urban public infrastructure in the network layer, and the corresponding judgment matrix is established, as shown in the table below. The relationship between the judgment indicators in the table is based on a 9-point method; 1–9 indicates that the influence of one subsystem on the other subsystem has gradually increased. The score of the judgment matrix is taken as the mean of the expert score. The consistency test result of the judgment matrix is 0.056 (<0.1), indicating that the judgment matrix passes the consistency test.

When all the judgment matrices pass the consistency test, the ANP supermatrix, the weighted supermatrix, and the limit matrix of the urban public infrastructure system supply level evaluation model are generated using Super Decisions software. Since the limits in the limit matrix converge and are unique, the weights of the interdependent subsystems in the model of the supply level of urban public infrastructure are obtained, which is Wi = (0.5396, 0.2970, 0.1634). The weights of the subsystems in the network layer are (0.2075, 0.3270, 0.1386, 0.2040, and 0.1229).

3.1.2. Entropy Method

Through the collection, processing, and standardization of the statistical yearbook data used in the evaluation indexes of the five subsystems in Beijing, the entropy weight of the evaluation index is calculated using the entropy method (see Table 1).

3.1.3. The Weights in Each Indicator System Are Calculated Using a Combined Weight Method Based on Game Theory

The weight of the evaluation index of each subsystem obtained by the entropy method is uIEW. The weight of the evaluation index obtained by the ANP method is uANP. Using the combined weight method based on game theory combined with the objective evaluation of the entropy method and the subjective evaluation of ANP, the weight of the optimal urban public infrastructure evaluation index is expressed as (as shown in Table 1).

3.1.4. The Evaluation Value of the Supply Level of the Typical Urban Public Infrastructure System Is Obtained

The evaluation value of the urban infrastructure system supply level is obtained by using equation (11) (Table 5). The evaluation value of the urban infrastructure system from 2000 to 2016 gradually increased the supply level of the urban infrastructure systems from 0.1383 to 0.6372, with a growth rate of 78.3%.

3.2. Calculation of the Evaluation Value of the Urban Economic, Social, and Environmental System

Using the entropy method and the AHP method on the urban economic, social, and environmental system indicators shown in Table 2, the index weights are obtained by using a combined weight method based on game theory. Then, the evaluation value of the demand level of the economic, social, and environmental system in Beijing is obtained (Table 5). The demand level of the urban economic, social, and environmental system has gradually increased from 2000 to 2016, from 0.1590 to 0.7097, with a growth rate of 77.6%.

The time series of the evaluation values of the supply level of the urban public infrastructure system and the demand level of the urban economic, social, and environmental system from 2000 to 2016 can be divided into four stages. The evaluation value of the urban public infrastructure system from 2000 to 2005 is very close to the demand level of the urban economic, social, and environmental system. From 2006 to 2011, the supply level of the urban infrastructure system is greater than the demand level of the urban economic, social, and environmental system. From 2011 to 2015, the supply level of the urban public infrastructure system is close to the evaluation level of the demand level of the urban economic, social, and environmental system. In 2016, the demand level of the urban economic, social, and environmental system is greater than the supply level of the urban public infrastructure system. During the 11th Five-Year Plan period, the average annual growth rate of urban infrastructure fixed asset investment reached 27%, which is much higher than 7.29% in the 15th period and 7.35% in the 12th Five-Year Plan period. As a result of the global financial crisis, Beijing’s GDP had negative growth in 2009, which explains why the supply of the urban public infrastructure system from 2006 to 2010 is higher than the demand for the urban economic, social, and environmental system.

3.3. Analysis of the Coupling Degree of the Level of Supply of the Urban Public Infrastructure System and the Urban Economic, Social, and Environmental System

Table 15 shows that the degree of coordination between the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system increases from 0.9976 to 0.9986 from 2000 to 2016, and the change is relatively stable. However, the coupling coordination degree D increases from 0.3851 to 0.8200, and a significant change occurs. The third column of Table 15 shows that the coupling and coordination degree has gone through three stages from 2000 to 2016, namely, the unbalanced development stage from 2000 to 2003, the microbalance stage from 2004 to 2005, and the balanced development stage from 2006 to 2016.


YearsCoordination degree CCoupling coordination degree DCoordination level

20000.99760.3851Mild imbalance development
20010.99830.4214Slightly unbalanced development
20020.99990.4773Slightly unbalanced development
20030.99990.4943Slightly unbalanced development
20040.99610.5413Slightly unbalanced development
20050.99980.5721Slightly unbalanced development
20060.99860.6478Mild imbalance development
20070.99500.6757Mild imbalance development
20080.99220.6850Mild imbalance development
20090.99650.7128Moderately balanced development
20100.99580.7315Moderately balanced development
20111.00000.7394Moderately balanced development
20121.00000.7458Moderately balanced development
20130.99990.7728Moderately balanced development
20140.99950.8003Highly balanced development
20151.00000.8302Highly balanced development
20160.99860.8200Highly balanced development

To determine the influence of the evaluation values of two systems on the coupling coordination degree D, this paper establishes a multivariate linear regression model that uses the coupling coordination degree D as the explained variable and the evaluation values of the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system as explanatory variables. The model fitting results shown in Tables 16 and 17 are obtained by SPSS software. The fitting results show that the R2 fit of the model is 0.995, which is very close to 1, indicating that the model has a high degree of fit. The model is shown in Table 17. When the supply level of the urban infrastructure system increases by one unit, the coupling coordination degree D increases by 0.555. When the demand for the urban economic, social, and environmental system increases by one unit, the coupling coordination degree D increases by 0.244.


ModelRR SideAdjust the R sideStandard estimated error

10.997a0.9950.9940.0111601

aPredictor (constant): , .

ModelNonstandardized coefficientStandard coefficienttSig.
BStandard errorTrial version

1 (constant)0.2930.00838.8340.000
0.5550.0540.70710.2240.000
0.2440.0570.2994.3220.001

aDependent variable: D.
3.4. Analysis of the Dynamic Coupling Coordination Degree between the Urban Public Infrastructure System and the Urban Economic, Social, and Environmental System

According to the evaluation value of the supply level of the urban infrastructure system () and the urban economic, social, and environmental system () shown in Table 5, we can obtain the evaluation curves and fitting functions of the supply level of the urban infrastructure system () and the evaluation value of the urban economic, social, and environmental system (). All of these are presented in Figure 5. The dynamic degree of coupling coordination between the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system is obtained by using equation (16)–18 (Figure 6).

Figure 6 shows that the degree of the dynamic coupling coordination between the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system in Beijing can be divided into three stages. The first phase in 2000 shows that the degree of the dynamic coupling coordination between the two systems is 32.15° and that the two systems are in the primary coordinated development stage. From 2001 to 2009, the degree of the dynamic coupling coordination between the two systems ranges from 48.96° to 83.55°; this is the second stage. At this stage, the two systems are in a symbiotic and coordinated development stage. The two systems begin to interact with each other, and the supply level of the urban public infrastructure system increases the demand level of the urban economic, social, and environmental system. Because of the influence of the global financial crisis in 2008, from 2010 to 2016, the degree of the dynamic coupling coordination of two systems changed from 81.77° to 56.26°, which represents a low level of coexistence and the state of low interaction between the two systems.

3.5. Analysis of the Influencing Factors of the Degree of Coupling between the Urban Public Infrastructure System and the Urban Economic, Social, and Environmental System

The degree of the coupling between the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system is affected by many factors. This paper mainly examines the impact of 20 evaluation indicators of the urban public infrastructure system and 12 evaluation indicators of the urban economic, social, and environmental system. Using SPSS software, a linear regression analysis was performed between coupling degree D and 36 evaluation indicators of the two systems.

As shown in Table 18, the degree of the coupling coordination between the urban infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system is most affected by urban sewage treatment capacity. In Table 18, it can be seen that in the 20 indicators in the urban public infrastructure system, the top five influencing factors on the degree of the coupling coordination between two systems are sewage treatment capacity, natural gas ratio, and per capita heating area, total number of urban sanitation special vehicles and equipment, household garbage clearance volume, and bureau number of post and telecommunications. The urban infrastructure system indicators that have a weaker impact on the degree of coupling coordination between the two systems are mainly railway density and highway facilities, the amount of postal and telecommunications services per capita, and the number of public transportation lines and passenger traffic on public transportation, per capita annual water supply. Table 19 shows that in the urban economic, social, and environmental system, the most influential indicator of the degree of coupling coordination are the regional GDP actual value. The next indicators are three social development indicators: the number of employees in the industry, the per capita household disposable income, and per capita consumption expenditures. The last indicator is actual utilization of foreign direct investment.


Indicator layerLinear regression equationSort

Urban public infrastructure systemI11: per capita social electricity consumption0.8078
I12: per capita energy consumption0.042
I13: natural gas ratio0.8962
I14: per capita heating area0.9422
I21: railway road facility density0.91113
I22: per capita urban road area0.163
I23: number of public transportation lines0.68611
I24: bus operation passenger volume0.78911
I31: per capita park green area0.94110
I32: sewage treatment capacity0.8621
I33: total number of urban sanitation special vehicle and equipment0.8983
I34: household garbage clearance volume0.9514
I41: per capita annual water supply0.94314
I42: density of water supply pipe0.8989
I43: per capita comprehensive water production capacity0.597
I44: sewage pipe density0.8587
I51: per capita total postal and telecommunications volume0.53212
I52: mobile phone penetration rate0.8416
I53: mailine penetration rate0.015
I54: bureau number of post and telecommunications0.6125

Y represents the coupling coordination degree D, and x represents the corresponding evaluation indicator of urban public infrastructure system in the table.

Indicator layerLinear regression equationSort

S11: regional GDP actual value0.9501
S12: the proportion of the tertiary industry0.241
S13: actual utilization of foreign direct investment0.7795
S14: fixed assets investment ratio0.6698
S21: per capita household disposable income0.8183
S22: per capita consumption expenditure0.7854
S23: number of employees in three industries0.9782
S24: urbanization rate0.9347
S31: annual average of inhalable particles0.7839
S32: total wastewater discharge0.8606
S33: general industrial solid waste production0.195
S34: sulfur dioxide emissions0.476

Y represents the coupling coordination degree D, and x represents the corresponding evaluation indicator of the urban economic, social, and environmental system in the table.

4. Conclusion

Research on the relationship between the urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system is important for the effective management of integrated urban public infrastructure systems and the long-term sustainable development of the city. Taking Beijing as an example, this paper empirically studies the degree of coupling coordination between two system using data from 2000 to 2016. This study finds the following:(1)From 2000 to 2016, the comprehensive evaluation value of Beijing’s urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system gradually increased, and the two values are relatively close. From 2006 to 2011, due to the impact of the financial crisis on Beijing’s economic development level and the increase of urban infrastructure investment during the Eleventh Five-Year Plan in Beijing, the supply level of Beijing’s infrastructure system was higher than that of the urban economic, social, and environmental system. The supply level of urban public infrastructure system was slightly lower than the level of urban economic and social environment development in 2016.(2)The analysis of the degree of coupling coordination between the Beijing infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system shows that it is gradually increasing; the supply level of the urban public infrastructure system has a significant impact on the coupling coordination degree of the two systems.(3)The analysis of the degree of dynamic coupling coordination between the Beijing urban public infrastructure system and the urban economic, social, and environmental system shows that these two systems were in dynamic coupling coordination states from 2000 to 2009. The global financial crisis affected the degree of dynamic coupling coordination between the two systems, and the two systems entered a low-level symbiotic coupling stage from 2010 to 2016 mainly because the growth rate of urban public infrastructure system supply is negative. This indicates that the dynamic coupling coordination development between two systems can be realized only by accelerating the improvement of urban infrastructure supply in Beijing.(4)To promote the coupling degree of the two systems in Beijing, the government should give priority to an improvement in the supply level of urban environmental infrastructure, especially an improvement in sewage treatment capacity, the number of urban sanitation special vehicles and equipment, and household garbage clearance volume. Furthermore, improving Beijing’s GDP and the social development level, such as the number of employees in three industries in Beijing, has a significant impact on the coupling coordination degree.

On the basis of previous studies, this paper actively discusses the integration and management of urban public infrastructure systems and the coordinated development of urban public infrastructure systems and urban economic, social, and environmental systems. We hope that this research has a positive effect on urban public infrastructure systems by helping them meet their development needs. However, restrictions regarding the availability of relevant statistical data on Beijing affected the evaluation of the supply level of the urban public infrastructure system in Beijing to some extent. This is a problem that should be emphasized in future research.

Data Availability

The data of this research are from Beijing statistical yearbook 2000–2016, and the data are reliable and available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by the Philosophical Social Science Fund Project in Tianjin (project approval no. TJGL18-034).

References

  1. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development), Infrastructure to 2030: Telecom, Land Transport, Water and Electricity, OECD, Parise, France, 2006.
  2. China statistical yearbook, 2017, http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2017/indexch.htm.
  3. S. M. Rinalidi, J. P. Peerenboom, and T. Kelly, “Identifying, understanding and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies,” IEEE Control System Magazine, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 11–25, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  4. Z. M. Tao and Y. Sun, “Dynamic analysis on influencing factors of urban infrastructure system supply effectiveness: case study of Beijing, China,” Research on Financial and Economic Issues, vol. 415, no. 6, pp. 131–137, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  5. J. W. Hall, R. J. Nicholls, A. J. Hickford et al., Introduction National Infrastructure assessment.the Future of National Infrastructure a System-of-System Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2016.
  6. J. W. Hall, A. Otto, A. J. Hickford et al., A framework for analysing the long-term performance of interdependent infrastructure system. The Future of National Infrastructure a System-of-System Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2016.
  7. A. Otto, J. W. Hall, A. J. Hickford et al., “A quantified system-of-systems modeling framework for robust national infrastructure planning,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 385–396, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. R. Zimmerman and C. E. Restrepo, “The next step: quantifying infrastructure interdependencies to improve security,” International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, vol. 2, no. 2/3, pp. 215–230, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. C.-N. Huang, J. J. H. Liou, and Y.-C. Chuang, “A method for exploring the interdependencies and importance of critical infrastructures,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 66–74, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. P. Zhang and S. Peeta, “Dynamic and disequilibrium analysis of interdependent infrastructure systems,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 357–381, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. J. Santos-Reyes, D. Padilla-Pérez, and A. N. Beard, “Modeling critical infrastructure interdependency: the case of the Mexico city Metro transport system,” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1428–1444, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. P. Pederson, D. Dudenhoeffer, S. Hartley et al., Critical Infrastructure Interdependency Modeling: A Survey of U.S. And International Research, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA, 2006.
  13. C.-L. Chai, X. Liu, W. J. Zhang, and Z. Baber, “Application of social network theory to prioritizing oil & gas industries protection in a networked critical infrastructure system,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 688–694, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. S. Saeid, L. Kattana, P. Jayasinghea et al., “Integrated infrastructure systems—a review,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 36, pp. 1–11, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  15. A. Pereira and J. Andraz, “On the economic effects of public infrastructure investment: a survey of the international evidence,” Journal of Economic Development, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1–37, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  16. Z. Elburz, P. Nijkamp, and E. Pels, “Public infrastructure and regional growth: lessons from meta-analysis,” Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1–8, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. I. Yakubu, M. A. Akaateba, and B. A. A. Akanbang, “A study of housing conditions and characteristics in the Tamale Metropolitan Area, Ghana,” Habitat International, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 394–402, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. L. A. Sierra, E. Pellicer, and V. Yepes, “Method for estimating the social sustainability of infrastructure projects,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 41–53, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. A. Schafer and M. Swilling, “Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure: the Johannesburg case,” Ecological Economics, vol. 86, no. 9, pp. 246–257, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  20. E. Andersson, S. Barthel, S. Borgström et al., “Reconnecting cities to the Biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services,” AMBIO, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 445–453, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. W. Y. Chen, “The role of urban green infrastructure in offsetting carbon emissions in 35 major Chinese cities: a nationwide estimate,” Cities, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 112–120, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. H. Hall and N. Hickford, “Systems-of-systems analysis of national infrastructure,” Engineering Sustainability, vol. 166, no. 5, pp. 249–257, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  23. J. Y. Zhang, “Research on coordinated development of infrastructure construction investment in Wuhan,” Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Urban Science Edition), vol. 1, pp. 1–5, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  24. Q. Zhang, “Study on the coordinated development of environmental infrastructure in urban intensive areas in China——a case study of environmental infrastructure in the pearl river delta urban agglomeration,” City Planning, vol. 10, pp. 41–43, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  25. Y. B. Ji and Y. D. Dou, “New urbanization and coordinated development of transportation infrastructure,” Academic Exchange, vol. 268, no. 7, pp. 127–132, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  26. B. Yu, X. M. Liu, and X. I. Zheng, “Quantitative evaluation and analysis of the coordinated development of urban resources, infrastructure and economic and social development in Qingdao,” China Population, Resources and Environment, vol. 4, pp. 149–153, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  27. J. N. Wu, Y. H. Cao, S. M. Yao et al., “Analysis of the coordinated development of infrastructure and regional economic systems,” Economic Geography, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1624–1628, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  28. J. Ying, X. Q. Yao, Y. Cheng et al., “Quantitative analysis of coordination relationship between climate and green infrastructure in Hangzhou city based on coupling model,” Chinese Garden, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 53–57, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  29. Y. Sun, Z. M. Tao, and P. Yao, “Study on the coordinated development degree of urban public infrastructure composite system,” Urban Development Research, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 24–28, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  30. Z. M. Tao and Y. Sun, “Study on the utility improvement of urban public infrastructure system from the perspective of supply and demand coordination,” Journal of Shenzhen University (Humanities and Social Sciences), vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 100–105, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  31. L. F. Wang, “Theories and algorithms of network analysis progress (ANP),” System Engineering Theory and Practice, vol. 3, pp. 44–50, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  32. X. Z. Wu, Nonparametric Statistical Method, Chongqing: Higher Education Press, Chongqing, China, 1996.
  33. D. P. Hou, Introduction to Game Theory, Hefei: University of Science and Technology of China Press, Hefei, China, 2004.
  34. J. H. Yan, C. H. Feng, and L. Li, “Sustainability assessment of machining process based on extension theory and entropy weight approach,” Advance Manufacture Technology, vol. 71, pp. 1419–14312014. View at: Google Scholar
  35. F. K. Jesmin and M. B. Sharif, “Weighted entropy for segmentation evaluation,” Optics & Laser Technology, vol. 57, pp. 236–242, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  36. C. B. Liao, “Quantitative evaluation and classification system of coordinated development of environment and economy—taking the pearl river delta urban agglomeration as an example,” Tropical Geography, vol. 2, pp. 76–82, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  37. X. J. Li and J. G. Tao, “The dynamic coupling analysis for coordinated development of the environment and economy based on cloud model: case study of Henan,” in Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Management Science & Engineering, pp. 726–735, IEEE, Helsinki, Finland, August 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  38. C. M. Li and L. Y. Ding, “Evaluation model and application of coordinated development of resource environment and social economy in small towns,” Systems Engineering Theory and Practice, vol. 11, pp. 134–139, 2004. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 ZhiMei Tao. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

488 Views | 275 Downloads | 1 Citation
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.