粤港澳大湾区协同发展水平的测度及评估

在充分理解粤港澳大湾区城市群协同发展科学内涵的基础上,从产业协同创新、环境协同治理、服务协同共享和制度协同安排4个维度构建协同发展评价指标体系,综合运用“流”空间、大数据、网络分析和联锁网络模型等理论与方法,对城市之间的相互关系、流动性、连通性和边界效应进行量化分析。结果表明：1）城市之间的资本流动集中在广深之间,城市之间的知识流动集中在香港、广州和深圳之间;澳门、珠海、中山和江门等城市之间的环境协同治理水平更高,深莞惠和广佛等城市之间的环境协同治理水平稍差;广佛、广深、深莞等城市之间交通、通信、物流和银行等基础设施的服务协同共享水平更高;香港和澳门在跨境区域协同方面具有制度优势。2）粤港澳大湾区协同发展水平表现最优的是广州与深圳、广州与佛山、深圳与东莞、香港与深圳;同时,广州与东莞、深圳与佛山呈现联动趋势。虽然去边界化趋势明显,城市间流动性增强,但是粤港澳大湾区协同发展水平总体不高。3）广州和深圳两座中心城市的协同能力最强,香港和澳门两座国际化城市的协同能力仍有很大提升空间。

Measurement and Evaluation of the Coordinated Development in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area

On the basis of fully understanding the scientific connotation of coordinated development of urban agglomeration in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, the evaluation index system of coordinated development is constructed from four dimensions: industrial coordinative innovation, environmental coordinative governance, service coordinative sharing and institutional coordinative arrangement. The theory and method of space of flows, big data, network analysis and interlocking network model are comprehensively used to quantitatively analyze the interurban relationship, liquidity, connectivity and boundary effect. The research shows that: 1) Interurban capital flow is concentrated between Guangzhou and Shenzhen, and interurban knowledge flow is concentrated among Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Shenzhen. Macao, Zhuhai, Zhongshan and Jiangmen have higher level of collaborative environmental governance, while Shenzhen-Dongguan-Huizhou and Guangzhou-Foshan have lower level of collaborative environmental governance. The interurban service coordination sharing level of infrastructure such as transportation, communications, logistics and banking is higher among cities of Guangzhou-Shenzhen, Guangzhou-Foshan and Shenzhen-Dongguan. And Hong Kong and Macao have institutional advantages in cross-border regional coordination. 2) Guangzhou and Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Foshan, Shenzhen and Dongguan, and Hong Kong and Shenzhen have the best level of coordinated development in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. At the same time, Guangzhou and Dongguan, Shenzhen and Foshan show a linkage trend. Although the de-boundary trend is obvious and the interurban liquidity is enhanced, the coordinated development level of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area is generally not high. 3) The collaborative capacity of Guangzhou and Shenzhen is the strongest, and there is still much room for improvement in the collaborative capacity of the two international cities, Hong Kong and Macao. It is of great practical value to deeply understand the typical characteristics and potential trends of the coordinated development of urban agglomeration in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area for the construction of international first-class bay area and world-class urban agglomeration.