“一带一路”背景下博多河流域景观格局变化及生态风险评价研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2021.04.2020082

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

“一带一路”沿线国家的生态风险研究有利于区域可持续发展，充分发挥对外辐射的作用，促进国家间经济流动、贸易畅通，实现共同繁荣。以孟加拉国博多河流域为例，选取1980—2017年期间的5期遥感影像，基于景观格局指数建立生态风险模型，综合运用空间自相关分析法、地统计学分析法、重心转移法等方法，研究流域景观格局变化特征以及生态风险演变规律。结果表明：（1）1980—2017年流域内景观类型主要是林地和耕地，且景观格局变化显著，耕地和湿地面积减少，林地、建设用地和未利用地面积增加；（2）1980年以来，流域生态风险整体呈下降趋势，但各类风险转化显著，除低风险区面积减少之外，其余风险区均存在不同程度的增加，各期流域生态风险重心均位于锡拉杰甘杰县，主要在流域中部沿南北方向发生偏移；（3）流域内各期的生态风险在空间上呈显著正相关关系，“高-高”集聚基本稳定，主要分布在博多河及其沿岸；“低-低”集聚变化显著，由博多河下游先向上游及流域西南部变化，后逐渐向流域西部和南部聚拢。研究结果为构建流域生态安全格局及进行生态风险预警工作等提供科学依据和理论支撑。

关键词: 生态风险, 景观格局指数, 重心转移, 博多河流域, “一带一路”

Abstract:

This paper took the Padam River Basin in Bangladesh as the research object, constructing the landscape ecological risk assessment model based on landscape pattern index. Autocorrelation analysis, geo-statistical analysis and center of gravity transfer model were used to study the landscape change and the temporal and spatial characteristics of the basin based on 5 remote sensing images from 1980 to 2017.The results show that: (1)From 1980 to 2017,forest land and cultivated land are Main landscape types in the basin. There were clear changes in the landscape types, in which the areas of cultivated land and wet land decline substantially, and the forest land, building land, unused land increase; (2) During the period of 1980-2017, the overall ecological risk declines continuously and various types of risks transform significantly. Except for the reduction in the area of low-risk areas, the remaining risk areas increased to varying degrees. The ecological risk gravity center in each period of the basin in located in Sirajganj District, mainly transfers along the north-south direction; (3) The global Moran's index of each period indicates the ecological risk in the study area showing positive spatial correlation characteristics. The HH accumulation is basically stable, which mainly distributes on the Padam River and its coasts. The low value aggregation region changes significantly, and it finallygathers in the west and south of the basin. The result of study could provide a scientific theoretical basis and reliable technical support for constructing regional ecological security patterns and establishing the early warning mechanism.

Key words: ecological risk, landscape pattern index, center of gravity transfer, Padam River Basin, "Belt and Road" Initiative

岳启发, 赵筱青, 李思楠, 谭琨, 普军伟, 王茜. “一带一路”背景下博多河流域景观格局变化及生态风险评价研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(4): 839-850.

Qifa YUE, Xiaoqing ZHAO, Sinan LI, Kun TAN, Junwei PU, Qian WANG. Landscape pattern changes and ecological risk in the Padam River Basin under the background of the "Belt and Road" Initiative[J]. World Regional Studies, 2021, 30(4): 839-850.

图/表 10

图1 博多河流域地理位置及生态风险评价单元的划分

Fig.1 Location and ecological evaluation unit division in Padam River Basin

表1 景观格局指数计算方法

Tab.1 Calculation of landscape pattern index

指数	公式	意义
破碎度指数(C_i)	$C i = n i A i$	表示景观类型的一定时间和性质下的破碎程度。C_i越大，则景观内的稳定性越差^[21]
分离度指数(F_i)	$F i = A 2 A i n i A$	表示景观类型中不同斑块间的分离程度，F_i越大，则景观中不同板块间越分散，景观分布越复杂^[22]
优势度指数(D_i)	$D i = M i + L i 4 + P i 2$	表示整个景观中某些版块的重要性，D_i的大小直接反映了斑块对景观格局形成和变化的影响程度^[23]
脆弱度指数(S_i)	由专家打分并归一化	表示不同生态系统的易损程度，借鉴前人研究^[24]并结合博多河流域实际情况，对其赋值如下：未利用地为7，湿地为6，水域为5，耕地为4，草地为3，林地为2，建设用地为1，对赋值进行归一化处理，得到各自的脆弱度指数

表1 景观格局指数计算方法

Tab.1 Calculation of landscape pattern index

指数	公式	意义
破碎度指数(C_i)	$C i = n i A i$	表示景观类型的一定时间和性质下的破碎程度。C_i越大，则景观内的稳定性越差^[21]
分离度指数(F_i)	$F i = A 2 A i n i A$	表示景观类型中不同斑块间的分离程度，F_i越大，则景观中不同板块间越分散，景观分布越复杂^[22]
优势度指数(D_i)	$D i = M i + L i 4 + P i 2$	表示整个景观中某些版块的重要性，D_i的大小直接反映了斑块对景观格局形成和变化的影响程度^[23]
脆弱度指数(S_i)	由专家打分并归一化	表示不同生态系统的易损程度，借鉴前人研究^[24]并结合博多河流域实际情况，对其赋值如下：未利用地为7，湿地为6，水域为5，耕地为4，草地为3，林地为2，建设用地为1，对赋值进行归一化处理，得到各自的脆弱度指数

表2 1980-2017年博多河流域景观格局指数

Tab.2 Patterns of landscape patterns of Padam River Basin from 1980 to 2017

景观类型	时间	面积/km²	斑块数目/个	破碎度	分离度	优势度	干扰度	脆弱度	损失度
草地	1980	1982	15587	0.0786	0.5544	0.2708	0.2598	0.1071	0.0278
	1990	1504	21721	0.1444	0.8625	0.2918	0.3893	0.1071	0.0417
	2000	1689	17802	0.1054	0.6953	0.2845	0.3182	0.1071	0.0341
	2010	1839	21930	0.1192	0.7088	0.3228	0.3368	0.1071	0.0361
	2017	2311	20988	0.0908	0.5518	0.3187	0.2747	0.1071	0.0294
耕地	1980	15194	22015	0.0145	0.0860	0.5552	0.1441	0.1429	0.0206
	1990	13305	40245	0.0302	0.1327	0.5482	0.1646	0.1429	0.0235
	2000	12455	33715	0.0271	0.1298	0.5311	0.1587	0.1429	0.0227
	2010	9760	37502	0.0384	0.1747	0.5012	0.1718	0.1429	0.0245
	2017	7304	39390	0.0539	0.2392	0.4729	0.1933	0.1429	0.0276
林地	1980	10517	35058	0.0333	0.1567	0.5055	0.1648	0.0714	0.0118
	1990	12372	32792	0.0265	0.1288	0.5153	0.1550	0.0714	0.0111
	2000	12104	28102	0.0232	0.1219	0.5115	0.1505	0.0714	0.0107
	2010	15628	16875	0.0108	0.0732	0.5441	0.1362	0.0714	0.0097
	2017	18218	17146	0.0094	0.0633	0.5903	0.1417	0.0714	0.0101
水域	1980	1866	4417	0.0237	0.3135	0.2507	0.1560	0.1786	0.0279
	1990	2115	12890	0.0609	0.4725	0.2698	0.2262	0.1786	0.0404
	2000	2318	12394	0.0535	0.4228	0.2920	0.2120	0.1786	0.0379
	2010	1901	14424	0.0759	0.5560	0.2909	0.2629	0.1786	0.0469
	2017	1359	5475	0.0403	0.4791	0.2594	0.2158	0.1786	0.0385
建设用地	1980	82	330	0.0401	1.9419	0.0115	0.6049	0.0357	0.0216
	1990	112	450	0.0400	1.6601	0.0190	0.5218	0.0357	0.0186
	2000	204	1288	0.0630	1.5453	0.0316	0.5014	0.0357	0.0179
	2010	263	1408	0.0535	1.2539	0.0327	0.4094	0.0357	0.0146
	2017	443	1404	0.0317	0.7450	0.0465	0.2487	0.0357	0.0089
湿地	1980	760	11134	0.1466	1.2227	0.2489	0.4899	0.2143	0.1050
	1990	774	9696	0.1253	1.1200	0.1543	0.4295	0.2143	0.0920
	2000	747	8457	0.1132	1.0835	0.1545	0.4125	0.2143	0.0884
	2010	425	3956	0.0931	1.3023	0.1223	0.4617	0.2143	0.0989
	2017	257	4122	0.1602	2.1968	0.0993	0.7590	0.2143	0.1626
未利用地	1980	594	2977	0.0501	0.8082	0.1135	0.2902	0.2500	0.0726
	1990	812	2639	0.0325	0.5566	0.0915	0.2015	0.2500	0.0504
	2000	1478	3314	0.0224	0.3430	0.1418	0.1425	0.2500	0.0356
	2010	1177	2903	0.0247	0.4031	0.1049	0.1543	0.2500	0.0386
	2017	1103	2592	0.0235	0.4064	0.1161	0.1569	0.2500	0.0392

表2 1980-2017年博多河流域景观格局指数

Tab.2 Patterns of landscape patterns of Padam River Basin from 1980 to 2017

景观类型	时间	面积/km²	斑块数目/个	破碎度	分离度	优势度	干扰度	脆弱度	损失度
草地	1980	1982	15587	0.0786	0.5544	0.2708	0.2598	0.1071	0.0278
	1990	1504	21721	0.1444	0.8625	0.2918	0.3893	0.1071	0.0417
	2000	1689	17802	0.1054	0.6953	0.2845	0.3182	0.1071	0.0341
	2010	1839	21930	0.1192	0.7088	0.3228	0.3368	0.1071	0.0361
	2017	2311	20988	0.0908	0.5518	0.3187	0.2747	0.1071	0.0294
耕地	1980	15194	22015	0.0145	0.0860	0.5552	0.1441	0.1429	0.0206
	1990	13305	40245	0.0302	0.1327	0.5482	0.1646	0.1429	0.0235
	2000	12455	33715	0.0271	0.1298	0.5311	0.1587	0.1429	0.0227
	2010	9760	37502	0.0384	0.1747	0.5012	0.1718	0.1429	0.0245
	2017	7304	39390	0.0539	0.2392	0.4729	0.1933	0.1429	0.0276
林地	1980	10517	35058	0.0333	0.1567	0.5055	0.1648	0.0714	0.0118
	1990	12372	32792	0.0265	0.1288	0.5153	0.1550	0.0714	0.0111
	2000	12104	28102	0.0232	0.1219	0.5115	0.1505	0.0714	0.0107
	2010	15628	16875	0.0108	0.0732	0.5441	0.1362	0.0714	0.0097
	2017	18218	17146	0.0094	0.0633	0.5903	0.1417	0.0714	0.0101
水域	1980	1866	4417	0.0237	0.3135	0.2507	0.1560	0.1786	0.0279
	1990	2115	12890	0.0609	0.4725	0.2698	0.2262	0.1786	0.0404
	2000	2318	12394	0.0535	0.4228	0.2920	0.2120	0.1786	0.0379
	2010	1901	14424	0.0759	0.5560	0.2909	0.2629	0.1786	0.0469
	2017	1359	5475	0.0403	0.4791	0.2594	0.2158	0.1786	0.0385
建设用地	1980	82	330	0.0401	1.9419	0.0115	0.6049	0.0357	0.0216
	1990	112	450	0.0400	1.6601	0.0190	0.5218	0.0357	0.0186
	2000	204	1288	0.0630	1.5453	0.0316	0.5014	0.0357	0.0179
	2010	263	1408	0.0535	1.2539	0.0327	0.4094	0.0357	0.0146
	2017	443	1404	0.0317	0.7450	0.0465	0.2487	0.0357	0.0089
湿地	1980	760	11134	0.1466	1.2227	0.2489	0.4899	0.2143	0.1050
	1990	774	9696	0.1253	1.1200	0.1543	0.4295	0.2143	0.0920
	2000	747	8457	0.1132	1.0835	0.1545	0.4125	0.2143	0.0884
	2010	425	3956	0.0931	1.3023	0.1223	0.4617	0.2143	0.0989
	2017	257	4122	0.1602	2.1968	0.0993	0.7590	0.2143	0.1626
未利用地	1980	594	2977	0.0501	0.8082	0.1135	0.2902	0.2500	0.0726
	1990	812	2639	0.0325	0.5566	0.0915	0.2015	0.2500	0.0504
	2000	1478	3314	0.0224	0.3430	0.1418	0.1425	0.2500	0.0356
	2010	1177	2903	0.0247	0.4031	0.1049	0.1543	0.2500	0.0386
	2017	1103	2592	0.0235	0.4064	0.1161	0.1569	0.2500	0.0392

表3 博多河流域各景观生态风险平均值

Tab.3 Average ecological risk index of each landscape in Padam River Basin

年份	草地	耕地	林地	水域	建设用地	湿地	未利用地
1980	0.001788	0.013897	0.002488	0.001585	0.000018	0.002577	0.001392
1990	0.002024	0.010092	0.004418	0.002756	0.000068	0.002298	0.001321
2000	0.001858	0.009110	0.004197	0.002831	0.000118	0.002131	0.001698
2010	0.002141	0.007730	0.004904	0.002880	0.000124	0.001357	0.001464
2017	0.002194	0.006507	0.005951	0.001690	0.000127	0.001350	0.001395

表4 博多河流域生态风险指数半变异函数拟合参数

Tab.4 Fitting model parameters of variation function of landscape ecological risk index in Padam River Basin

年份	模型	块金值	基台值	块金基台比	变程	R²	RSS
1980	高斯模型	0.018	0.0512	35.2%	28925	0.895	7.003×10^-5
1990	指数模型	0.0023	0.1036	2.2%	56100	0.918	4.522×10^-4
2000	指数模型	0.0097	0.0801	12.1%	54300	0.896	2.36×10^-4
2010	指数模型	0.0102	0.09	11.3%	43200	0.917	1.936×10^-4
2017	指数模型	0.0049	0.1198	4.1%	25400	0.987	4.431×10^-5

图2 博多河流域生态风险空间分布图

Fig.2 Spatial distribution of ecological risk in Padam River Basin

表5 博多河流域生态风险等级面积及变化情况 (km2)

Tab.5 Distribution and area changes of the ecological risk grades in Padam River Basin(km2)

时间	低风险	较低风险	中风险	较高风险	高风险
1980	14782.87	7754.88	4210.81	2764.15	1482.04
1990	7193.11	14303.49	4877.34	3080.59	1540.22
2000	9988.49	12189.18	4775.73	3102.7	938.65
2010	10798.94	11052.04	4084.58	3566.54	1492.66
2017	10169.65	10143.56	6127.57	2898.71	1655.26
1980—1990	—7589.76	6548.61	666.53	316.44	58.18
1990—2000	2795.38	—2114.31	—101.61	22.11	—601.57
2000—2010	810.45	—1137.14	—691.15	463.84	554.01
2010—2017	—629.29	—908.48	2042.99	—667.83	162.6
1980—2017	—4613.22	2388.68	1916.76	134.56	173.22

图3 博多河流域生态风险的重心变化轨迹

Fig.3 Ecological risk of gravity trajectory in Padam River Basin

图4 博多河流域景观生态风险Moran散点图

Fig.4 Moran scatter of landscape ecological risk in Padam River Basin

图5 博多河流域生态风险局部自相关图

Fig.5 Local autocorrelation of ecological risk in Padam River Basin

参考文献 32

1	彭建, 党威雄, 刘焱序, 等. 景观生态风险评价研究进展与展望. 地理学报, 2015, 70(4): 664-677.
	Peng J, Dang W, Liu Y, et al. Review on landscape ecological risk assessment. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(4): 664-677.
2	Zhang R, Pu L, Li J, et al. Landscape ecological security response to land use change in the tidal flat reclamation zone, China. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2016, 188(1): 1-10.
3	曹玉红, 陈晨, 张大鹏, 等. 皖江城市带土地利用变化的生态风险格局演化研究. 生态学报, 2019, 39(13): 4773-4781.
	Cao Y, Chen C, Zhang D, et al. Evolution of ecological risk pattern of land use change in Wanjiang City Belt. Acta Ecological Sinica, 2019, 39(13): 4773-4781.
4	刘晓, 苏维词, 王铮, 等. 基于RRM模型的三峡库区重庆开县消落区土地利用生态风险评价. 环境科学学报, 2012, 32(01): 248-256.
	Liu X, Su W, Wang Z, et al. Regional ecological risk assessment of land use in the flooding zone of the Three Gorges Reservoir area based on relative risk model. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2012, 32(01): 248-256.
5	时卉, 杨兆萍, 韩芳, 等. 干旱区高山湿地生态风险时空变化——以巴音布鲁克自然遗产地为例. 干旱区研究, 2015, 32(03): 614-621.
	Shi F, Yang Z, Han F, et al. Analysis of ecological risk temporal-spatial change in arid alpine wetland——A case study of Bayanbulak world natural heritage site. Arid Zone Research, 2015, 32(03): 614-621.
6	汪翡翠, 汪东川, 张利辉, 等. 京津冀城市群土地利用生态风险的时空变化分析. 生态学报, 2018, 38(12): 4307-4316.
	Wang F, Wang D, Zhang L, et al. Spatiotemporal analysis of the dynamic changes in land use ecological risks in the urban agglomeration of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Acta Ecological Sinica, 2018, 38(12): 4307-4316.
7	刘春艳, 张科, 刘吉平. 1976—2013年三江平原景观生态风险变化及驱动力. 生态学报, 2018, 38(11): 3729-3740.
	Liu C, Zhang K, Liu J. A long-term site study for the ecological risk migration of landscapes and its driving forces in the Sanjiang Plain from 1976 to 2013. Acta Ecological Sinica, 2018, 38(11): 3729-3740.
8	Ayre K K, Landis W G. A Bayesian approach to landscape ecological risk assessment applied to the upper grande ronde watershed, Oregon. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 2012, 18(5): 946-970.
9	Nemec K T, Raudsepp-Hearne C. The use of geographic information systems to map and assess ecosystem services. Biodiversity and conservation, 2013, 22(1): 1-15.
10	Xu C, Pu L, Zhu M, et al. Ecological security and ecosystem services in response to land use change in the coastal area of Jiangsu, China. Sustainability, 2016, 8(8): 816-839.
11	Tian P, Li J, Gong H, et al. Research on land use changes and ecological risk assessment in Yongjiang River Basin in Zhejiang Province, China. Sustainability, 2019, 11(10): 2817-2836.
12	Xie H, Wang P, Huang H. Ecological risk assessment of land use change in the Poyang Lake eco-economic zone, China. International journal of environmental research and public health, 2013, 10(1): 328-346.
13	张莹, 雷国平, 林佳, 等. 扎龙自然保护区不同空间尺度景观格局时空变化及其生态风险. 生态学杂志, 2012, 31(05): 1250-1256.
	Zhang Y, Lei G, Lin J, et al. Spatiotemporal change and its ecological risk of landscape pattern in different spatial scales in Zhalong Nature Reserve. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2012, 31(05): 1250-1256.
14	Zou T, Zhang J, Yoshino K. Ecological risk assessment of land use change in the Northeast China: A Case Study of Linjiang Area. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 2016, 7(4): 312-315.
15	刘卫东. "一带一路"战略的科学内涵与科学问题. 地理科学进展, 2015, 34(05): 538-544.
	Liu W. Scientific understanding of the Belt and Road Initiative of China and related research themes. Progress in Geography, 2015, 34(05): 538-544.
16	O" Neill R V, Hunsaker C T, Timmins S P, et al. Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecology, 1996, 11(3):169—180.
17	胡和兵, 刘红玉, 郝敬锋, 等. 流域景观结构的城市化影响与生态风险评价. 生态学报, 2011, 31(12): 3432—3440.
	Hu H, Liu H, Hao J, et al. The urbanization effects on watershed landscape structure and their ecological risk assessment. Acta Ecological Sinica, 2011, 31(12): 3432—3440.
18	黄木易, 何翔. 近20年来巢湖流域景观生态风险评估与时空演化机制. 湖泊科学, 2016, 28(04): 785-793.
	Huang M, He X. Landscape ecological risk assessment and its mechanism in Chaohu Basin during the past almost 20 years. Journal of Lake Sciences, 2016, 28(04): 785-793.
19	周汝佳, 张永战, 何华春. 基于土地利用变化的盐城海岸带生态风险评价. 地理研究, 2016, 35(06): 1017—1028.
	Zhou R, Zhang Y, He H. Ecological risk assessment based on land use changes in the coastal area in Yancheng city. Geographical Research, 2016, 35(06): 1017—1028.
20	吕乐婷, 张杰, 孙才志, 等. 基于土地利用变化的细河流域景观生态风险评估. 生态学报, 2018, 38(16): 5952-5960.
	Lyu Y, Zhang J, Sun C, et al. Landscape ecological risk assessment of Xi river Basin based on land-use change. Acta Ecological Sinica, 2018, 38(16): 5952-5960.
21	潘竟虎, 刘晓. 疏勒河流域景观生态风险评价与生态安全格局优化构建. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(03): 791-799.
	Pan J, Liu X. Landscape ecological risk assessment and landscape security pattern optimization in Shule River Basin. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2016, 35(03): 791-799.
22	吴健生, 乔娜, 彭建, 等. 露天矿区景观生态风险空间分异. 生态学报, 2013, 33(12): 3816-3824.
	Wu J, Qiao N, Peng J, et al. Spatial variation of landscape eco-risk in open mine area. Acta Ecological Sinica, 2013, 33(12): 3816-3824.
23	Hualin X, Peng W, Hongsheng H. Ecological risk assessment of land use change in the Poyang Lake Eco-economic Zone, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2013, 10(1):328-346.
24	王涛, 张超, 于晓童,等. 洱海流域土地利用变化及其对景观生态风险的影响. 生态学杂志, 2017, 36(07): 2003-2009.
	Wang T, Zhang T, Yu X, et al. Effect of land use change on landscape ecological security in Erhai Basin. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2017, 36(07): 2003-2009.
25	Anselin L. Local indicators of spatial association-LISA. Geographical Analysis, 1995, 27(2):93-115.
26	Pardo—Igúzquiza Eulogio.VARFIT: A fortran-77 program for fitting variogram models by weighted least squares. Computers & Geosciences, 1999, 25(3):251-261.
27	He Y, Chen Y, Tang H, et al. Exploring spatial change and gravity center movement for ecosystem services value using a spatially explicit ecosystem services value index and gravity model. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment, 2011, 175(1-4):563-571.
28	叶长盛, 冯艳芬. 基于土地利用变化的珠江三角洲生态风险评价. 农业工程学报, 2013, 29(19): 224-232.
	Ye C, Feng Y. Ecological risk assessment for Pearl River Delta based on land use change. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2013, 29(19): 224-232.
29	赵越, 罗志军, 李雅婷, 等. 赣江上游流域景观生态风险的时空分异——从生产-生活-生态空间的视角. 生态学报, 2019, 39(13): 4676-4686.
	Zhao Y, Luo Z, Li Y. et al. Study of the spatial-temporal variation of landscape ecological risk in the upper reaches of the Ganjiang River Basin based on the "production-living-ecological space". Acta Ecological Sinica, 2019, 39(13): 4676-4686.
30	李哈滨, 王政权. 空间异质性定量研究理论与方法. 应用生态学报, 1998,9(6): 651-657.
	Li H, Wang Z. Theory and methodology of spatial heterogeneity quantification]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 1998,9(6): 651-657.
31	傅伯杰. 地理学综合研究的途径与方法: 格局与过程耦合. 地理学报, 2014, 69(08): 1052-1059.
	Fu B. The integrated studies of geography:Coupling of patterns and processes. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2014, 69(08): 1052-1059.
32	曹祺文, 张曦文, 马洪坤, 等.景观生态风险研究进展及基于生态系统服务的评价框架:ESRISK. 地理学报, 2018, 73(05): 843-855.
	Cao Q, Zhang X, Ma H, et al. Review of landscape ecological risk and an assessment framework based on ecological services: ESRISK. Acta Geographica Sinica,2018,73(05):843-855.

[1]	尹旭, 李鹏, 封志明, 游珍, 肖池伟. 2000—2019年越南人口时空分异特征及其演变类型[J]. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(5): 941-952.
[2]	吴丽君, 朱宇, 颜俊, 柯文前, 林李月. “一带一路”沿线国家或地区间人口迁移的空间格局及其演化特征[J]. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(2): 249-258.
[3]	孙曼, 宋涛, 计启迪. 边境城镇的产业演化及其机制研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(2): 388-398.
[4]	马丽君, 邓思凡. “一带一路”对国民出境沿线国家旅游需求的促进效应[J]. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(1): 41-52.
[5]	车冰清, 孙东琪, 朱传耿. “一带一路”建设背景下中国区域空间响应差异及形成机制[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(5): 903-912.
[6]	濮蓉, 陶卓民, 李涛. “一带一路”沿线主要国家旅游竞争力与旅游服务出口协调度时空演变[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(5): 948-956.
[7]	姚峪岩, 张翼飞, 金紫洋, 蒋烨. “一带一路”绿色贸易合作与竞争格局研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(4): 792-801.
[8]	刘承良, 杜德斌, 李源. 服务“一带一路”的世界地理课程思政“金字塔”教学模式[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(4): 873-881.
[9]	胡志丁, 葛岳静, 杜德斌, 刘玉立. 走向伟大复兴的中国地缘战略：国家周边论[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(3): 443-453.
[10]	胡建梅, 郝杰, 张意博, 张超. 中国对外援助的空间演化分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(3): 454-464.
[11]	公丕萍, 姜超. “一带一路”建设对沿线国家经济增长的影响效果与中介路径[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(3): 465-477.
[12]	王佩玉, 魏冶, 高鑫. “一带一路”商品贸易网络的社团结构及其经济收敛效应研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(1): 25-36.
[13]	朱尧, 邹永广, 李强红, 李志强. 网络关系视角下中国公民出境旅游安全感知事件时空分布特征[J]. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(6): 1304-1312.
[14]	蒋小荣, 杨永春, 汪胜兰. 甘肃省面向“一带一路”沿线出口贸易格局演变及其影响因素分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(5): 1029-1039.
[15]	巫细波, 程风雨, 罗谷松. “一带一路”沿线汽车市场时空变化特征及影响因素研究：基于2005—2017年面板数据[J]. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(4): 814-824.