An Analysis of the Degree of Coupling and Coordination of Agricultural Modernization and New-Type Urbanization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle

Wu Xiaoxuan and Liu Hang

Party School of Sichuan Committee of C.P.C

Abstract: Based on the panel data (2005-2019) of cities (prefectures) in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle, we have developed an evaluation system for agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization that measures the development level of each city and applies the coupling and coordination model to calculate their coupling and combination levels. The results indicate that the level of comprehensive order parameters of agricultural modernization in various cities (prefectures) in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle generally displays an upward trend. The areas with high-degree agricultural modernization were mainly distributed in Chengdu from 2005 to 2010, and the center of agricultural modernization was shifted to western areas after 2010, with a stable upward trend in the level of comprehensive order parameters of new-type urbanization. In terms of coupling degree, there was an overall upward trend. Except for Nanchong and Dazhou, other cities (prefectures) progressed from “Undeveloped Coordination” to “Intermediate Coordination.” The imbalanced development of agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization continually improved, with the combination level increasing from “Low-Low” to “Medium-Medium.”

Keywords: Chengdu-Chongqing, agricultural modernization, new-type urbanization, coupling and coordination

Introduction

In March 2014, theNational New-Type Urbanization Plan (2014-2020)was released, which proposed that China would uphold the path of new-type agricultural modernization with Chinese characteristics, and that “urbanization would serve as an important way to solve the issues relating to agriculture, rural areas, and rural residents.” InThe 14th Five-Year Plan for Promoting Agricultural and Rural Modernizationissued by the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, China would accelerate the construction of modern agriculture, strengthen the support of modern agricultural science and technology, optimize the modern rural industrial system, and boost the twoway flow of urban and rural elements, which would further clarify the importance of the coordinated development of agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization. On November 11, 2021, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China adopted theResolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century, which emphasized promoting the construction of people-oriented new-type urbanization in economic construction and strengthening urban planning, construction, and governance. The Communist Party of China has always made issues relating to agriculture, rural areas, and rural residents a top priority. It has introduced rural revitalization strategies and accelerated the modernization of agriculture and rural areas… With all these efforts, the Chinese people can ensure the country’s food security (“Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century,” 2021, p 14). Therefore, to clarify the temporal and spatial characteristics and the coupling degree of agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization, as well as how to effectively coordinate their development, possesses great significance for the highquality coordinated development of the agricultural industry and urbanization, the acceleration of the two-way flow of urban and rural elements, and the construction of new-type urban-rural relationships.

The connotation of agricultural modernization increasingly diversifies with technological, economic, and social innovation. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, China has vigorously integrated rural revitalization strategies with urban development to promote the construction of agricultural modernization, increase rural residents’ income, and advance sustainable and high-quality agricultural development (Jiang, Lu & Zhang, 2019). Basically, the mainstream view on the definition and connotation of agricultural modernization centers on developing agriculture that accords with high-yield, high-quality, high-efficiency, ecological standards, and food security and takes into account science & technology, society, and the environment to narrow the gap between urban and rural areas and promote the all-round progress of rural areas and agriculture (Research group of “Research on the construction of agricultural modernization evaluation index system,” Zhang & Xia, 2012). Relevant domestic studies discuss agricultural modernization from different aspects on the basis of measuring the level of agricultural modernization from different dimensions. Lu Yilong (2018) explored the existing problems of agricultural modernization from the perspective of rural revitalization. Lou Yuhua (2019) confirmed the driving effect of industrialization on agricultural modernization by applying the system dynamics model. An Xiaoning (2020) constructed an index system to measure the agricultural modernization system, revealing that the development of agricultural modernization in China is making remarkable progress, yet regional imbalances seem prominent. Luo Qianfeng (2021) examined the path to achieve agricultural modernization from the perspective of three systems: element allocation, structural optimization, and functional expansion. In terms of relevant foreign studies, M. A. Altieri (1997) verified the promoting role of agricultural modernization and biological control, which demonstrated the support of modernization for sustainable development. G. Bahiigwa (2005) researched the role of agricultural modernization in poverty alleviation in Uganda. T. Garnett (2013) investigated the role of agricultural modernization in rural economic development and sustainable development. Hilde Bjørkhaug (2018) scrutinized the connection between farm modernization and rural development and resilience, as well as the path to achieve agricultural modernization.

Urbanization means a socio-economic evolution that involves various aspects (Zhang, 2013). Meanwhile, with urbanization comes the problem of urban-rural imbalance, i.e., the imbalanced development of urbanization, industry, and agriculture (Leng, 2016). In terms of urbanization, many foreign scholars concentrated on the impact of urbanization on the environment and climate (Kalnay, Cai, et al., 2003; Mckinney, 2002a, 2002b, 2006), and the optimization of spatial layouts after urbanization (Lehrer & Schooley, 2010). Domestic scholars considered new-type urbanization from multiple approaches. Wen Ting (2021) took the Yangtze River Economic Belt as a research topic and probed the impact of the agglomeration of the logistics industry on new-type urbanization. Lyu Ping (2021) emphasized the perspective of rural revitalization and analyzed the temporal and spatial evolution characteristics of the coordinated development of new-type urbanization and rural revitalization in China. Zhu Yuanyuan (2021) started from the coordinated development of food security and new-type urbanization, and quantitatively discussed the influential elements of the coordinated development of the two systems.

Agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization are practical ways to coordinate the integrated development of urban and rural areas and implement the rural revitalization strategies for people-centered urbanization development. In terms of the relationship between agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization, relevant studies have measured it from different scales. In relevant foreign studies, M. Tiffen (2003) analyzed the relationships between agriculture, urbanization, and income growth, and obtained mixed results. St. Hilaire (2016) studied the role of water quality in urbanization and agriculture. D. Elias (2014) explored the impact of agricultural science and technology and informatization on urbanization in Brazil. K. Palanisamy (2016) focused on the sustainability of urbanization and agricultural development. Drebold (2017) elaborated on the relationship between rapid urbanization and food security. Adriana Allen (2014) demonstrates that urban agriculture allows for environmental sustainability and fair urbanization in Accra. In terms of relevant research on domestic scholars, Ma Yuan (2010) revealed that urbanization, agricultural modernization, and industrialstructure adjustments form a long-term balanced relationship and promote each other. Zhou Zhanqiang (2012) discovered that industrialization and urbanization have a significant impact on agricultural modernization. Cheng Li et al. (2013) concluded that the development of agricultural modernization, including the improvement of the level of agricultural mechanization and the optimization of agricultural structure, helps to narrow the income gap between urban and rural areas. Xin Ling (2016) proved that presently, the matching degree of agricultural modernization and urbanization remains low, and that their coordinated development centers on fostering agricultural modernization. Zhang Bosheng (2020) observed that the coupling and coordination of urban-rural coordinated development and rural poverty governance develop in a favorable and interactive way. Liu Heng (2021) expounded that the imbalance of the coupling and coordinated development of agricultural modernization and urban-rural integration slows down year by year and presents the distribution characteristics of “highlevel in the east and low-level in the southwest.” Jiang Zhengyun (2021) measured the central region, as well as agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization in different provinces (Wen, Li, Zhou, Lu, Zhang & Zhao, 2020), concluding that in spite of the fact that the development of agricultural modernization does not keep pace with that of new-type urbanization, the coupling degree tends to be continuously optimized. Thus, it can be safely stated that the theoretical connotation and level measurement of agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization have been studied to varying degrees, and the results indicate that agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization promote each other, yet they can be improved.

The Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle is a key area for China to promote the construction of new-type urbanization and an important layout for China to advance regional development. The construction of the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle not only plays an irreplaceable leading role in the development of Western China and the nearby urbanization of more than 100 million people, but also provides a beneficial exploration of the model of new-type urbanization in Western China. In Western China, the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle boasts the highest level of urbanization. With great development potential, the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle is an integral part of the development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt and the Belt and Road Initiative. Giving consideration of the achievements and shortcomings of the existing literature, we proceeded from the perspective of new-type urbanization and agricultural modernization and took the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle as the research object, measured the synergistic effect between them using the coupling and coordination model, and analyzed the mechanism between them to provide empirical support for promoting the development of agricultural modernization and the construction of new-type urbanization.

The Mechanism of the Coupling and Coordination Model

According to the existing literature and policies, the agricultural modernization index system we used for our analysis consists of comprehensive agricultural production capacity, sustainable agricultural development capacity, and agricultural mechanization which aims to improve the quality of agricultural and rural development. New-type urbanization highlights the integrated development of population, industry, economy, society, space, and environment (Wang, Tian & Qin, 2020).

On the one hand, agricultural modernization has actively promoted the rapid development of new-type urbanization. First, the promotion of agricultural modernization will gradually enhance the mechanization and informatization of agricultural production, enormously improve the production efficiency of the primary industry, raise the living standards of rural residents, continuously provide a market for the flow of urban resources and provide a micro-economic foundation for the promotion of urbanization. Therefore, the significance of vigorously promoting agricultural modernization lies not only in rural development, but also in the cornerstone of urbanization (Shen, 2013). Second, the development of agricultural modernization provides more high-quality resources (e.g., high-quality agricultural and sideline products) and various high-quality raw materials and processed products for urban construction. Finally, agricultural modernization liberates the agricultural surplus labor force, provides rich labor resources for the development of urbanization, accelerates the flow of highquality people to cities and towns, and creates a talent pool for the construction and development of urbanization. On the other hand, with the development of agricultural modernization, the development of new-type urbanization faces pressure to some degree. As more rural laborers flow into the cities, the speed of urban development slows. As a result, the pressure of urbanization-construction remains high (Niu and Long, 2020). Owing to the vulnerability of agriculture, the industry needs a great deal of capital investment and talent support, which depletes the funds and talents available for urbanization, yet construction of new-type urbanization also promotes the development of agricultural modernization. The advancement of urbanization provides not only financial, technological, and talent support for agricultural and rural modernization, but also the market to absorb the achievements of agricultural modernization. First, the large amount of funds that is accumulated in cities and towns will be invested into agricultural production, which quickens the operation of large-scale agricultural projects, facilitates the intensive and large-scale development of agricultural production, and expedites the reform of agricultural production models (Zhu, 2020). Second, cities provide technological and talent support for agricultural modernization. Advanced technologies and equipment in cities and towns are applied to agriculture and rural areas, which raises production efficiency and effectively boosts the development of agricultural mechanization and informatization (Ju, 2016). Third, cities provide necessary consumer markets for agricultural products, create conditions for land transfers, ameliorate rural infrastructure and life and improve the levels of rural construction. Simultaneously, in the development of urbanization, with unique advantages, cities expand into rural land and attract the rural labor force, talents, and other resources, which results in a shortage of labor available for agricultural production. Moreover, rural residents often lack the knowledge of and enthusiasm for new-type agriculture, which probably weakens the popularity of new-type agriculture and impedes the overall process of agricultural modernization (He, 2017).

Under the traditional dualistic structure, cities and rural areas separately take different paths of modernization, which gives rise to the gradual decline of rural areas and the rapid expansion of urbanization (Yang, 2021). The connotation of agricultural modernization in China, however, is to give consideration to efficiency and sustainable development, as the integration and optimization of rural resources are coordinated with urbanization. New-type urbanization is not meant to develop cities and towns one-sidedly, but the balanced and coordinated development of cities and rural areas (Gao, 2020). As the existing literature and data suggest, agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization are interdependent and interrelated.

Index Construction and Data Sources

Index Construction

In terms of agricultural modernization, we combined the practices of Wen Feng (2020) and Liu Heng (2021) considered the availability of various data and the representativeness of agricultural modernization, selected the following indexes for quantitative calculation, and constructed a threelayered system: agricultural comprehensive production capacity, agricultural sustainable development capacity, and agricultural mechanization. Agricultural comprehensive production capacity includes rural per capita disposable income, agricultural sustainable development capacity includes the pesticide amount per unit of cultivated land, and agricultural mechanization includes the total power of agricultural machinery per unit of cultivated land (see Table 1).

In terms of new-type urbanization, we followed the practice of Jiang Zhengyun (2021), and divided new-type urbanization into six dimensions (i.e. population urbanization, industrial urbanization, economic urbanization, social urbanization, spatial urbanization, and environmental urbanization) to construct the evaluation indexes of development. Specifically, population urbanization includes the urbanization rate and population density of permanent residents, industrial urbanization includes the density of the secondary and tertiary industries, per capita GDP and others, economic urbanization includes the average wage of urban employees, the per capita disposable income of urban residents and others, social urbanization includes per capita education funds, hospital beds per 10,000 people and others, spatial urbanization includes the proportion of construction land, per capita urban road area and others, and environmental urbanization includes urban sewage treatment rate, urban household waste treatment rate and others (see Table 2).

Table 1 Index System of Agricultural Modernization

Table 2 Index System of New-Type Urbanization

System layer Index layer Attribute Unit Weight Spatial urbanization The proportion of construction land + % 4.03%Urban road area per capita + m2 / Person 4.52%urban area per capita + m2 / Person 4.25%Environmental urbanization Urban sewage treatment rate + % 4.82%Urban house waste treatment rate + % 4.87%Urban green space area per capita + m2 4.71%

Data Sources

Given the availability of data, the index data we used for our analysis came fromSichuan Statistical YearbookandChongqing Statistical Yearbookfrom 2005 to 2020. As some data were missing for several years, we used a moving weighted average to estimate the missing values to reduce the biased error of the evaluation results caused by the missing data.

Research Methods

Entropy Value Method

Data standardization.

As the units of the selected indexes vary, we nondimensionalized them rather than compare them directly. Supposeaijstands for the actual value of thejindex in the year.

In particular,bijstands for the standardized value of thejindex in theiyear, andajmaxandajminstand for the maximum and minimum values of the index, respectively.

Determining the weights.

The entropy value method refers to the method that determines the weights in multi-objective comprehensive decision-making. Entropy determines the weight by defining entropy, which is based on the dispersion degree of an index. A greater dispersion degree denotes a greater impact on the index of comprehensive evaluation and greater weight. Accordingly, we used the entropy value method to calculate the weight of each index to provide a basis for multi-objective comprehensive evaluation.

Suppose that there aremindexes andnyears to be evaluated; the specific calculation steps are as follows.

hjstands for the entropy of thejindex,nstands for the number of states the system may be in, andpijstands for the probability of a certain state of the system.

After the entropy value of each index is obtained, the weight of each index can be calculated.

In particular,wjstands for the weight of thejindex.

Index calculation method.

The calculation method of the agricultural modernization index and new-type urbanization index is as follows:

In particular,Fistands for the comprehensive order parameter of agricultural modernization or new-type urbanization in theiyear.

The Coupling and Coordination Degree Model

To quantitatively measure the relationship between agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization in a more accurate way, we followed the idea that Xue Lei et al. (2019) introduced in their coupling and coordination degree model and divided the coupling and coordination degree into ten levels. Afterwards, to present the coupling and coordination degree of agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization in a more intuitive way, we categorized them into five types in line with the kernel density distribution of agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization (Figure 1 and Figure 3). Additionally, we followed the practice of Cui Xuegang (2018) and Liu Heng (2021) and specified the combination level of agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization. There are five combination levels, i.e., high agricultural modernization & high new-type urbanization (high-high), high agricultural modernization and low new-type urbanization (high-low), medium agricultural modernization and medium new-type urbanization (medium-medium), low agricultural modernization and high new-type urbanization (low-high) and low agricultural modernization and low new-type urbanization (low-low).

Figure 1 The mechanism of the coupling and coordination of agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization

Figure 2 The kernel density of agricultural modernization

Figure 3 The spatial evolution of agricultural modernization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle in representative years

Figure 4 The kernel density of new-type urbanization

Figure 5 The spatial evolution of new-type urbanization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle in representative years

The measurement methods of the coupling degree (C), the development degree (T) and the coordination degree (D) are as follows:

In particular,MODiandURBiare the comprehensive order parameters of agricultural modernization and new-type urbanization, respectively, andαandβare undetermined parameters, both of which are taken as 0.5.

Empirical Analysis

The Temporal and Spatial Evolution of the Agricultural Modernization Index in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle

Temporally, the level of agricultural modernization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle displayed an upward trend from 2005 to 2019. The standard deviation of each city was maintained at less than 0.1, and the range was roughly maintained between 0.20 to 0.27. From 2005 to 2014, the range demonstrated an expanding trend, increasing from 0.2019 to 0.2622. From 2014 to 2016, the range presented a downward trend, decreasing to 0.1842 in 2016. From 2016 to 2019, the range enlarged again. In terms of the comprehensive order parameter of agricultural modernization, the maximum value appeared in Chengdu and Ya’an, and the minimum value appeared in Meishan, Zigong and Chongqing. In terms of fluctuation, it mainly occurred in Sichuan province in 2010, and the agricultural modernization index of each city declined to varying degrees. Twelve cities, including Chengdu, Neijiang, and Leshan, sank to their lowest levels since 2005. The most likely reason was the severe drought in Southwest China from the autumn of 2009 to the spring of 2010. Such a drought was rarely seen in the previous 50 years either in the duration, stricken area, or the reduction of precipitation. Extreme climate has a great impact on agricultural output, and comprehensive agricultural production capacity functions as an important index to measure agricultural modernization. Therefore, the level of agricultural modernization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle dropped sharply in 2010. Due to the vulnerability of agriculture, it rose in 2011, yet failed to reach the levels of 2009. In addition to the fluctuation in 2010, only Chengdu and Meishan maintained an upward trend in 2018, while other cities decreased to varying degrees over 2017. Particularly, in Leshan and Ziyang, the level decreased by 11.50 percent and 10.41 percent, respectively. In Ya’an, it decreased significantly by 21.42 percent in 2018, to the lowest level of 0.4731 since 2005, yet it increased remarkably by 46.52 percent, to the highest level of 0.6932 in 2019. In Chongqing, the agricultural modernization index increased by an average rate of 2.04 percent over the years, except that it decreased by 1.64 percent in 2006. The main reason why the agricultural modernization index of Chongqing was lower than those of cities in Sichuan was that the cultivated land area of Chongqing was larger. The cultivated land area of Chongqing was 9.78 times that of Chengdu in 2005, and around 6.4 times that of Chengdu in 2019, while other indexes of total volume did not reach the level.

Spatially, Chengdu and Ya’an maintained high levels in the agricultural modernization index in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle. Noticeably, from 2005 to 2010, the phenomenon of polarization occurred in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle. Chengdu embodied high-level agricultural modernization. Cities (e.g., Ziyang and Leshan) that adjoined Chengdu and Chongqing developed well, whereas cities (e.g., Zigong and Meishan) that are far from Chengdu and Chongqing developed slowly. From 2010 to 2019, as China gradually entered the late stage of industrialization (Huang, 2021), the level of agricultural modernization in Western China increased year by year. The average level of the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle increased from 0.3937 in 2005 to 0.5480 in 2019, with the landscape of agricultural modernization developing in a balanced way.

The Temporal and Spatial Evolution of the New-Type Urbanization Index in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle

Temporally, the level of new-type urbanization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle basically displayed a steady upward trend from 2005 to 2019, with an average annual growth rate ofc.6.96 percent and an average standard deviation ofc.0.094. The range increased from 0.2047 in 2005 to 0.3486 in 2019, demonstrating an enlarging trend and indicating the larger gaps in urbanization levels in various cities. The maximum value of the new-type urbanization index appeared in Chengdu and Chongqing. The minimum value appeared in Suining in 2005, Neijiang in 2006-2008, Nanchong in 2009-2012 (the development of the newtype urbanization there lagged behind), and Dazhou in 2014-2019. In Sichuan province, Chengdu kept far ahead of all other cities in the new-type urbanization level and achieved stable growth from 0.3520 in 2005 to 0.7880 in 2019. Chengdu also enjoyed the highest urbanization level or index in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle. Urbanization in other cities developed at the same level. In 2006, the level in Guang’an, Luzhou, and Zigong declined. In 2014, the level in Dazhou decreased by 7.44 percent. In other years, all cities basically actualized steady increases, and the average urbanization level increased from 0.2071 to 0.5101. Chongqing realized an average growth rate of 8.89 percent from 2005 to 2019, from 0.1852 to 0.6017. In 2019, Chongqing ranked second in the level of the newtype urbanization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle.

Spatially, from 2005 to 2010, the spatial distribution patterns of the new-type urbanization and agricultural modernization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle were similar. From 2010 to 2019, compared with the pattern of agricultural modernization, the bipolar-driven trend of the new-type urbanization became more obvious, with the role of polarization and dispersion more prominent. On the one hand, owing to complete infrastructure and high-degree industrial agglomeration, Chengdu and Chongqing gradually forged economies of scale under the effect of polarization. Meanwhile, this affected the surrounding areas, Meishan and Dazhou, to some extent. On the other hand, the phenomenon of dispersion played an increasingly important role. The surrounding areas of Chengdu and Chongqing, such as Ziyang, Deyang, and Guang’an, acquired elements such as capital and talent from the central cities, which stimulated and promoted the development of urbanization. Besides, the urbanization of cities like Nanchong, which stand in between and stay far from two the poles of Chengdu and Chongqing, developed slowly.

The Analysis of the Coupling Degree or Level in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle

Regarding the coupling degree of agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization, there was a high-degree of coordination in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle, with only smallscale fluctuations. From 2005 to 2019, the average value was 0.9812, the lowest value was 0.8903 (in Suining in 2005), and the value in other cities was above 0.9. The coupling degree of most cities in Sichuan province realized relatively stable growth. The coupling degrees of Suining in 2005 and 2006 were relatively lower than those in other cities. However, there was an obvious increase in 2007. The main reason was because the degree of the new-type urbanization in Suining remained low in 2005 and 2006, while the degree of agricultural modernization did not match it, resulting in a low-degree of coordination between them. Likewise, the coordination degree of Ya’an before 2016 was low, mainly because the degree of agricultural modernization remained high and the level of the early-stage newtype urbanization proved relatively slow, resulting in dissatisfactory coordination between agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization. Chongqing maintained a high-degree of coupling, with agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization being both complementary and coordinated.

The Analysis on the Degree or Level of Coupling and Coordination in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle

Temporally, from 2005 to 2019, the degree of coupling and coordination of agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle presented an upward trend. Most cities progressed from undeveloped coordination to intermediate coordination, and the imbalanced development of agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization continued to decrease (Table 3). After 2005, the evolutive process of the degree of coupling and coordination of agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization can be roughly divided into three stages. The first stage, or the initial stage, started in 2004 and ended in 2008. In 2005, 70.5 percent of the cities had undeveloped coordination, and four cities, i.e., Neijiang, Nanchong, Yibin, and Suining remained on the verge of imbalance. With the development of agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization, the number of areas on the verge of imbalance decreased year by year. In 2007, only Neijiang and Nanchong had a below 0.5 degree of coupling and coordination. In 2008, the degree of coupling and coordination in all cities in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle had undeveloped coordination or above. The second stage, or the coordinated-development stage, started in 2009 and ended in 2015. The degree of coupling and coordination in all cities remained undeveloped coordination or above. Chengdu achieved intermediate coordination in 2009, and Luzhou, Ziyang, Ya’an and Chongqing realized primary coordination in 2011. In 2012, the areas with primary coordination accounted for 75 percent, and the proportion increased year by year. In 2013 and 2014, it reached 75 percent and 87.5 percent, respectively. In 2015, only Dazhou stayed at undeveloped coordination in the degree of coupling and coordination. Other cities achieved primary coordination or above, and Chengdu basically realized intermediate coordination at the second stage. The third stage, or the fast-advancement stage, started in 2016 and ended in 2019. In 2016, all cities actualized primary coordination in the level of coordination. Chengdu achieved good coordination in 2017 and maintained it until 2019. Chongqing achieved intermediate coordination in 2018 and maintained it until 2019. In 2019, there were two cities with primary coordination, i.e., Nanchong and Dazhou, and there were 13 cities with intermediate coordination, accounting for 81.2 percent. Spatially, from 2005 to 2019, the degree of coupling and coordination of cities in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle was generally similar to the spatial distribution pattern of new-type urbanization, with the characteristics of the bipolar-driving of Chengdu and Chongqing and the progressive decrease in in-between cities. Chengdu and Chongqing, as important cities in Southwest China, own relatively complete and developed industrialization systems and neighbor each other. Due to the siphon effect, Chengdu and Chongqing attract various elements in the surrounding areas like two poles, and in-between cities develop slowly.

Table 3 The Degree of Coupling and Coordination of Agricultural Modernization and the New-Type Urbanization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle

Regarding the combination levels, in 2005, the low-low combination level of agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization in cities in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle reached 76.4 percent, and the degree of coupling and coordination in these cities stayed at undeveloped coordination or below. With the regulation and control of national regional-development strategy and the continuous advancement of industrialization and urbanization, the year 2010 saw the stage of undeveloped coordination, yet the proportion of low-low combination remained as high as 70.5 percent. In 2015, only Meishan stayed in a low-low combination, and the proportion of mediummedium combination reached 47 percent. In 2019, the proportion of medium-medium combination increased to 64.7 percent, and the low-low combination disappeared. Under the regulation and control of regional-development policy, on the one hand, the index or level of agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization increased year by year. The two indexes or levels in 2019 were basically higher than before, so the degree of coupling and coordination was also the highest. However, the development speed of agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization in these cities varied. In particular, from 2015 to 2019, the crux of the agricultural-modernization index or level shifted to the west, yet the new-type-urbanization index or level remained in the bipolar-driven trend. On the other hand, before 2015, the agricultural-modernization level of most cities in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle was slightly higher than the new-type-urbanization level. After 2015, as the degree of industrialization matured, the new-type-urbanization level proved higher than the agriculturalmodernization level, which led to the imbalance or low-value structure of the combination level.

In terms of the ranking of the degree of coupling and coordination, Chengdu holds a safe lead over other cities in Sichuan province. Excluding Chengdu, the top three cities in the degree of coupling and coordination are Ya’an, Deyang, and Yibin. Deyang and Ya’an are adjacent to Chengdu, while Yibin is far away from Chengdu. The last three cities are Meishan, Suining and Nanchong. Meishan is close to Chengdu, while Suining and Nanchong are far away from Chengdu. In the ranking of the degree of coupling and coordination, Chongqing comes after Chengdu, and cities near Chongqing remain slightly lower than those near Chengdu. As the above research suggests, the interaction between agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization demonstrates itself more obviously in the central cities. Owing to the polarization effect, the areas with relatively hysteretic interactions are distributed in Dazhou and Meishan. Because of the dispersion effect, the interactions in Deyang and Ya’an (near Chengdu) are also obvious.

2005 2010 2015 2019 Combination Level The Degree of Coupling and Coordination Cities Combination Level The Degree of Coupling and Coordination Combination Level The Degree of Coupling and Coordination Combination Level The Degree of Coupling and Coordination Nanchong Low-Low On the verge Primary coordination Meishan Low-Low Undeveloped of imbalance Low-Low Undeveloped coordination Medium-Low Primary coordination Medium- Medium Intermediate coordination Yibin Low-Low On the verge coordination Low-Low Undeveloped coordination Low-Low Primary coordination Medium- Medium Intermediate coordination Guang’an Low-Low Undeveloped of imbalance Low-Low Undeveloped coordination Medium-Low Primary coordination Medium- Medium Intermediate coordination Dazhou Low-Low Undeveloped coordination Low-Low Undeveloped coordination Medium- Medium Primary coordination Medium- Medium Primary coordination Ya’an Medium-Low coordination Low-Low Undeveloped coordination Medium-Low Undeveloped coordination Medium- Medium Intermediate coordination Ziyang Medium-Low Undeveloped coordination Medium-Low coordination High-Low Primary coordination Primary High-Medium Intermediate coordination Chongqing Low-Low Undeveloped Undeveloped coordination Medium-Low Primary coordination Medium- Medium Primary coordination Medium- Medium coordination Low-Low Undeveloped coordination Low-Medium Primary coordination Medium-High Intermediate coordination

Conclusion and Policy-Related Suggestions

We constructed an index system that can comprehensively measure agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization. Based on the coupling degree and the coupling and coordination degree model, we calculated and analyzed the levels and coupling and coordination degrees of agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle from 2005 to 2019. The results evince that: (a) from 2005 to 2019, the comprehensive index of agricultural modernization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle basically kept rising, and the average value increased from 0.394 in 2005 to 0.548 in 2019. In 2019, Chengdu boasted the highest development level, reaching 0.693; (b) from 2005 to 2019, the comprehensive index of the new-type urbanization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle increased at an average rate of 6.96 percent, with faster development speed (the average value rising from 0.207 to 0.510). In 2019, Chengdu embodied the highest development level, reaching 0.788, and Dazhou owned the lowest development level, only reaching 0.439; and (c) from 2005 to 2019, the degree of coupling and coordination of agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle increased from 0.531 to 0.727 on average, with a stable growth rate and a remarkable improvement in coordinated development. In 2019, the highest and lowest levels of coordinated development were 0.855 in Chengdu and 0.687 in Dazhou, respectively. The combination level also increased from low-low to medium-medium.

In order to improve the coordinated development level of the new-type urbanization and agricultural modernization and realize the high-quality development of the regional economy, the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle should not only vigorously promote the construction of people-oriented new-type urbanization and raise the comprehensive level of urbanization, but also painstakingly develop modern agriculture with Chinese characteristics, consolidate and expand the achievements of poverty alleviation, effectively connect it with rural revitalization, comprehensively foster rural revitalization and strengthen the level of agricultural modernization. In line with the abovestated theoretical and empirical analyses, as well as the socio-economic development characteristics of the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle, we propose three policy-related suggestions:

1. While consolidating their own advantages, cities with high-level agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization should scientifically formulate regional planning, prioritize the optimization of urban spatial structure and the transformation of the urbanization model (intensive model), and fully tap and utilize resources. In metropolises with large market demands like Chengdu and Chongqing, the quality of similar domestic products, e.g., high-quality milk, vegetables and fruits, cannot meet the market demand for quality. It is an urgent task to deepen the agricultural supplyside reform and produce and provide high-quality products that people desire. Areas with higher urbanization levels can use their advantage to make the output products meet the needs of consumers in quality and quantity and reduce their dependence on foreign seeds and productive machines through the innovation of agricultural products and agricultural production models.

2. Cities with relatively backward agricultural modernization and the new-type urbanization should attach attention to accelerating the construction of rural and urban infrastructure and social security systems. They should reinforce the population absorbing and carrying capacity of cities and towns, seize the opportunity of the national strategy of the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle, fulfil the task of industrial undertaking, and transfer of Chengdu and Chongqing, facilitate the development of characteristic industries (for example, characteristic agricultural products in Meishan and the wine industry in Luzhou), and forge industrial agglomerations and economies of scale. Simultaneously, they should further expand rural collective economies, effectively protect the interests of rural residents, grasp the strategic opportunity of rural revitalization, tap the potential of regional development, and invest agricultural support financial funds into key fields like small and medium-sized infrastructure that can directly benefit rural residents, and enhance the endogenous driving force of agricultural and rural modernization.

3. Cities in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle should effectively play the complementary role of the new-type urbanization and agricultural modernization and boost the efficient and coordinated development of urban and rural areas. They should strive to strengthen the communications, connections and interactions between urban and rural areas, reduce the isolation of administrative divisions, improve the free flow of the elements, narrow the gap between urban and rural areas, and realize the high-quality and balanced development of the regional economy and society.