Assesses economic sustainability in road selection in the Qiantang River Basin, indicating economic needs prioritize over political factors.
Assessing the sustainability of urban development, including road changes, is increasing from year to year and requires clear indicators for robust decision-making tools to gain knowledge across regions. This study conducts the selection of transportation routes over a longer period as an example to evaluate the sustainability of historical official routes in achieving economically cost-efficient operation and maintenance. Official ways in the Qiantang River Basin connected the Jiangnan region, the economic center of China, with surrounding provinces were assessed. During the past six hundred years, the official road network in this area gradually simplified, evolving from valley roads to river banks, which covered longer distances. However, this transformation lacks a systematic explanation. By applying the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with geographic information system (GIS), quantitative analysis was gained and the results are as follows: (1) Among the influencing factors, the weights of transportation cost and population related to economic needs are 39.54% and 29.52% respectively, with a combined total of 69.06%. (2) The official road network is often designed for governing the people, but in places such as the Qiantang River Basin, economic logic superseded political imperatives, becoming the dominant factor in reshaping the official ways. (3) In the pre-industrial era characterized by limited technological capacity, the physical environment had a greater impact on economic costs, ultimately reshaping the spatial configuration of official route networks. Overall, the evolution of official routes reflects the decline in their military-political function, driven by sustained peace and long-term decline in strategic position. The evolution of the official ways in the Qiantang River Basin reveals the importance of economic benefits in road selection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xie et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: