期刊文献+

中部6省生态足迹的测算与比较分析 被引量:22

Calculation and analysis of ecological footprint based on six provinces of central China
下载PDF
导出
摘要 生态足迹方法是区域可持续发展研究的一种重要方法,在中部6省大区域框架下,运用生态足迹模型对中部6省1989—2011年的生态足迹进行了测算和对比研究。研究结果表明:中部6省1989—2011年的生态承载力较为平稳,其中江西、河南、湖北和湖南4省的生态承载力略有上升,而山西、安徽两省的生态承载力有下降趋势。中部6省的社会经济活动对生态系统的消耗远大于生态系统本身的承载能力,并且这种差距正在不断增大,导致生态赤字不断增大。考察期间,山西省生态赤字的绝对值最小,平均生态赤字为0.49 hm2 cap-1,湖北省生态赤字最大,平均值为1.15 hm2 cap-1,其次为河南和湖南,生态赤字增长最快的是山西省和河南省,增长倍数分别达到了7.38和4.27倍。中部6省6种生态生产性土地的生态足迹均呈现出上升趋势,平均来看,6类生态生产性土地在中部6省总的生态足迹中所占比重由高到低依次为耕地、化石能源地、草地、建筑用地、水域、林地。耕地生态足迹是生态足迹中最重要的组成部分,在总的生态足迹中所占比重最大,中部6省耕地的生态足迹时间序列数据比较平稳,在考察时间内从1989年的0.4241上涨到2011年的0.5851,上升趋势较平稳,但由于耕地生态足迹所占比重大,尽管增长速度缓慢,但对中部6省生态足迹总的影响较大。建筑用地和林地生态足迹虽然增长幅度较大,但由于基数小,因此建筑生态足迹和林地生态足迹对中部6省生态足迹总的影响较小。草地、水域和化石能源用地生态足迹基数大,增长幅度也大,加上耕地生态足迹,共同决定了中部6省人均生态足迹的逐年上升趋势。 Ecological footprint method is an important approach to measure the regional sustainable development degree. Under the large area Framework of six provinces of central China, this paper uses ecological footprint model to calculate and comparatively study 1989-2011 ecological footprint of six provinces. The result showed that the development trend of six provinces' biocapacity is slow during 1989-2011, biocapacity of Jiangxi,Henan,Hubei and Hunan provinces increased slightly,but for Shanxi and Anhui provinces, biocapacity has a downward trend.The consumption of social and economic activities on the ecosystem outweighed the ecosystem's capacity, this gap is continually increasing,leading to escalation of ecological deficit of six provinces. During 1989-2011, the meanvalue of Shanxi province's ecological deficit is the least, the average ecological deficit is 0.49 hm2.cap1, ecological deficit of Hubei province is the biggest, the meanvalue is 1.15 hm2.capl,and the next is Henan and Hunan province,the fastest growth of ecological deficit is Shanxi and Henan provinces, the growth ratio reached 7.38 and 4.27 times respectively. The ecological footprint of six kinds of ecological productive land of the six provinces are showing a rising trend, on average, the proportion of six types of ecological productive land in the total ecological footprint from high to low is cropland, fossil energy land, grassland, construction land fishing land and forest land.Cropland ecological footprint is the most important part of ecological footprint, and is the largest proportion in the total ecological footprint, the time series data of cropland ecological footprint of six provinces is stable, cropland ecological footprint increased from 0.424 1 hm2.cap1 in 1989 to 0.585 1 hm2.cap1 in 2011, the rising trend is relatively smooth, but because of the larger proportion, in spite of the slow increasing speed, cropland ecological footprint has a great influence on total ecological footprint of six provinces. Although the growth of ecological footprint of construction land and forest land is bigger, but because the basic value is small, so the ecological footprint of construction land and forest land have little impact on the total ecological footprint of the six provinces, the basic value of ecological footprint of grassland, fishing land and fossil energy land is large, and the increasing degree is big, so, the grassland, fishing land, fossil energy land and cropland jointly decided the rising trend of ecological footprint of six provinces of central China.
出处 《生态环境学报》 CSCD 北大核心 2013年第4期625-631,共7页 Ecology and Environmental Sciences
基金 国家社科基金项目(11BTJ020) 中央高校基本科研业务专项资金项目(31541111305)
关键词 生态足迹 生态承载力 生态赤字了 中部6省 ecological footprint biological capacity ecological deficit six provinces of central China
  • 相关文献

参考文献26

  • 1Mathis Wackernagel, William E Rees. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth[M]. Gabriola Island, B C, Canada: New Society Publishers, 1996.
  • 2Herendeen R A. Ecological footprint is a vivid indicator of indirect effects[J]. Ecol Econ, 2000, 32(3): 357-358.
  • 3Wackernagel M, Rees W E. Perceptual and Structure Barriers to Investing Capital Criticality: Economics from an Ecological Footprint Perspective[J]. Ecological Economics, 1997, 20(1):3-24.
  • 4World Wide Fund for Nature. Living Planet Report 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010[EB/OL].
  • 5Haberl H, Erb K H, Krausmann F. How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time: The case of Austria 1926 --1995[J]. Ecol Econ, 2001, 38(1):25-45.
  • 6Wackemagel M, Monfreda C and Erb K H. Ecological Footprint Time Series of Austria, Philippines, and South Korea for 1961--1999: Comparing the Conventional Approach to an" Actual Land Area" Approach [J]. Land Use Policy, 2004, 21(3): 261-269.
  • 7张志强,徐中民,程国栋,陈东景.中国西部12省(区市)的生态足迹[J].地理学报,2001,56(5):599-610. 被引量:647
  • 8李广军,顾晓薇,王青,刘建兴,严欢欢.沈阳市高校生态足迹和生态效率研究[J].资源科学,2005,27(6):140-145. 被引量:43
  • 9刘建兴,王青,孙鹏,顾晓薇,李广军.中国1990~2004年生态足迹动态变化效应的分解分析[J].自然资源学报,2008,23(1):61-68. 被引量:38
  • 10张清华,韩梅,杨利民.1949-2008年吉林省乾安县能值生态足迹的动态研究[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2012,40(5):173-178. 被引量:8

二级参考文献215

共引文献885

同被引文献352

引证文献22

二级引证文献253

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部