省域乡村旅游扶贫重点村生态脆弱性评价——以福建省为例

Ecological vulnerability assessment of key villages of tourism poverty alleviation in Fujian Province

贫困与生态环境问题呈现强烈的相关性,为避免旅游扶贫重点村发展落入"贫困陷阱",有效地评价其生态脆弱性成为开展旅游扶贫和精准脱贫的重要前提。然而,当前鲜有将旅游扶贫与生态环境问题置于同一分析框架内,开展乡村旅游扶贫重点村生态脆弱性及其驱动因子研究的成果。以福建省472个全国乡村旅游扶贫重点村为样本,基于"成因-结果"模型构建生态脆弱性评价指标体系,采用空间主成分分析法测算样本生态脆弱性指数,并深入分析其空间分异与驱动因子。结果显示:重点村生态脆弱性指数平均值为4.84,总体处于轻度脆弱;30 m×30 m栅格单元生态脆弱性呈零散分布格局,空间分异不显著;极度和重度生态脆弱村主要分布在三明市、宁德市、南平市和龙岩市,并在宁德市和三明市形成3处高度脆弱核心区;餐饮和床位数、旅游基础设施状况、土壤侵蚀强度、人口密度、多年平均降水量、坡度、休闲农业园面积等为生态脆弱性主要驱动因子。

As two essential parts of sustainable development, poverty alleviation and environmental protection have strong correlation to each other. To avoid ＂ poverty trap＂ of key villages of tourism poverty alleviation in development, the ecological vulnerability assessment of these villages have become an important precondition and basics of tourism poverty alleviation and accurate poverty alleviation. However, few studies has aimed to integrate the tourism poverty alleviation and environmental protection to study the ecological vulnerability and its drivers. Therefore, by taking 472 key villages of tourism poverty alleviation in Fujian Province as case studies, this paper first develops an ecological vulnerability evaluation index system based on an a ＂cause-result＂ model and then estimates the ecological vulnerability index of the samples villages. In addition, the spatial differentiation and driving factors are analyzed in detail. The results show that： the average value of ecological vulnerability is 4.84, which means that the degree of the ecological vulnerability of key villages in Fujian Province is mildly fragile; the average ecological vulnerability value in a 30 m ~ 30 m grid indicates that the distribution of ecological vulnerability are scattered while the spatial differentiation is not significant. The extreme and severe eco-fragile villages are mainly located in Sanming, Ningde, Nanping, and Longyan, which form three core areas with distinct high vulnerability in Ningde and Sanming. The main drivers of ecological vulnerability include the number of tables and beds, the current situation of tourism infrastructure, soil erosion intensity, population density, average annual precipitation, slope, leisure, and the areas of agricultural park