甘肃省庆阳市生态足迹和生态承载力动态研究

草业学报 ›› 2010, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (4): 187-193.

甘肃省庆阳市生态足迹和生态承载力动态研究

张智全¹,于爱忠²,罗珠珠¹,陈年来¹,黄高宝^1,2*

1.甘肃农业大学资源与环境学院, 甘肃兰州 730070;
2.甘肃农业大学农学院, 甘肃兰州 730070

收稿日期:2009-05-21 出版日期:2010-08-20 发布日期:2010-08-20
作者简介:张智全(1962-), 男, 甘肃陇西人,博士。E-mailqyszf@126.com
基金资助:
国家科技支撑计划项目(2006BAD15B06)资助。

Dynamics of the ecological footprint and ecological capacity of Qingyang, Gansu

ZHANG Zhi-quan¹, YU Ai-zhong², LUO Zhu-zhu¹, CHEN Nian-lai¹, HUANG Gao-bao^1,2

1.College of Resources and Environment, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China;

2.College of Agronomy, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Received:2009-05-21 Online:2010-08-20 Published:2010-08-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 以2001-2005年统计资料为依据,应用生态足迹法,对庆阳市近5年的生态足迹进行了实证计算和研究,纵向比较分析了庆阳市生态足迹的变化规律及其原因,并获得了该地区生态足迹、生态承载力随时间变化的预测模型,据此预测了未来5年庆阳市的可持续发展趋势。结果表明,庆阳市人均生态足迹由2001年的1.12hm²逐年增加至2005年的1.34hm²,而人均生态承载力则由1.13hm²逐年减少到1.11hm²,可见生态承载力需求(生态足迹)与生态承载力供给呈反方向发展趋势。庆阳市2001年的生态盈余为0.02hm²,2002年开始出现生态赤字,2005年人均生态赤字增至0.23hm²。说明庆阳市人口对自然资源的利用压力逐年增加,目前已超出了自然生态系统的生态承载能力范围,生态足迹与生态承载力之间的矛盾加剧。庆阳市2001-2005年万元GDP生态足迹由高向低变化,而生态占用率由低向高变化,反映出随着经济的发展,庆阳市的生物生产面积利用率和资源利用率有所提高,但生态环境的压力也逐年增大。进一步模型预测,庆阳市2010年人均生态足迹和人均生态承载力分别为1.33和1.03hm²,其人均生态赤字可达到0.30hm²。表明庆阳市生态环境处于不安全状态,暗示当前的发展模式是不可持续的。

Abstract: The ecological footprint (EF) and ecological capacity (EC) of Qingyang from 2001 to 2005 were calculated, and the historical change pattern and causes of EF and EC during this period were analyzed. A forecast model for sustainable development trends of Qingyang was developed. The average personal EF gradually increased from 1.12 to 1.34 hm² from 2001 to 2005, whereas the average personal EC declined from 1.13 to 1.11 hm², thus the EF and EC in Qingyang developed in opposite directions. In 2001 there was an ecological surplus of 0.02 hm², but in 2002 it became a deficit which rose to 0.23 hm² in 2005. Over the same period, the EF per ten thousand yuan GDP decreased, while the ecological occupation rate increased, indicating that the biologically productive area, the resource utilization rates, and the ecological pressure were all increasing. The model forecasts that in 2010, the average personal EF and EC would be 1.33 and 1.03 hm² respectively, and the average personal ecological deficit would reach 0.30 hm². Overall, the results indicate that the ecological environment in Qingyang is not safe and that the present development model is not sustainable.

中图分类号:

S181

张智全,于爱忠,罗珠珠,陈年来,黄高宝. 甘肃省庆阳市生态足迹和生态承载力动态研究[J]. 草业学报, 2010, 19(4): 187-193.

ZHANG Zhi-quan, YU Ai-zhong, LUO Zhu-zhu, CHEN Nian-lai, HUANG Gao-bao. Dynamics of the ecological footprint and ecological capacity of Qingyang, Gansu[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2010, 19(4): 187-193.

参考文献

[1] Rees W E. Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out[J]. Environment and Urbanization, 1992, 4(2): 121-130.
[2] Wackernagel M, Rees W E. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth[M]. Gabriela Island: New Society Publishers, 1996: 61-83.
[3] Erb K H. Actual land demand of Austria 1926-2000: A variation on ecological footprint assessments[J]. Land Use Policy, 2004, 21(3): 247-259.
[4] Van Vuuren D P, Smeets E M W. Ecological footprints of Benin, Bhutan, Costa Rica and the Netherlands[J]. Ecological Economics, 2000, 34: 115-130.
[5] Wackernagel M, Monfreda C, Erb K H. Ecological footprint time series of Austria, the Philippines, and South Korea for 1961-1999: Comparing the conventional approach to an “actual land area” approach[J]. Land Use Policy, 2004, 22(3): 261-269.
[6] 谢高地, 鲁春霞, 成升魁. 全球生态系统服务价值评估研究进展[J]. 资源科学, 2001, 23(6): 20-23.
[7] Senbel M, McDaniels T, Dowlatabadi H. The ecological footprint: A nonmonetary metric of human consumption applied to North America[J]. Global Environment Change, 2003, 13: 83-100.
[8] 徐中民, 张志强, 程国栋. 中国1999年生态足迹计算与发展能力分析[J]. 应用生态学报, 2003, 14(2): 280-285.
[9] 张志强, 徐中民, 程国栋. 生态足迹的概念及计算模型[J]. 生态经济, 2000, 10: 8-9.
[10] 胡孟春, 张永春, 缪旭波. 张家口市坝上地区生态足迹初步研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 2003, 14(2): 317-320.
[11] 李金平, 王志石. 澳门2001年生态足迹分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2003, 18(2): 197-203.
[12] 张坤民, 温宗国, 杜斌. 生态城市评估与指标体系[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2003: 222-257.
[13] Gossling S, Hansson C B, Horstmeier O. Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability[J]. Ecological Economic, 2002, 43: 199-211.
[14] Stoglehner G. Ecological footprint: A tool for assessing sustainable energy supplies[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2003, 11: 267-277.
[15] 席建超, 葛全胜, 成升魁. 旅游消费生态占用初探——以北京市海外入境旅游者为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2004, 19(2): 224-229.
[16] 周少平, 谭广洋, 沈禹颖, 等. 保护性耕作下陇东春玉米-冬小麦-夏大豆轮作系统土壤水分动态及水分利用效率[J]. 草业科学, 2008, 25(7): 69-76.
[17] 杨忠勋. 对庆阳地区农业可持续发展问题的初探[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2001, 38(3): 6-9.
[18] Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P, et al. Ecological Footprints of Nations[M]. Toronto: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, 1997: 10-21.
[19] 罗贞礼, 黄磺. “红三角”地区之郴州市的可持续发展评价研究——生态足迹法[J]. 湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2004, 5(2): 33-37.
[20] 徐中民, 张志强, 程国栋. 甘肃省1998年生态足迹计算与分析[J]. 地理学报, 2001, 55(5): 607-616.
[21] 岳东霞, 李自珍, 惠苍. 甘肃省生态足迹和生态承载力发展趋势研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2004, 24(3): 454-463.
[22] Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P, et al. National nature capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept[J]. Ecological Economics, 1999, 29(3): 375-390.
[23] Wackernagel M, Lewan L, Hansson C B. Evaluating the use of natural capital with the ecological footprint: Applications in Sweden and subegions[J]. A Journal of the Human Environment, 1999, 28(7): 604-612.
[24] 庆阳市统计局. 庆阳年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2005.
[25] 赵先贵, 肖玲, 兰叶霞, 等. 陕西省生态足迹和生态承载力动态研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2005, 38(4): 746-753.
[26] 赵有益, 龙瑞军, 林慧龙, 等. 草地生态系统安全及其评价研究[J]. 草业学报, 2008, 17(2): 143-150.
[27] 黄黔. 我国的生态建设与生态现代化[J]. 草业学报, 2008, 17(2): 1-8.
[28] 程序. 能源牧草堪当未来生物能源之大任[J]. 草业学报, 2008, 17(3): 1-5.