基于能值理论的生态足迹方法改进

doi:10.11849/zrzyxb.2008.03.011

自然资源学报 ›› 2008, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (3): 447-457.doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2008.03.011

基于能值理论的生态足迹方法改进

刘淼¹, 胡远满¹, 常禹¹, 张文广^1,2, 张薇³

1. 中国科学院沈阳应用生态研究所,沈阳110016;
2. 中国科学院研究生院,北京100049;
3. 沈阳农业大学土地与环境学院,沈阳110161

收稿日期:2007-08-29 修回日期:2007-11-29 出版日期:2008-05-28 发布日期:2008-05-28
作者简介:刘淼(1979-),男,辽宁省黑山县人,助理研究员,博士,主要从事景观生态和生态经济方面的研究。 E-mail:lium@iae.ac.cn;lium79@163.com
基金资助:
国家重点基础研究发展规划项目“西部典型区域森林植被对农业生态环境的调控机理”(2002CB111506)

Modification of Ecological Footprint Assessment Based on Emergy:A Case Study in the Upper Reach of Minjiang River

LIU Miao¹, HU Yuan-man¹, CHANG Yu¹, ZHANG Wen-guang^1,2, ZHANG Wei³

1. Institute of Applied ecology,CAS,Shenyang 110016,China;
2. Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing 100049,China;
3. College of Soil and Environment,Shenyang Agricultural University,Shenyang 110161,China

Received:2007-08-29 Revised:2007-11-29 Online:2008-05-28 Published:2008-05-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 生态足迹方法自提出以来受到广泛关注,其缺点也受到一些学者的批评。ZhaoSheng等2005年提出能值足迹法,弥补了生态足迹法以土地生产能力为限制的缺点。论文提出区域能值足迹法,以弥补其改进方法不能够反映区域实际情况和技术进步带来影响的不足。最后,以岷江上游1982到2002年为例应用3种方法进行计算分析。结果表明研究区生态足迹呈缓慢上升趋势,生态足迹方法计算结果<能值足迹<区域能值足迹;生态承载力计算结果显示生态足迹与区域能值足迹方法结果呈平缓下降趋势,而能值足迹方法结果呈不规则变动。区域能值足迹法能够考虑到区域实际情况和技术进步,但它不能完全代替生态足迹方法,将其结合应用将得到更多信息。

关键词: 生态足迹, 能值分析理论, 方法改进, 区域能值足迹, 岷江上游地区

Abstract: Ecological footprint(EF) analysis has gained much attention since developed,but some deficiencies were also criticized.Now,EF has been used in regional ecological carrying capacity and sustainability estimation widely.Zhao Sheng modified EF approach with Emergy theory in 2005,called emergy EF approach,which made up the deficiencies of EF limited with biosphere.However,this article improved the modified method for the deficiencies of the modified approach,which does not consider the local situation and technological advances.Finally,the EF of the upper reach of Minjiang River was estimated based on the three methods from 1982 to 2002.The results demonstrated that the EF of the study area increased slowly.The results of regional EF were greater than that of emergy EF,and that of conventional EF were the least.The ecological carrying capacity with conventional EF and regional emergy EF decreased smoothly,however,that of emergy EF changed irregularly.Although the regional emergy approach overcomes some shortcomings of EF,it can not replace the conventional EF.If the two approaches used together,more information would be discovered.

Key words: ecological footprint, emergy analysis, modified approach, regional emergy footprint, the upper reach of Minjiang River

中图分类号:

Q148

刘淼, 胡远满, 常禹, 张文广, 张薇. 基于能值理论的生态足迹方法改进[J]. 自然资源学报, 2008, 23(3): 447-457.

LIU Miao, HU Yuan-man, CHANG Yu, ZHANG Wen-guang, ZHANG Wei. Modification of Ecological Footprint Assessment Based on Emergy:A Case Study in the Upper Reach of Minjiang River[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2008, 23(3): 447-457.

参考文献

[1] WackernagelM, ReesW E. Our Ecological Footp rint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth [M]. New Society Publish2 ers, Gabriola Island, 1996. [2] WackernagelM, Yount J D. The ecological footp rint: An indicator of p rogress toward regional sustainability[J]. Environ2 m entalM onitoring and Assessm ent, 1998, 51: 511-529. [3] WorldWildlife Fund. Living p lanet report[EB /OL]. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/lpr2000.pdf, 2000-10-10. [4] WorldWildlife Fund. Living p lanet report[EB /OL]. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/lpr2002.pdf, 2002-06-10. [5] WorldWildlife Fund. Living p lanet report[EB /OL]. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/lpr2004.pdf, 2004-10-10. [6] Erb K H. Actual land demand ofAustria 1926-2000: A variation on ecological footp rint assessments[J]. Land Use Poli2 cy, 2004, 21: 247-259. [7] Van Vuuren D P, Smeets EMW. Ecological footp rints ofBenin, Bhutan, Costa Rica and the Netherlands[J]. Ecological Econom ics, 2000, 34 (234): 115-130. [8] Odum H T. Systems Ecology[M]. New York: JohnWiley and Sons, 1983. 664. [9] 蓝盛芳,钦佩,陆宏芳. 生态经济系统能值分析[M]. 北京:化学工业出版社, 2002. [LAN Sheng-fang, Q IN Pei, LU Hong-fang. Eco-Economic System Emergy Analysis. Beijing: Chemical Industry Press, 2002.] [10] WackernagelM, Lewan L, Hansson C B. Evaluating the use of natural cap italwith the ecological footp rint app lications in Weden and subregions[J]. AMB IO, 1999, 28 (7): 604-612. [11] Odum H T. Self2organization, transformity and information[J]. Science, 1988, 242: 1132-1139. [12] Odum H T. Environmental Accounting: Energy and Environmental Decision Making[M]. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996. [13] Odum H T, BrownM T, Williams S B. Handbook of Emergy Evaluations Folios 1-4. Center for Environmental Policy [M]. University of Florida, Gainesville F L, 2000. [14] BrownM T, Herendeen R A. Embodied energy analysis and emergy analysis: A comparative view[J]. Ecological Engineering, 1996, 19: 219-235. [15] Odum H T. Emergy evaluation[A]. In: Ulgiati S, BrownM T, Giamp ietroM, et al. Advances in Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy[C]. MUSIS, Roma, 1998. 99-111. [16] Zhao S, Li Z, LiW. A modified method of ecological footp rint calculation and its app lication[J]. EcologicalModelling, 2005, 185: 65-75. [17] Haberl H, Erb K H, Krausmann F. How to calculate and interp ret ecological footp rints for long periods of time: The case ofAustria 1926-1995 [J]. Ecological Econom ics, 2001, 38 (1): 25-45. [18] 陈敏,张丽君,王如松. 1978 年～2003 年中国生态足迹动态分析[J]. 资源科学, 2005, 27 (6): 132～139. [CHEN Min, ZHANG Li-jun, WANG Ru-song. Dynamics of ecological footp rint of China from 1978 to 2003. Resources Science, 2005, 27 (6): 132-139.] [19] WackernagelM, Onisto L, Bello P, et al. National natural cap ital accounting with the ecological footp rint concep t[J]. Ecological Econom ics, 1999, 29: 375-390

基于能值理论的生态足迹方法改进

Modification of Ecological Footprint Assessment Based on Emergy:A Case Study in the Upper Reach of Minjiang River

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	毕明丽, 谢高地, 姚翠友. 人类可持续发展指数的改进及国际比较[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(5): 1017-1029.
[2]	王淑新, 何红, 李双, 杜建括. 中国旅游足迹家族研究进展[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(2): 424-436.
[3]	聂莹, 刘清杰, 孙素芬. 经济全球化能够有效抑制“一带一路”沿线国家的生态足迹吗?——来自动态门槛面板模型的经验证据[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(2): 301-311.
[4]	林永钦, 齐维孩, 祝琴. 基于生态足迹的中国可持续食物消费模式[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(2): 338-347.
[5]	杨屹, 胡蝶. 生态脆弱区榆林三维生态足迹动态变化及其驱动因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(7): 1204-1217.
[6]	靳相木, 李陈. 土地承载力研究范式的变迁、分化及其综论[J]. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(3): 526-540.
[7]	杨屹, 梁砺波, 张景乾. 关中城市群生态足迹演变趋势及公平性评价[J]. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(8): 1360-1373.
[8]	靳相木, 柳乾坤. 自然资源核算的生态足迹模型演进及其评论[J]. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(1): 163-176.
[9]	孙艳芝, 沈镭. 关于我国四大足迹理论研究变化的文献计量分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(9): 1463-1473.
[10]	曹淑艳, 谢高地. 城镇居民食物消费的生态足迹及生态文明程度评价[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(7): 1073-1085.
[11]	王灵恩, 成升魁, 钟林生, 刘晓洁, 高利伟, 曹晓昌. 旅游城市餐饮业食物消费及其资源环境成本定量核算——以拉萨市为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(2): 215-227.
[12]	贺成龙. 水力发电的能值转换率计算方法[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(11): 1958-1968.
[13]	郝海广，李秀彬，张惠远，张继平. 农牧交错区农户生态足迹及其影响因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(1): 52-63.
[14]	杨欣, 蔡银莺, 张孝宇, 张安录. 基于生态账户的农田生态补偿空间转移研究—以武汉城市圈48个县(市、区)为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2015, 30(2): 197-207.
[15]	曹淑艳, 谢高地, 陈文辉, 郭红. 中国主要农产品生产的生态足迹研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2014, 29(8): 1336-1344.