基于三维福利的城市生态福利强度及驱动模式——以长三角地区为例

doi:10.31497/zrzyxb.20210205

自然资源学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (2): 327-341.doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20210205

基于三维福利的城市生态福利强度及驱动模式——以长三角地区为例

胡美娟¹^,²(), 李在军³, 丁正山²(), 周年兴², 秦东丽², 张郴²

1.扬州大学旅游烹饪学院,扬州 225127
2.南京师范大学地理科学学院,南京 210023
3.扬州大学苏中发展研究院,扬州 225009

收稿日期:2019-05-30 修回日期:2019-08-26 出版日期:2021-02-28 发布日期:2021-04-28
通讯作者: 丁正山 E-mail:humeijuan156@163.com;dingzhengshan@263.net
作者简介:胡美娟（1991- ）,女,湖北黄冈人,博士,讲师,研究方向为生态经济与区域发展。E-mail: humeijuan156@163.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(41671140);国家自然科学基金项目(41871141);江苏省江苏省研究生科研创新计划项目(KYCX19_0763)

Urban ecological well-being intensity and driving mode based on three-dimensional well-being:Taking the Yangtze Delta as an example

HU Mei-juan¹^,²(), LI Zai-jun³, DING Zheng-shan²(), ZHOU Nian-xing², QIN Dong-li², ZHANG Chen²

1. School of Tourism and Culinary Science, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225127, Jiangsu, China
2. School of Geography Science, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China
3. Research Institute of Central Jiangsu Development, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, Jiangsu, China

Received:2019-05-30 Revised:2019-08-26 Online:2021-02-28 Published:2021-04-28
Contact: DING Zheng-shan E-mail:humeijuan156@163.com;dingzhengshan@263.net

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于2000—2017年长三角城市生态消耗和福利水平,分析生态福利强度时空演化过程及驱动模式。研究发现：长三角地区城市生态福利强度不断降低,多以低强度类型为主,城市生态系统服务的生态效率得以提高;空间演化上表现为外围地市的生态福利强度低于核心地市,较低和低强度类型范围呈现由四周向中心地区蔓延态势,中高强度类型主要分布在资源型、工业密集型地市;驱动因素中资源消耗效应、技术效应及福利效应对城市生态福利强度表现为显著的正向驱动效应,效率效应和经济效应的增强导致城市生态福利强度的降低,环境消耗效应和规模效应驱动作用不显著。据此,城市福利生态强度的驱动模式可划分为单因素支配型、双因素主导型、三因素协同型及四因素均衡型。

关键词: 生态福利强度, 三维福利, 驱动模式, 长三角城市

Abstract:

Through examining the urban ecological consumption and well-being level in the Yangtze River Delta from 2000 to 2017, this study analyzes the temporal and spatial evolution process and the driving model of ecological well-being intensity. The results show that the ecological intensity of well-being in most cities in the study area decreased by varying degrees with most cities having low or medium intensity. An increase in natural capital was required for every percentage point increase in well-being level, and the efficiency of transforming urban ecosystem services into well-being increased to varying degrees. Moreover, the efficiency of social services in generating social well-being was relatively high, so the corresponding amount of necessary natural capital was small. The intensity of environmental well-being first increased and then decreased over the time period. Analysis of spatial evolution shows that the ecological well-being intensity of the peripheral cities was lower than that of the core cities with the range of low intensity types spreading to the central part of the delta within four weeks. However, the medium and high intensity types were mainly distributed in resource-based and industry-intensive areas. In examining the driving factors of well-being, the resource consumption effect, technical effect, and well-being effect significantly increased urban ecological well-being intensity, while the strengthening of efficiency effect and economic effect decreased it. Additionally, the driving forces of the environmental consumption effect and scale effect were not significant. Furthermore, the driving model of urban well-being ecological intensity can be divided into four types: single-factor dominant, two-factor dominant, three-factor synergistic, and four-factor balanced.

Key words: ecological well-being intensity, three-dimensional well-being, driving mode, Yangtze River Delta

胡美娟, 李在军, 丁正山, 周年兴, 秦东丽, 张郴. 基于三维福利的城市生态福利强度及驱动模式——以长三角地区为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(2): 327-341.

HU Mei-juan, LI Zai-jun, DING Zheng-shan, ZHOU Nian-xing, QIN Dong-li, ZHANG Chen. Urban ecological well-being intensity and driving mode based on three-dimensional well-being:Taking the Yangtze Delta as an example[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2021, 36(2): 327-341.

图/表 7

图1

表1

表2

图2

表3

图3

表4

参考文献 36

[1]	COSTANZA R, DALY L, FIORAMONTI L, et al. Modelling and measuring sustainable well-being in connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ecological Economics, 2016,130:350-355.
[2]	VICTOR P A. Questioning economic growth. Nature, 2010,468(7322):370-371. doi: 10.1038/468370a pmid: 21085153
[3]	REID W V, MOONEY H A, CROPPER A, et al. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report. Washington: Island Press, 2005.
[4]	PARKES M, PANELLI R, WEINSTEIN P. Converging paradigms for environment health theory and practice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2003,111(5):669-675. doi: 10.1289/ehp.5332 pmid: 12727592
[5]	胡鞍钢, 周绍杰. 绿色发展: 功能界定、机制分析与发展战略. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2014,24(1):14-20.
	[ HU A G, ZHOU S J. Green development: Function definition, mechanism analysis and development strategy. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2014,24(1):14-20.]
[6]	张军. 生态福利观念的兴起与医疗保障模式的转型. 生态经济, 2009,25(1):90-92, 116.
	[ ZHANG J. The rise of the concept of ecological well-being and the transformation of medical security model. Ecological Economy, 2009,25(1):90-92, 116.]
[7]	何林, 陈欣. 基于生态福利的陕西省经济可持续发展研究. 开发研究, 2011,27(6):24-28.
	[ HE L, CHEN X. Research on sustainable economic development of Shanxi province based on ecological well-being. Research on Development, 2011,27(6):24-28.]
[8]	郑伟, 石洪华, 陈尚, 等. 从福利经济学的角度看生态系统服务功能. 生态经济, 2006,21(6):78-81.
	[ ZHENG W, SHI H H, CHEN S, et al. Perception to ecosystem service function on the view point of welfare economics. Ecological Economy, 2006,21(6):78-81.]
[9]	DALY H E. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston: Beacon Press, 1996.
[10]	诸大建, 张帅. 生态福利绩效及其与经济增长的关系研究. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2014,24(9):59-67.
	[ ZHU D J, ZHANG S. Research on ecological welfare performance and its relationship with economic growth. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2014,24(9):59-67.]
[11]	臧漫丹, 诸大建, 刘国平. 生态福利绩效: 概念、内涵及G20实证. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2013,23(5):118-124.
	[ ZANG M D, ZHU D J, LIU G P. Ecological well-being performance: Concept, connotation and G20 demonstration. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2013,23(5):118-124.]
[12]	龙亮军, 王霞, 郭兵. 基于改进DEA模型的城市生态福利绩效评价研究: 以我国35个大中城市为例. 自然资源学报, 2017,32(4):595-605.
	[ LONG L J, WANG X, GUO B. Evaluation of urban ecological well-being performance based on revised DEA model: A case study of 35 major cities in China. Journal of Natural Resources, 2017,32(4):595-605.]
[13]	DIETZ T, JORGENSON A K. Towards a new view of sustainable development: Human well-being and environmental stress. Environment Research Letters, 2014,9(3):1-3.
[14]	ANDREW K, JORGENSON A K, DIETZ T. Economic growth does not reduce the ecological intensity of human well-being. Sustainability Science, 2015,10(1):149-156.
[15]	JORGENSON A K, ALEKSEYKO A, GIEDRAITIS V. Energy consumption, human well-being, and economic development in Central and Eastern European nations: A cautionary tale of sustainability. Energy Policy, 2014,66:419-427.
[16]	JORGENSON A K. Economic development and the carbon intensity of human well-being. Nature Climate Change, 2014,4(3):186-189.
[17]	DODDS S. Towards a "Science of Sustainability": Improving the way ecological economics understands human well-being. Ecological Economics, 1997,23(2):95-111.
[18]	DALY H E. A further critique of growth economics. Ecological Economics, 2013,88:20-24.
[19]	VERHOFSTADT E, OOTEGEM L V, DEFLOOR B, et al. Linking individual's ecological footprint to their subjective well-being. Ecological Economics, 2016,127(7):80-89.
[20]	CONMMON M. Measuring national economic performance without using prices. Ecological Economics, 2007,64(1):92-102.
[21]	DIENER E, SCOLLON C N, LUCAS R E. The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. Advances in Cell Aging and Gerontology, 2003,15(4):187-219.
[22]	EASTERLIN R A. Explaining happiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2003,100(19):11176-11183.
[23]	BARR D A. A research protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of public-private partnerships as a mean to improve health and welfare systems worldwide. American Journal of Public Health, 2007,97(1):19-25. pmid: 17138922
[24]	DALY H E, COBB J B. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy towards Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989.
[25]	LAWN P. The failure of the ISEW and GPI to fully account for changes in human health capital: A methodological shortcoming not a theoretical weakness. Ecological Economics, 2013,88:167-177.
[26]	MORRIES M D. A physical quality of life index. Urban Ecology, 1978,3(3):225-240.
[27]	ESTES R J. Social development trends in the Middle East, 1970-1997: The search for modernity. Social Indicators Research, 2000,50(1):51-81.
[28]	BALESTRA C, BOARINI R, TOSETTO E. What matters most to people? Evidence from the OECD Better Life Index users's responses. Social Indicators Research, 2018,136(3):907-930.
[29]	ZHONG H. A multivariate analysis of the distribution of individua's welfare in China: What is the role of health?. Journal of Health Economics, 2009,28(6):1062-1070. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.08.001 pmid: 19732983
[30]	杨洋, 梅洁, 何春阳, 等. 基于弱HSDI与强HSDI的区域可持续性评价: 以中国环渤海地区为例. 自然资源学报, 2019,34(6):1285-1295.
	[ YANG Y, MEI J, HE C Y, et al. Assessment of regional sustainability based on the weak HSDI and strong HSDI: Case study of the Bohai Rim region in China. Journal of Natural Resources, 2019,34(6):1285-1295.]
[31]	李晓西, 刘一萌, 宋涛. 人类绿色发展指数的测算. 中国社会科学, 2014,35(6):65-95, 207-208.
	[ LI X X, LIU Y M, SONG T. Calculation of the green development index. Social Sciences in China, 2014,35(6):65-95, 207-208.]
[32]	JONES C I, KLENOW P J. Beyond GDP? Welfare across countries and time. The American Economic Review, 2016,106(9):2426-2457.
[33]	陈志鸿, 李扬. 中国分区域城镇居民福利水平测度. 财经研究, 2018,44(10):111-124.
	[ CHEN Z H, LI Y. Measurement of the welfare level of urban residents in different regions of China. Journal of Finance and Economics, 2018,44(10):111-124.]
[34]	KAYA Y. Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: Interpretation of proposed scenarios IPCC energy and industry subgroup, response strategies working group. París: Francia, 1989.
[35]	ANG B W, ZHANG F Q, CHOI K H. Factorizing changes in energy and environmental indicators through decomposition. Energy, 1998,23(6):489-495.
[36]	UNDP (United Nations Development Program). China Human Development Report 2005: Development with Equity. Beijing: UNDP, 2005.

一级指标	二级指标	三级指标
资源消耗（RC）	土地资源消耗	人均建成区面积
	水资源消耗	人均用水量
	能源资源消耗	人均能源消费量
	人力资源消耗	全社会就业率
环境污染（EP）	废水排放量	人均工业废水排放量、人均生活污水排放量
	废气排放量	人均二氧化硫排放量、人均氮氧化物排放量、人均烟粉尘排放量
	固体废弃物产生量	人均工业固体废弃物产生量、人均城市生活垃圾清运量

一级指标	二级指标	三级指标
经济福利（B1）	经济水平（C1）	人均GDP（D1）、城镇居民人均可支配收入（D2）、农村居民人均纯收入（D3）、人均财政收入（D4)、人均固定资产投资（D5）、职工平均工资（D6）、人均储蓄额（D7）
经济福利（B1）	经济活力（C2）	城镇居民人均消费水平（D8）、农村居民人均消费水平（D9）、城镇居民恩格尔系数^（D10）、农村居民恩格尔系数^（D11）、居民消费价格指数^（D12）、居住价格指数^（D13）、固定投资占GDP比例（D14）
社会福利（B2）	医疗服务（C3）	卫生事业投入增长率（D15）、每万人拥有医生数（D16）、每万人拥有医院数（D17）、每万人拥有医院床位数（D18）
	教育水平（C4）	平均受教育年限（D19）、全社会识字率（D20）
	社会保障（C5）	基本医疗参保率（D21）、最低生活保障率（D22）
	就业水平（C6）	全社会就业率（D23）、城镇登记失业率^*（D24）
	基础设施服务（C7）	人均拥有道路面积（D25）、每万人拥有公交车数（D26）、城镇居民人均住房建筑面积（D27）、农村居民人均住房建筑面积（D28）、互联网普及率（D29）、每万人拥有公共厕所数（D30）、社会公共服务财政支出比例（D31）、千人拥有图书馆数（D32）
环境福利（B3）	生态建设（C8）	建成区绿化覆盖率（D33）、人均公园绿地面积（D34）、森林覆盖率（D35）、万人拥有公园数（D36）
环境福利（B3）	环境质量（C9）	空气质量优良率（D37）、环保治理投资比例（D38）、工业废水排放达标率（D39）、工业固体废物综合利用率（D40）、生活垃圾无害化处理率（D41）、城市节约用水重复利用率（D42）

时段/年	资源消耗	环境污染	效率效应	技术效应	经济效应	规模效应	福利效应
2000—2001	23.68	-20.49	-0.91	21.26	-26.73	-1.25	24.36
2001—2002	14.49	-38.55	-2.16	37.08	-58.67	-2.49	4.08
2002—2003	24.81	10.03	-8.52	68.93	-90.49	-1.39	73.54
2003—2004	51.18	27.63	-11.02	118.30	-135.20	-3.32	107.89
2004—2005	60.81	24.95	-2.52	147.28	-165.94	-3.52	121.99
2005—2006	64.18	16.94	-9.59	160.21	-187.47	-4.49	132.74
2006—2007	66.16	13.09	20.87	160.54	-205.88	-5.06	146.31
2007—2008	75.76	1.31	-18.00	173.77	-227.17	-5.85	155.73
2008—2009	91.17	3.89	-12.71	201.18	-246.47	-6.64	157.08
2009—2010	104.94	14.29	-19.72	234.33	-273.74	-6.75	176.01
2010—2011	119.90	5.82	-24.96	263.00	-290.02	-10.89	187.70
2011—2012	118.24	4.66	-27.37	270.41	-301.64	-11.19	187.06
2012—2013	114.34	-5.94	-22.32	312.17	-353.82	-13.31	201.81
2013—2014	118.91	8.86	-28.68	311.71	-355.68	-13.77	207.34
2014—2015	110.26	4.55	-23.77	297.95	-339.76	-13.38	193.45
2015—2016	111.42	19.41	-36.29	307.73	-345.28	-13.25	199.35
2016—2017	106.18	42.09	13.89	518.81	-429.54	-97.23	263.83
均值	80.97	7.80	-16.67	212.04	-237.26	-12.58	149.43

基于三维福利的城市生态福利强度及驱动模式——以长三角地区为例

Urban ecological well-being intensity and driving mode based on three-dimensional well-being:Taking the Yangtze Delta as an example

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 36

相关文章 2

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

类型	城市
单因素支配型	上海（D）、苏州（E）、绍兴（E）、淮北（E）、蚌埠（E）、南通（E）、扬州（E）、宿迁（E）、舟山（E）、盐城（E）、淮安（E）、连云港（E）、安庆（E）、金华（B）
双因素主导型	南京（DE）、无锡（DE）、镇江（DE）、宁波（DE）、衢州（DE）、合肥（DE）、芜湖（DE）、铜陵（DE）、湖州（DE）、池州（BE）、阜阳（BE）、黄山（BE）、滁州（BE）、泰州（CD）
三因素协同型	常州（BDE）、嘉兴（DEG）、台州（DEG）、亳州（DEG）、马鞍山（ADE）、淮南（ADE）、宣城（BEG）、六安（BEG）
四因素协同型	杭州（BCDE）、丽水（BCDE）、徐州（ABCG）、温州（BDEG）、宿州（ABEG）

[1]	张新林, 仇方道, 朱传耿. 时空交互视角下淮海经济区城乡融合发展水平演化[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(8): 1867-1880.
[2]	范擎宇, 杨山. 协调视角下长三角城市群的空间结构演变与优化[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(8): 1581-1592.