长江流域资源与环境 >> 2016, Vol. 25 >> Issue (02): 300-306.doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201602016

• 生态环境 • 上一篇    下一篇

城镇化进程中生态足迹的动态变化及影响因素分析——以安徽省为例

胡雪萍, 李丹青   

  1. 中南财经政法大学经济学院, 湖北 武汉 430073
  • 收稿日期:2015-05-13 修回日期:2015-08-13 出版日期:2016-02-20
  • 作者简介:胡雪萍(1965~),女,教授,博士,研究方向为发展经济学.E-mail:hxueping@hotmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金项目"推进生态城镇化建设的长效机制研究"(14BJL065)

A STUDY ON ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT'S DYNAMIC CHANGE AND INFLUENCE FACTORS IN THE PROGRESS OF NEW PATTERN URBANIZATION: A CASE OF ANHUI PROVINCE

HU Xue-ping, LI Dan-qing   

  1. Economics School, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China
  • Received:2015-05-13 Revised:2015-08-13 Online:2016-02-20
  • Supported by:
    the National Social Science Foundation (14BJL065)

摘要: 以快速城镇化的安徽省为例,在计算出该省1995~2013年生态足迹数据的基础上,分析其动态变化,并采用偏最小二乘(PLS)回归方法、STIRPAT模型研究了影响生态足迹的因素。结果表明:从生态足迹的动态变化来看,该省1995~2013年的生态足迹和生态赤字均较大,且呈不断上升态势,安徽省的城镇化发展是不可持续的。从生态足迹的影响因素来看,人口因素、经济因素以及技术因素均对生态足迹具有显著影响。其中,技术进步对人均生态足迹的增长具有抑制作用,而人口总数的增加、三大产业的发展、城镇化水平的提高和居民消费增加均会造成生态足迹增加;城镇化的影响最大,城镇化率每提升1%,人均生态足迹就会上升0.210 5 hm2。根据分析,建议安徽省在未来的新型城镇化进程中,要防止城镇化过快发展,实施"紧凑型"城市发展战略,要注重利用技术创新提高能源利用效率、促进产业结构升级,并通过大力宣传绿色生活方式等多种途径降低生态足迹,促进城镇化可持续发展。

关键词: 城镇化, 生态足迹, 动态变化, 影响因素

Abstract: The rapid development of urbanization brought about serious resources and ecological problems. From 1995 to 2013, Anhui province experienced fast urbanization. The urbanization rate rose from 17.4% in 1995 to 47.9% in 2013, totally rising 30%. Especially from 2005 to 2013, the average annual increase rate of urbanization was 1.6%, higher than the national average value of 1.3%. With the case of Anhui province, this paper studied the development path of new pattern urbanization from the perspective of ecological footprint. Firstly, it calculated ecological footprint from 1995 to 2013 of Anhui province, then discussed its dynamic change, lastly analysed factors affecting ecological footprint. Results showed that the per capital ecological footprint of Anhui province was increasing year by year. From 1995 to 2013, it increased from 0.888 3 hm2 per capital to 2.445 7 hm2 per capital, annually growing 7.62% on average. While the ecological deficit of Anhui Province was also increasing yearly from 1995 to 2013, up from 0.410 6 hm2 per capita in 1995 to 1.722 1 hm2 per capital, rising more than 3 times. The size and the amount of increase of six categories of land were different. The size of per capital ecological footprint, fossil land's ecological footprint accounted for more than a half, the second was arable land, and others' ecological footprint was relatively small. From the perspective of the amount of increase, the ecological footprint of grassland increased fastest, from 0.013 2 hm2 per capital to 0.085 5 hm2 per capital in 2013, almost growing 6 times. The building land's ecological footprint had risen more than 4 times, from 0.001 4 hm2 per capita in 1995 to 0.007 2 hm2 per capital. The ecological footprint of forest land, water area and fossil land have risen about twice. While the arable land's ecological footprint has been stable during 1995 to 2013, maintaining 0.32 hm2 per capital. These data showed that the urbanization of Anhui province was not sustainable. Demographic factors, technical factors and economic factors affect ecological footprint significantly. Among them, technology progress inhibited the increasing of ecological footprint. Results showed that if ecological footprint intensity grew 1 unit, the ecological footprint would decrease 0.078 9 units. It indicated that enhancing the efficiency of resource usage can reduce the impact of economic activities on the ecological environment. The growth of population brought about the growing of ecological footprint. If population grew 10 thousand, the per capital ecological footprint would increase 0.013 5 hm2. In theory, the improvement of population quality decreased the ecological footprint, and can also increase the ecological footprint by causing more consumption. So the empirical analysis demonstrated that consumption matters more than population quality. As to economics factors, there was positive correlation between urbanization rate and ecological footprint. Among factors selected in this paper, urbanization rate has the greatest influence on ecological footprint. If urbanization rate increase every 1%, the per capital ecological footprint will rise 0.210 5 hm2. And the development of three main industries increased the ecological footprint. In details, the output of primary industry, secondary industry and tertiary industry growing 1 unit would respectively cause ecological footprint up 0.098 7 units, 0.103 1 units and 0.055 8 units. From this result, we can conclude that the development of the secondary industry has the greatest to ecological footprint, the second was the primary industry, and the last was the tertiary industry. Consumption caused increasing ecological footprint. Urban residents' consumption played a slightly greater role on ecological footprint than rural residents'. The consumption of urban resident and rural resident rising 1 unit brings about per capital ecological footprint increasing 0.167 3 units and 0.158 2 units respectively. Finally, according to the analysis, appropriate countermeasures were proposed to reduce ecological and promote sustainable development of new pattern urbanization in the future, such as preventing urbanization from developing too fast; implementing "compact type" urbanization development strategy; utilizing technology innovation to promote the efficiency of energy use and promote industrial upgrading; and advocating green life-styles.

Key words: urbanization, ecological footprint (EF), dynamic change, influence factors

中图分类号: 

  • K902
[1] 章茹, 蒋元勇, 万金保, 等. 城镇化过程对鄱阳湖流域生态系统的影响[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2014, 23(3):400-406.[ZHANG R, JIANG Y Y, WAN J B, et al. Effect of urbanization on the ecosystem of Poyang Lake[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2014, 23(3):400-406.]
[2] 景杰. 人口城镇化进程中的生态风险防范[J]. 宏观经济管理, 2015(7):76-77, 80.
[3] 梁玉磊, 胡雪萍. 城市化对我国区域生态足迹的影响研究[J]. 上海经济研究, 2015(3):25-29, 46.[LIANG Y L, HU X P. Research on the impact of urbanization on regional ecological footprint[J]. Shanghai Journal of Economics, 2015(3):25-29, 46.]
[4] 周锐, 胡远满, 王新军, 等. 快速城镇化地区生态用地演变及驱动力分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2015, 24(6):1012-1020.[ZHOU R, HU Y M, WANG X J, et al. Change characteristics of ecological land and its driving factors in rapidly urbanizing region[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2015, 24(6):1012-1020.]
[5] REES W E. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity:what urban economics leaves out[J]. Environment and Urbanization, 1992, 4(2):121-130.
[6] WACKERNAGEL M, REES W E. Our ecological footprint:reducing human impact on the earth[M]. Gabriola Island:New Society Publishers, 1996.
[7] WACKERNAGEL M, ONISTO L, BELLO P, et al. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept[J]. Ecological Economics, 1999, 29(3):375-390.
[8] 姜绵峰, 叶春明. 上海城市生态足迹动态研究——基于ARIMA模型[J]. 华东经济管理, 2015, 29(1):18-24.[JIANG M F, YE C M. A dynamic research on Shanghai urban ecological footprint-based on the ARIMA model[J]. East China Economic Management, 2015, 29(1):18-24.]
[9] 魏燕, 蒲佐毅. 城市化对区域生态安全的影响——基于VAR模型的实证分析[J]. 城市问题, 2012(6):17-23.[WEI Y, PU Z Y. The influence of urbanization process on regional ecological security:an empirical study based on the VAR model[J]. Urban Problems, 2012(6):17-23.]
[10] 张佳琦, 段玉山, 伍燕南. 基于生态足迹的苏州市可持续发展动态研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2015, 24(2):177-184.[ZHANG J Q, DUAN Y S, WU Y N. Dynamic analysis of sustainable development in Suzhou on ecological footprint[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2015, 24(2):177-184.]
[11] WANG C C, YANG Y S, ZHANG Y Q. Economic development, rural livelihoods, and ecological restoration:evidence from China[J]. AMBIO, 2011, 40(1):78-87.
[12] HOLDEN E. Ecological footprints and sustainable urban form[J]. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 2004, 19(1):91-109.
[13] ERB K H. Actual land demand of Austria 1926-2000:a variation on ecological footprint assessments[J]. Ecological Economics, 2007, 61(1):6-10
[14] LAMMERS A, MOLES R, WALSH C, et al. Ireland's footprint:a time series for 1983-2001[J]. Land Use Policy, 2008, 25(1):53-58.
[15] 王立群, 李冰, 郭轲. 北京市生态足迹变化及其社会经济驱动因子分析[J]. 城市问题, 2014(7):2-8.[WANG L Q, LI B, GUO K. Ecological footprint change of Beijing and its social and economic driving factors[J]. Urban Problems, 2014(7):2-8.]
[16] 林黎阳, 许丽忠. 福建省生态足迹驱动因子分析[J]. 福建师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 30(4):96-102.[LIN L Y, XU L Z. Analysis on driving factors of ecological footprint in Fujian Province[J]. Journal of Fujian Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 2014, 30(4):96-102.]
[17] 胡美娟, 周年兴, 李在军, 等. 南京市三维生态足迹测算及驱动因子[J]. 地理与地理信息科学, 2015, 31(1):91-95.[HU M J, ZHOU N X, LI Z J, et al. Calculation and driving factor analysis of three-dimensional ecological footprint in Nanjing city[J]. Geography and Geo-Information Science, 2015, 31(1):91-95.]
[18] 张学勤, 陈成忠, 林振山. 中国生态足迹的多尺度变化及驱动因素分析[J]. 资源科学, 2010, 32(10):2005-2011.[ZHANG X Q, CHEN C Z, LIN Z S. A study on driving forces of per capital ecological footprint at multiple timescales in China during the period 1953-2007[J]. Resources Science, 2010, 32(10):2005-2011.]
[19] 中国环境与发展国际合作委员会, 世界自然基金会. 中国生态足迹报告2012:消费、生产与可持续发展[R]. 北京:世界自然基金会, 2012.
[20] 王惠文, 吴载斌, 孟洁. 偏最小二乘回归的线性与非线性方法[M]. 北京:国防出版社, 2006.
[21] YORK R, ROSA E A, DIETZ T. STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT:analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts[J]. Ecological Economics, 2003, 46(3):351-365.
[22] VOYER R A, PESCH C, GARBER J, et al. New Bedford, Massachusetts:a story of urbanization and ecological connections[J]. Environmental History, 2000, 5(3):352-377.
[1] 李云良, 姚静, 张小琳, 张奇. 鄱阳湖水体垂向分层状况调查研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(06): 915-924.
[2] 李莹, 林文鹏, 宗玮. 基于改进模型的区域生态足迹动态分析——以江苏省南通市为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(04): 500-507.
[3] 张童, 陈爽, 姚士谋, 高群, 张家旗. 南京市生态足迹时空特征及脱钩效应分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(03): 350-358.
[4] 周峰, 吕慧华, 许有鹏. 城镇化下平原水系变化及河网连通性影响研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(03): 402-409.
[5] 罗文斌, 孟贝, 钟诚. 农地整理项目治理绩效及影响因素研究——以浙江省48个国投项目为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(02): 180-189.
[6] 杨超杰, 贺斌, 段伟利, 李冰, 陈雯, 杨桂山. 太湖典型丘陵水源地水质时空变化及影响因素分析——以平桥河流域为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(02): 273-281.
[7] 张范平, 方少文, 周祖昊, 温天福, 张梅红. 鄱阳湖水位多时间尺度动态变化特性分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(01): 126-133.
[8] 陈春, 于立, 张锐杰, 沈昊婧. 中国城镇化加速阶段中期土地城镇化与人口城镇化的协调程度[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(11): 1654-1662.
[9] 刘海, 殷杰, 陈晶, 陈晓玲. 基于遥感影像的丹江口水库水域面积动态变化与原因研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(11): 1759-1766.
[10] 臧玉珠, 林晨, 金志丰, 方飞, 周生路. 土地利用变化下沿海地区吸附态磷负荷动态变化研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(07): 1093-1102.
[11] 侯祎亮, 安艳玲, 吴起鑫, 吴旌滔, 黄娟, 段少琼, 刘霄. 贵州省三岔河流域水化学特征及其控制因素[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(07): 1121-1128.
[12] 张宇, 曹卫东, 梁双波, 胡燕燕. 长江经济带城镇化协同演化时空格局研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(05): 715-724.
[13] 李小帆, 邓宏兵. 长江经济带新型城镇化协调性的空间差异与时空演化[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(05): 725-732.
[14] 戴昭鑫, 张云芝, 胡云锋, 董昱. 基于地面监测数据的2013~2015年长三角地区PM2.5时空特征[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(05): 813-821.
[15] 田玲玲, 罗静, 董莹, 刘和涛, 曾菊新. 湖北省生态足迹和生态承载力时空动态研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(02): 316-325.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 陈 勇,陈国阶,杨定国. 岷江上游聚落分布规律及其生态特征——以四川理县为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2004, 13(1): 72 -77 .
[2] 陈正洪,万素琴,毛以伟. 三峡库区复杂地形下的降雨时空分布特点分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2005, 14(5): 623 -627 .
[3] 张磊,董立新,吴炳方,周万村. 三峡水库建设前后库区10年土地覆盖变化[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2007, 16(1): 107 -112 .
[4] 禹 娜,陈立侨,赵泉鸿. 太湖介形类动物丰度与生物量[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2008, 17(4): 546 .
[5] 孔令强. 水电工程农村移民入股安置模式初探[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2008, 17(2): 185 .
[6] 杨 选. 国内外典型水治理模式及对武汉水治理的借鉴[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2007, 16(5): 584 .
[7] 于苏俊,张 继,夏永秋. 基于遗传算法的可持续土地利用动态规划[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2006, 15(2): 180 -184 .
[8] 李恒鹏,杨桂山,刘晓玫,万荣荣. 流域土地利用变化的长周期水文效应及管理策略[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2005, 14(4): 450 -455 .
[9] 廖顺宝,李泽辉. 四川省人口分布与土地利用的关系及人口数据空间化试验[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2004, 13(6): 557 -561 .
[10] 董林水, 张旭东, 周金星, 李冬雪. 青藏铁路沿线北段植被物种丰富度及盖度的动态变化[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2008, 17(4): 551 .