基于生态足迹法的宁夏生态移民区可持续发展能力研究

doi:10.12118/j.issn.1000-6060.2022.398

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

经济发展如何破解生态环境资源约束是可持续发展的重要研究议题。为探究生态移民区生态可持续发展能力变化情况，基于生态足迹法，构建了生态移民区可持续发展能力评价指标体系，对2000—2020年宁夏生态移民区生态可持续发展能力进行评估。在此基础上，采用脱钩模型分析了生态环境压力与经济发展脱钩关系。结果表明：（1）迁入区（红寺堡区）与迁出区（西吉县、隆德县、同心县）生态盈余呈下降趋势。红寺堡区生态盈余从2013年的0.730 hm²·人^-1下降到2020年的-0.054 hm²·人^-1。2000—2020年西吉县生态盈余从1.226 hm²·人^-1下降到0.963 hm²·人^-1;隆德县生态盈余从0.760 hm²·人^-1下降到-0.113 hm²·人^-1;同心县生态盈余从0.755 hm²·人^-1下降到0.347 hm²·人^-1。（2）迁入区生态可持续发展能力下降，迁出区生态可持续发展能力整体较高，但内部发展不均衡。迁入区生态可持续发展能力综合指数呈“W”变动趋势。从2013年-0.012降低到2020年-0.325。迁出区中西吉县和同心县生态可持续发展能力提高，隆德县生态可持续发展能力降低。2000—2020年西吉县生态可持续发展能力综合指数从-0.324上升到0.037;同心县生态可持续发展能力综合指数从-0.552上升到-0.125;隆德县生态可持续发展能力综合指数从-0.029下降到-0.375。（3）迁入区生态环境与经济发展未实现协调发展，迁出区经济增长与生态压力脱钩状态呈现区域性差异。因此，提出了坚持生态保护优先，走绿色发展之路、促进生态修复，走科技创新治理之路、优化资源配置，走协调发展之路的建议。

关键词: 生态移民, 生态足迹法, 可持续发展能力, 脱钩模型, 宁夏

Abstract:

How economic development can break ecological constraints is an important research topic for sustainable development. To explore the changes in ecologically sustainable development capacity in ecological migration areas, the authors used the ecological footprint method to construct an index for evaluating the sustainable development capacity of ecological migrants and used it to evaluate the sustainable development capacity of the Ningxia ecological migrant areas, northwest China from 2000 to 2020. A decoupling model was also used to analyze the relationship between ecological and environmental pressure and economic development. The research results show the following: (1) The ecological surplus of the migrated-in area (Hongsibu District) and the migrated-out area (Xiji County, Longde County, and Tongxin County) showed a decreasing trend. The ecological surplus of Hongsibu District decreased from 0.730 hm²·cap^-1in 2013 to -0.054 hm²·cap^-1in 2020. From 2000 to 2020, the ecological surplus of Xiji County declined from 1.226 hm²·cap^-1to 0.963 hm²·cap^-1. The ecological surplus of Longde County declined from 0.760 hm²·cap^-1to -0.113 hm²·cap^-1. The ecological surplus of Tongxin County declined from 0.755 hm²·cap^-1to 0.347 hm²·cap^-1. (2) The ecological sustainability of the in-migration area decreased, while the ecological sustainability of the out-migration area was high, but the development is uneven within the region. The relocation area’s ecological sustainability index shows a “W” trend. The ecological sustainability index decreased from -0.012 in 2013 to -0.325 in 2020. As a result, the ecological sustainability of Xiji and Tongxin counties in the migrated-out area is improved, and the ecological sustainability of Longde County is reduced. From 2000 to 2020, the ecological sustainability index of Xiji County increased from -0.324 to 0.037, the ecological sustainability index of Tongxin County increased from -0.552 to -0.125, and the ecological sustainability index of Longde County decreased from -0.029 to -0.375. (3) The ecological environment and economic development in the in-migration areas have not achieved coordinated and unified development. Decoupling of economic growth and ecological pressure in the migrated areas showed regional differences. Therefore, the following recommendations are made: adhere to the priority of ecological protection, take the path of green development and promote ecological restoration, take the path of scientific and technological innovation and governance, optimize resource allocation, and take the path of coordinated development.

Key words: ecological migration, ecological footprint method, capacity for sustainable development, decoupling model, Ningxia

董丽, 王满旺, 东梅. 基于生态足迹法的宁夏生态移民区可持续发展能力研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(6): 1004-1012.

DONG Li, WANG Manwang, DONG Mei. Sustainable development capability of Ningxia ecological migration area based on ecological footprint method[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2023, 46(6): 1004-1012.

图/表 5

表1

表2

图1

图2

表3

参考文献 26

[1]	Wibke P, Mark H, Atle M, et al. Migration in geographic and ecological space by a large herbivore[J]. Ecological Monographs, 2017, 87(2): 297-320. doi: 10.1002/ecm.2017.87.issue-2
[2]	Shaw A K, Couzin I D. Migration or residency? The evolution of movement behavior and information usage in seasonal environments[J]. The American Naturalist, 2013, 181(1): 114-124. doi: 10.1086/668600 pmid: 23234849
[3]	钟水映, 冯英杰. 生态移民工程与生态系统可持续发展的系统动力学研究--以三江源地区生态移民为例[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2018, 28(11): 10-19.
	[Zhong Shuiying, Feng Yingjie. Research on the system dynamics of ecological migration engineering and ecosystem sustainable development: For example of Three-river-source region ecological migration[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2018, 28(11): 10-19.]
[4]	郭晓莉, 李录堂. 政府支持、社会融入与生态移民贫困脆弱性- -基于陕南生态移民区的调查数据[J]. 预测, 2021, 40(2): 1-8.
	[Guo Xiaoli, Li Lutang. Government support, social integration and poverty vulnerability of ecological migration: Based on survey data of ecological migration areas in southern Shaanxi[J]. Forecasting, 2021, 40(2): 1-8.]
[5]	李晓冰. 自然保护区生态移民农户的生计响应测度--以小溪国家级自然保护区生态移民调查数据为样本[J]. 吉首大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 41(6): 152-160.
	[Li Xiaobing. Measurement of livelihood response of ecological migrant farmers in nature reserves: Based on the survey data of ecological migration in Xiaoxi National Nature Reserve[J]. Journal of Jishou University (Social Sciences Edition), 2020, 41(6): 152-160.]
[6]	金瑛, 李文军. 自发型与政策型移民搬迁对牧民生计的影响--以青海省玉树州囊谦县两村为例[J]. 北京大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 55(6): 1119-1128.
	[Jin Ying, Li Wenjun. Impacts of spontaneous migration and policy-driven migration on the livelihood of pastoralists: A case study in Nangqian County, Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Qinghai Province[J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis (Natural Sciences Edition), 2019, 55(6): 1119-1128.]
[7]	陈胜东, 周丙娟. 生态移民政策实施农户满意度及其影响因素分析--以赣南原中央苏区为例[J]. 农林经济管理学报, 2020, 19(5): 602-610.
	[Chen Shengdong, Zhou Bingjuan. Farmers’ satisfaction and factors influencing implementation of eco-migration policy: A study based on investigation of former Central Soviet Areas in Gannan[J]. Journal of Agro-Forestry Economics and Management, 2020, 19(5): 602-610.]
[8]	叶尔扎提·开恩思, 李莉, 孟梅. 塔城市库鲁斯台草原生态移民政策实施效果评价--基于邓恩公共政策评价标准[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(10): 27-33.
	[Kaiensi Yeerzhati, [Li Li, Meng Mei. Evaluation on the implementation effect of grassland ecological immigration policy in Kurustai, Tacheng City[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(10): 27-33.]
[9]	史梦薇, 王炳江. 民族地区生态移民心理适应的特征及影响因素[J]. 中南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2020, 40(2): 68-72.
	[Shi Mengwei, Wang Bingjiang. Features and influencing factors of psychological adaptation for ecological immigrants at ethnic areas[J]. Journal of South-Central Minzu University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), 2020, 40(2): 68-72.]
[10]	吴晓萍, 刘辉武. 易地扶贫搬迁移民经济适应的影响因素--基于西南民族地区的调查[J]. 贵州社会科学, 2020(2): 122-129.
	[Wu Xiaoping, Liu Huiwu. Factors influencing economic adaptation of migrants relocating from easy-to-reach poverty-relief areas: A survey based on ethnic areas in southwest China[J]. Guizhou Social Sciences, 2020(2): 122-129.]
[11]	金莲, 王永平. 贵州省生态移民经济可持续发展研究[J]. 山地学报, 2019, 37(1): 98-108.
	[Jin Lian, Wang Yongping. Economic sustainable development of ecological migration in Guizhou Province[J]. Mountain Research, 2019, 37(1): 98-108.]
[12]	张丽君, 杨秀明. 牧区生态移民中女性经济参与研究[J]. 贵州社会科学, 2016(9): 142-149.
	[Zhang Lijun, Yang Xiuming. A study on women’s economic participation in ecological migration in pastoral areas[J]. Guizhou Social Science, 2016(9): 142-149.]
[13]	郝丹璞. 基于生态足迹模型的湖北省农业资源开发评估[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2018, 39(9): 149-154.
	[Hao Danpu. Evaluation of agricultural resources development in Hubei Province based on ecological footprint model[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2018, 39(9): 149-154.]
[14]	Tsiaras S, Samara T, Spanos I. Exploring linkages among land use/land cover change, ecological footprint and sustainable development[J]. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 2017, 18(3): 879-888.
[15]	Syrovátka M. On sustainability interpretations of the ecological footprint[J]. Ecological Economics, 2020, 169: 106543, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106543. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106543
[16]	张佳宁, 姚林杰, 张恒瑞, 等. 内蒙古草地资源的生态足迹及其可持续利用分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(6): 1988-2003.
	[Zhang Jianing, Yao Linjie, Zhang Hengrui, et al. Ecological footprint and sustainable utilization of grassland resources in Inner Mongolia[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2022, 45(6): 1988-2003.]
[17]	何爱红, 王亦龙, 向党, 等. 基于生态足迹的宁夏回族自治区可持续发展评价[J]. 干旱区地理, 2013, 36(5): 906-912.
	[He Aihong, Wang Yilong, Xiang Dang, et al. Sustainable development evaluation based on ecological footprint: A case study of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2013, 36(5): 906-912.]
[18]	朱高立, 饶芳萍, 李发志, 等. 基于生态足迹的沿海城市可持续发展能力评价及预测分析--以江苏盐城为例[J]. 水土保持研究, 2021, 28(2): 360-366.
	[Zhu Gaoli, Rao Fangping, Li Fazhi, et al. Assessment and prediction of sustainable development of coast city based on ecological footprint method: An application to Yancheng City in Jiangsu Province[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 28(2): 360-366.]
[19]	张晓雨, 周宝同, 明弘. 基于三维生态足迹的可持续发展实证研究--以重庆市为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2020, 39(5): 705-713.
	[Zhang Xiaoyu, Zhou Baotong, Ming Hong. Empirical study on sustainable development based on the three-dimensional ecological footprint: A case of Chongqing[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2020, 39(5): 705-713.]
[20]	樊新刚, 仲俊涛, 杨美玲, 等. 区域可持续发展能力的能值与耦合分析模型构建[J]. 地理学报, 2019, 74(10): 2062-2077. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201910008
	[Fan Xingang, Zhong Juntao, Yang Meiling, et al. Construction of an emergy and exergy coupling model for the analysis of regional sustainable development capability[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019, 74(10): 2062-2077.] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201910008
[21]	聂华林, 苏芳, 尚海洋. 甘肃省1990-2005年生态足迹与发展能力研究[J]. 甘肃社会科学, 2010(4): 92-94.
	[Nie Hualin, Su Fang, Shang Haiyang. Study on ecological footprint and development capacity of Gansu Province from 1990-2005[J]. Gansu Social Sciences, 2010(4): 92-94.]
[22]	高艳珍, 郑庆荣, 罗淑政, 等. 集中连片贫困区耕地安全性评价及影响因素分析--以忻州市为例[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2021, 38(5): 919-927.
	[Gao Yanzhen, Zheng Qingrong, Luo Shuzheng, et al. Evaluation of cultivated land security and analysis of its influencing factors in concentrated contiguous poverty areas: A case study of Xinzhou City[J]. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment, 2021, 38(5): 919-927.]
[23]	吴歌, 符素华, 杨艳芬, 等. 2006-2014年延安市生态足迹和承载力变化分析[J]. 水土保持研究, 2018, 25(6): 259-264, 276.
	[Wu Ge, Fu Suhua, Yang Yanfen, et al. Analysis on change in ecological footprint and land carrying capacity in Yan’an City from 2006 to 2014[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018, 25(6): 259-264, 276.]
[24]	王昕宇, 黄海峰. 基于生态足迹模型的县域可持续发展研究--以宜宾市为例[J]. 农村经济, 2016(7): 84-89.
	[Wang Xinyu, Huang Haifeng. Research on sustainable development of counties based on ecological footprint model: Yibin City as an example[J]. Rural Economy, 2016(7): 84-89.]
[25]	赵鹏宇, 郭劲松, 刘秀丽, 等. 基于生态足迹模型修正的忻州市生态承载力空间差异变化[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(1): 41-50.
	[Zhao Pengyu, Guo Jinsong, Liu Xiuli, et al. Spatial differences of ecological carrying capacity in Xinzhou City based on the ecological footprint method[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2019, 37(1): 41-50.]
[26]	王刚毅, 刘杰. 基于改进水生态足迹的水资源环境与经济发展协调性评价--以中原城市群为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2019, 28(1): 80-90.
	[Wang Gangyi, Liu Jie. Coordinating evaluation of water resources environment and economic development based on improved water ecological footprint: A case study of Central Plains urban agglomeration[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2019, 28(1): 80-90.]

项目类型及计算所需因子	消费项目	消费项目明细	土地类型
生物资源账户	农产品、油料、蔬菜	小麦、稻谷、玉米、薯类、豆类、油料、蔬菜等	耕地
	肉产品	猪肉、禽蛋等	草地
	畜肉及有关制品	牛肉、羊肉、奶制品等	草地
	林产品	水果等	林地
	水产品	淡水鱼等	水域
能源消耗账户	建筑设施	电力等	建设用地
	能源	煤炭、化肥、液化石油气、天然气等	化石能源用地
污染排放账户	污染物	固体废弃物、SO₂、烟（粉）尘排放量、工业废水、生活废水	-
均衡因子	耕地（2.80）、草地（0.50）、林地（1.10）、水域（0.20）、建筑用地（2.80）
产量因子	耕地（1.66）、草地（0.19）、林地（0.91）、水域（1.00）、建筑用地（1.66）

强负脱钩	扩张性负脱钩	过渡弱负脱钩	弱脱钩	强脱钩	衰退性脱钩	过渡强负脱钩	强负脱钩
Δef>0	Δef>0	Δef>0	Δef>0	Δef<0	Δef<0	Δef<0	Δef<0
ΔG<0	ΔG>0	ΔG>0	ΔG>0	ΔG>0	ΔG<0	ΔG<0	ΔG<0
T<0	T>1.2	1≤T≤1.2	0≤T<1	T<0	T>1.2	1≤T≤1.2	0≤T<1

区域	变化率及脱钩类型	2011年	2012年	2013年	2014年	2015年	2016年	2017年	2018年	2019年	2020年
红寺堡区	ΔG	-	-	-	0.079	0.112	0.107	0.119	0.109	1.933	0.132
	Δef	-	-	-	0.042	0.279	-0.233	0.656	-0.043	0.287	0.154
	T	-	-	-	0.527	2.493	-2.167	5.519	-0.395	0.149	1.166
	类型	-	-	-	弱脱钩	扩张性负脱钩	强脱钩	扩张性负脱钩	强脱钩	弱脱钩	过渡弱负脱钩
西吉县	ΔG	0.153	0.218	0.185	0.078	0.079	0.125	0.110	0.056	0.071	0.128
	Δef	0.157	0.247	-0.074	0.053	-0.112	-0.082	0.424	-0.074	0.052	0.012
	T	1.029	1.131	-0.402	0.681	-1.419	-0.656	3.868	-1.340	0.731	0.095
	类型	过渡弱负脱钩	扩张性负脱钩	强脱钩	弱脱钩	强脱钩	强脱钩	扩张性负脱钩	强脱钩	弱脱钩	弱脱钩
隆德县	ΔG	0.180	0.148	0.175	0.122	0.077	0.089	0.108	0.123	0.129	0.119
	Δef	0.148	0.032	-0.004	0.247	-0.038	0.125	0.228	0.171	0.007	0.276
	T	0.821	0.214	-0.022	2.017	-0.492	1.406	2.110	1.393	0.051	2.322
	类型	弱脱钩	弱脱钩	强脱钩	扩张性负脱钩	强脱钩	扩张性负脱钩	扩张性负脱钩	扩张性负脱钩	弱脱钩	扩张性负脱钩
同心县	ΔG	0.195	0.141	0.121	0.098	0.108	0.112	0.157	0.095	0.324	0.122
	Δef	-0.699	0.133	-0.121	-0.075	0.084	0.101	0.393	-0.201	-0.098	0.294
	T	-3.589	0.941	-0.997	-0.767	0.771	0.899	2.497	-2.115	-0.301	2.419
	类型	强脱钩	弱脱钩	强脱钩	强脱钩	弱脱钩	弱脱钩	扩张性负脱钩	强脱钩	强脱钩	扩张性负脱钩