嘉峪关市土地生态安全动态评价及影响因素分析

doi:10.12118/j.issn.1000–6060.2021.01.30

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

土地生态安全评价对管控区域生态风险和保障生态安全具有重要意义。基于“数量安全-质量安全-结构安全-保障安全”模型构建指标评价体系,采用相对熵方法进行组合赋权,揭示嘉峪关市土地生态安全的动态变化过程,并运用因子分析法探讨其主要影响因素。结果表明：（1） 2000—2017年,嘉峪关市土地生态安全综合指数呈上升趋势,由2000年的0.415上升至2017年的0.644,安全等级由较不安全上升至临界安全,综合安全水平有所提升,但目前安全等级仍较低,土地生态安全风险仍然存在。（2）各子系统中,数量安全指数波动变化不大,提升效果不明显;质量安全指数基本呈持续上升趋势,增长速度较快;结构安全指数2000—2009年增长较为明显,2009年后波动变化不大;保障安全指数呈明显的波动变化趋势,经历先增大再减小后波动增大过程,大致呈倾斜的“N”字型态势。（3）土地生态安全变动的主要影响因素可整合为资源环境本底、产业结构演替、环境污染治理和生态建设成效4个方面。

关键词: 土地生态安全, 动态评价, 影响因素, 嘉峪关市

Abstract:

Land is the basis of human existence and development. In recent years, the development of industrialization and urbanization has been accelerating, impact of human beings on the ecological environment has been increasing, and land ecological security issues such as structural contradictions in land use and land degradation have been gaining attention. These changes seriously restrict the sustainable development of society. The assessment of land ecological security is of great significance for the management of regional ecological risks and guaranteeing ecological security. In this study, Jiayuguan City of Gansu Province, China is selected as the study area and an index evaluation system is constructed based on the model of the “quantity safety-quality safety-structure safety-guarantee safety” framework. This study reveals the dynamic change process of land ecological security from 2000 to 2017 and discusses its main influencing factors using the factor analysis method. The results show as follows: (1) the comprehensive index of land ecological security increased from 0.415 in 2000 to 0.644 in 2017 and the level of security upgraded from being less secure to critical secure. However, the level of security is still low and the risk of land ecological security still exists. (2) In the subsystem, the quantity safety index fluctuated from 0.11 to 0.14, and its improvement effect was not obvious. The quality safety index showed an upward trend with a fast annual growth rate of 6.89%. The structure safety index increased from 2000 to 2009; its annual growth rate was 4.49%, and it fluctuated from 0.14 to 0.15 after 2009. The guarantee safety index showed an obvious fluctuant trend, exhibiting a rising trend in 2000—2004 and 2011—2017 and a declining trend in 2005—2010. The trend exhibited an inclined “N” pattern. (3) The main factors influencing the change in land ecological security can be divided into four aspects: the background of the resources and environment, succession of industrial structure, control of environmental pollution, and effect of ecological construction. These factors are of paramount importance for ensuring sustainable land use and ecological civilization in Jiayuguan City in the future.

Key words: land ecological security, dynamic evaluation, influence factors, Jiayuguan City

郑岚,张志斌,笪晓军,马亚兄. 嘉峪关市土地生态安全动态评价及影响因素分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(1): 289-298.

ZHENG Lan,ZHANG Zhibin,DA Xiaojun,MA Yaxiong. Dynamic evaluation and influencing factors of land ecological security in Jiayuguan City[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2021, 44(1): 289-298.

图/表 7

图1

表1

表2

图2

图3

表3

表4

参考文献 31

[1]	Scholz M, Hedmark A, Hartley W. Recent advances in sustainable multifunctional land and urban management in Europe: A review[J]. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2012,55(7):833-854.
[2]	Tegen I, Lacis A A, Fung I. The influence on climate forcing of mineral aerosols from disturbed soils[J]. Nature, 1996,380(6573):419-422.
[3]	Sterr T. Interactions between water-land resources and oasis urban development at the northern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains, Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2012,4(2):221-229.
[4]	赵领娣, 李莎莎, 赵志博, 等. 干旱半干旱区城市生态效率时空演变及区域差异分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2020,43(2):449-457.
	[ Zhao Lingdi, Li Shasha, Zhao Zhibo, et al. Temporal and spatial evolution and regional difference analysis of urban ecological efficiency in arid and semiarid areas[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2020,43(2):449-457. ]
[5]	张小虎, 雷国平, 袁磊, 等. 黑龙江省土地生态安全评价[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2009,19(1):88-93.
	[ Zhang Xiaohu, Lei Guoping, Yuan Lei, et al. Evaluation on ecological security of land based on entropy weight and matter-element model: A case study of Heilongjiang Province[J]. China Population Resources and Environment, 2009,19(1):88-93. ]
[6]	熊建华. 土地生态安全评价研究回顾、难点与思考[J]. 地理与地理信息科学, 2018,34(6):71-76.
	[ Xiong Jianhua. Review, difficulties and thinking of land ecological security evaluation[J]. Geography and Geo-information Science, 2018,34(6):71-76. ]
[7]	郭旭东, 谢俊奇, 李双成, 等. 土地生态学发展历程及中国土地生态学发展建议[J]. 中国土地科学, 2015,29(9):4-10.
	[ Guo Xudong, Xie Junqi, Li Shuangcheng, et al. Development experience of land ecology and suggestions for improvement of China’s land ecology[J]. China Land Science, 2015,29(9):4-10. ]
[8]	Laurentiis V D, Secchi M, Bos U, et al. Soil quality index: Exploring options for a comprehensive assessment of land use impacts in LCA[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018,215:63-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.238 pmid: 31007413
[9]	Maria F D, Sisani F. A sustainability assessment for use on land or wastewater treatment of the digestate from bio-waste[J]. Waste Management, 2019,87:741-750. pmid: 31109577
[10]	Herrick J E, Shaver P, Pyke D A, et al. A strategy for defining the reference for land health and degradation assessments[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2019,97:225-230. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.065
[11]	Gworek B, Helena A B, Kalinowski R, et al. Ecological risk assessment for land contaminated by petrochemical industry[J]. PLoS ONE, 2018,13(10):1-15.
[12]	李昊, 李世平, 银敏华. 中国土地生态安全研究进展与展望[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2016,30(9):50-56.
	[ Li Hao, Li Shiping, Yin Minhua. Research progress and prospect of land ecological security in China[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2016,30(9):50-56. ]
[13]	王鹏, 况福民, 邓育武, 等. 基于主成分分析的衡阳市土地生态安全评价[J]. 经济地理, 2015,35(1):168-172.
	[ Wang Peng, Kuang Fumin, Deng Yuwu, et al. Assesment of land eco-security of the Hengyang City on the principal component[J]. Economic Geography, 2015,35(1):168-172. ]
[14]	谭少军, 邵景安. 基于生态适宜性评价的西南丘陵区土地整治工程布局研究[J]. 地理研究, 2018,37(4):659-677. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201804002
	[ Tan Shaojun, Shao Jing’an. Land consolidation project layout based on ecological suitability evaluation in hilly areas of southwest China[J]. Geographical Research, 2018,37(4):659-677. ] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201804002
[15]	韩鹏冉, 严成, 孙永秀, 等. 克拉玛依市中部城区外围生态敏感性评价[J]. 干旱区研究, 2018,35(5):1217-1222.
	[ Han Pengran, Yan Cheng, Sui Yongxiu, et al. GIS-based assessment of eco-environmental sensitivity in peripheral regions of Karamay central urban area[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2018,35(5):1217-1222. ]
[16]	黄宇驰, 苏敬华, 吕峰. 基于SEP模型的土地资源承载力评价方法研究——以上海市闵行区为例[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2017,27(S1):124-127.
	[ Huang Yuchi, Su Jinghua, Lü Feng. Evaluation method of land resources carrying capacity based on SEP model: A case of Minhang District in Shanghai[J]. China Population Resources and Environment, 2017,27(S1):124-127. ]
[17]	徐美, 朱翔, 刘春腊. 基于RBF的湖南省土地生态安全动态预警[J]. 地理学报, 2012,67(10):1411-1422. doi: 10.11821/xb201210011
	[ Xu Mei, Zhu Xiang, Liu Chunla. Early-warning of land ecological security in Hunan Province based on RBF[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2012,67(10):1411-1422. ] doi: 10.11821/xb201210011
[18]	李春燕, 南灵. 陕西省土地生态安全动态评价及障碍因子诊断[J]. 中国土地科学, 2015,29(4):72-81.
	[ Li Chunyan, Nan Ling. Dynamic evaluation and diagnosis of obstacle factors on land eco-security in Shaanxi Province[J]. China Land Science, 2015,29(4):72-81. ]
[19]	曾翠萍, 邱慧珍, 张文明, 等. 基于PSR模型的庆阳市生态安全评价[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2010,24(12):67-72.
	[ Zeng Cuiping, Qiu Huizhen, Zhang Wenming, et al. Assessment on ecological security of Qingyang based on PSR model[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2010,24(12):67-72. ]
[20]	田丰收, 刘新平, 原伟鹏. 新疆和田地区耕地面源污染生态风险评价[J]. 干旱区地理, 2019,42(2):295-304.
	[ Tian Fengshou, Liu Xinping, Yuan Weipeng. Ecological risk assessment of farmland non-point source pollution in Hotan Prefecture, Xinjiang[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2019,42(2):295-304. ]
[21]	刘艳, 桂智凡. 基于“自然-经济-社会”模型的土地生态安全评价研究——以黄石市为例[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2013,41(28):11536-11539.
	[ Liu Yan, Gui Zhifan. The land ecological safety evaluation of Huangshi City based on “Natural-Economic-Social” Model[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2013,41(28):11536-11539. ]
[22]	孙丕苓, 杨海娟, 刘庆果. 南水北调重要水源地的土地生态安全动态研究——以陕西省商洛市为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2012,27(9):1520-1530. doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2012.09.009
	[ Sui Piling, Yang Haijuan, Liu Qingguo. Study on dynamic security of land ecology in water source area of South to North Water Diversion Project: A case study of Shangluo City, Shaanxi Province[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2012,27(9):1520-1530. ] doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2012.09.009
[23]	王晶, 原伟鹏, 刘新平. 哈尔滨城市土地生态安全时序评价及预测分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2018,41(4):885-892.
	[ Wang Jing, Yuan Weipeng, Liu Xinping. Time series evaluation and prediction analysis of urban land ecological security in Harbin City[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2018,41(4):885-892. ]
[24]	魏伟, 石培基, 周俊菊, 等. 基于GIS和组合赋权法的石羊河流域生态环境质量评价[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2015,29(1):175-180.
	[ Wei Wei, Shi Peiji, Zhou Junju, et al. Comprehensive assessment of eco-environmental quality based on GIS and combination weighting method in Shiyang River Basin[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2015,29(1):175-180. ]
[25]	尤凤. 嘉峪关市土地集约利用潜力研究[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2010.
	[ You Feng. The research on intensive land use and potential in Jiayuguan[D]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2010. ]
[26]	李伟伟, 易平涛, 李玲玉. 综合评价中异常值的识别及无量纲化处理方法[J]. 运筹与管理, 2018,27(4):173-178.
	[ Li Weiwei, Yi Pingtao, Li Lingyu. Outliers recognition and the dimensionless method in comprehensive evaluation[J]. Operation Research and Management Science, 2018,27(4):173-178. ]
[27]	于海洋, 张飞, 曹雷, 等. 基于乡镇尺度的土地生态安全时空格局评价研究——以博尔塔拉蒙古自治州为例[J]. 生态学报, 2017,37(19):6355-6369. doi: 10.5846/stxb201607081406
	[ Yu Haiyang, Zhang Fei, Cao Lei, et al. Spatial-temporal pattern of land ecological security at a township scale in the Bortala Mongolian Autonomous Prefecture[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017,37(19):6355-6369. ] doi: 10.5846/stxb201607081406
[28]	崔明哲, 杨凤海, 李佳. 基于组合赋权法的哈尔滨市耕地生态安全评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2012,19(6):184-187, 192.
	[ Cui Mingzhe, Yang Fenghai, Li Jia. Analysis of cultivated land ecological security assessment of Harbin City based on combination weighting method[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2012,19(6):184-187, 192. ]
[29]	杨发鹏, 张雪唱, 李宗阳. 城市旅游“三生”竞争力空间分异——以西北五省为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2019,42(3):664-672.
	[ Yang Fapeng, Zhang Xuechang, Li Zongyang. Spatial differentiation of the “production-life-ecology” competitiveness in urban tourism: A case study of five provinces in northwest China[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2019,42(3):664-672.
[30]	朱晓华, 宋冬梅, 色布力马. 甘肃民勤绿洲土地空间结构动态变化及其灰色预测[J]. 干旱区地理, 2005,28(5):686-691.
	[ Zhu Xiaohua, Song Dongmei, Sebulima, Dynamic change and grey prediction of land spatial structure in the Mingin, Gansu Province[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2005,28(5):686-691. ]
[31]	孙余. 基于因子分析法的高职学生成绩评价[J]. 物联网技术, 2013,3(3):81-83.
	[ Sui Yu. The vocational student achievement evaluation based on factor analysis[J]. Internet of Things Technologies, 2013,3(3):81-83. ]

准则层	要素层	指标层	单位	权重/%	属性
数量安全（A₁）	资源禀赋条件（B₁）	T₁人均耕地面积	hm²·人^-1	2.91	正
		T₂人均建设用地面积	hm²·人^-1	2.58	负
		T₃人均林草地面积	hm²·人^-1	3.30	正
		T₄人均未利用地面积	hm²·人^-1	3.03	正
		T₅人均水资源量	m³·人^-1	3.07	正
	社会经济条件（B₂）	T₆人均GDP	元·人^-1	2.59	正
		T₇地均GDP	10⁴元·hm^-2	2.68	正
		T₈城镇居民可支配收入	元	3.02	正
		T₉地方财政收入	10⁸元	3.17	正
质量安全（A₂）	土地退化（B₃）	T₁₀土地荒漠化率	%	2.07	负
		T₁₁植被覆盖度	%	2.50	正
		T₁₂单位面积农业污染负荷指数		2.69	负
		T₁₃单位面积工业污染负荷指数		2.60	负
	产出能力（B₄）	T₁₄复种指数		2.22	正
		T₁₅单位耕地农业机械动力	kW·hm^-2	4.01	正
		T₁₆单位面积粮食产量	kg·hm^-2	2.63	正
		T₁₇农林牧渔增加值	10⁴元	3.10	正
		T₁₈工业增加值	10⁴元	2.70	正
结构安全（A₃）	土地利用结构（B₅）	T₁₉耕地占农用地比例	%	2.56	正
		T₂₀耕地面积比重	%	3.20	正
		T₂₁建设用地指数	%	2.63	负
		T₂₂森林覆盖率	%	2.90	正
		T₂₃未利用土地面积比重	%	2.77	正
	社会经济结构（B₆）	T₂₄人口密度	人·km^-2	2.87	负
		T₂₅经济密度	10⁴元·km^-2	2.68	正
		T₂₆第三产业比重	%	3.65	正
		T₂₇城镇化率	%	2.22	正
保障安全（A₄）	直接保障（B₇）	T₂₈人均公共绿地面积	m²·人^-1	2.69	正
		T₂₉人工造林面积	hm²	3.39	正
		T₃₀灌溉指数	%	3.40	正
		T₃₁水土协调度		2.85	正
	间接保障（B₈）	T₃₂工业固废综合利用率	%	2.45	正
		T₃₃工业废水达标排放率	%	1.71	正
		T₃₄旅游及相关产业收入	10⁸元	3.67	正
		T₃₅污染治理投资占GDP比重	%	3.47	正

安全等级	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ
安全值	[0,0.3)	[0.3,0.5)	[0.5,0.7)	[0.7,0.9)	[0.9,1]
土地生态系统状况	不安全	较不安全	临界安全	较安全	安全

成分	初始特征值			旋转平方和
成分	特征值	贡献率/%	累计贡献率/%	特征值	贡献率/%	累计贡献率/%
1	23.402	66.862	66.862	19.766	56.473	56.473
2	5.270	15.056	81.919	7.420	21.199	77.672
3	1.750	5.001	86.919	3.068	8.767	86.439
4	1.297	3.705	90.625	1.465	4.185	90.625

成分	指标（载荷）	因子命名
1	T₁ (0.921),T₃ (-0.924),T₄ (-0.909),T₆ (0.936),T₇ (0.941),T₁₁ (0.977),T₁₈ (0.928),T₂₀ (0.930),T₂₅ (0.941),T₃₁ (-0.929)	资源环境本底
2	T₁₅ (0.876),T₁₆ (0.852),T₂₆ (0.932),T₃₄ (0.814)	产业结构演替
3	T₁₉ (0.827),T₃₃ (0.658),T₃₅ (-0.587)	环境污染治理
4	T₂₉ (0.885)	生态建设成效