基于P-S-R框架模型试点研究高寒地区生态承载力——以甘肃省迭部县为例

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20190500177

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

全面客观评价生态资源承载能力,进而为区域可持续发展提供理论依据。以甘肃省迭部县为例,首先,采用压力-状态-响应(P-S-R)模型构建生态承载力评估指标体系,运用层次分析法(Analytic Hierarchy Process,AHP)确定各指标权重,评估生态环境承载力现状;其次,在生态功能区层面对迭部县水源涵养功能及生物多样性功能进行评价;最后,对生态承载力状况进行成因解析。研究结果表明：（1）迭部县整体生态承载力得分为0.239,处于“较强”承载力状态,构成整体生态承载力的生态弹性力、资源和环境承载力和人类社会影响力得分分别为0.222、0.062和0.063。（2）2016年,迭部县单位面积水源涵养量为111.76 mm,水源涵养功能处于“高”状态,其中,水源涵养功能较高地区主要集中在以草地和针阔混交林为主的区域。（3）自然栖息地面积占迭部县总面积的83.67%,其自然栖息质量指数(Natural Habitant Quality Index,NHQI)处于“高”状态。（4）从自然和经济2个因素进行分析,发现迭部县生态环境条件较好,但林草地面积已呈现出逐渐减少状态,因此需要通过合理科学的开发引导,发展文化旅游事业,推动迭部县的可持续发展。

关键词: 生态承载力, 水源涵养, 生物多样性, 高寒地区, 迭部县

Abstract:

The study aims to assess ecological carrying capacity and provide a theoretical support of regional sustainable development. Taking the Diebu County of Gansu Province as an example, firstly, the pressure-state-response (P-S-R) concept model was used to construct the index system of ecological carrying capacity, the index weight was defined according the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), to evaluate regional ecological carrying capacity; secondly, the water conservation function and biodiversity function were evaluated at the level of ecological function; finally, the causes of ecological carrying capacity were analyzed. The results showed that: (1) the overall ecological carrying capacity score of Diebu County was 0.239, which was in a strong carrying capacity state, the score of ecological resilience, resources and environmental capacity and human social influence which constituted the overall ecological carrying capacity was respectively 0.222, 0.062 and 0.063; (2) the water conservation capacity per unit area was 111.76 mm and the water conservation function was “high”, and the areas with high water conservation were mainly concentrated in the areas with mixed broadleaf-conifer forest and grassland; (3) the natural habitat accounted for 83.67% of the county’s total area, and the natural habitant quality index was “high”; (4) based on the analysis of natural and economic factors, it was found that the ecological environment of Diebu County was relatively good, but the area of forest and grass was decreasing gradually. Therefore, it is necessary to develop cultural tourism through rational guidance to promote the sustainable development of Diebu County.

Key words: ecological carrying capacity, water conservation, biological diversity, alpine region, Diebu County

中图分类号:

F205
X24

李真, 李振林, 屈鹏. 基于P-S-R框架模型试点研究高寒地区生态承载力——以甘肃省迭部县为例[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(19): 85-92.

Li Zhen, Li Zhenlin, Qu Peng. Pilot Study of Regional Ecological Carrying Capacity Based on P-S-R Model: A Case Study of Diebu County of Gansu Province[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(19): 85-92.

图/表 10

参考文献 26

[1]	Ouyang Z Y, Zheng H, Xiao Y, et al. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital[J]. Science, 2016,352:1455-1459. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2295 URL pmid: 27313045
[2]	贾克敬, 张辉, 徐小黎, 等. 面向空间开发利用的土地资源承载力评价技术[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017,36(3):335-341. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.03.009 URL
[3]	封志明, 杨艳昭, 闫慧敏, 等. 百年来的资源环境承载力研究:从理论到实践[J]. 资源科学, 2017,39(3):379-395. doi: 10.18402/resci.2017.03.01 URL
[4]	徐卫华, 杨琰瑛, 张路, 等. 区域生态承载力预警评估方法及案例研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017,36(3):306-312. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.03.005 URL
[5]	赵东升, 郭彩贇, 郑度, 等. 生态承载力研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2019,39(2):1-12.
[6]	习近平. 决胜全面建成小康社会夺取新时代中国特色社会主义伟大胜利——在中国共产党第十九次全国代表大会上的报告[J]. 中国经济周刊, 2017(42):68-96.
[7]	樊杰, 周侃, 王亚飞. 全国资源环境承载能力预警(2016版)的基点和技术方法进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017,36(3):266-276. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.03.001 URL
[8]	赵玉婷, 李文龙, 陈迪, 等. 高寒牧区草地生态系统健康动态评价——以甘南地区为例[J]. 草业科学, 2017,34(1):16-29.
[9]	Huang X, Bai H. Risk prediction of rural public security environmental carrying capacity based on the risk entropy[J]. Natural Hazards, 2018,90:157-171. doi: 10.1007/s11069-017-3037-6 URL
[10]	Rees W E. The ecology of sustainable development[J]. Ecologist, 1990,20(1):18-23.
[11]	毛文永. 生态环境影响评价概论[M]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 1998: 198-200.
[12]	Du W P, Yan H M, Yang Y Z, et al. Evaluation methods and research trends for ecological carrying capacity[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2018,9(2):115-124. doi: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2018.02.001 URL
[13]	William E R. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out[J]. Environment and Urbanization, 1992,4(2):121-130. doi: 10.1177/095624789200400212 URL
[14]	黄贤金, 周艳. 资源环境承载力研究方法综述[J]. 中国环境管理, 2018,10(6):36-42.
[15]	Chen G Q, Han M Y. Virtual land use change in China 2002-2010: internal transition and trade imbalance[J]. Land use policy, 2015,47:55-65. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.03.017 URL
[16]	迭部县统计局. 迭部县统计年鉴2016[Z]. 2017.
[17]	金悦, 陆兆华, 檀菲菲, 等. 典型资源型城市生态承载力评价——以唐山市为例.[J] 生态学报, 2015,35(14):4852-4859. doi: 10.5846/stxb201311202779 URL
[18]	王云霞. 北京市生态承载力与可持续发展研究[D]. 北京:中国矿业大学, 2010.
[19]	刘晓清, 张振文, 沈炳岗, 等. 秦岭生态功能区森林水源涵养功能的经济价值估算[J]. 水土保持通报, 2012,32(1):177-180.
[20]	付殿霞. 甘肃迭部县森林生态系统服务价值评估[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学, 2014.
[21]	熊建新, 陈端吕, 彭保发, 等. 2001-2010年洞庭湖区经济、社会和环境变化及其生态承载力响应[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014,33(3):356-363. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.03.007 URL
[22]	梁芸, 王大为. 2000年以来甘南植被变化趋势及原因分析[J]. 草业科学, 2016,33(6):1102-1111. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2015-0532 URL
[23]	刘世梁, 武雪, 朱家篱, 等. 耦合景观格局与生态系统服务的区域生态承载力评价[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2019,27(5):694-704.
[24]	Liang W, Fu B J, Wang S, et al. Quantification of the ecosystem carrying capacity on China’s Loess Plateau[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2019,101:192-202. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.020 URL
[25]	Cheng C, Liu Y L, Chen Y Y, et al. Diagnosing cropland's allowable range and spatial allocation in China's typical mountainous plateau area: An evaluation framework based on ecological carrying capacity[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2019,685:1255-1268. URL pmid: 31142445
[26]	段玉英. 迭部县生态林业建设中存在的问题与对策[J]. 农业科技与信息, 2017,19:25-26.

一级生态系统类型	二级生态系统类型	平均径流系数/%
森林	常绿阔叶林	2.67
	常绿针叶林	3.02
	针阔混交林	2.29
	落叶阔叶林	1.33
	落叶针叶林	0.88
	稀疏林	19.20
灌丛	常绿阔叶灌丛	4.26
	落叶阔叶灌丛	4.17
	针叶灌丛	4.17
	稀疏灌丛	19.20
草地	草甸	8.20
	草原	4.78
	草丛	9.37
	稀疏草地	18.27
湿地	湿地	0.00

一级生态系统类型	二级生态系统类型	平均径流系数/%
森林	常绿阔叶林	2.67
	常绿针叶林	3.02
	针阔混交林	2.29
	落叶阔叶林	1.33
	落叶针叶林	0.88
	稀疏林	19.20
灌丛	常绿阔叶灌丛	4.26
	落叶阔叶灌丛	4.17
	针叶灌丛	4.17
	稀疏灌丛	19.20
草地	草甸	8.20
	草原	4.78
	草丛	9.37
	稀疏草地	18.27
湿地	湿地	0.00

类型	面积/hm²	比例/%
森林	273074.58	53.46
草地	151533.34	29.67
湿地	2780.64	0.54
合计	427388.56	83.67

类型	面积/hm²	比例/%
森林	273074.58	53.46
草地	151533.34	29.67
湿地	2780.64	0.54
合计	427388.56	83.67

准则层	指标层	统计数据	指标权重	得分
生态弹性力	年均降水量	473.10 mm	0.046	-0.021
	年均气温	8.60℃	0.026	-0.012
	森林覆盖率	65.85%	0.152	-0.068
	草原覆盖率	29.67%	0.108	-0.048
	水资源总量	1.59×10⁹ m³	0.207	0.371
资源与环境承载力	人均耕地面积	956.47 m²/人	0.017	-0.016
	人均水资源量	29664.18 m³/人	0.063	0.018
	人均公共绿地面积	6.20 m²/人	0.010	-0.009
	人均草地	28271.14 m²/人	0.029	0.007
	人均林地面积	56100.75 m²/人	0.044	0.063
人类社会影响力	人均粮食产量	0.21 t/人	0.035	-0.023
	人口承载力	10.49人/km²	0.008	0.000
	城镇化率	29.50%	0.013	0.017
	恩格尔系数	42.00%	0.077	0.161
	节能环保支出	5.59百万元	0.022	-0.007
	人均GDP	2.12万元/人	0.039	-0.020
	万元GDP能耗	0.30 t标准煤/万元	0.057	-0.036
	化学需氧量	0.09万t	0.022	-0.015
	二氧化硫	0.03万t	0.022	-0.015