两种生态足迹方法的应用及其结果差异分析--以吉林省乾安县为例  

Application and Analysis of Two Ecological Footprint Methods:A Case Study of Qian'an County,Jilin Province

作　　者：王明全[1,2] 王金达[1] 刘景双[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国科学院东北地理与农业生态研究所,长春130012 [2]中国科学院研究生院,北京100049

出　　处：《资源科学》2008年第12期1897-1903,共7页Resources Science

基　　金：国家重点基础研究发展计划(编号:2004CB418507)

摘　　要：利用传统生态足迹（Ecological footprint，EF）和能值生态足迹（Emergetic ecological footprint，EEF）方法对乾安县1991年～2004年生态承载力进行了评判分析，结果表明：①两种方法评价结果差距明显，利用EF方法乾安县多数年份为生态盈余，而利用EEF方法多数年份处于超载状态，即使同为超载的年份EF和EEF超载程度也比较悬殊；②引起评价差异的主要背景原因为EEF和EF方法所量化和表达生态承载力的角度与内涵发生了根本性的改变，二者所研究的系统的边界也有所差异因而体现出不同的生态意义，即多数年份乾安县生物资源承载力尚有剩余而可更新自然资源承载力已超载；③作为基于一系列假设备件和以全球生产力为基准的分析方法，EF在应用到区域尺度时也可能遗漏一些特殊因素；从内涵和假设条件来看，EF可能会掩盖乾安县自然资本客观的可持续状况，而EEF从可更新自然资源角度量化自然资本所面临的严峻形势具有重要的现实意义；④不能把EF评价结果作为检验EEF可行性和有效性的唯一标准，要更多的与区域自然和社会现实相联系。As a policy guide and planning tool for sustainability, the ecological footprint （EF） method created by Wackernagel and Rees has been widely used, with ongoing discussion and modification. Emergetic ecological footprint （EEF） is one of the modified forms of EF based on HT Odum＇s emergy theory. In this paper, both the EF and EEF methods were applied to assess the ecological carrying capacity （ECC） of Qian＇an, a county located in the agro-pastoral transition zone of west Jilin province, with an analysis of the different conclusions of EF and EEF. The results showed that from 1991 to 2004, the conclusions of EF the ECC of Qian＇an C and EEF differed greatly. According to EF, there was still an ecologi ounty in most years, but according to EEF there was a serious ecologi C C al surplus for al overshoot. Even in the year where the two models reached the same conclusion of ecological overshoot, EF and EEF differed greatly on the matter of by what extent human consumption had exceeded the ECC. We explored the causes of difference in EF and EEF. As one of the modifications of EF, EEF expresses the ECC from an entirely new perspective and the system boundary in discussion was also changed greatly, thus very different ecological implications could be derived from EEF and EF for Qian＇an County. In most years, there was still ecological surplus for the carrying capacity of biomass resources but there was serious ecological overshoot for the carrying capacity of renewable natural resources. As a method constructed on hypotheses and on the basis of global average biomass productivity, EF may lose some important information when applied at the regional level. In this study, EF failed to reflect the real sustainability status of natural capital in Qian＇an from the perspective of biomass resources, while the EEF was a more feasible tool to do that because it quantified the ECC from the perspective of renewable natural recourses, which was a critical source of natural capital restricting the sustainability of

关 键 词：生态承载力 生态足迹 能值 超载/盈余 农牧交错带 乾安县 

分 类 号：X22[环境科学与工程—环境科学] F062.2[经济管理—政治经济学]