Li Penghui, Zhang Ruqian, Wei Hong, Xu Liping
College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China.
College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China.
Sci Total Environ. 2022 Feb 1;806(Pt 2):150676. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150676. Epub 2021 Sep 29.
Natural capital accounting is an essential prerequisite for the harmonious development of human beings and nature and benign interactions between economy and environment. Although the ecological footprint has significantly contributed to sustainability evaluation for many years, the traditional ecological footprint model is limited by lack of value accounting, incomplete account content, neglect of multi-functions of land, and geographical spatial heterogeneity. These limitations reduce the universality of this model. To improve the value accounting of the ecological footprint model, this study takes national hectares (nha) as the measurement unit and includes the freshwater and pollution footprints. The dynamic changes of natural capital from 2000 to 2018 were calculated and analyzed in 31 Chinese provinces. The main findings are summarized here. China's physical quantity of ecological footprint, ecological carrying capacity, and ecological deficit in 2018 was 4.03, 0.79, and -3.24 billion nha, respectively. The energy account contributed most of the physical quantity in the ecological footprint (72.12% of the total). From 2000 to 2018, the physical quantities of the per capita ecological footprint and the per capita ecological deficit increased at 5.49% and 10.08% per annum, respectively, while the physical quantity of the per capita ecological carrying capacity decreased by 0.55% per annum. The physical quantities of the per capita ecological footprint and per capita ecological deficit were spatially distributed, reducing in the order of East > Central > West. The spatial distribution of the physical quantity of the per capita ecological carrying capacity showed the opposite trend. By 2018, China's ecological footprint, ecological carrying capacity, and ecological deficit were valued at 18.09, 12.44 and CNY -5.65 trillion, respectively. Over the 2000-2018 period, the per capita ecological footprint and ecological carrying capacity increased by 495 and CNY 370 per annum, respectively, while the per capita ecological deficit expanded at CNY -125 per annum. The biological account contributed approximately 59.53% of the value quantity of the ecological footprint. Since the twenty-first century, the cumulative effect of excessive consumption has placed increasing pressure on China's ecosystems. On mainland China, only Tibet showed an ecological surplus in 2018. The ecological pressure index decreased in the order of East > Central > West. As Western China has developed extensively and its ecological deficit is rapidly expanding, this region deserves special attention. The most ecologically challenging regions in China are Shanghai, Tianjin, and Beijing. In contrast, Jilin, Qinghai, and Tibet impose low ecological pressure in China. These findings contribute to the standardization and localization of the ecological footprint model in China and provide a reference for regional resource management and ecological construction.
自然资本核算是人类与自然和谐发展以及经济与环境良性互动的重要前提。尽管生态足迹多年来对可持续性评估做出了重大贡献，但传统生态足迹模型存在价值核算缺失、核算内容不完整、忽视土地多功能性以及地理空间异质性等局限性。这些局限性降低了该模型的通用性。为改进生态足迹模型的价值核算，本研究采用国家公顷（nha）作为计量单位，并纳入了淡水和污染足迹。计算并分析了2000年至2018年中国31个省份自然资本的动态变化。主要研究结果总结如下。2018年中国生态足迹、生态承载力和生态赤字的实物量分别为40.3亿、7.9亿和 -32.4亿国家公顷。能源账户在生态足迹实物量中占比最大（占总量的72.12%）。2000年至2018年，人均生态足迹和人均生态赤字的实物量分别以每年5.49%和10.08%的速度增长，而人均生态承载力的实物量则以每年0.55%的速度下降。人均生态足迹和人均生态赤字的实物量呈空间分布，东部>中部>西部依次递减。人均生态承载力实物量的空间分布呈现相反趋势。到2018年，中国的生态足迹、生态承载力和生态赤字的价值分别为18.09万亿、12.44万亿和 -5.65万亿元人民币。在2000 - 2018年期间，人均生态足迹和生态承载力分别以每年495元和370元人民币的速度增长，而人均生态赤字则以每年 -125元人民币的速度扩大。生物账户在生态足迹价值量中贡献约59.53%。自21世纪以来，过度消费的累积效应给中国生态系统带来了越来越大的压力。在中国大陆，2018年只有西藏呈现生态盈余。生态压力指数东部>中部>西部依次递减。由于中国西部粗放式发展且生态赤字迅速扩大，该地区值得特别关注。中国生态挑战最大的地区是上海、天津和北京。相比之下，吉林、青海和西藏对中国生态压力较小。这些研究结果有助于中国生态足迹模型的标准化和本地化，并为区域资源管理和生态建设提供参考。
