西藏生态移民安置村人类活动强度变化

doi:10.18402/resci.2021.11.17

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对生态移民如何影响安置地人类活动强度和生态承载能力的问题,结合生态足迹和人类占用的净初级生产力（Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production, HANPP）两种方法,分析生态移民安置对西藏拉萨河流域典型半农半牧村—白朗村人类活动强度变化的影响,为西藏生态移民搬迁和安置地的可持续发展提供科学依据。结果表明：①2010—2019年,白朗村人均生态足迹由2.79 hm²降至1.80 hm²,人均生态承载力由4.44 hm²降至2.47 hm²,生态足迹指数从移民迁入前的51.72%降为27.25%,白朗村生态系统由强可持续变为弱可持续;HANPP绝对量由20.17 g C/m²增长为34.01 g C/m²,HANPP占潜在净初级生产力的比率在10.09%至12.0%之间,土地利用变化导致的HANPP_luc不断上升并超过人类活动收获导致的HANPP_harv,半农半牧型产业偏向农业方向发展。②占村域面积11.46%的洪积平原地区,承担着2019年移民安置后72.96%的HANPP,新开垦耕地和人工草地减轻了山体草地放牧压力,使得村域人类活动强度更加集中,利于实现生态系统供给服务与调节服务的协同提升。③两种方法结果均表明移民安置明显增强了白朗村人类活动强度,其中生态足迹方法在可持续发展能力评价方面更直观,而人类占用的净初级生产力方法在人类活动强度的空间分析方面更具优势,二种方法具有互补性。后续移民安置区应根据当地生态承载力分配移民安置数量,并通过不同地形及植被类型之间供给服务和调节服务的合理分配,实现生态系统服务功能的协同提升。

关键词: 生态足迹, 生态移民安置, 人类占用的净初级生产力, 人类活动强度, 可持续发展, 西藏

Abstract:

In view of the significant changes of human activity intensity and ecological carrying capacity (EC) caused by ecological resettlement, this study analyzed the impact of ecological resettlement on human activity intensity of typical semi-agricultural and semi-pastoral villages in the Lhasa River Basin of Tibet by using the methods of ecological footprint (EF) and human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP). The results show that the per capita ecological footprint of Bailang Village the case study village decreased from 2.79 hm² to 1.80 hm², and the per capita ecological carrying capacity decreased from 4.44 hm² to 2.47 hm² from 2010 to 2019. The ecological footprint index (EFI) value decreased from 51.72% to 27.25%, implying that the sustainability of the village has been weakened. The HANPP increased from 20.17 g C/m² to 34.01 g C/m², that is, HANPP in percent of potential net primary production ranges from 10.09% to 12.0%. Land-use induced human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP_luc) raised and exceeded biomass harvest (HANPP_harv), and the semi-agricultural and semi-animal husbandry industries tend to develop in the direction of agricultural dominance. The valley plain area, which accounts for 11.46% of the village area, bears 72.96% of the HANPP after resettlement in 2019. The newly reclaimed cultivated land and artificial grassland reduce the grazing pressure of mountain grassland, make the intensity of human activities in the village more concentrated, and help to realize the coordinated improvement of ecosystem supply services and regulation services. The results of the two methods show that the resettlement has significantly enhanced the intensity of human activities in Bailang Village. Ecological footprint is more specific in the evaluation of sustainability while HANPP has more advantages in spatial analysis and ecosystem function analysis, and the two methods are complementary. In the subsequent resettlement program, the number of resettlement villages shall be determined according to the local ecological carrying capacity, and the coordinated improvement of ecosystem service function shall be realized through the rational allocation of supply services and regulation services between different terrain and vegetation types. By comparing the characteristics of the two evaluation methods, this study provides a reference for the selection of human activity intensity evaluation indicators in other regions. It also provides a scientific basis for the relocation and sustainable development of ecological resettlement sites in Tibet.

Key words: ecological footprint, ecological resettlement, human appropriation of net primary production, human activity intensity, sustainable development, Tibet

李振男, 潘影, 武俊喜, 张燕杰, 赵忠旭, 余成群. 西藏生态移民安置村人类活动强度变化[J]. 资源科学, 2021, 43(11): 2356-2368.

LI Zhennan, PAN Ying, WU Junxi, ZHANG Yanjie, ZHAO Zhongxu, YU Chengqun. Change of human activity intensity in ecological resettlement villages of Tibet[J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(11): 2356-2368.

图/表 10

图1

图2

表1

表2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

参考文献 48

[1]	刘世梁, 刘芦萌, 武雪, 等. 区域生态效应研究中人类活动强度定量化评价[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(19):6797-809.
	[ Liu S L, Liu L M, Wu X, et al. Quantitative evaluation of human activity intensity on the regional ecological impact studies[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(19):6797-6809.]
[2]	刘采, 张海燕, 李迁. 1980—2018年海南岛人类活动强度时空变化特征及其驱动机制[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(4):567-576. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.04.004
	[ Liu C, Zhang H Y, Li Q. Spatiotemporal characteristics of human activity intensity and its driving mechanism in Hainan Island from 1980 to 2018[J]. Progress in Geography, 2020, 39(4):567-576.]
[3]	Zhao C S, Shao N F, Yang S T, et al. Quantitative assessment of the effects of human activities on phytoplankton communities in lakes and reservoirs[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 665:213-225. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.117
[4]	王丽萍, 夏文静. 生态足迹的国内外研究进展[J]. 经济研究参考, 2018, (1):56-68.
	[ Wang L P, Xia W J. Research progress of ecological footprint at home and abroad[J]. Review of Economic Research, 2018, (1):56-68.]
[5]	Haberl H, Erb K H, Krausmann F, et al. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007, 104(31):12942-12947.
[6]	彭建, 王仰麟, 吴健生. 净初级生产力的人类占用: 一种衡量区域可持续发展的新方法[J]. 自然资源学报, 2007, (1):153-158.
	[ Peng J, Wang Y L, Wu J S. Human appropriation of net primary production: An approach for ecological assessment of regional sustainable development[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2007, (1):153-158.]
[7]	Zhang Y J, Pan Y, Li M, et al. Impacts of human appropriation of net primary production on ecosystem regulating services in Tibet[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2021, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101231. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101231
[8]	Solarin S A, Tiwari A K, Bello M. A multi-country convergence analysis of ecological footprint and its components[J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2019, DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101422. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101422
[9]	Zambrano-Monserrate M A, Ruano M A, Ormeo-Candelario V, et al. Global ecological footprint and spatial dependence between countries[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111069. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111069
[10]	Ahmed Z, Wang Z H, Mahmood F, et al. Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019, 26(18):18565-18582. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-05224-9
[11]	洪顺发, 郭青海, 李达维. 基于生态足迹理论的中国生态供需平衡时空动态[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(5):980-990.
	[ Hong S F, Guo Q H, Li D W. Spatiotemporal dynamics of ecological supply and demand based on ecological footprint theory[J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(5):980-990.]
[12]	Ahmed Z, Wang Z H. Investigating the impact of human capital on the ecological footprint in India: An empirical analysis[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019, 26(26):26782-26796. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-05911-7
[13]	Salvo G, Simas M, Pacca S, et al. Estimating the human appropriation of land in Brazil by means of an Input-Output economic model and ecological footprint analysis[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2015, 53:78-94. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.027
[14]	王涛, 邵田田, 李登辉, 等. 基于净初级生产力生态足迹的河南省生态安全诊断[J]. 遥感信息, 2020, 35(4):133-140.
	[ Wang T, Shao T T, Li D H, et al. Ecological security diagnosis of Henan Province based on ecological footprint of net primary productivity[J]. Remote Sensing Information, 2020, 35(4):133-140.]
[15]	陈晓杰, 王静, 孔雪松, 等. 武汉城市圈生态足迹时空差异及其与经济发展的协同性[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(10):3452-3462.
	[ Chen X J, Wang J, Kong X S, et al. Spatiotemporal differences of ecological footprints and synergistic relationship to economic development in Wuhan urban agglomeration[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2020, 39(10):3452-3462.]
[16]	王宏卫, 安秀峰, 塔西甫拉提·特依拜, 等. 基于乡镇尺度的克里雅河绿洲生态承载力分析: 以于田县13个乡镇生态承载力为例[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2015, 29(10):48-55.
	[ Wang H W, An X F, Taxifulati T, et al. Analysis of ecological carrying capacity of Kriya River Oasis based on township scale: A case study of 13 townships in Yutian County[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2015, 29(10):48-55.]
[17]	张丹, 成升魁, 高利伟, 等. 城市餐饮业食物浪费的生态足迹: 以北京市为例[J]. 资源科学, 2016, 38(1):10-18.
	[ Zhang D, Cheng S K, Gao L W, et al. Ecological footprint of catering industry food waste in Beijing[J]. Resources Science, 2016, 38(1):10-18.]
[18]	Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P, et al. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept[J]. Ecological Economics, 1999, 29(3):375-390. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)90063-5
[19]	Zhao S, Li Z Z, Li W L. A modified method of ecological footprint calculation and its application[J]. Ecological Modelling, 2005, 185(1):65-75. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.11.016
[20]	Gallia, Weinzettel J, Cranston G, et al. A footprint family extended MRIO model to support Europe’s transition to a one planet economy[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2013, 461:813-818.
[21]	Amiri M J, Bouzari S, Karimi S. Assessment of metropolitan environment sustainability with use of ecological footprint index (Case study: Tehran Metropolis)[J]. Urban and Regional Planning, 2016, 1(1):17-22.
[22]	Yang D Y, Li M G, Wang F, et al. Ecological Footprint Evaluation: An empirical study of the Bohai coast of the Jing-Jin-Ji region[J]. Journal of Coastal Research, 2020, 106:407-413. doi: 10.2112/SI106-092.1
[23]	李文龙, 魏巍, 宋瑜, 等. 基于能值生态足迹与灰色预测模型的西藏可持续性评价[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(3):702-710.
	[ Li W L, Wei W, Song Y, et al. Sustainable development of Tibet based on emergy ecological footprint model[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(3):702-710.]
[24]	尚海龙, 潘玉君. 西藏牧区能值生态足迹测度与互动分析[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2019, 19(2):51-58.
	[ Shang H L, Pan Y J. Assessment of emergy footprint measurement and interactive analysis in pastoral area of Tibet[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2019, 19(2):51-58.]
[25]	刘某承, 李文华. 基于净初级生产力的中国各地生态足迹均衡因子测算[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2010, 26(5):401-406.
	[ Liu M C, Li W H. Calculation of equivalence factor used in ecological footprint for China and its provinces based on net primary production[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2010, 26(5):401-406.]
[26]	刘某承, 李文华, 谢高地. 基于净初级生产力的中国生态足迹产量因子测算[J]. 生态学杂志, 2010, 29(3):592-597.
	[ Liu M C, Li W H, Xie G D. Estimation of China ecological footprint production coefficient based on net primary productivity[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2010, 29(3):592-597.]
[27]	Krausmann F, Erb K H, Gingrich S, et al. Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013, 110(25):10324-10329. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211349110 pmid: 23733940
[28]	Chen A F, Li R Y, Wang H L, et al. Quantitative assessment of human appropriation of aboveground net primary production in China[J]. Ecological Modelling, 2015, 312:54-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.05.017
[29]	Huang Q, Zhang F Y, Zhang Q, et al. Quantitative assessment of the impact of human activities on terrestrial net primary productivity in the Yangtze River Delta[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(4):1697. doi: 10.3390/su12041697
[30]	Haberl H. Human appropriation of net primary production as an environmental indicator: Implications for sustainable development[J]. Ambio, 1997, 26(3):143-146.
[31]	陈红宁. 基于人类占用的净初级生产力的土地集约利用研究: 以陕西省为例[D]. 西安:西北大学, 2015.
	[ Chen H N. The Study of Intensive Land Use Based on the Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production: A Case of Shanxi Province[D]. Xi’an: Northwest University, 2015.]
[32]	杜波波, 阿拉腾图娅, 包刚, 等. 基于CASA模型模拟锡林郭勒草原净初级生产力[J]. 水土保持研究, 2021, 28(5):293-300.
	[ Du B B, Alatengtuya, Bao G, et al. Simulation of net primary productivity of Xilingol grassland based on CASA model[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 28(5):293-300.]
[33]	李建国, 王欢, 王净, 等. 基于线性拟合的城市化过程对陆地生态系统生产能力的影响: 以江苏省为例[J]. 资源科学, 2018, 40(1):32-43.
	[ Li J G, Wang H, Wang J, et al. Impact of urbanization on terrestrial ecosystem production using Linear Modeling for Jiangsu[J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(1):32-43.]
[34]	Zhang Y J, Pan Y, Zhang X Z, et al. Patterns and dynamics of the human appropriation of net primary production and its components in Tibet[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018, 210:280-289. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.039
[35]	Yang D Y, Li M G, Wang F, et al. Ecological footprint evaluation: An empirical study of the Bohai coast of the Jing-Jin-Ji region[J]. Journal of Coastal Research, 2020, 407-413.
[36]	Haberl H, Wackernagel M, Krausmann, et al. Ecological footprints and human appropriation of net primary production: A comparison[J]. Land Use Policy, 2004, 21(3):279-288. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.008
[37]	李芳慧. 易地扶贫搬迁背景下的农牧民可持续发展研究: 以西藏为例[J]. 纳税, 2019, 13(10):146-147.
	[ Li H F. A study on the sustainable development of farmers and herdsmen in the context of poverty alleviation and relocation: Taking Tibet as an example[J]. Tax Paving, 2019, 13(10):146-147.]
[38]	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 S Y, Feng Y J. 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.]
[39]	吕矞. 西部地区易地移民搬迁适应期生计能力提升研究[D]. 西安: 西北大学, 2020.
	[ Lu Y. Study on the Improvement of Livelihood Ability in the Adapatation Period of Poverty Alleviation by Relocation in Western China[D]. Xian: Northwest University, 2020.]
[40]	龙忠胜, 曹靖夫, 刘流. 嵌入视角下的生态移民可持续发展[J]. 水利科技与经济, 2020, 26(1):59-64.
	[ Long Z S, Cao J F, Liu L. Sustainable development of ecological migration from the perspective of embeddedness[J]. Water Conservancy Science and Technology and Economy, 2020, 26(1):59-64.]
[41]	黄海燕, 王永平. 城镇安置生态移民可持续发展能力评价研究: 基于贵州生态移民家庭的调研[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2018, 39(4):643-653.
	[ Huang H Y, Wang Y P. The assessment of the sustainable development ability of ecological immigrant resettlement: Based on a survey data of ecological immigrant households in Guizhou[J]. Research of Agricultural Modernization, 2018, 39(4):643-653.]
[42]	管睿, 余劲. 外部冲击、社会网络与移民搬迁农户的适应性[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(12):2382-2392.
	[ Guan R, Yu J. External shocks, social networks and adaptability of resettled farming households[J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(12):2382-2392.]
[43]	Wackernagel M, Rees W E. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth[M]. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1996.
[44]	陈成忠, 林振山, 贾敦新. 基于生态足迹指数的全球生态可持续性时空分析[J]. 地理与地理信息科学, 2007, 23(6):68-72.
	[ Chen C Z, Lin Z S, Jia D X. Spatiotemporal analysis on sustainable ecosystem in world based on ecological footprint index[J]. Geography and Geo-Information Science, 2007, 23(6):68-72.]
[45]	罗黎鸣, 武建双, 余成群, 等. 拉萨河谷山地灌丛草地植物多样性监测方法的比较研究[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(3):22-31.
	[ Luo L M, Wu J S, Yu C Q, et al. A comparative study of methods for monitoring plant diversity in montane shrub grassland in the Lhasa River Basin[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(3):22-31.]
[46]	Zheng K, Wei J Z, Pei J Y, et al. Impacts of climate change and human activities on grassland vegetation variation in the Chinese Loess Plateau[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 660:236-244. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.022
[47]	武俊喜, 潘影, 李振男, 等. 基于NPP 分配的生产和生态功能协同提升模式: 以西藏拉萨河谷半农半牧村为例[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(11):4596-4605.
	[ Wu J X, Pan Y, Li Z N, et al. An ecological restoration mode to synergized improve production and ecological capacity based on the NPP components analysis: A case study of the semi-agricultural and semi-pastoral village in the valley area or Tibet[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(11):4596-4605.]
[48]	曾朝旭. 藏北高寒草地生物量分配及根系动态[D]. 北京: 中国科学院大学, 2017.
	[ Zeng C X. Biomass Distribution and Root Dynamics of Alpine Grassland in Northern Tibet[D]. Beijing: University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2017.]

土地类型	生态足迹均衡因子	生态承载力产量因子
耕地	1.71	0.51
草地	0.44	0.73
林地	1.41	0.64
建设用地	1.47	1.74
化石燃料用地	1.49	0

EFI	可持续性
EFI≤-100%	严重不可持续
-100%<EFI<0	不可持续
0<EFI≤50%	弱可持续
50%<EFI≤100%	强可持续