Characteristics of Ecological Footprint Evolution and Its influencing Factors in High Efficiency Eco-economic Zone of Yellow River Delta During 2005-2019
|更新时间:2025-03-12
|
Characteristics of Ecological Footprint Evolution and Its influencing Factors in High Efficiency Eco-economic Zone of Yellow River Delta During 2005-2019
Bulletin of Soiland Water ConservationVol. 41, Issue 4, Pages: 284-291(2021)
Han Lu, Yang Yong. Characteristics of Ecological Footprint Evolution and Its influencing Factors in High Efficiency Eco-economic Zone of Yellow River Delta During 2005-2019[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2021, 41(4): 284-291.
DOI:
Han Lu, Yang Yong. Characteristics of Ecological Footprint Evolution and Its influencing Factors in High Efficiency Eco-economic Zone of Yellow River Delta During 2005-2019[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2021, 41(4): 284-291. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2021.04.038.
Characteristics of Ecological Footprint Evolution and Its influencing Factors in High Efficiency Eco-economic Zone of Yellow River Delta During 2005-2019
[Objective] The ecological footprint and various types of land use was analyzed
in order to provide countermeasures and suggestions for the high-quality development of high efficiency eco-economic zone of Yellow River delta. [Methods] Taking 19 cities in the high efficiency eco-economic zone of Yellow River delta as the research objects
the ecological footprint model and factor detector were used to quantitatively analyze the spatio-temporal evolution and influencing factors of the ecological footprint in the high efficiency eco-economic zone of Yellow River delta from 2005 to 2019. [Results] ① The ecological footprint increased rapidly from 2010 to 2019
the ecological carrying capacity increased slowly
and the deficit expanded. ② The spatial distribution of ecological footprint in the high efficiency eco-economic zone of Yellow River delta was obviously different. The regional development could be divided into stable period
rising period and transition period. The ecological footprint in the middle and northwest was significantly higher than that in the east and southwest; ③ There were significant differences in the influencing factors
among which
cultivated land production and industrial development had the strongest influence on the ecological footprint of the high efficiency eco-economic zone of Yellow River delta
and the influence degree of other factors was in the order of population density > road density > urbanization rate > aquaculture. [Conclusion] ① The overall trend of per capita ecological footprint in the high efficiency eco-economic zone of Yellow River delta is stable
and the footprint of farmland and fossil energy land account for a large proportion of the regional ecological footprint. ② The regional ecological footprint increased from the east to the central and western regions
and the high value areas are mainly concentrated in the inland areas and the cities along the Yellow River. ③ Agricultural production and industrial production are the core development factors in the high efficiency eco-economic zone of Yellow River delta. Water development and utilization can promote regional ecological environment protection. Therefore
measures and stuafegies should be put forward from the viewpoints
Rees W E. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity:What urban economics leaves out[J].Urbanisation, 2017, 2(1):66-77.
Wackernagel M, Rees W. Our ecological footprint:reducing human impact on the Earth[M]. Gabriola Island, B. C.:New Society Publishers, 1996.
Wackernagel M, Rees W E. Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital:Economics from an ecological footprint perspective[J]. Ecological economics, 1997, 20(1):3-24.
Ferng J J. Using composition of land multiplier to estimate ecological footprints associated with production activity[J].Ecological Economics, 2001, 37(2):159-172.
Destek M A, Ulucak R, Dogan E. Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries:The role of ecological footprint[J].Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2018, 25(29):29387-29396.