黑龙江省生态足迹与生态安全分析及其可持续发展对策
|
摘要
改革开放以来,中国经济社会发展取得了巨大的成就,但是经济的快速发展也伴随着资源的大量消耗和环境的严重污染。因此,实施可持续发展战略,已成为我国重要的基本国策。黑龙江省作为我国重要的能源、森林、农牧产品以及重工业基地,资源消耗以及环境破坏程度比较严重,对黑龙江省可持续发展状况进行定量评估与生态安全评价,具有重要的现实意义。
本文主要运用传统生态足迹方法和基于能值方法的生态足迹方法,对黑龙江省1980-2005年的生产性生态足迹、消费性生态足迹和输出生态足迹,生态承载力、生态赤字和生态盈余等涉及黑龙江省生态安全的动态变化进行了定量评估。同时,运用基于P-S-R模型方法构建了2002和2003年黑龙江省生态安全评价指标体系,对黑龙江省压力、状态和响应指标进行了评价。在此基础上,着重分析了影响黑龙江省可持续发展的主要问题,并提出了相应的对策。
以下是本文的基本结论:
1. 1980-2005年,黑龙江省生产性生态足迹在逐年增加,从1980年的4533.75万hm~2到2005年14234.35万hm~2,增加了2.1倍。从变化趋势上看,几乎是直线上升的,平均每年以396.02万hm~2的速度增长。
2. 1980-2005年黑龙江省总生态承载力逐年下降,从1980年的7927.79万hm~2下降到2005年的7683.37万hm~2,减少了3%。生产性生态足迹的上升幅度远远大于生态承载力的下降幅度,生态赤字越来越大,生态环境承受着巨大的压力。
3. 1992年前,黑龙江省一直处于生态盈余,生产性生态足迹的供应大于需求;但1993年以来,黑龙江省生态足迹的供需一直存在生态赤字现象,而且其生态赤字量逐年增大,到2005年总生态赤字已经达到6550.98万hm~2,相当于当年黑龙江省总生态承载力的85%,即全省生态足迹已经超过承载力的0.85倍了,人的需求与环境供给能力之间矛盾突出,区域社会面临非常严峻的生态环境压力。
4.黑龙江省总人口增长虽然缓慢,但是,2002年黑龙江省人均生态足迹已高达2.997 hm~2,超过2002年全球的平均水平2.2 hm~2/人,远远超过2002年世界人均生态承载力水平1.8 hm~2/人(即全球标杆)和全国标杆(< 0.8 hm~2/人),即黑龙江省超出全球标杆和全国标杆水平。
5.从人均生态足迹的供需结构看,耕地和化石能源用地的供需矛盾非常突出,建设用地和草地相对较少,林地和水域一直有盈余。造成生态赤字逐年加大的最主要原因是由于城市化、工业化的发展,大量耕地被侵占,耕地承载力逐年下降;而化石能源用地赤字一路飙升,粗放型经济的发展模式必须朝高技术、低能耗的产业发展模式。
6.黑龙江省1980-2005年万元GDP生态足迹呈现下降的态势,年均递减0.717hm~2。26年来其资源利用效率提高了8倍,表明其资源利用效益在不断提高,低能耗发展模式渐成黑龙江省产业发展主流。
7.作为全国的粮食、能源、森林以及重工业基地,黑龙江省每年输出大量的食品、能源、木材等资源,而每年输出生态足迹占生产性生态足迹的30%左右。但是,黑龙江省的资源优势将逐渐丧失,而且资源的过度利用,不仅影响黑龙江省自身的可持续发展,而且可能威胁到全国的粮食以及能源安全。从长远看,应主要考虑在不降低人们生活水平的前提下,减少生态足迹的需求,加强科学技术的研究与应用,提高区域生态系统的承载能力。
8.黑龙江省总能值生态足迹从1980年的4551.30万hm~2,到2005年17535.75万hm~2,增加了12984.45万hm~2,增长了2.8倍。总能值生态承载力是不变的,为6150.35万hm~2。因此,随着总能值生态足迹的增长,能值生态赤字也逐年增加,由原来1980年的生态盈余1599.05万hm~2增加到2005年的生态赤字11385.40万hm~2。同时人均能值生态足迹逐年增长,由于人口的增加黑龙江省人均能值生态承载力相应减少,人均能值生态赤字不断增大。2005年人均能值生态足迹、生态承载力以及生态赤字分别为4.591 hm~2/人、1.610 hm~2/人以及2.980hm~2/人。能值生态足迹模型与传统生态足迹模型计算的结论基本相同,表明黑龙江省生态足迹已超过生态承载力,区域经济社会发展已呈现不可持续的发展状态。
9.通过DPS数据处理系统时间序列模型的预测,2015年黑龙江省人均消费性生态足迹为3.6209 hm~2,人均生态承载力为1.9823hm~2,人均生态足迹是人均生态承载力的1.8倍,人均生态赤字进一步扩大,达到1.6386hm~2。假如按照现有发展模式,黑龙江省的生态赤字将继续扩大,可持续发展将面临更加严峻的挑战。
10.运用基于生态足迹的生态安全评价得出,26年来黑龙江省生态压力指数(ETI)不断增大,由1980年的很安全级别下降到2005年的较不安全级别;随着经济的发展,生态占有指数(EQI)由原来的较贫穷级别提高到稍富裕级别;而生态经济协调指数(EECI)基本呈下降趋势,生态经济协调性较差。
11.运用基于P-S-R模型的生态安全评价体系对黑龙江省生态现状进行分析,2002、2003年黑龙江省生态安全处于Ⅱ级(较不安全级别),这与基于生态足迹的生态安全方法得出的结论相符合。黑龙江省可持续发展将面临更严峻的生态安全问题挑战。
12.在分析黑龙江省生态安全发展趋势和找出生态安全存在的问题基础上,提出了保证生态安全,实现可持续发展的对策,主要包括:减少生态赤字,转变经济增长方式和消费模式;增加生态承载力,提高黑龙江省生态系统的稳定性和生产潜力;将生态赤字作为生态环境指标纳入地方政府考核指标;按生态学规律对经济—环境—资源—社会复合系统进行宏观管理。
Sustainable development has been becoming one of the most important basic national policies in our country. With the development of China’s reform and opening, remarkable achievements of economic and social development has been achieved. However, this kind of rapid development was combined with high resource consumption and serious environmental pollution. As an important producer of energy, forestry, farming products and heavy industrial products in China, resource consumption and environmental damage in Heilongjiang Province were much more serious. Therefore, it has important practical and instructional meaning to quantitatively assess the situation of sustainable development in Heilongjiang Province.
In this paper, traditional ecological footprint, improved ecological footprint and ecological footprint based on emergy method were used to quantitatively assess the production, consumption and output ecological footprint, ecological capacity, ecological deficit and ecological surplus, which are all related to ecological security in Heilongjiang Province. Meanwhile, the Heilongjiang Province ecological security assessment system based on P-S-R model was constructed to assess the ecological pressure,state and responsing index in Heilongjiang Province .On the basis of the study above, the sustainable development issue in Heilongjiang Province was analyzed and the corresponding solutions were put forward.
The paper drawed an inference following conclusions from analysis above:
1. During the last 26 years, the productive ecological footprint in Heilongjiang Province has shown an annual increase, from 45.3375million ha in 1980 to 142.3435 million ha in 2005, increasing by 2.1 times. Illustrated by the changing trend, the productive ecological footprint displayed an almost linear rise, increasing at a rate of 3.9602 million ha/ year.
2. The total ecological capacity in Heilongjiang Province has decreased from 1980 to 2005, from 79.2779 million ha in 1980 to 76.8337 million ha in 2005, decreasing by 3%. The ecological footprint increased much faster than the ecological capacity. As a result, the total ecological deficit became more and more larger and the eco-environment took serious pressure.
3. Before 1992, Heilongjiang Province had been in ecological surplus, productive ecological footprint supply exceeded the demand. Since 1993, Heilongjiang Province has failed to maintain equilibrium between the supply and the demand of the ecological footprint. This ecological deficit was increasing year by year. The total ecological deficit in 2005 reached 65.5098 million ha, which was equivalent to 85% of the ecological capacity in Heilongjiang Province, which means that the ecological footprint was 0.85 times larger than the ecological capacity. The conflict between human demand and environmental supply was extremely obvious, and the sustainable development of regional society faces serious eco-environmental pressure.
4. As the total population in Heilongjiang Province’s growth was slow during the last 26 years, however in 2002 the Ecological footprint per capita in Heilongjiang Province reached 2.997 ha, much more than the average global level of 2.2 ha per capita in 2002, and more than the ecological carrying capacity of the average world level of 1.8 ha per capita (Global Benchmark) and the National Benchmark (<0.8 ha per capita). It means that the ecological footprint in Heilongjiang Province is beyond the Global Benchmark and the National Benchmark .
5. From the aspect of the ecological footprint per-capita supply and demand, the conflict outdid demand and supply of cropland and fossil fuel land. The deficit of building area and pasture were relatively smaller in Heilongjiang Province. There were always surplus of woodland and fishing ground. The prominent factor for the accelerating ecological deficit is the development of urbanization and industrialization. During this development period, a large number of arable lands were occupied, and the biological capacity of cropland was digressive. The demand of fossil fuel for conventional economic development continued to grow larer. The discharge of carbon dioxide, contributing to the green house effect, increased annually. As a result, the deficit of fossil fuel land increased obviously.
6. From 1980 to 2005, ten thousand Yuan GDP ecological footprint in Heilongjiang Province presented a dropping tendency, decreasing progressively 0.717 ha every year. For 26 years the efficiency of its resources enhanced 8 times, which indicated that its benefit of resources has been enhancing.
7. As a part of the important energy, forestry, farming products and heavy industry base of China, larger numbers of energy, timber, foodstuff and other resources were exported from Heilongjiang Province. Furthermore, the export ecological footprint accounted for 30% of the productive ecological footprint per year. Though Heilongjiang Province had abundant resources, the resources advantage would gradually recede under the same rate of development. The excessive use of resources will not only affect the sustainable development in Heilongjiang Province, but possibly threat the grain and energy security of China. From a long-term perspective with a premise of not reducing peoples’standard of living, ecological footprint demand should be reduced, research and applications of technology should be increased, and the carrying capacity of area’s ecosystem should be increased.
8. The total energy ecological footprint in Heilongjiang Province increased from 45.513 million ha in 1980, to 175.3575 million ha in 2005, with an increase of 129.8445 million ha, it had been rosen by 2.8 times. The total energy ecological capacity remained the same, which was 61.5035 million ha. Therefore, as the total energy ecological footprint grew, the energy ecological deficit increased yearly, from ecological surplus 15.9905 million ha in 1980 to in 2005 to an ecological deficit of 113.854 million ha in 2005. Meanwhile, while the energy ecological footprint per capita increased year by year, the per capita energy ecological capacity had a corresponding reduction because of the steadily increasing population in Heilongjiang Province, so the energy ecological deficit per capita continued to augment. In 2005 the energy ecological footprint, ecological capacity and ecological deficit per capita were 4.591 ha, 1.610 ha and 2.980 ha respectively. The results of the energy ecological footprint model and the traditional ecological footprint model were consistent, indicating that the ecological footprint in Heilongjiang Province was beyond the ecological capacity, and its social and economic development was not sustainable.
9. With the use of the time-series model of the DPS data processing system, a forecasts was made that in 2015 the consumptive ecological footprint per capita in Heilongjiang Province would be 3.6209 ha, the ecological capacity would be 1.9823 ha. According to the forecast the Ecological footprint per capita would be 1.8 times larger than the ecological capacity per capita. The ecological deficit would further expand, reaching 1.6386 ha. If under the existing development model, the ecological deficit in Heilongjiang Province would continue to expand, and sustainable development would face an austere challenge.
10. With the application of an ecological security evaluation based on ecological footprint, it concluded that during the last 26 years, Ecological Tension Index (ETI) in Heilongjiang Province had enhanced, from a very secure level in 1980 to relatively insecurity level in 2005; With economic development, Ecological Occupancy index (EQI) imcreased from a poorer level to a slightly affluent level; Ecological Economic Coordination Index (EECI) basically declined, and ecological economic coordination was relatively poorer.
11. With the use of an ecological security evaluation based on P-S-R model to analyze the ecological system status in Heilongjiang Province, it was concluded that in 2002 and 2003, ecological security in Heilongjiang Province was in the grade II (relatively unsafe level). This conclusion was in accordance with the ecological security method based on the ecological footprint. Thus the sustainable development in Heilongjiang Province will face even more austere ecological security challenges.
12. On the base of ecological security analysis development trend and ecological security issues in Heilongjiang Province, strategies to guarantee ecological security and achieve sustainable development were put forward, including: reducing ecological deficit, changing the mode of economic growth and consumption patterns; increasing ecological capacity and improving the stability and the production potential in Heilongjiang Province ecosystems; introducing ecological deficit as eco-environmental index into the local government assessment; managing macro-economy according to the law on economic ecology-environment-resources-social compounding systems.
本文主要运用传统生态足迹方法和基于能值方法的生态足迹方法,对黑龙江省1980-2005年的生产性生态足迹、消费性生态足迹和输出生态足迹,生态承载力、生态赤字和生态盈余等涉及黑龙江省生态安全的动态变化进行了定量评估。同时,运用基于P-S-R模型方法构建了2002和2003年黑龙江省生态安全评价指标体系,对黑龙江省压力、状态和响应指标进行了评价。在此基础上,着重分析了影响黑龙江省可持续发展的主要问题,并提出了相应的对策。
以下是本文的基本结论:
1. 1980-2005年,黑龙江省生产性生态足迹在逐年增加,从1980年的4533.75万hm~2到2005年14234.35万hm~2,增加了2.1倍。从变化趋势上看,几乎是直线上升的,平均每年以396.02万hm~2的速度增长。
2. 1980-2005年黑龙江省总生态承载力逐年下降,从1980年的7927.79万hm~2下降到2005年的7683.37万hm~2,减少了3%。生产性生态足迹的上升幅度远远大于生态承载力的下降幅度,生态赤字越来越大,生态环境承受着巨大的压力。
3. 1992年前,黑龙江省一直处于生态盈余,生产性生态足迹的供应大于需求;但1993年以来,黑龙江省生态足迹的供需一直存在生态赤字现象,而且其生态赤字量逐年增大,到2005年总生态赤字已经达到6550.98万hm~2,相当于当年黑龙江省总生态承载力的85%,即全省生态足迹已经超过承载力的0.85倍了,人的需求与环境供给能力之间矛盾突出,区域社会面临非常严峻的生态环境压力。
4.黑龙江省总人口增长虽然缓慢,但是,2002年黑龙江省人均生态足迹已高达2.997 hm~2,超过2002年全球的平均水平2.2 hm~2/人,远远超过2002年世界人均生态承载力水平1.8 hm~2/人(即全球标杆)和全国标杆(< 0.8 hm~2/人),即黑龙江省超出全球标杆和全国标杆水平。
5.从人均生态足迹的供需结构看,耕地和化石能源用地的供需矛盾非常突出,建设用地和草地相对较少,林地和水域一直有盈余。造成生态赤字逐年加大的最主要原因是由于城市化、工业化的发展,大量耕地被侵占,耕地承载力逐年下降;而化石能源用地赤字一路飙升,粗放型经济的发展模式必须朝高技术、低能耗的产业发展模式。
6.黑龙江省1980-2005年万元GDP生态足迹呈现下降的态势,年均递减0.717hm~2。26年来其资源利用效率提高了8倍,表明其资源利用效益在不断提高,低能耗发展模式渐成黑龙江省产业发展主流。
7.作为全国的粮食、能源、森林以及重工业基地,黑龙江省每年输出大量的食品、能源、木材等资源,而每年输出生态足迹占生产性生态足迹的30%左右。但是,黑龙江省的资源优势将逐渐丧失,而且资源的过度利用,不仅影响黑龙江省自身的可持续发展,而且可能威胁到全国的粮食以及能源安全。从长远看,应主要考虑在不降低人们生活水平的前提下,减少生态足迹的需求,加强科学技术的研究与应用,提高区域生态系统的承载能力。
8.黑龙江省总能值生态足迹从1980年的4551.30万hm~2,到2005年17535.75万hm~2,增加了12984.45万hm~2,增长了2.8倍。总能值生态承载力是不变的,为6150.35万hm~2。因此,随着总能值生态足迹的增长,能值生态赤字也逐年增加,由原来1980年的生态盈余1599.05万hm~2增加到2005年的生态赤字11385.40万hm~2。同时人均能值生态足迹逐年增长,由于人口的增加黑龙江省人均能值生态承载力相应减少,人均能值生态赤字不断增大。2005年人均能值生态足迹、生态承载力以及生态赤字分别为4.591 hm~2/人、1.610 hm~2/人以及2.980hm~2/人。能值生态足迹模型与传统生态足迹模型计算的结论基本相同,表明黑龙江省生态足迹已超过生态承载力,区域经济社会发展已呈现不可持续的发展状态。
9.通过DPS数据处理系统时间序列模型的预测,2015年黑龙江省人均消费性生态足迹为3.6209 hm~2,人均生态承载力为1.9823hm~2,人均生态足迹是人均生态承载力的1.8倍,人均生态赤字进一步扩大,达到1.6386hm~2。假如按照现有发展模式,黑龙江省的生态赤字将继续扩大,可持续发展将面临更加严峻的挑战。
10.运用基于生态足迹的生态安全评价得出,26年来黑龙江省生态压力指数(ETI)不断增大,由1980年的很安全级别下降到2005年的较不安全级别;随着经济的发展,生态占有指数(EQI)由原来的较贫穷级别提高到稍富裕级别;而生态经济协调指数(EECI)基本呈下降趋势,生态经济协调性较差。
11.运用基于P-S-R模型的生态安全评价体系对黑龙江省生态现状进行分析,2002、2003年黑龙江省生态安全处于Ⅱ级(较不安全级别),这与基于生态足迹的生态安全方法得出的结论相符合。黑龙江省可持续发展将面临更严峻的生态安全问题挑战。
12.在分析黑龙江省生态安全发展趋势和找出生态安全存在的问题基础上,提出了保证生态安全,实现可持续发展的对策,主要包括:减少生态赤字,转变经济增长方式和消费模式;增加生态承载力,提高黑龙江省生态系统的稳定性和生产潜力;将生态赤字作为生态环境指标纳入地方政府考核指标;按生态学规律对经济—环境—资源—社会复合系统进行宏观管理。
Sustainable development has been becoming one of the most important basic national policies in our country. With the development of China’s reform and opening, remarkable achievements of economic and social development has been achieved. However, this kind of rapid development was combined with high resource consumption and serious environmental pollution. As an important producer of energy, forestry, farming products and heavy industrial products in China, resource consumption and environmental damage in Heilongjiang Province were much more serious. Therefore, it has important practical and instructional meaning to quantitatively assess the situation of sustainable development in Heilongjiang Province.
In this paper, traditional ecological footprint, improved ecological footprint and ecological footprint based on emergy method were used to quantitatively assess the production, consumption and output ecological footprint, ecological capacity, ecological deficit and ecological surplus, which are all related to ecological security in Heilongjiang Province. Meanwhile, the Heilongjiang Province ecological security assessment system based on P-S-R model was constructed to assess the ecological pressure,state and responsing index in Heilongjiang Province .On the basis of the study above, the sustainable development issue in Heilongjiang Province was analyzed and the corresponding solutions were put forward.
The paper drawed an inference following conclusions from analysis above:
1. During the last 26 years, the productive ecological footprint in Heilongjiang Province has shown an annual increase, from 45.3375million ha in 1980 to 142.3435 million ha in 2005, increasing by 2.1 times. Illustrated by the changing trend, the productive ecological footprint displayed an almost linear rise, increasing at a rate of 3.9602 million ha/ year.
2. The total ecological capacity in Heilongjiang Province has decreased from 1980 to 2005, from 79.2779 million ha in 1980 to 76.8337 million ha in 2005, decreasing by 3%. The ecological footprint increased much faster than the ecological capacity. As a result, the total ecological deficit became more and more larger and the eco-environment took serious pressure.
3. Before 1992, Heilongjiang Province had been in ecological surplus, productive ecological footprint supply exceeded the demand. Since 1993, Heilongjiang Province has failed to maintain equilibrium between the supply and the demand of the ecological footprint. This ecological deficit was increasing year by year. The total ecological deficit in 2005 reached 65.5098 million ha, which was equivalent to 85% of the ecological capacity in Heilongjiang Province, which means that the ecological footprint was 0.85 times larger than the ecological capacity. The conflict between human demand and environmental supply was extremely obvious, and the sustainable development of regional society faces serious eco-environmental pressure.
4. As the total population in Heilongjiang Province’s growth was slow during the last 26 years, however in 2002 the Ecological footprint per capita in Heilongjiang Province reached 2.997 ha, much more than the average global level of 2.2 ha per capita in 2002, and more than the ecological carrying capacity of the average world level of 1.8 ha per capita (Global Benchmark) and the National Benchmark (<0.8 ha per capita). It means that the ecological footprint in Heilongjiang Province is beyond the Global Benchmark and the National Benchmark .
5. From the aspect of the ecological footprint per-capita supply and demand, the conflict outdid demand and supply of cropland and fossil fuel land. The deficit of building area and pasture were relatively smaller in Heilongjiang Province. There were always surplus of woodland and fishing ground. The prominent factor for the accelerating ecological deficit is the development of urbanization and industrialization. During this development period, a large number of arable lands were occupied, and the biological capacity of cropland was digressive. The demand of fossil fuel for conventional economic development continued to grow larer. The discharge of carbon dioxide, contributing to the green house effect, increased annually. As a result, the deficit of fossil fuel land increased obviously.
6. From 1980 to 2005, ten thousand Yuan GDP ecological footprint in Heilongjiang Province presented a dropping tendency, decreasing progressively 0.717 ha every year. For 26 years the efficiency of its resources enhanced 8 times, which indicated that its benefit of resources has been enhancing.
7. As a part of the important energy, forestry, farming products and heavy industry base of China, larger numbers of energy, timber, foodstuff and other resources were exported from Heilongjiang Province. Furthermore, the export ecological footprint accounted for 30% of the productive ecological footprint per year. Though Heilongjiang Province had abundant resources, the resources advantage would gradually recede under the same rate of development. The excessive use of resources will not only affect the sustainable development in Heilongjiang Province, but possibly threat the grain and energy security of China. From a long-term perspective with a premise of not reducing peoples’standard of living, ecological footprint demand should be reduced, research and applications of technology should be increased, and the carrying capacity of area’s ecosystem should be increased.
8. The total energy ecological footprint in Heilongjiang Province increased from 45.513 million ha in 1980, to 175.3575 million ha in 2005, with an increase of 129.8445 million ha, it had been rosen by 2.8 times. The total energy ecological capacity remained the same, which was 61.5035 million ha. Therefore, as the total energy ecological footprint grew, the energy ecological deficit increased yearly, from ecological surplus 15.9905 million ha in 1980 to in 2005 to an ecological deficit of 113.854 million ha in 2005. Meanwhile, while the energy ecological footprint per capita increased year by year, the per capita energy ecological capacity had a corresponding reduction because of the steadily increasing population in Heilongjiang Province, so the energy ecological deficit per capita continued to augment. In 2005 the energy ecological footprint, ecological capacity and ecological deficit per capita were 4.591 ha, 1.610 ha and 2.980 ha respectively. The results of the energy ecological footprint model and the traditional ecological footprint model were consistent, indicating that the ecological footprint in Heilongjiang Province was beyond the ecological capacity, and its social and economic development was not sustainable.
9. With the use of the time-series model of the DPS data processing system, a forecasts was made that in 2015 the consumptive ecological footprint per capita in Heilongjiang Province would be 3.6209 ha, the ecological capacity would be 1.9823 ha. According to the forecast the Ecological footprint per capita would be 1.8 times larger than the ecological capacity per capita. The ecological deficit would further expand, reaching 1.6386 ha. If under the existing development model, the ecological deficit in Heilongjiang Province would continue to expand, and sustainable development would face an austere challenge.
10. With the application of an ecological security evaluation based on ecological footprint, it concluded that during the last 26 years, Ecological Tension Index (ETI) in Heilongjiang Province had enhanced, from a very secure level in 1980 to relatively insecurity level in 2005; With economic development, Ecological Occupancy index (EQI) imcreased from a poorer level to a slightly affluent level; Ecological Economic Coordination Index (EECI) basically declined, and ecological economic coordination was relatively poorer.
11. With the use of an ecological security evaluation based on P-S-R model to analyze the ecological system status in Heilongjiang Province, it was concluded that in 2002 and 2003, ecological security in Heilongjiang Province was in the grade II (relatively unsafe level). This conclusion was in accordance with the ecological security method based on the ecological footprint. Thus the sustainable development in Heilongjiang Province will face even more austere ecological security challenges.
12. On the base of ecological security analysis development trend and ecological security issues in Heilongjiang Province, strategies to guarantee ecological security and achieve sustainable development were put forward, including: reducing ecological deficit, changing the mode of economic growth and consumption patterns; increasing ecological capacity and improving the stability and the production potential in Heilongjiang Province ecosystems; introducing ecological deficit as eco-environmental index into the local government assessment; managing macro-economy according to the law on economic ecology-environment-resources-social compounding systems.
引文
白艳莹,王效科,欧阳志云,苗鸿. 2003.苏锡常地区生态足迹分析[J].资源科学.25(6): 31 ~37
蔡晓明. 2000.生态系统生态学[M].科学出版社
曹志平. 2002农业生态系统功能的综合评价[M].气象出版社
陈东景,徐中民,程国栋,张志强.2001.中国西北地区的生态足迹[J].冰川冻土.23(2): 164~169
陈东景,徐中民. 2001生态足迹理论在我国干早区的应用与探讨—以新疆为例[J].干早区地理.24(4): 305~309
陈敏,张丽君,王如等.2005.1978~2003年中国生态足迹动态分析[J].资源科学.27(6): 132~139
陈星,周成虎.2005.生态安全:国内外研究综述[J].地理科学进展.24(6):8~20
崔胜辉,洪华生,黄云风等.2005.生态安全研究进展[J].生态学报.25(4):861~868
邓踩,杨顺生.2003.四川省2001年生态足迹分析[J].四川环境.22(6):45 ~47
杜轶. 2005.基于生态足迹的山西省可持续发展能力分析[D].太谷:山西农业大学
付强,李晓秋,肖建民.2001.基于RAGA的PPC模型在水稻节水效益评价中的应用.黑龙江水专学报. 28(4):18~22
高长波,张世喜,莫创荣等. 2005.广东省生态可持续发展定量研究:生态足迹时间维动态分析[J].生态环境.14(1): 57~62
顾晓薇,李广军,王青等. 2005.高等教育的生态效率—大学校园生态足迹明.冰川冻土.27(3): 418~-425
顾晓薇,李广军等.2005.绿色大学建设中的生态足迹明.环境科学.26(4):200~204
关文彬,谢春华,马克明等.2003.景观生态恢复与重建是区域生态安全格局构建的关键途径[J].生态学报.23(1): 64~73
郭秀锐,杨居荣,毛显强.2003.城市生态足迹计算与分析—以广州市为例[J].地理研究.22(3): 654~661
国家环境保护局自然保护司编著. 1999.中国生态问题报告[M].中国环境科学出版社
何琼.2004.巢湖流域生态安全的综合评价研究[D].合肥工业大学硕士论文
黑龙江省统计局.黑龙江省统计年鉴.中国统计出版社(1980-2005)
胡孟春,张永春,缪旭波等.2003.张家口市坝上地区生态足迹初步研究[J].应用生态学报14(2): 317~320
黄青.2005基于生态足迹的区域生态安全动态变化研究[D].西安:陕西师范大学
蒋莉,陈治谏,沈兴菊.2005.兰州大学(盘旋路校区)2003年生态足迹调查分析[J]·地理与地理信息科学.21(2): 82~85
蒋依依.2005.滇西北生态脆弱区生态足迹动态变化与预测研究—以云南省丽江纳西族自治县为例[J].生态学杂志. 24(12): 1418~1424
兰叶霞,赵先贵.2005.山西省2002年生态足迹分析[J].陕西农业科学. 31~35
李传武.2005.皖西大别山区生态足迹实证分析—以金寨县为例[J].资源开发与市场. 21(6): 497~500
李利锋,成升魁.2005.生态占用--衡量可持续发展的新指标[J]自然资源学报.15(4):375-382
李金平,王志石.2003.澳门2001年生态足迹分析[J].自然资源学报. 18(2):197~203
李善评. 2005.德州市2002年生态足迹分析[J].山东大学学报(理学版).40(6): 89~93
梁星,王样荣.2002.上海地区可持续发展状况的生态痕迹评价闭.复旦学报(自然科学版). 41(4): 388~394
蔺海明,颉鹏.2004.甘肃省河西绿洲农业区生态足迹动态研究[J].应用生态学报. 15(5): 827~832
刘红,王慧,张兴卫.2006.生态安全评价研究述评[J].生态学杂志.25(1):74~78
刘力.2003.东北地区生态消费水平的区域可持续性研究[J].地理科学.23 (6): 656~660
刘宇辉.2005.中国1961 ~2001年人地协调度演变分析—基于生态足迹模型的研究[J].经济地理.25(2): 219~235
龙爱华,张志强,苏志勇.2004.生态足迹评介及国际研究前沿.地球科学进展.19(6): 971~981
卢远,华璀.2004.广西1990-2002年生态足迹动态分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境.14(3): 49~53
鲁春霞,谢高地等. 2001.青藏高原自然资源利用的生态空间占用评价[J] .资源科学.(6): 29~35
秦耀辰,牛树海.2003.生态占用法在区域可持续发展评价中的运用与改进[J].资源科学. 25(1):1~8
邱大雄. 1995.能源规划与系统分析[M].北京:清华大学出版社
曲格平.2002关注生态安全之一:生态环境问题己经成为国家安全的热门话题[J].环境保护.5: 3~5
曲格平. 2004关注中国生态安全[M].中国环境科学出版社
任茜.2004.县域生态足迹的研究——以都江堰市为例[D].四川:四川大学
任志远,黄青,李晶.2005.陕西省生态安全及空间差异定量分析[J].地理学报.60 (4):597~606
苏药,成升魁,谢高地.2001.大城市居民生活消费的生态占用初探明.资源科学.23(6): 25~29
孙兆敏,贾志宽,尚爱军等.2005.西部地区生态足迹与苜蓿草产业发展战略研究[J].中国生态农业学报. 13(1): 160~163
唐剑武,叶文虎.1998.环境承载力的本质及其定量化初步研究[J].中国环境科学.18(3): 227~230
陶在朴(奥).2003.生态包袱和生态足迹[M].北京:经济科学出版社
王朝科. 2003.建立生态安全评价指标体系的几个理论问题[J].统计研究.9:17~20
王根绪,程国栋,钱鞠.2003.生态安全评价中的若干问题研究[J].应用生态学报. 14(9):1551~1556
王强,杨京平.2003.我国草地退化及其生态安全评价指标体系的探索[J].水土保持学报.17 (6):27~31
王书华,王忠静.2003.基于生态足迹模型的山区生态经济协调发展定量评估—以贵州镇远县为例[J].山地学报. 21(3): 324~-330
王小艺,沈佐锐.2001.农业生态系统健康评估方法研究概况[J].中国农业大学学报. 6(1):84-90
吴国庆.2001.区域农业可持续发展的生态安全及其评价研究[J].自然资源学报.16(3): 227~233
吴开亚,孙世群,胡淑恒.2005.安徽省生态占用状况的初步研究[[J].合肥工业大学学报(自然科学版). 28(1): 10~14
席建超,葛全胜,成升魁等.2004.旅游消费生态占用初探——以北京市海外入境旅游者为例[J].自然资源学报. 19 (2): 224~229
肖笃宁,陈文波,郭福良.2002.论生态安全的基本概念和研究内容[J].应用生态学报.13(3): 354~358
熊德国,鲜学福,姜永东.2003.生态足迹理论在区域可持续发展评价中的应用及改进[J].地理科学进展. 22(6): 618~626
徐中民,张志强,程国栋等.2003.中国1999年生态足迹计算与发展能力分析[J].应用生态学报.14(2): 280~285
徐中民,张志强,程国栋.2000.甘肃省1998年生态足迹计算与分析[J].地理学报. 55(5): 607~616
徐中民,张志强,程国栋.2000.可持续发展评价指标回顾[J].中国人口、资源与环境. 10(4): 60~64
杨京平,卢剑波. 2002.生态安全的系统分析[M].化学工业出版社
杨开忠,杨咏,陈洁. 2000.生态足迹分析理论与方法[J].地球科学进展.15(6): 630~636
杨世琦,孙兆敏,冯永忠等.2004.陕西省2001年生态足迹分析[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版).32(9): 14~18
叶田,杨海真.2005.上海市2003年生态足迹计算与分析[J].四川环境.24(3): 15~ 18
袁平.2005.基于生态足迹模型的县级区域可持续发展评价[D].中国农业科学院
岳东霞,李自珍,惠苍.2004.甘肃省生态足迹和生态承载力发展趋势研究[J].西北植物学报.24(3): 454~463
张伟丽,于晓菊,王沛等.2000.论黑龙江省生态公益林建设[J].防护林科技. (1):58~59
张志强,徐中民,程国栋等.2001.中国西部12省(区、市)的生态足迹[J].地理学报.56(5): 599~610
章锦河,张捷.2004.旅游生态足迹模型及黄山市实证分析[J].地理学报.59 (5): 793~771
赵军,胡秀芳.2004.区域生态安全与构筑我国21世纪国家安全体系的策略[J].干旱区资源与环境. 18(2): 1~4
赵丽惠.2000.国家重点基础研究发展规划项目:长江流域生物多样性变化、可持续利用与区域生态安全项目简介[J].植物学报.42(8): 879~880
赵先贵,肖玲,兰叶霞等.2005.陕西省生态足迹和生态承载力动态研究[J].中国农业科学. 38(4): 746~753
赵秀勇等.2003.生态足迹分析法在生态持续发展定量研究中的作用—以南京市1998年的生态足迹计算为例[J].农村生态环境.19(2): 58~60
中国科学院生态环境研究中心生态环境预警研究课题组.1992.中国资源、生态环境预警研究报告,第一号(1990-1991)[C].
周国富.2003.生态安全与生态安全研究[J].贵州师范大学学报(自然科学版).21(3): 105~108
周嘉,尚金城.2004.绥化市可持续发展状况的生态足迹分析[J].地理科学.24(3): 333~338
紫檀,潘志华.2005.内蒙古武川县生态足迹分析[J].中国农业大学学报.10(1): 64~68
邹长新,沈渭寿.2003.生态安全研究进展[J].农村生态环境.19(1): 56~59
左伟,王桥,王文杰等.2002.区域生态安全评价指标与标准研究[J].地理学与国土研究. 18(1): 67~70
Ayres R U.2000.Commentary on the utility of the ecological footprint concept[J].Ecological Economics.32:347 ~ 349
Barnthouse L W. 1992.The role of models in ecological risk assessment[J].Environ Taric Chem.11: 1751~1760
Bicknell K B,Ball R J,Cullen R,et al.1998.New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy[J].Ecological Economics.27:149~ 160
Campbell K R, Bartell S M. 1998. Ecological Models and Ecological Risk Assessment[A]. In New man M C, eds. Risk Assessment: Logic and Measurement [C]. Michigan: Ann Arbor Press, 69~ 100
Costanza R, Norton B G, Haskell B D. 1992.Ecosystem health: New goal for environmental management [M]. Washington D C: Island Press
Cynil Obi, Oil. 1997. Environmental Conflict and National Security in Nigeria: Ramifications of the Ecology-Security Nexus for Sub-Regional Peace[R].ACDIS Occasional Paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Dobson, Andy P, et al. 1997. Hopes for the future: Restoration ecology and conservation ecology [J] . Science. 277: 515~524
Ezeonu I C, Ezeonu F C. 2000.The environment and global security [J]. The Environmentalist. 20(1): 41 ~48
Fadeev Yu N.1998. Evaluation of sanitary and ecological safety of pesticides[J].Zashita, Rastenii. 7: 20~21
FAO Proceedings. 1997. Land Quality Indicators and Their Use in Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development[R].Proceedings the Workshop organized by the Land and Water DevelopmentDivision FAO Agriculture Department.(2):5
FAOSTAT.http://faostat.fao.org/
Federici M,Ulgiati S,Verdesca D,et al. 2003. Efficiency and sustainability indicators for passenger and commodities transportation systems The case of Siena, Italy[J]. Ecological Indicators. 3:155~169
Ferng J J. 2001. Using composition of land multiplier to estimate ecological footprints associated with production activity[J].Ecological Economics. 37 (2):159 ~ 172
Gerbeas-Leenes P W,Nonhebel S,Ivens WPMF. 2002.A method to determine land requirements relating to food consumption patterns[J].Agriculture, Ecosystems und Environment. 90:47 ~ 58
Gerbens-Leenes P W,Nonhebel S. 2002. Consumption patterns and their effects on land required for Food[J].Ecological Economics. 42:185~199
Gernot Stoglehner. 2003.Ecological footprint-a tool for assessing sustainable energy supplies [J]. Journal of Cleaner Production. 11:267 ~ 277
Global Footprint Network.http://www.footprintnetwork.org
Hardi P,Barg S,Hodge T,et al. 1997. Measuring sustainable development:Review of current practices[J].Occasional Paper. 17:1 ~2,49~51
Hartwick J M. 1990 Natural resources,national accounting and economic depreviation[C]. J.Public Econ,Hansson,C-B.43:291 ~ 304
Helmut H.,Karl-Heinz E,Fridolin K. 2001. How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time:The case of Austria 1926 ~1995[J].Ecological Economics. 38:25~45
Helmut Haberl,Mathis Wackernagel,Fridolin Krausmann,et al. 2004. Ecological footprints and human appropriation of net primary production:a comparison[J].Land Use Policy. 21:279~ 288
Karl-Heinz Erb. 2004. Actual land demand of Austria 1926~2000:a variation on Ecological Footvrint assessments[J].Land Use Policy.21:247 ~ 259
Karr, J R.. 1992. Ecological integrity: protecting earth? Life support systems,[A].Costanza, R, Norton,BG, Haskell ,BD.Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management[C]. Washington DC: Island Press. 223~238
Kim Losev. 2000. Ecological Problems of Russia and Border Territories[M]. Kimberley Warren-Rhodes,Albert Koenig.2001. Ecosystem appropriation by Hong Kong and its implications for sustainable development[J].Ecological Economics. 39:347 ~ 359
Klaus Hubacek,Stefan Giljum. 2003. Applying physical input-output analysis to estimate land appropriation(ecological footprints)of international trade activities[J].Ecological Economics. 44:137~151
Kopustka L A, Williams B A, Fairbrother.1996. Evaluating risk predictions at population and community levels in pesticide registration: hypotheses to be tested[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.15(4): 427~431
Krivtsov V,W(a)ger P A,Dacombe P,et al.2004.Analysis of energy footprints associated withrecycling of glass and plastic-Case studies for industrial ecology[J].Ecological Modelling. 174:175 ~ 189
Kwak S J, Yoo S H, Shin C O.2002. A multi-attribute indices for assessing environmental impacts of regional development projects: A case study of Korea[J]. Environ Mana. 29(2): 301 ~309.
Lenzen M,Murray S A.2001.A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia[J].Ecological Economics. 37(2):229 ~ 255
Luck MA,Jenerette GD,Wu J,et al.2001.The urban funnel model and the spatially heterogeneous ecological footprint[J].Ecosystems.4:782~796
Manfred Lenzen,Shauna A,Murray.2001.A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia[J].Ecological Economics. 37:229~255
Mariano Torras. 2003.An ecological footprint approach to external debt relief [J].World Development. 31(12):2161~2171
Mark Halle.2000.State-of-the-Art Review of Environment Security and Development Co-operation [R].Working Paper of Conducted on Behalf of the OECD DAC Working Party on Development and Environment..
Mathews,Jessica Tuchman. 1989. Redefining Security[J].Foreign Affairs. 68: 162~177
Mathis Wackernagel, Chad Monfreda, and Diana Deumling,2002. Ecological Footprint Of Nations (November 2002 Update) [M]. Redefining Progress.
Mathis Wackernagel,Chad Monfreda,Karl-Heinz Erb,et al.2004.Ecological footprint time series of Austria,the Philippines,and South Korea for1961 ~ 1999:comparing the conventional approach to an 'actual land area' approach[J].Land Use Policy.21:261 ~ 269
Moffatt I.2000.Ecological footprints and sustainable development[J]. Ecological Economics. 32:359 ~ 362
Norman Myers. 1993.Environment and Security[J]. Foreign Policy. (74): 23~41
Odum EP. 1989.Ecology and Our Endangered Life Support System[M. Sunderland: Sinauer Asscciates.
Odum E P.1975.Ecology:The Link Between the Natural and Social Sciences[M].New York: Holt Saunders.
Pearce, D.W, Markandya, A. Barbier, E. B. 1991. Blueprint for a Green Economy Earth scan, London.Pirages Dennis. Social Evolution and Ecological Security[J]. Bulletin of Peace Proposals. 22(3): 329~334
Rees W E,Wackernagel M.1998. Monetary analysis:Turning a blind eye on sustainability [J]. Ecological Economic. 47 ~ 52
Rees W E,Wackernagel M.1996.Our ecological footprint:Reducing human impact on the earth [M]. New Society Pubilishers.
Rees W E,Wackernagel M.1996.Urban ecological footprint:Why cites cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to sustainability[J].Environmental Impact Assessment Review.224 ~ 248
Rees W E.1992.Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity:what urban economics leaves out[J].Environment and Urbanization.4(2):121~ 130
Richard wood & Manferd lenzen.2003.An application of a modified ecological footprint method and structural path analysis in acomparative Institutional Study [J].Local Environment.8 (4) :365~386
Samersov V, Trepashko L. 1998.Power consumption of system of plant protection as Criterion of their ecological safety[J]. Archives of Physiopathology and Plant Protection. 31(4): 335~340
Stefan,et al.2002.Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability [J].Ecological Economics.43:199 ~ 211
Van den Bergh J,Verbruggen H.1999.Spatial sustainability,trade and indicators:an evaluation of the Ecological Footprint[J].Ecological Economics.29 (1):61 ~72
Vuuren D P V,Smeets E M W.2000.Ecological footprint of Benin,Bhutan,Costa Rica,and the Netherlands[J].Ecological Economics.34:115~130
Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P, et al.1997. Ecological footprints of Nations[R].Toronto: Inter- national Council for Local Environmental initiatives. 10~21
Wackernagel M,Onisto L,Bello P,et al.1999.National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept[J].Ecological Economic.29:375 ~ 390
Wackernagel M,Onisto L,Callejas L,et al.1997. Ecological footprint of nations:How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have?[R] Commissioned by the Earth Council for the Rio+ 5Forum.Toronto:International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.4 ~ 12
Wackernagel M,Rees W E.1997.Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital:Economics from an ecological footprint perspective[J].Ecological Economic.20:3~4
Wackernagel M.2000. National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2005: The Wu Chuanghua. On a Different Scale一一Pulling China' s Environmental Crisis in Perspective[J].Environmental Health Perspectives.108(10):452~459
WWF. Living planet report.http://www.panda.org/newsfacts/publications/general/
蔡晓明. 2000.生态系统生态学[M].科学出版社
曹志平. 2002农业生态系统功能的综合评价[M].气象出版社
陈东景,徐中民,程国栋,张志强.2001.中国西北地区的生态足迹[J].冰川冻土.23(2): 164~169
陈东景,徐中民. 2001生态足迹理论在我国干早区的应用与探讨—以新疆为例[J].干早区地理.24(4): 305~309
陈敏,张丽君,王如等.2005.1978~2003年中国生态足迹动态分析[J].资源科学.27(6): 132~139
陈星,周成虎.2005.生态安全:国内外研究综述[J].地理科学进展.24(6):8~20
崔胜辉,洪华生,黄云风等.2005.生态安全研究进展[J].生态学报.25(4):861~868
邓踩,杨顺生.2003.四川省2001年生态足迹分析[J].四川环境.22(6):45 ~47
杜轶. 2005.基于生态足迹的山西省可持续发展能力分析[D].太谷:山西农业大学
付强,李晓秋,肖建民.2001.基于RAGA的PPC模型在水稻节水效益评价中的应用.黑龙江水专学报. 28(4):18~22
高长波,张世喜,莫创荣等. 2005.广东省生态可持续发展定量研究:生态足迹时间维动态分析[J].生态环境.14(1): 57~62
顾晓薇,李广军,王青等. 2005.高等教育的生态效率—大学校园生态足迹明.冰川冻土.27(3): 418~-425
顾晓薇,李广军等.2005.绿色大学建设中的生态足迹明.环境科学.26(4):200~204
关文彬,谢春华,马克明等.2003.景观生态恢复与重建是区域生态安全格局构建的关键途径[J].生态学报.23(1): 64~73
郭秀锐,杨居荣,毛显强.2003.城市生态足迹计算与分析—以广州市为例[J].地理研究.22(3): 654~661
国家环境保护局自然保护司编著. 1999.中国生态问题报告[M].中国环境科学出版社
何琼.2004.巢湖流域生态安全的综合评价研究[D].合肥工业大学硕士论文
黑龙江省统计局.黑龙江省统计年鉴.中国统计出版社(1980-2005)
胡孟春,张永春,缪旭波等.2003.张家口市坝上地区生态足迹初步研究[J].应用生态学报14(2): 317~320
黄青.2005基于生态足迹的区域生态安全动态变化研究[D].西安:陕西师范大学
蒋莉,陈治谏,沈兴菊.2005.兰州大学(盘旋路校区)2003年生态足迹调查分析[J]·地理与地理信息科学.21(2): 82~85
蒋依依.2005.滇西北生态脆弱区生态足迹动态变化与预测研究—以云南省丽江纳西族自治县为例[J].生态学杂志. 24(12): 1418~1424
兰叶霞,赵先贵.2005.山西省2002年生态足迹分析[J].陕西农业科学. 31~35
李传武.2005.皖西大别山区生态足迹实证分析—以金寨县为例[J].资源开发与市场. 21(6): 497~500
李利锋,成升魁.2005.生态占用--衡量可持续发展的新指标[J]自然资源学报.15(4):375-382
李金平,王志石.2003.澳门2001年生态足迹分析[J].自然资源学报. 18(2):197~203
李善评. 2005.德州市2002年生态足迹分析[J].山东大学学报(理学版).40(6): 89~93
梁星,王样荣.2002.上海地区可持续发展状况的生态痕迹评价闭.复旦学报(自然科学版). 41(4): 388~394
蔺海明,颉鹏.2004.甘肃省河西绿洲农业区生态足迹动态研究[J].应用生态学报. 15(5): 827~832
刘红,王慧,张兴卫.2006.生态安全评价研究述评[J].生态学杂志.25(1):74~78
刘力.2003.东北地区生态消费水平的区域可持续性研究[J].地理科学.23 (6): 656~660
刘宇辉.2005.中国1961 ~2001年人地协调度演变分析—基于生态足迹模型的研究[J].经济地理.25(2): 219~235
龙爱华,张志强,苏志勇.2004.生态足迹评介及国际研究前沿.地球科学进展.19(6): 971~981
卢远,华璀.2004.广西1990-2002年生态足迹动态分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境.14(3): 49~53
鲁春霞,谢高地等. 2001.青藏高原自然资源利用的生态空间占用评价[J] .资源科学.(6): 29~35
秦耀辰,牛树海.2003.生态占用法在区域可持续发展评价中的运用与改进[J].资源科学. 25(1):1~8
邱大雄. 1995.能源规划与系统分析[M].北京:清华大学出版社
曲格平.2002关注生态安全之一:生态环境问题己经成为国家安全的热门话题[J].环境保护.5: 3~5
曲格平. 2004关注中国生态安全[M].中国环境科学出版社
任茜.2004.县域生态足迹的研究——以都江堰市为例[D].四川:四川大学
任志远,黄青,李晶.2005.陕西省生态安全及空间差异定量分析[J].地理学报.60 (4):597~606
苏药,成升魁,谢高地.2001.大城市居民生活消费的生态占用初探明.资源科学.23(6): 25~29
孙兆敏,贾志宽,尚爱军等.2005.西部地区生态足迹与苜蓿草产业发展战略研究[J].中国生态农业学报. 13(1): 160~163
唐剑武,叶文虎.1998.环境承载力的本质及其定量化初步研究[J].中国环境科学.18(3): 227~230
陶在朴(奥).2003.生态包袱和生态足迹[M].北京:经济科学出版社
王朝科. 2003.建立生态安全评价指标体系的几个理论问题[J].统计研究.9:17~20
王根绪,程国栋,钱鞠.2003.生态安全评价中的若干问题研究[J].应用生态学报. 14(9):1551~1556
王强,杨京平.2003.我国草地退化及其生态安全评价指标体系的探索[J].水土保持学报.17 (6):27~31
王书华,王忠静.2003.基于生态足迹模型的山区生态经济协调发展定量评估—以贵州镇远县为例[J].山地学报. 21(3): 324~-330
王小艺,沈佐锐.2001.农业生态系统健康评估方法研究概况[J].中国农业大学学报. 6(1):84-90
吴国庆.2001.区域农业可持续发展的生态安全及其评价研究[J].自然资源学报.16(3): 227~233
吴开亚,孙世群,胡淑恒.2005.安徽省生态占用状况的初步研究[[J].合肥工业大学学报(自然科学版). 28(1): 10~14
席建超,葛全胜,成升魁等.2004.旅游消费生态占用初探——以北京市海外入境旅游者为例[J].自然资源学报. 19 (2): 224~229
肖笃宁,陈文波,郭福良.2002.论生态安全的基本概念和研究内容[J].应用生态学报.13(3): 354~358
熊德国,鲜学福,姜永东.2003.生态足迹理论在区域可持续发展评价中的应用及改进[J].地理科学进展. 22(6): 618~626
徐中民,张志强,程国栋等.2003.中国1999年生态足迹计算与发展能力分析[J].应用生态学报.14(2): 280~285
徐中民,张志强,程国栋.2000.甘肃省1998年生态足迹计算与分析[J].地理学报. 55(5): 607~616
徐中民,张志强,程国栋.2000.可持续发展评价指标回顾[J].中国人口、资源与环境. 10(4): 60~64
杨京平,卢剑波. 2002.生态安全的系统分析[M].化学工业出版社
杨开忠,杨咏,陈洁. 2000.生态足迹分析理论与方法[J].地球科学进展.15(6): 630~636
杨世琦,孙兆敏,冯永忠等.2004.陕西省2001年生态足迹分析[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版).32(9): 14~18
叶田,杨海真.2005.上海市2003年生态足迹计算与分析[J].四川环境.24(3): 15~ 18
袁平.2005.基于生态足迹模型的县级区域可持续发展评价[D].中国农业科学院
岳东霞,李自珍,惠苍.2004.甘肃省生态足迹和生态承载力发展趋势研究[J].西北植物学报.24(3): 454~463
张伟丽,于晓菊,王沛等.2000.论黑龙江省生态公益林建设[J].防护林科技. (1):58~59
张志强,徐中民,程国栋等.2001.中国西部12省(区、市)的生态足迹[J].地理学报.56(5): 599~610
章锦河,张捷.2004.旅游生态足迹模型及黄山市实证分析[J].地理学报.59 (5): 793~771
赵军,胡秀芳.2004.区域生态安全与构筑我国21世纪国家安全体系的策略[J].干旱区资源与环境. 18(2): 1~4
赵丽惠.2000.国家重点基础研究发展规划项目:长江流域生物多样性变化、可持续利用与区域生态安全项目简介[J].植物学报.42(8): 879~880
赵先贵,肖玲,兰叶霞等.2005.陕西省生态足迹和生态承载力动态研究[J].中国农业科学. 38(4): 746~753
赵秀勇等.2003.生态足迹分析法在生态持续发展定量研究中的作用—以南京市1998年的生态足迹计算为例[J].农村生态环境.19(2): 58~60
中国科学院生态环境研究中心生态环境预警研究课题组.1992.中国资源、生态环境预警研究报告,第一号(1990-1991)[C].
周国富.2003.生态安全与生态安全研究[J].贵州师范大学学报(自然科学版).21(3): 105~108
周嘉,尚金城.2004.绥化市可持续发展状况的生态足迹分析[J].地理科学.24(3): 333~338
紫檀,潘志华.2005.内蒙古武川县生态足迹分析[J].中国农业大学学报.10(1): 64~68
邹长新,沈渭寿.2003.生态安全研究进展[J].农村生态环境.19(1): 56~59
左伟,王桥,王文杰等.2002.区域生态安全评价指标与标准研究[J].地理学与国土研究. 18(1): 67~70
Ayres R U.2000.Commentary on the utility of the ecological footprint concept[J].Ecological Economics.32:347 ~ 349
Barnthouse L W. 1992.The role of models in ecological risk assessment[J].Environ Taric Chem.11: 1751~1760
Bicknell K B,Ball R J,Cullen R,et al.1998.New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy[J].Ecological Economics.27:149~ 160
Campbell K R, Bartell S M. 1998. Ecological Models and Ecological Risk Assessment[A]. In New man M C, eds. Risk Assessment: Logic and Measurement [C]. Michigan: Ann Arbor Press, 69~ 100
Costanza R, Norton B G, Haskell B D. 1992.Ecosystem health: New goal for environmental management [M]. Washington D C: Island Press
Cynil Obi, Oil. 1997. Environmental Conflict and National Security in Nigeria: Ramifications of the Ecology-Security Nexus for Sub-Regional Peace[R].ACDIS Occasional Paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Dobson, Andy P, et al. 1997. Hopes for the future: Restoration ecology and conservation ecology [J] . Science. 277: 515~524
Ezeonu I C, Ezeonu F C. 2000.The environment and global security [J]. The Environmentalist. 20(1): 41 ~48
Fadeev Yu N.1998. Evaluation of sanitary and ecological safety of pesticides[J].Zashita, Rastenii. 7: 20~21
FAO Proceedings. 1997. Land Quality Indicators and Their Use in Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development[R].Proceedings the Workshop organized by the Land and Water DevelopmentDivision FAO Agriculture Department.(2):5
FAOSTAT.http://faostat.fao.org/
Federici M,Ulgiati S,Verdesca D,et al. 2003. Efficiency and sustainability indicators for passenger and commodities transportation systems The case of Siena, Italy[J]. Ecological Indicators. 3:155~169
Ferng J J. 2001. Using composition of land multiplier to estimate ecological footprints associated with production activity[J].Ecological Economics. 37 (2):159 ~ 172
Gerbeas-Leenes P W,Nonhebel S,Ivens WPMF. 2002.A method to determine land requirements relating to food consumption patterns[J].Agriculture, Ecosystems und Environment. 90:47 ~ 58
Gerbens-Leenes P W,Nonhebel S. 2002. Consumption patterns and their effects on land required for Food[J].Ecological Economics. 42:185~199
Gernot Stoglehner. 2003.Ecological footprint-a tool for assessing sustainable energy supplies [J]. Journal of Cleaner Production. 11:267 ~ 277
Global Footprint Network.http://www.footprintnetwork.org
Hardi P,Barg S,Hodge T,et al. 1997. Measuring sustainable development:Review of current practices[J].Occasional Paper. 17:1 ~2,49~51
Hartwick J M. 1990 Natural resources,national accounting and economic depreviation[C]. J.Public Econ,Hansson,C-B.43:291 ~ 304
Helmut H.,Karl-Heinz E,Fridolin K. 2001. How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time:The case of Austria 1926 ~1995[J].Ecological Economics. 38:25~45
Helmut Haberl,Mathis Wackernagel,Fridolin Krausmann,et al. 2004. Ecological footprints and human appropriation of net primary production:a comparison[J].Land Use Policy. 21:279~ 288
Karl-Heinz Erb. 2004. Actual land demand of Austria 1926~2000:a variation on Ecological Footvrint assessments[J].Land Use Policy.21:247 ~ 259
Karr, J R.. 1992. Ecological integrity: protecting earth? Life support systems,[A].Costanza, R, Norton,BG, Haskell ,BD.Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management[C]. Washington DC: Island Press. 223~238
Kim Losev. 2000. Ecological Problems of Russia and Border Territories[M]. Kimberley Warren-Rhodes,Albert Koenig.2001. Ecosystem appropriation by Hong Kong and its implications for sustainable development[J].Ecological Economics. 39:347 ~ 359
Klaus Hubacek,Stefan Giljum. 2003. Applying physical input-output analysis to estimate land appropriation(ecological footprints)of international trade activities[J].Ecological Economics. 44:137~151
Kopustka L A, Williams B A, Fairbrother.1996. Evaluating risk predictions at population and community levels in pesticide registration: hypotheses to be tested[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.15(4): 427~431
Krivtsov V,W(a)ger P A,Dacombe P,et al.2004.Analysis of energy footprints associated withrecycling of glass and plastic-Case studies for industrial ecology[J].Ecological Modelling. 174:175 ~ 189
Kwak S J, Yoo S H, Shin C O.2002. A multi-attribute indices for assessing environmental impacts of regional development projects: A case study of Korea[J]. Environ Mana. 29(2): 301 ~309.
Lenzen M,Murray S A.2001.A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia[J].Ecological Economics. 37(2):229 ~ 255
Luck MA,Jenerette GD,Wu J,et al.2001.The urban funnel model and the spatially heterogeneous ecological footprint[J].Ecosystems.4:782~796
Manfred Lenzen,Shauna A,Murray.2001.A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia[J].Ecological Economics. 37:229~255
Mariano Torras. 2003.An ecological footprint approach to external debt relief [J].World Development. 31(12):2161~2171
Mark Halle.2000.State-of-the-Art Review of Environment Security and Development Co-operation [R].Working Paper of Conducted on Behalf of the OECD DAC Working Party on Development and Environment..
Mathews,Jessica Tuchman. 1989. Redefining Security[J].Foreign Affairs. 68: 162~177
Mathis Wackernagel, Chad Monfreda, and Diana Deumling,2002. Ecological Footprint Of Nations (November 2002 Update) [M]. Redefining Progress.
Mathis Wackernagel,Chad Monfreda,Karl-Heinz Erb,et al.2004.Ecological footprint time series of Austria,the Philippines,and South Korea for1961 ~ 1999:comparing the conventional approach to an 'actual land area' approach[J].Land Use Policy.21:261 ~ 269
Moffatt I.2000.Ecological footprints and sustainable development[J]. Ecological Economics. 32:359 ~ 362
Norman Myers. 1993.Environment and Security[J]. Foreign Policy. (74): 23~41
Odum EP. 1989.Ecology and Our Endangered Life Support System[M. Sunderland: Sinauer Asscciates.
Odum E P.1975.Ecology:The Link Between the Natural and Social Sciences[M].New York: Holt Saunders.
Pearce, D.W, Markandya, A. Barbier, E. B. 1991. Blueprint for a Green Economy Earth scan, London.Pirages Dennis. Social Evolution and Ecological Security[J]. Bulletin of Peace Proposals. 22(3): 329~334
Rees W E,Wackernagel M.1998. Monetary analysis:Turning a blind eye on sustainability [J]. Ecological Economic. 47 ~ 52
Rees W E,Wackernagel M.1996.Our ecological footprint:Reducing human impact on the earth [M]. New Society Pubilishers.
Rees W E,Wackernagel M.1996.Urban ecological footprint:Why cites cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to sustainability[J].Environmental Impact Assessment Review.224 ~ 248
Rees W E.1992.Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity:what urban economics leaves out[J].Environment and Urbanization.4(2):121~ 130
Richard wood & Manferd lenzen.2003.An application of a modified ecological footprint method and structural path analysis in acomparative Institutional Study [J].Local Environment.8 (4) :365~386
Samersov V, Trepashko L. 1998.Power consumption of system of plant protection as Criterion of their ecological safety[J]. Archives of Physiopathology and Plant Protection. 31(4): 335~340
Stefan,et al.2002.Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability [J].Ecological Economics.43:199 ~ 211
Van den Bergh J,Verbruggen H.1999.Spatial sustainability,trade and indicators:an evaluation of the Ecological Footprint[J].Ecological Economics.29 (1):61 ~72
Vuuren D P V,Smeets E M W.2000.Ecological footprint of Benin,Bhutan,Costa Rica,and the Netherlands[J].Ecological Economics.34:115~130
Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P, et al.1997. Ecological footprints of Nations[R].Toronto: Inter- national Council for Local Environmental initiatives. 10~21
Wackernagel M,Onisto L,Bello P,et al.1999.National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept[J].Ecological Economic.29:375 ~ 390
Wackernagel M,Onisto L,Callejas L,et al.1997. Ecological footprint of nations:How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have?[R] Commissioned by the Earth Council for the Rio+ 5Forum.Toronto:International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.4 ~ 12
Wackernagel M,Rees W E.1997.Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital:Economics from an ecological footprint perspective[J].Ecological Economic.20:3~4
Wackernagel M.2000. National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2005: The Wu Chuanghua. On a Different Scale一一Pulling China' s Environmental Crisis in Perspective[J].Environmental Health Perspectives.108(10):452~459
WWF. Living planet report.http://www.panda.org/newsfacts/publications/general/