首页> 外文期刊>土壤圈(英文版) >A Modified Model of Ecological Footprint Accounting and Its Application to Cropland in Jiangsu,China
【24h】

A Modified Model of Ecological Footprint Accounting and Its Application to Cropland in Jiangsu,China

机译:生态足迹核算的修正模型及其在江苏省耕地中的应用

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Based on the theory of emergy analysis,a modified model of ecological footprint accounting,termed emergetic ecological footprint (EMEF) in contrast to the conventional ecological footprint (EF) model,is formulated and applied to a case study of Jiangsu cropland,China.Comparisons between the EF and the EMEF with respect to grain,cotton,and food oil were outlined.Per capita EF and EMEF of cropland were also presented to depict the resources consumption level by comparing the biocapacity (BC) or emergetic biocapacity (EMBC,a new BC calculation by emergy analysis)of the same area.In the meanwhile,the ecological sustainability index (ESI),a new concept initiated by the authors,was established in the modified model to indicate and compare the sustainability of cropland use at different levels and between different regions.The results from conventional EF showed that per capita EF of the cropland has exceeded its per capita BC in Jiangsu since 1986.In contrast,based on the EMBC,the per capita EMEF exceeded the per capita EMBC 5 years earlier.The ESIs of Jiangsu cropland use were between 0.7 and 0.4 by the conventional method,while the numbers were between 0.7 and 0.3 by the modified one.The fact that the results of the two methods were similar showed that the modified model was reasonable and feasible,although some principles of the EF and EMEF were quite different.Also,according to the realities of Jiangsu'cropland use,the results from the modified model were more acceptable.
机译:基于能值分析理论,建立了与传统生态足迹(EF)模型相反的生态足迹核算模型,称为新兴生态足迹(EMEF),并应用于中国江苏省耕地的案例研究。概述了粮食和棉,食用油在EF和EMEF之间的关系。通过比较生物承载力(BC)或新兴生物承载力(EMBC),提出了农田的人均EF和EMEF来描述资源消耗水平。同时,通过改进模型建立了作者提出的新概念生态可持续性指数(ESI),以指示和比较不同水平和不同水平农田的可持续利用性。常规EF的结果表明,自1986年以来,江苏省耕地的人均EF已超过其人均BC。相反,基于EMBC,人均EF EMEF超过了5年前的人均EMBC。传统方法的江苏省耕地使用ESIs在0.7至0.4之间,而改良方法则在0.7至0.3之间。这两种方法的结果相似结果表明,改进后的模型是合理可行的,尽管EF和EMEF的一些原理存在很大差异。此外,根据江苏省耕地利用的实际情况,改进后的模型结果更为可接受。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号