2016 1 24 1 Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, Jan. 2016, 24(1): 121 130 DOI: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.150849 * 1 赵先贵 2 马彩虹 赵 3 晶 肖 1 玲 赵 1 超 (1. 710062; 2. 750021; 3. 710065) 基于足迹家族原理, 构建了由生态压力 温室气体 (GHGs) 排放 水资源压力构成的资源环境压力评价指标体系, 并应用于四川省的资源环境压力评价 结果表明, 1990 2013 年四川省人均生态足迹增加 109.57%, 生物承载力变化不大, 生态压力由中下 (Ⅱ a ) 升至很高 (Ⅲ b ) 等级 ; 林业碳汇提高 32.01%, GHGs 排放虽保持较低 (Ⅰ b ) 等级, 但其排放指数增高了 234.97%; 水足迹增速很小, 水资源压力很低 (Ⅰ a ); 全省资源环境压力由很低 (Ⅰ a ) 升为中下 (Ⅱ a ) 空间上, 生态压力很低 (Ⅰ a ) 的是甘孜和阿坝, 广元为中上 (Ⅱ b ), 成都 自贡和攀枝花等其余 19 市 ( 州 ) 很高 (Ⅲ b ); GHGs 排放状况, 攀枝花很高 (Ⅲ b ), 内江较高 (Ⅲ a ), 乐山中上 (Ⅱ b ), 眉山中下 (Ⅱ a ), 甘孜 雅安和阿坝为碳汇 (Ⅰ a ), 成都 自贡和泸州等其余 14 市 ( 州 ) 均属较低 (Ⅰ b ) 等级 ; 水资源压力方面, 自贡 遂宁 眉山 内江和资阳很高 (Ⅲ b ), 成都较高 (Ⅲ a ), 泸州和达州为中上 (Ⅱ b ), 德阳为中下 (Ⅱ a ), 宜宾和攀枝花较低 (Ⅰ b ), 甘孜 阿坝和广安等其余 10 州 ( 市 ) 很低 (Ⅰ a ); 资源环境压力状况, 阿坝 甘孜 雅安和广元很低 (Ⅰ a ), 凉山和绵阳较低 (Ⅰ b ), 广安 巴中和南充为中下 (Ⅱ a ), 宜宾 德阳 乐山和达州为中上 (Ⅱ b ), 泸州 资阳和成都较高 (Ⅲ a ), 遂宁 攀枝花 眉山 自贡和内江很高 (Ⅲ b ) 研究表明, 四川省的资源环境压力主要归因于较高的生态压力 今后的生态文明建设中, 除了严守耕地生态红线以确保耕地生产力外, 还要通过大力发展水电以优化能源消费结构, 以及加强森林保育以提高碳汇潜力 足迹家族生态足迹水足迹碳足迹生态文明资源环境压力 : F205 : A : 1671-3990(2016)01-0121-10 Spatio-temporal changes in resource environment pressure due to eco-civilization in Sichuan Province, China * ZHAO Xiangui 1, MA Caihong 2, ZHAO Jing 3, XIAO Ling 1, ZHAO Chao 1 (1. College of Tourism and Environment, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi an 710062, China; 2. School of Resources and Environment, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, China; 3. Department of Ideological and Political Theory Teaching and Research, Xi an Shiyou University, Xi an 710065, China) Abstract In recent years, the construction of eco-civilization in China has unprecedentedly attracted the attention of stakeholder authorities. One of the important issues of the construction of eco-civilization is the evaluation of regional resource environment pressure. Because of the variety and complexity of resources and environmental problems, it is not so easy to evaluate resource environment pressure. The Footprint Family method takes into account factors such as land and water resource carrying capacity, carbon emissions, forestry carbon sequestration and sustainable development. It therefore covers the basic connotation of eco-civilization construction. However, less domestic research has been reported on resource environment pressure in relation to Footprint Family. In this study, an evaluation system was constructed for resource environment pressure evaluation based on Footprint Family. The system was tested in the evaluation of resource environment pressure in Sichuan Province, where lies in the Silk Road Economic Belt, in order to promote the construction of eco-civilization * (14XKS019), E-mail: zhaoxg@snnu.edu.cn : 2015 07 26 : 2015 11 03 * Funded by the National Social Science Fundation of China (No. 14XKS019) Corresponding author, ZHAO Xiangui, E-mail: zhaoxg@snnu.edu.cn Received Jul. 26, 2015; accepted Nov. 3, 2015
122 2016 24 and development of eco-civilization legislation and systematical construction. The results showed that per capita ecological footprint increased by 109.57% whereas per capita biocapacity had no obvious change from 1990 to 2013. Therefore, ecological pressure index increased from below-average ( a ) to very high level ( b ) in the period. In the same period, forestry carbon sequestration increased by 32.01%, greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions remained at low grade ( b ), while GHG emission index sharply increased by 234.97%. As the growth of water footprint was very small, water resource pressure was very small too ( a ). However, decrease in available water resource was not negligible. Pressure on provincial resources and environment increased from very low ( a ) to below-average ( a ) grade. Spatially, ecological pressure was at very low grade ( a ) in Ganzi and Aba, at above-average grade ( b ) in Guangyuan, and at very high grade ( b ) in other regions. GHG emission index was very high ( b ) in Panzhihua, high ( a ) in Neijiang, above-average ( b ) in Leshan, below-average ( a ) in Meishan, with carbon sequestration at a (very low) grade in Ganzi, Ya an and Aba, and b (very low) grade in other regions. Water resource pressure was at very high grade ( b ) in Zigong, Suining, Meishan, Neijiang and Ziyang. It was at high grade ( a ) in Chengdu, above-average ( b ) in Luzhou and Dazhou, below-average grade ( a ) in Deyang, low grade ( b ) in Yibin and Panzhihua, and was at very low grade ( a ) in other regions. Resource environment pressure was at very low grade ( a ) in Aba, Ganzi, Ya an and Guangyuan, low grade ( b ) in Liangshan City and Mianyang, below-average ( a ) in Guang an, Bazhong and Nanchong, above-average ( b ) in Yibin, Deyang, Leshan and Dazhou, high grade ( a ) in Luzhou, Ziyang and Chengdu, and very high grade ( b ) in Suining, Panzhihua, Meishan, Zigong and Neijiang. Therefore resource environment pressure was due mainly to high ecological pressure driven by the large population with relatively little cultivated land per capita in Sichuan Province. The construction of future eco-civilization should strictly be adapted to cultivated land policies that were in turn based on ecological red-lines to ensure productive cultivation. In addition, the optimization of energy consumption structure by vigorously developing hydropower and strengthening forest conservation to improve forest carbon sink capability was an indispensable option in Sichuan Province. Keywords Footprint Family; Ecological footprint; Water footprint; Carbon footprint; Eco-civilization; Resource environment pressure, [1], [2],,, [3 5] [6 7] [8 9] ; ( PSR ), ( IPAT ), ;,, ( ) [10 12],,,, [2], (OPEN: EU) 45 [11],,,,, 1 研究区概况 92 21 ~108 12, 26 03 ~ 34 19 48.6 10 4 km 2, 21 ( ), 77.1% 12.9% 5.3% 4.7%, 12.4%,, (68.9%),,,, ; 45% ; 217, 625, 53%, 75% 23.5% 1.5%, 1 10 8 kw h,
1 : 123 ; 122.7 t,, ; 7 10 12 m 3, 19%, 10 000 km 2 17, 500 km 2 325, 100 km 2 1 065, 3 489.70 m 3,, 2013 8 107 10 4, 5,, 2 研究方法 2.1,,, Galli [10 11] :, (GHGs) 2.1.1 ; ;, [13] ; ( ) ( ) : n ef ( ci / pi) rj (i=1,2,,n; j=1,2,3,4,5,6) (1) i 1 6 ec ( aj rj yj) (j=1,2,3,,6) (2) j 1 : ef (hm 2 ), ec (hm 2 ), c i i, p i i, r j, i, j, a j, y j [13], 2.51, 0.37, 0.46, 1.26; [14 16], 0.34, 0.91, 0.81 2.1.2 GHGs [10 11] 2006 IPCC IPCC, [17 18] t CO 2 e(co 2 ) 2.1.3 ( ) ( ), [19 20], : n wf wu ( pi vwf i) (i=1,2,3,,n) (3) i 1 : wf (m 3 ); wu ; p i i ; vwf i, [21 22] 2.2, (EPI) GHGs (CEI) (WPI) (RPI) ; EPI WPI 3 1 [23 24],,, [25] GHGs, GHGs (C p ) GHGs (C a ) C p C a GHGs [17], C p ; C a ( ) ( ) Stern [26] 2 t CO 2 e 2014 WWF [27] 2010 120 10 8 hm 2 ( 1.7 hm 2 ), 1.18 t hm 2 C p C a, GHGs (CEI), [4] m, n ( n ), i j (x ij ) (r ij ), j (e j ), j, (d j ), (w j ), : xij rij (i=1,2,3,,m; j=1,2,3,,n) (4) n x ij i 1
124 2016 24 e r ln r / ln n (5) j ij ij d j 1 e (6) m j j j j 1 j w d / d (7) GHGs : p a CEI C C wp wa C C (8) p.max a.max : C p.max C a.max, 15 20; w p w a, 0.500 1 0.499 9, EPI CEI WPI 3, (RPI) 3 0.333 0 0.333 9 0.333 1, w e w c w w, : RPI EPI w CEI w WPI w (9) e c w 1 Table 1 表 1 资源环境压力指数等级划分标准 Grading criteria of resource environment pressure index Grade Token state Low pressure Medium pressure High pressure Sub-grade a b a b a b (EPI) Ecological press index (EPI) <0.30 0.30~0.39 0.4~0.49 0.50~0.59 0.60~0.69 0.70 Token state Very low Low Below average Above average High Very high (GHGs) <0 0~0.39 0.40~0.49 0.50~0.59 0.60~0.69 0.70 Greenhouse gas emission index (CEI) Token state Carbon sinks Low Below average Above average High Very high <0.30 0.30~0.39 0.40~0.49 0.50~0.59 0.60~0.69 0.70 Water resource press index (WPI) Token state Very low Low Below average Above average High Very high <0.30 0.30~0.39 0.40~0.49 0.50~0.59 0.60~0.69 0.70 Resource environment press index (RPI) Token state Very low Low Below average Above average High Very high 2.3, 1991 2014, 3 结果与分析 3.1 3.1.1 1990 1.62 hm 2 2013 3.39 hm 2, 109.57%, 3.27%( 1) 0.50 hm 2 1.06 hm 2, 1.12 hm 2 2.32 hm 2 ; 0.77~0.83 hm 2 ; 0.79 hm 2 2.56 hm 2, 222.93%, 5.23%, 0.29 hm 2 1.50 hm 2, 1990 17.71%,, ( 3.47%, 0.86%), 1990 2013, ( 2), 11 688.26 10 4 t 40 537.96 10 4 t, 246.83%, 5.56%, 10 078.25 10 4 t 32 717.35 10 4 t, 224.63%, 5.25%; 376.39 10 4 t 5 607.48 10 4 t, 1 389.81%, 12.46%; 4 282.16 10 4 t 5 820.36 10 4 t, 35.92%, 1.34%; 3 647.45 10 4 t 4 814.91 10 4 t, 32.01%, 1.21%; 598.92 10 4 t 1 207.68 10 4 t, 101.64%, 3.10% 1990 1.49 t 2013 5.00 t, 2013 GHGs 2.5 1990 2013 GHGs
1 : 125, GHGs (, ) 62.15%~74.73%, 2.45%~12.36%, 12.79%~ 29.90%, 2.41%~3.92%, GHGs 9.86%~23.78%, 10%~24%, GHGs,, 图 1 1990 2013 年四川省人均生态足迹和生物承载力变化趋势 Fig. 1 Changes of ecological footprint and biocapacity per capita in Sichuan Province from 1990 to 2013 图 2 1990 2013 年四川省碳足迹构成及动态变化 Fig. 2 Components and dynamic changes of carbon footprint in Sichuan Province from 1990 to 2013 1990 494.92 m 3 2013 554.02 m 3, 11.94%, 0.49%( 3) 95.98 m 3 130.09 m 3, 35.54%, 1.33%; 398.95 m 3 423.94 m 3 3 305.34 m 3 3 116.22 m 3, 5.72%, 0.26%; 3.47%,,, 3.1.2 ( 4), 1990 2013, 4 : 1990 1992 (Ⅱ a ), 1993 1996 (Ⅱ b ), 1997 2001 (Ⅲ a ), 2002 (Ⅲ b ) GHGs (Ⅰ b ), 0.06 0.21, 234.97%; 0.14~0.26, (Ⅰ a ) ; 3 : 1990 1997 (Ⅰ a ), 1998 2003 (Ⅰ b ), 2004 (Ⅱ a ) 3.2 3.2.1 ( )2013 ( 2), 8 ( ) (<3 hm 2 ),
126 2016 24 图 3 1990 2013 年四川省人均水足迹的动态变化 Fig. 3 Dynamic changes of water footprint per capita in Sichuan Province from 1990 to 2013 图 4 1990 2013 年四川省资源环境压力指数的动态变化 Fig. 4 Dynamic changes of resource environment pressure indexes in Sichuan Province from 1990 to 2013 13 ( ) (>3.6 hm 2 ), 15.27 hm 2, 11.47 hm 2, ; 3,, 5.02 hm 2 5.94 hm 2, (1.21~1.36 hm 2 ), (0.30~0.88 hm 2 ); (>4 hm 2 ), (2.15~3.97 hm 2 ), (1.65~1.94 hm 2 ),, 2.41 hm 2 3.71 hm 2 2013 (9.30~35.31 t); ( 18.61~ 10.83 t), ; 1.96 t, (2 t); (2.68~5.62 t) 2013 (601.65~826.14 m 3 ), (505.81~596.80 m 3 ), (431.64~ 498.34 m 3 ), (47.17~96.83 m 3 ), (>100 m 3 ), 336.09 m 3 ; (<400 m 3 ), (>500 m 3 ), 3 (48 349 m 3 ) (42 730 m 3 ) (10 027 m 3 ), 3 (607 m 3 ) (603 m 3 ) (387 m 3 ), 3.2.2 ( 5),, 2013 (Ⅰ a ), (Ⅱ b ), 19 ( )
1 : 127 ( ) Cities (States) 表 2 四川省各市州 2013 年生态足迹 碳足迹和水足迹的测算结果 Table 2 Ecological footprint, carbon footprint and water footprint of cities in Sichuan Province in 2013 Ecological footprint per capita (hm 2 person 1 ) Biocapacity per capita (hm 2 person 1 ) Ecological deficit per capita (hm 2 person 1 ) Carbon footprint per capita (t person 1 ) Carbon footprint density (t hm 2 ) Water footprint per capita (m 3 person 1 ) Chengdu 3.62 0.30 3.31 4.09 13.49 570.72 Zigong 4.73 0.50 4.23 5.62 11.30 692.82 Panzhihua 15.27 0.87 14.40 35.31 40.81 826.14 Luzhou 4.87 0.65 4.22 5.44 8.38 615.34 Deyang 2.72 0.57 2.15 4.10 7.15 546.91 Mianyang 2.78 0.84 1.94 2.68 3.18 505.81 Guangyuan 2.94 1.22 1.72 5.19 4.25 491.56 Suining 2.40 0.49 1.91 2.74 5.60 437.74 Neijiang 4.97 0.40 4.57 9.92 24.57 602.84 Leshan 4.96 0.65 4.31 9.30 14.26 594.73 Nanchong 2.18 0.53 1.65 1.96 3.68 458.73 Meishan 5.13 0.88 4.24 10.06 11.40 557.22 Yibin 5.09 0.75 4.33 4.53 6.02 526.27 Guang an 4.25 0.59 3.67 4.33 7.38 596.80 Dazhou 4.57 0.60 3.97 4.29 7.15 498.34 Ya an 3.77 1.21 2.56 10.83 8.95 431.64 Bazhong 2.61 0.76 1.85 2.74 3.59 519.67 Ziyang 3.83 0.56 3.26 3.44 6.11 659.80 Aba 2.61 5.02 2.41 18.61 3.71 460.09 Ganzi 2.23 5.94 3.71 13.18 2.22 433.51 Liangshan 4.22 1.36 2.86 2.98 2.19 601.65 (Ⅲ b ); GHGs, (Ⅲ b ), (Ⅲ a ), (Ⅱ b ), (Ⅱ a ), (Ⅰ a ), 14 ( ) (Ⅰ b ) ;, (Ⅲ b ), (Ⅲ a ), (Ⅱ b ), (Ⅱ a ), (Ⅰ b ), 10 ( ) (Ⅰ a ); 3 6 : (Ⅰ a ), (Ⅰ b ), (Ⅱ a ), (Ⅱ b ), (Ⅲ a ), (Ⅲ b ) 4 讨论与结论,,,,,, 1990 2013,,,,,, 1990 2013, : 1)1990 2013, 3.27%,,, 4 : 1990 1992 (Ⅱ a ), 1993 1996 (Ⅱ b ), 1997
128 中国生态农业学报 2016 图5 Fig. 5 第 24 卷 2013 年四川省资源环境压力的空间变化 Spatial changes of resource environment pressure of Sichuan Province in 2013 2001 年为较高 (Ⅲa), 2002 年以后升为很高 (Ⅲb)等级 空间上, 甘孜和阿坝很低 (Ⅰa), 广元中上 (Ⅱb), 成 都 自贡和攀枝花等其余 19 市 (州 )很高 (Ⅲb) 4) 四 川 省 资 源 环 境 压 力 可 划 分 为 3 个 时 期 : 1990 1997 年为很低 (Ⅰa)等级, 1998 2003 年上升 至较低 (Ⅰb)等级, 2004 年以后继续上升到中下 (Ⅱa) 2)1990 年以来全省林业碳汇提高了 32.01%, 全 等级 空间上, 阿坝 甘孜 雅安和广元的压力很 省 GHGs 排放虽然保持较低 (Ⅰc)水平, 但 GHGs 排 低 (Ⅰa), 凉山和绵阳较低 (Ⅰb), 广安 巴中和南充为 放指数增高 234.97% 空间上, 攀枝花的 GHGs 排放 中下 (Ⅱa), 宜宾 德阳 乐山和达州为中上 (Ⅱb), 泸 等 级 很 高 (Ⅲb), 内 江 较 高 (Ⅲa), 乐 山 中 上 (Ⅱb), 眉 州 资阳和成都较高 (Ⅲa), 遂宁 攀枝花 眉山 自 山为中下 (Ⅱa), 甘孜 雅安和阿坝属碳汇 (Ⅰa), 成 贡和内江很高 (Ⅲb) 都 自贡和泸州等其余 14 市 (州 )均属较低 (Ⅰb)等级 5) 四川省的资源环境压力主要归因于较高的生 3) 四川省 1990 2013 年的水足迹增速很小, 可 态压力 今后的生态文明建设中, 除了严守耕地生 用 水 资 源 量 较 高, 水 资 源 压 力 很 低 ( Ⅰ a ), 但 可 用 态红线以确保耕地生产力外, 还要通过大力发展水 水资源量减少的现象不容忽视 空间上, 自贡 遂 电以优化能源消费结构, 以及加强森林保育以提高 宁 眉山 内江和资阳的压力很高 ( Ⅲ b ), 成都较高 碳汇潜力 ( Ⅲ a ), 泸 州 和 达 州 为 中 上 ( Ⅱ b ), 德 阳 为 中 下 ( Ⅱ a ), 宜宾和攀枝花较低 ( Ⅰ b ), 甘孜 阿坝和广安等其余 10 州 ( 市 ) 很低 ( Ⅰ a ) 参考文献 References [1] 黄勤, 曾元, 江琴. 中国推进生态文明建设的研究进展[J].
1 : 129, 2015, 25(2): 111 120 Huang Q, Zeng Y, Jiang Q. Progress and prospect of the study on Making great efforts to promote ecological civilization construction [J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2015, 25(2): 111 120 [2]. [J]., 2013, 28(2): 157 162 Zhou H C. Roadmap and institutional arrangement for the construction of ecological civilization in China[J]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2013, 28(2): 157 162 [3],,. [J]., 2010, 18(2): 422 427 Cui X, Ge Y Y, Bai Z K. Ecological carrying capacity assessment of large-scale open coal mines in loess zones A case study of Antaibao Opencast Mine in Pingshuo[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2010, 18(2): 422 427 [4],,,. [J]., 2014, 31(2): 206 213 Wang C J, Wang F, Zhang X L, et al. Quantitative analysis of the economic growth influence on urbanization and ecological environment pressure in Xinjiang[J]. Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2014, 31(2): 206 213 [5],,,. [J]., 2015, 23(8): 1061 1072 Ye W, Wang H X, Xu X Y, et al. Quantitative analysis of resource and environment carrying capacity for water conservation area in Qin-Ba Mountains[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2015, 23(8): 1061 1072 [6],,,. IPAT [J]., 2015, 26(3): 949 957 Wang Y G, Wang X, Sun C H, et al. Research progress on the application of IPAT model and its variants[j]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2015, 26(3): 949 957 [7],,. ESI [J]., 2014, 22(3): 368 374 Song J, Wang H X, Liu S Y. Quantitative assessment of stress of economic development to environment using ecological stress index[j]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2014, 22(3): 368 374 [8],,,. [J]., 2012, 32(7): 2025 2032 Zhao H H, Wang Y, Gu X M, et al. Establishment of environmental sustainability assessment indicators based on material flow and ecological footprint model in Tongling City of Anhui Province[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2012, 32(7): 2025 2032 [9],,,. [J]., 2015, 23(5): 650 658 Shi L J, Wu P T, Wang Y B, et al. Assessment of water stress in Shaanxi Province based on crop water footprint[j]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2015, 23(5): 650 658 [10] Galli A, Wiedmann T, Ercin E, et al. Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a Footprint Family of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet[j]. Ecological Indicators, 2012, 16: 100 112 [11] Galli A, 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(461/462): 813 818 [12]. : [J]., 2015, 35(6): 1647 1659 Fang K. Footprint family: Concept, classification, theoretical framework and integrated pattern[j]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(6): 1647 1659 [13] Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, et al. Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere s regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts underlying methodology and framework[j]. Ecological Indicators, 2013, 24: 518 533 [14],,. [J]., 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 [15],,,. [J]., 2001, 23(6): 20 23 Xie G D, Lu C X, Cheng S K, et al. Evaluation of natural capital utilization with ecological footprint in China[J]. Resources Science, 2001, 23(6): 20 23 [16],. [J]., 2007, 16(2): 598 601 Zhang G B, Wang A Z. The ecological footprint of middle China in 2004[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2007, 16(2): 598 601 [17],,,. [J]., 2015, 35(6): 1982 1990 Zhao X G, Ma C H, Xiao L, et al. Dynamic analysis of greenhouse gas emission and evaluation of the extent of emissions in Xi an City, China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(6): 1982 1990 [18],,,. [J]., 2013, 33(12): 1537 1542 Zhao X G, Ma C H, Xiao L, et al. Spatio-temporal changes of carbon footprint in Shaanxi Province[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2013, 33(12): 1537 1542 [19],. [J]., 2013, 33(18): 5458 5466 Ma J, Peng J. Research progress on water footprint[j]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013, 33(18): 5458 5466 [20] Ercin A E, Hoekstra A Y. Water footprint scenarios for 2050: A global analysis[j]. Environment International, 2014, 64: 71 82 [21],,,.
130 2016 24 [J]. :, 2010, 44(2): 315 318 Zhao D W, Zhao X G, Zhang L H, et al. Analysis on the spatial and temporal variety of virtual water consumption in Xiangyuan County[J]. Journal of Huazhong Normal University: Natural Sciences, 2010, 44(2): 315 318 [22],. [J]., 2009, 31(1): 84 93 Sun C Z, Zhang L. Changes in spatial and temporal differences of agricultural product virtual water versus cultivated land in China[J]. Resources Science, 2009, 31(1): 84 93 [23],,,. [J]., 2006, 39(6): 1202 1207 Zhao X G, Xiao L, Ma C H, et al. Design of sustainability indicators system based on ecological footprint[j]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2006, 39(6): 1202 1207 [24],,,. [J]., 2007, 15(6): 135 138 Zhao X G, Ma C H, Gao L F, et al. Assessment of ecological safety under different scales based on ecological tension index[j]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2007, 15(6): 135 138 [25],,,. [J]., 2013, 34(5): 38 42 Dai W, Zhang M Z, Qin Q, et al. Water footprint analysis of water resources security in Liupanshui City[J]. Journal of Hydroecology, 2013, 34(5): 38 42 [26] Stern N. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007 [27] Galli A. On the rationale and policy usefulness of Ecological Footprint Accounting: The case of Morocco[J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 2015, 48: 210 224