足迹家族研究综述

综合测度人类社会的可持续发展状态是生态经济学者追求的重要目标。足迹家族由生态足迹、碳足迹和水足迹等一系列足迹类指标整合而成,旨在为决策者系统评估与权衡人类活动的环境影响提供理论和技术支持。从理论探索、整合实践和分类比较等三方面对足迹家族的研究现状进行了综述;在此基础上围绕极具争议的足迹定义、计算方法和加权方式等问题,深入分析了阻碍当前研究进一步推进的关键性因素;指出未来应从建立足迹类型学、完善跨区域投入产出模型、细化产品和机构环境足迹标准等方面入手,推动实现足迹家族的量化整合;并首次提出了足迹家族与行星边界耦合的构想,以期为监测和预警人类活动的生态阈值、促进环境影响评价向可持续性评价转变提供科学依据。     

环境足迹的核算与整合框架——基于生命周期评价的视角

环境足迹及其与生命周期评价(LCA)的关系是工业生态学关注的新热点。从探讨环境足迹与LCA的关系入手,以碳足迹、水足迹、土地足迹和材料足迹为例,分别对每一项足迹指标两个版本的核算方法进行了比较。根据清单加和过程的特点,将所有足迹指标划分为基于权重因子和基于特征因子两类,总结了两者的适用性和局限性。在此基础上提出了一个环境足迹核算与整合的统一框架。该框架基于LCA视角建立,但对系统边界和清单数据的要求相对灵活,因而也适用于生命周期不甚明确的情形。研究在一定程度上揭示了足迹指标的方法学实质,同时也为环境影响综合评估提供了一条规范化的途径。     

水足迹研究进展

水为生命之源,水资源的合理分配与科学管理是区域可持续发展与流域综合管理的核心环节;水足迹作为一种全面核算人类活动对水资源真实占用的综合指标,将人类消费终端与水资源利用密切关联,为维护流域水资源安全、提高区域水资源利用效率提供了重要的科学依据,已成为当前国际水资源管理的前沿研究领域。在明确水足迹及水资源生态足迹相关概念的基础上,对比分析了水足迹与生态足迹、水资源生态足迹模型的异同,明晰了过程、产品及区域等不同研究对象的水足迹核算方法,系统梳理了产品和区域水足迹评价、基于水足迹的区域水资源安全研究、区域水足迹可持续性分析等水足迹主要研究内容的近今进展,并展望了进一步的重点研究方向,即水足迹综合研究、水足迹评价不确定性分析、水足迹与物质流核算的关联研究,以及基于足迹整合的可持续发展多维测度等。     

基于足迹家族的青海省资源环境压力定量评估

为了系统评估人类活动对环境的影响,基于足迹家族构建了资源环境压力评价体系,对青海省的生态足迹、碳足迹、水足迹及资源环境压力作了测评.结果表明: 1990—2013年,青海省人均生态足迹由1.32 hm²增为3.32 hm²,人均生物承载力由2.33 hm²降至2.07 hm²,2006年后出现生态赤字且不断增高,但1990年以来始终存在生物质盈余;人均碳足迹由5.82 t增至15.85 t,目前已超过应对气候变化目标的7.93倍;人均水足迹从967.67 m³降低到732.05 m³.1990年以来生态压力一直较低(Ⅰ_b),温室气体(GHG)排放压力由较低(Ⅰ_b)升高到中上(Ⅱ_b),水资源压力很低(Ⅰ_a),资源环境压力由很低(Ⅰ_a)升高为较低(Ⅰ_b).生态压力和水资源压力对资源环境压力的贡献率逐渐降低,GHG排放压力的影响明显增大.资源环境压力的空间差异较大,2013年西宁市很高(Ⅲ_b)、海东市中上(Ⅱ_b)、海西州中下(Ⅱ_a),其他各市州很低(Ⅰ_a),主要压力源也具有明显的空间异质性.今后发展中,各市州应采取差异化减压策略.     

基于科学知识图谱的生态足迹研究演进、框架与前沿中外比较

生态足迹是评估人类活动下生态可持续性的有效工具。基于1999-2020年CNKI中文核心期刊与1994-2020年Web of Science核心合集有关生态足迹研究文献共5104篇,运用CiteSpace可视化软件,绘制中外研究高频词时区、关键词聚类及突现词时间分布科学知识图谱,梳理中外生态足迹相关研究演进路径、基本理论框架与动态前沿。研究结果表明:(1)中外生态足迹研究演进路径均可分为三个阶段,但演进方式有所差异,且国内研究较国外相对滞后;(2)中外生态足迹研究均已形成以生态足迹模型方法为工具、以足迹测算为基础、以生态安全为落脚点、以促进人与生态协调发展为目标的基础框架体系,国外侧重基础框架构建、宏观尺度研究与微观机制分析,国内侧重模型和方法优化与外部环境分析;(3)当前国外前沿方向为环境库兹涅茨曲线假设验证研究与生态网络分析,国内为碳足迹和水资源足迹的测算、三维生态足迹模型下的自然资本评估以及生态补偿问题。     

基于ESTDA模型的中国水生态足迹及水生态压力评价

基于水足迹视角,测度了中国31个省份2000-2018年的水生态足迹广度、深度及水生态压力,采用ESTDA框架对其时空动态特征进行分析。结果表明：①研究期内,中国水生态足迹总量呈波动上升态势;水生态承载力波动幅度较大,空间分布格局整体呈现自东南向西北逐渐较少的趋势。②水生态足迹广度与水生态承载力呈同步变化趋势,整体上已接近水资源可提供的流量资本上限,各省市水生态足迹深度差异较大。③研究期内,水生态压力指数小于1的区域与水生态足迹深度为1的区域相吻合,水生态压力指数大于1的区域主要分布在华北及西北地区。④LISA时间路径表明,水生态足迹广度、深度及水生态压力的整体空间格局均具有较强的稳定性;三者的局部空间结构在空间依赖方向上的稳定性依次加强;空间格局演化的空间整合性呈现水生态足迹深度 > 水生态压力 > 水生态足迹广度,空间上,水生态足迹广度正向协同增长省份主要集中于南方省份,而水生态足迹深度和水生态压力正向协同增长区则分布于华北、西北地区;各要素的空间分布格局表现出较强的路径依赖及锁定特征。     

生态足迹深度和广度:构建三维模型的新指标

追踪自然资本存量消耗与流量占用是当前可持续发展研究的核心议题.系统阐述了国际上新近提出的生态足迹三维模型的概念与计算方法,重点对足迹深度和足迹广度两个指标进行了探讨,总结了模型的主要优势,并通过引入资本流量占用率和存量流量利用比两个新指标对模型作进一步完善,在此基础上实证分析了1961-2006年的中国生态足迹.结果表明,中国自 1978年步人生态赤字时代以来,足迹深度增长了近2倍,足迹广度减少了11.84％,因自然资本流量不足导致资本存量大幅肖耗已成为社会发展常态.到2006年时,中国需要2.9倍的国土才能持续支撑其资源消费量.研究表明,三维模型分别从时空两方面表征了人类对资本存量的消耗(足迹深度)和对流量的占用(足迹广度),增强了生态足迹在不同区域、不同时期之间的可比性,并在一定程度上克服了经典模型的评估缺陷.最后指出了三维模型今后发展的主要方向.     

生态足迹方法及研究进展

本文介绍了生态足迹的计算方法,回顾了国内外的研究进展,重点介绍了生态足迹计算中能源足迹算法的研究进展。目前,国外对生态足迹的研究集中在对长时间序列计算分析和计算方法的改进上,提出了改进的生态足迹方法“实际土地需求”法;国内研究还多限于生态足迹实例计算分析。探讨了生态足迹方法的优缺点,同时就生态足迹今后的研究重点提出一些看法和展望。     

基于生态足迹方法的沈阳地区种植业生产资源消耗评价

根据生态足迹方法,建立了种植业生态足迹模型,计算了2001—2006年沈阳地区种植业生态足迹,分析了单位重量农产品生态足迹构成变化规律及其原因。结果表明:2001—2006年,沈阳地区种植业生态足迹呈现先下降后上升趋势,单位重量农产品生态足迹总体呈下降趋势;耕地足迹是沈阳种植业生态足迹的主要成分,水足迹次之,能源足迹所占比重最小。2001—2006年间,耕地足迹从56.8%降到54.4%;水足迹在27.6%～32.1%波动;而能源足迹从14.0%增加到16.2%;农产品单产的提高伴随着钾肥、复合肥、农药、农膜、农用钢材和柴油投入量的增加。表明近年来沈阳地区种植业生产对化石能源的依赖程度在加大。     

长江中游城市群水-碳-生态足迹变化特征及其平衡性分析

长江中游城市群是长江经济带三大跨区域城市群支撑之一,实现该区域高效协同发展对于打造全国重要增长极具有重要意义。基于水-碳-生态足迹评估长江中游城市群资源环境压力,引入基尼系数分析城市群水-碳-生态足迹与经济、人口、水资源的平衡性,并构建深度神经网络模型预测水-碳-生态足迹的未来变化趋势。结果表明：长江中游城市群2000—2015年的人均生态足迹由1.98hm~2增至4.06hm~2,人均碳足迹由0.27hm~2增至0.56hm~2,年平均增幅分别为6.56%和6.5%;人均水资源生态足迹整体呈先下降后上升,最后趋于平衡的变化趋势;大部分城市的水资源超载指数为正值,总体水资源状况良好,湖南和江西水资源状况优于湖北。长江中游城市群面临巨大资源环境压力,且大部分来自于碳排放压力。研究期内,江西省资源环境压力由中上等级升至较高等级;湖南省资源环境压力基本处于高等级;湖北省资源环境压力均处于很高等级。城市群人口分布、经济发展、水资源分布与水-碳-生态足迹的匹配关系较差。从生态足迹角度来看,综合基尼系数均值为0.456,处于“一般不匹配”范围,研究期内呈现缓慢下降趋势,表明区域间整体协调性增强;从...     

Theoretical exploration for the combination of the ecological,energy, carbon,and water footprints: Overview of a footprint family

Over the past two decades, a continuously expanding list of footprint-style indicators has been introduced to the scientific community with the aim of raising public awareness of how humanity exerts pressures on the environment. A deeper understanding of the connections and interactions between different footprints is required in an attempt to support policy makers in the measurement and choice of environmental impact mitigation strategies. Combining a selection of footprints that address different aspects of environmental issues into an integrated system is, therefore, a natural step. This paper starts with the idea of developing a footprint family from which most important footprints can be compared and integrated. On the basis of literature review in related fields, the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints are employed as selected indicators to define a footprint family. A brief survey is presented to provide background information on each of the footprints with an emphasis on their main characteristics in a comparative sense; that is, the footprints differ in many aspects more than just the impacts they are addressed. This allows the four footprints to be complementarily used in assessing environmental impacts associated with natural resource use and waste discharge. We evaluate the performance of the footprint family in terms of data availability, coverage complementarity, methodological consistency, and policy relevance and propose solutions and suggestions for further improvement. The key conclusions are that the footprint family, which captures a broad spectrum of sustainability issues, is able to offer a more complete picture of environmental complexity for policy makers and, in particular, in national-level studies. The research provides new insights into the distinction between environmental impact assessment and sustainability evaluation, properly serving as a reference for multidisciplinary efforts in estimating planetary boundaries for global sustainability.     

Environmental and resource burdens associated with world biofuel production out to 2050: footprint components from carbon emissions and land use to waste arisings and water consumption

Environmental or ‘ecological’ footprints have been widely used in recent years as indicators of resource consumption and waste absorption presented in terms of biologically productive land area [in global hectares (gha)] required per capita with prevailing technology. In contrast, ‘carbon footprints’ are the amount of carbon (or carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions for such activities in units of mass or weight (like kilograms per functional unit), but can be translated into a component of the environmental footprint (on a gha basis). The carbon and environmental footprints associated with the world production of liquid biofuels have been computed for the period 2010–2050. Estimates of future global biofuel production were adopted from the 2011 International Energy Agency (IEA) ‘technology roadmap’ for transport biofuels. This suggests that, although first generation biofuels will dominate the market up to 2020, advanced or second generation biofuels might constitute some 75% of biofuel production by 2050. The overall environmental footprint was estimated to be 0.29 billion (bn) gha in 2010 and is likely to grow to around 2.57 bn gha by 2050. It was then disaggregated into various components: bioproductive land, built land, carbon emissions, embodied energy, materials and waste, transport, and water consumption. This component‐based approach has enabled the examination of the Manufactured and Natural Capital elements of the ‘four capitals’ model of sustainability quite broadly, along with specific issues (such as the linkages associated with the so‐called energy–land–water nexus). Bioproductive land use was found to exhibit the largest footprint component (a 48% share in 2050), followed by the carbon footprint (23%), embodied energy (16%), and then the water footprint (9%). Footprint components related to built land, transport and waste arisings were all found to account for an insignificant proportion to the overall environmental footprint, together amounting to only about 2%     

Surveying the Environmental Footprint of Urban Food Consumption

Assessments of urban metabolism (UM) are well situated to identify the scale, components, and direction of urban and energy flows in cities and have been instrumental in benchmarking and monitoring the key levers of urban environmental pressure, such as transport, space conditioning, and electricity. Hitherto, urban food consumption has garnered scant attention both in UM accounting (typically lumped with “biomass”) and on the urban policy agenda, despite its relevance to local and global environmental pressures. With future growth expected in urban population and wealth, an accounting of the environmental footprint from urban food demand (“foodprint”) is necessary. This article reviews 43 UM assessments including 100 cities, and a total of 132 foodprints in terms of mass, carbon footprint, and ecological footprint and situates it relative to other significant environmental drivers (transport, energy, and so on) The foodprint was typically the third largest source of mass flows (average is 0.8 tonnes per capita per annum) and carbon footprint (average is 2.1 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalents per capita per annum) in the reviewed cities, whereas it was generally the largest driver of urban ecological footprints (average is 1.2 global hectares per capita per annum), with large deviations based on wealth, culture, and urban form. Meat and dairy are the primary drivers of both global warming and ecological footprint impacts, with little relationship between their consumption and city wealth. The foodprint is primarily linear in form, producing significant organic exhaust from the urban system that has a strong, positive correlation to wealth. Though much of the foodprint is embodied within imported foodstuffs, cities can still implement design and policy interventions, such as improved nutrient recycling and food waste avoidance, to redress the foodprint.     

中国水生态足迹广度、深度评价及空间格局

运用生态足迹方法对水资源进行流量资本和存量资本区分,测算分析了中国31个省市1997—2014年的水生态足迹广度与深度。结果显示:(1)中国的水生态足迹广度受年际水资源量丰枯影响,总体呈波动趋势;各省市的水生态足迹广度存在着明显差异,南方地区水生态足迹广度普遍大于北方地区;(2)研究期内,中国的水生态足迹深度只有1998年为1,其余年份的水资源流量资本已不能满足人类生产生活的需求,需要消耗水资源存量资本;各省市之间水生态足迹深度相差较大,整体上北方高南方低,其中14个省份18年的平均水生态足迹深度为1,平均水生态足迹深度最高的地区是宁夏的308.12;(3)运用空间自相关方法对31个省市的水生态足迹广度和深度进行分析得出,中国省际水生态足迹广度与深度均存在明显的空间集聚现象。水生态足迹广度H-H集聚地区主要集中在中国南方地区,水生态足迹深度H-H集聚地区主要集中在中国北方地区。通过对全国水生态足迹广度与深度的测度分析为水生态足迹分析提供新的研究方法,同时也为区域水资源可持续利用提供理论依据。     

Water,land and carbon footprints of sheep and chicken meat produced in Tunisia under different farming systems

Meat production puts larger demands on water and land and results in larger greenhouse gas emissions than alternative forms of food. This study uses footprint indicators, the water, land and carbon footprint, to assess natural resources use and greenhouse gas emissions for sheep and chicken meat produced in Tunisia in different farming systems in the period 1996–2005. Tunisia is a water-scarce country with large areas of pasture for sheep production. Poultry production is relatively large and based on imported feed. The farming systems considered are: the industrial system for chicken, and the agro-pastoral system using cereal crop-residues, the agro-pastoral system using barley and the pastoral system using barley for sheep. Chicken meat has a smaller water footprint (6030 litre/kg), land footprint (9 m²/kg) and carbon footprint (3 CO₂-eq/kg) than sheep meat (with an average water footprint of 18900 litre/kg, land footprint of 57 m²/kg, and carbon footprint of 28 CO₂-eq/kg). For sheep meat, the agro-pastoral system using cereal crop-residues is the production system with smallest water and land footprints, but the highest carbon footprint. The pastoral system using barley has larger water and land footprints than the agro-pastoral system using barley, but comparable carbon footprint.