地理科学进展 ›› 2019, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (4): 465-476.doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2019.04.001
• 理论探讨 • 下一篇
张军泽1(), 王帅1, 赵文武1, 刘焱序1, 傅伯杰1,2,*(
)
收稿日期:
2018-08-24
修回日期:
2019-01-06
出版日期:
2019-04-28
发布日期:
2019-04-28
作者简介:
第一作者简介:张军泽(1993— ),男,黑龙江七台河人,博士生,主要从事人地关系耦合与可持续发展研究。E-mail:
基金资助:
Junze ZHANG1(), Shuai WANG1, Wenwu ZHAO1, Yanxu LIU1, Bojie FU1,2,*(
)
Received:
2018-08-24
Revised:
2019-01-06
Online:
2019-04-28
Published:
2019-04-28
Supported by:
摘要:
“地球界限(Planetary Boundaries)”是指用于界定“安全运行空间(safe operating space)”的边界值,是Johan Rockstr?m等近年来提出的旨在保障人类生存和发展的重要概念框架。该框架一经提出就引起了广泛关注,一方面质疑者对这一概念框架的科学意义以及评估方法提出批评;另一方面支持者则对其评估方法、研究内容和研究尺度进行了完善和扩展,并取得了重要的成果。为了促进国内学者对该领域的了解和应用,论文在回顾相关文献的基础上,首先介绍了“地球界限”的概念内涵,并将其与中国学者所熟知的环境承载力等概念进行了比较分析;随后总结了该概念框架的争议观点,同时也对其近期的发展状况进行了评述;最后结合中国目前的发展状况,分析了“地球界限”概念框架对中国可持续发展的借鉴意义,并对未来的研究提出了展望,包括① 进一步了解不同地球系统过程的相互作用机制,完善“地球界限”的指标评估体系;② 明确“地球界限”与生态系统服务以及人类福祉三者之间的内在联系;③ 结合“地球界限”的评估结果,加强变革式环境治理的研究。
张军泽, 王帅, 赵文武, 刘焱序, 傅伯杰. 地球界限概念框架及其研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(4): 465-476.
Junze ZHANG, Shuai WANG, Wenwu ZHAO, Yanxu LIU, Bojie FU. Review on the conceptual framework of planetary boundaries and the development of its research[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(4): 465-476.
表1
9种地球系统过程的控制变量、地球界限(不确定性区间)以及当前值(Steffen et al, 2015)
地球系统过程 | 控制变量 | 地球界限(不确定性区间) | 当前值 |
---|---|---|---|
气候变化 | 大气CO2浓度 | 350×10-6(350×10-6~450×10-6) | 389.5×10-6 |
大气顶层能量不平衡 | 1.0 W·m-2(1.0~1.5 W·m-2) | 2.3 W·m-2 (1.1~3.3 W·m-2) | |
生物圈完整性 | 基因多样性(灭绝率) | <10 E/MSY(10~100 E/MSY) E/MSY为每年每100万物种灭绝数量 | 100~1000 E/MSY |
功能多样性(生物多样性完整性指数 BII) | 维持BII在90%(90%~30%) | 84% (适用于南非地区) | |
平流层臭氧消耗 | 平流层臭氧浓度(DU) | <275.5 DU(261~275.5 DU) | 约200 DU |
海洋酸化 | 碳酸盐饱和度(Ω,主要指文石饱和度Ωarag) | 大于工业革命前海水碳酸盐浓度的80%(80%~70%) | 84% |
生物地球化学循环(N、P) | 全球P流动:从淡水系统流入海洋 | 11 Tg·a-1(11~100 Tg·a-1) | 22 Tg·a-1 |
区域P流动:从肥料流入易受侵蚀的土壤 | 6.2 Tg·a-1(6.2~11.2 Tg·a-1) | 14 Tg·a-1 | |
全球N流动:工业和人工生物固氮 | 62 Tg·a-1(62~82 Tg·a-1) | 150 Tg·a-1 | |
土地利用变化 | 全球:林地占原有林地的比例 | 75%(75%~54%) 该值为三种独立生物区系的加权平均值 | 62% |
生物区系:林地占潜在林地面积的比例 | 热带:85%(85%~60%) 温带:50%(50%~30%) 北方气候带:85%(85%~60%) | ||
淡水利用 | 全球:最大蓝水消耗量(km3·a-1) | 4000 km3·a-1 (4000~6000 km3·a-1) | 约2600 km3·a-1 |
流域:蓝水利用占月河川径流量的比例 | 低流量月份:25%(25%~55%) 中流量月份:30%(30%~60%) 高流量月份:55%(55%~85%) | ||
大气气溶胶负载 | 全球:气溶胶光学厚度(AOD) | 尚无确切界限 | 无 |
区域:季节性平均AOD | 以南亚季风区为例: 0.25 AOD(0.25~0.50 AOD) | 0.30 AOD | |
新物质的介入 (原化学污染) | 尚无明确控制变量 | 尚无确切界限 | 无 |
表2
基于Rio+20峰会的社会基础解释性指标及其评估结果(Raworth, 2012)
社会基础 | 解释性指标 | 临界值 | 时段或年份 |
---|---|---|---|
粮食安全 | 营养不良人口比例 | 13% | 2006—2008 |
收入 | 人均每天生活费低于1.25美元的人口比例 | 21% | 2005 |
水资源及卫生 | 无法获得安全饮用水的人口比例 | 13% | 2008 |
无法获得健康的卫生设备的人口比例 | 39% | 2008 | |
医疗服务 | 无法获得基本药物的人口比例 | 30% | 2004 |
教育 | 未接受小学教育的儿童比例 | 10% | 2009 |
15~24岁的文盲比例 | 11% | 2009 | |
能源 | 无电人口比例 | 19% | 2009 |
无卫生厨具人口比例 | 39% | 2009 | |
性别平等 | 男性和女性从事有薪酬工作的比例差距 | 34% | 2009 |
国家议会中,男女代表的比例差距 | 77% | 2011 | |
社会公平 | 在基尼系数大于0.35的国家,收入低于中位数的人口比例 | 33% | 1995—2009 |
发言权 | 通过调查显示,认为自己没有言论自由的人口比例 | 待定 | 无 |
就业 | 未受雇于体面工作的劳动力人口比例 | 待定 | 无 |
恢复力 | 面临多维度贫困的人口比例 | 待定 | 无 |
[1] |
方恺. 2014. 基于足迹家族和行星边界的主要国家环境可持续性多维评价[J]. 生态环境学报, 23(11): 1868-1875.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2014.11.022 |
[Fang K.2014. Multidimensional assessment of national environmental sustainability based on footprint family and planetary boundaries. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 23(11): 1868-1875. ]
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2014.11.022 |
|
[2] |
封志明, 李鹏. 2018. 承载力概念的源起与发展: 基于资源环境视角的讨论[J]. 自然资源学报, 33(9): 1475-1489.
doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20170967 |
[Feng Z M, Li P.2018. The genesis and evolution of the concept of carrying capacity: A view of natural resources and environment. Journal of Natural Resources, 33(9): 1475-1489. ]
doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20170967 |
|
[3] | 刘耀林, 张扬, 张琰, 等. 2018. 特大城市“三线冲突”空间格局及影响因素[J]. 地理科学进展, 37(12): 1672-1681. |
[Liu Y L, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, et al.2018. Conflicts between three land management red lines in Wuhan City: Spatial patterns and driving factors. Progress in Geography, 37(12): 1672-1681. ] | |
[4] | 石海佳, 许乃中, 张玉环, 等. 2018. 基于“生态保护红线、环境质量底线和资源利用上线”的区域环境管控体系构建思路: 以珠三角地区为例[J]. 环境影响评价, 40(5): 23-29. |
[Shi H J, Xu N Z, Zhang Y H, et al.2018. Regional environmental management and control system based on "Three Lines": Taking the Pearl River Delta as an example. Environmental Impact Assessment, 40(5): 23-29. ] | |
[5] |
唐海萍, 陈姣, 薛海丽. 2015. 生态阈值: 概念、方法与研究展望[J]. 植物生态学报, 39(9): 932-940.
doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.0090 |
[Tang H P, Chen J, Xue H L.2015. Ecological thresholds: Concept, methods and research outlooks. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 39(9): 932-940. ]
doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.0090 |
|
[6] | 王军, 张焕波, 刘向东, 等. 2017. 中国经济分析与展望(2016—2017): 中国可持续发展评价指标体系: 框架、验证及其分析 [M]. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社. |
[Wang J, Zhang H B, Liu X D, et al.2017. China's economic analysis and outlook (2016-2017): Evaluation index system of sustainable development in China: Framework, verification and analysis. Beijing, China: Social Sciences Academic Press. ] | |
[7] |
闫海明, 战金艳, 张韬. 2012. 生态系统恢复力研究进展综述[J]. 地理科学进展, 31(3): 303-314.
doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2012.03.005 |
[Yan H M, Zhan J Y, Zhang T.2012. Review of ecosystem resilience research progress. Progress in Geography, 31(3): 303-314. ]
doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2012.03.005 |
|
[8] | 郑华, 欧阳志云. 2014. 生态红线的实践与思考[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 29(4): 457-461. |
[Zheng H, Ouyang Z Y.2014. Practice and consideration for ecological redlining. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 29(4): 457-461. ] | |
[9] |
Andersen T, Carstensen J, Hernández-García E, et al.2009. Ecological thresholds and regime shifts: Approaches to identification[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(1): 49-57.
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.014 pmid: 18952317 |
[10] |
Barbier E B, Burgess J C.2017. Natural resource economics, planetary boundaries and strong sustainability[J]. Sustainability, 9(10): 1858. doi: 10.3390/su9101858.
doi: 10.3390/su9101858 |
[11] |
Barnosky A D, Hadly E A, Bascompte J, et al.2012. Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere[J]. Nature, 486: 52-58.
doi: 10.1038/nature11018 |
[12] | Baron R.2013. The round table on sustainable development gratefully acknowledges financial support provided by the world business council on sustainable development [R]. The 29th round table on sustainable development to be held at OECD Headquarters, Paris. |
[13] |
Biermann F.2012. Planetary boundaries and earth system governance: Exploring the links[J]. Ecological Economics, 81: 4-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.016 |
[14] |
Brook B W, Ellis E C, Perring M P, et al.2013. Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points?[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(7): 396-401.
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.016 pmid: 23453050 |
[15] |
Brown K.2017. Global environmental change II: Planetary boundaries: A safe operating space for human geographers?[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 41(1): 118-130.
doi: 10.1177/0309132515604429 |
[16] |
Bruckner T, Petschel-Held G, Leimbach M, et al.2003. Methodological aspects of the tolerable windows approach[J]. Climatic Change, 56(1-2): 73-89.
doi: 10.1023/A:1021388429866 |
[17] |
Bryan B A, Gao L, Ye Y, et al.2018. China's response to a national land-system sustainability emergency[J]. Nature, 559: 193-204.
doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0280-2 |
[18] |
Cardinale B J, Duffy J E, Gonzalez A, et al.2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity[J]. Nature, 486: 59-67.
doi: 10.1038/nature11148 pmid: 22678280 |
[19] | Castree N.2016. Anthropocene and planetary boundaries[M]// Richardson D, Castree N, Goodchild M F, et al. The international encyclopedia of geography: People, the earth, environment, and technology (161-174). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. |
[20] |
Chaffin B C, Garmestani A S, Gunderson L H, et al.2016. Transformative environmental governance[J]. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1): 399-423.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817 |
[21] |
de Vries W, Kros J, Kroeze C, et al.2013. Assessing planetary and regional nitrogen boundaries related to food security and adverse environmental impacts[J]. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5: 392-402.
doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.004 |
[22] |
Dearing J A, Wang R, Zhang K, et al.2014. Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems[J]. Global Environmental Change—Human and Policy Dimensions, 28: 227-238.
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.012 |
[23] |
Defries R S, Ellis E C, Chapin F S, et al.2012. Planetary opportunities: A social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future[J]. BioScience, 62(6): 603-606.
doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.11 |
[24] |
Fu B J, Wang S, Su C, et al.2013. Linking ecosystem processes and ecosystem services[J]. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1): 4-10.
doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.002 |
[25] | Galaz V.2012. Planetary boundaries concept is valuable[J]. Nature, 486: 191. |
[26] |
Gerten D, Hoff H, Rockström J, et al.2013. Towards a revised planetary boundary for consumptive freshwater use: Role of environmental flow requirements[J]. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6): 551-558.
doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.001 |
[27] | Gerten D, Rockström J, Heinke J, et al.2015. Response to Comment on "Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet"[J]. Science, 348: 1217-d. doi: 10.1126/science.aab0031. |
[28] |
Häyhä T, Lucas P L, van Vuuren D P, et al.2016. From Planetary Boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space: How can the scales be bridged?[J]. Global Environmental Change, 40: 60-72.
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.008 |
[29] | Jaramillo F, Destouni G.2015. Comment on "Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet"[J]. Science, 348: 1217-c. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa9629. |
[30] | Leach M, Raworth K, Rockström J.2013. Between social and planetary boundaries: Navigating pathways in the safe and just space for humanity [M]// International Social Science Council and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. World social science report 2013: Changing global environments. OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing, Paris: 84-89. |
[31] |
Lewis S L.2012. We must set planetary boundaries wisely[J]. Nature, 485: 417.
doi: 10.1038/485417a |
[32] | MA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis [M]. Washington DC: Island Press. |
[33] |
Montoya J M, Donohue I, Pimm S L.2018. Planetary boundaries for biodiversity: Implausible science, pernicious policies[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 33(2): 71-73.
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2017.10.004 pmid: 29126565 |
[34] | Nordhaus T, Shellenberger M, Blomqvist L.2012. The planetary boundaries hypothesis: A review of the evidence [R]. Breakthrough Institute, Oakland. |
[35] | O'Neill D W, Fanning A L, Lamb W F, et al.2018. A good life for all within planetary boundaries[J]. Nature Sustainability, 1(2): 88-95. |
[36] | Raworth K.2012. A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? [E/OL]. |
[37] |
Rockström J, Richardson K, Steffen W, et al.2018. Planetary boundaries: Separating fact from fiction: A Response to Montoya et al[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 33(4): 232-233.
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2018.01.010 |
[38] |
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, et al.2009a. A safe operating space for humanity[J]. Nature, 461: 472-475.
doi: 10.1038/461472a |
[39] | Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, et al.2009b. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity [J]. Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32. . |
[40] |
Scheffer B M, Barrett S, Carpenter S R, et al.2015. Creating a safe operating space for iconic ecosystems[J]. Science, 347: 1317-1319.
doi: 10.1126/science.aaa3769 |
[41] | SDSN.2013. An action agenda for sustainable development: Report for the UN Secretary-General [R]. Rio de Janeiro: Sustainable Development Solutions Network. |
[42] |
Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J, et al.2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet[J]. Science, 347: 1259855. doi: 10.1126/science. 1259855.
doi: 10.1126/science.1259855 |
[43] |
Sverdrup H U, Ragnarsdottir K V.2011. Challenging the planetary boundaries II: Assessing the sustainable global population and phosphate supply, using a systems dynamics assessment model[J]. Applied Geochemistry, 26: S307-S310.
doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.03.089 |
[44] | TEEB.2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations[M]. London and Washington DC: Earthscan. |
[45] |
Wang J, Chen Y, Shao X, et al.2012. Land-use changes and policy dimension driving forces in China: Present, trend and future[J]. Land Use Policy, 29: 737-749.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.010 |
[46] |
Xu X, Tan Y, Yang G, et al.2018. China's ambitious ecological red lines[J]. Land Use Policy, 79: 447-451.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.037 |
[1] | 汤礼莎, 龙花楼, 周贵鹏, 戈大专, 杨嘉艺. 中国农业地理学研究进程与展望[J]. 地理科学进展, 2023, 42(9): 1853-1868. |
[2] | 郝林钢, 于静洁, 王平, 韩春辉. 面向可持续发展的水—能源—粮食纽带关系系统解析及其研究框架[J]. 地理科学进展, 2023, 42(1): 173-184. |
[3] | 张燕杰, 武俊喜, 潘影, 张宪洲. 净初级生产力的人类占用研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2022, 41(2): 341-350. |
[4] | 李玉恒, 黄惠倩, 宋传垚. 贫困地区乡村经济韧性研究及其启示——以河北省阳原县为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2021, 40(11): 1839-1846. |
[5] | 曹可心, 邓羽. 可持续城市更新的时空演进路径及驱动机理研究进展与展望[J]. 地理科学进展, 2021, 40(11): 1942-1955. |
[6] | 陈睿山, 赵志强, 徐迪, 陈轶. 城市和城市群可持续发展指数研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2021, 40(1): 61-72. |
[7] | 吴健生, 李铠杨, 赵宇豪. 基于改进三维足迹模型的关中地区土地自然资本利用状况分析[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(8): 1345-1355. |
[8] | 李玉恒, 宋传垚, 阎佳玉, 黄惠倩. 深度贫困地区乡村地域系统演化研究——以河北省阳原县为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(6): 951-959. |
[9] | 王成, 李颢颖, 何焱洲, 马小苏, 周明茗. 重庆直辖以来乡村人居环境可持续发展力及其时空分异研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(4): 556-566. |
[10] | 汤青, 李扬, 陈明星, 徐勇. 半城镇化农民可持续生计与农村可持续发展——理论框架、研究进展及未来展望[J]. 地理科学进展, 2018, 37(8): 1022-1030. |
[11] | 李玉恒, 阎佳玉, 武文豪, 刘彦随. 世界乡村转型历程与可持续发展展望[J]. 地理科学进展, 2018, 37(5): 627-635. |
[12] | 彭书时, 朴世龙, 于家烁, 刘永稳, 汪涛, 朱高峰, 董金玮, 缪驰远. 地理系统模型研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2018, 37(1): 109-120. |
[13] | 吕一河, 傅微, 李婷, 刘源鑫. 区域资源环境综合承载力研究进展与展望[J]. 地理科学进展, 2018, 37(1): 130-136. |
[14] | 刘焱序, 杨思琪, 赵文武, 傅伯杰. 变化背景下的当代中国自然地理学——2017全国自然地理学大会述评[J]. 地理科学进展, 2018, 37(1): 163-171. |
[15] | 曹阳, 甄峰. 基于智慧城市的可持续城市空间发展模型总体架构[J]. 地理科学进展, 2015, 34(4): 430-437. |
|