Dynamic Comparison and Trend analysis of Southeast Guizhou's Experimental Area of Eco-civilization Construction and the National Eco-efficiency

In order to better understand the development level of eco-efficiency in Southeast Guizhou's experimental area of eco-civilization construction, we conduct dynamic comparison research of its eco-efficiency and the national eco-efficiency, using single ratio method based on the ecological footprint model, to grasp the gap between its eco-efficiency and the national eco-efficiency, so that we can take appropriate countermeasures to improve eco-efficiency. The results show that in the period 1978-2010, the eco-efficiency in Southeast Guizhou's experimental area of eco-civilization construction was always lower than the national eco-efficiency; the long-time average annual value of its eco-efficiency was less than one half of that of the national eco-efficiency, with the absolute gap of 1630.095 yuan/hm2, and the gap tended to widen year by year in the period 1978-2002 (the gap increased from 276.551 yuan/hm2 in 1978 to peak of 3227.713 yuan/hm2 in 2002, with an average annual increase of 118.047 yuan/hm2, and especially after 1992, the gap was particularly evident, with an average annual increase of 194.771 yuan/hm2), but from 2003, the gap between the two tended to decrease. Based on the prediction results of grey system, in the period 2011-2025, the gap between the eco-efficiency in Southeast Guizhou's experimental area of eco-civilization construction and the national eco-efficiency will gradually narrow, and from 2019, the eco-efficiency in Southeast Guizhou's experimental area of eco-civilization construction will be more than the national eco-efficiency.


Subject(s):
Issue Date:
2012-05
Publication Type:
Journal Article
PURL Identifier:
http://purl.umn.edu/139481
Published in:
Asian Agricultural Research, Volume 04, Issue 05
Page range:
76-78
Total Pages:
3




 Record created 2017-04-01, last modified 2017-08-26

Fulltext:
Download fulltext
PDF

Rate this document:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Not yet reviewed)