西安市资源环境成本时空差异性分析

结合SEEA理论与方法,核算了中国西部城市——西安市1997-2009年的主要资源环境成本,基于市、县2级尺度探究其时空差异性,并计算了资源环境成本占GDP比例情况.结果表明:①按1990年可比价,西安市资源环境成本由177197.9万元增大到396031.8万元,年均增长率10.29％,高于同期GDP (7.25％)增长率.②资源耗减成本大于环境退化成本,但前者比重有所降低,由84.84％降为69.45％.③各区县占总成本比例差异明显.2009年,占西安市资源环境成本比重大于15％的是雁塔区,居于10％～15％的是未央区、莲湖区、户县；居于5％～10％的是新城区、碑林区、长安区、灞桥区、临潼区；其他区县小于5％.④据资环密度可将西安市分为3个圈层:碑林区、新城区、莲湖区属于Ⅰ圈,灞桥区、未央区、雁塔区属于Ⅱ圈,其他各区属于Ⅲ圈；资环密度Ⅰ圈集聚、Ⅱ圈和Ⅲ圈渐次降低；资源环境成本总量Ⅰ圈最小,Ⅱ圈和Ⅲ圈比重相当；按组分分析,能源耗减成本总量在Ⅰ圈较低,Ⅱ圈和Ⅲ圈较高,耕地耗减成本主要产生于Ⅱ圈和Ⅲ圈,污染成本Ⅰ圈＜Ⅱ圈＜Ⅲ圈,生态成本集中于Ⅲ圈.⑤资源环境成本占GDP比例1997年为7.58％,2005年达到11.27％,之后降低,2009年降为9.05％,呈现出环境库兹涅茨曲线特征,空间上Ⅰ圈＜Ⅱ圈＜Ⅲ圈.

Temporal and Spatial Differences of Resources Depletion Value & Environmental Cost of Xi'an City in China

This paper accounted the main components of resources depletion value& environmental costs(R-E cost) of Xi’an city in western China from 1997 to 2009 based on SEEA,analyzed temporal and spatial differences of R-E cost at city and county scales respectively,and calculated the ratio of R-E cost to GDP.The results are obtained as follows.(1) The R-E cost of Xi’an city has soared from 1.771979 billion yuan RMB to 3.960318 billion yuan RMB at comparable prices of 1990,with an annual rate of 10.29%,more than the GDP growth rate(7.25%) of the same period.(2) Resources depletion value is higher than environmental degradation cost.The proportion of resources depletion value reduced from 84.84%to 69.45%;(3) R-E cost proportion of each county was different.In 2009,Yanta District accounted for over 15%,Weiyang District,Lianhu District and Huxian County had 10%-15%,Chang’an,Baqiao and Lintong districts had 5%-10%;other counties took up less than 5%.4) The R-E cost distribution can be divided into three circles according to cluster analysis of R-E density.Beilin,Xincheng and Lianhu districts are located in circle I,districts of Baqiao,Weiyang and Yanta are situated in circle II,and other counties are in circle III. The density of R-E cost in circle I is much higher than that in circles II and III.However,the amount of R-E cost in circle I is much lower than that in circles II and III.Energy consumption cost in circle I is lower than that in circles II and III.Land consumption cost occurred mainly in circles II and III.Pollution cost is listed in the order of circle I