资源承载力监测——以西藏“一江两河”地区为例

对自然资源的无序开发和对生态系统的破坏制约了我国的可持续发展。资源承载力是描述地区发展受自然资源限制的重要工具,也是衡量区域可持续发展的重要依据。基于西藏“一江两河”地区县级统计数据,定量计算水、土和生态等资源承载力,并根据定量评价结果构建资源承载力监测体系并应用于“一江两河”地区。研究结果表明:（1）“一江两河”地区人粮关系趋于紧张,部分地区人口—粮食—土地矛盾突出,76.5%的县土地资源承载力下降,83.3%的县土地资源承载指数增长;“一江两河”地区各县（市、区）水资源承载力远大于实际人口,承载指数均小于0.05,但77.8%的县水资源承载力下降,县域承载指数均增长;各县生态承载力增长,承载指数下降,部分县处于生态赤字状态。（2）“一江两河”地区资源承载力的主要制约因素由生态承载力转变为土地资源承载力。2000—2015年,在“一江两河”地区资源承载力处于临界超载或超载的县中,对资源承载状态影响最大的资源承载力由生态承载力逐步转变为土地资源承载力。（3）“一江两河”地区资源承载力等级逐渐提升,可能带来的危害或负面影响程度降低。2000—2015年,资源承载力为三级（中度负载）及以下等级的县由15个（83.3%）降至3个（16.7%）。资源承载力长效监测机制的建立有助于明晰资源开发利用现状,科学利用区域自然资源,促进地区生态保护和可持续发展。

Research on monitoring resource carrying capacity: Taking Three-Rivers Region in Tibet as an example

The disorderly development of natural resources and the destruction of ecosystems inhibit China's sustainable development. Resource carrying capacity is an important tool to describe the development of regional resources and is also a fundamental basis for measuring regional sustainable development. Based on the statistics of the counties in the Three-Rivers Region in Tibet, this paper quantitatively calculates the resource carrying capacity of water, soil and ecology, and builds a monitoring system for resource carrying capacity based on quantitative evaluation results and applies it to the Three-Rivers Region in Tibet. The results show that: (1) The relationship between population and food in the study region tended to be tense. The population-food-land contradiction was prominent in some counties. Land resource carrying capacity in 76.5% of the counties declined, and land resource carrying indexes for 83.3% of the counties increased. The water resource carrying capacity in the study region was much larger compared with the actual population, and the water resource carrying indexes were less than 0.05, but the water resource carrying capacity in 77.8% of the counties decreased, and the carrying indexes increased. The ecological carrying capacity of each county increased, the carrying indexes decreased, and some counties were in an ecological deficit state. (2) The main constraints of resource carrying capacity in the study region were transformed from ecological carrying capacity to land resource carrying capacity. From 2000 to 2015, among the counties where the resource carrying capacity was critically overloaded or overloaded, the resource carrying capacity that had the greatest impact on the resource carrying status was gradually transformed from the ecological carrying capacity to the land resources carrying capacity. (3) The level of resource carrying capacity in the region gradually increased, and the degree of harm or negative impact may be reduced. From 2000 to 2015, the number of counties with a resource carrying capacity of three (medium load) and below fell from 15 (83.3%) to 3 (16.7%). The establishment of a long-term monitoring mechanism for resource carrying capacity helps to clarify the status quo of resource development and utilization, scientifically utilize regional natural resources, and promote regional ecological protection and sustainable development.