欢迎访问《应用生态学报》官方网站,今天是 分享到:

应用生态学报 ›› 2016, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (6): 1785-1794.doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201606.021

• 目次 • 上一篇    下一篇

中国“三大经济模式”的可持续发展——以真实发展指标对6个典型城市的可持续性评估为例

李 婧1, 黄 璐1,2, 严力蛟1*   

  1. 1浙江大学生命科学学院生态规划与景观设计研究所, 杭州 310058;
    2杭州电子科技大学, 杭州 310012
  • 收稿日期:2015-11-23 发布日期:2016-06-18
  • 通讯作者: yanlj@zju.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:李 婧,女,1992年生,硕士研究生.主要从事城市生态学、生态规划、景观生态学研究. E-mail: lijing920126@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    本文由浙江省科技厅科技攻关项目(2005C30013)和国家科技支撑计划项目(2014BAL07B02)资助

Sustainable development of the three economic patterns in China: The application of genuine progress indicator in the sustainability assessment of six typical cities.

LI Jing1, HUANG Lu1,2, YAN Li-jiao1*   

  1. 1Institute of Ecological Planning and Landscape Design, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China;
    2Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310012, China
  • Received:2015-11-23 Published:2016-06-18

摘要: “珠江模式”、“温州模式”、“苏南模式”的发源地是中国经济发展的前沿地带,评估其可持续发展情况对中国经济的下一步发展具有重要的指导意义.本文采用真实发展指标(GPI),评估了1995—2012年中国“三大经济模式”下广州、深圳、温州、苏州、无锡、常州6个典型城市的可持续发展情况.结果表明: 研究期间,6个城市的GDP呈指数型增长,但GPI在1995—2005年间并无增长,2005年以后才开始上升,GPI与GDP的差距越来越大;“珠江模式”虽然经济增长迅猛,但经济、社会、环境损耗突出,实现其可持续发展必须解决分配不均、交通拥堵、环境污染等问题;“温州模式”人均GPI后期与其他城市拉开差距,发展后劲不足,贫富差距突出,社会账户水平较低且增长缓慢,发展方式亟待转型;“苏南模式”虽然资源消耗较为突出,但各类损耗处于中等水平,经济增长迅猛,社会账户水平稳步提高,GPI所反映出的真实发展水平也较高,相对具有可持续发展潜力.“三大经济模式”应持续关注可持续发展的经济、环境与社会三大方面,而“珠江模式”、“温州模式”应更积极地寻求发展转型.

Abstract: Three economic patterns, i.e., Zhujiang Model, Wenzhou Model and Sunan Model, were all generated in the developed areas of China. Sustainability assessment of those areas plays an important role in guiding future development of the economy of China. Genuine progress indicator (GPI) was adopted in this study to evaluate the sustainability of 6 typical cities (Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Wenzhou, Suzhou, Wuxi, and Changzhou) of the three economic patterns from 1995 to 2012. During the study period, the values of GDP for the six cities had experienced exponential growth, while the values of GPI started to increase since 2005 after a relatively constant period between 1995 and 2005. The gap between GPI and GDP had been widening from a historical perspective. Zhujiang Model made great progress in economic growth, however, the economic, social, and environmental costs were evident. It should tackle income inequality, traffic jam, and environmental pollution to reach sustainability. The development of Wenzhou Model slowed down in the late pe-riod, with inadequate potential to develop. Its income inequality was tough, social and economic development was slow, and the economic development pattern needed to be urgently changed. Sunan Model had a higher value of GPI and the potential to reach sustainability, with remarkable growth of economy, median level of the GPI costs, and steady improvement of social development, although its natural resources were depleted. Three economic patterns should focus on the three dimensions of sustainability (economy, environment, and society), and Zhujiang Model and Wenzhou Model needed to be more active to search for transition of their development.