Journal of Resources and Ecology >
Research on Ecosystem Service Consumption in Guilin City
Received date: 2021-10-24
Accepted date: 2022-03-02
Online published: 2023-01-31
Supported by
The Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences(XDA20010202)
The Science and Technology Major Project of Guangxi(AA20161002-3)
Research on ecosystem service consumption not only helps to reveal the utilization intensity and management level of the ecosystem in Guilin, but it also provides a scientific basis for ecosystem investment, trade, subsidies and taxation by the Guilin government departments. Based on household survey data of urban and rural ecological consumption, the physical quantity accounting method is adopted for multivariate statistical analyses, such as analysis of variance and multiple comparison. This analysis reveals the differences and changes in the consumption level, consumption structure and consumption pattern of the main ecological products in Guilin among the various counties. The results fit into four main themes. (1) The annual per capita consumption of the main ecological products in Guilin varies either extremely significantly or significantly among the counties, but the consumption level of ecological products varies according to the type of products. There are significant or extremely significant differences in the annual per capita consumption of cereals, melons and fruits, pork, poultry, beef and mutton, fresh eggs and milk between urban and rural residents. (2) There are extremely significant differences in the annual per capita consumption of fruits, pork, poultry, beef and mutton, fish, fresh milk and vegetable oil among urban residents in different counties. There are also extremely significant differences in the annual per capita consumption of cereals, pork, poultry and alcohol among rural residents in different counties, and significant differences in the annual per capita consumption of fresh eggs and milk. The consumption level of ecological products by urban and rural resident varies with the type of products. (3) The ecological consumption patterns of all counties in Guilin mainly follow the “cereal + vegetable + fruit + meat” pattern for urban residents and the “cereal + vegetable + meat” pattern for rural residents (except for the rural residents in Pingle, which show the “cereal + vegetable” pattern). The consumption structure of urban residents is better than that of rural residents. (4) There is a large gap between the ecological consumption of urban and rural residents in Guilin and China's recommended standards, except for cereals and meat. The main problems are excessive meat intake, and insufficient intake of dark vegetables, fruits, eggs, milk and fish. Therefore, we should make full use of forestland, grassland, water and other resources in the area, and vigorously develop fishery, fruit and vegetable production and herbivorous animal husbandry to meet people's ecological needs for dark fruits and vegetables, eggs, milk and fish in Guilin City.
ZHANG Changshun , XIE Gaodi , ZHEN Lin . Research on Ecosystem Service Consumption in Guilin City[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2023 , 14(1) : 186 -194 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2023.01.018
Fig. 1 Administrative divisions of the study area |
Table 1 Analysis of variance and fisher value of annual per capita ecological consumption (APCEC) among districts, counties and urban and rural residents |
Indicators | Cereals | Vegetables | Fruits | Pork | Poultry | Mutton and beef | Fish | Eggs | Milk | Oil crops | Alcohol |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Counties | 3.40* | 2.91* | 6.78** | 24.27** | 24.05** | 21.79** | 17.19** | 5.14** | 13.67** | 8.78** | 17.38** |
Rural-urban | 29.12** | 1.73 | 99.78** | 97.23** | 174.31** | 404.58** | 201.89** | 5.14* | 0.15 | 2.89 | 70.81** |
Counties×Rural-urban | 2.02 | 3.50* | 2.40 | 7.26** | 7.88** | 18.62** | 10.13** | 1.89 | 6.38** | 0.15 | 4.11* |
Note: *, ** significant at P < 0.05 level and P < 0.01 level, respectively. The same notation applies to the tables below. |
Table 2 Multiple comparisons of APCEC among different counties (Unit: kg p-1 yr-1) |
Indicators | Guilin municipal district | Yangshuo | Xing’an | Quanzhou | Pingle |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cereals | 132.33Aa | 102.23Ab | 148.77Aa | 130.83Aa | 125.55Aab |
Vegetables | 84.77Ab | 75.22Ab | 92.93Aab | 82.97Ab | 106.37Aa |
Fruits | 38.62ABb | 34.58Bbc | 37.40Bb | 51.70Aa | 26.30Bc |
Pork | 28.77Bb | 24.80Cc | 29.37Bb | 36.47Aa | 25.27BCc |
Poultry | 12.97Aab | 10.13Bc | 12.55Ab | 14.12Aa | 7.87Cd |
Mutton and beef | 2.07Bb | 1.37Cc | 1.30Cc | 2.65Aa | 1.27Cc |
Fish | 8.33Bb | 7.90Bb | 5.42Cc | 10.67Aa | 5.55Cc |
Eggs | 4.90ABa | 3.82Bb | 5.37Aa | 5.13ABa | 3.68Bb |
Milk | 6.38Aa | 2.15Cc | 8.50Aa | 5.28Ba | 1.92Cc |
Oil crops | 5.40Bb | 5.20Bb | 3.42Bb | 3.20Bb | 11.52Aa |
Alcohol | 11.67Bb | 9.42Bb | 11.23Bb | 15.88Aa | 5.87Cc |
Note: Different upper-case and lower-case letters represent significant differences at P<0.01 and P<0.05 levels, respectively, using LSD’s multiple comparative analysis. |
Table 3 Comparison of APCEC between urban and rural areas (Unit: kg p-1 yr-1) |
Indicators | Urban | Rural | Indicators | Urban | Rural |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cereals | 105.97B | 149.92A | Fish | 10.91A | 4.23B |
Vegetables | 92.54ns | 84.36ns | Eggs | 4.91a | 4.24b |
Fruits | 53.45A | 21.99B | Milk | 4.71ns | 4.98ns |
Pork | 33.12A | 24.75B | Oil crops | 6.61ns | 4.88ns |
Poultry | 14.55A | 8.51B | Alcohol | 7.53B | 14.10A |
Mutton and beef | 2.91A | 0.55B |
Note: Different upper-case and lower-case letters represent significant differences at P<0.01 and P<0.05 levels, respectively, using LSD’s multiple comparative analysis. ns indicates no significant difference. |
Table 4 Differences in the APCEC of urban residents between different regions (Unit: kg p-1 yr-1) |
Indicators | Guilin municipal district | Yangshuo | Xing’an | Quanzhou | Pingle | F |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cereals | 102.87 | 90.30 | 108.10 | 112.77 | 115.80 | 0.49ns |
vegetables | 94.30 | 78.17 | 81.63 | 105.73 | 102.87 | 1.59ns |
Fruits | 54.07Bb | 48.67Bbc | 47.50Bbc | 76.50Aa | 40.53Bc | 17.36** |
Pork | 31.73Bb | 27.30Bb | 31.00Bb | 43.83Aa | 31.73Bb | 19.48** |
Poultry | 15.67Bb | 12.80BCc | 13.80BCbc | 19.33Aa | 11.13Cd | 17.03** |
Mutton and beef | 3.33Bb | 2.33BCc | 2.03Cc | 4.77Aa | 2.07Cc | 24.67** |
Fish | 11.77Bb | 10.73BCb | 7.67Cc | 16.83Aa | 7.57Cc | 19.82** |
Eggs | 5.50 | 4.40 | 5.10 | 5.07 | 4.50 | 0.96ns |
Milk | 8.07ABab | 0.40Cc | 10.73Aa | 3.97BCbc | 0.40Cc | 11.69** |
Oil crops | 6.43Bb | 5.43Bb | 4.20Bb | 4.67Bb | 12.33Aa | 19.86** |
Alcohol | 7.60 | 6.43 | 7.63 | 10.60 | 5.37 | 2.12ns |
Note: Different upper-case and lower-case letters represent significant differences at P<0.01 and P<0.05 levels, respectively, using LSD’s multiple comparative analysis. |
Table 5 Differences of rural residents’ APCEC among different regions (Unit: kg p-1 yr-1) |
Indicators | Guilin municipal district | Yangshuo | Xing’an | Quanzhou | Pingle | Fvalue |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cereals | 161.80ABab | 114.17Bc | 189.43Aa | 148.90ABbc | 135.30Bbc | 6.39** |
Vegetables | 75.23Aab | 72.27Ab | 104.23Aa | 60.20Ab | 109.87Aa | 4.80* |
Fruits | 23.17 | 20.50 | 27.30 | 26.90 | 12.07 | 1.00ns |
Pork | 25.80ABa | 22.30BCb | 27.73ABa | 29.10Aa | 18.80Cb | 11.05** |
Poultry | 10.27ABa | 7.47Bbc | 11.30Aa | 8.90ABb | 4.60Cd | 14.64** |
Mutton and beef | 0.80 | 0.40 | 0.57 | 0.53 | 0.47 | 1.73ns |
Fish | 4.90 | 5.07 | 3.17 | 4.50 | 3.53 | 1.87ns |
Eggs | 4.30ab | 3.23b | 5.63a | 5.20a | 2.87b | 5.72* |
Milk | 4.70ab | 3.90b | 6.27a | 6.60a | 3.43b | 3.96* |
Oil crops | 4.37 | 4.97 | 2.63 | 1.73 | 10.70 | 2.64ns |
Alcohol | 15.73Bb | 12.40Bb | 14.83Bb | 21.17Aa | 6.37Cc | 23.36** |
Note: Different upper-case and lower-case letters represent significant differences at P<0.01 and P<0.05 levels, respectively, using LSD’s multiple comparative analysis. *, ** significant at P < 0.05 level and P < 0.01 level, respectively; ns indicates no significant difference at P < 0.05 level. |
Fig. 2 Differences in ecological consumption patterns between urban and rural residents |
Fig. 3 Differences in ecological consumption patterns in urban and rural residents among regions |
Table 6 Differences between actual and recommended ecological consumption levels in Guilin (Unit: g p-1 d-1) |
Indicators | Cereals | Vegetables | Fruits | Meat | Fish | Eggs | Milk | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chinese recommended food consumption (Chinese Nutrition Society, 2021) | 250-400 | 300-500 | 200-3500 | 40-75 | 40-75 | 40-50 | 300 | |
China average in 2014 (Ma et al., 2016) | 386.30 | 265.48 | 115.62 | 70.14 | 29.59 | 23.56 | 34.52 | |
Urban residents | Guilin municipal district | 281.83 | 258.36 | 148.13 | 139.00 | 32.24 | 15.07 | 22.10 |
Yangshuo | 247.40 | 214.16 | 133.33 | 116.26 | 29.41 | 12.05 | 1.10 | |
Xing’an | 296.16 | 223.65 | 130.14 | 128.31 | 21.00 | 13.97 | 29.41 | |
Quanzhou | 308.95 | 289.68 | 209.59 | 186.12 | 46.12 | 13.88 | 10.87 | |
Pingle | 317.26 | 281.83 | 111.05 | 123.11 | 20.73 | 12.33 | 1.10 | |
Rural residents | Guilin municipal district | 443.288 | 206.12 | 63.47 | 101.00 | 13.42 | 11.78 | 12.88 |
Yangshuo | 312.785 | 197.99 | 56.16 | 82.65 | 13.88 | 8.86 | 10.68 | |
Xing’an | 518.995 | 285.57 | 74.79 | 108.49 | 8.68 | 15.43 | 17.17 | |
Quanzhou | 407.945 | 164.93 | 73.70 | 105.57 | 12.33 | 14.25 | 18.08 | |
Pingle | 370.685 | 301.00 | 33.06 | 65.39 | 9.68 | 7.85 | 9.41 |
[1] |
Chinese Nutrition Society. 2021. Scientific research report of dietary guidelines for Chinese residents 2021. in Chinese)
|
[2] |
Editorial Board of Guilin Economic and Social Statistics Yearbook. 2020. Guilin economic and social statistical yearbook 2020. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press. (in Chinese)
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being:Synthesis. Washington DC, USA: Island Press.
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
Survey Office of the National Bureau of Statistics in Guilin. 2016. Guilin survey yearbook 2016. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press. (in Chinese)
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2004. Living planet report 2004. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |