4.7 Article

Decoupling of land-use net carbon flux, economic growth, and population change in China

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-023-25335-8

关键词

Land use; Carbon flux; Economic growth; Population change; Coupling relationship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the process of China's modernization, promoting the sustainable development of resource-based cities is a major strategic issue and it has now also become a worldwide issue. This study uses the coupling model to validate the coupling relationship between China's land-use net carbon flux and economic growth and population change during 2009-2017. The study for the first time draws the conclusion that the coupling degree among the three is getting lower, the correlation is gradually weaker, and the independent relationship is becoming more and more prominent. Utilizing the Tapio decoupling model, we obtained the weak decoupling conclusion that the economic growth rate is higher than the growth rate of the land-use net carbon flux, while negative decoupling of sprawl is where the rate of population growth is less than the rate of net land-use carbon flux growth.
In the process of China's modernization, promoting the sustainable development of resource-based cities is a major strategic issue and it has now also become a worldwide issue. This study uses the coupling model to validate the coupling relationship between China's land-use net carbon flux and economic growth and population change during 2009-2017. The study for the first time draws the conclusion that the coupling degree among the three is getting lower, the correlation is gradually weaker, and the independent relationship is becoming more and more prominent. Utilizing the Tapio decoupling model, we obtained the weak decoupling conclusion that the economic growth rate is higher than the growth rate of the land-use net carbon flux, while negative decoupling of sprawl is where the rate of population growth is less than the rate of net land-use carbon flux growth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据