土地承载力研究范式的变迁、分化及其综论

基于Kuhn范式理论,将现有土地承载力研究成果显化、梳理为4种主要研究范式,即基于限制因子的研究范式、基于多因素综合的研究范式、基于参照区的研究范式、基于生态足迹的研究范式。以范式应用的时代背景、空间尺度为着眼点,对各类范式进行综合比较,结果显示：基于限制因子的土地承载力研究范式起源最早、发展最为成熟,基于多因素综合、基于参照区、基于生态足迹的3种研究范式,均是以前者为基础,按照不同的方向分化而成;范式分化的原因在于时空条件的变化所引致的亟需解释、解决的现实问题的变化。范式本身并无优劣之分,但有其独特的适应性：基于限制因子、基于生态足迹的两种研究范式适用于全球及国家等大尺度土地承载力问题,且发展较为成熟,其成果具有较强的理论和实践指导意义;基于多因素综合及基于参照区的两种研究范式适用于市县等中小尺度,但其研究较为薄弱,所得的承载力分值、承载力相对值对区域土地管理实践的指导价值有限。当前,市县等中小尺度土地承载力研究亟需加强,其指导实践的有效性与可操作性亟待大幅度提高。

Paradigm Shift in the Study of Land Carrying Capacity: An Overview

In accordance with Kuhn’s paradigm theory, four main evaluation paradigms of land carrying capacity were explored and combed, namely, the evaluation paradigms based on limiting factors, comprehensive multi-factors, reference areas, and ecological footprints. The four evaluation paradigms were compared from the perspective of history background and spatial scale. It is found that the paradigm based on limiting factors had the longest history and was fully developed, while the paradigms based on comprehensive multi-factors, reference areas, and ecological footprints were all based on the former but developed along separate paths. The reason for the paradigm shifting is that the realistic questions which need to be explained and solved were always changing with time and space. There is no good or bad paradigms, but each one has its specific adaptability. To evaluate the land carrying capacity on the scales of global and country, the paradigm based on limiting factors or on ecological footprints may be better choice, while the paradigm based on comprehensive multi-factors or on reference areas is more appropriate for land carrying capacity evaluation at city and county levels. However, the research of the latter two paradigms is relatively weak, the outcome of which, namely, the rating of carrying capacity, or the relative value of carrying capacity has limit value in guiding land management. Therefore, it is urgent to strengthen the research of land carrying capacity at the city and county scales and to improve the effectiveness and maneuverability of guiding practice.