Impacts of Urbanization of Mountainous Areas on Resources and Environment: Based on Ecological Footprint Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Study Methods
2.3. Data Sources
3. Results
3.1. Urbanization
3.2. Land Use
3.3. Ecological Carrying Capacity
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fujii, T. Industrization, Urbanization and economic growth. Econ. Rev. 1966, 17, 368–372. [Google Scholar]
- Bertinelli, L.; Black, D. Urbanization and growth. J. Urban Econ. 2004, 56, 80–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schatzki, T. Sustainable Cities: Urbanization and the Environment in International Perspective; Stren, R., White, R., Whitney, J., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Lei, Z. The Resource-Environment Base for China’s Urbanization; Science Press: Beijing, China, 1980; p. 52. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Löffler, J.; Anschlag, K.; Baker, B.; Finch, O.-D.; Wundram, D.; Diekkrüger, B.; Schröder, B.; Pape, R.; Lundberg, A. Mountain ecosystem response to global change. Erdkunde 2011, 6, 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, K.; Warrington, S.; Bennett, O. High Stakes: The Future for Mountain Societies; London England Panos Institute: London, UK, 2002; p. 6. [Google Scholar]
- Blyth, S.; Groombridge, B.; Lysenko, I.; Miles, L.; Newton, A. Mountain Watch, Environmental Change and Sustainable Development in Mountains; UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK, 2002; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
- Mapping the Vulnerability of Mountain Peoples to Food Insecurity. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312189900_Mapping_the_vulnerability_of_mountain_peoples_to_food_insecurity (accessed on 1 January 2018).
- Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/jburgpln.htm (accessed on 1 June 2017).
- Wei, D.; Genwei, C.; Anban, W. The conception of mountain science development in China. Discip. Dev. 2008, 23, 156–161. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wei, D. Discussion on mountain area resource and environment carrying capacity. Geogr. Res. 2010, 29, 959–969. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Guangyu, H. Theory of Mountain Urbanology; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2006; p. 6. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Guojie, C. The trend and main task of study on the development of mountain areas in China. J. Mt. Sci. 2006, 24, 531–538. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Y.; Li, X. Spatial correlation between type of mountain area and land use degree in Guizhou province, China. Sustainability 2016, 8, 849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Ding, G.; Gao, G.; Shi, M.; Cao, Y. Effects of urbanization on landscape patterns in a mountainous area: A case study in the Mentougou district, Beijing, China. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- China Statistical Yearbook in 2017. Available online: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2017/indexch.htm (accessed on 5 January 2018). (In Chinese)
- Park, R.E.; Burgess, E.W. Introduction to the Science of Sociology; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1921; p. 43. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, W.C.; Crutzen, P.J.; Schellnhuber, H.J. Science for Global Sustainability: Toward a New Paradigm. SSRN Electron. J. 2005, 15, 837–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, Q.; Song, W.; Zhang, Y.; Fengyun, M. Research Progress in Ecological Carrying Capacity: Implications, Assessment Methods and Current Focus. J. Resour. Ecol. 2017, 8, 514–525. [Google Scholar]
- Jian, P.; Jiansheng, W.; Yiyi, J.; Minting, Y. Shortcomings of applying ecological footprints to the ecological assessment of regional sustainable development. Acta Ecol. Sinaca 2006, 26, 2716–2722. [Google Scholar]
- Wackernagel, M.; Rees, W. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 1996; p. 160. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, G.Q.; Chen, B. Resource analysis of the Chinese society 1980–2002 based on exergy-Part 1: Fossil fuels and energy minerals. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2038–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haberl, H.; Wackernagel, M.; Krausmann, F.; Erb, K.; Monfreda, C. Ecological footprints and human appropriation of net primary production: A comparison. Land Use Policy 2004, 21, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galli, A.; Kitzes, J.; Wermer, P.; Wackernagel, M.; Niccolucci, V.; Tiezzi, E. An exploration of the mathematics behind the ecological footprint. Int. J. Ecodyn. 2007, 2, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitzes, J.; Galli, A.; Baglianin, M.; Barrett, J.; Dige, G.; Ede, S.; Erb, K.; Giljum, S.; Haberl, H.; Hails, C.; et al. A research agenda for improving national ecological footprint accounts. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1991–2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wackernagel, M.; Schulz, N.B.; Deumling, D.; Linares, A.C.; Jenkins, M.; Kapos, V.; Monfreda, C.; Loh, J.; Myers, N.; Norgaard, R.; et al. Tracking the ecological overshoot of the humane conomy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 9266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bicknell, K.B.; Ball, R.J.; Cullen, R.; Bigsby, H.R. New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 27, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haberl, H.; Erb, K.H.; Krausmann, F. How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time: The case of Austria 1926–1995. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 38, 25–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yung-Jaan, L.; Li-Pei, P. Taiwan’s Ecological Footprint (1994–2011). Sustainability 2014, 6, 6170–6187. [Google Scholar]
- Verhofstadt, E.; Ootegem, L.V.; Defloor, B.; Bleys, B. Linking individuals’ ecological footprint to their subjective well-being. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 127, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Living Planet Report 2012-Biodiversity, Biocapacity and Better Choices. Available online: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/ (accessed on 18 July 2017).
- Yingmei, W.; Ya, L.; Lei, Z. Evaluation of regional resource-environment base supportability: The cse of southwest China. Areal Res. Dev. 2006, 25, 20–23. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Xudong, L. Tempo-spatial analysis of the relative carrying capacity of population and resources in Wumeng mountainous area of Guizhou. Geogr. Res. 2013, 32, 233–244. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yi, Z.; Yinfu, L.; Zenfeng, C. Research on resource environmental bear capacity of Yunnan mountain area—A case study of Yunnan Longchuan. Yunnan Geogr. Environ. Res. 2016, 28, 29–34. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Jie, F. Fundamental function in resource environment carrying capacity evaluation in the state planning for Post-Wenchuan earthquake restoration and reconstruction. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2008, 23, 387–392. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- The General Situation of Dali Prefecture. Available online: http://www.dali.gov.cn/dlzwz/5116653226157932544/20121126/267789.html (accessed on 17 February 2018). (In Chinese)
- Local Chronicles of Dali Prefecture. The Statistical Yearbook of Dali Prefecture in 2011; Yunnan National Publisher: Yunnan, China, 2011. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Blasi, E.; Passeri, N.; Franco, S.; Galli, A. An ecological footprint approach to environmental–economic evaluation of farm results. Agric. Syst. 2016, 145, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wackernagel, M.; Yount, J.D. The ecological footprint: An indicator of progress toward regional sustainability. Environ. Monit. Assess. 1998, 51, 511–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kan, Z.; Jie, F. Characteristics and influence factors of resources and environment carrying capacity in underdeveloped areas of China. Geogr. Res. 2015, 34, 39–52. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Hong, T.; Degang, Y.; Cong, S.; Shaohong, W.; Weidong, L.; Li, M.; Xiaofeng, W.; Yunhe, Y.; Jing, L. Synthesized assessment of eco-environment in the economic belt on the northern slope of the Tianshan Mountains based on AHP. Arid Land Geogr. 2010, 33, 629–664. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
City Scale Grad | Number of Cities | Population (Ten Thousand) |
---|---|---|
>200 thousand people | 1 | 24.1 |
50–200 thousand people | 17 | 117.9 |
10–50 thousand people | 50 | 152.3 |
Land Type | Area (ha) |
---|---|
Arable land | −64,969.2 |
Woodland | 144,066.3 |
Grassland | −75,598.7 |
Built-up land | 308.9 |
Water | −4347.0 |
Ice and snow cover | −16,211.4 |
Unoccupied land | 26,089.7 |
Other land | −9348.4 |
Type | Arable Land | Woodland | Grassland | Built-Up Land | Water | Ice and Snow Cover | Unoccupied Land | Other Land |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arable land | 159,398.19 | 69,883.92 | 42,567.48 | 3651.21 | 1177.65 | 9503.73 | 18,343.08 | 855.9 |
Woodland | 103,690.35 | 1,423,682.55 | 227,007.63 | 2310.21 | 1767.87 | 7299.45 | 22,534.56 | 10,047.42 |
Grassland | 69,573.51 | 142,829.1 | 251,010.27 | 8220.42 | 2457.54 | 397.98 | 42,784.47 | 4360.5 |
Built-up land | 4569.03 | 2737.35 | 6838.65 | 9865.08 | 1613.43 | 35.55 | 1557.54 | 223.65 |
Water | 319.68 | 1247.94 | 734.4 | 817.83 | 30,701.79 | 15.48 | 59.13 | 364.32 |
Ice and snow cover | 2.43 | 369.99 | 558.81 | 29.25 | 4.05 | 397.98 | 2.07 | 57.6 |
Unoccupied land | 22,143.24 | 13,428.09 | 73,389.51 | 1998 | 391.5 | 46.89 | 22,451.94 | 302.58 |
Other land | 1198.62 | 2334.69 | 2037.96 | 253.89 | 497.88 | 312.75 | 327.69 | 2,118,151.44 |
Land Use Category | Equivalence Factor | Yield Factors | Land Area (ha/per) | Carrying Capacity (ha/per) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Grassland | 0.5 | 6.5 | 0.054 | 0.176 |
Arable land | 2.8 | 1.49 | 0.140 | 0.583 |
Built-up land | 2.8 | 1.49 | 0.017 | 0.07 |
Woodland | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.558 | 0.490 |
Water | 0.2 | 1 | 0.014 | 0.003 |
Unoccupied land | 0 | 0 | 0.005 | 0 |
Total | 1.324 | |||
Total (Deduct 12% biological diversity) | 1.165 |
Land Use Category | Carrying Capacity (Supply) | Ecological Footprint (Demand) | The Difference of Carrying Capacity (ha/per) | Carrying Capacity per Capita | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equivalence Factor | Yield Factors | Land Area (ha/per) | Carrying Capacity (ha/per) | Equivalence Factor | Land Area (ha/per) | Ecological Footprint (ha/per) | |||
Grassland | 0.5 | 6.5 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.50 | 0.37 | 0.18 | 0.01 | deficit |
Arable land | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.14 | 0.58 | 2.80 | 0.58 | 1.64 | 1.05 | deficit |
Built-up land | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 2.80 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.07 | surplus |
Woodland | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.56 | 0.49 | 1.10 | 0.02 | 0.02 | −0.47 | surplus |
Water | 0.2 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.40 | 0.08 | 0.08 | deficit |
Fossil energy land | 1.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.10 | 0.35 | 0.39 | 0.39 | deficit |
Unoccupied land | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | - |
Total | 1.32 | 2.31 | - | - | |||||
Total (Deduct 12% biological diversity) | 1.17 | 1.14 | deficit |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ding, Y.; Peng, J. Impacts of Urbanization of Mountainous Areas on Resources and Environment: Based on Ecological Footprint Model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030765
Ding Y, Peng J. Impacts of Urbanization of Mountainous Areas on Resources and Environment: Based on Ecological Footprint Model. Sustainability. 2018; 10(3):765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030765
Chicago/Turabian StyleDing, Yu, and Jian Peng. 2018. "Impacts of Urbanization of Mountainous Areas on Resources and Environment: Based on Ecological Footprint Model" Sustainability 10, no. 3: 765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030765
APA StyleDing, Y., & Peng, J. (2018). Impacts of Urbanization of Mountainous Areas on Resources and Environment: Based on Ecological Footprint Model. Sustainability, 10(3), 765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030765