IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2022i1p422-d1016295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Urban Agglomeration Ecological Sustainability and Identification of Influencing Factors: Based on the 3DEF Model and the Random Forest

Author

Listed:
  • Zhigang Li

    (College of Management Science, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China)

  • Jie Yang

    (College of Management Science, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
    The Engineering & Technical College of Chengdu University of Technology, Leshan 614000, China)

  • Jialong Zhong

    (College of Management Science, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China)

  • Dong Zhang

    (College of Management Science, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China)

Abstract

The evaluation of ecological sustainability is significant for high-quality urban development and scientific management and regulation. Taking the Chengdu urban agglomeration (CUA) as the research object, this paper combined the three-dimensional ecological footprint model (3DEF) and random forest to evaluate the ecological sustainability of the study area and identify the influencing factors. The study results indicate that: (1) From 2000 to 2019, the ecological sustainability of Chengdu urban agglomeration was divided into four types, and the overall ecological sustainability of this region showed a downward trend. The areas with higher ecological sustainability were mainly distributed in the northern part of the urban agglomeration (Mianyang City) and the southern part (Leshan City and Ya’an City), while the cities in the central region (Chengdu City, Meishan City, and Ziyang City) had lower ecological sustainability. (2) The main factors affecting the ecological sustainability of urban agglomerations are industrial wastewater discharge, industrial smoke (powder) dust discharge, and green coverage of built-up areas, followed by urbanization and population size. Through this study, we have two meaningful findings: (a) Our research method in this paper provides a new way to study the factors affecting the ecological sustainability of urban agglomerations. (b) The results of the identification of influencing factors might be the reference for urban environmental infrastructure construction and urban planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhigang Li & Jie Yang & Jialong Zhong & Dong Zhang, 2022. "Assessment of Urban Agglomeration Ecological Sustainability and Identification of Influencing Factors: Based on the 3DEF Model and the Random Forest," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:p:422-:d:1016295
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/422/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/422/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Niccolucci, V. & Bastianoni, S. & Tiezzi, E.B.P. & Wackernagel, M. & Marchettini, N., 2009. "How deep is the footprint? A 3D representation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(20), pages 2819-2823.
    2. Bo-Xun Huang & Shang-Chia Chiou & Wen-Ying Li, 2021. "Landscape Pattern and Ecological Network Structure in Urban Green Space Planning: A Case Study of Fuzhou City," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-23, July.
    3. Jing Guo, 2022. "Evaluation and Prediction of Ecological Sustainability in the Upper Reaches of the Yellow River Based on Improved Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-25, October.
    4. Markus Loecher, 2022. "Unbiased variable importance for random forests," Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(5), pages 1413-1425, March.
    5. Ye-Ning Wang & Qiang Zhou & Hao-Wei Wang, 2020. "Assessing Ecological Carrying Capacity in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Based on a Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Lenzen, Manfred & Murray, Shauna A., 2001. "A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 229-255, May.
    7. Yening Wang & Yuantong Jiang & Yuanmao Zheng & Haowei Wang, 2019. "Assessing the Ecological Carrying Capacity Based on Revised Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jie Yang & Zhigang Li, 2024. "Improving Urban Ecological Welfare Performance: An ST-LMDI Approach to the Yangtze River Economic Belt," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ye-Ning Wang & Qiang Zhou & Hao-Wei Wang, 2020. "Assessing Ecological Carrying Capacity in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Based on a Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Tang, Yuzhi & Wang, Mengdi & Liu, Qian & Hu, Zhongwen & Zhang, Jie & Shi, Tiezhu & Wu, Guofeng & Su, Fenzhen, 2022. "Ecological carrying capacity and sustainability assessment for coastal zones: A novel framework based on spatial scene and three-dimensional ecological footprint model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 466(C).
    3. Ziheng Li & Yinying Hu, 2022. "Evaluation of the resource-environmental pressure based on the three-dimensional footprint family model: a case study on the Pearl River Delta in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 6788-6803, May.
    4. Fang, Kai & Heijungs, Reinout & De Snoo, Geert R., 2015. "Understanding the complementary linkages between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a footprint–boundary environmental sustainability assessment framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 218-226.
    5. Haiqian Ke & Wenyi Yang & Xiaoyang Liu & Fei Fan, 2020. "Does Innovation Efficiency Suppress the Ecological Footprint? Empirical Evidence from 280 Chinese Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Yulei Xie & Ling Ji & Beibei Zhang & Gordon Huang, 2018. "Evolution of the Scientific Literature on Input–Output Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis of 1990–2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    7. Olivier, Michelle M. & Howard, Johnathon L. & Wilson, Ben P. & Robinson, Wayne A., 2018. "Correlating Localisation and Sustainability and Exploring the Causality of the Relationship," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 749-765.
    8. Ivonne Acosta-Alba & Hayo M. G. Van der Werf, 2011. "The Use of Reference Values in Indicator-Based Methods for the Environmental Assessment of Agricultural Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Fernando González Laxe & Federico Martín Palmero & Fernanda Miguélez Pose, 2005. "Transport And Sustainable Development - Impact Of The Systems Of Population Mobility And Goods On The Ecological Footprint In Galicia (Spain)," ERSA conference papers ersa05p151, European Regional Science Association.
    10. Mi, Zhifu & Zhang, Yunkun & Guan, Dabo & Shan, Yuli & Liu, Zhu & Cong, Ronggang & Yuan, Xiao-Chen & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2016. "Consumption-based emission accounting for Chinese cities," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1073-1081.
    11. Michelle M. Olivier & Benjamin P. Wilson & Jonathon L. Howard, 2016. "Measuring Localisation Regionally to Form a Bhutanese Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Hua Liu & Dan-Yang Li & Rong Ma & Ming Ma, 2022. "Assessing the Ecological Risks Based on the Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model in Gansu Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Lenzen, Manfred & Dey, Christopher & Foran, Barney, 2004. "Energy requirements of Sydney households," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 375-399, July.
    14. Meng, Xiaoge & Yao, Zhong & Nie, Jiajia & Zhao, Yingxue & Li, Zenglu, 2018. "Low-carbon product selection with carbon tax and competition: Effects of the power structure," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 224-230.
    15. Fabio Grazi & Jeroen Bergh & Piet Rietveld, 2007. "Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 135-153, September.
    16. Debrupa Chakraborty & Joyashree Roy, 2015. "Ecological footprint of paperboard and paper production unit in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 909-921, August.
    17. Wood, Richard & Garnett, Stephen, 2010. "Regional sustainability in Northern Australia --A quantitative assessment of social, economic and environmental impacts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1877-1882, July.
    18. Wiedmann, Thomas, 2009. "A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade -- MRIO versus PLUM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1975-1990, May.
    19. Fabio Grazi & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & Piet Rietveld, 2006. "Modeling Spatial Sustainability: Spatial Welfare Economics versus Ecological Footprint," Working Papers 2006.5, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    20. Walsh, Conor & O'Regan, Bernadette & Moles, Richard, 2009. "Incorporating methane into ecological footprint analysis: A case study of Ireland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1952-1962, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:p:422-:d:1016295. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.