IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i5p1353-d210885.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Henan Ecological Security Evaluation Using Improved 3D Ecological Footprint Model Based on Emergy and Net Primary Productivity

Author

Listed:
  • Gong Chen

    (Smart City Research Center, School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
    Innovation Center, China Academy of Electronics and Information Technology, Beijing 100041, China)

  • Qi Li

    (Smart City Research Center, School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Fei Peng

    (Smart City Research Center, School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Hamed Karamian

    (Smart City Research Center, School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Boyuan Tang

    (Smart City Research Center, School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

Abstract

The ecological footprint (EF) model is an effective tool for determining whether natural assets are over-utilized. The traditional EF (TEF) model and its improved model which include the emergy ecological footprint (EEF) and net primary productivity ecological footprint (NPPEF) have been widely used, but some emergy data are hard to obtain and NPP data is not stable. Therefore, in this paper, a novel three-dimensional (3D) EF model with emergy and net primary productivity (3DEF-ENPP) is proposed. The Henan province of China was chosen as the research area and commonly used statistical yearbook data and NPP data were used which are easy to obtain. We expanded a 2D EF model to a 3D EF model and took advantage of emergy analysis and net primary productivity because they have stable energy parameters, can reflect the difference in bioproductivity of different land types, and are suitable for spatial and temporal analysis. Based on our model, we obtained a rectified emergy-based ecological footprint (REEF), an ecological capacity based on net primary productivity (RNPPEC), a rectified ecological deficit (RED), an ecological footprint intensity (EFI), an ecological coordination coefficient, and a 3D-EF, which can comprehensively reflect Henan’s ecological security status. The results show that: (1) The REEF and RNPPED obtained by our proposed model are more stable than those of the former method. (2) Henan’s RED has been negative and has a downward trend, which indicates the burden of human activities on the natural environment are becoming increasingly serious. (3) The EF is increasing with time, indicating that the consumption of natural resources in Henan is gradually increasing. High EF regions are mainly distributed in the northwestern area. Southeastern regions have relatively low EFs. (4) Capital flows cannot meet the needs of current social development in Henan province and it is in a state of unsustainable development. (5) The ecological stress index is at a safe state but is still at an ecological security warning level and Henan has good ecological coordination.

Suggested Citation

  • Gong Chen & Qi Li & Fei Peng & Hamed Karamian & Boyuan Tang, 2019. "Henan Ecological Security Evaluation Using Improved 3D Ecological Footprint Model Based on Emergy and Net Primary Productivity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1353-:d:210885
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1353/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1353/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bicknell, Kathryn B. & Ball, Richard J. & Cullen, Ross & Bigsby, Hugh R., 1998. "New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 149-160, November.
    2. Jason Venetoulis & John Talberth, 2008. "Refining the ecological footprint," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 441-469, August.
    3. Wackernagel, Mathis & Rees, William E., 1997. "Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, January.
    4. Xiaowei Yao & Zhanqi Wang & Hongwei Zhang, 2016. "Dynamic Changes of the Ecological Footprint and Its Component Analysis Response to Land Use in Wuhan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Fuyuan Wang & Kaiyong Wang, 2017. "Assessing the Effect of Eco-City Practices on Urban Sustainability Using an Extended Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    6. Yao Lu & Xiaoshun Li & Heng Ni & Xin Chen & Chuyu Xia & Dongmei Jiang & Huiping Fan, 2019. "Temporal-Spatial Evolution of the Urban Ecological Footprint Based on Net Primary Productivity: A Case Study of Xuzhou Central Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, January.
    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. Umberto Lucia & Debora Fino & Giulia Grisolia, 2022. "A thermoeconomic indicator for the sustainable development with social considerations," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 2022-2036, February.
    2. Umberto Lucia & Giulia Grisolia, 2021. "The Gouy-Stodola Theorem—From Irreversibility to Sustainability—The Thermodynamic Human Development Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Qiong Li & Juanle Wang & Hongquan Xie & Altansukh Ochir & Davaadorj Davaasuren, 2022. "Applicability of Grassland Production Estimation Using Remote Sensing for the Mongolian Plateau by Comparing Typical Regions in China and Mongolia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Chih-Ming Chen & Huey-Ling Chang, 2022. "Environmental Impact Assessment of an Ignition Pencil Coil by a Combination of Carbon Footprint and Environmental Priority Strategies Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Marco Filippo Torchio & Umberto Lucia & Giulia Grisolia, 2020. "Economic and Human Features for Energy and Environmental Indicators: A Tool to Assess Countries’ Progress towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Jing Guo & Jun Ren & Xiaotao Huang & Guifang He & Yan Shi & Huakun Zhou, 2020. "The Dynamic Evolution of the Ecological Footprint and Ecological Capacity of Qinghai Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-26, April.

    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. Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett, 2010. "A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-49, June.
    2. Chuxiong Deng & Zhen Liu & Rongrong Li & Ke Li, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation Based on a Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study in Hunan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Karen Turner, 2006. "Additional precision provided by region-specific data: The identification of fuel-use and pollution-generation coefficients in the Jersey economy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 347-364.
    4. Xin Yang & Fan Zhang & Cheng Luo & Anlu Zhang, 2019. "Farmland Ecological Compensation Zoning and Horizontal Fiscal Payment Mechanism in Wuhan Agglomeration, China, From the Perspective of Ecological Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Thomas Kuhn & Radomir Pestow & Anja Zenker, 2019. "An Axiomatic Characterization of a Generalized Ecological Footprint," Chemnitz Economic Papers 033, Department of Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology, revised Aug 2019.
    6. Siche, J.R. & Agostinho, F. & Ortega, E. & Romeiro, A., 2008. "Sustainability of nations by indices: Comparative study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 628-637, July.
    7. Shuhui Zhang & Fuquan Li & Yuke Zhou & Ziyuan Hu & Ruixin Zhang & Xiaoyu Xiang & Yali Zhang, 2022. "Using Net Primary Productivity to Characterize the Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Ecological Footprint for a Resource-Based City, Panzhihua in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-14, March.
    8. Zhenggen Fan & Ji Liu & Hu Yu & Hua Lu & Puwei Zhang, 2022. "Spatial-Temporal Pattern and Influencing Factors of Land Ecological Carrying Capacity in The National Pilot Zones for Ecological Conservation in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Thomas Kuhn & Radomir Pestow & Anja Zenker, 2018. "An Axiomatic Foundation of the Ecological Footprint," Chemnitz Economic Papers 025, Department of Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology.
    10. Jincheng Li & Xinyue Zhang & Xuexiu Chang & Wei Gao, 2018. "Revising Yield and Equivalence Factors of Ecological Footprints Based on Land-Use Conversion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    11. Haberl, Helmut & Erb, Karl-Heinz & Krausmann, Fridolin, 2001. "How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time: the case of Austria 1926-1995," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 25-45, July.
    12. van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Verbruggen, Harmen, 1999. "Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the 'ecological footprint'," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 61-72, April.
    13. Smith, Nicola J. & McDonald, Garry W. & Patterson, Murray G., 2014. "Is there overshoot of planetary limits? New indicators of human appropriation of the global biogeochemical cycles relative to their regenerative capacity based on ‘ecotime’ analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 80-92.
    14. 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.
    15. Gregory Ponthiere, 2009. "The ecological footprint: an exhibit at an intergenerational trial?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 677-694, August.
    16. Carballo Penela, Adolfo & Sebastián Villasante, Carlos, 2008. "Applying physical input-output tables of energy to estimate the energy ecological footprint (EEF) of Galicia (NW Spain)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1148-1163, March.
    17. Lin Zhen & Bingzhen Du, 2017. "Ecological Footprint Analysis Based on Changing Food Consumption in a Poorly Developed Area of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.
    18. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    19. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago & Conceição, Pedro & Belbute, José, 2005. "Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 382-396, September.
    20. Teixidó Figueras, Jordi & Duro Moreno, Juan Antonio, 2012. "Ecological Footprint Inequality: A methodological review and some results," Working Papers 2072/203168, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1353-:d:210885. 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.