IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2024i1p128-d1554765.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Ecological Carrying Capacity in Xilingol League Based on Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model

Author

Listed:
  • Jimuji Wu

    (Key Laboratory of Desert Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration, State Forestry and Grassland Administration of China, College of Desert Control Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, China)

  • Xia Yang

    (Key Laboratory of Desert Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration, State Forestry and Grassland Administration of China, College of Desert Control Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, China)

Abstract

The real-time assessment of ecological conditions in arid and semi-arid regions is essential for global ecological sustainability. This study utilizes an improved three-dimensional ecological footprint model to assess the ecological footprint, ecological carrying capacity, and footprint depth of Xilingol League, analyzing its spatiotemporal evolution characteristics. An ecological pressure index is developed to evaluate ecological security, and two-way ANOVA and M-K mutation tests are employed to analyze the effects of county-level and year-level factors on these indicators and their evolving trends. The results show that the following: (1) From 2011 to 2021, the ecological footprint and footprint depth in Xilingol League first increased and then decreased, while its ecological carrying capacity slightly improved, leading to an overall reduction in ecological deficit. Spatially, ecological footprint and carrying capacity were higher in the northeast than in the southwest, and ecological pressure was higher in the eastern and western regions compared to the central area. (2) Grassland ecological footprint and footprint depth were relatively high, with a higher carrying capacity than other land types; however, the ecological deficit was severe, reaching a minimum value of −5 in 2019. (3) County-level factors had a significant impact on ecological footprint, carrying capacity, ecological balance, footprint depth, and ecological pressure, while year-level factors significantly influenced footprint depth and ecological pressure. (4) From 2013 to 2021, the ecological footprint significantly increased, while ecological carrying capacity notably improved from 2016 to 2021; however, ecological balance remained in a deficit. Footprint depth showed a significant increase from 2011 to 2016 and a significant decrease from 2016 to 2021, while ecological pressure significantly increased from 2011 to 2018 and then significantly decreased from 2018 to 2021. This study highlights the spatiotemporal dynamics of the ecological system in Xilingol League and provides scientific support for ecological management in arid and semi-arid regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jimuji Wu & Xia Yang, 2024. "Assessment of Ecological Carrying Capacity in Xilingol League Based on Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-24, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2024:i:1:p:128-:d:1554765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/1/128/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/1/128/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Wackernagel, Mathis & Onisto, Larry & Bello, Patricia & Callejas Linares, Alejandro & Susana Lopez Falfan, Ina & Mendez Garcia, Jesus & Isabel Suarez Guerrero, Ana & Guadalupe Suarez Guerrero, Ma., 1999. "National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 375-390, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q., 2007. "Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy--a case study of the Chinese society 1981-2001," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 355-376, March.
    3. 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.
    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, 2024. "The mathematics of the ecological footprint revisited: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(4), pages 727-735, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Lijing Tang & Yuanyuan Yang & Dongyan Wang & Qing Wei, 2022. "Optimizing County-Level Land-Use Structure Method: Case Study of W County, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-26, April.
    8. Yisong Wang & Jincheng Huang & Shiming Fang, 2019. "Sustainability Assessment of Natural Capital Based on the 3D Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study of the Shennongjia National Park Pilot," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Hoekstra, A.Y., 2009. "Human appropriation of natural capital: A comparison of ecological footprint and water footprint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1963-1974, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Hanna Safwat H. Shakir & Kendall T. Harris & Irvin W. Osborne-Lee & Gian Paolo Cesaretti & Rosa Misso & Magdy T. Khalil, 2013. "Global Ecological Footprint, Climate Change Impacts and Assessment," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(2), pages 9-38.
    12. Niccolucci, V. & Galli, A. & Reed, A. & Neri, E. & Wackernagel, M. & Bastianoni, S., 2011. "Towards a 3D National Ecological Footprint Geography," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(16), pages 2939-2944.
    13. Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett, 2010. "A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-49, June.
    14. Áron Szennay & Cecília Szigeti & Judit Beke & László Radácsi, 2021. "Ecological Footprint as an Indicator of Corporate Environmental Performance—Empirical Evidence from Hungarian SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Destek, Mehmet & Sinha, Avik, 2020. "Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries," MPRA Paper 104246, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2020.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Yin Su & Qifang Zheng & Shenghai Liao, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Characteristics of Water Ecological Footprint and Countermeasures for Water Sustainability in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-16, August.

    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:17:y:2024:i:1:p:128-:d:1554765. 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.