IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i20p13550-d947150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation and Prediction of Ecological Sustainability in the Upper Reaches of the Yellow River Based on Improved Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Guo

    (Research Department of Ecological Environment, Qinghai Academy of Social Sciences, Xining 810000, China
    Key Laboratory of Restoration Ecology for Cold Regions in Qinghai, Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xining 810008, China)

Abstract

Ecological footprint is an important method for regional sustainable assessment. Scientific assessment of the ecological sustainability of the upper reaches of the Yellow River is of great significance to the realization of a win–win situation for the ecological environment protection and economic development of the entire Yellow River basin. Based on the improved three-dimensional ecological footprint model, this paper measures and spatially portrays the ecological footprint per capita depth ( EF depth ), ecological footprint per capita size ( EF size ), and ecological footprint per capita 3D (per capita EF 3D ) of the upper Yellow River region from 2011 to 2020. Then, the ecological footprint diversity index ( EFDI ), integrated land stress index ( I comprehensive ), ecological stress index ( ETI ), and ecological coordination coefficient ( ECC ) are used to evaluate its ecological safety and sustainability. The results of the study indicate that: (1) From 2011 to 2020, the three-dimensional ecological footprint of all provinces and regions in the upper reaches of the Yellow River was in a fluctuating upward trend as a whole, and NMG had the highest growth, from 2.6256 hm 2 /person to 3.3163 hm 2 /person, with an average annual growth rate of 2.36%. (2) In the past 10 years, the ETI index of the upper reaches of the Yellow River increased from 2.13 in 2011 to 3.28 in 2020, which is a serious insecurity. The EFDI index fluctuates slightly, but increases year by year. (3) The capital flow occupancy rate of the upper reaches of the Yellow River has been above 86.67%, and fluctuated during the study period, reaching a peak of 88.61% in 2020. (4) In the four periods, the number of land comprehensive pressure states and ecological security pressure states of the provinces and regions in the upper reaches of the Yellow River show a distribution pattern that the northeast region is better than the southwest region. This study is expected to provide scientific reference for land use in the upper reaches of the Yellow River, building the ecological security barrier of the Qinghai Tibet Plateau, and promoting sustainable socio-economic development.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:20:p:13550-:d:947150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/20/13550/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/20/13550/
    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. Muniz, Ivan & Galindo, Anna, 2005. "Urban form and the ecological footprint of commuting. The case of Barcelona," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 499-514, December.
    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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Shiwen Zhang & Xiaoling Xie, 2022. "Exploration of Rural Agroforestry–Pastoral Complex Systems Based on Ecological Footprint*—Taking Zhagana in Yiwa Township as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-15, November.
    3. Jie Pang & Juan Yin & Shimei Li & Yunnan Zou & Yunlan Zhang & Xinyue Liang & Rui Huang, 2022. "The Ecological Footprint and Allocation of Guangxi Beibu Gulf Urban Agglomeration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-18, November.

    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. 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.
    2. White, Thomas J., 2007. "Sharing resources: The global distribution of the Ecological Footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 402-410, December.
    3. Browne, David & O'Regan, Bernadette & Moles, Richard, 2012. "Comparison of energy flow accounting, energy flow metabolism ratio analysis and ecological footprinting as tools for measuring urban sustainability: A case-study of an Irish city-region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 97-107.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett, 2010. "A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-49, June.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Shanshan Guo & Yinghong Wang & Jiu Huang & Jihong Dong & Jian Zhang, 2021. "Decoupling and Decomposition Analysis of Land Natural Capital Utilization and Economic Growth: A Case Study in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Shuyu Wang & Xinmin Bian, 2008. "Improved method of ecological footprint – Funing County ecological economic system assessments," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 337-347, June.
    12. Li Hong & Pei Dong, Zhang & Chunyu, He & Wang Gang, 2007. "Evaluating the effects of embodied energy in international trade on ecological footprint in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 136-148, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Lu Wang & Bonoua Faye & Quanfeng Li & Yunkai Li, 2023. "A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of the Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land in Northeast China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-20, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Alvarez-Herranz, Agustin & Balsalobre-Lorente, Daniel & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Cantos, José María, 2017. "Energy innovation and renewable energy consumption in the correction of air pollution levels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 386-397.
    17. 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.
    18. Benjamin Leard, 2011. "Joan Martinez-Alier and Ingo Ropke (eds.): Recent developments in ecological economics (2 vols.)," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 161-178, July.
    19. Maria Serena Mancini & Mikel Evans & Katsunori Iha & Carla Danelutti & Alessandro Galli, 2018. "Assessing the Ecological Footprint of Ecotourism Packages: A Methodological Proposition," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-37, June.
    20. Modarres, Ali, 2013. "Commuting and energy consumption: toward an equitable transportation policy," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 240-249.

    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:19:y:2022:i:20:p:13550-:d:947150. 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.