IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i7p2002-d219962.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Ecological Carrying Capacity Based on Revised Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model in Inner Mongolia, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yening Wang

    (Key Laboratory of Urban Environment and Health, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Yuantong Jiang

    (Key Laboratory of Urban Environment and Health, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Yuanmao Zheng

    (Key Laboratory of Urban Environment and Health, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Haowei Wang

    (Key Laboratory of Urban Environment and Health, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China)

Abstract

Under the concept of green development, accurately mapping ecological carrying capacity to effectively evaluate regional sustainability has already become an important issue in China. This study introduced ecological carrying capacity intensity (EC intensity ) based on the revised three-dimensional ecological footprint (3DEF) model to describe the temporal–spatial patterns of three-dimensional ecological carrying capacity (EC 3D ) in Inner Mongolia in 2010–2016 and to explore factors affecting socioeconomic sustainable development. The results showed that ecological footprint size (EF size ) differed between cities/leagues but changed little during the study period. Ecological footprint depth (EF depth ) far exceeded the original value of 1.00. Ecological carrying capacity (EC) varied in cities/leagues, while EC intensity increased slowly with stronger potential for regional development. Three-dimensional ecological deficits (ED 3D ) of cities/leagues were divided into five categories: Hohhot, Hulunbuir and Banyannur were in larger ecological surplus; Hinggan was in slight surplus; Baotou, Chifeng, Tongliao, Ulanqab, Xilin Gol and Erdos were in slight deficit; Wuhai was in stronger deficit; and Alxa was in severely intense deficit. Woodland of cities/leagues was continuously in slight ecological surplus, while cropland and grassland had crucial impacts on deficit. There was a significant positive linear correlation between gross domestic product (GDP) and footprint, while a negative correlation was seen with deficit. These results would help coordinate resource utilization and industrial structure adjustment in Inner Mongolia.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:2002-:d:219962
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2002/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2002/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marian R. Chertow, 2000. "The IPAT Equation and Its Variants," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 4(4), pages 13-29, October.
    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. Andersson, Jan Otto & Lindroth, Mattias, 2001. "Ecologically unsustainable trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 113-122, April.
    5. 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.
    6. McDonald, Garry W. & Patterson, Murray G., 2004. "Ecological Footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 49-67, September.
    7. Wetzel, Kurt R. & Wetzel, John F., 1995. "Sizing the earth: Recognition of economic carrying capacity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 13-21, January.
    8. Berg, Hakan & Michelsen, Petra & Troell, Max & Folke, Carl & Kautsky, Nils, 1996. "Managing aquaculture for sustainability in tropical Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-159, August.
    9. Liddle, Brantley, 2015. "What Are the Carbon Emissions Elasticities for Income and Population? Bridging STIRPAT and EKC via robust heterogeneous panel estimates," MPRA Paper 61304, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. 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. Ke Liu & Xinyue Xie & Qian Zhou, 2021. "Research on the Influencing Factors of Urban Ecological Carrying Capacity Based on a Multiscale Geographic Weighted Regression Model: Evidence from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-25, November.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Pruethsan Sutthichaimethee & Sthianrapab Naluang, 2019. "The Efficiency of the Sustainable Development Policy for Energy Consumption under Environmental Law in Thailand: Adapting the SEM-VARIMAX Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-21, August.
    6. Zhiyuan Zhu & Zhikun Mei & Shilin Li & Guangxin Ren & Yongzhong Feng, 2022. "Evaluation of Ecological Carrying Capacity and Identification of Its Influencing Factors Based on Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System: A Case Study of the Yellow River Basin in Shaanxi," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, July.

    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. Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett, 2010. "A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-49, June.
    3. 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.
    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. White, Thomas J., 2007. "Sharing resources: The global distribution of the Ecological Footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 402-410, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2014. "Nested open systems: An important concept for applying ecological footprint analysis to sustainable development assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 105-111.
    8. 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.
    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. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q. & Yang, Z.F. & Jiang, M.M., 2007. "Ecological footprint accounting for energy and resource in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1599-1609, March.
    11. Kilbourne, William E. & Thyroff, Anastasia, 2020. "STIRPAT for marketing: An introduction, expansion, and suggestions for future use," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 351-361.
    12. Fan, Yupeng & Qiao, Qi & Xian, Chaofan & Xiao, Yang & Fang, Lin, 2017. "A modified ecological footprint method to evaluate environmental impacts of industrial parks," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 293-299.
    13. Casey, Gregory & Galor, Oded, 2017. "Is faster economic growth compatible with reductions in carbon emissions? The role of diminished population growth," MPRA Paper 76164, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Kolcava, Dennis & Nguyen, Quynh & Bernauer, Thomas, 2019. "Does trade liberalization lead to environmental burden shifting in the global economy?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 98-112.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Muradian, Roldan & O'Connor, Martin & Martinez-Alier, Joan, 2002. "Embodied pollution in trade: estimating the 'environmental load displacement' of industrialised countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 51-67, April.
    20. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2011. "Measuring and locating footprints: A case study of Taiwan's rice and wheat consumption footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 191-201.

    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:7:p:2002-:d:219962. 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.