IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i6p3483-d772847.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatio-temporal Differentiation of Coupling Coordination between Ecological Footprint and Ecosystem Service Functions in the Aksu Region, Xinjiang, China

Author

Listed:
  • Huan Xu

    (College of The Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China
    Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology of Education Ministry, Urumqi 830017, China)

  • Jianjun Yang

    (College of The Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China
    Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology of Education Ministry, Urumqi 830017, China)

  • Guozhu Xia

    (Comprehensive Land Management Center, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi 830002, China
    Xinjiang Scientific Research Station for Ecological Protection and Restoration of Land Space in Arid Areas, Urumqi 830002, China)

  • Tao Lin

    (Comprehensive Land Management Center, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi 830002, China
    Xinjiang Scientific Research Station for Ecological Protection and Restoration of Land Space in Arid Areas, Urumqi 830002, China)

Abstract

The ecological footprint and ecosystem service functions in the northwest arid region of China have their unique characteristics and are limited by natural resources. The coordination level between the pressure of human activities on the ecosystem and the ecosystem service capacity can be objectively reflected on by exploring the coupling coordination relationship between these two aspects. This work used the ecological footprint and Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs models to quantitatively analyze the spatial and temporal variations of the ecological footprint and ecosystem service functions in the Aksu region in Xinjiang. A coupling coordination degree model and spatial autocorrelation analysis were used to assess the coupling coordination level and spatial agglomeration characteristics of the regional ecological footprint and ecosystem service functions. The results showed that the ecological footprint of the Aksu region has been high in the northeast and low in the southwest, with noticeable spatial heterogeneity, from 2005 to 2018. Carbon (66.17%) and cropland (26.64%) are the main contributing factors to the regional ecological footprint. The biocapacity is dominated by cropland, built-up land, and forest land. The ecological footprint and biocapacity showed an increasing trend, ranging from an ecological surplus to an ecological deficit, with a continued ecological deficit. The level of ecosystem service functions in the Aksu region was low, with significant spatial variability. The high values were concentrated in the northern part of the region and the Tarim and Hotan River Basins. The coupling coordination level of the ecological footprint and ecosystem service functions in the Aksu area was high in the north and low in the south. The aforementioned coupling coordination level was dominated by the spatial pattern of the ecosystem service functions and had noticeable spatial agglomeration characteristics. The coupling coordination degree of the ecological footprint and water supply function showed an upward trend. By contrast, the coupling coordination degree of the ecological footprint with soil conservation and biodiversity maintenance functions showed a downward trend.

Suggested Citation

  • Huan Xu & Jianjun Yang & Guozhu Xia & Tao Lin, 2022. "Spatio-temporal Differentiation of Coupling Coordination between Ecological Footprint and Ecosystem Service Functions in the Aksu Region, Xinjiang, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:6:p:3483-:d:772847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3483/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3483/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kitzes, Justin & Galli, Alessandro & Bagliani, Marco & Barrett, John & Dige, Gorm & Ede, Sharon & Erb, Karlheinz & Giljum, Stefan & Haberl, Helmut & Hails, Chris & Jolia-Ferrier, Laurent & Jungwirth, , 2009. "A research agenda for improving national Ecological Footprint accounts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1991-2007, May.
    2. Jinyu Zang & Ting Zhang & Longqian Chen & Long Li & Weiqiang Liu & Lina Yuan & Yu Zhang & Ruiyang Liu & Zhiqiang Wang & Ziqi Yu & Jia Wang, 2021. "Optimization of Modelling Population Density Estimation Based on Impervious Surfaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Lichun Mo & Jiancheng Chen & Yi Xie, 2021. "Ecological Approach for the Evaluation of Structure and Sustainability in the Tourism Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Qin, Chuangjian & Tang, Zhenda & Chen, Jing & Chen, Xiding, 2020. "The impact of soil and water resource conservation on agricultural production- an analysis of the agricultural production performance in Zhejiang, China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    5. Wiedmann, Thomas & Lenzen, Manfred, 2007. "On the conversion between local and global hectares in Ecological Footprint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 673-677, February.
    6. Ashebir Woldeyohannes & Marc Cotter & Wubneshe Dessalegn Biru & Girma Kelboro, 2020. "Assessing Changes in Ecosystem Service Values over 1985–2050 in Response to Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics in Abaya-Chamo Basin, Southern Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-22, January.
    7. Sunsanee Arunyawat & Rajendra P. Shrestha, 2016. "Assessing Land Use Change and Its Impact on Ecosystem Services in Northern Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-22, August.
    8. Olimpia Neagu, 2020. "Economic Complexity and Ecological Footprint: Evidence from the Most Complex Economies in the World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Mancini, Maria Serena & Galli, Alessandro & Coscieme, Luca & Niccolucci, Valentina & Lin, David & Pulselli, Federico Maria & Bastianoni, Simone & Marchettini, Nadia, 2018. "Exploring ecosystem services assessment through Ecological Footprint accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 228-235.
    11. 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.
    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. Shuxin Mao & Hongbing Deng, 2022. "Regional Ecology Supporting Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-5, June.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. Sato, Misato, 2014. "Product level embodied carbon flows in bilateral trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 106-117.
    5. Muluberhan Biedemariam & Emiru Birhane & Biadgilgn Demissie & Tewodros Tadesse & Girmay Gebresamuel & Solomon Habtu, 2022. "Ecosystem Service Values as Related to Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Ethiopia: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Md. Mostafizur Rahman & György Szabó, 2021. "Impact of Land Use and Land Cover Changes on Urban Ecosystem Service Value in Dhaka, Bangladesh," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-27, July.
    7. Nassani, Abdelmohsen A. & Aldakhil, Abdullah Mohammed & Zaman, Khalid, 2021. "Ecological footprints jeopardy for mineral resource extraction: Efficient use of energy, financial development and insurance services to conserve natural resources," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    8. Jiaxin Han & Enkhjargal Dalaibaatar, 2023. "A Study on the Influencing Factors of China’s Ecological Footprint Based on EEMD–GeoDetector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, April.
    9. Sharareh Pourebrahim & Mehrdad Hadipour & Zahra Emlaei & Hamidreza Heidari & Choo Ta Goh & Khai Ern Lee, 2023. "Analysis of Environmental Carrying Capacity Based on the Ecological Footprint for the Sustainable Development of Alborz, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, May.
    10. David Lin & Laurel Hanscom & Adeline Murthy & Alessandro Galli & Mikel Evans & Evan Neill & Maria Serena Mancini & Jon Martindill & Fatime-Zahra Medouar & Shiyu Huang & Mathis Wackernagel, 2018. "Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Yunhe Yin & Xiang Han & Shaohong Wu, 2017. "Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Ecological Footprints in Northwest China from 2005 to 2014," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, April.
    12. Kastner, Thomas & Kastner, Michael & Nonhebel, Sanderine, 2011. "Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1032-1040, April.
    13. Blasi, E. & Passeri, N. & Franco, S. & Galli, A., 2016. "An ecological footprint approach to environmental–economic evaluation of farm results," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 76-82.
    14. Yung-Jaan Lee, 2022. "Hybrid Ecological Footprint of Taipei," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, April.
    15. Kęstutis Biekša & Violeta Valiulė & Ligita Šimanskienė & Raffaele Silvestri, 2022. "Assessment of Sustainable Economic Development in the EU Countries with Reference to the SDGs and Environmental Footprint Indices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-18, September.
    16. Bin Huang & Zaijian Yuan & Mingguo Zheng & Yishan Liao & Kim Loi Nguyen & Thi Hong Nguyen & Samran Sombatpanit & Dingqiang Li, 2022. "Soil and Water Conservation Techniques in Tropical and Subtropical Asia: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Ehsan Moradi & Jesús Rodrigo-Comino & Enric Terol & Gaspar Mora-Navarro & Alexandre Marco da Silva & Ioannis N. Daliakopoulos & Hassan Khosravi & Manuel Pulido Fernández & Artemi Cerdà, 2020. "Quantifying Soil Compaction in Persimmon Orchards Using ISUM (Improved Stock Unearthing Method) and Core Sampling Methods," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Wu, Yinyin & Wang, Ping & Liu, Xin & Chen, Jiandong & Song, Malin, 2020. "Analysis of regional carbon allocation and carbon trading based on net primary productivity in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).

    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:14:y:2022:i:6:p:3483-:d:772847. 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.