Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 286–292 | Cite as

Ecological Footprint dynamics of Yunnan, China

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

A fundamental element of sustainable development is that humans live within nature’s biological capacity. Quantifying this, however, remains a significant challenge for which there are many emerging tools. The concept of the Ecological Footprint is one such accounting tool for comprehensive assessment of the status of sustainable development, based on integration of resource consumption and land capacity, reflecting the human impact on the environment. A region’s development is defined as unsustainable when the Ecological Footprint surpasses the biological capacity. In this paper, the Ecological Footprint concept was applied in assessing the development of Yunnan Province, China in a period between 1988 and 2006. The results showed that the Ecological Footprint per capita in Yunnan rose from 0.854 gha in 1988 to 2.11 gha in 2006. Ecological deficit, defined as when the human demand on the land surpasses the regions biological productive capacity, emerged in 1991 and quickly increased from 0.02 gha in 1991 to 1.05 gha in 2006. The increase in the ecological deficit is primarily a result of the rapid increase in population and consumption level. To achieve sustainable development in Yunnan, production and consumption rates need to be modified.

Key words

Ecological Footprint biological capacity ecological deficit sustainable development Yunnan China 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Bicknell, K.B., Ball, R.J., Cullen, R., Bigsby, H.R., 1998, New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy. Ecological Economics 27:149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. EPA Victoria, 2008, Ecological Footprint Calculator. 〈http://epa.vic.gov.au/eco-footprint/〉 (Retrieved March 3, 2009)
  3. Fischer, G., Makowski, M., Granat., 1999, AEZWIN: An interactive multiple-criteria analysis tool for land resources appraisal, World Soil Resources Reports, Rome.Google Scholar
  4. Folke, C., Jansson, A., Larsson, J., Costanza, R., 1997, Ecosystem appropriation by cities. Ambio 26:167–172.Google Scholar
  5. Global Footprint Network, The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2008. 〈http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/publications/〉 (Retrieved March 9, 2009)
  6. Haberl, H., Erb, K., Krausmann, F., 2001, How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time: the case of Austria 1926–1995. Ecological Economic 38(1): 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanley, N., I. Moffatt, et al., 1999, Measuring sustainability: A time series of alternative indicators for Scotland. Ecological economics 28: 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Institute of geographical science and natural resources research, CAS, China natural resources database. 〈http://www.naturalresources.csdb.cn/〉 (Retrieved Oct 18, 2008)
  9. Liu J., He D., 2006, Research agenda for understanding transboundary ecosystem changes and eco-security in Southwestern China. Journal of Mountain Science 3(1): 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liu Yuhui, Peng Xihui., 2004, Time series of ecological footprint in China between 1962–2001: Calculation and assessment of development sustainability. Acta Ecological Sinica 24(10): 2257–2262. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  11. McDonald, G.W., Patterson, M.G, 2004, Ecological footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions. Ecological Economics 50: 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., Deumling, D., 2004, Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy 12(3): 231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rees, W.E., 1992, Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment & Urbanization 4: 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rees, W.E., 2000, Eco-footprint analysis: merits and brickbats. Ecological Economics 32: 371–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Scotti, M., Bondavalli, C., Bodini, A., 2009, Ecological footprint as a tool for local sustainability: the municipality of Piacenza (Italy) as a case study. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29: 39–50.Google Scholar
  16. Strategy Research Group of Sustainable Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences (SRGSD-CAS), 2006, Strategic Report: China’s Sustainable Development. Beijing: Science Press.Google Scholar
  17. Tao Zaipu, 2003, Eco-Rucksack and Eco-footprint. Beijing: Economic Science Press. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Erb, K. -H., Haberl, H. and Schulz, N. B., 2004a, Ecological footprint time series of Austria, the Philippines, and South Korea for 1961–1999: comparing the conventional approach to an ‘actual land area’ approach. Land Use Policy 21: 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wackernagel, M., C. Monfreda. Et al., National Footprint and Biocapacity Account 2004b. 〈https://dspace.ist.utl.pt/Bitstream/2295/45040/1/FootprintMethod_Paper.pdf〉 (Retrieved Nov 12, 2008)
  20. Wackernagel, M., Larry Onisto et al., 1999, National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics 29: 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wackernagel, M., Rees, B., 1996, Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Warren-Rhodes, K., Koeing, A., 2001, Ecosystem appropriation by Hong Kong and its implications for sustainable development. Ecological Economics 39: 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wood, R., Garnett, S., 2009, An assessment of environmental sustainability in Northern Australia using the ecological footprint and with reference to indigenous population and remoteness. Ecological Economics 68: 1375–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. World Commission on Environment and Development (WECD), 1987, Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. World Resources Institute (WRI), 2005, World Resources 2005, The Wealth of the Poor: Managing ecosystems to fight poverty. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  26. World Wide Fund for Nature, Living Planet Report 2004. 〈 http://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/living_planet_report/linving_planet_report_timeline/lpr04/index.cfm〉 (Retrieved Nov 14, 2008)
  27. World Wide Fund for Nature, Living Planet Report 2008. 〈http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/〉 (Retrieved March 9, 2009)
  28. Xu Zhongmin, Zhang Zhiqiang, et al., 2003, Ecological footprint calculation and development capacity analysis of China in 1999. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology 14(2): 280–285. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  29. Xu Zhongmin, Zhang Zhiqiang, et al., 2000, The Calculation and Analysis of Ecological Footprints of Gansu Province. China Population, Resources and Environment 55(5): 607–616. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  30. Yunnan Provincial Environmental Protection Bureau: Yunnan Environmental Bulletin 2004. 〈http://www.7c.gov.cn/color/DisplayPages/ContentDisplay_390.aspx?contentid=12679〉 (Retrieved Nov 2, 2008)
  31. Yunnan Provincial Statistics Bureau, 2007, Statistical Yearbook of Yunnan 2007. Beijing: China Statistical Press. (In Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Asian International Rivers CenterYunnan UniversityKunmingChina
  2. 2.The University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations