Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 891–900 | Cite as

Assessment of the ecological security in the three gorges reservoir area by using the ecological footprint method

  • Haiming WangEmail author
  • Hai’e Wang
  • Hongyang Sun
  • Xiaolan Wang
  • Xiaoyong Liao
  • Zhijian Chen
  • Xianwei Li


The ecological footprint concept and its calculation models are useful for the measurement of the sustainable level of social and economic development. The ecological security situation of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area (TGRA) was evaluated using this concept in this study. The construction of the Three Gorges Reservoir has led to the change in the ecology and immigration status of TGRA. The ecological footprint method is an important means to study the regional ecological security. Our results suggested that, by excluding the areas for biodiversity conservation (12% of the total land), the ecological footprint per capita was 0.57895 ha, which exceeded the ecological carrying capacity in TGRA. The total ecological deficit was found to be 11,522,193.34 ha, accounting for 95.02% of the ecological carrying capacity. These findings suggested that the ecological security of TGRA was not good. In order to compensate for the ecological deficit, it was essential to introduce natural resources from other regions.


Three Gorges Reservoir Area (TGRA) Ecological footprint Ecological security 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Castaneda BE (1999) An index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW) for Chile. Ecological Economic 28:231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen J (2007) Rapid urbanization in China: A real challenge to soil protection and food security. Catena 69(1):1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fang SB, Xiao DN, An SQ (2005) Regional ecosecurity pattern in urban area based on land use analysis: A case study in Lanzhou. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology 16(12):2284–2290. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  4. Fiala N (2008) Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science. Ecological Economics 67(4):519–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO Yearbook: Production 1994, Vol.48. FAO, Rome, 1995a.Google Scholar
  6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) FAO Yearbook: Forest Production 1993. FAO, Rome, 1995b.Google Scholar
  7. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) State of World’s Forests. FAO, Rome, 1995c.Google Scholar
  8. Grazi F, van den Bergh J CJM, Rietveld P (2007) Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade. Environmental and Resource Economics 38(1):135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hard P, Barg S (1997) Measuring Sustainable Sevelopment: Review of Current Practices. Occasional Paper Number 17. Industry Canada, Ottawa. pp 1–2, 49–51.Google Scholar
  10. Jeroen CJM, van den Bergh, Verbruggen H (1999) Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the’ ecological footprint’. Ecological Economics 29(1):61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jonathan L (2002) Living Planet Report 2002. WWF International, 2002. pp 6–15.Google Scholar
  12. Lieth H, Whittaker RH (1975) The Primary Productivity of the Biosphere. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lenzen M, Hansson CB, Bond S (2007) On the bioproductivity and land-disturbance metrics of the Ecological Footprint. Ecological Economics 61(1): 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Odum HT (1994) Ecological and General Systems. Revised edition. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  15. Our Common Futrue (1987) From One Earth to One World: Report of World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), An Overview by the World Commission on Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  16. Qu B, Xie SY, Zou H (2004) Ecological security problems of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area and countermeasures. Ecology and Environmental 13(1):146–148. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  17. Qu GP (2002) The problems of ecological environmental have become a popular subject of country safety. Environmental Protection 5:3–5. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Vitousek PM, Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH et al. (1986) Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience 34(6):368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wackernagel M, Rees WE (1996) Our Ecological Footprints: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island.Google Scholar
  20. Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P, et al. (1997) Ecological Footprint of Nations: How much nature do they use? How much do they have? Commissioned by the Earth Council for the Forums. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Toronto.Google Scholar
  21. Wachernagel M, Lewan L, Hanson CB (1999) Evaluating the use of natural capital with the ecological footprint: applications in Sweden and subregions.Ambio 28(7): 604–612.Google Scholar
  22. Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P, et al. (1999) National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics 29(3):375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang WM, Li JM (2001) Plan Sustainable Ecological Footprint Analysis Method. Territorial Economy 6:16–18. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  24. Xu WZ, Zhao Q, Luo WH et al. (2009) Assessment of ecological safety of Xuzhou City. Territory & Natural Resources Study (2):46–47.Google Scholar
  25. Xu ZM, Chen DJ, Zhang ZQ et al. (2002) Calculation and Analysis on Ecological Footprints of China. Acta Pedologica Sinica 39(3):441–445. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  26. Zhao YL, Zhou DS (2005) Urban Ecology. Science Press, Beijing. pp 66–67. (In Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haiming Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hai’e Wang
    • 2
  • Hongyang Sun
    • 1
  • Xiaolan Wang
    • 1
  • Xiaoyong Liao
    • 1
  • Zhijian Chen
    • 1
  • Xianwei Li
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Mountain Hazards and EnvironmentChinese Academy of SciencesChengduChina
  2. 2.Sichuan Academy of Agricultural SciencesChengduChina
  3. 3.Sichuan Agricultural UniversityYa’anChina

Personalised recommendations