The change in values for ecological footprint indices following land-use change in a Loess Plateau watershed in China

Sustainability was defined as the continuous support of human quality of life within a region’s ecological carrying capacity. Ecological footprint was a quantitatively measuring indicator to analyze the sustainable use of natural resources and had been widely used to evaluate whether the development of a certain region was within the range of the capacity of natural ecosystem. In the present study, production data, consumption data and statistics communique of Zhifanggou watershed were analyzed to determine per capita ecological footprint, biological carrying capacity and related indices. On the basis of theory a model was applied that showed the biologically productive land area required by a defined population—ecological footprint model before and after grain for green policy. Result showed that after introducing the grain for green policy, per capita ecological footprint was reduced from 0.733 to 0.650 hm2 cap−1 and biological capacity was increased from 1.559 to 1.567 hm2 cap−1. There was a surplus of ecosystem resources both before and after the grain for green policy and this increased as a result of the policy. The related ecological footprint indices analysis showed that 10,000 RMB of GDP of ecological footprint was reduced, but ecological efficiency, ecological footprint index, bio-diversity of ecological footprint and system development ability increased Results demonstrated that conditions in this watershed improved and development potential was enhanced. Meanwhile, the sensitive index of forestland was strengthened more than other biological productive areas after introducing the policy. In adjusting and improving the land use structure created a resource-saving mode, forming resource-saving increase mode gradually, and triggering sustained consumption which will improve the ecological environment of zhifanggou watershed in the future.

[1]  J. Randers,et al.  Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  Mathis Wackernagel,et al.  Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity assessments , 2004 .

[3]  Edward Smeets,et al.  Ecological footprints of Benin, Bhutan, Costa Rica and the Netherlands , 2000 .

[4]  E. KostShelton,et al.  Growth and development. , 1951, Ciba clinical symposia.

[5]  Geoffrey P. Hammond,et al.  Cities and Sustainability , 2003 .

[6]  R. Ulanowicz.  Growth and development : ecosystems phenomenology , 1988 .

[7]  Mathis Wackernagel,et al.  Sharing Nature's Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability , 2000 .

[8]  Ross Cullen,et al.  New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy , 1998 .

[9]  J. Barrett,et al.  A material flow analysis and Ecological Footprint of York , 2002 .

[10]  Gene Bazan.  Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth , 1997 .

[11]  Brad R. Ewing,et al.  Living planet report 2008 , 2004 .

[12]  William E. Rees,et al.  Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out , 1992 .

[13]  G. Brundtland,et al.  Our common future , 1987 .

[14]  Mathis Wackernagel,et al.  Natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept , 1999 .

[15]  G. D. Jenerette,et al.  Contrasting water footprints of cities in China and the United States , 2006 .

[16]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[17]  Yang Gui.  Touristic ecological footprint:a new yardstick to assess sustainability of tourism , 2005 .