The Ecological Footprint Analysis for Assessing Carrying Capacity of Industrial Zone in Semarang

The industrial sector progress in Central Java has led to many achievements such as increasing regional economic growth, employment and business opportunities. However, industrial activities also led to a variety of negative impacts associated with environmental and social problems that can degrade the quality of the environment and in turn, will reduce the carrying capacity of the environment. This study aims to find the answer if the ecological footprint of Semarang Industrial Zone has surpassed its biocapacity, seen from the aspect of land suitability, the availability of water and energy as well as waste assimilation, and therefore the ecological deficit could be calculated. This study employed positivistic paradigm with quantitative analysis and explanatory research type. The study is conducted in Semarang Industrial zone using survey and case study, which aims to examine the ecological footprint of Semarang industrial zone. Research materials include ecological footprint calculation of Semarang industrial zone, assessing the magnitude of biocapacity and ecological deficit/remainder. The results showed that Semarang industrial zone has exceeded its environmental carrying capacity (overshoot). To support the sustainability of Semarang industrial activity, cleaner production system and ecological friendly industry that led to the development of Eco Industrial Park should be implemented. More of it, it is important to keep on using natural resources and energy efficiently, not producing the type of products which could harm the natural system, not changing the layout of the zone specified on the masterplan, particularly for open space, for water infiltration and greening, and not violating the basic building coefficient determined.

[1]  E Roca,et al.  An approach for the application of the Ecological Footprint as environmental indicator in the textile sector. , 2008, Journal of hazardous materials.

[2]  Yoshihiko Wada,et al.  The appropriated carrying capacity of tomato production : comparing the ecological footprints of hydroponic greenhouse and mechanized field operations , 1993 .

[3]  Mathis Wackernagel,et al.  The Ecological Footprint: an Indicator of Progress Toward Regional Sustainability , 1998 .

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

[5]  D. Meadows,et al.  The Limits to Growth , 2018, Green Planet Blues.

[6]  J. Bergh,et al.  Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’ , 1999 .

[7]  R. Boerner,et al.  Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems , 1990 .

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

[9]  Mathis Wackernagel,et al.  The Ecological Footprint: an Indicator of Progress Toward Regional Sustainability , 1998 .

[10]  Pamela A. Matson,et al.  HUMAN APPROPRIATION OF THE PRODUCTS OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS , 1986 .

[11]  S. Hadi Planning for industrialization in central Java, Indonesia : the process, the impacts and the alternatives , 1993 .

[12]  Dong Kun Lee,et al.  Determining development density using the Urban Carrying Capacity Assessment System , 2005 .

[13]  Mathis Wackernagel,et al.  Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework , 2013 .

[14]  김경태,et al.  Ecological Footprint를 활용한 도시의 환경용량 평가 , 2006 .

[15]  M. Wackernagel,et al.  Our ecological footprint , 1996 .