Cargando…

A Comparative Analysis on Assessment of Land Carrying Capacity with Ecological Footprint Analysis and Index System Method

Land carrying capacity (LCC) explains whether the local land resources are effectively used to support economic activities and/or human population. LCC can be evaluated commonly with two approaches, namely ecological footprint analysis (EFA) and the index system method (ISM). EFA is helpful to inves...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Qian, Yao, Tang, Lina, Qiu, Quanyi, Xu, Tong, Liao, Jiangfu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4487952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26121142
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130315
_version_ 1782379066751451136
author Qian, Yao
Tang, Lina
Qiu, Quanyi
Xu, Tong
Liao, Jiangfu
author_facet Qian, Yao
Tang, Lina
Qiu, Quanyi
Xu, Tong
Liao, Jiangfu
author_sort Qian, Yao
collection PubMed
description Land carrying capacity (LCC) explains whether the local land resources are effectively used to support economic activities and/or human population. LCC can be evaluated commonly with two approaches, namely ecological footprint analysis (EFA) and the index system method (ISM). EFA is helpful to investigate the effects of different land categories whereas ISM can be used to evaluate the contributions of social, environmental, and economic factors. Here we compared the two LCC-evaluation approaches with data collected from Xiamen City, a typical region where rapid economic growth and urbanization are found in China. The results show that LCC assessments with EFA and ISM not only complement each other but also are mutually supportive. Both assessments suggest that decreases in arable land and increasingly high energy consumption have major negative effects on LCC and threaten sustainable development for Xiamen City. It is important for the local policy makers, planners and designers to reduce ecological deficits by controlling fossil energy consumption, protecting arable land and forest land from converting into other land types, and slowing down the speed of urbanization, and to promote sustainability by controlling rural-to-urban immigration, increasing hazard-free treatment rate of household garbage, and raising energy consumption per unit industrial added value. Although EFA seems more appropriate for estimating LCC for a resource-output or self-sufficient region and ISM is more suitable for a resource-input region, both approaches should be employed when perform LCC assessment in any places around the world.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4487952
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44879522015-07-02 A Comparative Analysis on Assessment of Land Carrying Capacity with Ecological Footprint Analysis and Index System Method Qian, Yao Tang, Lina Qiu, Quanyi Xu, Tong Liao, Jiangfu PLoS One Research Article Land carrying capacity (LCC) explains whether the local land resources are effectively used to support economic activities and/or human population. LCC can be evaluated commonly with two approaches, namely ecological footprint analysis (EFA) and the index system method (ISM). EFA is helpful to investigate the effects of different land categories whereas ISM can be used to evaluate the contributions of social, environmental, and economic factors. Here we compared the two LCC-evaluation approaches with data collected from Xiamen City, a typical region where rapid economic growth and urbanization are found in China. The results show that LCC assessments with EFA and ISM not only complement each other but also are mutually supportive. Both assessments suggest that decreases in arable land and increasingly high energy consumption have major negative effects on LCC and threaten sustainable development for Xiamen City. It is important for the local policy makers, planners and designers to reduce ecological deficits by controlling fossil energy consumption, protecting arable land and forest land from converting into other land types, and slowing down the speed of urbanization, and to promote sustainability by controlling rural-to-urban immigration, increasing hazard-free treatment rate of household garbage, and raising energy consumption per unit industrial added value. Although EFA seems more appropriate for estimating LCC for a resource-output or self-sufficient region and ISM is more suitable for a resource-input region, both approaches should be employed when perform LCC assessment in any places around the world. Public Library of Science 2015-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4487952/ /pubmed/26121142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130315 Text en © 2015 Qian et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Qian, Yao
Tang, Lina
Qiu, Quanyi
Xu, Tong
Liao, Jiangfu
A Comparative Analysis on Assessment of Land Carrying Capacity with Ecological Footprint Analysis and Index System Method
title A Comparative Analysis on Assessment of Land Carrying Capacity with Ecological Footprint Analysis and Index System Method
title_full A Comparative Analysis on Assessment of Land Carrying Capacity with Ecological Footprint Analysis and Index System Method
title_fullStr A Comparative Analysis on Assessment of Land Carrying Capacity with Ecological Footprint Analysis and Index System Method
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Analysis on Assessment of Land Carrying Capacity with Ecological Footprint Analysis and Index System Method
title_short A Comparative Analysis on Assessment of Land Carrying Capacity with Ecological Footprint Analysis and Index System Method
title_sort comparative analysis on assessment of land carrying capacity with ecological footprint analysis and index system method
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4487952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26121142
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130315
work_keys_str_mv AT qianyao acomparativeanalysisonassessmentoflandcarryingcapacitywithecologicalfootprintanalysisandindexsystemmethod
AT tanglina acomparativeanalysisonassessmentoflandcarryingcapacitywithecologicalfootprintanalysisandindexsystemmethod
AT qiuquanyi acomparativeanalysisonassessmentoflandcarryingcapacitywithecologicalfootprintanalysisandindexsystemmethod
AT xutong acomparativeanalysisonassessmentoflandcarryingcapacitywithecologicalfootprintanalysisandindexsystemmethod
AT liaojiangfu acomparativeanalysisonassessmentoflandcarryingcapacitywithecologicalfootprintanalysisandindexsystemmethod
AT qianyao comparativeanalysisonassessmentoflandcarryingcapacitywithecologicalfootprintanalysisandindexsystemmethod
AT tanglina comparativeanalysisonassessmentoflandcarryingcapacitywithecologicalfootprintanalysisandindexsystemmethod
AT qiuquanyi comparativeanalysisonassessmentoflandcarryingcapacitywithecologicalfootprintanalysisandindexsystemmethod
AT xutong comparativeanalysisonassessmentoflandcarryingcapacitywithecologicalfootprintanalysisandindexsystemmethod
AT liaojiangfu comparativeanalysisonassessmentoflandcarryingcapacitywithecologicalfootprintanalysisandindexsystemmethod