Ecological footprint and ecological security evaluation in the Upper Min River Basin

Mountain Development


On the basis of the ecological footprint (EF) model, this paper studied the ecological security in the Upper Min River Basin ecosystem. The result shows that with 2. 038 2 hm2 per capita ecological capacity (0. 422 2 hm2 higher than per capita EF), and 165 825 hm2 ecology surplus, the ecosystem in Upper Min River is generally secure at present. But the arable land is overweighed and omens an ecosecurity crisis. Meanwhile, problems such as low forest coverage rate, severe loss of water and soil, enlargement of aridvalley area, frequent occurrence of mountain hazards and degradation of pastures have been major threats to the eco-security of this region. The calculation result of ten-thousand-yuan (RMB) GDP shows that the use of natural resources is, extensive, and there will be a rapid increase tendency of EF in the future. In order to maintain the present eco-security, the ways of use natural resources must be improved in the Upper Min River Basin.

Key words

ecological security ecological footprint ecological capacity quantificative evaluation the Upper Min River Basin 

CLC number

F 062. 2 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Yang Jing-ping, Lu Jian-bo.The Systems Analysis on Ecological Security. Beijing: Chemical Industry Publishing House, 2002. 26–27 (Ch).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bergh J, Verbruggen H. Spatial sustainability, Trade and Indicators: an Evaluation of the “Ecological Footprint”.Ecological Economics, 1999,29:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P,et al. National Natural Capital Accounting with the Ecological Footprint Concept.Ecological Economics, 1999,29:375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Zhang Zhi-qiang, Xu Zhong-min, Cheng Guo-dong,et al. The Ecological Footprint of the 12 Provinces of West China in 1999.Acta Geographica Sinica, 2001,56 (5): 599–609 (Ch).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Deng Luo, Yan Shun-sheng. Analysis of Ecological Footprint of Sichuan Province in 2001.Sichuan Environment, 2003,22 (6):45–47 (Ch).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Wang Wan-mao, Li Jun-mei. Ecological Footprint Analysis Method of Planning Sustainability.Land Economy, 2001,6: 16–18 (Ch).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Xu Zhong-min, Chen Dong-jing, Zhang Zhi-qiang,et al. Calculation and Analysis on Ecological Footprints of China.Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2002,39(3):441–445 (Ch).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    You Fei, Zhong You-li, Wang Chuan-sheng. Measuring and Forecasting Regional Sustainability of Ecological Economy: a Case Study of Wuwei City, Gansu Province, China.Journal of Natural Resources, 2002,17(6):743–749 (Ch).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Ye Yan-qiong, Chen Guo-jie, Fan Hong. Vulnerability of the Eco-environment in the Upper Reaches of Minjiang River.Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2002,11 (4): 383–387 (Ch).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Guo Xiu-rui, Yang Ju-rong, Mao Xian-qiang. Calculation and Analysis of Urban Ecological Footprint: a Case Study of Guangzhou.Geographical Research, 2003,22(5):654–662 (Ch).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Resources and Environment ScienceSouthwest China Normal UniversityChongqingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Mountain Hazards and EnvironmentChinese Academy of SciencesChengdu SichuanChina

Personalised recommendations