Advertisement

Journal of Geographical Sciences

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 303–312 | Cite as

Geographical distribution of ecological footprint and sustainability analysis for Liaoning Province

  • Wang Qing
  • Gu Xiaowei
  • Liu Jianxing
  • Li Guangjun
  • Ding Yi
  • Liu Jingzhi
Research on Ecological Environment

Abstract

This paper presents the detailed results and analyses on the ecological footprints and bio-capacities of the individual cities and the province as a whole for the year 2001, providing a clear picture of sustainability for the province. Results show that the ecological footprints of most cities in Liaoning exceeded their respective bio-capacities, incurring high ecological deficits. The ecological deficit of the province as a whole was 1.31 ha/cap. Those cities with resources extraction and/or primary material-making as their major industries constitute the “ecologically black band”, whose ecological deficits ranged from 2.45 to 5.23 ha/cap, the highest of all cities in the province. Fossil energy consumption was the major source of footprint amounting to 1.63 ha/cap at the provincial level, taking up 67.3% of the total. For cropland, modest ecological surpluses occurred in Jinzhou, Tieling, Huludao, and Panjin while modest ecological deficits in Dalian, Benxi, Fushun, and Dandong, resulting in an overall surplus for the province. Liaoning had a certain level of surplus in fishing ground (water area), mainly distributed in the coastal cities of Dalian, Panjin, Huludao, Yingkou, Jinzhou, and Dandong. Most cities had a small ecological deficit in pasture and all had a small ecological surplus in forest. The eco-efficiency, expressed as GDP value per hectare of footprint, exhibits high variations among the cities, with the highest (Shenyang) more than 10 times the lowest (Fuxin). Cities with manufacture, high-tech, and better developed service industries had high eco-efficiency, while those with resources extraction, primary material-making, and less developed service industries had low eco-efficiency. Based on the components and geographical distribution of ecological footprint, strategic policy implications are outlined for Liaoning’s development toward a sustainable future.

Key words

Liaoning sustainable development ecological footprint bio-capacity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gernot Stoglehner, 2003. Ecological footprint: a tool for assessing sustainable energy supplies.Journal of Cleaner Production, 11: 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Maged Senbel, Timothy McDaniels, Hadi Dowlatabadi, 2003. The ecological footprint: a non-monetary metric of human consumption applied to North America.Globed Environmental Change, 13: 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lenzen M, Murray S A, 2001. A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia.Ecological Economics, 37: 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Rees W E, 2003. Economic development and environmental protection: an ecological economics perspective.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 86: 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Tao Zai-Pu (Austria), 2003. Eco-Rucksack and Eco-Footprint. Beijing: Economic Science Press, 161–168. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  6. Van Vuuren D P, Smeets E M W, 2000. Ecological footprints of Benin, Bhutan, Costa Rica and the Netherlands.Ecological Economics, 34: 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Van Vuuren, Smeets E, 2001. Ecological footprint: reply to A.R.B. Ferguson.Ecological Economics, 37: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello Pet al., 1997. Ecological Footprints of Nations: How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have? Commissioned by the Earth Council for the Rio+5 Forum. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Toronto, 4–12.Google Scholar
  9. Wackernagel M, Lewan L, Hansson C B, 1999. Evaluating the use of natural capital with the ecological footprint: application in Sweden and sub regions.Ambio, 28(7): 604–612.Google Scholar
  10. Wang Shuhua, Wang Zhongjing, 2003. Value of the coordination to eco-economy in mountain district based on ecological footprint model.Journal of Mountain Research, 21(3): 324–330. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  11. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Living Planet Report 2002. Avenue du Mont-Blanc CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland. Website: http//www.panda.org.Google Scholar
  12. York R, Rosa E A, Dietz T, 2003. Footprint on the Earth: the environmental consequences of modernity.American Sociological Review, 68(2): 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Xu Zhongmin, Cheng Guodong, Zhang Zhiqianget al., 2003. The calculation and analysis of ecological footprints, diversity and development capacity of China.Journal of Geographical Sciences, 13(1): 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zhang Zhiqiang, Xu Zhongmin, Cheng Guodonget al., 2001. The ecological footprint of the 12 provinces of West China in 1999.Acta Geographica Sinica, 56(5): 599–609. (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wang Qing
    • 1
  • Gu Xiaowei
    • 1
  • Liu Jianxing
    • 1
  • Li Guangjun
    • 1
  • Ding Yi
    • 1
  • Liu Jingzhi
    • 1
  1. 1.Resources and Ecological Economics Research CenterNortheastern UniversityShenyangChina

Personalised recommendations