ارزیابی وضعیت پایداری در کلان‌شهر اهواز با استفاده از روش جای پای اکولوژیک

محورهای موضوعی : محیط زیست شهری

محمد رحیم رهنما ¹ , سید مصطفی حسینی ²

1 - استاد گروه جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشکده ادبیات، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
2 - دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری. *(مسوول مکاتبات)

تاریخ دریافت : 1394/04/07 تاریخ پذیرش : 1395/02/29 تاریخ انتشار : 1400/07/01

کلید واژه: جای پای اکولوژیک, ظرفیت زیستی, توسعه پایدار, کلان‌شهر اهواز,

چکیده مقاله :

زمینه و هدف: یکی از مهم‌ترین شروط ارتقا کیفیت زندگی در حال و آینده، دست‌یابی به توسعه‌ای پایدار در سطح جامعه است. توسعه پایدار مفهومی پیچیده و مبهم بوده که همواره با روش‌های مختلفی مورد سنجش قرار گرفته است. امروزه بهترین روش تعیین میزان پایداری جوامع، بررسی اثرات فعالیت‌های انسان بر طبیعت است. بر این اساس، در این پژوهش با بررسی وضعیت جای پای اکولوژیک و ظرفیت زیستی شهر اهواز، وضعیت پایداری در این شهر مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. روش بررسی: پژوهش حاضر از لحاظ هدف کاربردی است که با استفاده از روش توصیفی تحلیلی انجام شده است. در این پژوهش ابتدا جای پای اکولوژیک و ظرفیت زیستی کلان‌شهر اهواز تعیین گردید، سپس وضعیت این کلان‌شهر با شرایط جهان، آسیا و ایران از نظر جای پای اکولوژیک و ظرفیت زیستی مورد مقایسه قرار گرفت. یافته‌ها: نتایج حاصل از تحقیق نشان داد که سرانه جای پای مصرف در شهر اهواز برابر با 4/1 هکتار و برای کل شهر 356/1542298 هکتار و سرانه ظرفیت زیستی در این شهر برابر با 406/0 هکتار و برای کل شهر 1/444751 هکتار است که در این بین سهم جای پای مصرف در بخش حمل و نقل با 69/0 هکتار و سهم جای پای آب با 006/0 هکتار به ترتیب بیش‌ترین و کم‌ترین سهم را در جای پای اکولوژیک کلی شهر اهواز دارند. بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج نشان داد که جای پای اکولوژیک شهر اهواز نسبت به سطح جهانی 85/47 درصد، نسبت به آسیا 9/20 درصد و نسبت به کشور 46/47 درصد و ظرفیت زیستی این شهر نسبت به جهان 18/77 درصد، نسبت به آسیا 48/50 درصد و نسبت به کشور 87/49 درصد کم‌تر است.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background and Objectives: One of the most important conditions for improvement of the quality of life in present and future is attainment of a sustainable development in society. Sustainable development is a complicated and nebulous concept, which has been assessed through many different methods. Today, the best method for determining the level of the sustainability of societies consists in analyzing the effects of human activities on nature. Accordingly, in this study the situation of sustainability in Ahvaz city is assessed through analysis of the situation of ecologic footprint as well as the biological capacity of Ahvaz City. Material and Methodology: The present research enjoys an applied objective and it is done in a descriptive-analytic manner. In this research, the ecologic footprint and the biological capacity of Ahvaz city were determined in the first place and in the second place, the situation of this mega city was compared to the circumstances of the world, Asia and Iran. Findings: The results of the study display that the footprint share of consumption in Ahvaz city is equal to 1.4 hectare and for the whole city it is 1542298.356 hectares and the share of biological capacity in the city is equal to 0.406 hectare and for the whole city it is 444751.1 hectare. The share of transportation footprint and the share of water footprint are the most and the least shares, respectively, in Ahvaz City. Discussion and Conclusion: The results show that the ecological footprint of Ahvaz City in comparison to the world level, Asia, and the country is less by 47.85, 20.9 and 47.46 percents, respectively. In addition, the biological capacity of the city is less in comparison to the world, Asia and Iran by 77.18, 50.48 and 49.87 percents, respectively.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Morse, S. 2008. Post sustainable development. Sustainable development, No.I6, 341352(http://www.interscience.wiley.com).


2. Maleki, S., Damanbagh., S. 2013. Evaluation of sustainable development indexes with emphasis on physical and social indexes and urban services (A case study of Ahvaz city), Journal of urban structure and function studies, 1(3), 29-54. (In Persian)


3. Jomepour, M., Hataminejad, H., Shahanavaz, S. 2013. An Investigation on Sustainable Development in Rasht County Using Ecological Footprint, Human Geography Research Quarterly, 45(3), 191-208. (In Persian)


4. Eva, D., Javier, F., Salvador, O., and et al. 2012. Carbon and ecological footprints as toolsfor evaluating the environmental impact of coal mine ventilation air. EcologicalIndicators, No. 18, pp. 126–130.


5. Kitzes, J., Moran, D., Galli, A., Wada, Y., and Wackernagel, M. 2009. Interpretation and application of the Ecological Footprint: a reply to Fiala (2008). Ecol. Econ. No. 68, pp. 929–930.


6. Wackernagel, M., Schulz, B., Deumling, D., Linares, A.C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Monfreda, C., Loh, J., Myers, N., Norgaard, R., and Randers, J. 2002. Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. PNAS Vol. 99, No.14, pp. 9266–9271.


7. Bin, G., Parker, P., 2012. Measuring buildings for sustainability: comparing the initial and retrofit ecological footprint of a century home—The REEP House. Appl. Energy No. 93, pp. 24–32.


8. Walsh, C., O’Regan, B., and Moles, R. 2009. Incorporating methane into Ecological Footprint analysis: a case study of Ireland. Ecol. Econ. No. 68, pp. 1952–1962.


9. Zhao, S., Li, Z., Li, W. 2005. A modified method of Ecological Footprint calculation and its application. Ecol. Model. No.185, pp. 65–75.


10. National Footprint Accounts 2016 (Data Year 2012); World Development Indicators, The World Bank (2016); U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Retrieval 2017/02/09 from http://www.footprint network.org /content/documents/ecological footprint nations.


11. Galli, A. 2015. On the rationale and policy usefulness of Ecological Footprint Accounting: The case of Morocco. Environmental science & policy, No.48, pp. 210-224.


12. González-Vallejo, P., Marrero, M., and Solis Guzman, J. 2015. The ecological footprint of dwelling construction in Spain. Ecological Indicators, No. 52, pp.75-84.


13. Liu, M., Zhang, D., Min, Q., Xie, G., and Su, N. 2014. The calculation of productivity factor for ecological footprints in China: A methodological note. Ecological Indicators, No.38, pp.124-129.


14. Saraei., M.A, Zareei, A. 2011. Study of Ecological Capital with EF Index: Case Study, Iran, Geography and environmental planning, 22(1), 97-106. (In Persian)


15. Shakor., A, Qureishi., B, Lashkari., Lashkari., M, Jafari., M, 2011. Evaluation and evaluation of how tourism is sustainable in the lost paradise of Bavan Mamasani using ecological footprint model, Journal of New Attitudes in Human Geography Quarterly, No. 3, 57-67. (In Persian)


16. Wackernagel, M., Rees, W.E. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, Canada.


17. Zhang, G.B., and Wang, A.Z. 2007. The ecological footprint of middle China in 2004.Ecology and Environment, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 598–601 (in Chinese. (


18. Wackernagel, M. 2013. Letter to the Editor: comment on Ecological Footprint policy? Land use as an environmental indicator. J. Ind. Ecol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1 111/ jiec. 12094


19. Rees, W.E., and Wackernagel, M. 2013. The shoe fits, but the footprint is larger than earth. PLoS Biol. No. 11 (11) e1001701, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pbio. 1001 701.


20. Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Schulz, N.B., and et al. 2004. Calculating national andglobal ecological footprint time series: resolving conceptual challenges. LandUse Policy, No. 21, pp. 271–278.


21. Chambers, N., Simmons, C., and Wackernagel, M. 2001. Ecological Footprint Analysis:Towards a Sustainability Indicator for Business. Earthscan Publications Ltd.,London.


22. Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., and Verbruggen, H. 1999. Spatial sustainability, trade and indica-tors: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’. Ecological Economics No. 29, pp. 61–72.


23. Gharakhluo, M., Hataminezhad, H., Baghvand., A. Yalve., M. 2013. Urban Sustainable Development Assessment with Regard to Footprint Ecological Method (Case Study: Kermanshah City), Human Geography Research Quarterly, 45(2), 105-120. (In Persian)


24. Rahnama, M.R., Ebadinia, F. 2015. Analysis of Sustainable Transportation in Mashhad Using Ecological Footprint, Journal of Geography and environmental Hazards, 3(3), 93-106. (In Persian)


25. Pezzetta,W.E., Drossman H. 2005.The Ecological Footprint of the Colorado College: An Examination of Sustainability. http://www2.coloradocollege.edu/ Sustainability/ Eco Footprint.


26. Management and Planning Organization of Khuzestan Province, 2013. Statistical Yearbook of Khuzestan Province, (In Persian).


27. Samadpour, P., Faryadi., SH., 2008. Determination of Ecological Footprints of Dense and High-Rise Districts, Case Study of Elahie Neighborhood-Tehran, Journal of environmental studies, 34(45), 63-72. (In Persian)


28. Deputy of Planning and Development of Ahvaz Municipality, 2011. Ahvaz City Statistics, Public Relations and International Affairs Publications of Ahvaz Municipality. (In Persian)


29. Hosseinzadeh Dalir, K., Sasanpour., F. 2006. Ecological method in the sustainability of metropolises, with a view to the metropolis of Tehran. Geographical Research Quarterly, No. 3, 83-101. (In Persian)