Assessment Bio Capacity and Ecological Footprint of Urban Ecosystems (Case study: Hamedan)

Subject Areas : landuse

Parisa Farhadi ¹ , Alireza Eldermi ² , Mirmihardad Migranir ³

1 - Senior Researcher of the Environment, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran
2 - Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran
3 - Environmental Assistant, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran

Received: 2018-04-15 Accepted : 2019-03-16 Published : 2021-03-21

Keywords: Ecological Defect, Hamedan, global hectare, Ecological sustainability, Supply and Demand,

Abstract :

Background and Purpose: Knowledge of the ecological conditions prevailing in the region is essential to achieve sustainable development and reduce the increasing degradation of natural resources and the environment. The ecological footprint index is of great interest as a way to measure levels of sustainability. In this study, using the ecological footprint index of Hamedan urban ecosystem in 2014, it was studied. Material and Methods: In this study, ecological traces of consumption in two parts of consumption and production of the city were evaluated. The ecological footprint of the consumption sector was estimated in each of the four urban areas and using SPSS software, a significant difference between the areas, was determined. Results: The results showed that per capita ecological footprints in the consumption sector, including housing, transportation services, goods and food, were 0.13 globalhectares. The most significant ecological footprints in this section was of transportation with 3980.499 (gh) and the least important Foot print in this regard was food with 3864.6 global hectare; therefore, the urban living capacity was determined 0.59 globl hectare. Conclusion: The results indicate that the ecological footprint of the consumption sector does not create the unsustainability of the urban ecosystem and, by creating an ecological surplus in this part, the city of Hamedan is introduced as a creditor of ecology. Which indicates in this sector that the demand is lower than the supply. Besides, there is no significant difference between the ecological effects of consumption in four urban areas. It was also concluded that there was an ecological deficiency in production sector which indicates of ecosystem bioaccumulation consumption and it could disturb the ecological stability of the ecosystem.

References:

1. Gergely, T. (2016). The historical ecological Footprint: From over-population over-consamptive. Ecological Indicators, 60, 283-291.


2. Washington, H. (2015). Overshoot. Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. ISBN: 978-0-12-409548-9.


3. Tahseen, S, Moinul, H. (2012). International Conference on Environment Science and Engieering IPCBEE ,3 2.


4. Gall, A. (2015). On the rationale and pdicyusefulness of Ecological Footprint Accounting: The case of Morocco. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE POLICY, 48, 210-224.


5. Jame Pour, M., Hatami Nejad, H.(2013). Investigating the Status of Sustainable Development in Rasht by Using Ecological Footprint Method. Human Resource Research. 45 (3). PP 208-191.Persian


6. Browne, D., O’Regan, B,.Moles.R. (2011) Material Flow Accounting in an Trish City-Region 1992-2002, Cleaner Production, 19(9-10), pp. 967-976.


7. Rees, W. E. (2012) Cities as Dissipative Structure: Global Change and the Vulnerability of Urban Civilization, Sustainability Science, the Emerging Paradigm and the Urban Environment, pp. 247-273.


8. Liu, D., Chang, Q. (2015) Ecological Security Research Progress in China, Acta EcologicaSinica, 35 (5), pp. 111-121.


9. Shayesteh, K. et al. (2016) Evaluation of Ecological Bird Capacity and Ecological Safety in Sanandaj by Ecological Footprint Method in 2016, Journal of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, Winter, No. 21, PP. 79-69. persian


10. Tam, T., Tway, T., Iha, K., Thompson, P.,Mooe, D. (2011). Ecological Footprint analysis San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA. Urban Research Association.Ecological Footprint Network.


11. Borucke, M. Moore, D. Cranston, G. Gracey, K. Iha, K. Larson, J. Wackernagel, M. Galli, A. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators 24, 518–533.


12. Sarma, A. K., Borthwick, L., Moralesa, J. (2012). Urban carrying capacity: Concept and calculation. Guwahati, Assam, India.


13. Graymore, M. L. M., Sipe, N. G., & Rickson, R. E. (2010). Sustaining human carrying capacity: a tool for regional sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics.69(3), 459- 468.


14. Shi, Y., Wang, H., & Yin, C. (2013). Evaluation method of urban land population carrying capacity based on GISdA case of Shanghai, China.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 39, 27- 38.


15. Li,A., Tian, M.,  Wang, H., Wang, H., Yu, J. (2014).Development of an ecological security evaluation methodbased on the ecological footprint and applicationto a typical steppe region in Chin.Ecological Indicators 39(7) 153– 159.


16. Senbel, M., McDaniels, T., Dowlatabadi, H. (2003). The ecological footprint: a non-monetary metric of human consumption applied to North America. Glob.Environ. Change 13 (2), 83–100.


17. Galli, A. Wiedmann, TH. Ercin, E. Knoblauch, D. Ewing, B. Giljum, S. (2015). Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water footprint into a “Footprint Family” of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological Indicators 16, 100–112.

18. Mohammadi, N. Assessment of ecological capacity and ecological safety of Sanandaj city using the method of ecological traces. Master's thesis. Environmental group. University of Malayer Iran 1394. Page 87. persian