{"title":"Ecological footprint and carrying capacity of agricultural water-land-energy nexus in China","authors":"Xiaolei Ma , Hongxian Yuan","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Agriculture is the largest water and land using sector in China. From the perspective of energy utilization, agriculture serves both as a carbon source and a carbon sink sector. This paper employs the methods of agricultural water pollution ecological footprint and carrying capacity, biology ecological footprint and carrying capacity, as well as energy ecological footprint and carrying capacity to measure the spatio-temporal patterns of resource utilization and ecological pressure index of agricultural water-land-energy in china. The main conclusions are: (1) In 2020, China’s agricultural biological ecological footprint (BEF) was the highest, constituting nearly 66 % of the total and demonstrating an upward trend. The agricultural water pollution ecological footprint (PEF) was also significant, at approximately 33 %, but it exhibited a declining trend. In contrast, the agricultural energy ecological footprint (EEF) was the lowest. (2) Over the past 20 years, the per capita agricultural total ecological footprint (TEF) increased by 114.63 %. The per unit area agricultural ecological footprint changed slightly, ranging from 3.16 to 3.63 hm<sup>2</sup>. The ecological efficiency of agricultural economy had been greatly improved. (3) The TEF in Henan, Heilongjiang and Shandong provinces ranked among the highest level in China. However, the regions with the highest level of agricultural total ecological capacity (TEC) were Sichuan, Tibet and Hunan. (4) Tianjin and Henan provinces experience the highest agricultural ecological stress, with stress indices (TEF/TEC) reaching 1.42 and 1.14, respectively, indicating that the supply of agricultural ecological resources within these regions significantly lags behind their exploitation and utilization, which is unfavorable for the agricultural sustainable development. The results can unveil the temporal and spatial dynamics of agricultural resource pressure along with its underlying causes, while also offering strategies and recommendations for fostering sustainable agricultural development.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11459,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Indicators","volume":"168 ","pages":"Article 112786"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Indicators","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X24012433","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Agriculture is the largest water and land using sector in China. From the perspective of energy utilization, agriculture serves both as a carbon source and a carbon sink sector. This paper employs the methods of agricultural water pollution ecological footprint and carrying capacity, biology ecological footprint and carrying capacity, as well as energy ecological footprint and carrying capacity to measure the spatio-temporal patterns of resource utilization and ecological pressure index of agricultural water-land-energy in china. The main conclusions are: (1) In 2020, China’s agricultural biological ecological footprint (BEF) was the highest, constituting nearly 66 % of the total and demonstrating an upward trend. The agricultural water pollution ecological footprint (PEF) was also significant, at approximately 33 %, but it exhibited a declining trend. In contrast, the agricultural energy ecological footprint (EEF) was the lowest. (2) Over the past 20 years, the per capita agricultural total ecological footprint (TEF) increased by 114.63 %. The per unit area agricultural ecological footprint changed slightly, ranging from 3.16 to 3.63 hm2. The ecological efficiency of agricultural economy had been greatly improved. (3) The TEF in Henan, Heilongjiang and Shandong provinces ranked among the highest level in China. However, the regions with the highest level of agricultural total ecological capacity (TEC) were Sichuan, Tibet and Hunan. (4) Tianjin and Henan provinces experience the highest agricultural ecological stress, with stress indices (TEF/TEC) reaching 1.42 and 1.14, respectively, indicating that the supply of agricultural ecological resources within these regions significantly lags behind their exploitation and utilization, which is unfavorable for the agricultural sustainable development. The results can unveil the temporal and spatial dynamics of agricultural resource pressure along with its underlying causes, while also offering strategies and recommendations for fostering sustainable agricultural development.
期刊介绍:
The ultimate aim of Ecological Indicators is to integrate the monitoring and assessment of ecological and environmental indicators with management practices. The journal provides a forum for the discussion of the applied scientific development and review of traditional indicator approaches as well as for theoretical, modelling and quantitative applications such as index development. Research into the following areas will be published.
• All aspects of ecological and environmental indicators and indices.
• New indicators, and new approaches and methods for indicator development, testing and use.
• Development and modelling of indices, e.g. application of indicator suites across multiple scales and resources.
• Analysis and research of resource, system- and scale-specific indicators.
• Methods for integration of social and other valuation metrics for the production of scientifically rigorous and politically-relevant assessments using indicator-based monitoring and assessment programs.
• How research indicators can be transformed into direct application for management purposes.
• Broader assessment objectives and methods, e.g. biodiversity, biological integrity, and sustainability, through the use of indicators.
• Resource-specific indicators such as landscape, agroecosystems, forests, wetlands, etc.