Ecological Footprint and Ecosystem Services Models: A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Carrying Capacity Calculation Approach in Indonesia

R. Subekti, D. Suroso
{"title":"Ecological Footprint and Ecosystem Services Models: A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Carrying Capacity Calculation Approach in Indonesia","authors":"R. Subekti, D. Suroso","doi":"10.1088/1755-1315/158/1/012026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Calculation of environmental carrying capacity can be done by various approaches. The selection of an appropriate approach determines the success of determining and applying environmental carrying capacity. This study aimed to compare the ecological footprint approach and the ecosystem services approach for calculating environmental carrying capacity. It attempts to describe two relatively new models that require further explanation if they are used to calculate environmental carrying capacity. In their application, attention needs to be paid to their respective advantages and weaknesses. Conceptually, the ecological footprint model is more complete than the ecosystem services model, because it describes the supply and demand of resources, including supportive and assimilative capacity of the environment, and measurable output through a resource consumption threshold. However, this model also has weaknesses, such as not considering technological change and resources beneath the earth’s surface, as well as the requirement to provide trade data between regions for calculating at provincial and district level. The ecosystem services model also has advantages, such as being in line with strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of ecosystem services, using spatial analysis based on ecoregions, and a draft regulation on calculation guidelines formulated by the government. Meanwhile, weaknesses are that it only describes the supply of resources, that the assessment of the different types of ecosystem services by experts tends to be subjective, and that the output of the calculation lacks a resource consumption threshold.","PeriodicalId":14556,"journal":{"name":"IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science","volume":"441 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/158/1/012026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Calculation of environmental carrying capacity can be done by various approaches. The selection of an appropriate approach determines the success of determining and applying environmental carrying capacity. This study aimed to compare the ecological footprint approach and the ecosystem services approach for calculating environmental carrying capacity. It attempts to describe two relatively new models that require further explanation if they are used to calculate environmental carrying capacity. In their application, attention needs to be paid to their respective advantages and weaknesses. Conceptually, the ecological footprint model is more complete than the ecosystem services model, because it describes the supply and demand of resources, including supportive and assimilative capacity of the environment, and measurable output through a resource consumption threshold. However, this model also has weaknesses, such as not considering technological change and resources beneath the earth’s surface, as well as the requirement to provide trade data between regions for calculating at provincial and district level. The ecosystem services model also has advantages, such as being in line with strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of ecosystem services, using spatial analysis based on ecoregions, and a draft regulation on calculation guidelines formulated by the government. Meanwhile, weaknesses are that it only describes the supply of resources, that the assessment of the different types of ecosystem services by experts tends to be subjective, and that the output of the calculation lacks a resource consumption threshold.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生态足迹与生态系统服务模型:印尼环境承载力计算方法的比较分析
环境承载力的计算方法多种多样。选择合适的方法决定了环境承载力的确定和应用是否成功。本研究旨在比较生态足迹法与生态系统服务法计算环境承载力的差异。它试图描述两个相对较新的模型,如果它们用于计算环境承载力,则需要进一步解释。在应用时,需要注意它们各自的优缺点。从概念上讲,生态足迹模型比生态系统服务模型更完整,因为它描述了资源的供给和需求,包括环境的支持和同化能力,以及通过资源消耗阈值的可测量产出。然而,这个模型也有缺点,比如没有考虑到技术变革和地下资源,以及需要提供地区之间的贸易数据,以便在省和地区一级进行计算。生态系统服务模式也有其优势,如符合生态系统服务战略环境评价(SEA),采用基于生态区域的空间分析,以及政府制定的计算指南条例草案。同时,其不足之处在于仅描述了资源的供给,专家对不同类型生态系统服务的评价往往是主观的,计算的输出缺乏资源消耗阈值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Peer Review Statement Response Surface Methodological Approach for the Adsorptive Removal of Geosmin and 2-Methylisoborneol on Sodium Hydroxide-Treated Powdered Activated Carbon Torrefaction performance of Macadamia husk under a flue gas atmosphere for solid biofuel applications Assessing the Techno-Economics of Solar-Assisted Absorption Air Conditioning in a University Building in Jordan Wyoming's produced water: Analysis and green hydrogen potential
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1