10.57647/j.jrs.2025.1503.28

Analysis of environmental sustainability using ecological footprint and bio-carrying capacity

PDF
  • Somayeh Galdavi1,
  • Morteza Akbari*2,
  • Hadi Memarian3,
  • Mohamad Alizadeh Noughani2,
  • Hossein Aghajani4,
  1. Department of Water Sciences and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Kashmar Higher Education Institute, Kashmar, Iran
  2. Department of Desert and Arid Zones Management, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
  3. Department of Rangeland and Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran
  4. Regional Sustainable Urban Development Group, Academic Center for Education, Culture, and Research, Mashhad, Iran

Received: 2024-07-30

Revised: 2024-09-05

Accepted: 2024-11-05

Published in Issue 2025-07-20

Copyright (c) 2025 Somayeh Galdavi, Morteza Akbari, Hadi Memarian, Mohamad Alizadeh Noughani, Hossein Aghajani (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Galdavi, S., Akbari, M., Memarian, H., Alizadeh Noughani, M., & Aghajani, H. (2025). Analysis of environmental sustainability using ecological footprint and bio-carrying capacity. Journal of Rangeland Science, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.57647/j.jrs.2025.1503.28
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 195

Abstract

To achieve sustainable development, it is crucial to conserve natural lands and implement sustainable land-use strategies. Environmental sustainability can be measured using indicators like Ecological Carrying Capacity (ECC) and Biological Capacity (BC). In this study, the ecological sustainability and potential trends of land degradation of Khorasan Razavi in Northeastern Iran were assessed using both Ecological Footprint (EF) and biological capacity. EF was calculated based on a combination of carbon footprint, agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, and protein production and BC was determined according to land-use patterns. These indicators were analyzed at both regional and county levels to assess overall sustainability. The study area exhibited an EF of 31 Million (M) global hectares (gha) and a BC of 12.7 M gha, revealing an ecological deficit and unbalanced land development. To mitigate this, an area approximately 2.4 times larger than the current one would be required. In some parts of the region, the EF was found to be 21.1 M gha-substantially surpassing the biological capacity of 1.2 M gha, further indicating unsustainable land use. Over time, the over-exploitation and degradation of natural lands have contributed to the widening gap between EF and BC. This ecological imbalance can be addressed by reducing consumption, improving production efficiency, adopting advanced eco-friendly technologies, and expanding green areas to boost carbon sequestration. In addition, effective land-use regulations are necessary to achieve long-term sustainable development goals.

Keywords

  • Ecological capacity,
  • Human activities,
  • Land degradation,
  • Sustainable development,
  • Khorasan Razavi province
PDF

References

  1. Akbari M., Neamatollahi E., Neamatollahi P. 2019. Evaluating land suitability for spatial planning in arid regions of eastern Iran using fuzzy logic and multi-criteria analysis. Ecological Indicators 98: 587-598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.035.
  2. Akbari M., Jafari Shalamzari M., Memarian H., Gholami A. 2020. Monitoring desertification processes using ecological indicators and providing management programs in arid regions of Iran. Ecological Indicators 111:106011-106026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.106011.
  3. Akbari M., Neamatollahi E., Alizadeh Noughani M., Memarian H. 2022. Spatial distribution of soil erosion risk and its economic impacts using an integrated CORINE-GIS approach. Environmental Earth Sciences 81:10405-10422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-022-10405-w.
  4. Akbari M., Alizadeh Noughani M. 2024. Early warning systems for desertification hazard: a review of integrated system models and risk management. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment 10: 4611–4626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-024-02059-3.
  5. Dai J., Ouyang Y., Hou J., Cai L. 2023. Long-time series assessment of the sustainable development of Xiamen City in China based on ecological footprint calculations. Ecological Indicators 148:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110130.
  6. Feng Z., Cui Y., Zhang H., Gao Y. 2018. Assessment of human consumption of ecosystem services in China from 2000 to 2014 based on an ecosystem service footprint model. Ecological Indicators 131:468–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.07.015.
  7. Galli A., Wackernagel M., Iha K., Lazarus E. 2014. Ecological footprint: Implications for biodiversity. Biological Conservation 173:121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.019.
  8. Galli A., Zokai G., Iha K., Moreno Pires S., Serena Mancini M., Alves A., Lin D., Murthy A., Wackernagel M. 2020. Assessing the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of Portuguese cities: Critical results for environmental awareness and local management. Cities 96:102442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102442
  9. Ghita S.I., Saseanu A.S., Gogonea R.M., Huidumac-Petrescu C.E. 2018. Perspectives of Ecological Footprint in European Context under the Impact of Information Society and Sustainable Development. Sustainability 10(9):3224. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093224
  10. Golia E.E., Papadimou S.G., Cavalaris C., Tsiropoulos N.G. 2021. Level of Contamination Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements in the Urban Soils of Volos City (Central Greece). Sustainability 13:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042029
  11. He Y., Xie H. 2019. Exploring the spatiotemporal changes of ecological carrying capacity for regional sustainable development based on GIS: A case study of Nanchang City. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 148:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119720.
  12. Hossin M.A., Abudu H., Sai R. 2024. Examining sustainable development goals: are developing countries advancing in sustainable energy and environmental sustainability? Environmental Science and Pollution Research 31:3545–3559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31331-9.
  13. IPCC. 2018. IPCC Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. Accessed 12 Mar 2020.
  14. IPCC. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. In: Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Pirani A., Connors S.L., Péan C., Berger S., Caud N., Chen Y., Goldfarb L., Gomis M.I., Huang M., Leitzell K., Lonnoy E., Matthews J., Maycock T.K., Waterfield T., Yelekçi O., Yu R., Zhou B., (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and NY, USA, p 2391. https://doi.org/10. 1017/ 97810 09157 896.
  15. Kashtabeh R., Akbari M., Heidari A., Najafpour A. 2023. Impact of Iron Ore Mining on the Concentration of some Heavy Metals and Soil Pollution Zoning (Case Study: Sangan Iron Ore Mine, Khaf-Iran). Water and Soil 37(1): 77-94. https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.2023.79471.1219.
  16. Kirikkaleli D., Sofuoglu E., Ojekemi O. 2023. Do patents on environmental technologies matter for the ecological footprint in the USA? Evidence from the novel Fourier ARDL approach Dervis. Geoscience Frontiers 14:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101564.
  17. Li P., Zhang R., Xu L. 2021. Three-dimensional ecological footprint based on ecosystem service value and their drivers: A case study of Urumqi. Ecological Indicators 131:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108117.
  18. Liu C., Ni T. 2023. Further exploring the driving mechanism of ecological carrying capacity changes at the urban agglomeration level. Ecological Indicators 150:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110231
  19. Memarian H., Akbari M. 2021. Prediction of the combined effect of climate and land use changes on soil erosion in Iran using GloSEM data. Ecohydrology 8(2):513–534. https://doi.org/10.22059/ije.2021.320754.1482. (In Persian).
  20. Moros-Ochoa M.A., Castro-Nieto G.Y., Quintero-Español A., Llorente-Portillo C. 2022. Forecasting Biocapacity and Ecological Footprint at a Worldwide Level to 2030 Using Neural Networks. Sustainability 14:10691. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710691.
  21. Nabati J., Nezami A., Neamatollahi E., Akbari M. 2020. GIS-based agro-ecological zoning for crop suitability using fuzzy inference system in semi-arid regions. Environment, Development & Sustainability 117:106646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106646.
  22. Nabati J., Nezami A., Neamatollahi E., Akbari M. 2023. An integrated approach land suitability for agro ecological zoning based on fuzzy inference system and GIS. Environment, Development and Sustainability 25:2316–2338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02127-7.
  23. Office of Fundamental Water Resource Studies. 2021. Flood report, Khorasan Razavi Province Regional Water Company, Iran. (In Persian).
  24. Office of Geological Hazards. 2021. Land subsidence report, Geological Organization of Iran. Northeast Region. Iran. (In Persian).
  25. Ozbas E.E., Hunce S.Y., Ozcan H.K., Ongen A. 2019. Ecological Footprint Calculation. Recycling and Reuse Approaches for Better Sustainability. Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ENVENG) 179–186.
  26. Pourebrahim S., Hadipour M., Emlaei Z., Heidari H., Choo G., Lee K.E. 2023. Analysis of Environmental Carrying Capacity Based on the Ecological Footprint for the Sustainable Development of Alborz, Iran. Sustainability 15(10):7935. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107935.
  27. Qiu H.H., Hu B.Q., Zhang Z. 2021. Impacts of land use change on ecosystem service value based on SDGs report Guangxi as an example. Ecological Indicators 133: 108366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108366.
  28. Rashki A., Middleton N.J., Goudie A.S. 2021. Dust storms in Iran – Distribution, causes, frequencies and impacts. Aeolian Research 48:100655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2020.100655.
  29. Sato M., Usubiaga-Liaño A., Fairbrass A. 2024. Monitoring environmental sustainability in Japan: an ESGAP assessment. Sustainability Science 19:539–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01441-x.
  30. Rees W.E. 2017. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leave out? Urbanization 2:66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400212.
  31. Swiader M., Szewrański S., Kazak J.K., Van Hoof J., Lin D., Wackernagel M., Alves A. 2018. Application of ecological footprint accounting as a part of an integrated assessment of environmental carrying capacity: A case study of the footprint of food of a large city. Resources 52:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030052.
  32. Taiwo F.J., Feyisara O. 2017. Understanding the concept of carrying capacity and its relevance to urban and regional planning. Journal of Environmental Studies 3:1–5.
  33. USDA. 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy. United States Department of Agriculture.
  34. USDA-SCS. 1993. National soil handbook title 403. Washington DC: Government printing office.
  35. Wang X. 2022. Managing land carrying capacity: Key to achieving sustainable production systems for food security. Land 11:1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040484.
  36. Wang Z., Gao Y., Wang X., Lin Q., Li L. 2022. A new approach to land use optimization and simulation considering urban development sustainability: A case study of Bortala, China. Sustainable Cities and Society 87:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104135.
  37. Wolff S., Hüttel S., Nendel C. 2021. Agricultural Landscapes in Brandenburg, Germany: An Analysis of Characteristics and Spatial Patterns. International Journal of Environmental Research 15:487–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-021-00328-y.
  38. Xie B., Zhang X., Lu J., Liu F., Fan Y. 2022. Research on ecological evaluation of Shanghai port logistics based on emergy ecological footprint models. Ecological Indicators 139:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108916.
  39. Zhang Y., Yue Q., Wang T., Zhu Y., Li Y. 2021. Evaluation and early warning of water environment carrying capacity in Liaoning province based on control unit: A case study in Zhaosutai river Tieling city control unit. Ecological Indicators 124:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107392.
  40. Zhang Z., Hu B., Jiang W., Qiu H. 2023. Construction of ecological security pattern based on ecological carrying capacity assessment 1990–2040: A case study of the Southwest Guangxi Karst - Beibu Gulf. Ecological Modelling 499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110322.
  41. Zhang Z., Ou G., Elshkaki A., Liu R. 2022. Evaluation of Regional Carrying Capacity under Economic-Social-Resource-Environment Complex System: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Sustainability 14:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127117.