The calculation of equivalence factor for ecological footprints in China: a methodological note

doi:10.1007/s11783-014-0670-0

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.

2015, Vol. 9

Issue (6) : 1015-1024 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-014-0670-0

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The calculation of equivalence factor for ecological footprints in China: a methodological note

Moucheng LIU¹(

), Wenhua LI¹, Dan ZAHNG¹, Ning SU²

¹. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
². Dongcheng Educational Research Centre, Beijing 100101, China

Download: PDF(170 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

The Ecological Footprint (EF), a physical indicator to measure the extent of humanity’s use of natural resources, has gained much attention since it was first used by Wackernagel and Rees in 1996. In order to appraise land area types with different levels of productivity, they introduced the concept of an equivalence factor. This relates to the average primary biomass productivities of different types of land (i.e. arable land, pasture, forest, water/fishery, built-up land and fossil energy land) to the regional average primary biomass productivity of all land types in a given year. Hence, the equivalence factor is an important parameter in the EF model and it directly affects the reliability of all results. Thus, this article calculates equivalence factors on the national and provincial levels in China based on Net Primary Production (NPP) from MODIS 1 km data in 2008. Firstly, based on the Light Utility Efficiency and CASA model, the NPP of different biologically productive lands of China and of different provinces was calculated. Secondly, China’s equivalence factor for 6 land area types was calculated based on NPP: arable land and built-up land has an equivalence factor of 1.71, forest and fossil energy land has a factor of 1.41, pasture has a factor of 0.44 and water/fishery 0.35; Finally, the equivalence factor of 6 land area types in different provinces was also calculated. The NPP of each ecosystem type varies along with the equivalence factor in different provinces. However, the ranking of the equivalence factors in different provinces remain the same, with that of arable land being the largest, and the water/fishery being the smallest.

Keywords ecological footprint equivalence factor net primary production biological capacity land types

Corresponding Author(s): Moucheng LIU

Online First Date: 18 March 2014 Issue Date: 23 November 2015

Cite this article:

Moucheng LIU,Wenhua LI,Dan ZAHNG, et al. The calculation of equivalence factor for ecological footprints in China: a methodological note[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(6): 1015-1024.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-014-0670-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2015/V9/I6/1015

Tab.1 Global equivalence factors from different international studies

Fig.1 The average NPP of different vegetation types in China

Fig.2 The average NPP in China

Tab.2 China’s equivalence factor

	average	arable land		forest		pasture		water/fishery		built-up land	fossil energy land
	NPP/(g C·m⁻²·a⁻¹)	NPP/(g C·m⁻²·a⁻¹)	factor	NPP/(g C·m⁻²·a⁻¹)	factor	NPP/(g C·m⁻²·a⁻¹)	factor	NPP/(g C·m⁻²·a⁻¹)	factor	built-up land	fossil energy land
Beijing	594.92	615.28	1.03	355.78	0.60	366.20	0.62	287.36	0.48	1.03	0.60
Tianjin	494.16	483.73	0.98	424.88	0.86	312.38	0.63	245.13	0.50	0.98	0.86
Hebei	610.91	672.67	1.10	412.09	0.67	293.54	0.48	230.35	0.38	1.10	0.67
Shanxi	419.00	355.59	0.85	337.86	0.81	265.10	0.63	208.03	0.50	0.85	0.81
Inner Mongolia	255.88	384.98	1.50	406.97	1.59	202.25	0.79	158.71	0.62	1.50	1.59
Liaoning	590.12	625.90	1.06	614.29	1.04	345.17	0.58	270.86	0.46	1.06	1.04
Jilin	562.93	615.41	1.09	847.21	1.50	190.29	0.34	149.32	0.27	1.09	1.50
Heilongjiang	545.34	429.26	0.79	570.78	1.05	306.61	0.56	240.61	0.44	0.79	1.05
Shanghai	585.32	601.08	1.03	987.98	1.69	383.00	0.65	300.55	0.51	1.03	1.69
Jiangsu	582.12	952.89	1.64	363.46	0.62	351.40	0.60	275.75	0.47	1.64	0.62
Zhejiang	853.99	586.30	0.69	386.49	0.45	529.37	0.62	415.41	0.49	0.69	0.45
Anhui	655.69	756.63	1.15	570.78	0.87	316.50	0.48	248.36	0.38	1.15	0.87
Fujian	957.94	746.14	0.78	941.91	0.98	599.42	0.63	470.38	0.49	0.78	0.98
Jiangxi	882.78	992.85	1.12	634.77	0.72	395.00	0.45	309.96	0.35	1.12	0.72
Shandong	561.33	835.55	1.49	675.72	1.20	364.06	0.65	285.69	0.51	1.49	1.20
Henan	556.53	1009.35	1.81	586.14	1.05	353.50	0.64	277.40	0.50	1.81	1.05
Hubei	665.28	739.66	1.11	552.86	0.83	418.22	0.63	328.19	0.49	1.11	0.83
Hunan	799.62	1056.88	1.32	657.80	0.82	567.50	0.71	445.33	0.56	1.32	0.82
Guangdong	897.17	1223.45	1.36	614.29	0.68	512.33	0.57	402.04	0.45	1.36	0.68
Guangxi	877.98	2976.20	3.39	716.67	0.82	494.14	0.56	387.76	0.44	3.39	0.82
Hainan	1191.43	1109.66	0.93	1003.34	0.84	718.50	0.60	563.82	0.47	0.93	0.84
Chongqing	684.47	695.49	1.02	509.35	0.74	424.93	0.62	333.45	0.49	1.02	0.74
Sichuan	684.47	772.07	1.13	601.49	0.88	405.77	0.59	318.42	0.47	1.13	0.88
Guizhou	687.67	387.42	0.56	606.61	0.88	425.95	0.62	334.25	0.49	0.56	0.88
Yunnan	900.37	688.19	0.76	790.90	0.88	556.08	0.62	436.36	0.48	0.76	0.88
Tibet	255.88	375.25	1.47	381.37	1.49	137.30	0.54	107.75	0.42	1.47	1.49
Shaanxi	530.95	380.75	0.72	499.11	0.94	407.45	0.77	319.74	0.60	0.72	0.94
Gansu	254.28	266.79	1.05	401.85	1.58	238.17	0.94	186.89	0.73	1.05	1.58
Qinghai	262.27	340.48	1.30	299.47	1.14	213.46	0.81	167.51	0.64	1.30	1.14
Ningxia	230.29	410.10	1.78	463.28	2.01	143.01	0.62	112.22	0.49	1.78	2.01
Xinjiang	244.68	551.21	2.25	578.46	2.36	102.25	0.42	80.24	0.33	2.25	2.36
Hong Kong	623.70	1223.45	1.96	614.29	0.98	512.33	0.82	402.04	0.64	1.96	0.98
Macao	577.32	0.00	0.00	614.29	0.68	512.33	0.57	402.04	0.45	0.00	0.68
Taiwan	809.21	746.75	0.92	601.49	0.74	509.56	0.63	399.86	0.49	0.92	0.74

Tab.3 Equivalence factor of different provinces in China

Tab.4 The comparison of equivalence factor between China and world

1	M Wackernagel, C Monfreda, N B Schulz, K H Erb, H Haberl, F Krausmann. Calculating national and global ecological footprint time series: resolving conceptual challenges. Land Use Policy, 2004, 21(3): 271–278 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.006
2	C Z Chen, Z S Lin. A nonlinear dynamic analysis of ecological footprint and biocapacity. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2006, 26: 3812–3816
3	W H LI, M C LIU. A discussion on indicator systems of Eco-province construction in China. Resources Science, 2007, 29(5): 2–8 (in Chinese)
4	W E Rees. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 1992, 4(2): 121–130 https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400212
5	M Wackernagel, W E Rees. Our Ecological Footprint, Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Philadelphia: New society Publishers, 1996
6	M Wackernagel, L Onisto, P Bello, A Callejas Linares, I Susana López Falfánn, J Méndez García, A Isabel Suárez Guerrero, M Guadalupe Suárez Guerrero. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 1999, 29(3): 375–390 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)90063-5
7	C J M Jeroen Van den Bergh Verbruggen Harmen . Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’. Ecological Economics, 1999, 29(1): 61–72 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00032-4
8	J J Ferng. Toward a scenario analysis framework for energy footprints. Ecological Economics, 2002, 40(1): 53–69 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00270-1
9	G Stöglehner. Ecological footprint—A tool for assessing sustainable energy supplies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2003, 11(3): 267–277 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00046-X
10	WWF. Zoological Society of London, Global Footprint Network, 2002. Living Planet Report 2002
11	WWF. Zoological Society of London, Global Footprint Network, 2004. Living Planet Report 2004
12	WWF. Zoological Society of London, Global Footprint Network, 2006. Living Planet Report 2006
13	Q W Min, W D Yu, S K. ChengTime serial analysis of residents’ living consumption with ecological footprint in Shangqiu of Henan province. Resources Science, 2004, 26(5): 125–131 (in Chinese)
14	K H Erb. Actual land demand of Austria 1926–2000: a variation on ecological footprint assessments. Land Use Policy, 2004, 21(3): 247–259 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.010
15	S Y Cao, G D Xie. Applying input-output analysis for calculation of ecological footprint of China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007, 27(4): 1499–1507 (in Chinese)
16	M C Liu, W H Li, C CFu, D Zhang. Dynamic Prediction of Chinese Development Based on Ecological Footprint Method. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 2010, 17(6): 499–506 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2010.519563
17	N E Riley. China’s population: new trends and challenges. Population Bulletin, 2004, 59(2): 1–36
18	Z Zhong. Natural resources planning, management, and sustainable use in China. Resources Policy, 1999, 25(4): 211–220
19	N Chambers, C Simmons, M Wackernagel. Ecological Footprint Analysis: Towards a Sustainability Indicator for Business. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2001
20	N Hanley, I Moffatt, R Faichney, M Wilson. Measuring sustainability: a time series of alternative indicators for Scotland. Ecological Economics, 1999, (28): 55–73 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00027-5
21	J X Liu. Time Series and Geographical Distribution of Ecological Footprint for China. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Shenyang: Northeastern University, 2004 (in Chinese)
22	H Haberl, M Wackernagel, F Krausmann, K H Erb, C Monfreda. Ecological footprints and human appropriation of net primary production: a comparison. Land Use Policy, 2004, 21(3): 279– 288 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.008
23	S W Running, R Nemani, F Heinsch, M S Zhao, M Reeves, H Hashimoto. A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience, 2004, 54(6): 547–559 https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0547:ACSMOG]2.0.CO;2
24	P M Vitousek, P R Ehrlich, A H Ehrlich, P A Matson. Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience, 1986, 36(6): 368–373 https://doi.org/10.2307/1310258
25	United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Indicators for assessing progress towards the 2010 target: ecological footprint and related concepts. Published as a note by the Executive Secretary for the meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technology Advice, Montreal, 2005
26	M Wackernagel, C Monfreda, D Moran, P Wermer, S Goldfinger, D Deumling, M Murray. National footprint and biocapacity accounts 2005: The underlying calculation method. Oakland, California: Global Footprint Network, 2005
27	J Venetoulis, J Talberth. Refining the ecological footprint. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2008, 10(4): 441–469
28	A Ruimy, B Saugier, G Dedieu. Methodology for the estimation of terrestrial net primary production from remotely sensed data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1994, 99(D3): 5263–5283
29	C S Potter, J T Randerson, C B Field. Terrestrial ecosystem production: a process model based on global satellite and surface data. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 1993, (7):811–841
30	J Kitzes, A Galli, S M Rizk, A Reed , M Wackernagel . Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts: 2008 Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network, 2008
31	G D Xie, C X Lu, S K Cheng, D Zheng. Evaluation of natural capital utilization with ecological footprint in China. Resources Science, 2001, 23(6): 20–23 (in Chinese)
32	Y H Liu. The analysis of China’s human-environment relationship fluctuations between 1961-2001: study based on the EF (Ecological Footprint) model. Economic Geography, 2005, 25(2): 219–222,235 (in Chinese)
33	X H Yuan, H Li, B Chen. Dynamic analysis of sustainable development in China based on the ecological footprint. The Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment, 2005, 15(3): 38–42 (in Chinese)

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed