Evaluation and analysis of ecological security in arid areas of Central Asia based on the emergy ecological footprint (EEF) model

被引:114
|
作者
Li, Jia-Xiu [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Chen, Ya-Ning [1 ]
Xu, Chang-Chun [2 ]
Li, Zhi [1 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Sci, State Key Lab Desert & Oasis Ecol, Xinjiang Inst Ecol & Geog, Urumqi 830011, Peoples R China
[2] Xinjiang Univ, Coll Resource & Environm Sci, Urumqi 830046, Peoples R China
[3] Univ Chinese Acad Sci, Coll Resources & Environm, Beijing 100049, Peoples R China
关键词
Ecological security evaluation; Emergy ecological footprint model; ARIMA model; Central Asia; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; ENERGY-CONSUMPTION; FOOD NEXUS; WATER; CHINA; PROVINCE; DEGRADATION; PERSPECTIVE; INDICATOR;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.005
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Though well-positioned geographically to benefit from China's Silk Road Economic Belt initiative, Central Asia nevertheless suffers from a fragile ecological environment. Therefore, it is crucially important for the five Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to achieve sustainable development of their respective social economies and ecological environments through the evaluation of their ecological security. This paper applies the modified emergy ecological footprint (EEF) model to optimize the traditional ecological footprint model by analyzing and evaluating the ecological security of Central Asia during the time frame of 1992-2014. The paper will also use the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model to forecast changes which might occur during 2020-2025. The results indicate that the EEF mainly decreased from 1992 to 1998 but then gradually increased from 1999 onwards, with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan showing the largest change rates of 3.93% and 2.77%, respectively, from 1999 to 2014. The highest EEF occurred in Turkmenistan (20.27 hm(2)/cap), followed by Kazakhstan (19.19 hm(2)/cap), with Tajikistan registering the lowest (2.96 hm(2)/cap). In Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, fossil energy consumption footprints contributed the most to total EEFs, at 38.34%, 57.06% and 46.52%, respectively, while grassland (51.52%) and building land (50.49%) contributed the most to Kyrgyzstan's and Tajikistan's total EEFs, respectively. The emergy ecological carrying capacity (EEC) largely decreased in all five Central Asian countries, with the largest decrease occurring in Turkmenistan at annual average change rates of -1.93%. The highest EEC was in Kazakhstan (30.36 hm(2)/cap), followed by Turkmenistan (15.85 hm(2)/cap), while the lowest occurred in Uzbekistan (2.86 hm(2)/cap). Additionally, during the period under study, the ecological surpluses and deficits in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan were 11.18, 2.21, 2.04, -4.42 and -7.57 hm(2)/cap, respectively, with the largest ecological deficit occurring in Uzbekistan. There was also a persistent rise in ecological pressure in all five countries, especially in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Furthermore, the ARIMA model forecasts that Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will change from ecological surpluses to ecological deficits from 2020 onwards, and that the ecological pressure grades for these countries will rise to level 3 (relatively unsafe). Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are forecast to be at level 1 (at risk). The significance of this research is optimizing the ecological footprint model and applying it in Central Asia for the first time. The work also quantitatively investigates Central Asia's ecological footprint and ecological carrying capacity on both a national and regional basis and evaluates the ecological security of each country. Overall, this research not only provides guidance for decision-makers to develop sustainable strategies in Central Asia, but also serves as a scientific reference for other arid regions to pursue ecological security and sustainable development. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:664 / 677
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] An improved emergy ecological footprint method for ecological security assessment and quantitative analysis of influencing factors: a case study of Zhejiang Province
    Ma, Shuhua
    Xue, Minggao
    Ji, Siwen
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, 2023, 66 (14) : 2878 - 2902
  • [22] The spatiotemporal evolution of ecological security in China based on the ecological footprint model with localization of parameters
    Liu, Ting
    Wang, Hui-Zhi
    Wang, Huan-Zhi
    Xu, He
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2021, 126
  • [23] Evaluation and analysis of ecological security based on the improved three-dimensional ecological footprint in Shaanxi Province, China
    Zhang, Ruqian
    Li, Penghui
    Xu, Liping
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2022, 144
  • [24] Ecological Security Assessment of Inner Mongolia Based on Ecological Footprint
    Zhen, Jiang-Hong
    INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND HUMAN HEALTH (EPHH 2014), 2015, : 478 - 482
  • [25] Analysis of oasis land ecological security and influencing factors in arid areas
    Wang, Lu
    Chang, Jianxia
    He, Bing
    Guo, Aijun
    Wang, Yimin
    LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 2023, 34 (12) : 3550 - 3567
  • [26] Ecological Footprint and Ecological Security Evaluation in the Upper Min River Basin
    TU Jian-jun 1
    2. Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment
    Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences, 2005, (04) : 641 - 646
  • [27] Ecological footprint and ecological security evaluation in the Upper Min River Basin
    Tu, Jian-Jun
    Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences, 2005, 10 (04) : 641 - 646
  • [28] Ecological effect life cycle assessment of house buildings based on emergy footprint model
    Mengyang He
    Yang Wang
    Haotian Ma
    Scientific Reports, 13
  • [29] Ecological security assessment for megacities in the Yangtze River basin: Applying improved emergy-ecological footprint and DEA-SBM model
    Liu, Yue
    Qu, Ying
    Cang, Yaodong
    Ding, Xiangan
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2022, 134
  • [30] Ecological effect life cycle assessment of house buildings based on emergy footprint model
    He, Mengyang
    Wang, Yang
    Ma, Haotian
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2023, 13 (01)