سنجش پایداری توسعه در استان‌های ایران براساس شاخص جای پای اکولوژیک

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• حسن دلیری ¹
• نادر مهرگان ²

¹ دانشگاه گلستان

² بوعلی سینا

https://doi.org/10.22067/erd.v23i11.53742

چکیده

شاخص جای پای اکولوژیک، یکی از مهم‌ترین ابزارها برای اندازه‌گیری اثرات فعالیت های اقتصادی و اجتماعی جوامع بر محیط‌زیست است. این شاخص می تواند مقدار فشاری را که برای تأمین نیازهای مصرفی، بر جغرافیا وارد می‌شود، اندازه‌گیری کند. با توجه به اهمیت این شاخص و عدم محاسبه آن برای استان‌های ایران، در مطالعه حاضر، این شاخص برای استان‌های ایران اندازه‌گیری و مقایسه شده است. به‌عبارت‌دیگر شاخص جای پا، برای هر یک از ساکنان استان‌های ایران، در بخش‌های مصرفی غذا، کالا و خدمات، حمل‌ونقل، و مسکن و همچنین در زیر بخش‌های زمین کشاورزی، مرتع، جنگل، ساخته شده و انرژی، اندازه‌گیری و استان‌ها از این حیث رتبه‌بندی شدند. نتایج نشان از آن دارد که در زمین کشاورزی، خراسان جنوبی بالاترین و فارس کمترین، در زمین انرژی، اصفهان بالاترین و سیستان و بلوچستان پایین‌ترین، در زمین مرتع، خراسان جنوبی بالاترین و قزوین پایین‌ترین، در زمین جنگل، تهران بالاترین و سیستان و بلوچستان پایین‌ترین و در زمین‌های ساخته شده، استان خراسان جنوبی بالاترین و استان آذربایجان غربی پایین‌ترین مقدار جای پای اکولوژیک را در بین سایر استان‌های ایران داشته‌اند. نتایج کلی حاصل از این محاسبه که از تجمیع تمام بخش‌های جای پای اکولوژیک حاصل می‌شود، نشان از آن دارد که ساکنان استان اصفهان با جای پایی به اندازه 412/2 هکتار برای هر نفر دارای بالاترین مقدار و ساکنان استان سیستان و بلوچستان با مقدار 269/1 هکتار برای هر نفر دارای کمترین مقدار جای پای اکولوژیک در میان استان‌های ایران می‌باشند. با توجه به نتایج سنجش پایداری توسعه، می توان بیان نمود که تمامی استان‌های ایران دارای ناپایداری اکولوژیک بوده و دراین‌بین استان‌های اصفهان، قم و تهران بالاترین ناپایداری را دارند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• جای پای اکولوژیک
• ظرفیت زیستی
• توسعه پایدار
• استانهای ایران

عنوان مقاله [English]

Measuring Sustainable Development in the Provinces of Iran by Using the Ecological Footprint

نویسندگان [English]

• hassan daliri ¹
• nader mehregan ²

¹ golestan

² Bu ali sina

چکیده [English]

Per capita Ecological Footprint (EF) or Ecological Footprint Analysis (EFA), is a means of comparing the consumption and lifestyles while checking this based on the nature's ability to account for this consumption. The tool can inform the policymakers by examining to what extent a nation uses more or less than what is available within its territory, or to what extent the nation's lifestyle would be replicable worldwide. The footprint can also be a useful tool to educate the people about the nature capacity and over-consumption with the aim of altering personal behaviors. Ecological footprints may be used to argue that many current lifestyles are not sustainable. Such a global comparison also clearly shows the inequalities of the resource use on this planet at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The ecological footprint analysis is now widely used around the Earth as an indicator of the environmental sustainability. It can be used to measure and manage the use of resources throughout the economy. It can be used to explore the sustainability of the individual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industry sectors, neighborhoods, cities, regions, and nations.

Methodology
The ecological footprint accounting method at the national level is described in the Atlas Footprint 2010 or in greater detail in the calculation methodology for the National Footprint Accounts. The National Accounts Review Committee has also published a research agenda on how the method will be improved. There has been a difference in the methodology used by various ecological footprint studies. The examples include how the sea area should be counted, how to account for fossil fuels, how to account for the nuclear power, which data sources used, when average global numbers or local numbers should be used, when to look at a specific area, what areas for biodiversity should be included, and how imports/exports should be accounted for. However, as new footprint standards emerge, the calculation methodologies are converging.
The EF is an attempt to quantify sustainability. The EF is based on the fact that every human activity has an impact on the environment through the resources required by these activities and the wastes generated from them. The logic dictates that a certain area of land is required to produce resources and sequester the wastes. What differentiates EF from other methods of sustainability assessment is that all human enterprises are reduced to a single dimensional area. Ecological foot-printing itself is based on several assumptions, the primary ones being as follows: It should be possible to identify the resources required by an activity and quantify the wastes generated by it. These resources and wastes can then be converted to the land area values that are representative of the bio-productive land required to produce the resources and sequester the wastes. The EF represents the critical natural capital requirements of a defined economy or population in terms of the corresponding biologically productive areas (Rees & Wackernagel, 1992). Once the values for the resource consumption are generated, biological yield conversion factors are used to translate the resource flows into land values. These conversion factors can vary greatly depending on how they are calculated as well as the bio-productivity of the regions on which they are based. The resources themselves are divided into several sections such as housing, transport, consumer goods etc. while this can also vary based on the methodology which is used. Once calculated, the per capita footprint can be compared to the global Earth-share, which is the average land availability per person on the earth.
Any overshoot above this figure is termed the environmental deficit that indicates the degree to which a population is living beyond the nature’s means. An easy method for visualizing what the EF means is the example of the modern city with the associated resources and waste flows. A large dome covers the city and the only thing that can travel through this dome is light. Naturally, the inhabitants do not survive and the structure of their society breaks down. Imagine, if it were possible to stretch this dome, it encompassed the bio-productive area outside this city. The EF of the city/region is the total area the dome would have to cover to be able to sustain itself indefinitely with the same levels of consumption. That is, the total area required to provide all the resources and sequester all the wastes indefinitely. Thus, EFs are practical indicators for the impact or environmental overshoot of the region since high economic demand equates with an excessive resource requirement. This means more land is required to maintain production, which in turn, results in the depleted capital stocks. Productive land itself is a good proxy for the natural capital since it can supply the vital ecosystem services.

Results and Discussion
The article is classified in several sections, Calculation of agricultural land shows: South Khorasan has the highest ecological footprint and the Fars lowest agricultural ecological footprint among Iran provinces. Calculation of energy land shows: Isfahan has the highest ecological footprint and the Sistan and Bluchestan lowest energy ecological footprint among Iran provinces. Calculation of Pasture ground land shows: south khorasan has the highest ecological footprint and the Qazvin lowest Pasture ecological footprint among Iran provinces. Calculation of Forest land shows: Tehran has the highest ecological footprint and the Sistan and Bluchestan lowest Forest ecological footprint among Iran provinces. Calculation of Build up land shows: south Khorasan has the highest ecological footprint and the Western Azerbaijan lowest Build up ecological footprint among Iran provinces.

Conclusion
But this research results show that the inhabitants of Isfahan have footprint 2.412 acres for each person so Isfahan has the highest amount of the footprint between the provinces of Iran. Furthermore Sistan and Baluchestan's footprint was 1.962 hectares for each person that has the least amount of ecologic value between the provinces of Iran

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Ecological footprint
• Sustainable development
• biological capacity

مراجع

[1] Arabi Yazdi, A., A. Alizadeh , S. Nairizi. (2009). Study of food security based on the concept of virtual water trade and ecological water foot print (Case study: Khorasan Razavi Province) (in Persian). Agroecology journal, 1, No.1, 1-13. (in Persian)

[2] Arabi-Yazdi A., A. Alizadeh , F. Mohamadian. (2010). Study on Ecological Water Footprint in Agricultural Section of Iran (Text in Persian). Journal of water and soil, 23, NO.4, 1-10. (in Persian).

[3] Azkia, M. and G., Ghaffari. (2003). sociology of development, Tehran, publisher of the universe. (in Persian)

[4] Daliri H. and N. Mehrgan. (2015). Measuring Sustainable Development in the Khorasan Provinces of Iran (Text in Persian). Journal of economy and regional development, 22, No.9, 1-30. (in Persian)

[5] Daliri, H. and S. Shahanvaz. (2015). Assessing the Sustainability of housing development in the provinces of Iran by using ecological footprint, Journal of Housing Economics (Ministry of Roads and Urban Development). No. 52, pp. 108-82. (in Persian)

[6] De Coster, P. (2002). chair of sustainable development, Mohsen Hakimi translation of a chapter of Greenpeace, Issue 10. (in Persian)

[7] Faryadi and samadpor, (2010). Determination of Optimum Portion use of Various Transportation Systems to Decrease the Ecological Footprint of Tehran (Text in Persian). Journal of Environmental Studies, 36, No. 54. 97.108. (in Persian)

[8] Gharakhloo, M., Hataminejad, H., Baghvand, A., Yalveh, M. (2013). Evaluation of urban sustainability by Ecological footprint method (case study kermanshah city) , Human Geography Research, No. 45 (2) 105-120.(in Persian)

[9] Gholamhossien pour jafari nejad A., A. Alizadeh, A. Neshat. (2013). Study on Ecological Water Footprint and indicators of virtual water in Agricultural Section of Kerman Province (Text in Persian). Irrigation & Water Engineering, 4, No. 13, 80-90. (in Persian)

[10] Goli, Z., Ashrafi, Y. ( 2010). Assessment of country energy intensity and the analysis Using the Fisher ideal index in iran, Economic Research and Policies No. 54, 35-54. (in Persian)

[11] Hajjilu F., B. Yazdkhasti, Mohammad Bagher Alizadeh. (2013). Examine the relationship between cultural capital ecological footprint canvas Shnakhtymvrd Study: Tabriz citizens, Bioethics, 3, no 8. 101-133. (in Persian)

[12] Hekmatnia, H. and A. Zangiabad. (2004). analyzed and stable levels in the city of Yazd and present strategies to improve it, Geographical Research, No. 72, 37-52. (in Persian).

[13] Hoseinzadeh dalir, k. and Sasanpour F. ( 2006). Ecological footprint method in sustainability of mega cities with the attitude of Tehran metropolis, Geographical Research, No. 82, 83-100. (in Persian)

[14] Hoseinzadeh dalir, k. and Sasanpour F. (2006). Ecological footprint method in sustainability of mega cities with the attitude of Tehran metropolis, Geographical Research, No. 82, 83-100. (in Persian)

[15] Jome pour, M., hataminejad, H., Shahanavaz , S. (2013). Sustainable development of Rasht county using ecological footprint, Human Geography Research, No. 45(3).191-208. (in Persian)

[16] Jome pour, M., hataminejad, H., Shahanavaz , S. (2013). Sustainable development of Rasht county using ecological footprint, Human Geography Research, No. 45(3).191-208. (in Persian)

[17] Mehrgan, N. and H. Daliri. (2015). examining of the sustainability of development in the Northern provinces using the ecological footprint index, geographical space planning, Volume 5, Issue 17, pp. 169-151. (in Persian)

[18] Pourjafar, M., Khodaee, Z., Pourkheiry, A. ( 2011). Analytical approach in understanding components, indicators Sustainable urban development, Iranian social development studies, No. 3, 25-37. (in Persian)

[19] Radcliffe, (1994). Sustainable Development, translated by Hussein Nir, published by the Center of Planning and Agricultural Economics Studies, Tehran. (in Persian)

[20] Saraei M. H. and Zareei A. (2009) The Ecological Footprint (EF) as the Indicator of Societies Sustainability, Journal of Environmental Studies, 35, No. 50, 15-36. (in Persian)

[21] Sarafi, M. (2001). the foundations of sustainable development in Tehran metropolis, anti-development, development and socio-cultural norms conference in Tehran. (in Persian)

[22] Shahanavaz S. (2012). Sustainable development of urban areas in Rasht using ecological footprints, M.A theis, Faculty of social sciences, Allameh Tabatabaee University. (in Persian)

[23] Shakoor A., M. Ghoraishi , M. Lashkari and Mahtab Jafari. (2011). Consequently and tourism sustainability in Behesht Gomshodah of Bovan Mamassani by using of ecologic trace method (Text in Persian). Quarterly Journal of Human Geography, 3, No. 3, 57-69. (in Persian)

[24] Zareei A. and Saraei M. H. (2011). Study of Ecological Capital with EF Index: Case Study, Iran, geograohy and environmental planning, Volume 22, Issue 1, Spring 2011, Page 97-106. (in Persian)

[25] Bagliani M., Galli A., Niccolucci V., Marchettini N. (2008). The ecological footprint analysis applied to a sub-national area: the case of the Province of Siena (Italy), Journal of Environmental Management, 86(2). 354-364.

[26] Bagliani Marco, .et al. (2006). Ecological footprint analysis applied to a sub-national area: The case of the Province of Siena (Italy). Environmental Management, 86, 354–364.

[27] Bagliani, M., Ferlaino, F., Procopio, S. (2003). The analysis of the environmental sustainability of the economic sectors of the Piedmont Region (Italy). In: Tiezzi E., Brebbia C.A., Uso J.L. (eds.). Ecosystems and Sustainable Development. WIT Press, Southampton, UK, pp. 613-622.

[28] Cheal ryu, H. (2005). Modeling the per Capita Ecological Footprint for Dallas County, Texas: Examining Demographic, Environmental Value, Land-Use, and Spatial. M&S. Dissertation. University of Texas.

[29] Costanza, R. (2000). The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 32, 341-345.

[30] Danish Environmental Assessment Institute. (2002). Assessing the ecological footprint: WWF’s living planet report.

[31] Dhanju Amardeep. (2008) An Analysis Of The Ecological Footprint Mapping By Urban Areas As A Sustainable Development Indicator, A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts with a major in Urban Affairs and Public Policy.

[32] Ecological Footprint Atlas. (2010). Global Footprint Network. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/

[33] Ewing B., A. Reed, A. Galli, J. Kitzes, and M. Wackernagel. (2010). Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2010 Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.

[34] Ewing B., D. Moore, S. Goldfinger, A. Oursler, A. Reed, and M. Wackernagel. (B)(2010). The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.

[35] LU Ying, .et al. (2009) Ecological Footprint Dynamics of Yunnan, China, J. Mt. Sci. 6: 286–292.

[36] Medved, s. (2006). Present and future ecological footprint of Slovenia-The influence of energy demand scenarios, Ecological Modelling 192 (2006) 25–36.

[37] Rees W.E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization 4(2). 121-130.

[38] Sasanpour Farzaneh, Mohamd Solymani Mehrejani. (2011). Evaluation on the Sustainability of Metropolitan Environment for Good Urban Management by Ecological Footprint Model, Journal of Sustainable Development, http://www.jourlib.org/paper/2892368#.ViPPol7N0eM

[39] Wackernagel, Mathis. (1994) ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: a tool for planning toward sustainability, a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philophy, university of British Colombia.

[40] Wackernagel, Mathis, William, Rees. (1996). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.

[41] Wilson, J., M., Anielski. (2005). Ecological Footprints of Canadian Municipalities and Regions. The CanadianFederationofCanadian Municipalities.

[42] Zurong, ding, jing li. (2010) Ecological Footprint and Reflections on Green Development of Hangzhou, Energy Procedia, 5, 118–124.