بررسی و مقایسه پایداری توسعه منطقه‌ای در استان‌های خراسان رضوی، شمالی و جنوبی

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• حسن دلیری ¹
• نادر مهرگان ²

¹ دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، لاهیجان، ایران،

² دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان

https://doi.org/10.22067/erd.v22i9.50864

چکیده

در سال‌های اخیر مفهوم توسعه پایدار شهری یکی از مهم‌ترین مفاهیم مشترک در میان حوزه‌های اقتصادی، اجتماعی و جغرافیا بوده است. شاخص جای پای اکولوژیک یکی از روش‌های اندازه‌گیری میزان توسعه پایدار در مناطق جغرافیایی می‌باشد. در این مقاله با استفاده از شاخص جای پای اکولوژیک به بررسی پایداری توسعه در استان‌های خراسان پرداخته شده است. نتایج مطالعه نشان می‌دهد ساکنان استان خراسان شمالی با مقدار 9704/1 هکتار دارای کمترین جای پای اکولوژیک و ساکنان استان خراسان جنوبی با مقدار 1699/2 سرانه هکتار دارای بالاترین جای پای اکولوژیک در میان استان‌های مورد مطالعه هستند. علاوه بر این هر یک از ساکنان استان خراسان رضوی با کسری اکولوژیک به‌اندازه 1404/1 هکتار ناپایدارترین استان در میان استان‌های مورد مطالعه بوده و ساکنان استان خراسان شمالی با کسری اکولوژیک به‌اندازه 7642/0 سرانه هکتار پایدارترین استان از لحاظ اکولوژیک در میان استان‌های مورد مطالعه می‌باشند.

کلیدواژه ها: جای پای اکولوژیک، خراسان شمالی، خراسان رضوی، خراسان جنوبی، ظرفیت زیستی، توسعه پایدار.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• جای پای اکولوژیک
• خراسان شمالی
• خراسان رضوی
• خراسان جنوبی
• ظرفیت زیستی
• توسعه پایدار

عنوان مقاله [English]

Measuring Sustainable Development in the Khorasan Provinces of Iran

نویسندگان [English]

• Hassan Daliri ¹
• Nader Mehrgan ²

¹ Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran,

² Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

چکیده [English]

Per capita ecological footprint (EF), or ecological footprint analysis (EFA), is a means of comparing consumption and lifestyles, and checking this against nature's ability to provide for this consumption. The tool can inform policy by examination to what extent a nation uses more (or less) than 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 people about carrying capacity and over-consumption, with the aim of altering personal behavior. Ecological footprints may be used to argue that many current lifestyles are not sustainable. Such a global comparison also clearly shows the inequalities of resource use on this planet at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Ecological footprint analysis is now widely used around the Earth as an indicator of 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 individual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industry sectors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations. Since 2006, a first set of ecological footprint standards exist that detail both communication and calculation procedures.
Methodology
The ecological footprint accounting method at the national level is described in the Footprint Atlas 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 have been differences in the methodology used by various ecological footprint studies. Examples include how sea area should be counted, how to account for fossil fuels, how to account for nuclear power (many studies simply consider it to have the same ecological footprint as fossil fuels), which data sources used, when average global numbers or local numbers should be used when looking at a specific area, how space 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 Ecological Footprint (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. Logic dictates that a certain area of land is required to produce resources and sequester 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: It is 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 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 and Wackernagel, 1992). Once values for 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 and this can also vary based on which methodology 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 earth.
Any overshoot above this figure is termed the environmental deficit and indicates the degree to which a population is living beyond nature’s means. An easy method for visualizing what the EF means is the example of a modern city with associated resource 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 so that 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 in order for the city/region 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 a region since high economic demand equates to an excessive resource requirement. This means more land is required to maintain production, which in turn, results in depleted capital stocks. Productive land itself is a good proxy for natural capital since both supply vital ecosystem services.
Results and discussion
The results show that among the provinces of Khorasan Razavi, Shomali (North) ans Jonobi (South), North Khorasan have 1.9704 (ha/per) of ecological footprint (minimal ecological footprint in this provinces) and residents of South Khorasan have 2.1699 (ha/per) of ecological footprint (highest ecological footprint in this provinces). The following table shows the summary results

provinces energy pastures Crop and garden Forest
land Sea
land Degraded land total
South Khorasan food 0.0807 0.6747 0.2210 2.7*10-6 0.000058 0.0029 0.9794
transportation 0.1130 - - - - 0.01834 0.1313
Goods and service 0.3431 0.790 0.0119 0.126 - 0.00094 0.5611
housing 0.1282 - - 3666/0 - 0.0030 0.4978
total 0.6652 0.7538 0.2329 4926/0 0.000058 0.02524 2.1699
Khorasan Razavi food 0.0623 0.5903 0.1622 2.7*10-6 0.000098 0.0017 0.8168
transportation 0.1209 - - - - 0.0032 0.1241
Goods and service 0.3664 0.0335 0.0055 0.126 - 0.0012 0.5328
housing 0.2673 - - 0.3808 - 0.0028 0.6510
total 0.8170 0.6239 0.1678 0.5068 0.000098 0.0091 2.1249
North Khorasan food 0.0171 0.4695 0.1951 2.7*10-6 0.00014 0.0014 6835/0
transportation 0.0991 - - - - 0.0059 1050/0
Goods and service 0.3993 0.0692 0.0116 0.126 - 0.0004 6067/0
housing 0.2242 - - 0.3483 - 0.0025 0.5771
total 0.7398 0.5388 0.2068 0.4743 0.00014 0.0103 1.9704
Conclusion
The results of this study show that studied Provinces have the ecological deficit. Therefore This Provinces Should is considered in urban and regional planning. Regions require various land uses; protection of farmland, cities, industrial space, transportation hubs and infrastructure, military bases, and wilderness. Regional planning is the science of efficient placement of infrastructure and zoning for the sustainable growth of a region.
Keywords: Ecological Footprint, sustainable development, northern Khorasan, Khorasan Razavi, southern Khorasan, biological capacity, sustainable development

JEl classification: Q56, Q57, R11, R58

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Ecological footprint
• Sustainable development
• northern Khorasan
• Khorasan Razavi
• southern Khorasan
• biological capacity

مراجع

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)

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)

Hoseinzadeh dalir, k. & 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)

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)

Pourasghar Sangachin, F.& Salehi, E.& Masnavi, M. R. (2010). An Analytical- Comparative Study on Measurement Methods of Sustainable Development, Environmental Researches, 2010(Issue 1) (in Persian)

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)

Rees, W. E. (2000). Eco-footprint analysis: Merits and brickbats. Ecological Economics, 32 (3), 371- 374.

Rees, W. E. (1996). Revisiting carrying capacity: Area-based indicators of sustainability. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 17 (3), 195- 215.

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

Simmons, C. & Lewis, K. & Barrett, J. (2000). Two feet – two approaches: a component-based model of ecological footprinting. Ecological Economics 32(3), 375-380.

Wackernagel, M. & and Yount, J. D. (1998). Ecological footprint: An indicator of progress towards regional susainability. Environment Monitoring and Assessment, 51, 511-529.

Wackernagel, M.& Niels, B. S.& Deumling, D.& Linares, A. C.& Jenkins, M.& Kapos, V.& Monfreda, C.& Loh, J., Myers, N.& Norgaard, R., & Randers, J. (2002) Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of United States of America.

Wackernagel, Mathis & j. David Yount. (2000). footprints for sustainability: the next steps, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2, 1; Abi/Inform Global.

Wackernagel, Mathis & Wiliam, Rees. (1996). our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.

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.

Wackernagel, Mathis. (1998). Analysis National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept, Ecological Economics 29, 375–390.

Wackernagel, Mathis. (1998). the ecological footprint: an indicator of progress toward regional sustainability, environmental monitoring and assessment, 51, 511-529.

Wilson, J. & M., Anielski. (2005). Ecological Footprints of Canadian Municipalities and Regions. The Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipalities.