Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Spatiotemporal analysis and multiple scenarios prediction of sustainable ecosystem in China based on ecological footprint method

Main Article Content

Longhui Xiang
Chengzhong Chen corresponding author


Dynamic changes of sustainable ecosystem in China have been assessed with long-term series from 1949 to 2006, and the ecosystem sustainability of 30 provinces in 1986, 1996, 2002 and 2006 are analyzed with ecological footprint index (EFI) and ecological footprint efficiency (EFE). The two indices are proposed based on ecological footprint (EF) method. Then, the fluctuant cycles of per capita EF and bicapacity (BC) in China 1949-2006 are decomposed and extracted based on EMD method, and series nonlinear dynamic predictive models are presented with the cycles. Three Forecasting scenarios are analyzed based on their predictive models according to three EF scenarios presented in Living Planet Report 2006 published by WWF et al. (2006). Over last 57 years, China’s EFI has reduced sharply with fluctuation. The change of EFE is very slowly before 1980, subsequently, is sharply increased. There are 6, 5, 12, and 7 provinces which are running ecological surplus in 1986, 1996, 2002, and 2006, respectively. There are 14, 16, 11, and 16 provinces which EFI are smaller than -100% in 1986, 1996, 2002, and 2006, respectively. The provinces with the highest EFE are Shanghai, Beijing, and Tianjin, and the lowest are Xinjiang, Guizhou, Hainan, Ningxia, et al. in 1986, 1996, 2002, and 2006, respectively. The obvious undulation cycles of per capita EF in China are 4.8 years and 10.9 years, and the periods of per capita BC are 3.03 years, 8.35 years, 14.25 years, and 28.15 years. The business-as-usual scenario looks at the consequence that per capita ED would be 11.200 hm2 and EFI would be -1307.19% in China in 2050. The slow-shift scenario shows per capita ED would be 0.728 hm2 and EFI would be -84.96% in 2050. The rapid-reduce scenario shows per capita ED in China would be 0.498 hm2 in 2050 and 0.261 hm2 in 2100, respectively. EFI of rapid-reduce scenario would be -58.11% in 2050. China could denote sustainability at the global level if slow-shift scenario and rapid-reduce scenario are implemented.

ecological footprint, ecological footprint index, ecological footprint efficiency, empirical mode decomposition, nonlinear dynamic prediction model, China

Article Details

How to Cite
Xiang, L., & Chen, C. (2019). Spatiotemporal analysis and multiple scenarios prediction of sustainable ecosystem in China based on ecological footprint method. Resources and Environmental Economics, 1(2), 71-79.


  1. Wackernagel M, Monfreda C and Erb KH. Ecological footprint time series of Austria, Philippines, and South Korea for 1961-1999: Comparing the conventional approach to an “actual land area” approach. Land use Policy,2004, 21(3): 261-269.
  2. Rees WE. Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 1992, 4(2):121-130.
  3. Wackernagel M and Rees WE. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, 1996.
  4. Wackernagel M, Onisto L and Bello P. Ecological footprint of nations: How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have? Commissioned by the Earth Council for the Rio+5 Forum. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Toronto,1997.
  5. Kissinger M, Fix J and Rees WE. Wood and non-wood pulp production: Comparative ecological footprinting on the Canadian prairies. Ecological Economics, 2007, 62(3-4): 552-558.
  6. Wilson J, Tyedmers P and Pelo R. Contrasting and comparing sustainable development indicator metrics. Ecological Indicators, 2007, 7(2): 299-314.
  7. Chen B and Chen GQ. Ecological footprint accounting based on emergy-a case study of the Chinese society. Ecological Modelling, 2006, 198(1-2): 101-114.
  8. Yue DX, Xu XF, Li ZZ, et al. Spatiotemporal analysis of ecological footprint and biological capacity of Gansu, China 1991-2015: Down from the environmental cliff. Ecological Economics, 2006, 58(2): 93-406.
  9. Chen M, Wang RS, Zhang LJ, et al. Temporal and spatial assessment of natural resource use in China using ecological footprint method. International Journal of Sustainable Develpoment, 2006, 13(4): 255-268.
  10. Zhao S, Li ZZ and Li WL. A modified method of ecological footprint calculation and its application. Ecological Modelling, 2005, 185(1): 65-75.
  11. Ferng JJ. Using composition of land multiplier to estimate ecological footprints associated with production activity. Ecological Economics, 2001, 37(2): 159-172.
  12. WWF, Zoological Society of London, & Global Footprint Network. Living planet report 2006.
  13. Redefining Progress, 2007. Energy footprints.
  14. Wu LJ, Yang L, Su X, et al. Advances in ecological footprint. Journal of China Agricultural Universit, 2006, 11(3): 1-8.
  15. Xu ZM, Zhang ZQ, Cheng GD. Ecological footprint calculation and development capacity analysis of China in 1999. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2003, 14(2): 280-285.
  16. Chen CZ and Lin ZS. Analysis and dynamic prediction of percapita ecological footprint and biocapacity in China based on empirical mode decom position method. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007, 27(12): 5291-5299.
  17. Cheng-Zhong C and Zhen-Shan L. Wavelet analysis of China’s per capita ecological footprint from 1961 to 2005. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2008, 28(1): 338-344.
  18. Chen CZ and Lin ZS. Multiple timescale analysis and factor analysis of energy ecological footprint growth in China 1953-2006. Energy Policy, 2008, 36(5): 1666-1678.
  19. Van Vuuren DP and Smeets EM. Ecological footprints of Benin, Bhutan, Costa Rica and the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 2000, 34(1): 115-130.
  20. Haberl H, Erb KH and Krausmann F. How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time: the case of Austria 1926-1995. Ecological Economics, 2004, 38(1): 25-45.