| Literature DB >> 28146086 |
Han-Shen Chen1,2.
Abstract
In this paper, the overall ecological and environmental sustainability in the Cing-Jing region in Taiwan is examined. As land use and cover change has been found to be an important analysis method, an emergy ecological footprint model was applied and the eco-security assessed to ensure authorities maintain a balance between ecological preservation and tourism development. While the ecological environment in the Cing-Jing region from 2008 to 2014 was found to be within safe levels, all related indices had increased considerably. A Grey model was used to predict the 2015-2024 ecological carrying capacities, from which it was found that there is expected to be a large increase in per capita ecological footprints (EFs), meaning that in the future there is going to be a larger ecological deficit and a higher ecological pressure index (EFI), with the eco-security predicted to reach a Grade 2 intermediate level in 2022. As the Cing-Jing region is predicted to become ecologically unsustainable, local, regional, and national governments need to implement regulations to strictly control the land use in the Cing-Jing region. This study demonstrated that emergy EF (EEF) theory application can give objective guidance to decision-makers to ensure that recreational non-urban eco-security can be maintained at a safe level.Entities:
Keywords: eco-security; land use and cover change (LUCC); sustainability development and assessment
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28146086 PMCID: PMC5334690 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14020136
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Cing-Jing region 2008–2014 ecological pressure index (EFI), ecological quotiety (DS), and eco-security (ES).
| Year | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EFI | 1.08 | 1.34 | 1.36 | 1.43 | 1.80 | 1.97 | 2.14 |
| DS | 1.92 | 1.76 | 1.68 | 1.52 | 1.47 | 1.25 | 1.13 |
| ES level | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| ES evaluation | Safe | Safe | Safe | Safe | Safe | Safe | Safe |
ES evaluation and early warning stage.
| Year | Per Capita ECC | Per Capita EEF | Ecological Deficit/Surplus | EFI | ES Early Warning State | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Index | Grade | Safety Status | Level | Status | ||||
| 2015 | 3.92 | 9.24 | −5.32 | 2.36 | 2 | Safe | 1 | Mild |
| 2016 | 3.95 | 10.40 | −6.45 | 2.63 | 2 | Safe | 1 | Mild |
| 2017 | 3.99 | 11.71 | −7.72 | 2.93 | 2 | Safe | 1 | Mild |
| 2018 | 4.03 | 13.18 | −9.15 | 3.27 | 2 | Safe | 1 | Mild |
| 2019 | 4.07 | 14.83 | −10.76 | 3.64 | 2 | Safe | 1 | Mild |
| 2020 | 4.02 | 16.70 | −12.68 | 4.15 | 2 | Safe | 1 | Mild |
| 2021 | 3.96 | 18.79 | −14.83 | 4.74 | 2 | Safe | 1 | Mild |
| 2022 | 3.93 | 21.15 | −17.22 | 5.38 | 2 | Safe | 2 | Inter-mediate |
| 2023 | 3.87 | 23.80 | −19.93 | 6.15 | 2 | Safe | 2 | Inter-mediate |
| 2024 | 3.76 | 26.79 | −23.03 | 7.13 | 2 | Safe | 2 | Inter-mediate |
Source: Data collected and organized by this study.