Abstract
An increasing number of nature reserves are being invaded by various development and construction activities, such as energy, resources, and transportation facilities. The ecological footprint model, which enables a quantitative assessment of ecological sustainability, can assess whether human consumption at various spatial scales falls within the regenerative capacity of the biosphere. Based on the traditional ecological footprint evaluation model: the Global Agro-Ecological Zone (EF-GAEZ model), this study proposes an improved ecological footprint model based on net primary productivity (EF-NPP model) and its validations. In this study, the status of ecological footprints and the ecological carrying capacities of 319 national nature reserves in 2010 is explored, and the changes in ecological surpluses and ecological deficits from 2000 to 2010 are analyzed. The ecological footprint per capita and the ecological carrying capacity per capita calculated by the two models were mostly consistently at the same level (more than 68%), which indicated that the ecological footprint per capita and the ecological carrying capacity per capita of the two models followed the same rule. The EF-NPP model can reflect the change in the global climate, the degradation of the soil, and the progress of the technology.
Highlights
The products and services provided via the ecosystem are the foundation of human society [1,2]
In 2000, based on the EF-Net Primary Productivity (NPP) model, 208 protection zones had an ecological footprint per capita at the 0–2.5-hectare level, which is 39 fewer than the number based on the EF-GAEZ model
In 2010, based on the EF-NPP model, 98 protection zones had an ecological footprint per capita at the 0–2.5-hectare level, which is 5 less than the number based on based on the EF-GAEZ model
Summary
The products and services provided via the ecosystem are the foundation of human society [1,2]. En overlaid with the 30-m land-utilization dataset of 2000 and 2010 to obtain the NPP of the different types of biological productive areas throughout the country (woodland, grassland, waters, and farmland). (2) Based on the vector data of the national nature reserve borders, the NPP of the different types of bioproductive land in each protected area was extracted by the Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial analysis method. (2) Based on the vector data from the borders of the national nature reserve, the NPP of the different types of bioproductive land in each protected area was extracted by the GIS spatial analysis method. Where yj is the yield factor of the different types of biological productive areas in the national nature reserve, NPPj is the NPP of j type biological production area in a national nature reserve; NPPj is the average NPP of j type land in China, and the yield factor f for land with construction is replaced by the yield factor of farmland
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
