Assessment of environmental sustainability using ecological footprint in urban ecosystems of North Western Himalayas
-
Published:2023-08-16
Issue:4
Volume:24
Page:1-8
-
ISSN:2278-5124
-
Container-title:Environment Conservation Journal
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:ECJ
Author:
Rana DikshaORCID, Bhardwaj S.K., Gourav
Abstract
Rapid urbanization in cities is crafting major environmental problems, leading to degradation of urban ecosystems and is responsible for creating an imbalance between demand and supply of resources. Ecological Footprint Analysis (EFA) is a tool that can be used to assess this imbalance scientifically and determine the sustainability of a particular area. Our study aims to determine the urban sustainability of Kangra district in Himachal Pradesh, a hilly state in North Western Himalayas, India situated in North western Himalayas by using one of the Ecological Footprint Analysis (EFA) components, the built-up land footprint, as a pragmatic tool for analysis and planning of the urban region. The total built-up land footprint, total biocapacity and total ecological deficit are 18146.095 g ha,15968.564 g ha and 2177.531 g ha respectively whereas built-up land footprint per capita, built-up land biocapacity per capita and ecological deficit per capita are 1.371 g ha, 1.206 g ha, and 0.164 g ha respectively in different urban areas. Consequently, it is concluded that the built-up land results in an ecological deficit, and the system is considered unsustainable because its ecological footprint exceeds its bio capacity. It is suggested that urban sustainability should move and work on ecological principles so that the vision encompassing global goals and agenda 2030 for sustainable development can be achieved.
Publisher
Action For Sustainable Efficacious Development and Awareness
Reference47 articles.
1. Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., & Galli, A. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecological indicators, 24, 518-533. 2. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future—Call for action. Environmental conservation, 14(4), 291-294. 3. Census of India, GOI. (2011). Size, Growth and distribution of population in India. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, India,. 4. Corrigan, M. B., Dunphy, R. T., Gabel, N. M., Levitt, R. L., McMahon, E. T., & Pawlukiewicz, M. (2004). Ten principles for Smart Growth on the suburban fringe. 5. Čuček, L., Klemeš, J. J., & Kravanja, Z. (2012). A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 34, 9-20.
|
|