دانشگاه اصفهان جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی محیطی 2008-5362 22 1 2011 05 22 Study of Ecological Capital with EF Index: Case Study, Iran بررسی پایداری منابع بوم شناختی با استفاده از شاخص جای ‌پای بوم‌شناسی: مورد ایران 97 106 18487 FA محمدحسین سرایی دانشیار جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی شهری، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران* عبدالحمید زارعی فرشاد دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری ، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران Journal Article 2016 06 14   Study of Ecological Capital with EF Index: Case Study, Iran   M. H. Saraei. ( * ),  Associate Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran.   Email: msaraei@yazduni.ac.ir     A. Zareei.   M. A. student of Geography and Urban Planning, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran.   Received: 21 Desember 2009 / Accepted: 13 October 2010, 27-29 P     Extended Abstract   1- Introduction   The Ecological Footprint (EF) is an impact assessment tool of human on nature. This index, measures population requires to absorb wastes.   The ecological footprint provides a comprehensive comparison of natural resources demand. The EF compares the actual geographic area or footprint of a region (e.g., city, country, etc.) with the virtual footprint that would be required for that region to be sustaining Region.   The management of natural capital including its ability to renew itself represents a core aspect of sustainability. The ecological footprint is now a widely accepted indicator of sustainable development.     With the Ecological Footprint, countries, cities or organizations can assess their sustainability performance. Many EF estimations have been performed on global, national and sub-national levels.   Reducing the Ecological Footprint of a population or an organization fundamentally relate to changes of behavior. A reduction in the Ecological Footprint of a particular activity or person may be achieved through. Changes in several cases, such as, consumed resources waste materials type of consumed food.   These footprints variations is caused by between countries in different stages of economic development and geographic characteristics .     2- Methodology   Generally, two complementary approaches have to calculate EF: deduction methods.   - In the deduction method, which developed by Wackernagel and Rees, the EF calculates using a consumption-land use matrix consisting five major consumption categories and six major land use categories. Consumption categories include food, housing, transportation, consumer goods, services, and wastes. Land use categories extracted from human economy activities include cropland and pasture land (for production of food and goods), built-up land (to support infrastructure), forest (for the production of wood products), sea land (food production), and Energy land.   - In the reduction-based method, the EF values calculate for certain activities using appropriated data for each considered regions. The land categories originally proposed by Wackernagel and Rees .   In the studies global/national levels usually applied compound deduction methodology, whereas in the municipal, household, and individual levels studies have been applied a component-based reduction approach .     3- Discussion   In this study, have been assessed Iran ecological capitals consume for years of 1357 until 1380. In this study have been used five agents: energy land, sea land, built-up land, crop land and pasture land. With increase of the population country in 23 recent years (1977-2000), population reached to 68/9 million in 2000. Therefore capital consumes of country has been increased 2000.   The bio capacity of Iran is 0.8 ha per capita in 2000 year. Whereas capital consumes was equal with 2.38 ha. So capital consumes of Iran is about three fold bio capacities. Therefore were determined consume of Iran.     4- Conclusion   Total Ecological Footprint for the Iran population was increased after 1977 year quantity was in 2000 with 2.38 ha. And so few quantity is in 1978 with 1.55ha that highest. Therefore with lasting time, population growth and increasing demand in social, the Ecological Footprint quantity of Iran has been increased.   In this study, was survied Iran Ecological capital after the Islamic revolution until 2000. With studying and so statistics was determined that Ecological Capital in Iran is unstable.   Keyword: The Ecological Footprint Index, Sustainable Development, Ecological Capital, Iran     References   Arjmandnia, Asgar. (2001).” Ecological Footprint new pattern in assessment of Ecology“,Journal of city management, 6. Tehran.   Asayesh, Hossein. (2002). “Principals and methods of the rural planning” Pyam Noor Press.3. Tehran.   Barrett, J & Cherret, N & Birch, R. (2001). Exploring the Application of the Ecological Footprint to Sustainable Consumption Policy. University of York, 234-247.   Braun, L & other. (1990). “World nearby 2000” Translated by Mehrsima Falsafy, Sorosh Press, Theran.   Costanza, R. (2000). Forum: the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics, 32, 341-344.   Hammond, Geoffrey. (2005). ‘People, Planet and Prosperity’: The Determinants of Humanity’s Environmental Footprint. Natural Resources Forum, 1-29.   Herendeen, R.A. (2000). Ecological footprint is a vivid indicator of indirect effects. Ecological Economics, 32, 357–358.   Godarzi, Masoud, (2000). “Biocapita of the Sustainale Developmant: case stude in Karkheh Dam”. 30, Tehran.   Kerman environment Ecology office,(1998), “ environmental damages decrease, pre condition arrive to sustainable Development”, Journal of Ecology 2,Kerman.   khalesi, Mahmod& Paesi, Hamid reza. (1995). “Develop Effects of assessment” Environmentology, 17. Tehran.   Lenzen, M, & Murry, S. (2003). The ecological footprint, issues and trends, the University of Sydney, the university of Sydney press, p6.   Moffatt, I. (2000). Ecological footprints and sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 32, 359–362.   Moteaee langrodi, Hasan, (2003). “Rural Planning in Iran” Jahad Daneshgahi Press. Mashhad.   Papole yazdy, Mohammad Hossein & Ebrahime, Mommad Reza. (2004). “approchas of rural Development” SAMT Press, Tehran.   Parkin, S. (2000). Sustainable development: the concept and the practical challenge . Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering, 138, 3-8 .   Parker, P. (1998). An environmental measure of Japan’s economic development: the ecological footprint. Geographiche Zeitschirft, 86, 106-119.   Rahimi, Hasan. (2004). “Geography and sustainable Development”, Oqledos Press. Mashhad.   Rapport, D.J. (2000). Ecological footprints and ecosystem health: complementary approaches to a sustainable future. Ecological Economics, 32, 367–370.   Ryu, H.C. (2005). Modeling the Per Capita Ecological Footprint for Dallas County, Texas: Examing Demographic, Environmental Value, Land-use, And Spatial Influences. Dissertation of P.H.D. Texas University. 18.   Sarrafi, Mozzafar. (2000). “What Sustainable City?” City of Management Journal“4 Th. Tehran.   Simmons, C. & Chambers, N. (1998). ‘Footprinting UK households: how big is your ecological garden? Local Environment, 3(3), 355-362.   Simmons C., Lewis K. and Barrett J. (2000). Two feet - two approaches: a component-based model of ecological footprinting. Ecological Economics 32. pp 375-380 .   Shokoei, Hossein, (1998). “Geography of Application and Geography of the schools”, Astan Qods Razavi Press, 4 Th, Mashhad.   Van den Burgh, J, &Verburggen, H. (1999). Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the Ecological Footprint. Ecological Economics, 29, 61- 72.   Van Kooten, G, & C, Bulte, E.H. (2000). The ecological footprint: useful science or politics. Ecological Economics, 32, 385– 389.   Van Vuuren, D. P, & Smeets, E. M. W. (2000). Ecological footprints of Benin, Bhutan, Costa Rica and the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 34, 115–130.   Vergoulas, George & Simmons, Craig. (2004). an ecological footprint analysis of Essex - East England. Essex County Council. 22.   WWF. (2002). Living Planet Report 2002. World Wildlife Fund for Nature   World Wide Fund for Nature. (2006). Living Planet Report 2006.   WWW. EcoFootprint. org   Zhang, Ying. (2005). the Change of Ecological Footprint and Its Effect on Sustainable Development in Beijing of China. Chinese Business Review, 4, No.10, 1-13.       جای‌پای بوم‌شناختی یک ابزار ارزیابی میزان ارتباط انسان با طبیعت است. این شاخص، کیفیت نیازهای یک گروه انسانی را که با مقدار مشخصی از سطح زمین و آب، به تولید منابع مصرفی و دفع مواد زائد حاصل از زندگی خود اقدام می‌کند، اندازه‌گیری می‌نماید. جای پای بوم شناختی، مقایسه جامعی از تقاضا و مقدار عرضه منابع طبیعی ارائه می‌دهد. در ارزیابی‌های جای‌پای بوم‌شناختی، جای‌پای بوم‌شناختی واقعی یک منطقه(مانند: شهر، کشور و غیره) با جای‌ پای بوم شناختی بالقوه‌ای که برای پایداری آن منطقه مورد نیاز خواهد بود، سنجیده می‌شود. مدیریت منابع طبیعی به توانایی و سرعت تجدید آن منابع در راستای توسعه پایدار مربوط می‌شود. هم اکنون جای‌پای بوم‌شناختی به عنوان یک شاخص توسعه پایدار به طور گسترده پذیرفته شده است. کشورها، شهرها یا سازمان‌ها با سنجش مقدار جای‌پای بوم‌شناسی شان می‌توانند پایداری فعالیت‌هایشان را ارزیابی کنند. تاکنون تخمین‌های بسیاری از مقدار جای‌پای بوم‌شناختی در سطوح مختلف جهانی، ملی و منطقه‌ای ارائه شده‌ است. کاهش جای پای بوم شناختی یک جمعیت یا سازمان اساساً به تغییر در رفتار افراد مربوط می‌شود. کاهش جای پای بوم شناختی یک شخص یا یک فعالیت ویژه، ممکن است به واسطه تغییر در مواردی، نظیر: منابعی که مصرف شده‌اند، چگونگی به وجود آمدن مواد زائد و نوع غذای مصرف شده باشد. چنین جای‌ ‌پای‌های بوم‌شناختی‌ ناشی از اختلاف بین کشورها در مراحل مختلف توسعه اقتصادی و خصوصیات جغرافیایی مختلف آنها است. ما در این پژوهش به دنبال این هستیم تا منابع بوم‌شناختی ایران را از انقلاب اسلامی تا سال 1380 بررسی کنیم. با بررسی‌های و همچنین آمارهای ارائه شده، مشخص گردید که منابع اکولوژیک در ایران به صورت ناپایدار استفاده شده است. https://gep.ui.ac.ir/article_18487_2d7189c64f63eecec6e111ecaf2598a9.pdf