Production Ecological Footprint Spatial Analysis in the Agricultural Sector (Case Study: Rural Settlements of Birjand County)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of Geography, Faculty of literature and humanities, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran

10.22059/jrur.2024.369275.1894

Abstract

A B S T R A C T
Sustainable development primarily focuses on social and economic approaches, posing the possibility of environmental resources diminishing due to unstable human activities. The ecological environment of rural areas defines the basis of human well-being in these regions. Neglecting the ecological dimension in various aspects of rural development may lead to numerous problems in approaches aiming for economic progress. Considering the importance of sustainable development in rural areas, this study aimed to measure and analyze the sustainability level of rural areas in Birjand County's agricultural sector using the ecological footprint index. The data for this research was obtained through questionnaires and interviews with 220 rural farmers in 2023. The results of this study, concerning 30 studied villages in 6 districts and three types of rural areas (mountainous, foothill, and plain), were presented in the agricultural sector. The findings indicated that the average ecological footprint per capita in the agricultural sector was 2.33 hectares, and the average biocapacity was 80.44 hectares, indicating the absence of ecological pressure in the agricultural sector of this county. The ecological footprint per capita in agricultural areas of mountainous villages was lower compared to foothill and plain villages. This research revealed no significant relationship between the distance of a village from the population center and its ecological footprint in the agricultural sector in Birjand County.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Throughout the world, agricultural lands are excessively utilized beyond their capacity to meet the needs of urban populations. The primary production in rural habitats lies within the agricultural sector, which faces the most significant production pressure due to the increasing urbanization trend. As Earth's population grows, along with an associated rise in consumption and production, aligning agricultural development with environmental conservation appears as an enduring challenge. The expansion of agricultural lands represents a complex land-use change phenomenon, exerting substantial pressure on natural resources. The imbalance between development and sustainable growth in any region leads to regional and spatial disparities, hindering national development. Additionally, urban area sustainability is interlinked with rural area sustainability, highlighting the necessity for studies investigating the sustainability level of rural areas. Given the significance of sustainable development in rural regions and the influential factors in the agricultural sector, this research aims to analyze the impact of agricultural production in rural settlements of Birjand County on the region's ecosystem sustainability using the ecological footprint index.
 
Methodology
This research utilized a researcher-developed questionnaire for data collection. Sampling was conducted at two levels: rural settlements with a population of over 20 households in Birjand County and at the household level. As a result, 220 producers from 30 villages in Birjand County were studied. The ecological footprint of agricultural production was calculated using a Location-Based approach that considers sustainability on a small scale. To estimate the ecological footprint of agricultural production activities in rural spaces under study, the ecological footprint of water, gasoline, diesel fuel consumption, and generated waste for each agricultural operator was initially calculated. Then, the total agricultural land and related storage areas for tools and product maintenance of each operator were added as ecological footprints of production. To estimate the biocapacity of the studied villages, the areas of pasturelands, total agricultural lands, and residential areas in each village were summed up in hectares.
 
Results and discussion
The average ecological footprint per agricultural operator in Birjand County is 2.33 hectares. The highest ecological footprint in the agricultural sector per operator, amounting to 4.71 hectares, is observed in the Fasharoud district. This indicates that an agricultural operator in the villages of the Fasharoud district requires 4.71 hectares of land to meet their basic agricultural production needs. The lowest ecological footprint for agricultural production per operator is related to the Baqeran district. As expected, operators in villages located in plain areas have higher ecological footprints in agricultural sectors compared to other villages. These respective values for villages in plain areas, foothill typology villages, and mountainous villages are 2.99 hectares, 2.80 hectares, and 1.47 hectares, respectively. The average biocapacity estimated for each rural household in the studied region (Birjand County) is 80.44 hectares, indicating that none of the studied villages face ecological pressure from the agricultural perspective.
Available land and the lack of utilization of new technologies in irrigation, planting, harvesting, and the cultivation of low-water-consuming crops have contributed to the ecological sustainability of the agricultural sector in this county. The environmental consequences typical of conventional agricultural systems are not readily observable in this region. Environmental impacts in agriculture heavily rely on the nature of production operations. Mountainous villages, despite having fewer households, possess lower biocapacity and lack the ability to withstand high ecological pressures. Foothill villages, given their placement of pastures and agricultural lands in lower areas and their lower population compared to plain villages, have registered the highest biocapacity.
 
 
Conclusion
Considering recent droughts, policies aimed at increasing agricultural production levels should be meticulously planned, particularly concerning irrigation methods, especially for mountainous regions. Given the fragile natural and economic conditions in Birjand County, adherence to sustainable development principles and the implementation of a systematic and scientific plan are among the essential prerequisites in this region, particularly during this critical period. Conducting scientific research and being informed about the current situation can significantly assist planners at various levels. This study attempted to gather raw data based on the present conditions in the area and provide decision-makers with appropriate analyses through data processing.
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Aghayari Hir, M., Khorshiddoust, A. M., Azmi, A., & Shafiee, A. (2023). The Ecological Sustainability Assessment of Rural Settlements with Emphasis on the Ecological Footprint (Case Study: Eslam Abad-e-Gharb). Community Development (Rural and Urban), 14(2), 547-567. doi: 10.22059/jrd.2023.355037.668780 [In Persian].
  2. Ashraf, A., Nguyen, C. P., & Doytch, N. (2022). The impact of financial development on ecological footprints of nations. Environmental Management, 322, 116062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116062
  3. Azadi, H., Verheijke, G., & Witlox, F. (2011). Pollute first, clean up later? Global and Planetary Change, 78(3-4), 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.05.006
  4. Bahrami Paveh, R. (2018). Analysis of the Development Paradigm and Its Impact on National Convergence in Iran. Macro and Strategic Policies, 6(23), 478-497. doi: 10.32598/JMSP.6.3.478 [In Persian].
  5. Bandyopadhyay, A., Rej, S., Villanthenkodath, M.A., & Mahalik, M.K. (2022). The role of nuclear energy consumption in abatement of ecological footprint: Novel insights from quantile-on-quantile regression, Cleaner Production, 358(12), 132052, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132052
  6. Boron, V., Payán, E., MacMillan, D., & Tzanopoulos, J. (2016). Achieving sustainable development in rural areas in Colombia: Future scenarios for biodiversity conservation under land use change. Land Use Policy, 59, 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.017
  7. Esfahani, S. M. J., & Khazaee, J. (2019). Application of Multifunctional Ecological Footprint in Sustainability Analysis of Saffron Production in Southern Khorasan. Saffron Agronomy and Technology, 7(4), 491-503. doi: 10.22048/jsat.2019.119069.1290 [In Persian].
  8. Feng, Q., Liu, X., Tang, L., Shi, L., Jiang, J., & Su, X. (2017). Research on a connotation and assessment index system of eco-communities. Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 24(6), 524-531.‌ https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1250836
  9. Ferng, J.J. (2014). Nested open systems: An important concept for applying ecological footprint analysis to sustainable development assessment. ecological economics, 106, 105-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.015
  10. Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M.,Mueller, N.D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E.M., Carpenter, S.R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J.,Siebert, S., Tilman, D., & Zaks, D.P.M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10452.
  11. Gan, L., Wang, L., Hu, Z., Lev, B., Gang, J., & Lan, H. (2022). Do geologic hazards affect the sustainability of rural development? Evidence from rural areas in China. Cleaner Production, 339, 130693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130693
  12. Guastella, G., & Pareglio, S. (2016). Sustainable Development of Rural Areas: Using Urban Patterns to Map the Agricultural Systems. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 8, 88-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.012
  13. Horlings, I., and Padt, F. (2013). Ledership for sustainable regional development in rural areas: bridging personal and institutional aspects. Sustainable development, 21(6), 413-424. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.526
  14. Khanmohammadi, E., & Mehravan, A. (2017). Investigating the effect of using renewable energy sources on the ecological footprint in rural areas (Case Study: Naju-Baran village in Kermanshah Province). Housing and Rural Environment, 38(165), 97-112. DOI: 10.22034/38.165.97 [In Persian].
  15. Kovács, Z., Harangozó, G., Szigeti, C., Koppány, K., Kondor, A. C., & Szabó, B. (2020). Measuring the impacts of suburbanization with ecological footprint calculations. Cities, 101, 102715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102715
  16. Li, P., and Yang, G. (2007). Ecological footprint study on tourism itinerary products in Shangri-La, Yunnan Province, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 27(7), 2954-2963. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2032(07)60062-6
  17. Li, X., Yang, H., Jia, J., Shen, Y., & Liu, J. (2021). Index system of sustainable rural development based on the concept of ecological livability. Environmental Impact assessment review, 86, 106478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106478
  18. Lin, D., Wambersie, L., & Wackernagel, M. (2023). Estimate the Date of Earth Overshoot Day 2023. Global Footprint Network, 1-9. https://www.overshootday.org/content/uploads/2023/06/Earth-Overshoot-Day-2023-Nowcast-Report.pdf
  19. Management and Planning Organization of South Khorasan Province, (2022). Statistical Yearbook of South Khorasan Province 2021. Birjand: Deputy of statistics and information. [In Persian].
  20. Nasrnia, F., Roshan Cheraghian, P., & Ashktorab, N. (2022). Investigating the Role of Agricultural Activities on Environmental Degradation based on Ecological Footprint in Selected Countries of Mena. Strategic Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 7(1), 79-92. doi: 10.22047/srjasnr.2022.147433 [In Persian].
  21. Papoly-Yazdi, M.H., & Ebrahimi, M.A. (2017). Rural Development Theories. Tehran: Samt press. [In Persian].
  22. Parsasharif, H., Amirnejad, H., & Taslimi, M. (2021). Investigating and Determining the Factors Affecting the Ecological Footprint of Selected Asian and European Countries. Agricultural Economics Research, 13(2), 155-172. Dor: 20.1001.1.20086407.1400.13.2.8.9 [In Persian].
  23. Qaemi-Rad, T., Hataminejad, H., Ziyari, K., & PourAhmad, A. (2022). Assessing the status of urban ecotourism using the ecological footprint method (Case study: Rasht). Studies in human settlement planning, 17 (58). 119-130. DOI: 10.17170/kobra-202110144904 [In Persian].
  24. Raghutla, C., Padmagirisan, P., Sakthivel, P., Chittedi, K. R., & Mishra, S. (2022). The effect of renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in N-11 countries: Evidence from Panel Quantile Regression Approach. Renewable Energy, 197, 125-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.07.100
  25. Razi, D. (2015). Assessment and analysis of ecological footprint (Case study: Mazandaran province). Urban planning studies, 3(10), 103-125. [In Persian].
  26. Rees, W. E. (2012). Ecological Footprint, Concept of. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Second Edition), 701-713. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00037-X
  27. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton,T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes,T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U.,Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B.,Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J.A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/461472a.
  28. Van der Werf, H.M.G., Kanyarushoki, C., & Corson, M.S. (2009). An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. Environmental Management, 90 (11), 3643-3652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.003
  29. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W.E. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: ReducingHuman Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC/Philadelphia, PA: New Society.
  30. Wang, Z., Bui, Q., Zhang, B., & Pham, T. L. H. (2020). Biomass energy production and its impacts on the ecological footprint: An investigation of the G7 countries. Science of the Total Environment, 743, 140741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140741
  31. Woods, M. (2011). Rural Geography: Processes, Responses and Experiences in Rural Restructuring. Translated by Rezvani, M, R., and Farhadi, S., Tehran: Tehran University press. [In Persian].
  32. Wu, M., Wei, Y., Lam, P.T.L., Liu, F., & Li, Y. (2019). Is urban development ecologically sustainable? Ecological footprint analysis and prediction based on a modified artificial neural network model: A case study of Tianjin in China. Cleaner Production, 237, 117795, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117795
  33. Zang, Y., Yang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2021). Understanding rural system with a social-ecological framework: Evaluating sustainability of rural evolution in Jiangsu province, South China. Rural Studies, 86, 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.05.008.
  34. Zhao, G., Zhang, J., Wang, X., & Su, H. (2023). Exploring ecological strategies for the sustainability of rural communities. Ecological Indicators, 152, 110356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110356
Journal of Rural Research
Volume 15, Issue 3
November 2024
Pages 53-68

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 25 May 2024
  • Revise Date: 29 August 2024
  • Accept Date: 05 October 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics