Ecological Security Assessment Based On GIS And Ecological Footprint Method In Northeast Asia

Ecological environment is cradle of human survival and development, and thefoundation of economic development, and social progress. In recent decades, with worldpopulation proliferation and science progress, human has change the environment atgreat scale and speed, and ecological environment has been effected and damagedunprecedentedly. Ecological environment problem was not just points source problem,but has developed into regional, and national and global problem. Northeast Asiaregion (Eastern Russia, Eastern Siberia, Mongolia, Japan, the Korean peninsula, Liao,Kat, black, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China) is very rich of naturalresources. However, with the rapid economic development in Northeast Asia, theregion environmental issues have become even more serious.Northeast Asia is an important ecological barrier of China, its eco-environmentquality directly impacts national and regional ecological environment safety. Thisthesis in full control of the land-use data, on the basis of satellite remote sensing data formany years, with the traditional method of ecological footprint and the ecologicalfootprint method based on GIS spatial technology respectively in the northeast from1990to2007, calculated the ecological footprint, ecological carrying capacity,ecological deficit and ecological stress index of the study region. This paper then usingthe later two indexes evaluated the ecological security of the Northeast Asian region,and the main conclusions are as follows:(1) Ecological deficits as indicators for evaluation of ecological security in theNortheast Asian regionThe ecological deficits of Northern Mongolia were basically between-50and0hectare/square kilometers, which was obviously ecological surplus. While the southernregion is fundamentally in0to50hectare/square kilometers, ecological deficit level isalso fairly low. From time series perspective, Mongolia's ecological deficit within thestudy period did not change a lot, but some areas fluctuated obviously. Traditionalecological footprint calculations got relatively similar results. From1990to2000, the ecological capacity level of Eastern Russia area is lower,but due to ecological footprint per square kilometers was also low, area ecologicaldeficit of most area was only-10hectares/square kilometers or even more low. Only ina fraction area in the North, ecological deficit was between0to50hectares, andshowed a reducing trend. But, since2001, ecological deficit situation has clearlyincreased, and eco surplus land decreased more and more. Seen from the time series,ecological deficits of Eastern Russia region showed a reduction first and then increasetrend, which conformed to traditional calculation of ecological footprint method.Ecological deficit of most area in Heilongjiang province in1990were negative,most region were in ecological surplus State. In1997, near half region of Heilongjiangprovince has positive ecological deficit. From1997-2000, overall ecological deficit keptstable. In2001, ecological deficit of the whole province were basically positive andshowed increasing trend obviously. Until2007, ecological deficit of most area inHeilongjiang province were between50to100hectares/square kilometer. There are asmall region had low ecological deficit, which were between50to100hectare/squarekilometer. Nowadays ecological deficits continued to increasesignificantly. Traditional ecological footprint method showed a same trend. By2000,ecological deficit of half of Inner Mongolia autonomous region were between0to50hectares/square kilometers, most area were in an ecological surplus state. Since2001,ecological deficits of Inner Mongolia increased markedly, roughly the whole region'secological deficit is positive, only a small part of the region is still in ecological surplusstate. By2007, ecological deficits of Inner Mongolia reached almost100hectare/squarekilometer. Traditional ecological footprint calculation method showed a similar results.Ecological deficit of most region in Jilin province from1990to2000were higher than100hectare/square kilometers, but about one-fourth area were still in an ecologicalsurplus state. Since2001, ecological deficits have increased significantly, almost theentire province exceeded200hectare/square kilometers ecological deficits, and stillshowed a growing trend. Traditional method of ecological footprint calculationsderived same trend. Ecological deficit of some regions in Liaoning province in1990were more than200hectare/square kilometers. By2000, almost all of Liaoningprovince region exceeded200hectare/square kilometers approaching700hectare/square kilometer. In2007, ecological deficit of entire Liaoning province weremore than1000hectares/square kilometer. Traditional ecological footprint calculationmethod showed a same trend.Ecological deficit of North Korea were most stable, since1990, ecological deficit of most area in the region were already between200to700hectare/square kilometer.By2007, ecological deficits did not continue to increase, remained at between200to700hectares/square kilometers, withnot obviously increases. Traditional ecologicalfootprint calculation method showed a same trend.Since2000ecological deficit of Korea and Japan were basically over1000hectare/square kilometers, and even more than1200hectares/km in some region. By2007this situation had not been eased, and there was an increasing trend. Traditionalecological footprint calculation methods showed a opposite trend.(2)the ecological pressure index as an indicator of ecological security ofNortheast Asia evaluationMongolia nearly the general area of ecological carrying capacity was unable toparticipate in the calculation, however, able to participate in the calculation part of theecological pressure index less than0.5, is a very safe area;Russia north of the eastern region in most parts of low ecological footprint,ecological pressure index were also less than0.5, is a very safe area; ecological pressureindex of Russia's eastern regions have an increasing trend in the obvious reduced. Thecalculation results are not the same as with traditional ecological footprint method,because the ecological pressure index index calculated here in Northeast Asia,traditional ecological footprint method is Russia's ecological pressure index.Most areas of the four provinces of northeast China in1990, belong to a littleinsecure areas, significant changes in2001occurred, Heilongjiang Province and InnerMongolia Autonomous Region, most of the regional ecological pressure index between1-1.5, belonging to less secure area, only a small part of the land use type is the part ofthe arable land ecological pressure index between0.81-1, are a little insecure areas; Jilinand Liaoning provinces in almost all regions of the ecological pressure index greaterthan2, belong to extremely insecure areas;2007, the vast majority of the four provincesof northeast China regional ecological pressure index greater than2is a very unsafearea, and the ecological pressure index is still in the upswing. The same trend as theresults of traditional ecological footprint method.North Korea in the early1990s can still be considered a little insecure areas, mostof the regional ecological pressure index0.81-1between the ecological pressure indexchanged dramatically after the2000, the vast majority of regional ecological pressureindex has more than two, belong to a very unsafe area, and after2000continued toincrease, the results obtained with the traditional ecological footprint method was alsodifferent. Japan and South Korea in90years, most of the regional ecological pressure indexover1.5, are very safe area, and ecological pressure index increased year by year, to theyear2000, the vast majority of regional ecological pressure index, Japan and SouthKorea has more than2, a very unsafe area, and continues to rise; to2007, the ecologicalpressure index has more than20. Contrary to traditional ecological footprint methodproceeds trend.(3)comparison of traditional ecological footprint methodCompared with traditional ecological footprint method, the calculation results ofthe ecological carrying capacity and ecological pressure index are relatively close to theecological carrying capacity calculation methods based on GIS spatial mean slightlylower than the ecological carrying capacity of the traditional ecological footprintmethod; ecological The deficit is a deficit or surplus in the trend of amplification;ecological pressure index is generally higher than the traditional methods of technicalresults. In addition, based on the calculation of the ecological carrying capacity of theGIS technology for land use data requirements are relatively high, and requires moreaccurate land use maps. This is a disadvantage for ecological security assessment basedon GIS technology.However, compared with traditional methods, the space calculated results is moreintuitive, more valuable, it can better reflect the ecological carrying capacity in1990-2007time period in Northeast Asia, ecological deficit distribution and ecologicalpressure index space, which is the value of the statistical data obtained can not bereflected.