Document Type : Original Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Ayatollah Boroujerdi University, Boroujerd, Iran.

Abstract

Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: The increase in population and the development of urbanization have had destructive environmental effects. With the emergence and intensification of these problems, the sustainable development approach was placed on government’s and planners’ agenda. The history of space development programs prepared in Iran shows that sustainability considerations have been ignored in most programs. These programs are often used for research after implementation. However, the evaluation of the future situations resulting from the implementation of developmental interventions in the region is considered a practical step in modifying and revising the development plans in order to achieve sustainablity. The master plan of Boroujerd, located in Lorestan province, was prepared by the Emco consulting engineers and was approved by the Supreme Council of Urban Planning and Architecture in the spring of 2016. To assess the impact of the Boroujerd comprehensive plan on its sustainability, a comparison will be made between the ecological conditions in 2015 and 2031. With this aim, the ecological footprint and biological capacity of Boroujerd have been calculated separately for each year, and finally, after deducting the ecological footprint from the biological capacity, the sustainability of the region will be determined in terms of ecological surplus or deficit.
Methods: The Ecological Footprint Index is one of the most important tools for measuring the sustainability status of specific areas or lifestyles, which was proposed by Rees and Wackernagel in the 1990s. This index offers clear insights into regions exerting higher pressure on natural resources. It calculates the ecological footprint based on four consumption categories: food, housing, services, and transportation. Additionally, it categorizes the types of land required to fulfill this consumption and absorb pollution, including forest land, built-up land, fishing land, cropland, grazing land, and carbon. In this study, a combination of a field survey and a questionnaire (the questionnaire was adapted to align with the Iranian-Islamic lifestyle to the greatest extent possible) was employed to determine the ecological footprint in 2020 (the year when the research was conducted). Subsequently, predictions for the ecological footprint in 2015 and 2031 were made. On the other hand, biocapacity pertains to the capacity of water and soil to provide ecological services. Similar to the ecological footprint, biological capacity involves the classification of land types into six groups. Ultimately, Boroujerd’s biological capacity was computed based on the area of each of these six land types, utilizing the following formula:
BC= A× YF × EQF
BC= Biological Capacity; A=  Area; YF= Yield Factor; EQF= Equivalence Factor
Findings: The results reveal that Boroujerd’s biological capacity, both in 2015 and 2031, surpasses the national average due to its abundant natural resources. However, its ecological footprint and deficit are alarmingly higher. The ecological deficit in Boroujerd is predicted to increase further in 2031, due to inappropriate consumption patterns, population growth, and changes in land use outlined in the proposed master plan. In both 2015 and 2031, the highest percentage of the ecological footprint is associated with Carbon, Cropland, Forest land, Built-up land, Fishing land, and Grazing land, respectively. Notably, the reduction in the biological capacity of cropland and the increase in the biological capacity of built-up land demand particular consideration. Due to the proposed plan’s alteration of cropland use, their biological capacity has dwindled to less than half. As a result, the city will face a greater ecological deficit in this type of land compared to other types. Although in the proposed plan, an attempt has been made to compensate for this ecological deficit by creating a green protection axis in the city limit, due to the increase in population and the conversion of cropland into built-up land, there has been no success in compensating the ecological deficit.
Conclusion: The ecological deficit of Boroujerd in 2015 was about -44.3 hectares per person, and if the mentioned plan is implemented, sustainability is expected to slightly decline by 2031, and the ecological deficit will reach -67.3 hectares per person. In the end, two categories of solutions in order to compensate for the ecological deficit and achieve a sustainable situation in Boroujerd will be addressed. The first group is solutions to reduce the ecological footprint aiming to lower demand levels and promote sustainability through education and culture for the optimal consumption of each of the indicators used in the calculation of the footprint. The second set of solutions, commonly adopted in developed societies and seek to increase biological capacity through innovative solutions. In this regard, solutions are proposed to reduce carbon emissions and increase the capacity of environmental resources.
 

Graphical Abstract

Evaluating the effect of master urban plans on the region sustainability using the ecological footprint method; Case study: Boroujerd city

Highlights

- Evaluating the effects of the implementation of the comprehensive plan of Boroujerd on its sustainability using the ecological footprint method.
- Calculating the ecological footprint using a questionnaire based on measuring the amount of consumption in the four groups of food, housing, transportation and goods and determining the biological capacity based on the area of six types of land.
- Providing solutions for compensating for the ecological deficit and achieving sustainability in Boroujerd.

Keywords

  1. Ayres, R. (2000). On the utility of the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 32, 347–349.
  2. Barrett, J., & Scott, A. (2001). The ecological footprint: a metric for corporate sustainability. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 8(4), 316-325.
  3. Barrett, J., Birch, R., Cherrett, N., & Wiedmann, T. (2005). Reducing Wales’ Ecological Footprint – main report, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, published by WWF–Cymru, Cardiff, UK.
  4. Emco Consulting Engineers. (2016). Boroujerd City Master Plan Review Report. [In Persian]
  5. Constanza, R. (2000). The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 32, 341–345.
  6. Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A., & Wackernagel, M. (2010). Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. Global Footprint Network, Oakland.
  7. Footprintcalculator, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.footprintcalculator.org/food1, at December, 2020; 18:30 PM.
  8. Geng, Y., Zhang, L., Chen, X., Xue, B., Fujita, T., & Dong, H. (2014). Urban ecological footprint analysis: a comparative study between Shenyang in China and Kawasaki in Japan. Journal of cleaner production, 75, 130-142.
  9. Jomepour, M., Hataminejad, H, & Shahanavaz, S. (2013). An Investigation on Sustainable Development in Rasht County Using Ecological Footprint. Human Geography Research Quarterly, 45(3), 191-208. [In Persian]
  10. Kitzes, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S., & Wackernagel, M. (2007). Current methods for calculating national ecological footprint accounts. Science for environment & sustainable society, 4(1), 1-9.
  11. Larson, J., Moore, D. & Gracey, K. (2013), The Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity of California. Global Footprint Network, Oakland.
  12. Lenzen, M., & Murray, S. A. (2001). A Modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecological Economics, 17, 229–255.
  13. Levett, R. (1998). Footprinting. Local Environment, 3, 67-64.
  14. McManus, P., & Haughton, G. (2006). Planning with ecological footprints: a sympathetic critique of theory and practice. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), 113-127.
  15. Muñiz, I., Calatayud, D., & Dobaño, R. (2013). The compensation hypothesis in Barcelona measured through the ecological footprint of mobility and housing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 113, 113-119.
  16. Nichols, M. (2003). An application of the Ecological Footprint method to an eco-tourism resort: A case study of Kingfisher Bay resort and Village, Fraser Island. Bachelor of Science Thesis Faculty of Science, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Australia.
  17. Samadpour, P. & Faryadi, Sh. (2008). Determination of Ecological Footprints of Dense and High-Rise Districts, Case Study of Elahie Neighborhood, Tehran. Journal of Environmental Studies, 34(45), 63-72. [In Persian]
  18. Sharifzadegan, M., Nedae Tousi, S., Inanlou, L. & Nikbin, A. (2016). Assessing the Spatial Development Plan's Outcome on Regions' Sustainability Status Using Ecological Footprint Method, case study: Qazvin Urban Region Plan. Journal of Environmental Studies, 42(2), 259-280. [In Persian]
  19. Taghizadeh Diva, S. A. & Rooshenas, S. (2019). Application of Ecological Footprint Method in Environmental Sustainability Assessment (Case Study: Gorgan County). Geographical Planning of Space Quarterly Journal, 9(33), 157-170. [In Persian]
  20. Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J., Moran, D., Goldfinger, S., & Thomas, M. (2006). The ecological footprint of cities and regions: comparing resource availability with resource demand. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), 103-112.
  21. Wackernagel, M., Galli, A., Borucke, M., Lazarus, E., & Mattoon, S. (2013). Ecological footprint accounting. In: Lawn, P. (Ed.), Globalisation, economic transition and the environment: forging a path to sustainable development (pp. 276–304). Edward Elgar Publishing.