The Fairness Evaluation on Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of Ecological Footprint: A Case Study of Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Sources
2.3. Methodology
2.3.1. Gini Coefficient
2.3.2. Spatiotemporal Analysis Method
2.3.3. Ecological Support Coefficient
2.3.4. Economic Contribution Coefficient
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Trends of the Ecological Footprint in the GPUA
3.1.1. Trends Analysis of the Ecological Footprint
3.1.2. Dynamic Relationship Analysis of the Ecological Footprint
3.2. Fairness Evaluation of the Ecological Footprint in the GPUA
3.2.1. Temporal Dimension Evaluation
3.2.2. Spatial Dimension Evaluation
- (1)
- Xi’an shifted from low economic contribution and low ecological contribution to high economic contribution and low ecological contribution, reflecting its status as the National central city and core city of the GPUA. The innovation-driven economic development model of Xi’an contributes to a relatively high economic growth efficiency, and its economic contribution is significantly higher than that of the other five cities. According to the EKC, in the future, with its development, the structural effect and technological effect will drive industrial transformation, which will shift from factor-driven heavy industry to innovation-driven technology-intensive industries and high-end service industries. This will gradually improve the environmental quality and enhance its ecological contribution.
- (2)
- Tongchuan, Baoji, and Xianyang shifted from high economic contribution and high ecological contribution to low economic contribution and high ecological contribution, indicating delayed industrial transformation that reduced economic efficiency. Consequently, these cities have become suppliers of natural capital within the agglomeration, generating positive externalities for neighboring areas.
- (3)
- Weinan transitioned from low economic contribution and high ecological contribution to ”dual-low”: low economic and low ecological contribution, demonstrating lagging performance in both economic and ecological dimensions. This dual decline implies weaker contributions relative to resource consumption, sacrificing the agglomeration’s well-being and ecological fairness, and while positioning the city as a demander of both natural and human-made capital, creating negative externalities.
- (4)
- Yangling Demonstration Zone shifted from high economic and high ecological contribution to high economic and low ecological contribution, revealing its failure to fulfill environmental responsibilities (e.g., energy conservation) compared to its peers, and thereby undermining regional ecological fairness. According to the EKC, urban development need not sacrifice neighboring well-being; in the future, the development of the city, surpassing the inflection point of the EKC, will gradually enhance its ecological contribution.
4. Key Findings, Research Limitations, and Future Directions
4.1. Key Findings
4.2. Research Limitations
4.3. Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
EF | Ecological Footprint |
EC | Ecological Carrying Capacity |
GPUA | Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration |
EPI | Ecological Pressure Index |
ESC | Ecological Support Coefficient |
ECC | Economy Contributive Coefficient |
EKC | Environmental Kuznets Curve |
Appendix A
Appendix B
Variables | ef |
---|---|
GDP | 1.518 ** (2.090) |
GDP2 | −0.422 *** (−6.024) |
_cons | −4.550 *** (−2.837) |
N | 108.000 |
r2 | 0.63 |
F | 89.02 *** |
References
- United Nations-Regional Information Centre for Western Europe, Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://unric.org/en/united-nations-sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 4 April 2025).
- Ostrom, E. Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global Environmental Change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joan, M.; Leah, T.; Daniela, D.B.; Arnim, S. Is There a Global Environmental Justice Movement? J. Peasant. Stud. 2016, 43, 731–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, C.L. New Structure and New Trend of Formation and Development of Urban Agglomerations in China. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2011, 31, 1025–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robert, D.B. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality, 3rd ed.; Westview Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.C. Provincial Pattern of China’s Natural Capital Use: A Modification and Application of Ecological Footprint Depth and Size. J. Nat. Resour. 2012, 27, 1995–2005. [Google Scholar]
- AnnMari, J.; Monica, H.; Carl, F.; Robert, C. Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Min, Q.W.; Cheng, S.K. Ecosystem’s Occupation of Different Countries Viewing from Ecological Footprint. Econ. Geogr. 2005, 25, 12–15. [Google Scholar]
- Fang, K. Assessing the Natural Capital Use of Eleven Nations: An Application of a Revised Three-Dimensional Model of Ecological Footprint. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 3766–3777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, F.; Wang, C.S. Theories and Approaches of Ecological Economics and Their Evolutional Trends. China Soft Sci. 2003, 3, 131–138. [Google Scholar]
- Ouyang, Z.Y.; Wang, R.S.; Zhao, J.Z. Ecosystem Services and Their Economic Valuation. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 1999, 10, 635–640. [Google Scholar]
- Druckman, A.; Jackson, T. Measuring Resource Inequalities: The Concepts and Methodology for an Area-Based Gini Coefficient. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, T.; Zhang, H.W.; Wang, Y.; Meng, X.M.; Wang, C.W. The Application of Environmental Gini Coefficient (EGC) in Allocating Wastewater Discharge Permit: The Case Study of Watershed Total Mass Control in Tianjin, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 601–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.X.; Xu, X.Y. Analysis of Fairness of Water Use Based on Geordie Coefficient in China. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 212–213, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samani, Z.N.; Alesheikh, A.A.; Karimi, M.; Samany, N.N.; Bayat, S.; Lotfata, A.; Garau, C. Advancing Urban Healthcare Equity Analysis: Integrating Public Participation GIS with Fuzzy Best-Worst Decision-Making. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arezoumand, S.; Smadi, O. Equity in Transportation Asset Management: A Proposed Framework. Algorithms 2024, 17, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shruti, S.; Singh, P.K.; Ohri, A. Evaluating the Environmental Sustainability of Smart Cities in India: The Design and Application of the Indian Smart City Environmental Sustainability Index. Sustainability 2021, 13, 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, X.Q.; Zhang, W.M.; Li, M.M. Analysis of City Resource-Environment Gini Coefficient Based on Ecological Capability in Guangdong Province, China: Discuss with Yin-bo Zhang. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2008, 28, 4486–4493. [Google Scholar]
- Tian, Y.; Zhang, J.B.; Wu, X.R.; Cheng, L.L. Research on Dynamic Change and Regional Differences of China’s Planting Industry Carbon Sink Surplus. J. Nat. Resour. 2015, 30, 1885–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, L.; Sun, C.Z.; Zou, W.; Xi, X. Assessment and Spatial-Temporal Evolution of Water Consumption Fairness from a Water Footprint Perspective in China. Resour. Sci. 2014, 36, 1799–1809. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, J.Y.; Huang, X.J.; Dai, L.; Chen, Z.G.; Li, Y. Spatio-temporal Scale Analysis on the Equality of Energy Consum-ption Carbon Emission Distribution in China. J. Nat. Resour. 2012, 27, 2006–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Y.; Ruth, M.; Zhu, D.; Ding, J.; Morris, N. A Sustainability Assessment of Five Major Food Crops’ Water Footprints in China from 1978 to 2010. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, J.; Chen, R.; Ma, X. Provincial Allocation of Energy Consumption, Air Pollutant and CO2 Emission Quotas in China: Based on a Weighted Environment ZSG-DEA Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Guo, B.; Sun, Z. Sustainable Urban-Rural Symbiosis in China: A Study from the Symbiosis Theory Perspective on Level Measurement and Spatial Difference Analysis. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pang, J.; Yin, J.; Li, S.; Zou, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liang, X.; Huang, R. The Ecological Footprint and Allocation of Guangxi Beibu Gulf Urban Agglomeration. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, N.; Wang, H.; He, W.; Jia, B.; Fu, B.; Chen, J.; Meng, X.; Yu, L.; Wang, J. Spatiotemporal Detection of Ecological Environment Quality Changes in the Lijiang River Basin Using a New Dual Model. Sustainability 2025, 17, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nada, H.; Catherine, V.R.; Eric, M.; Shwetha, G.E. New World Bank Country Classifications by Income Level: 2022–2023. 2022. Available online: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/new-world-bank-country-classifications-income-level-2022-2023 (accessed on 16 April 2025).
- UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Silk Roads: Chang’an-Tianshan Corridor. 2014. Available online: https://www.worldheritagesite.org/list/Silk+Roads%3A+Chang%27an-Tianshan+Corridor (accessed on 2 April 2025).
- UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor. 1987. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/441 (accessed on 2 April 2025).
- National Development and Reform Commission. Outline of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) for National Economic and Social Development and Vision 2035 of the People’s Republic of China. 2021. Available online: https://en.ndrc.gov.cn/policies (accessed on 12 April 2025).
- Li, D.K.; Fan, J.Z.; Quan, W.T. Analysis of Vegetation Degradation and its Driving Factors in Shaanxi Province. Chin. J. Ecol. 2015, 34, 2907–2913. [Google Scholar]
- Ni, P.F. Annual Report on China’s Urban Competitiveness (No. 13); Social Sciences Academic Press: Beijing, China, 2015; pp. 316–317. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.N.; Lu, Y.T.; Zhou, J.S.; Li, Y.; Cao, D. Analysis of China Resource-environment Gini Coefficient Based on GDP. China Environ. Sci. 2006, 26, 111–115. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Zhu, Y.Z.; Zhang, J.Q. Driving Factors of the Ecological Footprint of the Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Zone. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 7061–7067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.H.; Mao, H.Y.; Wang, Z.J. Progress in Research of Ecological Footprint All Over the World. J. Nat. Resour. 2002, 17, 776–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.N.; Yong, A.; Liu, M.; Zhao, Y.H.; Lin, K.L.; Cheng, T. Ecological security assessment based on ecosystem service value and ecological footprint in the Pearl River Delta urban agglomeration, China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 144, 109528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.M.; Zhang, Z.Q.; Cheng, G.D.; Cheng, D.J. Ecological Footprint Calculation and Development Capacity Analysis of China in 1999. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 14, 280–285. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Fan, M.D. Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Differences and Equity of Ecological Footprints of Provinces Along the Silk Road Economic Belt in China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 5040–5050. [Google Scholar]
- Zhong, M.C.; Zhang, X.G. Summary About the Critique of Environmental Kuznets Curve. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2010, 20, 62–67. [Google Scholar]
- Gene, M.G.; Alan, B.K. Environmental Impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement; NBER Working Paper; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, UK, 1991; Available online: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3914/w3914.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2025).
- Zhang, C.; Ding, W.; Zhang, L. Impacts of Missing Buoy Data on LSTM-Based Coastal Chlorophyll-a Forecasting. Water 2024, 16, 3046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Lv, C.; Ling, M.; Gu, C.; Li, Y.; Wu, Z.; Yan, D. Emergy Analysis and Ecological Spillover as Tools to Quantify Ecological Compensation in Xuchang City, Qingyi River Basin, China. Water 2021, 13, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, Y.; Qi, C.; Gui, C.; Yang, Y. Spatial Spillover Effects of Digital Infrastructure on Food System Resilience: An Analysis Incorporating Threshold Effects and Spatial Decay Boundaries. Foods 2025, 14, 1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodrigues, J.; Saraiva, C.; García-Díez, J.; Castro, J.; Esteves, A. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Food Safety Policies in Portugal: A Stakeholder-Based Analysis of Challenges and Opportunities for Food Safety Governance. Foods 2025, 14, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ecological Security Level | Ecological Pressure Index (EPI) | Ecological Security Status |
---|---|---|
1 | EPI < 0.50 | Very safe |
2 | 0.50 ≤ EPI < 0.80 | Safer |
3 | 0.80 ≤ EPI < 1.00 | Slightly unsafe |
4 | 1.00 ≤ EPI < 1.50 | Less safe |
5 | 1.50 ≤ EPI < 2.00 | Not safe |
6 | EPI > 2.00 | Extremely unsafe |
Year | Ecological Carrying Capacity Gini Coefficient (G1) | Economic Contribution Gini Coefficient (G2) | Comprehensive Gini Coefficient (G) |
---|---|---|---|
2005 | 0.3694 | 0.1039 | 0.1310 |
2006 | 0.4860 | 0.1474 | 0.3709 |
2007 | 0.4970 | 0.1610 | 0.3827 |
2008 | 0.4982 | 0.1661 | 0.3853 |
2009 | 0.5023 | 0.1569 | 0.3848 |
2010 | 0.5040 | 0.1624 | 0.3879 |
2011 | 0.5247 | 0.1932 | 0.4120 |
2012 | 0.5757 | 0.2558 | 0.4669 |
2013 | 0.6060 | 0.2984 | 0.5014 |
2014 | 0.5898 | 0.2701 | 0.4811 |
2015 | 0.2293 | 0.2751 | 0.2449 |
2016 | 0.2296 | 0.2807 | 0.2469 |
2017 | 0.2298 | 0.3041 | 0.2550 |
2018 | 0.2300 | 0.3180 | 0.2599 |
2019 | 0.1710 | 0.3417 | 0.2290 |
2020 | 0.1712 | 0.3519 | 0.2327 |
2021 | 0.1714 | 0.3392 | 0.2284 |
2022 | 0.1716 | 0.3396 | 0.2287 |
Average value | 0.3754 | 0.2481 | 0.3239 |
Coefficient of variation | 0.4513 | 0.3287 | 0.3310 |
Year | Xi’an | Tongchuan | Baoji | Xianyang | Weinan | Yangling Demonstration Zone | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ECC | ESC | ECC | ESC | ECC | ESC | ECC | ESC | ECC | ESC | ECC | ESC | |
2005 | 1.0195 | 2.6443 | 0.9860 | 0.4790 | 0.7573 | 0.4335 | 0.8476 | 0.7472 | 1.4658 | 0.6875 | 0.3129 | 0.7659 |
2006 | 1.1168 | 2.9202 | 0.8439 | 0.4244 | 0.6145 | 0.3582 | 0.7118 | 0.6043 | 1.4708 | 0.6787 | 0.2558 | 0.6441 |
2007 | 1.2171 | 3.1879 | 0.7910 | 0.3930 | 0.5343 | 0.3052 | 0.6054 | 0.5190 | 1.3064 | 0.6060 | 0.2584 | 0.6944 |
2008 | 1.2245 | 3.1963 | 0.8134 | 0.4075 | 0.5379 | 0.3026 | 0.5777 | 0.5136 | 1.3239 | 0.6040 | 0.2362 | 0.6398 |
2009 | 1.2280 | 3.2541 | 0.7881 | 0.4055 | 0.5596 | 0.3071 | 0.5739 | 0.5034 | 1.2667 | 0.5648 | 0.2433 | 0.6877 |
2010 | 1.2513 | 3.2522 | 0.7914 | 0.4080 | 0.5487 | 0.3004 | 0.5549 | 0.5047 | 1.2365 | 0.5717 | 0.2487 | 0.6737 |
2011 | 1.3211 | 3.3659 | 0.7678 | 0.4036 | 0.5041 | 0.2735 | 0.5045 | 0.4678 | 1.1153 | 0.5447 | 0.2195 | 0.6295 |
2012 | 1.4621 | 3.6912 | 0.6218 | 0.3366 | 0.4042 | 0.2247 | 0.4074 | 0.3828 | 0.9061 | 0.4350 | 0.1923 | 0.5355 |
2013 | 1.5680 | 3.8828 | 0.5164 | 0.2888 | 0.3558 | 0.1951 | 0.3464 | 0.3374 | 0.7524 | 0.3703 | 0.1432 | 0.4393 |
2014 | 1.4910 | 3.7692 | 0.6315 | 0.3239 | 0.3866 | 0.2045 | 0.3739 | 0.3705 | 0.8698 | 0.4101 | 0.1912 | 0.6104 |
2015 | 0.6045 | 1.5417 | 1.8991 | 0.8785 | 1.0113 | 0.5560 | 0.9925 | 0.9701 | 2.4494 | 1.1085 | 0.4430 | 1.4728 |
2016 | 0.6041 | 1.5403 | 2.0463 | 0.8901 | 1.0053 | 0.5537 | 0.9628 | 0.9687 | 2.5434 | 1.1102 | 0.4312 | 1.4962 |
2017 | 0.5700 | 1.5390 | 2.0875 | 0.9007 | 0.9951 | 0.5515 | 1.1304 | 0.9673 | 2.5893 | 1.1118 | 0.4291 | 1.5178 |
2018 | 0.5510 | 1.5378 | 2.4246 | 0.9105 | 1.0375 | 0.5496 | 1.1778 | 0.9661 | 2.6182 | 1.1133 | 0.4280 | 1.5377 |
2019 | 0.5208 | 1.5367 | 2.3909 | 0.9196 | 1.1122 | 0.5477 | 1.3448 | 0.9650 | 2.6762 | 1.1147 | 0.4126 | 1.5562 |
2020 | 0.5086 | 1.5357 | 2.3552 | 0.9281 | 1.1374 | 0.5460 | 1.4050 | 0.9640 | 2.7574 | 1.1159 | 0.4818 | 1.5734 |
2021 | 0.5216 | 1.5347 | 2.2590 | 0.9360 | 1.1091 | 0.5444 | 1.3124 | 0.9630 | 2.7019 | 1.1171 | 0.5123 | 1.5894 |
2022 | 0.5222 | 1.5338 | 2.1306 | 0.9434 | 1.1065 | 0.5429 | 1.2933 | 0.9621 | 2.7611 | 1.1182 | 0.5272 | 1.6044 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liang, L.; Liu, X.; Ge, P. The Fairness Evaluation on Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of Ecological Footprint: A Case Study of Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104728
Liang L, Liu X, Ge P. The Fairness Evaluation on Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of Ecological Footprint: A Case Study of Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration. Sustainability. 2025; 17(10):4728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104728
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiang, Libo, Xiaona Liu, and Pengfei Ge. 2025. "The Fairness Evaluation on Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of Ecological Footprint: A Case Study of Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration" Sustainability 17, no. 10: 4728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104728
APA StyleLiang, L., Liu, X., & Ge, P. (2025). The Fairness Evaluation on Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of Ecological Footprint: A Case Study of Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration. Sustainability, 17(10), 4728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104728