Assessing the Ecological Carrying Capacity of Countries along the Belt and Road

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.02.016

Abstract

Abstract:

The Belt and Road Initiative (B&R Initiative) is a crucial strategy to promote regional sustainable development in the new era. However, the realization of the B&R Initiative faces huge challenges because of the dual characteristics of a fragile eco-environment and strong dependence on ecological resources for economic development in the Belt and Road (B&R) countries. The ecological carrying capacity (ECC) is a crucial indicator for evaluating regional sustainable development. From the perspective of the relationship between the supply and consumption of ecological resources, this study uses net primary productivity data to measure the supply capacity of ecological resources, and it uses the agricultural production and trade data provided by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to measure the level of ecological resource consumption. These supply and consumption data are then used to assess the ECC and ecological carrying status (ECS) of the B&R countries in 2017. The results show that: (1) The ECC of the B&R is 11.097 billion people; the ecosystem can also support 6.433 billion people, and the ECC is in a state of rich and surplus. (2) The ECS is polarized among the regions and countries along the B&R. Of the 65 countries, the ECC of 40 countries is in a rich and surplus state, mainly in Mid-East Europe and Southeast Asia, while the ECC of 19 countries is in severe overload, mainly in West Asia/Middle East. (3) Although the ecosystems still have ample carrying space in countries along the B&R, ecological protection is still facing enormous challenges during the implementation of the B&R Initiative combined with the internationally recognized ecological protection standards as well as the forecasts of the population and economic development. As the core content of building a new international trade network, the B&R Initiative will help to solve the spatial mismatch between the supply and consumption of ecological resources, which provides a new opportunity to coordinate the contradiction between the ecological protection and social demands of the B&R countries.

Key words: ecological carrying capacity, ecological carrying status, supply-consumption relationship, Net Primary Production (NPP), the Belt and Road (B&R)

DU Wenpeng, YAN Huimin, FENG Zhiming, YANG Yanzhao. Assessing the Ecological Carrying Capacity of Countries along the Belt and Road[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022, 13(2): 338-346.

Figures/Tables 8

References 44

[1]	Albrizio R, Steduto P. 2003. Photosynthesis, respiration and conservative carbon use efficiency of four field grown crops. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 116(1-2): 19-36. DOI URL
[2]	Ascensão F, Fahrig L, Clevenger A P, et al. 2018. Environmental challenges for the Belt and Road Initiative. Nature Sustainability, 1(5): 206-209. DOI URL
[3]	Baillie J, Zhang Y P. 2018. Space for nature. Science, 361(6407): 1051. DOI URL
[4]	Chen D, Yu Q Y, Hu Q, et al. 2018. Cultivated land change in the Belt and Road Initiative region. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 28(11): 1580-1594. DOI URL
[5]	Chin H, He W, 2016. The Belt and Road Initiative: 65 countries and beyond. Hong Kong, China: Fung Business Intelligence Center.
[6]	Clark C E F, Akter Y, Hungerford A, et al. 2019. The intake pattern and feed preference of layer hens selected for high or low feed conversion ratio. Plos One, 14(9): e0222304. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222304. DOI URL
[7]	Dixon R K, Solomon A M, Brown S, et al. 1994. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science, 263(5144): 185-190. PMID
[8]	Du W P, Yan H M, Yang Y Z, et al. 2018. Evaluation methods and research trends for ecological carrying capacity. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 9(2): 115-124. DOI URL
[9]	Fan J W, Zhong H P, Harris W, et al. 2008. Carbon storage in the grasslands of China based on field measurements of above- and below-ground biomass. Climatic Change, 86(3-4): 375-396. DOI URL
[10]	Feng Z M, Yang Y Z, Yan H M, et al. 2017. A review of resources and environment carrying capacity research since the 20th Century: From theory to practice. Resources Science, 39(3): 379-395. (in Chinese)
[11]	Feng Z M, Yang Y Z, Zhang J. 2008. The land carrying capacity of China based on man-grain relationship. Natural Resources, 23(5): 865-875. (in Chinese)
[12]	Feng Z M. 2004. The introductory theory of resource science. Beijing, China: Science Press. (in Chinese)
[13]	Guo H D. 2018. Steps to the digital Silk Road. Nature, 554(7690): 25-27. DOI URL
[14]	Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U, et al. 2011. Global food losses and food waste. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[15]	Guterres A. 2017. Remarks at the opening of the Belt and Road Forum. New York, USA: United Nations Secretary General. www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2017-05-14/secretary-general’s-belt-and-road-forum-remarks. (accessed 21 October 2020).
[16]	Haberl H, Erb K H, Krausmann F, et al. 2007. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104(31): 12942-12947.
[17]	Haberl H, Schulz N B, Plutzar C, et al. 2004. Human appropriation of net primary production and species diversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 102(2): 213-218.
[18]	Haberl H. 1997. Human appropriation of net primary production as an environmental indicator: Implications for sustainable development. AMBIO, 26(3): 143-146.
[19]	Herrero M, Havlík P, Valin H, et al. 2013. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110(52): 20888-20893. DOI URL
[20]	Imhoff M L, Bounoua L, 2006. Exploring global patterns of net primary production carbon supply and demand using satellite observations and statistical data. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 111(D22): D22S12. DOI: 10.1029/2006JD007377. DOI
[21]	Imhoff M L, Bounoua L, Ricketts T, et al. 2004. Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature, 429(6994): 870-873. DOI URL
[22]	Jackson R B, Canadell J, Ehleringer J R, et al. 1996. A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia, 108(3): 389-411. DOI PMID
[23]	Jiang T, Wang Y J, Yuan J S, et al. 2018. Projection of population and economy in the Belt and Road countries (2020-2060). Progressus Inquisitiones de Mutatione Climatis, 14(2): 155-164.
[24]	Liu Q H, Wu J J, Li L, et al. 2018. Ecological environment monitoring for sustainable development goals in the Belt and Road region. Journal of Remote Sensing, 22(4): 686-708.
[25]	Liu W D, Dunford M, Gao B Y. 2018. A discursive construction of the Belt and Road Initiative: From neo-liberal to inclusive globalization. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 28(9): 1199-1214. DOI URL
[26]	Liu W D. 2019. Joint construction of Green Silk Roads: Social, economic and environmental context. Beijing, China: The Commercial Press.
[27]	Lobell D B, Hicke J A, Asner G P, et al. 2002. Satellite estimates of productivity and light use efficiency in United States agriculture, 1982-98. Global Change Biology, 8(8): 722-735. DOI URL
[28]	Mokany K, Raison R J, Prokushkin A S. 2006. Critical analysis of root: Shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Global Change Biology, 12(1): 84-96. DOI URL
[29]	Peters C J, Picardy J A, Darrouzet-Nardi A, et al. 2014. Feed conversions, ration compositions, and land use efficiencies of major livestock products in US agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems, 130: 35-43.
[30]	Picos J, Fonseca M, Clark D, et al. 2010. Forest product conversion factors for the uneven region. Rome, Italy: Geneva Timber and Forest Discussion Paper.
[31]	Pimm S L, Jenkins C N, Li B V. 2018. How to protect half of Earth to ensure it protects sufficient biodiversity. Science Advances, 4(8): eaat2616. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aat2616. DOI URL
[32]	Quan J P, Cai G Y, Ye J, et al. 2018. A global comparison of the microbiome compositions of three gut locations in commercial pigs with extreme feed conversion ratios. Scientific Reports, 8: 1-10.
[33]	Rosamond N, Henning S, Walter F, et al. 2005. Losing the links between livestock and land. Science, 310(5754): 1621-1622. PMID
[34]	Rosillo-Calle F, De Groot P, Hemstock S L, et al. 2015. The biomass assessment handbook: Energy for a sustainable environment. London, UK: Routledge.
[35]	Scoones I. 1993. Economic and ecological carrying capacity:Applications to pastoral systems in Zimbabwe. Berlin, Germany: Springer Netherlands.
[36]	Singapore Food Agency. 2020. Singapore’s modern farm series. https://www.sfa.gov.sg/food-for-thought/tags?tag=singapores-modern-farm-series&page=1.
[37]	Wiedmann T, Lenzen M. 2018. Environmental and social footprints of international trade. Nature Geoscience, 11(5): 314-321. DOI URL
[38]	Winjum J K, Brown S, Schlamadinger B. 1998. Forest harvests and wood products: Sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Forest Science, 44(2): 272-284.
[39]	Wu S H, Liu L L, Liu Y H, et al. 2019. The Belt and Road: Geographical pattern and regional risks. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 29(4): 483-495. DOI URL
[40]	Yan H M, Liu J Y, Huang H Q, et al. 2012. Impacts of cropland transformation on agricultural production under urbanization and Grain for Green Project in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 67(5): 579-588. (in Chinese)
[41]	Yu G R, Xu X L, Wang Q F, et al. 2017. Study on the effects of global change on resources and environment carrying capacity in ecological fragile zones in China. China Basic Science, 19(6): 19-23. (in Chinese)
[42]	Zhang N, Liu Z, Zheng X, et al. 2017. Carbon footprint of China’s Belt and Road. Science, 357(6356): 1107. DOI PMID
[43]	Zhao D S, Guo C Y, Zheng D, et al. Review of ecological carrying capacity. 2019. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(2): 399-410. (in Chinese)
[44]	Zhou C B, Elshkaki A, Graedel T E. 2018. Global human appropriation of net primary production and associated resource decoupling: 2010-2050. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(3): 1208-1215. DOI URL

Name	Resolution	Time-period	Source
Land use/cover change	300 m	2000-2017	European Space Agency, CCI-LC
Gross Primary Production	500 m	2000-2017	Vegetation Photosynthesis Model (Zhang et al., 2017)
Agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry production	Country	2017	Faostat Database
Agricultural, forestry and animal husbandry product trade	Country	2017	Faostat Database
Population	Country	2017	Word Bank Data
Land area	Country	2017	Word Bank Data

Name	Resolution	Time-period	Source
Land use/cover change	300 m	2000-2017	European Space Agency, CCI-LC
Gross Primary Production	500 m	2000-2017	Vegetation Photosynthesis Model (Zhang et al., 2017)
Agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry production	Country	2017	Faostat Database
Agricultural, forestry and animal husbandry product trade	Country	2017	Faostat Database
Population	Country	2017	Word Bank Data
Land area	Country	2017	Word Bank Data

Regions	ECC (×10⁸ capita)	Population (×10⁸ person)*	The proportion of ECC (%)	ECC-UA (capita km^-2)
Southeast Asia	31.29	6.48	28.20	720.86
South Asia	21.16	17.93	19.07	443.55
West Asia/Middle East	3.60	4.42	3.25	48.64
Mid-East Europe	9.23	1.76	8.32	434.54
China-Mongolia-Russian	44.06	15.34	39.71	161.29
Central Asia	1.62	0.71	1.46	41.20
Total	110.97	46.65	100.00	222.43

Regions	ECC (×10⁸ capita)	Population (×10⁸ person)*	The proportion of ECC (%)	ECC-UA (capita km^-2)
Southeast Asia	31.29	6.48	28.20	720.86
South Asia	21.16	17.93	19.07	443.55
West Asia/Middle East	3.60	4.42	3.25	48.64
Mid-East Europe	9.23	1.76	8.32	434.54
China-Mongolia-Russian	44.06	15.34	39.71	161.29
Central Asia	1.62	0.71	1.46	41.20
Total	110.97	46.65	100.00	222.43

Regions	ECI	ECS
Southeast Asia	0.21	Rich and surplus
South Asia	0.85	Balance
West Asia/Middle East	1.23	Overload
Mid-East Europe	0.19	Rich and surplus
China-Mongolia-Russia	0.35	Rich and surplus
Central Asia	0.44	Rich and surplus
Total	0.42	Rich and surplus