4.7 Article

Ecological footprint of Rawalpindi; Pakistan's first footprint analysis from urbanization perspective

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 170, Issue -, Pages 362-368

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.186

Keywords

Biocapacity; Urbanization; Bahria Town; Ecological overshoot; EcoHealth

Funding

  1. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan through Pakistan Program for Collaborative Research (PPCR) [17-2/HEC/RD/PPCR/2016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Estimates of footprint have rationalized the approach of environmental input-output assessments. In this study, the Ecological Footprint denotes the bioproductive area needed to sustain a population. We evaluated the living style standards of urbanized areas of Rawalpindi (i.e. Bahria Town and Gulraiz Colony) to calculate their Ecological Footprint. Comprehensive information was obtained from the population of these two areas by questionnaires and subsequent analysis using the Ecological Footprint calculator formulated by Redefined Progress. The Ecological Footprint of Bahria Town is 8.6 g ha (global hectares) and Gulraiz Colony is 6.9 g ha, which indicates that the urban population in these two areas are living a luxurious life style and consuming resources far more than the biocapacity of Pakistan. Another aspect that emerged from this study is that the biocapacity of Pakistan is unable to meet the needs of people due to population increase. Both Bahria Town and Gulraiz Colony have Ecological Footprints higher than national standard values, which illustrates that if all others lived like people in the studied areas then Pakistan's Ecological Footprints (4.7 g ha) would double and overpopulation will have further stress on the ecosystem. We propose maximum utilization of green resources and adaption of energy saving habits as immediate intervention measures to reduce the Ecological Footprint. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available