Comparison of two biophysical indicators under different landscape complexity

Ecological Footprint (EF) and Energy-Landscape Integrated Analysis (ELIA) estimate human societies’ imprint on nature. Both methods aim to provide overviews regarding biophysical society–nature interactions. The purposes of this article are to compare how EF and ELIA conceptualize human-nature relat...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Maryam Yousefi, Asef Darvishi, Enric Tello, Shahindokht Barghjelveh, Naghmeh Mobarghaee Dinan, Joan Marull
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Elsevier 2021
Materias:	Ecological footprint Energy-landscape integrated analysis Socio-metabolic system approach Biophysical sustainability metrics Iran Ecology QH540-549.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/ef5dc253a0514b24a7c1d2af14820b53
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:ef5dc253a0514b24a7c1d2af14820b53
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:ef5dc253a0514b24a7c1d2af14820b532021-12-01T04:46:13ZComparison of two biophysical indicators under different landscape complexity1470-160X10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107439https://doaj.org/article/ef5dc253a0514b24a7c1d2af14820b532021-05-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21001047https://doaj.org/toc/1470-160XEcological Footprint (EF) and Energy-Landscape Integrated Analysis (ELIA) estimate human societies’ imprint on nature. Both methods aim to provide overviews regarding biophysical society–nature interactions. The purposes of this article are to compare how EF and ELIA conceptualize human-nature relationships, and what results they produce when applied to the same landscape scale, in order to consider how their methodological similarities and differences can account for Land Use and Cover Change (LUCC). This conceptual comparison acknowledges the “ecocentric” perspective of EF adopted to relate end consumption baskets of human populations with the land biocapacities, and the “social metabolism” perspective of ELIA to take into account biophysical transformations and spatial distribution of matter-energy flows in different land uses. The two methods were applied to a case study of 46 municipalities in the Qazvin Province (Iran). These municipalities were grouped according to the values of the two methods by cluster analysis and correlated with landscape heterogeneity. The correlation analysis demonstrates that EF and ELIA indicators only overlap when landscape structure is highly simplified. However, lower accuracy of EF compared to ELIA as an indicator of socioecological impacts of different types of agricultural practices is confirmed. Although EF remains a useful indicator of unequal appropriation of Earth’s biocapacity, it does so by taking average patterns of food production and consumption as given. To distinguish environmentally friendly from degrading practices, more precise indicators at the landscape level such as ELIA are required for farmers, consumers and policymakers to choose more sustainable options in their decisions.Maryam YousefiAsef DarvishiEnric TelloShahindokht BarghjelvehNaghmeh Mobarghaee DinanJoan MarullElsevierarticleEcological footprintEnergy-landscape integrated analysisSocio-metabolic system approachBiophysical sustainability metricsIranEcologyQH540-549.5ENEcological Indicators, Vol 124, Iss , Pp 107439- (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Ecological footprint Energy-landscape integrated analysis Socio-metabolic system approach Biophysical sustainability metrics Iran Ecology QH540-549.5
spellingShingle	Ecological footprint Energy-landscape integrated analysis Socio-metabolic system approach Biophysical sustainability metrics Iran Ecology QH540-549.5 Maryam Yousefi Asef Darvishi Enric Tello Shahindokht Barghjelveh Naghmeh Mobarghaee Dinan Joan Marull Comparison of two biophysical indicators under different landscape complexity
description	Ecological Footprint (EF) and Energy-Landscape Integrated Analysis (ELIA) estimate human societies’ imprint on nature. Both methods aim to provide overviews regarding biophysical society–nature interactions. The purposes of this article are to compare how EF and ELIA conceptualize human-nature relationships, and what results they produce when applied to the same landscape scale, in order to consider how their methodological similarities and differences can account for Land Use and Cover Change (LUCC). This conceptual comparison acknowledges the “ecocentric” perspective of EF adopted to relate end consumption baskets of human populations with the land biocapacities, and the “social metabolism” perspective of ELIA to take into account biophysical transformations and spatial distribution of matter-energy flows in different land uses. The two methods were applied to a case study of 46 municipalities in the Qazvin Province (Iran). These municipalities were grouped according to the values of the two methods by cluster analysis and correlated with landscape heterogeneity. The correlation analysis demonstrates that EF and ELIA indicators only overlap when landscape structure is highly simplified. However, lower accuracy of EF compared to ELIA as an indicator of socioecological impacts of different types of agricultural practices is confirmed. Although EF remains a useful indicator of unequal appropriation of Earth’s biocapacity, it does so by taking average patterns of food production and consumption as given. To distinguish environmentally friendly from degrading practices, more precise indicators at the landscape level such as ELIA are required for farmers, consumers and policymakers to choose more sustainable options in their decisions.
format	article
author	Maryam Yousefi Asef Darvishi Enric Tello Shahindokht Barghjelveh Naghmeh Mobarghaee Dinan Joan Marull
author_facet	Maryam Yousefi Asef Darvishi Enric Tello Shahindokht Barghjelveh Naghmeh Mobarghaee Dinan Joan Marull
author_sort	Maryam Yousefi
title	Comparison of two biophysical indicators under different landscape complexity
title_short	Comparison of two biophysical indicators under different landscape complexity
title_full	Comparison of two biophysical indicators under different landscape complexity
title_fullStr	Comparison of two biophysical indicators under different landscape complexity
title_full_unstemmed	Comparison of two biophysical indicators under different landscape complexity
title_sort	comparison of two biophysical indicators under different landscape complexity
publisher	Elsevier
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/ef5dc253a0514b24a7c1d2af14820b53
work_keys_str_mv	AT maryamyousefi comparisonoftwobiophysicalindicatorsunderdifferentlandscapecomplexity AT asefdarvishi comparisonoftwobiophysicalindicatorsunderdifferentlandscapecomplexity AT enrictello comparisonoftwobiophysicalindicatorsunderdifferentlandscapecomplexity AT shahindokhtbarghjelveh comparisonoftwobiophysicalindicatorsunderdifferentlandscapecomplexity AT naghmehmobarghaeedinan comparisonoftwobiophysicalindicatorsunderdifferentlandscapecomplexity AT joanmarull comparisonoftwobiophysicalindicatorsunderdifferentlandscapecomplexity
_version_	1718405798904725504

Comparison of two biophysical indicators under different landscape complexity

Ejemplares similares