Sustainable city

Sustainable city

Analysis of the consequences of the ecological footprint of Tehran metropolis on its sustainability

Document Type : Articles extracted from Thesis

Authors
Department of Geography and Planning, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/jsc.2025.476326.1801
Abstract
A B S T R A C T
Ecological footprint indicates the amount of natural resource consumption and services needed by humans and is equal to the amount of land or water required to meet the consumption needs of society and absorb their waste production. This study used ecological footprint methods and GIS software for data analysis and sustainability assessment. The ecological footprint and biocapacity of Tehran city were used using this quantitative method, and ecological footprint and biocapacity, descriptive-analytical method, and library resources were used. The analyses showed that Tehran's ecological footprint equals 6.12 hectares, and its biocapacity is 0.0141 hectares. Compared to its biocapacity and ecological footprint, Tehran city is suffering from environmental deficiency and is in an ecologically unstable state. Its biocapacity is facing an ecological balance deficit of 74,632,890.7 hectares. Based on calculations, the Tehran metropolis is ecologically unsustainable, and with current consumption patterns, its residents are unable to meet their needs through domestic production. The consumption rate in this city has exceeded the global ecological limit, and the tolerable biological capacity of the environment does not meet the needs of the residents. It is necessary to take comprehensive and multifaceted measures to address the problem of unsustainability and reduce the ecological footprint. These measures include resource management, reducing consumption, improving urban infrastructure, and increasing public awareness. Implementing these solutions will help reduce pressure on natural resources, improve the quality of life of citizens, and create a sustainable city.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Rapid urbanization has transformed the functions and identity of the city and has affected its sustainability in various environmental, social, economic, cultural, political, and environmental aspects in recent decades. This has made urban management one of the most complex and important areas of interaction between people and the government. Ecological footprint is a method and approach that shows the extent of human intervention in nature. This estimate shows how much of the land and sea surface has natural production capacity to meet their residents' vital needs and lifestyles. In recent decades, Tehran has faced numerous challenges and problems in managing city affairs. These problems indicate excessive pressure on the ecological capacity of the region and cause its instability. It is clear that the Tehran metropolis requires a continuous flow of goods and resources from the supporting region for its survival and, equally, exports significant amounts of waste and garbage to this region.
 
Methodology
The method of this research is descriptive-analytical in type and applied in purpose. Ecological Footprint computational methods are used to analyze the data, and then GIS software is used to display the results. In the first stage, the required information will be collected and extracted using documentaries, libraries, and Internet websites, as well as by descriptive methods and referring to relevant organizations. In the second stage, we will evaluate the Ecological Footprint of the Tehran metropolis using the combined method of "Ecological Footprint," which includes a combination of two inductive and deductive approaches. In the third stage, GIS software will also be used to analyze and display the data.
 
Results and discussion
According to the calculations, Tehran depends on a much larger area than its current area to meet its biological and sustainability needs. With the current consumption pattern continuing, Tehran will need about 432 times its current area to provide food, energy, and land required to absorb carbon dioxide. These results show that this city's biological capacity and ecological footprint are inconsistent with the current consumption of sustainable resources. The goods and services sector in Tehran has the highest ecological footprint index among other consumer sectors, and approximately 50 percent of the total ecological footprint of Tehran belongs to this sector. The per capita ecological footprint in the goods and services sector for each city resident is estimated to be about 2.99 hectares, which indicates that this city needs a land area of ​​about 36,534,859 hectares to provide goods and services to its residents. The findings of this study show that the ecological footprint of the Tehran metropolis is equal to 6.12 hectares for each resident of this city, while the ecological footprint of each person in the world in 2022 is 2.85 hectares. Also, the per capita biocapacity calculated in the Tehran metropolis is 0.0141 hectares. In contrast, based on the Living Planet Report, the per capita biocapacity of each Iranian in 2022 is equal to 0.75 hectares per person. According to the results of the Tehran metropolis's ecological footprint and biocapacity calculations, this city has an ecological deficit of 74,632,890.7 hectares.
 
Conclusion
-Individual solutions:
· Reducing energy consumption;
· Using public transportation;
· Reducing water consumption;
· Waste management and recycling;
· Changing food consumption patterns.
-Urban and infrastructure solutions
· Increasing urban green space CO₂;
· Developing renewable energies;
· Improving public transportation;
· Proper waste management.
-Policy and management solutions:
· Enact strict environmental laws;
· Encourage reduction in fossil fuel consumption;
· Education and culture;
· Financial incentives for green buildings.
-Raising awareness and changing citizens' lifestyles:
· Educational and cultural campaigns;
·  Financial incentives and discounts;
· Ecological footprint calculation applications.
-Urban and infrastructure measures:
· Green space development;
· Support for sustainable transport;
· Green buildings;
· Better waste management.
-Macroeconomic policies:
· Environmental law reform;
· Subsidies for clean energy;
· International cooperation;
· Industrial optimization;
· Creation of performance indicators.
-Continuous monitoring and evaluation:
· Data analysis and smart decision-making;
· Encouraging sustainable cities.
-Focus on the development of small and medium-sized cities:
· Incentive policies for settling in other areas;
·  Increasing awareness and population planning.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
The authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All authors approved the manuscript's content and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest, but none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
Keywords

  1. Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J., Wackernagel, M., &  Galli, A. (2012). Accounting for demand and supply of the Biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, 24, 518–533.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005
  2. Danish, R., & Khan, S. U. D. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: Role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996
  3. Destek, M. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: The Role of energy and financial development. Science of the Total Environment, 650 (Pt 2), 2483 – 2489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.017
  4. Galli, A., Iha, K., Moreno Pires, S., Mancini, M., Abrunhosa Alves, A., Zokai, G., Lin, D., Murthy, A., & Wackernagel,  M. (2019). Assessing the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of Portuguese cities: Critical results for environmental awareness and local management. Cities, 96, 102442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102442
  5. Hatami, A., Sasanpour, F., Ziparo, A., & Soleymani, M. (2021). Smart sustainable city: Concept, aspects and indices. Journal of Geographical Space, 21(60), 315–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.52547/jgs.21.60.315 [In Persian]
  6. Hersperger, A. M., Grădinaru, S. R., & Pierri Daunt, A. B., (2021). Landscape ecological concepts in planning:Review of recent developments. Landscape Ecology, 36, 2329–2345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01193-y
  7. Jomehpour, M., Ettehad, S. S., & Nourian, F. (2019). Ecological city of Bojnourd based on scenario - based future studies. Urban and Regional Development Planning Quarterly, 3(7), 1 – 30. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.24765864.1397.3.7.1.5 [In Persian]
  8. Kozegarkaleji, L., Moslemi, A., Moradi, M., Rafie Mehr, H., & Amini Zadeh, A. (2018). Ecological footprint, a road to the sustainability of cities (case study: Tabriz city). Environmental Sciences, 16(3), 25–44. [In Persian]
  9. Mancini, M., Galli, A., Niccolucci, V., Lin, D., Bastianoni, S., Wackernagel, M., & Marchettini, N. (2015). Ecological Footprint: Refining the carbon footprint calculation. Ecological Indicators, 61, 390 – 403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.040
  10. Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., & Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing national natural capital accounts based on Detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy, 21, 231 – 246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.009
  11. Nazari, M., & Kalantari, M. (2023). Investigating the factors affecting the ecological footprint of Sari city. Geography and Environmental Planning, 34(2), 17–26. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.20085362.1402.34.2.4.1 [In Persian]
  12. Nosrati, H., Kaviani Rad, M., & Sasanpour, F. (2020). A Foucauldian analysis of "Water security" concept in terms of Political geography and geopolitics. Geopolitics Quarterly, 15 (1), 23 – 59. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.17354331.1398.15.53.2.3 [In Persian]
  13. Parsasharif, H., Amirnejad, H., & Taslimi, M. (2021). Investigating and determining the factors affecting the ecological footprint of selected Asian and European countries. Agricultural Economics Research, 13 (2), 155 – 172. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20086407.1400.13.2.8.9 [In Persian]
  14. Rees, W., & Wackernagel, M. (2008). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable— and why they are a key to sustainability. In Marzluff, J. M., et al. (Eds.), Urban Ecology (pp. 537–555). Springer, Boston, MA.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5_35
  15. Sasanpour, F., & Hakimi, M. (2023). The impact of ecological foundations on livability of urban areas: Case study of  District 1 of Tehran. Journal of Urban Ecology Researches, 14(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.30473/grup.2023.34731.1952 [In Persian]
  16. Sasanpour, F., Mohamd, M., & Mehrejani, S. (2011). Evaluation on the sustainability of metropolitan environment for good urban management by ecological footprint model. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(3), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v4n3p243
  17. Sasanpour, F. (2017). Livable city: One step towards sustainable development. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 1(3), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3673
  18. Sasanpour, F., Shamai, A., & Assar, S. (2017). Investigation of sustainable development of Isfahan city using ecological footprint method. Earth Science Research, 8(1), 18–31. [In Persian]
  19. Statistical Center of Iran. (2021).Statistical Yearbook of Tehran Province. Tehran: Statistical Center of Iran. [In Persian]
  20. Taghizadeh Diva, S. A., & Rooshenas, S. (2019). Application of ecological footprint method in environmental Sustainability assessment: Case study of Gorgan County. Geographical Planning of Space, 9 (33), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.30488/gps.2019.100862 [In Persian]
  21. Tavallaei, S., & Sasanpour, F. (2009). Some aspects of Tehran’s ecological footprint. Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(3), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v2n3p187
  22. Wackernagel, M., White, D. S., & Moran, D. (2004). Using ecological footprint accounts: From analysis to applications. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 3(3–4), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2004.005077
  23. Wackernagel, M., & Kitzes, J. (2008). Ecological footprint. In Encyclopedia of Ecology (pp. 1324–1333). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00620-0
  24. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (2022). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the Earth. (F. Sasanpour, Trans.). Tehran: Negarestan Andisheh. (Original work published 1996) [In Persian]
  25. Yu, H., Liu, X., Kong, B., Li, R., & Wang, G. (2019). Landscape ecology development supported by geospatial technologies: A review. Ecological Informatics, 51, 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2019.03.006