Ecological Footprint and Carbon Footprint Analysis to Assess the Sustainability of the Barong Tongkok Region Spatially

Andrew Gilberd Fredrik Mulu; Joni Hermana; Arie Dipareza; Abdu Fadli Assomadi

doi:10.59261/jequi.v8i1.260

Authors

Andrew Gilberd Fredrik Mulu Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Indonesia
Joni Hermana Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Indonesia
Arie Dipareza Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Indonesia
Abdu Fadli Assomadi Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59261/jequi.v8i1.260

Keywords:

biocapacity, carbon footprints, ecological footprint, regional sustainability, sustainability index

Abstract

Background: Barong Tongkok Subdistrict, West Kutai Regency, East Kalimantan, is experiencing increasing ecological pressure driven by population concentration, land-use change, and rising resource consumption, raising concerns about the region's environmental carrying capacity and long-term sustainability.

Objective: This study aims to assess regional sustainability in Barong Tongkok Subdistrict using a spatially explicit approach that integrates the Ecological Footprint (EF), Carbon Footprint (CF), and Biocapacity (BC).

Method: A quantitative approach was applied using household consumption surveys, land-cover data, emission factors, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The EF was calculated based on food consumption, resource use, and built-up land. The CF was estimated from household electricity consumption, LPG use, transportation fuel, and waste burning. BC was derived from land-cover-based productivity using yield and equivalence factors. Sustainability was evaluated through a Sustainability Index (SI), defined as the ratio between BC and the combined EF and CF.

Result: The results indicate significant spatial variation in sustainability across villages. Geleo Baru Village exhibits the highest SI value (31.57), reflecting a strong ecological surplus supported by extensive natural land cover and low population pressure. Conversely, Rejo Basuki Village records the lowest SI value (0.023), indicating a severe ecological deficit due to limited land availability and intensive residential land use. Peripheral villages tend to show ecological surplus, while densely populated areas exceed local carrying capacity.

Conclusion: The integration of EF, CF, and BC within a GIS framework effectively reveals spatial sustainability patterns, providing valuable insights for evidence-based regional planning and targeted strategies to improve local sustainability.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J. C., Wackernagel, M., & Galli, A. (2013). 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

Creutzig, F., Niamir, L., Bai, X., Callaghan, M., Cullen, J., Díaz-José, J., Figueroa, M., Grubler, A., Lamb, W. F., & Leip, A. (2022). Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nature Climate Change, 12(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5163965

Fatemi, M., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Karami, E., Hayati, D., & Wackernagel, M. (2021). An integrated approach of Ecological Footprint (EF) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in human ecology: A base for planning toward sustainability. Plos One, 16(4), e0250167. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250167

Fu, W., Luo, M., Chen, J., & Udimal, T. B. (2020). Carbon footprint and carbon carrying capacity of vegetation in ecologically fragile areas: A case study of Yunnan. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 120, 102904.

Galli, A., Iha, K., Pires, S. M., Mancini, M. S., Alves, A., Zokai, G., Lin, D., Murthy, A., & Wackernagel, M. (2020). 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

Grossman, J. J. (2015). Ecosystem service trade-offs and land use among smallholder farmers in eastern Paraguay. Ecology and Society, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07941-200407

Hickel, J., Brockway, P., Kallis, G., Keyßer, L., Lenzen, M., Slameršak, A., Steinberger, J., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2021). Urgent need for post-growth climate mitigation scenarios. Nature Energy, 6(8), 766–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101749

Hoekstra, A. Y., & Wiedmann, T. O. (2014). Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint. Science, 344(6188), 1114–1117. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248365

Jia, Z., Cai, Y., Chen, Y., & Zeng, W. (2018). Regionalization of water environmental carrying capacity for supporting the sustainable water resources management and development in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 134, 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.030

Kopper, S. A., Jayne, T. S., & Snapp, S. S. (2020). Sifting through the weeds: Understanding heterogeneity in fertilizer and labor response in Central Malawi. Ecological Economics, 169, 106561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106561

Long, Z., Zhang, Z., Liang, S., Chen, X., Ding, B., Wang, B., Chen, Y., Sun, Y., Li, S., & Yang, T. (2021). Spatially explicit carbon emissions at the county scale. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 173, 105706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105706

Newig, J., & Rose, M. (2020). Cumulating evidence in environmental governance, policy and planning research: towards a research reform agenda. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(5), 667–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1767551

O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F., & Steinberger, J. K. (2018). A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 1(2), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4

Qafleshi, M., & Kryeziu, D. R. (2025). Solar energy generation from residential buildings, transition of the energy sector from fossils to carbon-free energy and meeting UN SDG. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 19(1), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-12-2023-0029

Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D., Lade, S. J., Abrams, J. F., Andersen, L. S., Armstrong McKay, D. I., Bai, X., Bala, G., & Bunn, S. E. (2023). Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature, 619(7968), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8

Seto, K. C., Güneralp, B., & Hutyra, L. R. (2012). Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(40), 16083–16088. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109

Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., Summerhayes, C. P., Barnosky, A. D., Cornell, S. E., & Crucifix, M. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252–8259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115

Tukker, A., Pollitt, H., & Henkemans, M. (2020). Consumption-based carbon accounting: sense and sensibility. In Climate Policy (Vol. 20, Issue sup1, pp. S1–S13). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1728208

Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Grazi, F. (2014). Ecological footprint policy? Land use as an environmental indicator. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12045

Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). New society publishers.

Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y