sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ecological debt, Natural capital

Article Sustainability Assessment of Natural Based on the 3D Model: A Case Study of the Shennongjia National Park Pilot

Yisong Wang 1, Jincheng Huang 1 and Shiming Fang 1,2,*

1 School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China; [email protected] (Y.W.); [email protected] (J.H.) 2 Key Labs of Law Evaluation of Ministry of and of China, Wuhan 430074, China * Correspondence: [email protected]

 Received: 20 November 2018; Accepted: 27 January 2019; Published: 13 February 2019 

Abstract: The sustainability assessment of (SANC) is one of the key elements in the field of national park protection. Assessing the impact of socioeconomic development on the Shennongjia National Park Pilot (SNPP), a typical national park in China, would be extremely conducive to the of its natural capital. To this end, a natural capital account system encompassing transportation, accommodation, , and for both locals and tourists was developed. Throughout the period from 2007 to 2016, a SANC was conducted in SNPP based on the 3D ecological footprint (EF3D) model to measure stock consumption as well as flow occupancy. The main conclusions were as follows: First, the ecological footprint (EF) size of the SNPP increased yearly from 2007 to 2014, although it decreased in 2015, when the government started preparing for the SNPP. Second, rapid tourism-related developments brought about an increase in the EF of built-up land, and the increasing medicinal planting also enlarged the EF of . Third, the cumulative EF of tourism was 2.82 times that of locals over the past decade. This gap has been expanding. Overall, the results show relatively steady sustainability in terms of natural capital in the SNPP. More precisely, the preceding stock consumption did not severely constrain the function of the current regeneration of flow capital, whereas tourism and planting have become potential threats to the sustainability of the natural capital.

Keywords: 3D ecological footprint; natural capital; national park; sustainability assessment; Shennongjia

1. Introduction The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has proposed and defined a global system for protected areas, within which the national park is the most common. The national park provides a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and visitor opportunities, while protecting the large-scale ecological processes, characteristic species, and of the area [1]. To date, more than 8000 nature reserves and scenic spots have been established, but no national park system has yet been formed that strictly protects the natural ecological environment in coordination with China’s development and utilization. In order to explore a scientific and sustainable management mechanism for national parks, ten national park pilots have been proposed in China. The establishment of national parks is an effective means to maintain stock capital and boost natural capital. However, in some cases, national parks are affected by activities, such as the

Sustainability 2019, 11, 956; doi:10.3390/su11040956 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 2 of 17 destruction of animal due to the results of recreational activities, such as garbage, local consumption by agricultural production [2], reduced national park space due to hotels and recreation trails [3], and erosion caused by traffic [4]. Unsustainable natural capital utilization is causing natural capital to be an increasingly limiting factor for human well-being in the Anthropocene era [5,6]. Natural capital, the most fundamental of the forms of capital, sets the ecological limits for our socioeconomic systems [7]. Environment and development economics theory states that maintaining natural capital is the corner-stone of [8]. However, the significance of natural capital used to be overlooked when making decisions. Consequently, the sustainability assessment of natural capital (SANC) provides insights into designing and sustainable development planning. At present, the SANC does not have a mature evaluation system that can directly interface with . Hence, studies on natural capital mainly adopt ecological footprint (EF) [9], service valuation [10], theory [11], net primary [12], cycle assessment [13], etc. Currently, the SANC generally relies on various EF methods [14–17]. These methods can clearly quantify human occupation and the supply of natural capital, which are more operative and less subjective for the SANC. The EF model is a mature approach for quantitatively measuring the effect of human occupation on natural capital, and has been applied at various scales, including national parks and other types of protected areas [18–20], and has been combined with 3S technology [13], the coefficient matrix method [21], time series analysis, and other technical methods [22–24]. The 3D ecological footprint (EF3D) model overcomes the shortcomings of the traditional EF model, which exclusively focuses on flow capital and overlooks the significance of stock capital in sustainable development. Hitherto, the EF3D model has been applied in Chinese multi-scale studies relating to countries, metropolitan areas, river basins, etc. [25–30], but it remains to be used in the context of national parks. In this article, we construct an applicable SANC account system for Shennongjia National Park Pilot (SNPP), in China’s national park system, and apply the EF3D model to evaluate the impact of locals’ daily and tourists’ activities in the national park on the local natural capital, which can provide reference for other national parks.

2. Study Area The Shennongjia National Park Pilot (SNPP) (in Figure1) (109 ◦560–110◦360 E, 31◦170–31◦360N) is located in Shennongjia Region, Hubei Province, China, and is one of ten pilots of the first batch of national parks established in 2016. The total area is 1170 km2, and it belongs to the north subtropical monsoon climate and humid region. SNPP is situated on the eastern edge of the second step of the Chinese terrain, belonging to the middle and high mountains in the east of the Daba Mountain Range. The overall terrain is high in the southwest and low in the northeast. There are four distinct seasons throughout the year and the annual average temperature is 12 ◦C[31]. The vast majority of the park is situated in Dajiuhu Town, Xiagu Township and Muyu Town, which have up to 91.1% of the forest coverage rate. As an outstanding representative of the mountain ecosystem at this global latitude, the SNPP will be subject to long-term maintenance in terms of , ecosystem type, and biological evolution. More specifically, ancient rare and endemic species abound, such as the golden snub-nosed monkey. The evergreen deciduous broad-leaved mixed forest is well preserved for the northern hemisphere. The complete vegetation band spectrum lies in the northern subtropical mountain range. The extremely rare subalpine peat moss wetland, ancient geological relics and flora and fauna fossils also exist, as well as rare mountain culture circles in Asia [32]. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18 Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 3 of 17

Figure 1. Location and elevation in Shennongjia National Park Pilot (SNPP).

The vast majority of the park is situated in Dajiuhu Town, Xiagu Township and Muyu Town, which have up to 91.1% of the forest coverage rate. As an outstanding representative of the mountain ecosystem at this global latitude, the SNPP will be subject to long-term maintenance in terms of biodiversity habitat, ecosystem type, and biological evolution. More specifically, ancient rare and endemic species abound, such as the golden snub-nosed monkey. The evergreen deciduous broad-leaved mixed forest is well preserved for the northern hemisphere. The complete vegetation band spectrum lies in the northern subtropical mountain range. The extremely rare subalpine peat moss wetland, ancient geological relics and flora and fauna fossils also exist, as well as rare mountainFigure culture 1. Location circles in and Asia elevation [32]. in Shennongjia National Park Pilot (SNPP). Figure 1. Location and elevation in Shennongjia National Park Pilot (SNPP). 3.3. Materials Materials and and Methods Methods The vast majority of the park is situated in Dajiuhu Town, Xiagu Township and Muyu Town, 3.1.which3.1. Overall Overall have Approach Approachup to 91.1% of the forest coverage rate. As an outstanding representative of the mountain ecosystem at this global latitude, the SNPP will be subject to long-term maintenance in WeWe investigated investigated thethe sustainability of of natural natural capital capital in inSNPP SNPP in three in three major major steps. steps. First, we First, terms of biodiversity habitat, ecosystem type, and biological evolution. More specifically, ancient weestablished established a aSANC SANC account account system system comprising comprising transportation, transportation, accommodation, accommodation, food, food, and and waste waste rare and endemic species abound, such as the golden snub-nosed monkey. The evergreen sub-accountssub-accounts for for both both locals locals andand touriststourists in nationalnational park. park. Second, Second, we we measured measured the the 3D 3D ecological ecological deciduousfootprint broad-leavedbased on the mixedEF3D model forest inis SNPPwell preserved from 2007 for to the 2016. northern Third, hemisphere.we adopted Thea series complete of footprint based on the EF3D model in SNPP from 2007 to 2016 in Supplementary Materials. Third, vegetation band spectrum lies in the northern subtropical mountain range. The extremely rare weindicators adopted ato series evaluate of indicators the sustainability to evaluate of thethe sustainabilitynatural capital. of theThe natural framework capital. of Thethe frameworkstudy is subalpine peat moss wetland, ancient geological relics and flora and fauna fossils also exist, as well ofillustrated the study in is illustratedFigure 2. in Figure2. as rare mountain culture circles in Asia [32].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Overall Approach We investigated the sustainability of natural capital in SNPP in three major steps. First, we established a SANC account system comprising transportation, accommodation, food, and waste sub-accounts for both locals and tourists in national park. Second, we measured the 3D ecological footprint based on the EF3D model in SNPP from 2007 to 2016. Third, we adopted a series of indicators to evaluate the sustainability of the natural capital. The framework of the study is illustrated in Figure 2.

FigureFigure 2. Framework of of the the study. study.

3.2.3.2. Account Account System System for for the the Sustainability Sustainability Assessment of of Natural Natural Capital Capital In this study, the natural capital categories were built-up land, forest land, arable land, , and grassland. In light of previous research, the SANC account system consisted of transportation, accommodation, food, and waste sub-accounts [33–36]. Elaborated in Table1, the four sub-accounts cover 10 assessment items corresponding to 28 elements. All these items were selected under consideration of the local situation and data availability. The evaluating target in the transportation sub-account was built-up land. The road area refers to the sum of the products of the width and length of different grade roads. The different grade road lengths in specific years were acquired from the Shennongjia Statistical Yearbook (2007 to 2016) [37].

Widths were consistently supposed to be the median value of the width, the ranges of which come from a national standard named theFigure Quota 2. IndexesFramework of Urbanof the study. Planning [38]. Parking lot area refers to the product of the parking area per vehicle and the number of vehicles including civil cars, lorries, 3.2. Account System for the Sustainability Assessment of Natural Capital Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 4 of 17 and passenger cars. The numbers of these three kinds of vehicles were obtained from the Shennongjia Statistical Yearbook (2007 to 2016) [37], and the parking area per vehicle was obtained from the Code for Urban Parking Planning (GB/T51149-2016) [39]. The parking area for motor vehicles on the ground was set as 25 to 30 m2 according to this standard, thus we set the median value of 27.5 m2 as the parking area per vehicle. The accommodation area of tourists and the living area of residents were counted in the accommodation sub-account. The total area of built-up land in the accommodation industry was the product of the area per bed and the number of existing beds, and the living area of locals was the product of living area per capita and the total in the SNPP. The area per bed in star hotels was based on the research by Gössling et al [40], and the number of existing beds in hotels and the living area per capita were obtained from the Shennongjia Statistical Yearbook (2007 to 2016) [37].

Table 1. The sustainability assessment of natural capital (SANC) account system.

Sub-Accounts Assessment Items Assessment Contents National Capital Categories Civil cars Parking lot area Lorries Built-up land Passenger cars State roads Transportation Provincial roads County roads Road use area Built-up land Township roads Village roads Special highways Hostel areas in national Accommodation Accommodation area parks Built-up land Locals total living area discharge Sewage Water

Waste CO2 Exhaust emission SO2 Forest land Soot Grains Oil Agricultural product Vegetables consumption Arable land Medicinal materials Tobaccos Cattle Food Meat products Grassland Sheep Raw lacquers Forest products Walnuts Forest land Chestnuts Aquatic products Aquatic products Water Pigs Meat products Built-up land Poultry

Part of the EF of water was measured in the waste sub-account based on calculating the ecological productive area occupied by treating sewage; 1 ha of water can treat 365 t of sewage according to previous research [41]. Part of the EF of forest land was also measured in the waste sub-account based on calculating the ecologically productive area occupied by CO2, soot and SO2 emissions [42,43]. CO2 emissions was calculated as the production of the carbon emission coefficient of CO2 and the annual standard coal consumption, and we assumed that the CO2 emissions in SNPP were only absorbed by forest land. The annual standard coal consumption and soot and SO2 emissions were obtained from the Shennongjia Statistical Yearbook (2007 to 2016) [37]. The recommended value of the carbon emission coefficient of CO2 was 0.67 tc/tce, obtained from the Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission [44]. The annual rate of CO2 sequestration per hectare of Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 5 of 17

−1 −1 world average forest land is 2.70 tCwha yr [45]. The forest capacity for soot adsorption and SO2 adsorption is 2.1655 t/ha and 152.05 kg/ha [46], respectively. The food sub-account involves all kinds of natural capital. We calculated productive EF rather than consumptive EF, therefore all kinds of resource consumption are presented by local production data [37,47,48]. The yields of agricultural products in arable land are formed by grains, oil, vegetables, and tobaccos. In contrast to cattle and sheep that live in the open most of the time, pigs as well as poultry are usually fed in fixed shelters classified as built-up land rather than arable land or grassland [49]. To compare different categories of natural capital, the yield factors and equivalence factors must be utilized under the account system. The yield factors refer to the index proposed by Liu et al. [50]. The equivalence factors were provided by the Global Footprint Network [51]. In the calculation of the ecological capacity, 12% of the ecological area should be deducted for biodiversity conservation according to the requirements of the World Commission on Environment and Development.

3.3. 3D Ecological Footprint Model On the basis of the traditional EF model, Niccolucci et al. tried to construct a three-dimensional EF model by introducing EF depth and EF size to distinguish stock capital and flow capital [52–54]. Fang et al. improved the model to solve the problem that the ecological deficit (ED) and ecological surplus (ES) of different land types are irreplaceable [55–59]. This approach was used in this study. EF depth represents the degree of human consumption of stock capital and has a time attribute [55]. EF size represents the degree of human occupation of flow capital and has a spatial attribute [55]. As a tool reflecting the stock capital decline, the EF3D model can be used to judge the sustainability of providing resources, products and waste absorption services, based on three criteria presented by Daly et al. [56]. Therefore, the following equation was established:

EF3D = EFd×EFs (1) where EF3D refers to the three-dimensional EF; EFd refers to EF depth; and EFs refers to the EF size. Niccolucci found that EF has traditionally been presented as an area-based indicator and visualized as the size of the foot [53]. In Figure3, EF is shown as a circle in which the blue area is ecological capacity (EC), while the total area enclosed by the dark line is EF. The ring (white area) is ED. The EF3D model regardsSustainability EF 2018 as a, cylinder10, x FOR PEER implemented REVIEW by EF size (bottom) and EF depth (column height) [53]. 6 of 18

FigureFigure 3. Development3. Development of theof the ecological ecological footprint footprint models models from from 2D 2D to 3Dto 3D [54 [54].].

In theory, thethe EFEF sizesize inin thethe EF EF3D3D modelmodel isis stillstillconsistent consistent with with that that in in the the EF EF2D2D model,model, despitedespite itsits characteristiccharacteristic focusfocus onon volumevolume ratherrather thanthan area.area. TheThe unitunit ofof EFEF isis globalglobal hectarehectare (gha),(gha), 11 ghagha refersrefers toto thethe ecologicalecological productivityproductivity andand wastewaste absorptionabsorption capacitycapacity equivalentequivalent toto thethe globalglobal averageaverage ofof 11 haha ofof landland [[55].55]. EF size implies the actual occupied area of ecologically productive land within the limits of regional ecological capacity [56]. The indicator characterizes the level of flow occupation by human-beings. The implication emphasizes the spatial scarcity of land resources. The formula for calculating EF size is:

𝐸𝐹, = ∑ 𝑚𝑖𝑛 {𝐸𝐹 ,𝐸𝐶} (2)

where 𝐸𝐹, refers to the EF size in certain natural capital categories; i refers to a certain natural capital category; n refers to the total number of natural capital categories; 𝐸𝐹 refers to the EF in a certain natural capital category; and 𝐸𝐶 refers to the ecological capacity in a certain natural capital category. The range of EF size is from 0 to EC, indicating that the upper limit for the ecosystem for which supply flow capital is being measured is EC. EF depth represents the occupation multiple of the regional ecological productive land area theoretically required to maintain the current level of resource consumption, which characterizes the degree to which consume the natural capital in one year [56]. The formula for calculating EF depth is:

𝑛 ∑ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐸𝐷,0 ∑ {,} 𝐸𝐹 =1 + 𝑖=1 = 1 + , ∑𝑛 𝐸𝐶 (3) 𝑖=1 𝑖 ∑

where 𝐸𝐹, refers to the EF size in a certain natural capital category. ED refers to the ecological deficit, which reflects the relative difference between EF and EC, and which is the concept corresponding to ecological surplus, reflecting the human resource demand beyond EC [56]. When the EF depth is equal to 1, it represents the natural depth. At this time, people only need to occupy the flow capital to meet their own needs, and the stock capital is not consumed. When the EF depth is greater than or equal to 1, the greater the value, the greater the human consumption of the stock capital, and the weaker the sustainability of the natural capital utilization. The EF3D model adds a time scale and summarizes the EF dynamics of a national park on the basis of the traditional EF model [57]. Therefore, the EF3D model can comprehensively characterize the actual state of natural capital utilization.

3.4. Indicators for the Sustainability Assessment of Natural Capital

3.4.1. Theoretical Ecological Footprint Size Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 6 of 17

EF size implies the actual occupied area of ecologically productive land within the limits of regional ecological capacity [56]. The indicator characterizes the level of flow occupation by human-beings. The implication emphasizes the spatial scarcity of land resources. The formula for calculating EF size is: = n { } EFs,i ∑i=1 min EFi, ECi (2) where EFs,i refers to the EF size in certain natural capital categories; i refers to a certain natural capital category; n refers to the total number of natural capital categories; EFi refers to the EF in a certain natural capital category; and ECi refers to the ecological capacity in a certain natural capital category. The range of EF size is from 0 to EC, indicating that the upper limit for the ecosystem for which supply flow capital is being measured is EC. EF depth represents the occupation multiple of the regional ecological productive land area theoretically required to maintain the current level of resource consumption, which characterizes the degree to which humans consume the natural capital in one year [56]. The formula for calculating EF depth is: n n ∑i=1 max {ED, 0} ∑i=1 max {EFi − ECi, 0} EFd,i= 1 + n = 1 + n (3) ∑i=1 ECi ∑i=1 ECi where EFd,i refers to the EF size in a certain natural capital category. ED refers to the ecological deficit, which reflects the relative difference between EF and EC, and which is the concept corresponding to ecological surplus, reflecting the human resource demand beyond EC [56]. When the EF depth is equal to 1, it represents the natural depth. At this time, people only need to occupy the flow capital to meet their own needs, and the stock capital is not consumed. When the EF depth is greater than or equal to 1, the greater the value, the greater the human consumption of the stock capital, and the weaker the sustainability of the natural capital utilization. The EF3D model adds a time scale and summarizes the EF dynamics of a national park on the basis of the traditional EF model [57]. Therefore, the EF3D model can comprehensively characterize the actual state of natural capital utilization.

3.4. Indicators for the Sustainability Assessment of Natural Capital

3.4.1. Theoretical Ecological Footprint Size Hypothetically, the continuous stock reduction supplied by the ecosystem will potentially restrict flow generation in the future in an enclosed region. As a result, the theoretical EF size is created to deduct the ecological deficit of this year when calculating the flow capital for the next year [57]. The formula for the theoretical EF size is:   y = y − y−1 − y−1 EFs,th EFs EFd 1 EF (4)

y y y−1 where EFs,th refers to the theoretical EF size for y years; EFs refers to EF size for y years; EFd refers to the EF depth for y−1 years; and ECy−1 refers to the ecological capacity for y−1 years.

y ≤ y−1 y = EFs EDth EFs,th 0 (5)

y−1 where EDth refers to the theoretical ecological deficit for y−1 years. The equation indicates that excessive stock consumption could critically hinder the renewable capacity of flow capital. It also further reflects the qualitative difference between ED and ES. The essence of ES is a kind of residual EC, which is the real land area, and which cannot be accumulated year by year. ED represents the virtual land area overdrawn by human beings, which is similar to an ecological and can be accumulated year by year [57]. Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 7 of 17

3.4.2. Cumulative Ecological Footprint Size In line with fairness and sustainability, which are principles of sustainable development, a fair relationship between “inter-generational” and “intra-generational” concerns are supposed to consider the allocation of the natural capital of national parks [57]. As such, it is indispensable to take the relationship between “degree” or “capacity” into account in the development and utilization of resources and the environment by accumulative EF size [55]. The formula for the accumulative EF size is: m y−m EFs,c= ∑ EFz + ∑ ECz (EFm < ECm EFm+1 ≥ ECm+1) (6) z z where EFs,c refers to the cumulative EF size; m refers to the number of years of ecological surplus; y refers to the total number of years; EFz refers to the EF of z years; and ECz refers to the ecological capacity of z years.

3.4.3. Appropriation Rate of Flow Capital When flow capital is partially occupied, the appropriation rate of flow capital is used to characterize the actual occupancy degree of flow capital in research [58].

EF A = s ×100%(EF < EC) (7) f c EC where A f c refers to the appropriation rate of flow capital; EFs refers to EF size; and EC refers to ecological capacity.

3.4.4. Use Ratio of Stocks to Flows When flow capital is completely occupied and stock capital tends to be consumed, the use ratio of stocks to flows characterizes the number relationship between natural capital stock consumption and flow occupation [58]. s EF − EFs ED U f = = = EFd − 1(EF > EC) (8) EFs EC s where U f refers to the use ratio of stocks to flows; and ED refers to the ecological deficit.

4. Results

4.1. Ecological Footprint In general, the total EF rose sharply in 2010, and then continued to improve, visibly decreased in 2015, and eventually went up to 32,962.15 gha in 2016. Figure4 delineates the variant components of EF in SNPP from 2007 to 2016. The forest land EF and arable land EF are the main reasons for the integral dynamic. The arable land and built-up land both showed gradual upward tendencies. The forest land EF first increased, then remained at a corresponding stable level, before plunging in 2015. Meanwhile, the changes in the EF of water and grassland were unambiguous. The EF contribution rates from the five categories of nature capital had striking disparities in the period 2007 to 2016. Briefly speaking, forest land accounted for the greatest contribution to EF, followed by arable land, with built-up land ranking third, water fourth, and grassland fifth. The contribution rates of built-up land and arable land increased, while the contribution rates of forest land, water, and grassland declined. The contribution rates of different natural capital categories showed a large fluctuation in SNPP. The dominant factors were forest land EF and arable land EF. SustainabilitySustainability 20182019,, 1011, ,x 956 FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 188 of 17

FigureFigure 4. 4. FiveFive components components of ofthe the ecological ecological foot footprintprint in SNPP in SNPP in the in theperiod period 2007 2007 to 2016. to 2016.

4.2.4.2. 3D Ecological Ecological Footprint Footprint

4.2.1.4.2.1. Ecological Footprint Footprint Depth Depth TheThe EF EF depth depth of of the the SNPP SNPP (red (red line) line) shown shown in in Figure Figure 5 increased from 1.0003 1.0003 to to 1.0098, 1.0098, close close to to the naturalthe natural depth, depth, indicating indicating that that the stockthe stock capital capi wastal well-preservedwas well-preserved and theand flow the flow capital capital was relativelywas stablerelatively during stable the during period. the The period. EF depth The EF of depth the arable of the land, arable forest land, land, forest and land, grassland and grassland remained at 1remained over the at past 1 over decade, the past indicating decade, that indicating these kinds that ofthese flow kinds capital of wereflow ablecapital to meetwere localable to demand meet for resourcelocal demand consumption for resource and consumption waste absorption. and waste The reasonabsorption. that theThe EF reason depth that of the the SNPP EF depth was overof the 1 was mainlySNPP was the over EF depth 1 was ofmainly water the (blue EF depth rectangle) of water before (blue 2008, rectangle) and the before EF depth 2008, ofand built-up the EF landdepth (grey rectangle)of built-up after land 2011. (grey Specifically, rectangle) theafter EF 2011. depth Specifically, of water decreased the EF depth at an of annual water average decreased reduction at an rate ofannual 7.87% average until it becamereduction 1 inrate 2009, of revealing7.87% until that it thebecame stock consumption1 in 2009, revealing of this resource that the had stock ceased, andconsumption the ecological of this deficit resource was had effectively ceased, and controlled the ecological in SNPP. deficit In contrast, was effectively the EF depthcontrolled of built-up in landSNPP. increased In contrast, constantly the EF depth at an of average built-up annual land increased growth rateconstantly of 3.77%, at an except average in 2009annual and growth 2010. It is possiblerate of 3.77%, to note except that in the 2009 flow and occupation 2010. It is ofpossible built-up to note land that is gradually the flow occupation becoming unableof built-up to meet land local is gradually becoming unable to meet local development demands. developmentSustainability demands. 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Figure 5. Trend of the depth of the ecological footprint in SNPP in the period 2007 to 2016. Figure 5. Trend of the depth of the ecological footprint in SNPP in the period 2007 to 2016.

4.2.2. Ecological Footprint Size The EF size of forest land, arable land and built-up land accounted for over 99% of the total EF size in SNPP from 2007 to 2016. Figure 6 shows that the EF size of forest land initially grew slowly, then increased rapidly from 2009 to 2014, declining sharply after 2015. This is due to the remarkable effectiveness of control measures for emissions of CO2 and SO2 since the government started preparing for SNPP. The EF size of arable land increased by 51.74% during the decade. The EF size of built-up land did not change obviously, as the EF size was assigned to the EC, that is, when the EF exceeds the EC of built-up land it is basically invariant. Owing to the continuous reduction of gross sewage discharge in recent years, the EF size of water was cut back, with an average reduction rate of 7.87%. The EF size of grassland showed almost no change, indicating that the flow capital remained relatively stable under the impact of local meat consumption. The flow occupation in the accommodation sub-account increased, which was driven by the number of incoming tourists in one year increasing significantly. Additionally, the flow occupation in the transportation sub-account increased as a result of the repair of township and county roads. Eventually, they led to the ecological deficit of built-up land.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Figure 5. Trend of the depth of the ecological footprint in SNPP in the period 2007 to 2016.

4.2.2. Ecological Footprint Size The EF size of forest land, arable land and built-up land accounted for over 99% of the total EF size in SNPP from 2007 to 2016. Figure 6 shows that the EF size of forest land initially grew slowly, then increased rapidly from 2009 to 2014, declining sharply after 2015. This is due to the remarkable effectiveness of control measures for emissions of CO2 and SO2 since the government started preparing for SNPP. The EF size of arable land increased by 51.74% during the decade. The EF size of built-up land didSustainability not change2019, 11obviously,, 956 as the EF size was assigned to the EC, that is, when the EF exceeds the9 ofEC 17 of built-up land it is basically invariant. Owing to the continuous reduction of gross sewage discharge4.2.2. Ecological in recent Footprint years, the Size EF size of water was cut back, with an average reduction rate of 7.87%. The EF size of grassland showed almost no change, indicating that the flow capital remained relativelyThe EFstable size under of forest the land,impact arable of local land meat and consumption. built-up land accounted for over 99% of the total EF size inThe SNPP flow fromoccupation 2007 to in 2016. the Figureaccommodation6 shows that sub- theaccount EF size increased, of forest landwhich initially was driven grew slowly,by the numberthen increased of incoming rapidly tourists from 2009in one to year 2014, increasing declining sharplysignificantly. after 2015.Additionally, This is due the to flow the remarkableoccupation ineffectiveness the transportation of control sub-account measures for increased emissions as of a COresu2 andlt of SOthe2 sincerepair the of governmenttownship and started county preparing roads. Eventually,for SNPP. they led to the ecological deficit of built-up land.

Figure 6. Trend of the size of the ecological footprint in SNPP in the period 2007 to 2016.

The EF size of arable land increased by 51.74% during the decade. The EF size of built-up land did not change obviously, as the EF size was assigned to the EC, that is, when the EF exceeds the EC of built-up land it is basically invariant. Owing to the continuous reduction of gross sewage discharge in recent years, the EF size of water was cut back, with an average reduction rate of 7.87%. The EF size of grassland showed almost no change, indicating that the flow capital remained relatively stable under the impact of local meat consumption. The flow occupation in the accommodation sub-account increased, which was driven by the number of incoming tourists in one year increasing significantly. Additionally, the flow occupation in the transportation sub-account increased as a result of the repair of township and county roads. Eventually, they led to the ecological deficit of built-up land. Figure7 shows the theoretical EF size during the period. The ecological deficit accumulated year by year, viewed as an unsustainable environmental impact. The gap between theoretical EF size and the actual EF depth is actually the ecological deficit, which is not significant. The ecological deficit of the previous year did not have a great impact on the ecological capacity of the current year, indicating that preceding stock consumption did not seriously restrict the current capacity of flow regeneration. However, it should be noted that the theoretical EF size of arable land declined. The negative influence of cumulative ecological deficit has been increasing in recent years. The ecological capacity of arable land will continue to decrease, which can generate a potential threat to the stock capital. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

Figure 6. Trend of the size of the ecological footprint in SNPP in the period 2007 to 2016.

Figure 7 shows the theoretical EF size during the period. The ecological deficit accumulated year by year, viewed as an unsustainable environmental impact. The gap between theoretical EF size and the actual EF depth is actually the ecological deficit, which is not significant. The ecological deficit of the previous year did not have a great impact on the ecological capacity of the current year, indicating that preceding stock consumption did not seriously restrict the current capacity of flow regeneration. However, it should be noted that the theoretical EF size of arable land declined. The negative influence of cumulative ecological deficit has been increasing in recent years. The ecological capacity of arable land will continue to decrease, which can generate a potential threat to Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 10 of 17 the stock capital.

Figure 7. Comparison of the theoretical EF size and actual EF size in SNPP in the period 2007 to 2016. Figure 7. Comparison of the theoretical EF size and actual EF size in SNPP in the period 2007 to 2016. 4.2.3. Trend of the 3D Ecological Footprint 4.2.3. Trend of the 3D Ecological Footprint As shown in Figure8, the SNPP was considered to be a cylinder with a gradually changing volume. The bottomAs shown of the in cylinderFigure 8, increasedthe SNPP continuously was considered from to 2011be a tocylinder 2015. Synchronously,with a gradually the changing column heightvolume. generally The bottom showed of the an upwardcylinder trend, increased resulting continuously in an increase from in 2011 the totalto 2015. volume, Synchronously, indicating that the thecolumn stock height consumption generally and showed flow occupation an upward were trend, both increasing.resulting in The an heightincrease continued in the total to increase volume, in 2016,indicating but the that bottom the decreased,stock consumption resulting inand a decrease flow occupation in total volume. were Itboth shows increasing. that the 3D The ecological height footprintcontinued had to begunincrease to decrease,in 2016, but and the the bottom natural decreased, capital supply resulting pressure in hada decrease been effectively in total volume. alleviated It Sustainabilityaftershows the that establishment 2018 the, 10 , x3D FOR ecological PEER of SNPP. REVIEW footprint had begun to decrease, and the natural capital 12supply of 18 pressure had been effectively alleviated after the establishment of SNPP.

Figure 8. Graphic comparison of EF3D in SNPP in the period 2007 to 2016. Figure 8. Graphic comparison of EF3D in SNPP in the period 2007 to 2016.

4.3. Stocks and Flows of Natural Capital In Table 2, it can be seen that the appropriation rate of flow capital of SNPP had gradually increased before 2014, then begun to decline. During the study period, the per year appropriation rate of flow capital was no more than 30%, along with an annual average growth rate of only 3.59%, indicating that the flow occupation nevertheless increased, but not by much. The appropriation rate of flow capital of forest land and grassland was small. The consumption rate of water stocks slowed down in the first two years and stopped in 2009. In the following year, the appropriation rate of the flow capital of water generally showed a decreasing trend, indicating that the establishment of SNPP effectively controlled the flow occupancy of this natural capital. In contrast, the appropriation rate of the flow capital of arable land tended to increase on the whole, and the growth rate in 2016 increased significantly. The use ratio of stocks to flows of built-up land was larger and larger, and reached 0.45 in 2016, indicating that the threat of stock consumption was visibly expanding.

Table 2. Appropriation rate of flow capital and the use ratio of stocks to flows in SNPP.

Built-up Arable Year Forest Land Water Grassland SNPP Land Land 2007 0.00 12.01% 52.58% 0.41 0.74% 17.64% 2008 0.03 12.33% 52.79% 0.05 0.64% 17.97% 2009 98.96% 12.94% 55.50% 78.53% 0.62% 18.77% 2010 97.28% 15.90% 57.84% 99.87% 0.62% 21.62% 2011 0.12 18.68% 58.42% 64.99% 0.59% 24.18% 2012 0.09 19.98% 60.22% 65.47% 0.54% 25.58% 2013 0.11 21.15% 60.86% 74.03% 0.65% 26.70% 2014 0.17 21.36% 68.17% 64.80% 0.72% 27.55% 2015 0.24 17.64% 64.99% 72.25% 0.79% 24.01% 2016 0.45 14.97% 82.15% 62.28% 1.03% 23.33% *Values with “%” represent the appropriation rate of flow capital and other values represent the use ratio of stocks to flows.

4.4. Ecological Footprint Size for Locals and Tourists Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 11 of 17

4.3. Stocks and Flows of Natural Capital In Table2, it can be seen that the appropriation rate of flow capital of SNPP had gradually increased before 2014, then begun to decline. During the study period, the per year appropriation rate of flow capital was no more than 30%, along with an annual average growth rate of only 3.59%, indicating that the flow occupation nevertheless increased, but not by much. The appropriation rate of flow capital of forest land and grassland was small. The consumption rate of water stocks slowed down in the first two years and stopped in 2009. In the following year, the appropriation rate of the flow capital of water generally showed a decreasing trend, indicating that the establishment of SNPP effectively controlled the flow occupancy of this natural capital. In contrast, the appropriation rate of the flow capital of arable land tended to increase on the whole, and the growth rate in 2016 increased significantly. The use ratio of stocks to flows of built-up land was larger and larger, and reached 0.45 in 2016, indicating that the threat of stock consumption was visibly expanding.

Table 2. Appropriation rate of flow capital and the use ratio of stocks to flows in SNPP.

Year Built-Up Land Forest Land Arable Land Water Grassland SNPP 2007 0.00 12.01% 52.58% 0.41 0.74% 17.64% 2008 0.03 12.33% 52.79% 0.05 0.64% 17.97% 2009 98.96% 12.94% 55.50% 78.53% 0.62% 18.77% 2010 97.28% 15.90% 57.84% 99.87% 0.62% 21.62% 2011 0.12 18.68% 58.42% 64.99% 0.59% 24.18% 2012 0.09 19.98% 60.22% 65.47% 0.54% 25.58% 2013 0.11 21.15% 60.86% 74.03% 0.65% 26.70% 2014 0.17 21.36% 68.17% 64.80% 0.72% 27.55% 2015 0.24 17.64% 64.99% 72.25% 0.79% 24.01% 2016 0.45 14.97% 82.15% 62.28% 1.03% 23.33% *Values with “%” represent the appropriation rate of flow capital and other values represent the use ratio of stocks to flows.

4.4. Ecological Footprint Size for Locals and Tourists Correlating with the process of local socioeconomic development, the tourism industry had a notable impact in SNPP. To assess the EF size of tourists in SNPP, we applied the tourist estimation method [12]. This approach compares the visitors’ EF with locals’ EF by using the concept of “annual equivalent residents”. As shown in Figure9, the cumulative EF of the tourists was 2.82 times that of the locals over the entire period. The tourists’ EF size surpassed the locals’ EF size in 2008, and the contribution of the tourists’ EF increased from 43.87% in 2007 to 90.52% in 2016. This is because the number of visitors increased twelve-fold during this decade. The increasing visitors generated a large EF for almost every item, especially food consumption and accommodation. Fortunately, the per capita EF size is declining at an average annual rate of 14.58%, which effectively slows the growth of the total EF size in SNPP. However, the linear growth in the EF of tourists should not be ignored, as tourism expansion is still the biggest threat to the sustainability of natural capital in SNPP. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

Correlating with the process of local socioeconomic development, the tourism industry had a notable impact in SNPP. To assess the EF size of tourists in SNPP, we applied the tourist estimation method [12]. This approach compares the visitors’ EF with locals’ EF by using the concept of “annual equivalent residents”. As shown in Figure 9, the cumulative EF of the tourists was 2.82 times that of the locals over the entire period. The tourists’ EF size surpassed the locals’ EF size in 2008, and the contribution of the tourists’ EF increased from 43.87% in 2007 to 90.52% in 2016. This is because the number of visitors increased twelve-fold during this decade. The increasing visitors generated a large EF for almost every item, especially food consumption and accommodation. Fortunately, the per capita EF size is declining at an average annual rate of 14.58%, which effectively slows the growth of the total EF size in SNPP. However, the linear growth in the EF of tourists should not be ignored, as tourism expansionSustainability is still2019 ,the11, 956biggest threat to the sustainability of natural capital in SNPP. 12 of 17

Figure 9. Trend of overall and per capita EF size of locals and tourists in SNPP in the period 2007 to 2016. Figure 9. Trend of overall and per capita EF size of locals and tourists in SNPP in the period 2007 to 5. Discussion 2016.

5. Discussion5.1. Dynamics of the Ecological Footprint Overall, the flow occupation and stock consumption was relatively reasonable in SNPP from 5.1. Dynamics of the Ecological Footprint 2007 to 2016. However, it is non-negligible that the stock consumption of built-up land and the flow occupancyOverall, ofthe arable flow landoccupation are constantly and stock accelerating. consumpt Theseion was results relatively of the explorationreasonable in ShennongjiaSNPP from is 2007similar to 2016. to theHowever, findings it byis Manon-negligible from about that the samethe stock time consumption [60]. of built-up land and the flow occupancyThere of arable are three land negative are constantly dynamics accelerating. for this These exploration: results of First, the exploration the contribution in Shennongjia rate of the is similaraccumulative to the findings EF size by of Ma arable from land about has the reached same time 60.66%, [60]. because agriculture is still fundamental forThere locals are in thethree national negative park. dynamics Second, for the this local expl governmentoration: First, has beenthe contribution developing therate farming of the of accumulativespecific medicinal EF size herbs,of arable resulting land has in thereached output 60.66%, of medicinal because herbs agriculture having is quadrupled still fundamental over the for past localsdecade. in the Third, national the interest park. Second, in natural the capital local hasgovernment risen enormously has been due developing to the expansion the farming of tourism of specificdevelopment medicinal in herbs, recent resulting years. To in date, the output some scholarsof medicinal have herbs found having that visitors’ quadrupled EF exceeded over the past that of decade.locals Third, in tourism the interest destinations, in natural ranging capital from has many risen famous enormously tourist cities, due to to the scenic expansion spots and of forest tourism parks developmentin China [61 in–63 recent]. Furthermore, years. To thedate, General some scholars Plan for Landhave Usefound in Shennongjiathat visitors’ Forest EF exceeded Region 2006–2020that of localsindicates in tourism that the destinations, built-up land ranging area will from be many moderately famous expanded tourist cities, for tourism to scenic in the spots future and [ 64forest]. parks inFortunately, China [61–63]. the forestFurthermore, land, which the hasGeneral excellent Plan resourcefor Land endowments, Use in Shennongjia was only Forest occupied Region by a 2006–2020small amount indicates of flow that capital the built-up in SNPP. land This circumstancearea will be wasmoderately principally expanded due to thefor creation tourism of in artificial the futureafforestation [64]. and closure of afforestation policies, as well as the low population density. Moreover, the flow occupation of forest land has plummeted since the government started preparing for SNPP in 2015 by launching such a series of protection policies such as burning for electricity, shutting down a sandstone factory, and stopping exploration , which has significantly reduced the emissions of CO2, soot and SO2. Besides, the declining gross sewage discharge also reduced the water EF in SNPP.

5.2. Suggestions for SNPP As we all know, the main purpose of establishing a national park is to protect biodiversity and significant ecosystems as well as to maximize the recreational value of natural capital, although the former is more essential. However, excessive recreational activities can adversely affect the , causing for example degradation, , disturbances to wild species, and changes in indigenous environment perceptions [65]. A sustainable tourism mode would ensure that ecosystem security is to compromised by recreational activities in nature reserves. Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 13 of 17

Additionally, reserving sufficient development space for locals is one of the essential tasks of national park management. To achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals [66], the local government should lay down further related policy measures. First, adapting the scale of tourism to the reception capacity is necessary to meet future challenges. Second, large-scale built-up land constructions, such as accommodation industries and shopping malls, should maintain their current size or move outside the national park boundary. Third, providing locals with reasonable compensation could continue to promote an ecological immigration policy. Fourth, it is feasible to guide tourists to regulate their recreational behavior, by promoting ecological education to prevent the rapid development of tourism from becoming unsustainable. Moreover, the development of medicinal planting must take local conditions into account. Different planting patterns should be adopted for different medicinal types to promote the sustainable development of local natural capital.

5.3. Limitations and Future Work

While the EF size and the depth of the EF3D model are conducive to the representation of natural capital utilization, it has a limitation in terms of representing natural capital stocks [59]. Hence, we estimated the sustainability of the natural capital in SNPP based on natural capital utilization rather than the explicit value of the natural capital. The long time series analysis of this study makes it easier to discover the variation tendency of the sustainability of natural capital than using a static evaluation. However, the comprehensiveness and integrality of the long-term dataset is difficult to obtain, so we eliminated the indicators for which we were unable to collect complete data for the period covered by the SANC account system. Hence, in the future we will investigate more exogenous factors like natural disasters and to enrich the SANC account system and conduct comparative studies in different national parks.

6. Conclusions This article presents a SANC account system suitable for Chinese national parks. The EF as well as EF depth and size were measured based on the EF3D model in SNPP from 2007 to 2016. The dynamics of five categories of natural capital in terms of stock consumption and flow occupation were analyzed, and the following findings were obtained:

(1) The total EF in SNPP reached 31,627.02 gha in 2016. In addition to the increase in the arable land EF and forest land EF, the dynamics of the other natural capital were small over the ten years. In general, the current natural capital in SNPP is relatively sufficient and the stocks do not seriously restrict the future regeneration function of flow capital. (2) The stock consumption in SNPP represented a tiny fraction, and the EF depth was between 1.0003 and 1.0098. This was mainly ascribed to the increasing demand for tourism development resulting in built-up land. The EF size increased year by year from 2007 to 2014, and decreased in 2015, because energy consumption and waste emissions plunged since the government started preparing for SNPP. However, the EF of arable land increased throughout due to the rapid growth in medicinal planting. (3) The contribution rate of tourists’ EF increased 46.41% to the total local EF from 2007 to 2016. Compared with locals’ EF, tourists’ EF increased 0.78 times in 2007 to 8.99 times in 2016. The accumulative EF of tourists was 2.82 times that of locals over the past decade. The results show that tourism has become the largest potential threat to the sustainability of natural capital in SNPP. Therefore, the scale of tourism ought to be reasonably controlled and a balance should be maintained between medicinal planting and ecosystem protection for SNPP in the future.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/4/956/s1, Table S1: The SANC account system in SNPP in the period 2007–2016. Table S2: Ecological footprint in SNPP in the period 2007 to 2016. Table S3: Equivalence factors and yield factors. Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 14 of 17

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.F.; Data curation, Y.W.; Formal analysis, Y.W.; Investigation, Y.W.; Methodology, Y.W. and J.H.; Project administration, S.F.; Supervision, S.F.; Validation, J.H.; Visualization, J.H.; Writing-original draft, Y.W.; Writing-review and editing, S.F. Funding: This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (41201574 and 41671518), the Key Project from the National Social Science Foundation (18ZDA053), and Human and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education (16YJAZH018) in China, as well as the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) to Shougeng Hu. Acknowledgments: The authors wish to acknowledge MDPI English Editors Linnea Andersson and Jack Sissons for correcting manuscript in grammar and syntax. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Nigel, D.; Sue, S.; Peter, S. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2013. 2. Gimmi, U.; Schmidt, S.L.; Hawbaker, T.J.; Alcántara, C.; Gafvert, U.; Radeloff, V.C. Increasing development in the surroundings of U.S. National park service holdings jeopardizes park effectiveness. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 229–239. [CrossRef][PubMed] 3. Tomczyk, A.M. A GIS assessment and modelling of environmental sensitivity of recreational trails: The case of Gorce national park, Poland. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 339–351. [CrossRef] 4. Monz, C.; D’Antonio, A.; Lawson, S.; Barber, J.; Newman, P. The ecological implications of visitor transportation in parks and protected areas: Examples from research in US national parks. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 51, 27–35. [CrossRef] 5. Ehrlich, P.R.; Kareiva, P.; Daily, G.C. Securing natural capital and expanding equity to rescale civilization. Nature 2012, 486, 68–73. [CrossRef][PubMed] 6. Costanza, R.; Daly, H.E. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv. Biol. 1992.[CrossRef] 7. Hanley, N. : Pricing the planet. Nature 2015, 520, 434–435. [CrossRef] 8. Hanley, N.; Dupuy, L.P.; Mclaughlin, E. Genuine savings and sustainability. J. Econ. Surv. 2015, 29, 779–806. [CrossRef] 9. Wackernagel, M.; Onisto, L.; Bello, P.; Linares, A.C.; Falfan, I.S.L.; Garcia, J.M.; Guerrero, A.I.S.; Guerrero, M.G.S. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 375–390. [CrossRef] 10. Tammi, I.; Mustajarvi, K.; Rasinmaki, J. Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into and development. Ecosyt. Serv. 2017, 26, 329–344. [CrossRef] 11. Fernando, B.; Daniel, E.C.; Marco, O. Emergy-based indicators for evaluating ecosystem health: A case study of three benthic ecosystem networks influenced by coastal upwelling in northern Chile (SE Pacific coast). Ecol. Indic. 2018, 95, 379–393. [CrossRef] 12. Haberl, H.; Steinberger, J.K.; Plutzar, C.; Erb, K.H.; Gaub, V.; Gingrich, S.; Krausmann, F. Natural and socioeconomic determinants of the embodied human appropriation of net and its relation to other resource use indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 23, 222–231. [CrossRef][PubMed] 13. Geyer, R.; Stoms, D.M.; Lindner, J.P.; Davis, F.W.; Wittstock, B. Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of . Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 454–467. [CrossRef] 14. Patterson, T.M.; Niccolucci, V.; Bastianoni, S. Beyond “more is better”: Ecological footprint accounting for tourism and consumption in Vai di Merse, Italy. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62, 747–756. [CrossRef] 15. Monfreda, C.; Wackernagel, M.; Deumling, D. Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy 2004, 21, 231–246. [CrossRef] 16. Galli, A.; Wackernagel, M.; Iha, K.; Lazarus, E. Ecological footprint: Implications for biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 173, 121–132. [CrossRef] 17. Gondran, N. The ecological footprint as a follow-up tool for an administration: Application for the Vanoise National Park. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 16, 157–166. [CrossRef] 18. Liu, X.; Jiang, D.; Wang, Q.; Liu, H.; Li, J.; Fu, Z. Evaluating the sustainability of nature reserves using an ecological footprint method: A case study in China. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1272. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 15 of 17

19. Wang, S.; Hu, Y.; He, H.; Wang, G. Progress and prospects for tourism footprint research. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1847. [CrossRef] 20. Phumalee, U.; Phongkhieo, N.T.; Emphandhu, D.; Bejranonda, S. Touristic ecological footprint in Mu Ko Surin National Park. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2018, 39, 1–8. [CrossRef] 21. Li, Z.H.; Fu, W.; Shen, Y. A footprint analysis on the natural capital embodied in the goods of China-U.S. bilateral trade. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2013, 23, 170–176. [CrossRef] 22. Rugani, B.; Roviani, D.; Hild, P.; Schmitt, B.; Benetto, E. Ecological deficit and use of natural capital in Luxembourg from 1995 to 2009. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468–469, 292–301. [CrossRef][PubMed] 23. Moore, D.; Cranston, G.; Reed, A.; Galli, A. Projecting future human demand on the earth’s regenerative capacity. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 16, 3–10. [CrossRef] 24. Mancini, M.S.; Galli, A.; Niccolucci, V.; Lin, D.; Hanscom, L.; Wackernagel, M.; Bastianoni, S.; Marchettini, N. Stocks and flows of natural capital: Implications for ecological footprint. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 77, 123–128. [CrossRef] 25. Peng, J.; Du, Y.; Ma, J.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wei, H. Sustainability evaluation of natural capital utilization based on 3D EF model: A case study in Beijing city, China. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 58, 254–266. [CrossRef] 26. Zhang, X. A new approach to natural capital sustainable development. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2016, 14, 105–111. [CrossRef] 27. Ma, W.; Liu, B.; Yang, D.; Guo, Q. Dynamic evaluation of natural capital using the Three-Dimension Ecological Footprint Model: The Jiulong River Basin in Southeast China. Resour. Sci. 2017, 39, 871–880. [CrossRef] 28. Xun, F.; Hu, Y. Evaluation of ecological sustainability based on a revised three-dimensional ecological footprint model in Shandong Province, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018.[CrossRef] 29. Yang, Y.; Hu, D. Natural capital utilization based on a three-dimensional ecological footprint model: A case study in northern Shaanxi, China. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 87, 178–188. [CrossRef] 30. Yang, Y.; Ling, S.; Zhang, T.; Yao, C. Three-dimensional ecological footprint assessment for ecologically sensitive areas: A case study of the Southern Qin Ling piedmont in Shaanxi, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 540–553. [CrossRef] 31. Shennongjia National Park Official Website. Available online: http://park.zhsnj.cn/index.htm (accessed on 20 October 2018). 32. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) Official Website. Available online: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1509 (accessed on 20 October 2018). 33. Chen, H.S. The establishment and application of environment sustainability evaluation indicators for environments. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4727–4746. [CrossRef] 34. Kitzes, J.; Galli, A.; Bagliani, M.; Barrett, J.; Dige, G.; Ede, S.; Erb, K.; Giljum, S.; Haberl, H.; Hails, C.; et al. A research agenda for improving national ecological footprint accounts. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1991–2007. [CrossRef] 35. Hunter, C. Sustainable tourism and the touristic ecological footprint. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2002, 4, 7–20. [CrossRef] 36. Zhong, L.S.; Zhou, R. Building national parks suitable to China’s situation: Conditions and approach. In China’s Tourism Development: Analysis and Forecast (2015–2016); Social Sciences Academic Press: Beijing, China, 2015. (In Chinese) 37. Shennongjia Statistic Bureau. Shennongjia Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2007–2016. (In Chinese) 38. MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China). Quota Indexes of ; Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 1980. 39. MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China). Code for Urban Parking Plan; Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2016. 40. Gössling, S.; Hansson, C.B.; Hörstmeier, O.; Saggel, S. Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 43, 199–211. [CrossRef] 41. Duan, J.; Kang, M.Y.; Jiang, Y. Improvement of Ecological Footprint Model Based on Freshwater Resource Account and Accounts. J. Nat. Resour. 2017, 27, 953–962. Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 16 of 17

42. Galli, A. On the rational and policy usefulness of Ecological Footprint Accounting: The case of Morocco. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 48, 210–224. [CrossRef] 43. Bai, Z.; Zeng, H.; Wei, J.B.; Zhang, W.J.; Zhao, H.W. Optimization of ecological footprint model based on environmental pollution accounts: A case study in Pearl River Delta Urban Agglomeration. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 19, 1789–1796. [CrossRef] 44. ERI of NDRC (Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission). Scenario Analysis of Sustainable Development Energy and Carbon Emissions in China; Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission: Beijing, China, 2003. 45. Mancini, M.S.; Galli, A.; Niccolucci, V.; Lin, D.; Bastianoni, S.; Wackernagel, M.; Marchettini, N. Ecological Footprint: Refining the calculation. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61, 390–403. [CrossRef] 46. Peng, J.; Wang, Y.L.; Chen, Y.F. Economic value of urban ecosystem services: A case study in Shenzhen. Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Pekin. 2005, 41, 594–604. [CrossRef] 47. National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2007–2016. (In Chinese) 48. Hubei Statistic Bureau. Hubei Province Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2007–2016. (In Chinese) 49. Ministry of Land and Resources. Notice on Promoting Land Use Policies for Large-Scale Livestock and Poultry Farming (Ministry of Land and Resources [2007] No. 220); Ministry of Land and Resources: Beijing, China, 2007. (In Chinese) 50. Liu, M.C.; Li, W.H.; Xie, G.D. Estimation of China ecological footprint production coefficient based on net primary productivity. Chin. J. Ecol. 2010, 29, 592–597. [CrossRef] 51. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature or World Fund). Living Planet Report 2016. Risk and Resilience in a New Era; WWF International: Gland, Switzerland, 2016. 52. Niccolucci, V.; Galli, A.; Reed, A.; Neri, E.; Wackernagel, M.; Bastianoni, S. Towards a 3d national ecological footprint geography. Ecol. Model. 2011, 222, 2939–2944. [CrossRef] 53. Niccolucci, V.; Bastianoni, S.; Tiezzi, E.; Wackernagel, M.; Marchettini, N. How deep is the footprint? A 3d representation. Ecol. Model. 2009, 220, 2819–2823. [CrossRef] 54. Niccolucci, V.; Bastianoni, S.; Tiezzi, E. The Ecological Footprint Depth: Prelimininary consideration for national accounting. In Management of Natural Resources, Sustainable Development and Ecological Hazards II; WIT Press: New Forest, UK, 2009. 55. Fang, K. Ecological footprint depth and size: New indicators for a 3D model. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2013, 33, 267–274. [CrossRef] 56. Fang, K. Assessing the natural capital use of eleven nations: An application of a revised three-dimensional model of ecological footprint. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 3766–3777. [CrossRef] 57. Fang, K.; Li, H. Provincial pattern of China’s natural capital use: A modification and application of ecological footprint depth and size. J. Nat. Resour. 2012, 27, 1995–2005. 58. Fang, K.; Wu, C.F.; Dong, L. The use of land natural capital in the context of urbanization. J. Nat. Resour. 2018, 33, 1–13. [CrossRef] 59. Fang, K.; Zhang, Q.; Yu, H.; Wang, Y.; Dong, L.; Shi, L. Sustainability of the use of natural capital in a city: Measuring the size and depth of urban ecological and water footprints. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 631, 476–484. [CrossRef][PubMed] 60. Ma, Y.; Li, L.X.; Ren, J. Coordination development research among the tourism Economy-Traffic Condition-Ecological environment in Shengnongjia Forest District. Econ. Geogr. 2017, 37, 215–220. [CrossRef] 61. Xu, X.M.; Zheng, Y. Evaluation on tourism ecological footprint and compensation standard in rural tourism destination in Lhasa—A case study of Cijiaolin. Econ. Geogr. 2017, 37, 218–224. [CrossRef] 62. Jiang, Y.Y.; Wang, Y.L.; Peng, J.; Yang, L.; Zhang, Y. Measuring tourism area sustainability based on tourism ecological footprint : A case study in Lijiang Naxi Autonomous County. Geogr. Res. 2006, 25, 11. 63. Li, C.; Hymit, Y. Measuring tourism sustainability of Kans resort based on tourism ecological footprint. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2011, 25, 39–44. [CrossRef] 64. Shennongjia People’s Government. General Plan for Land Use in Shennongjia Forest Region 2006–2020. Unpublished work. Sustainability 2019, 11, 956 17 of 17

65. Marino, D.; Marucci, A.; Palmieri, M.; Gaglioppa, P. Monitoring the convention on biological diversity (CBD) framework using evaluation of effectiveness methods. The Italian case. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 55, 172–182. [CrossRef] 66. Costanza, R.; Daly, L.; Fioramonti, L.; Giovannini, E.; Kubiszewski, I.; Mortensen, L.F.; Pickett, K.E.; Ragnarsdottir, K.V.; De Vogli, R.; Wilkinson, R.G. Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 130, 350–355. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).