Biocapacity in the Gili Matra Region: A Spatial Assessment of The Carrying Capacity of Small Islands

Fery Kurniawan, Luky Adrianto, Dietriech G. Bengen, Lilik Budi Prasetyo


Spatial as a contributor to biological productivity and ecosystem services have not been considered in the sustainable development of small islands. The aim of this study to appraise biocapacity (BC) in the Gili Matra Islands to estimate the existing carrying capacity for sustainable development, and refines the current BC methodology that emphasizes the spatial aspects in small islands. Based on analysis results, the Gili Matra Islands have BC total ranging from 659.46 to 1,069.57 gha in 2010, and increased from 673.64 to 1,093.02 gha in 2014. The highest total BC is the Gili Trawangan Island, while the lowest is the Gili Meno Island, but for the local BC is the opposite. The total local BC per island can be supplied around 0.00857 gha per capita for the Gili Ayer Island, 0.20103 gha per capita for the Gili Meno Island, and 0.00344 gha per capita for the Gili Trawangan Island. They are influenced by population density. The BC values indicate a critical position, both per-unit-area or per-capita, which is spatially nearly 100 % of the needs supplied from outside the island, and demonstrate the use on the Gili Matra Region have exceeded the existing carrying capacity. The sustainable development aspects and land use management should be applied strictly to ensure the sustainability of natural resources, social and economic, as well as cotinuously consider the efforts and existing strategies of conservation. The export and import factors of bioproductivity should be considered in making long-term planning. Spatially, BC appraisal was applicable to illustrate the condition of an area on the small islands. The GIS based BC can give the information of pattern of changes and distributions, both spatial and temporal. However, the statistical data use is needed to get the value of BC per capita.

Full Text:



Adrianto, L., Matsuda, Y., 2004. Study on assessing economic vulnerability of small island regions. Environment, Development and Sustainability 6, 317–336.

Bagliani, M., Galli, A., Niccolucci, V., Marchettini, N., 2008. Ecological footprint analysis applied to a sub-national area: the case of the Province of Siena (Italy). J Environ Manage 86 (2), 354-64.

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.

Bottema, M.J.M., Bush, S.R., 2012. The durability of private sector-led marine conservation: A case study of two entrepreneurial marine protected areas in Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 61, 38–48.

Cornelia, P.G., 2014. True Cost Economics: Ecological Footprint. Procedia Economics and Finance 8, 550-555.

Desa Gili Indah, 2015. Monografi Desa Gili Indah: Tabel Pendataan Kecamatan Pembantu Pemenang, Kabupaten Lombok Utara. Desa Gili Indah, Unpublished Document. Pemenang, Indonesia.

Dinas Pariwisata Kabupaten Lombok Utara, 2015. Pariwisata Dalam Angka Kabupaten Lombok Barat Tahun 2014. Dinas Pariwisata Kabupaten Lombok Utara, Unpublished Document. Tanjung, Indonesia.

Erb, K.-H., 2004. Actual land demand of Austria 1926–2000: a variation on Ecological Footprint assessments. Land Use Policy 21 (3), 247-259.

Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A., Wackernagel, M., 2010. The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. Global Footprint Network, Oakland.

Farhan, A.R., Lim, S., 2011. Resilience assessment on coastline changes and urban settlements: A case study in Seribu Islands, Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 54, 391-400.

Farhan, A.R., Lim, S., 2012. Vulnerability assessment of ecological conditions in Seribu Islands, Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 65, 1–14.

Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K., Lazarus, E., 2014. Ecological Footprint: Implications for biodiversity. Biological Conservation 173, 121-132.

Global Footprint Network (GFN), 2016. National Footprint Accounts, 2016 Edition. Please contact Global Footprint Network at for more information. Global Footprint Network, Oakland (US).

Hampton, M.P., Jeyacheya, J., 2014. Power, Ownership and Tourism in Small Islands: Evidence from Indonesia. Word Development 70, 481–495.

Hopton, M.E., White, D., 2012. A simplified ecological footprint at a regional scale. J Environ Manage 111, 279-86.

Kissinger, M., Rees, W.E., 2010. Importing terrestrial biocapacity: The U.S. case and global implications. Land Use Policy 27 (2), 589-599.

Kurniawan, F., Adrianto, L., Bengen, D.G., Prasetyo, L.B., 2016a. Patterns of Landscape Change on Small Islands: A Case of Gili Matra Islands, Marine Tourism Park, Indonesia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227, 553-559.

Kurniawan, F., Adrianto, L., Bengen, D.G., Prasetyo, L.B., 2016b. Vulnerability assessment of small islands to tourism: The case of the Marine Tourism Park of the Gili Matra Islands, Indonesia. Global Ecology and Conservation 6, 308-326.

Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Martindill, J., Borucke, M., Cohen, L., Galli, A., Lazarus, E., Zokai, G., Iha, K., Eaton, D., Wackernagel, M., 2016. Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts: 2016. Global Footprint Network, Oakland.

Mózner, Z., Tabi, A., Csutora, M., 2012. Modifying the yield factor based on more efficient use of fertilizer—The environmental impacts of intensive and extensive agricultural practices. Ecological Indicators 16, 58-66.

Niccolucci, V., Tiezzi, E., Pulselli, F.M., Capineri, C., 2012. Biocapacity vs Ecological Footprint of world regions: A geopolitical interpretation. Ecological Indicators 16, 23-30.

Rees, W.E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization 4 (2), 121-130.

Scotti, M., Bondavalli, C., Bodini, A., 2009. Ecological Footprint as a tool for local sustainability: The municipality of Piacenza (Italy) as a case study. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (1), 39-50.

Shia, C., Hutchinsonb, S.M., Xua, S., 2004. Evaluation of coastal zone sustainability: an integrated approach applied in Shanghai Municipality and Chong Ming Island. Journal of Environmental Management 71, 335–344.

Toderoiu, F., 2010. Ecological footprint and biocapacity – Methodology and regional and national dimensions. Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 2, 213-238.

Vačkář, D., 2012. Ecological Footprint, environmental performance and biodiversity: A cross-national comparison. Ecological Indicators 16, 40-46.

Wrbka, T., Erb, K.-H., Schulz, N.B., Peterseil, J., Hahn, C., Haberl, H., 2004. Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy 21 (3), 289-306.

Yue, D., Xu, X., Hui, C., Xiong, Y., Han, X., Ma, J., 2011. Biocapacity supply and demand in Northwestern China: A spatial appraisal of sustainability. Ecological Economics 70 (5), 988-994.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Lisensi Creative Commons

Omni-Akuatika de Fisheries and Marine Science Faculty - Jenderal Soedirman University est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

Fondé(e) sur une œuvre à
Les autorisations au-delà du champ de cette licence peuvent être obtenues à