Utilization of natural resources has multiplied globally, resulting in serious environmental deterioration and impeding the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For the harmonious development of human nourishment and the balance of nature, it is vital to evaluate environmental segments' resource usage, transformation, and residue, referred to as ‘footprint,’ in order to highlight carrying capacity and sustainability. This analysis highlights the Environmental Footprint (EF) of India per state from 2010 to 2020 in terms of hectares per capita. This study evaluates India's biological, hydrological, energy, ecological, and pollution footprints, carrying capacity, environmental pressure, and environmental deficit using 17 distinct parameters categorized under the themes of biological resource, hydrological resource, energy resource, and pollution concentration. We proposed a reoriented methodology and EF concepts that determine India's footprint, carrying capacity, nature of sustainability, environmental pressure index, and its consequential links to the 2030 SDGs. As a result, the biological resources contributed to ~50% of the environmental footprint, while hydrological, energy, and pollutants made up the remaining. Between 2010 and 2020, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal had the highest EF, while Jammu and Kashmir and the north-eastern provinces had the lowest. During the research period, the ecological deficit in India has increased overall. India impedes the 2030 SDGs; therefore, the study provides a picture of resource consumption, waste generation, economic growth, and societal changes, enabling academics and policymakers to redefine or document policy for a more sustainable future. 相似文献
Objective: This article discusses differences between a side impact procedure described in United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation 129 and scenarios observed in real-world cases.
Methods: Numerical simulations of side impact tests utilizing different boundary conditions are used to compare the severity of the Regulation 129 test and the other tests with different kinematics of child restraint systems (CRSs). In the simulations, the authors use a validated finite element (FE) model of real-world CRSs together with a fully deformable numerical model of the Q3 anthropomorphic test device (ATD) by Humanetics Innovative Solution, Inc.
Results: The comparison of 5 selected cases is based on the head injury criterion (HIC) index. Numerical investigations reveal that the presence of oblique velocity components or the way in which the CRS is mounted to the test bench seat fixture is among the significant factors influencing ATD kinematics. The results of analyses show that the side impact test procedure is very sensitive to these parameters. A side impact setup defined in Regulation 129 may minimize the effects of the impact.
Conclusions: It is demonstrated that an artificial anchorage in the Regulation 129 test does not account for a rotation of the CRS, which should appear in the case of a realistic anchorage. Therefore, the adopted procedure generates the smallest HIC value, which is at the level of the far-side impact scenario where there are no obstacles. It is also shown that the presence of nonlateral acceleration components challenges the quality of a CRS and its headrest much more than a pure lateral setup. 相似文献