Ecological footprint
The ecological footprint (EF) is a metric used to measure and assess the impact of human activities on ecosystems. Originating in the early 1990s, the EF concept was developed by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees to quantify humanity's demands on nature. It aims to inform individuals and organizations about the natural resources they consume and how such consumption affects the environment. By calculating the EF, one can compare the resource consumption of various entities—such as individuals, communities, or countries—against the Earth's capacity to regenerate those resources and absorb waste.
The Global Footprint Network has established standards for assessing ecological footprints, which include metrics related to carbon output, food consumption, housing, and waste. The EF can also be contrasted with biocapacity, which represents the available biologically productive land and water. A country with an ecological footprint larger than its biocapacity is considered to have an ecological deficit, while one with a smaller footprint has an ecological reserve. Despite criticisms regarding its methodologies, the concept of the ecological footprint remains a valuable educational tool for raising awareness about environmental sustainability and encouraging changes in consumption patterns, particularly in developed nations.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Ecological footprint
DEFINITION: Measure used to quantify and assess the impact of human activities on ecosystems
Although inconsistency in the ways in which ecological footprints are calculated has resulted in some mistrust of the resulting figures, the concept of the ecological footprint provides a valuable educational tool regarding environmental sustainability.
The concept of the ecological footprint (EF) emerged during the early 1990s as the favored measure of human beings’ demands on nature. Nature provides for the needs of humans worldwide, but individuals are not always aware of how many natural resources they are using and how their consumption of those resources affects the environment at large. The concept was first articulated by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees of the University of British Columbia, who originally used the term “appropriated carrying capacity” but later adopted “ecological footprint” because it was more easily understood.
Measuring the EF of a person, a group, or other entity essentially consists of comparing the entity’s demands on nature with the earth’s capacity to regenerate the resources used and to provide services. This measurement takes into consideration how much (biologically productive) land and water are (or would be) required to produce the resources the entity consumes and to absorb and render harmless its corresponding wastes, given current knowledge and available technologies. The concept of EF can be used to estimate the use of resources by a population, a person, a region, a city, a country, a business or a sector of the economy, an organization or institution, or even a particular lifestyle. It makes possible comparisons of resource use among different countries and the calculation of per-capita EF measurements.
In 2006, the Global Footprint Network released the Ecological Footprint Standards, which were updated in 2009. These standards allow for consistent assessment of the ecological footprint across nations. The data most commonly included in calculations concern carbon, food, housing, goods and services, waste, and recycling. In addition to an ecological footprint (EF), the network measures biocapacity by calculating the amount of biologically productive land and sea area that are available to provide the resources a population needs and to absorb its wastes. If a country's EF is smaller than its biocapacity, it has an ecological reserve; on the other hand, if a country's EF is larger than its biocapacity, it has an ecological deficit. In 2019, the United States had an EF of 7.8 and a biocapacity of 3.7. This means that, like most countries, it has an ecological deficit.
Although critics have increasingly focused on the limitations of the EF measure—particularly its accounting and calculation procedures—and have called for its continued improvement, the concept of EF is still widely considered useful. It can help people to understand the concept of environmental sustainability, educating them about carrying capacity and overconsumption and perhaps leading to the eventual alteration of world trends in consumption behaviors, as it becomes clear to increasing numbers of people that the lifestyles pursued by many in the developed world are unsustainable.
Bibliography
Chambers, Nicky, Craig Simmons, and Mathis Wackernagel. Sharing Nature’s Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability. 2000. Rpt. Earthscan, 2007.
"Data and Methodology." Global Footprint Network, www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/. Accessed 29 July 2024.
Espinosa, Rafaek M. Eufrasio and S.C. Lenny Koh. "Forecasting the Ecological Footprint of G20 Countries in the Next Thirty Years." Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 8298, 9 Apr. 2024, doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137574. Accessed 16 July 2024.
Fiala, Nathan. “Measuring Sustainability: Why the Ecological Footprint Is Bad Economics and Bad Environmental Science.” Ecological Economics 67.4 (2008): 519–25.
Kazemzadeh, Emad, et al. "Assessing Influential Factors for Ecological Footprints: A Complex Solution Approach." Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 414, 15 Aug. 2023, doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137574. Accessed 16 July 2024.
Rees, William, and Mathis Wackernagel. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society, 1996.
Vale, Brenda, and Robert James Dennis Vale. Living within a Fair Share Ecological Footprint. Routledge, 2013.
Venetoulis, Jason. “Redefining the Footprint (Footprint 2.0).” Sustainable Development: Principles, Frameworks, and Case Studies. Ed. Okechukwu Ukaga, Chris Maser, and Mike Reichenbach. CRC, 2010.
Venetoulis, Jason, and John Talberth. Ecological Footprint of Nations: 2005 Update. Oakland: Redefining Progress, 2005. Print.