Ecological footprint

The ecological footprint concept and calculation method was developed as the PhD dissertation of Mathis Wackernagel, in collaboration with his supervisor William Rees at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, from 1990 to 1994.{{Cite thesis |degree=PhD |title=Ecological Footprint and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: A Tool for Planning Toward Sustainability |author=Wackernagel, M. |year=1994 |publisher=School of Community and Regional Planning. The University of British Columbia |location=Vancouver, Canada |url=https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/7132/ubc_1994-954027.pdf?sequence=1 |format=PDF |oclc=41839429 |access-date=2010-06-16 |archive-date=2011-07-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717034651/https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/7132/ubc_1994-954027.pdf?sequence=1 |url-status=dead }}{{cite journal |last1=Rees |first1=William E. |last2=Wackernagel |first2=Mathis |author-link=William Rees (academic) |date=August 2023 |title=Ecological Footprint Accounting: Thirty Years and Still Gathering Steam |journal=Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development |volume=65 |issue=5 |pages=5–18 |doi=10.1080/00139157.2023.2225405 |bibcode=2023ESPSD..65e...5R }} The first academic publication about ecological footprints was written by William Rees in 1992.{{cite journal |last=Rees |first=William E. |author-link=William Rees (academic) |date=October 1992 |title=Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out |journal=Environment & Urbanization |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=121–130 |doi=10.1177/095624789200400212 |doi-access=free |bibcode=1992EnUrb...4..121R }} Originally, Wackernagel and Rees called the concept "appropriated carrying capacity".Wackernagel, Mathis, 1991. "Land Use: Measuring a Community's Appropriated Carrying Capacity as an Indicator for Sustainability"; and "Using Appropriated Carrying Capacity as an Indicator, Measuring the Sustainability of a Community." Report I & II to the UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver. To make the idea more accessible, Rees came up with the term "ecological footprint", inspired by a computer technician who praised his new computer's "small footprint on the desk".[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/magazine/17wwln-safire-t.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1229007727-rHeHNAWQ6qCKYwJ6WbOsVg William Safire, On Language]: Footprint, New York Times Magazine, February 17, 2008 In 1996, Wackernagel and Rees published the book Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. {{ISBN|0-86571-312-X}}.

The simplest way to define an ecological footprint is the amount of environmental resources necessary to produce the goods and services that support an individual's lifestyle, a nation's prosperity, or the economic activity of humanity as a whole.{{Cite web|url=https://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/teacher_resources/webfieldtrips/ecological_balance/eco_footprint/|title=Ecological Footprint |author= |website=WWF|access-date=11 May 2020}}

The model is a means of comparing lifestyles, per capita consumption, and population numbers, and checking these against biocapacity.{{Cite journal |last1=Wiedmann |first1=Thomas |last2=Lenzen |first2=Manfred |last3=Keyßer |first3=Lorenz T. |last4=Steinberger |first4=Julia K. |date=2020-06-19 |title=Scientists' warning on affluence |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y |journal=Nature Communications |volume=11 |issue=1 |page=3107 |doi=10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y |pmid=32561753 |pmc=7305220 |bibcode=2020NatCo..11.3107W |issn=2041-1723}}{{Cite journal |last=Rees |first=William E. |date=2020 |title=Ecological economics for humanity's plague phase |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106519 |journal=Ecological Economics |volume=169 |pages=106519 |doi=10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106519 |bibcode=2020EcoEc.16906519R |s2cid=209502532 |issn=0921-8009|url-access=subscription }} The tool can inform policy by examining to what extent a nation uses more (or less) than is available within its territory, or to what extent the nation's lifestyle and population density would be replicable worldwide. The footprint can be a useful tool to educate people about overconsumption and overpopulation, with the aim of altering personal behavior or public policies.{{Cite journal |last1=Fatemi |first1=Mahsa |last2=Rezaei-Moghaddam |first2=Kurosh |last3=Karami |first3=Ezatollah |last4=Hayati |first4=Dariush |last5=Wackernagel |first5=Mathis |date=2021-04-16 |editor-last=Vasa |editor-first=László |title=An integrated approach of Ecological Footprint (EF) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in human ecology: A base for planning toward sustainability |journal=PLOS ONE |language=en |volume=16 |issue=4 |pages=e0250167 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0250167 |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=8051938 |pmid=33861764 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2021PLoSO..1650167F }}{{Cite journal |last1=Ripple |first1=William J. |last2=Wolf |first2=Christopher |last3=Newsome |first3=Thomas M. |last4=Galetti |first4=Mauro |last5=Alamgir |first5=Mohammed |last6=Crist |first6=Eileen |last7=Mahmoud |first7=Mahmoud I. |last8=Laurance |first8=William F. |date=2017-11-13 |title=World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125 |journal=BioScience |volume=67 |issue=12 |pages=1026–1028 |doi=10.1093/biosci/bix125 |issn=0006-3568|hdl=11336/71342 |hdl-access=free }}Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Barnard P, Moomaw WR. 2020. World scientists' warning of a climate emergency. BioScience 70 (8): 8 –12. Ecological footprints may be used to argue that current lifestyles and human numbers are not sustainable.{{Cite journal |last=Rees |first=William |date=2010 |title=What's blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition, and denial |journal=Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=13–25 |doi=10.1080/15487733.2010.11908046 |s2cid=8188578 |issn=1548-7733|doi-access=free |bibcode=2010SSPP....6...13R }} Country-by-country comparisons show the inequalities of resource use on this planet.

The touristic ecological footprint (TEF) is the ecological footprint of visitors to a particular destination, and depends on the tourists' behavior.{{cite book |last1=Anderson |first1=David |title=Environmental Economics and Natural Resource Management |date=2019 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |isbn=9780815359036 |page=279 |edition=5 |url=https://www.routledge.com/Environmental-Economics-and-Natural-Resource-Management-5th-Edition/Anderson/p/book/9780815359036 |access-date=2 March 2023}} Comparisons of TEFs can indicate the benefits of alternative destinations, modes of travel, food choices, types of lodging, and activities.{{cite thesis |last1=Johnson |first1=Peter A. |title=Exploring the Ecological Footprint of Tourism in Ontario |url=http://hdl.handle.net/10012/997 |website=UWSpace |year=2003 |publisher=University of Waterloo |hdl=10012/997 |access-date=2 March 2023|type=Master Thesis }}

The carbon footprint is a component of the total ecological footprint. Often, when only the carbon footprint is reported, it is expressed in weight of {{CO2}} (or CO2e representing GHG warming potential (GGWP)), but it can also be expressed in land areas like ecological footprints. Both can be applied to products, people, or whole societies.{{cite web|last1=Benn|first1=Hilary|last2=Miliband|first2=Ed|title=Guidance on how to measure and report your greenhouse gas emissions|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69282/pb13309-ghg-guidance-0909011.pdf|website=GOV.UK|publisher=Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK)|access-date=9 November 2016}}

File:Blue Marble Western Hemisphere.jpgs of Earth are finite, and are being used unsustainably given current levels of use.]]

Ecological footprint accounting is built on the recognition that regenerative resources are the physically most limiting resources of all. Even fossil fuel use is far more limited by the amount of sequestration the biosphere can provide rather than by the amounts left underground. The same is true for ores and minerals, where the limiting factor is how much damage to the biosphere we are willing to accept to extract and concentrate those materials, rather than by how much of them is still left underground. Therefore, the focus of ecological footprint accounting is human competition for regenerative resources.

The amount of the planet's regeneration, including how many resources are renewed and how much waste it the planet can absorb, is dubbed biocapacity. Ecological footprints therefore track how much biocapacity is needed to provide for all the inputs that human activities demand. It can be calculated at any scale: for an activity, a person, a community, a city, a region, a nation, or humanity as a whole.

Footprints can be split into consumption categories: food, housing, and goods and services. Or it can be organized by are types occupied: cropland, pasture, forests for forest products, forests for carbon sequestration, marine areas, etc.

When this approach is applied to an activity such as the manufacturing of a product or driving a car, it uses data from life-cycle analysis. Such applications translate the consumption of energy, biomass (food, fiber), building material, water and other resources into normalized land areas called global hectares (gha) needed to provide these inputs.

Since the Global Footprint Network's inception in 2003, it has calculated the ecological footprint from UN data sources for the world as a whole and for over 200 nations (known as the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts). This task has now been taken over by FoDaFo{{cite web |author=Footprint Data Foundation (FoDaFo) |title=Footprint Data Foundation website |url=https://www.fodafo.org |website=fodafo.org |publisher=Footprint Data Foundation |access-date=12 February 2024}} and York University.{{cite web |author=Ecological Footprint Initiative at York University |title=Ecological Footprint Initiative |url=https://footprint.info.yorku.ca |access-date=12 February 2024}} The total footprint number of Earths needed to sustain the world's population at that level of consumption are also calculated. Every year the calculations are updated to the latest year with complete UN statistics. The time series are also recalculated with every update, since UN statistics sometimes correct historical data sets. Results are available on an open data platform.{{cite web |author1=Global Footprint Network |author2=FoDaFo |author3=Ecological Footprint Initiative at York University |title=Ecological Footprint Data Platform |website=data.footprintnetwork.org |url=https://data.footprintnetwork.org |access-date=12 February 2024}}

Lin et al. (2018) find that the trends for countries and the world have stayed consistent despite data updates.{{Cite journal |last1=Lin |first1=David |last2=Hanscom |first2=Laurel |last3=Murthy |first3=Adeline |last4=Galli |first4=Alessandro |last5=Evans |first5=Mikel |last6=Neill |first6=Evan |last7=Mancini |first7=Maria Serena |last8=Martindill |first8=Jon |last9=Medouar |first9=Fatime-Zahra |last10=Huang |first10=Shiyu |last11=Wackernagel |first11=Mathis |date= 2018|title=Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018 |journal=Resources |language=en |volume=7 |issue=3 |pages=58 |doi=10.3390/resources7030058 |doi-access=free |issn=2079-9276}} In addition, a recent study by the Swiss Ministry of Environment independently recalculated the Swiss trends and reproduced them within 1–4% for the time period that they studied (1996–2015).{{Cite book|title=Environmental Footprints of Switzerland|publisher=Federal Office for the Environment|year=2018|pages=87}} Since 2006, a first set of ecological footprint standards exist that detail both communication and calculation procedures. The latest version are the updated standards from 2009.{{cite web |author= |title=Data |url=https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/ |website=footprintnetwork.org |publisher=Global Footprint Network |access-date=16 July 2018}}

The ecological footprint accounting method at the national level is described on the website of the Global Footprint Network or in greater detail in academic papers, including Borucke et al.{{cite journal |last1=Borucke |first1=M |last2=Moore |first2=D |last3=Cranston |first3=G |last4=Gracey |first4=K |last5=Lazarus |first5=E |last6=Morales |first6=J.C. |last7=Wackernagel |first7=M. |title=Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts' underlying methodology and framework |journal=Ecological Indicators |date=2013 |volume=24 |pages=518–533 |doi=10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005|bibcode=2013EcInd..24..518B }}

The National Accounts Review Committee has published a research agenda on how to improve the accounts.[http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/fullpapers/Kitzes_et_al_M65.pdf A Research Agenda for Improving National Ecological Footprint Accounts] Retrieved: 2007-11-11 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071128200301/http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/fullpapers/Kitzes_et_al_M65.pdf |date=November 28, 2007 }}

For 2023 Global Footprint Network estimated humanity's ecological footprint as 1.71 planet Earths.{{cite book | last1=Wackernagel | first1=Mathis | last2=Beyers | first2=Bert | last3=Rout | first3=Katharina | title=Ecological footprint : managing our biocapacity budget | publication-place=Gabriola Island, BC, Canada | date=2019 | isbn=978-1-55092-704-7 | oclc=1098180309}} According to their calculations this means that humanity's demands were 1.71 times more than what the planet's ecosystems renewed.

If this rate of resource use is not reduced, persistent overshoot would suggest the occurrence of continued ecological deterioration and a potentially permanent decrease in Earth's human carrying capacity.Reid, W. V., et al. (2005). The millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press.{{Cite journal |last1=Bradshaw |first1=Corey J. A. |last2=Ehrlich |first2=Paul R. |last3=Beattie |first3=Andrew |last4=Ceballos |first4=Gerardo |last5=Crist |first5=Eileen |last6=Diamond |first6=Joan |last7=Dirzo |first7=Rodolfo |last8=Ehrlich |first8=Anne H. |last9=Harte |first9=John |last10=Harte |first10=Mary Ellen |last11=Pyke |first11=Graham |last12=Raven |first12=Peter H. |last13=Ripple |first13=William J. |last14=Saltré |first14=Frédérik |last15=Turnbull |first15=Christine |date=2021 |title=Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future |journal=Frontiers in Conservation Science |volume=1 |doi=10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419 |issn=2673-611X|doi-access=free }}    

In 2022, the average biologically productive area per person worldwide was approximately 1.6 global hectares (gha) per capita. The U.S. footprint per person was 7.5 gha, and that of Switzerland was 3.7 gha, that of China 3.6 gha, and that of India 1.0 gha.{{Cite web |title=National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts - Open Data Platform - data.footprintnetwork.org |url=https://data.footprintnetwork.org |access-date=February 9, 2024 |website=Global Footprint Network, Open Data Platform}}Chambers, N. et al. (2004) Scotland's Footprint. Best Foot Forward. {{ISBN|0-9546042-0-2}}. In its Living Planet Report 2022, the WWF documents a 69% decline in the world's vertebrate populations between 1970 and the present, and links this decline to humanity greatly exceeding global biocapacity.World Wildlife Fund, Global Planet Report 2022 Wackernagel and Rees originally estimated that the available biological capacity for the 6 billion people on Earth at that time was about 1.3 hectares per person, which is smaller than the 1.6 global hectares published for 2024, because the initial studies neither used global hectares nor included bioproductive marine areas.

File: Ecological Footprint per person and HDI of countries by world regions (2014).jpg

According to the 2018 edition of the National footprint accounts, humanity's total ecological footprint has exhibited an increasing trend since 1961, growing an average of 2.1% per year (SD= 1.9). Humanity's ecological footprint was 7.0 billion gha in 1961 and increased to 20.6 billion gha in 2014, a function of higher per capita resource use and population increase.{{Cite journal |last=Rees |first=William |date=2010-10-01 |title=What's blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition, and denial |journal=Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=13–25 |doi=10.1080/15487733.2010.11908046 |s2cid=8188578 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2010SSPP....6...13R }}Rees, W. E. (2014). Avoiding collapse: An agenda for sustainable degrowth and relocalizing the economy. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC Office. The world-average ecological footprint in 2014 was 2.8 global hectares per person. The carbon footprint is the fastest growing part of the ecological footprint and accounts currently for about 60% of humanity's total ecological footprint.

The Earth's biocapacity has not increased at the same rate as the ecological footprint. The increase of biocapacity averaged at only 0.5% per year (SD = 0.7). Because of agricultural intensification, biocapacity was at 9.6 billion gha in 1961 and grew to 12.2 billion gha in 2016.

However, this increased biocapacity for people came at the expense of other species.{{Cite journal |last1=Crist |first1=Eileen |last2=Mora |first2=Camilo |last3=Engelman |first3=Robert |date=2017-04-21 |title=The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aal2011 |journal=Science |volume=356 |issue=6335 |pages=260–264 |doi=10.1126/science.aal2011 |pmid=28428391 |bibcode=2017Sci...356..260C |s2cid=12770178 |issn=0036-8075|url-access=subscription }}Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), 2019. Summary for Policymakers. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. Agricultural intensification involved increased fertilizer use which led to eutrophication of streams and ponds; increased pesticide use which decimated pollinator populations; increased water withdrawals which decreased river health; and decreased land left wild or fallow which decreased wildlife populations on agricultural lands.{{Cite journal |last1=D'Odorico |first1=Paolo |last2=Davis |first2=Kyle Frankel |last3=Rosa |first3=Lorenzo |last4=Carr |first4=Joel A. |last5=Chiarelli |first5=Davide |last6=Dell'Angelo |first6=Jampel |last7=Gephart |first7=Jessica |last8=MacDonald |first8=Graham K. |last9=Seekell |first9=David A. |last10=Suweis |first10=Samir |last11=Rulli |first11=Maria Cristina |date=2018-07-24 |title=The Global Food-Energy-Water Nexus |journal=Reviews of Geophysics |volume=56 |issue=3 |pages=456–531 |doi=10.1029/2017rg000591 |s2cid=133929157 |issn=8755-1209|doi-access=free |bibcode=2018RvGeo..56..456D |hdl=11577/3286061 |hdl-access=free }}{{Cite journal |last1=Donald |first1=P. F. |last2=Green |first2=R. E. |last3=Heath |first3=M. F. |date=2001-01-07 |title=Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1325 |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences |volume=268 |issue=1462 |pages=25–29 |doi=10.1098/rspb.2000.1325 |pmid=12123294 |pmc=1087596 |issn=0962-8452}}{{Cite journal |last1=Marques |first1=Alexandra |last2=Martins |first2=Inês S. |last3=Kastner |first3=Thomas |last4=Plutzar |first4=Christoph |last5=Theurl |first5=Michaela C. |last6=Eisenmenger |first6=Nina |last7=Huijbregts |first7=Mark A. J. |last8=Wood |first8=Richard |last9=Stadler |first9=Konstantin |last10=Bruckner |first10=Martin |last11=Canelas |first11=Joana |last12=Hilbers |first12=Jelle P. |last13=Tukker |first13=Arnold |last14=Erb |first14=Karlheinz |last15=Pereira |first15=Henrique M. |date=2019-03-04 |title=Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0824-3 |journal=Nature Ecology & Evolution |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=628–637 |doi=10.1038/s41559-019-0824-3 |pmid=30833755 |pmc=6443044 |bibcode=2019NatEE...3..628M |issn=2397-334X}} This reminds us that ecological footprint calculations are anthropocentric, assuming that all Earth's biocapacity is legitimately available to human beings. If we assume that some biocapacity should be left for other species, the level of ecological overshoot increases.{{Citation |last1=Wackernagel |first1=Mathis |title=Ecological Footprint☆ |date=2019-01-01 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124095489095671 |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Ecology (Second Edition) |pages=270–282 |editor-last=Fath |editor-first=Brian |place=Oxford |publisher=Elsevier |language=en |doi=10.1016/b978-0-12-409548-9.09567-1 |isbn=978-0-444-64130-4 |access-date=2022-12-22 |last2=Lin |first2=David |last3=Hanscom |first3=Laurel |last4=Galli |first4=Alessandro |last5=Iha |first5=Katsunori|url-access=subscription }}{{Cite journal |last=Cafaro |first=Philip |date=2010 |title=Economic Growth or the Flourishing of Life |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/eip201011118 |journal=Essays in Philosophy |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=44–75 |doi=10.5840/eip201011118 |issn=1526-0569|url-access=subscription }}  

According to Wackernagel and the organisation he has founded, the Earth has been in "overshoot", where humanity is using more resources and generating waste at a pace that the ecosystem cannot renew, since the 1970s. According to the Global Footprint Network's calculations, currently people use Earth's resources at approximately 171% of capacity.{{Cite web |title=Footprint Data Platform |url=https://data.footprintnetwork.org |access-date=2024-02-11 |website=Global Footprint Network |language=en-US}} This implies that humanity is well over Earth's human carrying capacity at current levels of affluence. According to the GFN:

In 2023, Earth Overshoot Day fell on August 2nd. Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity has exhausted nature's budget for the year. For the rest of the year, we are maintaining our ecological deficit by drawing down local resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We are operating in overshoot.

File:Highlight Findings of the WA S0E 2007 report.gif (2007)]]

{{Main|List of countries by ecological footprint}}

The world-average ecological footprint in 2013 was 2.8 global hectares per person. The average per country ranges from 14.3 (Qatar) to 0.5 (Yemen) global hectares per person.{{Cite web |title=Ecological footprint per person |url=https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.5451440.2069373638.1667318105-1465536352.1663440999#/ |access-date=November 1, 2022 |website=Global Footprint Network, Open Data Platform}} There is also a high variation within countries, based on individual lifestyles and wealth.

In 2022, countries with the top ten per capita ecological footprints were: Qatar (14.3 global hectares), Luxembourg (13.0), Cook Islands (8.3), Bahrain (8.2), United States (8.1), United Arab Emirates (8.1), Canada (8.1), Estonia (8.0), Kuwait (7.9) and Belize (7.9).

Total ecological footprint for a nation is found by multiplying its per capita ecological footprint by its total population. Total ecological footprint ranges from 5,540,000,000 global hectares used (China) to 145,000 (Cook Islands) global hectares used.{{Cite web |title=Total ecological footprint |url=https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.5451440.2069373638.1667318105-1465536352.1663440999#/ |access-date=November 1, 2022 |website=Global Footprint Network, Open Data Platform}} In 2022, the top ten countries in total ecological footprint were: China (5.54 billion global hectares), United States (2.66 billion), India (1.64 billion), Russian Federation (774 million), Japan (586 million), Brazil (542 million), Indonesia (460 million), Germany (388 million), Republic of Korea (323 million) and Mexico (301 million). These were the ten nations putting the greatest strain on global ecosystem services.

The Western Australian government State of the Environment Report included an Ecological Footprint measure for the average Western Australian seven times the average footprint per person on the planet in 2007, a total of about 15 hectares.[http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/News/mediaStmnts/Pages/2252_Reportidentifiespopulationandconsumptionasan.aspx Report identifies population and consumption as an environmental priority] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161018043652/http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/News/mediaStmnts/Pages/2252_Reportidentifiespopulationandconsumptionasan.aspx |date=2016-10-18 }}, accessed 6 March 2016.

The figure (right) examines sustainability at the scale of individual countries by contrasting their Ecological Footprint with their UN Human Development Index (a measure of standard of living). The graph shows what is necessary for countries to maintain an acceptable standard of living for their citizens while, at the same time, maintaining sustainable resource use. The general trend is for higher standards of living to become less sustainable. As always, population growth has a marked influence on total consumption and production, with larger populations becoming less sustainable.{{cite magazine|last1=Ehrlich|first1=P.R.|last2=Holden|first2=J.P.|year=1974|title=Human Population and the global environment|magazine=American Scientist|volume=62|issue=3|pages=282–292}}{{cite book|last1=Adams|first1=W. M.|last2=Jeanrenaud|first2=S. J.|name-list-style=amp|year=2008|url=https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/transition_to_sustainability_sep_08__en__2.pdf|title=Transition to Sustainability: Towards a Humane and Diverse World|place=Gland, Switzerland|publisher=IUCN|isbn=978-2-8317-1072-3|access-date=2021-12-03|archive-date=2022-04-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220408040518/https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/transition_to_sustainability_sep_08__en__2.pdf|url-status=dead}}{{rp|45}} Most countries around the world continue to become more populous, although a few seem to have stabilized or are even beginning to shrink.{{Cite web |date=2022 |title=World population prospects |url=https://population.un.org/wpp/ |website=United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division}} The information generated by reports at the national, regional and city scales confirm the global trend towards societies becoming less sustainable over time.{{cite web|title=Living Planet Report|url=http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/living_planet_report/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090327153856/http://footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/living_planet_report|archive-date=27 March 2009|publisher=Global Footprint Network}}{{cite report|url=http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf|title=Living Planet Report 2008|date=2008|publisher=World Wide Fund for Nature, Zoological Society of London, Global Footprint Network|access-date=1 October 2008}}UNEP Grid Arendal. [http://www.grida.no/soe/ A selection of global-scale reports]. Retrieved on: 12 March 2009

The UK's average ecological footprint is 5.45 global hectares per capita (gha) with variations between regions ranging from 4.80 gha (Wales) to 5.56 gha (East England).

BedZED, a 96-home mixed-income housing development in South London, was designed by Bill Dunster Architects and sustainability consultants BioRegional for the Peabody Trust. Despite being populated by relatively average people, BedZED was found to have a footprint of 3.20 gha per capita (not including visitors), due to on-site renewable energy production, energy-efficient architecture, and an extensive green lifestyles program that included London's first carsharing club.{{citation needed|date=May 2015}} Findhorn Ecovillage, a rural intentional community in Moray, Scotland, had a total footprint of 2.56 gha per capita, including both the many guests and visitors who travel to the community. However, the residents alone had a footprint of 2.71 gha, a little over half the UK national average and one of the lowest ecological footprints of any community measured so far in the industrialized world.[http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1596647.0.findhorn_ecofootprint_is_worlds_smallest.php Findhorn eco-footprint is 'world's smallest'] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090123092120/http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1596647.0.findhorn_ecofootprint_is_worlds_smallest.php |date=2009-01-23 }} Sunday Herald, August 11, 2008.Tinsley, S. and George, H. (2006) Ecological Footprint of the Findhorn Foundation and Community. Moray. Sustainable Development Research Centre, UHI Millennium Institute. Keveral Farm, an organic farming community in Cornwall, was found to have a footprint of 2.4 gha, though with substantial differences in footprints among community members.Radical Routes (2006) How to work out your Ecological Footprint. Leeds. Radical Routes.

File:Ecological Footprint per person and HDI of countries by world regions (2014).jpg

{{See also|Individual action on climate change}}

In a 2012 study of consumers acting 'green' vs. 'brown' (where green people are "expected to have significantly lower ecological impact than 'brown' consumers"), "the research found no significant difference between the carbon footprints of green and brown consumers".{{cite news|last1=Alden Wicker|title=Conscious consumerism is a lie. Here's a better way to help save the world|url=https://qz.com/920561/conscious-consumerism-is-a-lie-heres-a-better-way-to-help-save-the-world/|access-date=13 February 2018|work=Quartz|date=1 March 2017|quote=A 2012 study compared footprints of "green" consumers who try to make eco-friendly choices to the footprints of regular consumers. And they found no meaningful difference between the two.}}{{cite web|last1=Csutora|first1=M|title=The ecological footprint of green and brown consumers. Introducing the behaviour-impact-gap (BIG) problem|url=http://www.erscp2012.eu/upload/doc/ERSCP_Full_Papers/CsutoraM_The_ecological_footprint_of_green_and_brown_consumers.pdf|website=European Round Table on Sustainable Consumption and Production (ERSCP) 2012|publisher=15th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production|access-date=13 February 2018|quote=The research found no significant difference between the carbon footprints of green and brown consumers suggesting that individual environmental behaviour does not always modify consumption patterns significantly.|archive-date=19 October 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191019014426/http://www.erscp2012.eu/upload/doc/ERSCP_Full_Papers/CsutoraM_The_ecological_footprint_of_green_and_brown_consumers.pdf|url-status=dead}} A 2013 study concluded the same.{{cite news|last1=David Roberts|title=Wealthier people produce more carbon pollution — even the "green" ones|url=https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/16718844/green-consumers-climate-change|access-date=13 February 2018|work=Vox|date=1 December 2017|quote=Environmental identity will lead to some relatively low-impact (high-signaling) pro-environmental behaviors, but it rarely drives serious reductions in the biggest sources of lifestyle emissions. Environmental self-identification rises with income, but so do emissions. (A 2012 study and a 2013 study, both based on a survey in Hungary, found roughly the same thing.)}}{{cite journal|last1=Tabi|first1=Andrea|title=Does pro-environmental behaviour affect carbon emissions?|journal=Energy Policy|volume=63|pages=972–981|quote=no significant difference is found between the impacts of environmentally aware and environmentally unaware consumers, i.e. both 'Brown' and 'Supergreen' consumers consume approximately the same amount of energy and produce approximately the same amount of carbon emissions|doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.049|year=2013|bibcode=2013EnPol..63..972T }}

Early criticism was published by van den Bergh and Verbruggen in 1999,{{cite journal|author1=J.C.J.M. van den Bergh|author2=H. Verbruggen|year=1999|title=Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the 'ecological footprint'|url=https://papers.tinbergen.nl/98105.pdf |journal=Ecological Economics|volume=29|issue=1|pages=61–72|doi=10.1016/s0921-8009(99)00032-4|bibcode=1999EcoEc..29...61V }}[http://www-pam.usc.edu/volume1/v1i1a2print.html] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100627044350/http://www-pam.usc.edu/volume1/v1i1a2print.html|date=2010-06-27}} which was updated in 2014.{{cite journal|last1=van den Bergh|first1=Jeroen C.J.M|last2=Grazi|first2=Fabio|title=Ecological Footprint Policy? Land Use as an Environmental Indicator|journal=Journal of Industrial Ecology|volume=18|issue=1|year=2014|pages= 10–19 |issn=1088-1980|doi=10.1111/jiec.12045|bibcode=2014JInEc..18...10V |s2cid=154889439}} Their colleague Fiala published similar criticism in 2008.{{cite journal | last = Fiala | first = N. | year = 2008 | title = Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science | journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 67 | issue = 4 | pages = 519–525 | doi = 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.023 | bibcode = 2008EcoEc..67..519F }}

A comprehensive review commissioned by the Directorate-General for the Environment (European Commission) was published in June 2008. The European Commission's review found the concept unique and useful for assessing progress on the EU's Resource Strategy. They also recommended further improvements in data quality, methodologies and assumptions.{{Cite web |date=2024-09-19 |title=Chemicals - European Commission |url=https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals_en |access-date=2024-10-17 |website=environment.ec.europa.eu |language=en}}

Blomqvist et al..{{cite journal | last1 = Blomqvist | first1 = L. | last2 = Brook | first2 = B.W. | last3 = Ellis | first3 = E.C. | last4 = Kareiva | first4 = P.M. | last5 = Nordhaus | first5 = T. | last6 = Shellenberger | first6 = M. | year = 2013 | title = Does the shoe fit? Real versus imagined ecological footprints | journal = PLOS Biology | volume = 11 | issue = 11| page = e1001700 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001700 | pmid = 24223517 | pmc = 3818165 | doi-access = free }} published a critical paper in 2013. It led to a reply from Rees and Wackernagel (2013),{{cite journal | last1 = Rees | first1 = W.E. | last2 = Wackernagel | first2 = M. | year = 2013 | title = The Shoe Fits, but the Footprint is Larger than Earth | journal = PLOS Biology | volume = 11 | issue = 11| page = e1001701 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001701 | pmid=24223518 | pmc=3818166 | doi-access = free }} and a rejoinder by Blomqvist et al. (2013).{{cite journal | last1 = Blomqvist | first1 = L. | last2 = Brook | first2 = B.W. | last3 = Ellis | first3 = E.C. | last4 = Kareiva | first4 = P.M. | last5 = Nordhaus | first5 = T. | display-authors = etal | year = 2013b | title = The ecological footprint remains a misleading metric of global sustainability | journal = PLOS Biology | volume = 11 | issue = 11| page = e1001702 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001702 | pmid = 24223519 | pmc = 3818167 | doi-access = free }}

An additional strand of critique is from Giampietro and Saltelli (2014),Giampietro, M. Saltelli A. (2014a): Footprint to nowhere, Ecological Indicators 46: 610–621. with a reply from Goldfinger et al., 2014,{{cite journal | last1 = Goldfinger | last2 = Wackernagel | first2 = S. M. | last3 = Galli | first3 = A. | last4 = Lazarus | first4 = E. | last5 = Lin | first5 = D. | year = 2014 | title = Footprint facts and fallacies: A response to Giampietro and Saltelli (2014) "Footprints to Nowhere" | journal = Ecological Indicators | volume = 46 | pages = 622–632 | doi=10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.025| bibcode = 2014EcInd..46..622G | s2cid = 84554771 }} and a rejoinder by Giampietro and Saltelli (2014).{{cite journal | last1 = Giampietro | first1 = M. | last2 = Saltelli | first2 = A. | display-authors = etal | year = 2014b | title = Footworking in circles: Reply to Goldfinger et al. (2014) "Footprint Facts and Fallacies: A Response to Giampietro and Saltelli (2014) Footprints to nowhere" | journal = Ecological Indicators | volume = 46 | pages = 260–263 | doi = 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.019 | bibcode = 2014EcInd..46..260G }} A joint paper authored by the critical researchers (Giampietro and Saltelli) and proponents (various Global Footprint Network researchers) summarized the terms of the controversy in a paper published by the journal Ecological Indicators.Alessandro Galli, Mario Giampietro, Steve Goldfinger, Elias Lazarus, David Lin, Andrea Saltelli, Matthis Wackernagel, Felix Müller, 2016, Questioning the ecological footprint, Ecological Indicators, 69, 224–232. Additional comments were offered by van den Bergh and Grazi (2015).{{cite journal | last1 = Van | last2 = den Bergh | first2 = J. | last3 = Grazi | first3 = Fabio | year = 2015 | title = Reply to the first systematic response by the Global Footprint Network to criticism: A real debate finally? | journal = Ecological Indicators | volume = 58| pages = 458–463| doi = 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.007 | bibcode = 2015EcInd..58..458V }}

A number of national government agencies have performed collaborative or independent research to test the reliability of the ecological footprint accounting method and its results.{{Cite web |title=Countries |url=https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/countries/ |access-date=2024-10-17 |website=Global Footprint Network |language=en-US}} They have largely confirmed the accounts' results; those who reproduced the assessment generating near-identical results. Such reviews include those of Switzerland,{{Cite web |title=Switzerland's ecological footprint - A contribution to the sustainability debate {{!}} Publication |url=https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/publications.assetdetail.343230.html |access-date=2024-10-17 |website=Switzerland's ecological footprint - A contribution to the sustainability debate {{!}} Publication |language=en}}{{Cite web |last= |first= |title=Umwelt-Fussabdrücke der Schweiz |url=https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/wirtschaft-konsum/publikationen-studien/publikationen/umwelt-fussabdruecke-der-schweiz.html |access-date=2024-10-17 |website=www.bafu.admin.ch |language=de}} Germany,{{cite web |url=http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3489.pdf |title=Scientific assessment and evaluation of the indicator 'Ecological Footprint' |website=Umweltbundesamt |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110610141414/http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3489.pdf |archive-date=2011-06-10}} France,{{Cite book |last1=Michel |first1=DAVID |url=https://side.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/202277 |title=Une expertise de l'empreinte écologique |last2=Cécile |first2=DORMOY |last3=Emmanuel |first3=HAYE |last4=TREGOUET (Bruno) |last5=STATISTIQUES |first5=SERVICE DE L'OBSERVATION ET DES |date=2010 |publisher=COMMISSARIAT GENERAL AU DEVELOPPEMENT DURABLE - SERVICE DE L'OBSERVATION ET DES STATISTIQUES. Orléans |series=Etudes et documents}} Ireland,{{cite web |url=http://erc.epa.ie/safer/iso19115/displayISO19115.jsp?isoID=56#files |title=SAFER-Data: Economy wide material flow analysis and ecological footprint of Ireland |website=erc.epa.ie |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721123715/http://erc.epa.ie/safer/iso19115/displayISO19115.jsp?isoID=56 |archive-date=2011-07-21}} the United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates – Al Basama Al Beeiya Initiative http://www.agedi.ae/ecofootprintuae/default.aspx {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100528211941/http://www.agedi.ae/ecofootprintuae/default.aspx |date=2010-05-28 }} and the European Commission.Eurostat – http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-AU-06-001/EN/KS-AU-06-001-EN.PDF {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110409173607/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-AU-06-001/EN/KS-AU-06-001-EN.PDF |date=2011-04-09 }}{{Cite web |date=2024-09-19 |title=Chemicals - European Commission |url=https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals_en |access-date=2024-10-17 |website=environment.ec.europa.eu |language=en}}

Global Footprint Network has summarized methodological limitations and criticism in a comprehensive report available on its website.{{Cite web |title=Limitations and Criticism |url=https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/limitations-and-criticisms/ |access-date=2024-10-17 |website=Global Footprint Network |language=en-US}}

Similarly, Newman (2006) has argued that the ecological footprint concept may have an anti-urban bias, as it does not consider the opportunities created by urban growth.{{Cite journal|last=Newman|first=Peter|date=October 2006|title=The environmental impact of cities|journal=Environment and Urbanization|language=en|volume=18|issue=2|pages=275–295|doi=10.1177/0956247806069599|issn=0956-2478|doi-access=free|bibcode=2006EnUrb..18..275N }} He argues that calculating the ecological footprint for densely populated areas, such as a city or small country with a comparatively large population—e.g. New York and Singapore respectively—may lead to the perception of these populations as "parasitic". But in reality, ecological footprints just document the resource dependence of cities on rural hinterlands. Critics argue that this is a dubious characterization, since farmers in developed nations may easily consume more resources than urban inhabitants, due to transportation requirements and the unavailability of economies of scale. Furthermore, such moral conclusions seem to be an argument for autarky. But this is similar to blaming a scale for the user's dietary choices. Even if true, such criticisms do not negate the value of measuring different cities', regions', or nations' ecological footprints and comparing them. Such assessments can provide helpful insights into the success or failure of different environmental policies.Wackernagel, Mathis; Lin, David; Evans, Mikel; Hanscom, Laurel; Raven, Peter. 2019. "Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends." Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 2164; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072164, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2164/htm

Since this metric tracks biocapacity, the replacement of original ecosystems with high-productivity agricultural monocultures can lead to attributing a higher biocapacity to such regions. For example, replacing ancient woodlands or tropical forests with monoculture forests or plantations may therefore decrease the ecological footprint. Similarly if organic farming yields were lower than those of conventional methods, this could result in the former being "penalized" with a larger ecological footprint.Lenzen, M., C. Borgstrom Hansson and S. Bond (2006) [http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA&WWF_Bioproductivity&LandDisturbance.pdf On the bioproductivity and land-disturbance metrics of the Ecological Footprint]. University of Sydney, ISA Research Paper, June, 06, in collaboration with WWF. Retrieved: 2007-06-04. Complementary biodiversity indicators attempt to address this. The WWF's Living Planet Report combines the footprint calculations with the Living Planet Index of biodiversity.{{cite journal |author=Loh, J. |author2=R. Green |author3=T. Ricketts |author4=J. Lamoreux |author5=M. Jenkins |author6=V. Kapos |author7=J. Randers |title=The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society |volume=360 |issue=1454 |pages=289–295 |year=2005 |pmid=15814346 |pmc=1569448 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2004.1584 }} A modified ecological footprint that takes biodiversity into account has been created for use in Australia.{{cite journal |author1=Lenzen, Manfred |author2=Murray Shauna A. |title=A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia |journal=Ecological Economics |volume=37 |pages=229–255 |year=2001 |doi=10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00275-5 |issue=2 |bibcode=2001EcoEc..37..229L }}

Ecological footprint for many years has been used by environmentalists as a way to quantify ecological degradation as it relates to an individual. Recently, there has been debate about the reliability of this method.{{Cite journal|last=Jóhannesson|first=Sigurður|date=April 2020|title=Data Accuracy in Ecological Footprint's Carbon Footprint|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/ecological-indicators/vol/111/suppl/C|journal=Ecological Indicators|volume=111|page=105983|doi=10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105983|bibcode=2020EcInd.11105983J |s2cid=214184428|url-access=subscription}}

{{Portal|Environment|Ecology}}

{{div col|colwidth=21em}}

• Biocapacity
• Carbon footprint
• Carrying capacity
• Dependency theory
• Earth Overshoot Day formerly also called Ecological Debt Day
• Ecological economics
• Ecosystem valuation
• Environmental impact assessment
• Greenhouse debt
• Greenhouse gas emissions accounting
• Happy Planet Index
• Human Footprint
• Life cycle assessment
• List of countries by ecological footprint
• Netherlands fallacy
• Our Common Future
• Overshoot (population)
• Physical balance of trade
• Simon–Ehrlich wager
• Social metabolism
• The Limits to Growth
• Water footprint
• Artificialization{{div col end}}

{{Reflist}}

• Rees, W. E. and M. Wackernagel (1994) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: Measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy, in Jansson, A. et al. Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Washington D.C.:Island Press. {{ISBN|1-55963-316-6}}
• {{cite journal |title=Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy |journal=Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume=99 |issue=14 |pages=9266–71 |year=2002 |doi=10.1073/pnas.142033699 |pmid=12089326 |last1=Wackernagel |first1=M |last2=Schulz |first2=NB |last3=Deumling |first3=D |last4=Linares |first4=AC |last5=Jenkins |first5=M |last6=Kapos |first6=V |last7=Monfreda |first7=C |last8=Loh |first8=J |last9=Myers |first9=N |last10=Norgaard |first10=R. |last11=Randers |first11=J. |pmc=123129 |display-authors=8 |bibcode=2002PNAS...99.9266W |doi-access=free }}
• Lenzen, M. and Murray, S. A. 2003. The Ecological Footprint – Issues and Trends. [http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/Ecological_Footprint_Issues_and_Trends.pdf ISA Research Paper 01-03]
• Chambers, N., Simmons, C. and Wackernagel, M. (2000), Sharing Nature's Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability. Earthscan, London {{ISBN|1-85383-739-3}} (see also http://www.ecologicalfootprint.com {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190905180551/http://www.ecologicalfootprint.com/ |date=2019-09-05 }})
• {{cite journal |vauthors=Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Tengö M, Bennett EM, Holland T, Benessaiah K, MacDonald GM, Pfeifer L | year = 2010 | title = Untangling the Environmentalist's Paradox: Why is Human Well-Being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade? | journal = BioScience | volume = 60 | issue = 8| pages = 576–589 | doi=10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4| s2cid = 27270296 }}
• {{cite journal |author1=Ohl, B. |author2=Wolf, S. |author3=& Anderson, W. |title=A modest proposal: global rationalization of ecological footprint to eliminate ecological debt |journal=Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=5–16 |year=2008 |doi=10.1080/15487733.2008.11908010 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2008SSPP....4....5O }}

{{Scholia}}

• [https://livingplanet.panda.org/en-us/ WWF "Living Planet Report"], a biannual calculation of national and global footprints
• [https://greenscore.eco/index.html Green Score City Index], a quarterly calculation of city footprints in Canada
• [http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/css_doc/CSS08-08.pdf US Environmental Footprint Factsheet]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20110707061341/http://www.2020vancouver.com/node/3 Interview with Bill Rees]

{{Sustainability}}

{{Industrial Ecology}}

{{Environmental social science}}

{{Anthropogenic effects on the environment}}

{{Simple living}}

{{Portal bar|Environment}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ecological Footprint}}

Category:Ecological metrics

Category:Sustainability metrics and indices

Category:Waste minimisation

Category:Human impact on the environment

Category:Human ecology

Category:Ecological economics

Category:Environmental social science concepts

Category:Environmental terminology