Jump to content

Ecological footprint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gabriel Kielland (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 18 June 2007 (rv). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ecological footprint (EF) analysis attempts to measures the human demand on nature and compares human consumption of natural resources with the earth's ecological capacity to regenerate them. It is an estimate of the amount of land area a human population, given prevailing technology, would need if the current resource consumption and pollution by the population is matched by the sustainable (renewable) resource production and waste assimilation by such a land area.

Ecological footprint analysis

The term was first coined in 1992 by William Rees, a Canadian ecologist and professor at the University of British Columbia.[1] In 1995, Rees and coauthor Mathis Wackernagel published Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.

Ecological footprint analysis approximates the human impact upon the environment by calculating the draw upon ecologically productive land and marine area required to sustain a population, manufacture a product, or undertake various activities. This is achieved through a system of accounting similar to life cycle analysis wherein the consumption of energy, biomass (food, fiber), building material, water and other resources are converted into a normalized measure of land area dubbed 'global hectares' (gha).

Per capita EF is a means of determining relative consumption and can be a useful tool to educate people about carrying capacity and over-consumption, with the aim of altering personal behavior. Ecological footprints may be used to argue that many contemporary lifestyles are not sustainable. The average "earthshare" available to each human citizen is approximately 1.9 gha per capita. The US footprint per capita is 9.5, and that of Switzerland is 4 gha, whilst China's is approximately 1.5 gha.[2] The WWF claims that the human footprint has exceeded the biocapacity (the available supply of natural resources) of the planet by 25%.[3]

A number of NGO websites allow estimation of one's ecological footprint (see Footprint Calculator, below).

Ecological footprinting is now widely used around the globe as an indicator of environmental sustainability. It can be used to measure and manage the use of resources throughout the economy. It is commonly used to explore the sustainability of individual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industry sectors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations.

Ecological Footprint Studies in the United Kingdom

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).[2] Two recent studies have examined relatively low-impact small communities. 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 "mainstream" home-buyers, BedZED was found to have a footprint of 3.20 gha due to on-site renewable energy production, energy-efficient architecture, and an extensive green lifestyles program that included on-site London's first carsharing club. The report did not measure the added footprint of the 15,000 visitors who have toured BedZED since its completion in 2002. Findhorn Ecovillage, a rural intentional community in Moray, Scotland, had a total footprint of 3.86 gha, including both the many guests and visitors who travel to the community to undertake residential courses there and the nearby campus of Cluny Hill College. However, the residents alone have a footprint of 2.78 gha, a little over half the UK national average and the lowest ecological footprint of any community measured so far in the industrialised world.[4]

Criticisms

Many earlier predictions of overpopulation, such as Thomas Malthus (1798), The Population Bomb (1968), Limits to Growth (1972), and the Ehrlich-Simon Bet (1980) have been proved false, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically.

The statistical methods used have been criticized on various grounds. The calculations also require numerous assumptions, many of which may be questioned.[5]

In most developed nations, fossil fuels use cause more than 50% of the EF. This is based on estimating the land area and plants, such as new forests, needed to sequester (recapture) the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels. Critics argue that this is an very unlikely and uneconomic way to stop global warming. There are many other methods for mitigation of global warming which do not require such large land use.[6] There have been efforts to address this old criticism, such as calculating the amount of land necessary to provide sufficient biomass to meet the energy demand. (This is different from sequestering fossil carbon as it brings human energy systems into the continuous carbon cycle.) However the options are limited due to the fact that, as formulated, the EF can only account for consumption of renewable resources, or perfect substitutes thereof as if the renewable resource had been used.

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." This is due to the fact that these communities have little intrinsic biocapacity, and instead must rely upon large hinterlands. Critics argue that this is a dubious characterization since mechanized rural 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. Some even take this train of thought a step further, claiming that EF denies the benefits of trade. Therefore, the critics argue that that EF can only applied globally.[7]

The method seems to reward the replacement of original ecosystems with high-productivity agricultural monocultures by assigning a higher biocapacity to such regions. For example, replacing ancient woodlands or tropical forests with monoculture forests or plantations may improve the ecological footprint. Similarly, organic farming may have a lower productivity than traditional farming and may therefore cause a worse ecological footprint.[8] Of course, this insight, while valid, stems from the idea of using the footprint as one's only metric. If the use of ecological footprints are complemented with other indicators, such as one for biodiversity, the problem is moot.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Rees, William (1992) "Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out." Environment and Urbanisation Vol 4 no 2 Oct 1992.
  2. ^ a b Chambers, N. et al (2004) Scotland’s Footprint. Best Foot Forward. ISBN 0-9546042-0-2.
  3. ^ Global ecosystems 'face collapse' BBC News. Retrieved: 2007-05-18.
  4. ^ Tinsley, S. and George, H. (2006) Ecological Footprint of the Findhorn Foundation and Community. Moray. Sustainable Development Research Centre, UHI Millennium Institute.
  5. ^ J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and H. Verbruggen (1999), Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 29(1): 63-74.[1][2]
  6. ^ J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and H. Verbruggen (1999), Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 29(1): 63-74.[3]. University of Sydney, ISA Research Paper June, 2006, in collaboration with the WWF. Retrieved 2007-06-04.
  7. ^ [4]
  8. ^ Lenzen, M., C. Borgstrom Hansson and S. Bond (2006) On the bioproductivity and land-disturbance metrics of the Ecological Footprint. University of Sydney, ISA Research Paper, June, 06, in collaboration with the WWF. Retrieved: 2007-06-04.

References

  • William Rees (1992) 'Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out' Environment and Urbanisation Vol 4 no 2 Oct 1992
  • 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
  • Lenzen, M. and Murray, S. A. 2003. "The Ecological Footprint - Issues and Trends". 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)
  • J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and H. Verbruggen (1999), Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 29(1): 63-74.

General

Calculators

Template:Energy related development

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecological_footprint&oldid=138994590"