What is the fundamental purpose of the ecological footprint metric?

The ecological footprint serves to measure humanity's demand on natural capital, quantifying the amount of nature required to support people and their economies. It acts as an ecological accounting system that compares the biologically productive area consumed by humans with the planet's available biologically productive area, thus serving as a key indicator of human impact on the environment and overall sustainability.

How does the ecological footprint relate to biocapacity?

The ecological footprint tracks the biologically productive area that people use to satisfy their consumption demands. This is contrasted with the biologically productive area that is available within a region, nation, or the world, which is known as biocapacity. Biocapacity represents the Earth's ability to regenerate resources and absorb waste, so the comparison between the footprint and biocapacity reveals whether human demand is within the planet's regenerative means.

What is ecological overshoot?

Ecological overshoot occurs when humanity's demand on nature exceeds the planet's biocapacity, meaning we are consuming resources faster than they can be renewed and generating waste faster than it can be absorbed. For instance, if humanity's ecological footprint corresponds to 1.71 planet Earths, it signifies that we are using resources at 171% of the Earth's regenerative capacity.

Who developed the concept of the ecological footprint, and what was its original name?

The concept and calculation method for the ecological footprint were developed as part of Mathis Wackernagel's PhD dissertation, in collaboration with his supervisor William Rees, at the University of British Columbia between 1990 and 1994. Initially, they called this concept 'appropriated carrying capacity' before adopting the more accessible term 'ecological footprint'.

What inspired the name 'ecological footprint'?

William Rees is credited with coining the term 'ecological footprint.' The inspiration reportedly came from a computer technician who praised his new computer's 'small footprint on the desk,' leading Rees to adapt the term to describe the environmental impact of human activities.

What is the primary way the ecological footprint is defined in simple terms?

In simple terms, the ecological footprint is defined as the amount of environmental resources necessary to produce the goods and services that support an individual's lifestyle, a nation's prosperity, or humanity's economic activity as a whole. It quantifies the demand placed on the planet's regenerative capacities.

How is the ecological footprint used as a tool for policy and education?

The ecological footprint serves as a tool to compare lifestyles, consumption patterns, and population numbers against biocapacity. It can inform policy by highlighting how much more (or less) a nation consumes than its territory can sustainably provide, and it's also used to educate the public about overconsumption and overpopulation, aiming to influence behavior and policy changes.

What is the touristic ecological footprint (TEF)?

The touristic ecological footprint (TEF) specifically measures the ecological footprint associated with visitors to a particular destination. It is influenced by the tourists' behavior and can be used to compare the environmental impact of different travel choices, lodging options, and activities.

How does the carbon footprint relate to the ecological footprint?

The carbon footprint is a component of the total ecological footprint. While often expressed in units of CO2 or CO2 equivalent (CO2e) to represent greenhouse gas warming potential, it can also be measured in terms of land area, similar to the broader ecological footprint, and can be applied to products, individuals, or entire societies.

What is the foundational recognition behind ecological footprint accounting?

Ecological footprint accounting is built upon the recognition that regenerative resources are the most physically limiting resources. It acknowledges that even the use of fossil fuels is more constrained by the biosphere's capacity to sequester carbon than by the amount of fuel remaining underground, and similarly, the extraction of minerals is limited by the acceptable level of biosphere damage.

What does biocapacity represent in the context of ecological footprinting?

Biocapacity represents the amount of the planet's regeneration, encompassing the resources that ecosystems renew and the waste they can absorb. Ecological footprint accounting measures how much biocapacity is required to support human activities' demands.

What are the two main ways ecological footprints can be categorized?

Ecological footprints can be categorized in two primary ways: by consumption, such as food, housing, and goods and services, or by the types of biologically productive areas occupied, including cropland, pasture, forests for products, forests for carbon sequestration, and marine areas.

How does the ecological footprint calculation translate resource consumption into land areas?

When applied to specific activities or products, ecological footprint analysis utilizes life-cycle assessment data. It converts the consumption of energy, biomass (like food and fiber), building materials, water, and other resources into normalized land areas, measured in global hectares (gha), which represent the land area needed to provide these inputs.

Which organizations are primarily responsible for calculating national ecological footprints and biocapacity?

The Global Footprint Network initially calculated the ecological footprint from UN data sources for nations worldwide. This task has since been taken over by FoDaFo (Footprint Data Foundation), supported by the Global Footprint Network, and York University, which continue to provide these national assessments.

What was the estimated global ecological footprint in 2023, and what does this figure imply?

For 2023, Global Footprint Network estimated humanity's ecological footprint to be 1.71 planet Earths. This implies that humanity's demands on nature were 71% greater than what the planet's ecosystems could regenerate within that year, indicating a state of ecological overshoot.

What are the potential consequences of persistent ecological overshoot?

Persistent ecological overshoot, where humanity continually consumes resources faster than they regenerate, suggests a potential for continued ecological deterioration. It may also lead to a permanent decrease in Earth's human carrying capacity, meaning the planet's ability to support human life could be diminished over time.

What was the average biologically productive area per person worldwide in 2022, and how did it compare to specific countries?

In 2022, the average biologically productive area available per person globally was approximately 1.6 global hectares (gha). In contrast, the U.S. footprint per person was significantly higher at 7.5 gha, Switzerland's was 3.7 gha, China's was 3.6 gha, and India's was 1.0 gha.

How has humanity's total ecological footprint changed since 1961?

According to the 2018 edition of the National Footprint Accounts, humanity's total ecological footprint has shown a consistent increasing trend since 1961, growing at an average rate of 2.1% per year. This increase is attributed to both higher per capita resource use and overall population growth.

What is the fastest-growing component of the ecological footprint?

The carbon footprint is identified as the fastest-growing component of the total ecological footprint. Currently, it accounts for approximately 60% of humanity's overall ecological footprint.

How has Earth's biocapacity changed in recent decades, and at what cost?

Earth's biocapacity has increased at a much slower rate (averaging 0.5% per year) compared to the ecological footprint. While agricultural intensification has boosted biocapacity, this has often come at the expense of other species through practices like increased fertilizer and pesticide use, leading to environmental issues like eutrophication and pollinator decline.

What does the anthropocentric nature of ecological footprint calculations imply?

The anthropocentric nature of ecological footprint calculations means they assume all of Earth's biocapacity is available for human use. If a portion of biocapacity were reserved for other species, the calculated level of ecological overshoot would increase, highlighting the impact of human activities on biodiversity.

When did humanity first enter a state of ecological overshoot, according to Wackernagel and the Global Footprint Network?

According to Mathis Wackernagel and the organization he founded, humanity entered a state of 'overshoot'—using resources faster than the ecosystem can renew them—since the 1970s. Current estimates suggest humanity uses resources at approximately 171% of Earth's capacity.

What does Earth Overshoot Day signify?

Earth Overshoot Day marks the specific date in the calendar year when humanity has consumed all the resources that the planet can regenerate within that year. For the remainder of the year, humanity operates on an ecological deficit, drawing down natural capital and accumulating waste, such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

What is an ecological deficit, and how many countries currently experience it?

An ecological deficit occurs when a country's citizens consume more resources and generate more waste than can be sustained by the biocapacity within their national borders. Currently, more than 85% of humanity lives in countries that run such an ecological deficit.

What factors contribute to a country running an ecological deficit?

Countries can run an ecological deficit due to several factors. These include having per capita ecological footprints higher than the global average biocapacity per person, or having large populations that collectively exceed the national biocapacity, even if per capita consumption is moderate. Some countries experience deficits due to both high per capita use and large populations.

What did William Rees state about global biocapacity and human consumption in 2011?

In 2011, William Rees stated that the average world citizen had an ecological footprint of about 2.7 global average hectares, while only 2.1 global hectares of bioproductive land and water were available per capita. This indicated that humanity had already exceeded global biocapacity by 30%, living unsustainably by depleting natural capital.

What are William Rees's proposed solutions for achieving sustainability?

William Rees believes that economic and demographic degrowth are necessary measures to create societies with ecological footprints small enough to remain sustainable. He argues this is crucial to avoid civilizational collapse, suggesting that current growth-oriented economic theories are maladaptive in the face of ecological limits.

What is the range of per capita ecological footprints among countries?

The per capita ecological footprint varies significantly among countries. In 2013, the world average was 2.8 global hectares per person, while the average per country ranged from a high of 14.3 global hectares per person in Qatar to a low of 0.5 global hectares per person in Yemen.

Which countries had the top ten highest per capita ecological footprints in 2022?

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

How is a nation's total ecological footprint calculated?

A nation's total ecological footprint is calculated by multiplying its per capita ecological footprint by its total population. This provides a measure of the overall demand placed on global resources by that nation.

Which countries had the top ten largest total ecological footprints in 2022?

In 2022, the ten countries with the largest total ecological footprints, indicating the greatest strain on global ecosystem services, were China (5.54 billion global hectares), the United States (2.66 billion), India (1.64 billion), the Russian Federation (774 million), Japan (586 million), Brazil (542 million), Indonesia (460 million), Germany (388 million), the Republic of Korea (323 million), and Mexico (301 million).

What did the 2007 Western Australian government report find regarding the state's ecological footprint?

The 2007 Western Australian government's State of the Environment Report indicated that the average ecological footprint per Western Australian was seven times the global average per person at that time, totaling approximately 15 hectares.

What is the general trend observed when contrasting a country's Ecological Footprint with its Human Development Index (HDI)?

When contrasting a country's Ecological Footprint with its Human Development Index (HDI), which measures standard of living, the general trend shows that higher standards of living tend to become less sustainable. This suggests that as countries achieve higher levels of development and affluence, their resource consumption and environmental impact often increase significantly.

What was the average ecological footprint per capita in the UK, and how did it vary regionally?

The UK's average ecological footprint was 5.45 global hectares (gha) per capita. Regional variations were noted, with East England having the highest footprint at 5.56 gha and Wales having the lowest at 4.80 gha.

What was the ecological footprint of the BedZED development in London?

The BedZED (Beddington Zero Energy Development) housing project in South London, despite housing average people, had an ecological footprint of 3.20 gha per capita (excluding visitors). This lower footprint compared to the national average was attributed to its on-site renewable energy production, energy-efficient architecture, and promotion of green lifestyles.

What was the ecological footprint of the Findhorn Ecovillage in Scotland?

The Findhorn Ecovillage in Moray, Scotland, had a total ecological footprint of 2.56 gha per capita, including guests and visitors. The residents alone had a footprint of 2.71 gha per capita, which is less than half the UK national average and considered one of the lowest in the industrialized world.

What did studies in 2012 and 2013 find regarding the ecological impact of 'green' consumers?

Studies conducted in 2012 and 2013, including research based on a survey in Hungary, found no significant difference between the carbon footprints of 'green' consumers (those actively trying to make eco-friendly choices) and 'brown' consumers (those not prioritizing environmental actions). This suggests that individual environmental behavior may not always lead to substantial reductions in major lifestyle emissions.

What was the main criticism of the ecological footprint concept published by van den Bergh and Verbruggen in 1999?

In 1999, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and H. Verbruggen published early criticism of the ecological footprint, questioning its methodology and application as an indicator for spatial sustainability and trade. This critique was later updated in 2014, with similar criticisms also being published by their colleague Fiala in 2008.

What was the European Commission's assessment of the ecological footprint concept in 2008?

A 2008 review commissioned by the Directorate-General for the Environment (European Commission) found the ecological footprint concept to be unique and useful for assessing progress within the EU's Resource Strategy. However, the review also recommended improvements in data quality, methodologies, and underlying assumptions.

What is the core argument of the critique by Blomqvist et al. (2013) regarding the ecological footprint?

In their 2013 paper, Blomqvist et al. argued that the ecological footprint is a misleading metric of global sustainability. This critique led to a published response from Rees and Wackernagel, followed by a rejoinder from Blomqvist et al., highlighting a debate over the metric's validity and interpretation.

What criticism has been raised regarding the ecological footprint's potential anti-urban bias?

Peter Newman argued in 2006 that the ecological footprint concept might possess an anti-urban bias because it doesn't fully account for the opportunities created by urban growth. He suggested that calculating footprints for densely populated areas might incorrectly label them as 'parasitic,' overlooking their role in resource efficiency and economies of scale, although he conceded that footprint assessments are valuable for policy insights.

How can the replacement of natural ecosystems with monocultures affect ecological footprint calculations?

Replacing natural ecosystems, such as ancient woodlands, with high-productivity monocultures (like plantations) can artificially inflate biocapacity figures in footprint calculations. This means such land conversions might appear to reduce a region's ecological footprint, even though it comes at the cost of biodiversity and ecosystem complexity.

What is the relationship between the ecological footprint and biodiversity indicators?

While the ecological footprint primarily measures human demand on regenerative resources, complementary biodiversity indicators are used to address its limitations. For example, the WWF's Living Planet Report combines ecological footprint calculations with the Living Planet Index, which tracks trends in biodiversity, to provide a more holistic view of environmental impact.

What is the 'Netherlands fallacy' in the context of ecological footprinting?

The 'Netherlands fallacy' refers to the potential misinterpretation of national ecological footprint data. It highlights that a country might appear to have a sustainable footprint if its consumption is measured only by what is produced within its borders, ignoring the resources consumed from other nations through trade. This can lead to an underestimation of a nation's true environmental impact.

What is the significance of the 'See also' section in the article?

The 'See also' section provides a list of related topics and concepts that are relevant to the ecological footprint. This includes terms like biocapacity, carbon footprint, carrying capacity, Earth Overshoot Day, and ecological economics, offering readers avenues for further exploration of interconnected environmental and economic ideas.

What is the primary focus of the Global Footprint Network's work?

The Global Footprint Network promotes the ecological footprint metric and has developed standards to ensure comparability of results. They provide national assessments of footprints and biocapacity, track humanity's demand versus Earth's regenerative capacity, and make this data available on an open data platform.

What does the term 'natural capital' refer to in the context of the ecological footprint?

Natural capital refers to the Earth's stock of natural resources and ecosystems that provide essential goods and services, such as clean air, water, and fertile soil. The ecological footprint measures human demand on this natural capital, assessing how much of these life-sustaining resources are being used.

How does the ecological footprint account for fossil fuel consumption?

The ecological footprint accounts for fossil fuel consumption primarily by measuring the amount of biologically productive land area required to sequester the carbon dioxide emissions generated from burning these fuels. This sequestration capacity is considered a limiting factor, even more so than the physical availability of the fossil fuels themselves.

What is the role of life-cycle analysis (LCA) in ecological footprinting?

Life-cycle analysis (LCA) is used within ecological footprinting to assess the environmental resources consumed and waste generated throughout the entire life cycle of a product or activity. This comprehensive approach helps translate resource inputs into the equivalent land area needed to support them.

What is the significance of the 'Footprint Data Platform' mentioned in the text?

The 'Footprint Data Platform,' maintained by organizations like the Global Footprint Network, FoDaFo, and York University, serves as an open data resource. It provides access to national and global ecological footprint and biocapacity accounts, allowing users to explore data and trends related to resource consumption and sustainability.

What does the phrase 'humanity's ecological footprint corresponds to 1.71 planet Earths' mean?

This phrase signifies that, on average, humanity is consuming resources and generating waste at a rate 71% faster than the Earth's ecosystems can regenerate and absorb them. It's a way of expressing the degree of ecological overshoot, indicating that we are using the equivalent of 1.71 Earths to meet our current demands.

Ecological Footprint Wiki: Our Planet's Demand: Understanding the Ecological Footprint

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

Overview

Defining Demand on Nature

The Ecological Footprint quantifies humanity's demand on Earth's natural capital. It measures the biologically productive area required to support human consumption patterns and lifestyles, effectively tracking our demand on the planet's regenerative resources.^[1]^[2]^[3] This ecological accounting system contrasts the area humans utilize with the planet's available biocapacity—the capacity of ecosystems to regenerate what people demand from nature.^[1] Consequently, it serves as a critical metric for assessing human impact on the environment and evaluating overall sustainability.^[1]

Footprint vs. Biocapacity

The core of the Ecological Footprint analysis lies in comparing human demand (the footprint) against the planet's supply (biocapacity). When demand exceeds supply, it results in ecological overshoot, indicating that humanity is consuming resources faster than the Earth can regenerate them.^[7]^[8] This metric is developed and promoted by the Global Footprint Network, which establishes standards to ensure comparability across different assessments.^[4]

Global Impact and Sustainability

As of 2022, global estimates indicate that humanity's ecological footprint is 71% larger than Earth's biocapacity, meaning we are effectively using the resources of 1.71 planet Earths.^[7]^[8] This persistent overshoot signifies unsustainable resource utilization and potential long-term ecological degradation.^[36]^[37] The Ecological Footprint is widely employed globally to support sustainability assessments, informing policy and guiding individuals, organizations, and nations toward more sustainable practices.^[9]

Methodology

Origins and Evolution

The concept of the Ecological Footprint was developed by Mathis Wackernagel as part of his doctoral research at the University of British Columbia, in collaboration with his supervisor William Rees, between 1990 and 1994.^[10]^[11] Initially termed "appropriated carrying capacity," the more accessible term "ecological footprint" was later adopted.^[13]^[14] The methodology focuses on the competition for regenerative resources, recognizing that even fossil fuel consumption is ultimately limited by the biosphere's capacity for sequestration.^[28]

Calculation and Units

Ecological footprint accounting translates the consumption of resources—such as energy, biomass, building materials, and water—into normalized land areas known as global hectares (gha). This standardization allows for the comparison of diverse consumption patterns and their environmental demands.^[28] The calculation is applied at various scales, from individual activities to entire nations, utilizing data primarily from United Nations sources.^[31] The Global Footprint Network has maintained the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts since its inception, with data updated annually.^[31]

Purpose and Application

The Ecological Footprint serves as a powerful tool for education and policy-making. It highlights the disparities in resource use across the globe and underscores the unsustainability of current consumption levels.^[19]^[20] By quantifying the environmental impact of lifestyles, goods, services, and entire economies, it provides a basis for informed decision-making aimed at achieving sustainability and managing humanity's ecological impact.^[17]^[18]

Measurements

Humanity's Overshoot

In 2023, the Global Footprint Network estimated that humanity's ecological footprint required 1.71 Earths to meet its demands, indicating a significant and persistent ecological overshoot.^[36] This means our resource consumption and waste generation rates exceed the planet's regenerative capacity. If this trend continues, it suggests potential for severe ecological deterioration and a long-term reduction in Earth's ability to support life.^[36]^[37]^[38]

Per Capita Footprints (2022)

The average biologically productive area available per person globally in 2022 was approximately 1.6 global hectares (gha). However, per capita footprints vary dramatically by nation:

United States: 7.5 gha
Switzerland: 3.7 gha
China: 3.6 gha
India: 1.0 gha^[39]^[40]

This disparity highlights significant inequalities in global resource consumption.

Earth Overshoot Day

Earth Overshoot Day marks the date each year when humanity has consumed all the resources that ecosystems can regenerate in that entire year. In 2025, this date advanced to July 24th.^[51] For the remainder of the year, humanity operates on a deficit, drawing down natural capital stocks and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Countries

High Per Capita Footprints (2022)

The nations with the highest per capita ecological footprints in 2022 were:

Qatar
Luxembourg
Cook Islands
Bahrain
United States
United Arab Emirates
Canada
Estonia
Kuwait
Belize^[57]

These figures reflect substantial resource demands relative to population size.

Total Footprint Impact (2022)

When considering total national footprint, the greatest strain on global ecosystem services comes from:

China (5.54 billion gha)
United States (2.66 billion gha)
India (1.64 billion gha)
Russian Federation (774 million gha)
Japan (586 million gha)^[58]

These nations, due to population size and/or high per capita consumption, exert the most significant pressure on planetary resources.

Living Standards vs. Sustainability

Analysis often contrasts a country's Ecological Footprint with its Human Development Index (HDI), a measure of living standards.^[42] Generally, higher standards of living tend to correlate with larger ecological footprints, indicating a trade-off between development and sustainability. Population growth further amplifies this trend, making larger nations with high per capita footprints particularly impactful.^[60]^[61]

Studies

UK Case Studies

Studies within the United Kingdom provide localized insights into ecological footprints:

BedZED (London): This eco-village of 96 homes demonstrated a significantly lower footprint (3.20 gha per capita) compared to the UK national average, attributed to renewable energy, energy-efficient design, and a strong green lifestyle program.^[65]
Findhorn Ecovillage (Scotland): A rural intentional community recorded a footprint of 2.56 gha per capita (including visitors), with residents alone averaging 2.71 gha—less than half the UK average, marking it as one of the lowest measured in industrialized nations.^[65]^[66]
Keveral Farm (Cornwall): An organic farming community reported a footprint of 2.4 gha, though with notable variations among its members.^[67]

Individual

Green Consumers vs. Impact

Research has explored whether self-identified "green" consumers, who actively pursue environmentally friendly choices, exhibit significantly lower ecological impacts than "brown" consumers. Studies conducted in Hungary (around 2012-2013) and other analyses suggest that despite conscious efforts, there is often no substantial difference in the carbon footprints between these groups.^[68]^[69]^[70]^[71] This finding implies that individual behavioral changes, while important, may not always translate into significant reductions in major lifestyle-related emissions, highlighting a potential "behavior-impact gap."

Reviews

Methodological Critiques

The Ecological Footprint methodology has undergone scrutiny and debate within the scientific community. Early criticisms, such as those by van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999, 2014) and Fiala (2008), questioned aspects of its economic and environmental science basis.^[72]^[75] A 2008 review commissioned by the European Commission acknowledged the concept's uniqueness and utility for sustainability assessments but recommended methodological improvements.^[76]

Data and Assumptions: Critics like Blomqvist et al. (2013) have raised concerns about the accuracy and interpretation of data and assumptions.^[77] These points have been addressed by proponents like Rees and Wackernagel (2013).^[78]
"Footprints to Nowhere": Further critiques by Giampietro and Saltelli (2014) questioned the metric's utility, leading to detailed responses and rejoinders from both critical researchers and the Global Footprint Network.^[80]^[82]
Urban Bias: Newman (2006) argued the footprint might possess an anti-urban bias, potentially overlooking the efficiencies and opportunities presented by urban density.^[95]
Biodiversity Consideration: The metric's anthropocentric nature means it may not fully capture impacts on biodiversity. Modifications and complementary indicators, like the WWF's Living Planet Index, aim to address this.^[98]

Despite these critiques, numerous national government agencies have conducted studies that largely confirm the reliability and results of the ecological footprint accounting method.^[85]

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Ecological Footprint" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about ecological_footprint while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

References

Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Barnard P, Moomaw WR. 2020. World scientists' warning of a climate emergency. BioScience 70 (8): 8 â12.

Rees, W. E. (2014). Avoiding collapse: An agenda for sustainable degrowth and relocalizing the economy. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC Office.

Reid, W. V., et al. (2005). The millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), 2019. Summary for Policymakers. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

UNEP Grid Arendal. A selection of global-scale reports. Retrieved on: 12 March 2009

Tinsley, S. and George, H. (2006) Ecological Footprint of the Findhorn Foundation and Community. Moray. Sustainable Development Research Centre, UHI Millennium Institute.

Radical Routes (2006) How to work out your Ecological Footprint. Leeds. Radical Routes.

Alessandro Galli, Mario Giampietro, Steve Goldfinger, Elias Lazarus, David Lin, Andrea Saltelli, Matthis Wackernagel, Felix MÃ¼ller, 2016, Questioning the ecological footprint, Ecological Indicators, 69, 224â232.

A full list of references for this article are available at the Ecological footprint Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer

Important Notice

This page was generated by an Artificial Intelligence and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content is based on a snapshot of publicly available data from Wikipedia and may not be entirely accurate, complete, or up-to-date.

This is not environmental or sustainability advice. The information provided on this website is not a substitute for professional consultation regarding environmental science, policy, or sustainable development practices. Always refer to official documentation and consult with qualified professionals for specific needs.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for any actions taken based on the information provided herein.

Our Planet's Demand

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

Overview

Defining Demand on Nature

Footprint vs. Biocapacity

Global Impact and Sustainability

Methodology

Origins and Evolution

Calculation and Units

Purpose and Application

Measurements

Humanity's Overshoot

Per Capita Footprints (2022)

Earth Overshoot Day

Countries

High Per Capita Footprints (2022)

Total Footprint Impact (2022)

Living Standards vs. Sustainability

Studies

UK Case Studies

Individual

Green Consumers vs. Impact

Reviews

Methodological Critiques

See Also

Related Concepts

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

References

References

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer

Important Notice

Our Planet's Demand

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

Overview ℹ️

🌱 Defining Demand on Nature

⚖️ Footprint vs. Biocapacity

🌍 Global Impact and Sustainability

Methodology ⚙️

📜 Origins and Evolution

📏 Calculation and Units

💡 Purpose and Application

Measurements 📊

⏳ Humanity's Overshoot

⚖️ Per Capita Footprints (2022)

🗓️ Earth Overshoot Day

Countries 🗺️

📈 High Per Capita Footprints (2022)

🌍 Total Footprint Impact (2022)

📊 Living Standards vs. Sustainability

Studies 🏘️

🇬🇧 UK Case Studies

Individual 👤

🤔 Green Consumers vs. Impact

Reviews 🧐

🔬 Methodological Critiques

See Also 🔗

📚 Related Concepts

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Notice

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

Overview

Defining Demand on Nature

Footprint vs. Biocapacity

Global Impact and Sustainability

Methodology

Origins and Evolution

Calculation and Units

Purpose and Application

Measurements

Humanity's Overshoot

Per Capita Footprints (2022)

Earth Overshoot Day

Countries

High Per Capita Footprints (2022)

Total Footprint Impact (2022)

Living Standards vs. Sustainability

Studies

UK Case Studies

Individual

Green Consumers vs. Impact

Reviews

Methodological Critiques

See Also

Related Concepts

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Disclaimer

Important Notice