Jump to content

Ecological footprint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.119.87.217 (talk) at 00:06, 25 October 2011 (→‎Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It is a standardized measure of demand for natural capital that may be contrasted with the planet's ecological capacity to regenerate.[1] It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population consumes, and to mitigate associated waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody followed a given lifestyle. For 2006, humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.4 planet Earths – in other words, humanity uses ecological services 1.4 times as fast as Earth can renew them.[2] Every year, this number is recalculated — with a three year lag due to the time it takes for the UN to collect and publish all the underlying statistics.

While the term ecological footprint is widely used,[3] methods of calculation vary. However, standards are now emerging to make results more comparable and consistent.[4]

Analysis

Ecological footprint for different nations compared to their Human Development Index.

Overview

The first academic publication about the ecological footprint was by William Rees in 1992.[5] The ecological footprint concept and calculation method was developed as the PhD dissertation of Mathis Wackernagel, under Rees' supervision at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, from 1990–1994.[6] Originally, Wackernagel and Rees called the concept "appropriated carrying capacity".[7] 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."[8] In early 1996, Wackernagel and Rees published the book Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.[9]

Ecological footprint analysis compares human demand on nature with the biosphere's ability to regenerate resources and provide services. It does this by assessing the biologically productive land and marine area required to produce the resources a population consumes and absorb the corresponding waste, using prevailing technology. Footprint values at the end of a survey are categorized for Carbon, Food, Housing, and Goods and Services as well as the total footprint number of Earths needed to sustain the world's population at that level of consumption. This approach can also be applied to an activity such as the manufacturing of a product or driving of a car. This resource accounting is 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 called 'global hectares' (gha).

Per capita ecological footprint (EF) is a means of comparing consumption and lifestyles, and checking this against nature's ability to provide for this consumption. 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 would be replicable worldwide. The footprint can also 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 current lifestyles are not sustainable. Such a global comparison also clearly shows the inequalities of resource use on this planet at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

In 2006, the average biologically productive area per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. The U.S. footprint per capita was 9.0 gha, and that of Switzerland was 5.6 gha per person, while China's was 1.8 gha per person.[10][11] The WWF claims that the human footprint has exceeded the biocapacity (the available supply of natural resources) of the planet by 20%.[12] 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 1.8 global hectares published for 2006, because the initial studies neither used global hectares nor included bioproductive marine areas.[9]

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

Ecological footprint analysis is now widely used around the globe as an indicator of environmental sustainability.[citation needed] It can be used to measure and manage the use of resources throughout the economy. It can be used to explore the sustainability of individual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industry sectors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations.[13] Since 2006, a first set of ecological footprint standards exist that detail both communication and calculation procedures. They are available at www.footprintstandards.org and were developed in a public process facilitated by Global Footprint Network and its partner organizations.

Methodology

The ecological footprint accounting method at the national level is described in the Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 [14] or in more detail in the Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts [15]. The National Accounts Review Committee has also published a research agenda on how the method will be improved.[16]

There have been differences in the methodology used by various ecological footprint studies. Examples include how sea area should be counted, how to account for fossil fuels, how to account for nuclear power (many studies[weasel words] simply consider it to have the same ecological footprint as fossil fuels),[citation needed] which data sources used, when average global numbers or local numbers should be used when looking at a specific area, how space for biodiversity should be included, and how imports/exports should be accounted for.[6].[7] However, with the new footprint standards, the methods are converging.[citation needed]

In 2003, Jason Venetoulis, PhD, Carl Mas, Christopher Gudoet, Dahlia Chazan, and John Talberth -a team of researchers at Redefining- developed Footprint 2.0. Footprint 2.0 offers a series of theoretical and methodological improvements to the standard footprint approach. The primary advancements were to include the entire surface of the Earth in biocapacity estimates, allocate space for other (non-human) species, change the basis of equivalence factors from agricultural land to net primary productivity (NPP), and change the carbon component of the footprint, based on global carbon models. The advancements were peer reviewed and published in several books, and have been well received by teachers, researchers, and advocacy organizations concerned about the ecological implications of humanity's footprint.[17][18] liar

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).[11] 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 2.56 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 2.71 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[19][20] 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.[21]

Discussion

Early criticism was published by van den Bergh and Verbruggen in 1999;[22] another criticism was published in 2008.[23] A more complete review commissioned by the Directorate-General for the Environment (European Commission) and published in June 2008 provides the most updated independent assessment of the method.[24] A number of countries have engaged in research collaborations to test the validity of the method. This includes Switzerland, Germany, United Arab Emirates, and Belgium.[25]

Grazi et al. (2007) have performed a systematic comparison of the ecological footprint method with spatial welfare analysis that includes environmental externalities, agglomeration effects and trade advantages.[26] They find that the two methods can lead to very distinct, and even opposite, rankings of different spatial patterns of economic activity. However, this should not be surprising, since the two methods address different research questions.

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 because 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 the Footprint denies the benefits of trade. Therefore, the critics argue that the Footprint can only be applied globally.[27]

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, if organic farming yields were lower than those of conventional methods, this could result in the former being "penalized" with a larger ecological footprint.[28] 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 could maybe be solved. Indeed, WWF's Living Planet Report complements the biennial Footprint calculations with the Living Planet Index of biodiversity.[29] Manfred Lenzen and Shauna Murray have created a modified Ecological Footprint that takes biodiversity into account for use in Australia.[30]

Although the ecological footprint model prior to 2008 treated nuclear power in the same manner as coal power,[31] the actual real world effects of the two are radically different. A life cycle analysis centered on the Swedish Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant estimated carbon dioxide emissions at 3.10 g/kWh[32] and 5.05 g/kWh in 2002 for the Torness Nuclear Power Station.[33] This compares to 11 g/kWh for hydroelectric power, 950 g/kWh for installed coal, 900 g/kWh for oil and 600 g/kWh for natural gas generation in the United States in 1999.[34] Figures released by Mark Hertsgaard, however, show that because of the delays in building nuclear plants and the costs involved, investments in energy efficiency and renewable energies have seven times the return on investment of investments in nuclear energy.[35]

The Vattenfall study found Nuclear, Hydro, and Wind to have far less greenhouse emissions than other sources represented.
The Vattenfall study found Nuclear, Hydro, and Wind to have far less greenhouse emissions than other sources represented.

The Swedish utility Vattenfall did a study of full life cycle emissions of Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind which the utility uses to produce electricity. The net result of the study was that nuclear power produced 3.3 grams of carbon dioxide per KW-Hr of produced power. This compares to 400 for natural gas and 700 for coal (according to this study). The study also concluded that nuclear power produced the smallest amount of CO2 of any of their electricity sources.[36]

Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.[37][38] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."[39] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.[40] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.[41] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.[42] In addition, fossil fuel waste causes global warming, which leads to increased deaths from hurricanes, flooding, and other weather events. The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced (in UK and USA) from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.[43]

By country

Main article: List of countries by ecological footprint

Countries by raw ecological footprint per capita (2018)
National ecological surplus or deficit, measured as a country's biocapacity per person (in global hectares) minus its ecological footprint per person (also in global hectares). Data from 2013.[44]
  x ≤ −9
  −9 < x ≤ −8
  −8 < x ≤ −7
  −7 < x ≤ −6
  −6 < x ≤ −5
  −5 < x ≤ −4
  −4 < x ≤ −3
  −3 < x ≤ −2
  −2 < x ≤ −1
  −1 < x < 0
  0 ≤ x < 2
  2 ≤ x < 4
  4 ≤ x < 6
  6 ≤ x < 8
  8 ≤ x
  Data unavailable
Main article: Ecological footprint

This is a list of countries by ecological footprint. The table is based on data spanning from 1961 to 2013 from the Global Footprint Network's National Footprint Accounts published in 2016. Numbers are given in global hectares per capita. The world-average ecological footprint in 2016 was 2.75 global hectares per person (22.6 billion in total). With a world-average biocapacity of 1.63 global hectares (gha) per person (12.2 billion in total), this leads to a global ecological deficit of 1.1 global hectares per person (10.4 billion in total).[44]

For humanity, having a footprint smaller than the planet's biocapacity is a necessary condition for sustainability. After all, ecological overuse is only possible temporarily. A country that consumes more than 1.73 gha per person has a resource demand that is not sustainable world-wide if every country were to exceed that consumption level simultaneously. Countries with a footprint below 1.73 gha per person might not be sustainable: the quality of the footprint may still lead to net long-term ecological destruction. If a country does not have enough ecological resources within its own territory to cover its population's footprint, then it runs an ecological deficit and the country is termed an ecological debtor. Otherwise, it has an ecological reserve and it is called a creditor.[44] To a significant degree, biocapacity correlates with access to water resources.

Countries and regions

This table below is based on 2012 results (National Footprint Accounts edition 2016). The latest edition (2021), produced by York University,[45] Footprint Data Foundation,[46] and Global Footprint Network, is available on Global Footprint Network's website at http://data.footprintnetwork.org. Note that this list contains only 188 countries, covering most of the countries with more than one million inhabitants.

Rank Country/region Ecological
footprint		 Biocapacity Biocapacity
deficit or
reserve		 Population
(millions) 		Total biocapacity deficit or reserve (gMha) Population (millions) for biocapacity to equal ecological footprint*
(gha/person)
World 2.75 1.63 -1.12 7753 -10400 2500
1  Luxembourg 15.82 1.68 −14.14 0.63 −7.35 0.055221
2  Aruba 11.88 0.57 −11.31 0.17 −1.13 0.004798
3  Qatar 10.8 1.24 −9.56 2.05 −19.60 0.235373343
4  Australia 9.31 16.57 7.26 23.05 167.34 41.02454
5  United States 8.4 3.76 −4.46 329.5 −1416.05 145.2311
6  Canada 8.17 16.01 7.83 38 272.80 68.27275
7  Kuwait 8.13 0.55 −7.58 3.25 −24.64 0.219865
8  Singapore 7.97 0.05 −7.92 5.3 −41.98 0.03325
9  United Kingdom 7.93 0.56 −7.37 65.648 −483.83 4.635924
10  Trinidad and Tobago 7.92 1.56 −6.36 1.34 −8.52 0.263939
11  Montserrat 7.78 1.36 −6.42 0.005 −0.03 0.000874
12  Oman 7.52 1.92 −5.6 3.31 −18.54 0.845106
13  Bahrain 7.49 0.58 −6.91 1.32 −9.12 0.102216
14  Belgium 7.44 1.19 −6.25 11.6 −69.13 1.769005
15  Sweden 7.25 10.62 3.38 9.51 32.14 13.93051
16  Estonia 6.86 10.53 3.67 1.29 4.73 1.980131
17  Bahamas 6.84 9.55 2.71 0.37 1.00 0.516594
18  Latvia 6.29 9.55 3.26 2.06 6.72 3.127663
19  Israel 6.22 0.35 −5.87 9.1 −44.85 0.429904
20  Mongolia 6.08 15.66 9.58 2.8 26.82 7.211842
21  Austria 6.06 3.07 −3 8.46 −25.38 4.285842
22  Taiwan 5.93 1.0 −4.13 23.6 1.00 3.979764
22  Finland 5.87 13.44 7.57 5.41 40.95 12.38678
23  Lithuania 5.83 5.67 −0.17 3.03 −0.52 2.946844
24  Slovenia 5.81 2.35 −3.47 2.07 −7.18 0.837263
25   Switzerland 5.79 1.3 −4.48 8 −35.84 1.7962
26  Bermuda 5.77 0.13 −5.64 0.06 −0.34 0.001352
27  South Korea 5.69 0.68 −5.01 49 −245.49 5.855888
28  Russia 5.69 6.79 1.1 143.17 157.49 170.8479
29  Cayman Islands 5.65 0.32 −5.33 0.06 −0.32 0.003398
30  Saudi Arabia 5.61 0.5 −5.12 28.29 −144.84 2.52139
31  New Zealand 5.6 10.14 4.54 4.46 20.25 8.075786
32  Ireland 5.57 3.73 −1.83 4.58 −8.38 3.067038
33  Kazakhstan 5.55 3.41 −2.14 16.27 −34.82 9.996523
34  Denmark 5.51 4.78 −0.73 5.6 −4.09 4.858076
35  Turkmenistan 5.47 2.79 −2.68 5.17 −13.86 2.636984
36  Antigua and Barbuda 5.38 0.94 −4.44 0.09 −0.40 0.015725
37  Germany 5.3 2.27 −3.02 82.8 −250.06 35.4634
38  Netherlands 5.28 1.17 −4.11 16.71 −68.68 3.702784
39  Czech Republic 5.19 2.46 −2.73 10.66 −29.10 5.052717
40  France 5.14 3.11 −2.04 63.98 −130.52 38.71163
41  Belarus 5.09 3.64 −1.45 9.4 −13.63 6.7222
42  Japan 5.02 0.72 −4.3 127.25 −547.18 18.251
43  Norway 4.98 8.18 3.19 4.99 15.92 8.196426
44  Saint Kitts and Nevis 4.94 0.62 −4.31 0.05 −0.22 0.006275
45  United Arab Emirates 4.94 1.32 −3.62 6.30 −22.82 1.683401
46  Bhutan 4.84 5.27 0.43 0.74 0.32 0.805744
47  French Polynesia 4.73 1.37 −3.36 0.27 −0.91 0.078203
48  Italy 4.61 1.08 −3.53 60.92 −215.05 14.27193
49  Barbados 4.48 0.19 −4.29 0.28 −1.20 0.011875
50  Poland 4.44 2.08 −2.36 38.21 −90.18 17.90018
51  Greece 4.38 1.61 −2.77 11.12 −30.80 4.087489
52  Chile 4.36 3.63 −0.73 17.46 −12.75 14.53665
53  Suriname 4.25 89.33 85.08 0.54 45.94 11.35016
54  Cyprus 4.21 0.34 −3.87 1.13 −4.37 0.091259
55  Paraguay 4.16 10.52 6.36 6.69 42.55 16.91798
56  Brunei 4.06 2.87 −1.19 0.41 −0.49 0.289828
57  Slovakia 4.06 2.71 −1.35 5.45 −7.36 3.637808
58  Equatorial Guinea 3.97 4.4 0.44 0.74 0.33 0.820151
59  Croatia 3.92 2.8 −1.12 4.31 −4.83 3.078571
60  Portugal 3.88 1.51 −2.37 10.6 −25.12 4.125258
61  Lebanon 3.84 0.33 −3.51 4.65 −16.32 0.399609
62  Botswana 3.83 3.47 −0.35 2 −0.70 1.81201
63  Montenegro 3.78 3.24 −0.54 0.62 −0.33 0.531429
64  Malaysia 3.71 2.41 −1.3 29.24 −38.01 18.99418
65  Libya 3.69 0.7 −3 6.16 −18.48 1.168564
66  Spain 3.67 1.25 −2.42 46.76 −113.16 15.92643
67  Réunion 3.65 0.18 −3.47 0.86 −2.98 0.042411
68  New Caledonia 3.58 7.67 4.09 0.25 1.02 0.535615
69  Venezuela 3.57 2.78 −0.79 29.96 −23.67 23.3302
70  Mauritius 3.46 0.71 −2.75 1.24 −3.41 0.254451
71  China 3.38 0.94 −2.44 1402 −3435.62 391.5851
72  Turkey 3.33 1.52 −1.81 74 −133.94 33.77778
73  Bulgaria 3.32 2.86 −0.46 7.28 −3.35 6.271325
74  South Africa 3.31 1.15 −2.16 52.39 −113.16 18.20196
75  North Macedonia 3.26 1.51 −1.75 2.11 −3.69 0.977331
76  Guadeloupe 3.23 0.45 −2.77 0.46 −1.27 0.064087
77  Argentina 3.14 6.92 3.78 41.09 155.32 90.55503
78  Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.12 1.63 −1.49 3.83 −5.71 2.000929
79  Brazil 3.11 9.08 5.97 198.66 1186.00 580.0105
80  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 3.11 1.26 −1.85 0.11 −0.20 0.044566
81  Guyana 3.07 66.58 63.51 0.8 50.81 17.34984
82  Grenada 2.98 1.96 −1.01 0.1 −0.10 0.065772
83  Bolivia 2.96 16.73 13.77 10.5 144.59 59.34628
84  Nauru 2.94 0.19 −2.76 0.01 −0.03 0.000646
85  Hungary 2.92 2.17 −0.75 9.98 −7.49 7.416644
86  Uruguay 2.91 10.32 7.41 3.4 25.19 12.05773
87  Fiji 2.9 2.37 −0.52 0.88 −0.46 0.719172
88  Mexico 2.89 1.27 −1.62 120.85 −195.78 53.10709
89  British Virgin Islands 2.86 2.05 −0.81 0.03 −0.02 0.021503
90  Costa Rica 2.84 1.53 −1.31 4.8 −6.29 2.585915
91  Ukraine 2.84 2.27 −0.58 45.53 −26.41 36.39194
92  Iran 2.79 0.9 −1.89 76.42 −144.43 24.65161
93  Panama 2.79 2.94 0.15 3.8 0.57 4.004301
94  Samoa 2.77 1.93 −0.85 0.19 −0.16 0.132383
95  Romania 2.71 2.32 −0.39 21.76 −8.49 18.62849
96  Serbia 2.7 1.25 −1.44 9.55 −13.75 4.421296
97  Tonga 2.7 1.48 −1.22 0.1 −0.12 0.054815
98  Thailand 2.66 1.24 −1.42 66.78 −94.83 31.13053
99  Dominica 2.57 1.03 −1.54 0.07 −0.11 0.028054
100  Mauritania 2.54 4.48 1.93 3.8 7.33 6.702362
101  Cape Verde 2.52 0.62 −1.9 0.49 −0.93 0.120556
102  Namibia 2.48 6.88 4.4 2.26 9.94 6.269677
103  Saint Lucia 2.45 0.34 −2.1 0.18 −0.38 0.02498
104  French Guiana 2.34 111.35 109.01 0.24 26.16 11.42051
105  Tunisia 2.34 0.93 −1.4 10.88 −15.23 4.324103
106  Uzbekistan 2.32 0.92 −1.4 28.54 −39.96 11.31759
107  Azerbaijan 2.31 0.85 −1.46 9.31 −13.59 3.425758
108  Peru 2.28 3.97 1.69 29.99 50.68 52.21943
109  Armenia 2.23 0.89 −1.35 2.97 −4.01 1.185336
110  Albania 2.21 1.18 −1.03 3.16 −3.25 1.68724
111  Djibouti 2.19 0.77 −1.42 0.86 −1.22 0.302374
112  Ecuador 2.17 2.2 0.03 15.49 0.46 15.70415
113  Egypt 2.15 0.56 −1.59 80.72 −128.34 21.02474
114  Algeria 2.12 0.59 −1.53 38.48 −58.87 10.70906
115  Jordan 2.1 0.21 −1.89 7.01 −13.25 0.701
116  Martinique 2.08 0.39 −1.7 0.4 −0.68 0.075
117  El Salvador 2.07 0.61 −1.46 6.3 −9.20 1.856522
118  Wallis and Futuna 2.07 1.51 −0.56 0.01 −0.01 0.007295
119  Gabon 2.02 26.31 24.29 1.63 39.59 21.23035
120  Swaziland 2.01 0.88 −1.14 1.23 −1.40 0.538507
121  Ghana 1.97 1.35 −0.62 25.37 −15.73 17.38553
122  Cuba 1.95 0.76 −1.19 11.27 −13.41 4.39241
123  Kyrgyzstan 1.91 1.3 −0.61 5.47 −3.34 3.723037
124  Papua New Guinea 1.91 3.92 2.01 7.17 14.41 14.71539
125  Guatemala 1.89 0.99 −0.9 15.08 −13.57 7.899048
126  Jamaica 1.89 0.43 −1.46 2.77 −4.04 0.630212
127  Iraq 1.88 0.29 −1.59 32.78 −52.12 5.056489
128  Colombia 1.87 3.6 1.72 47.7 82.04 91.82888
129  Moldova 1.78 0.8 −0.98 3.51 −3.44 1.577528
130  Honduras 1.68 1.77 0.09 7.94 0.71 8.365357
131  Morocco 1.68 0.71 −0.96 32.52 −31.22 13.74357
132  Lesotho 1.66 0.78 −0.87 2.05 −1.78 0.963253
133  Vietnam 1.65 1 −0.65 90.8 −59.02 55.0303
134  Georgia 1.58 1.17 −0.41 4.36 −1.79 3.228608
135  Indonesia 1.58 1.26 −0.32 246.86 −79.00 196.863
136  Niger 1.56 1.24 −0.32 17.16 −5.49 13.64
137  Dominican Republic 1.53 0.56 −0.97 10.28 −9.97 3.762614
138  Guinea-Bissau 1.53 3.03 1.49 1.66 2.47 3.287451
139  Mali 1.53 1.58 0.05 14.85 0.74 15.33529
140  Syria 1.51 0.6 −0.91 21.89 −19.92 8.698013
141  Sao Tome and Principe 1.49 0.87 −0.61 0.19 −0.12 0.11094
142  Chad 1.46 2.03 0.57 12.45 7.10 17.31062
143  Myanmar 1.43 1.84 0.41 52.8 21.65 67.93846
144  Benin 1.41 0.88 −0.53 10.05 −5.33 6.27234
145  Guinea 1.41 2.09 0.68 11.45 7.79 16.97199
146  Nicaragua 1.39 2.25 0.87 5.99 5.21 9.696043
147  Zimbabwe 1.37 0.62 −0.75 13.72 −10.29 6.209051
148  Sri Lanka 1.32 0.44 −0.88 21.1 −18.57 7.033333
149  Tanzania 1.32 1.08 −0.24 47.78 −11.47 39.09273
150  Congo 1.29 10.91 9.63 4.34 41.97 36.70496
151  Solomon Islands 1.29 4.36 3.08 0.55 1.69 1.858915
152  Côte d'Ivoire 1.27 1.78 0.51 19.84 10.12 27.80724
153  Central African Republic 1.24 7.87 6.62 4.53 29.99 28.75089
154  Sierra Leone 1.24 1.24 0 5.98 0.00 5.98
155  Somalia 1.24 1.27 0.03 10.2 0.31 10.44677
156  Uganda 1.24 0.59 −0.66 36.35 −23.99 17.29556
157  Laos 1.22 1.62 0.4 6.65 2.66 8.830328
158  Burkina Faso 1.21 0.98 −0.22 16.46 −3.62 13.33124
159  Cambodia 1.21 1.09 −0.11 14.86 −1.63 13.38628
160  Liberia 1.21 2.57 1.35 4.19 5.66 8.899421
161  Senegal 1.21 1.05 −0.16 13.73 −2.20 11.91446
162  Cameroon 1.17 1.69 0.52 21.7 11.28 31.34444
163  North Korea 1.17 0.6 −0.57 24.76 −14.11 12.69744
164  India 1.16 0.45 −0.71 1380 −878.05 479.7504
165  Nigeria 1.16 0.7 −0.47 168.83 −79.35 101.8802
166  Togo 1.13 0.53 −0.6 6.64 −3.98 3.114336
167  Philippines 1.1 0.54 −0.56 96.71 −54.16 47.47582
168  Comoros 1.03 0.32 −0.7 0.72 −0.50 0.223689
169  Gambia 1.03 0.82 −0.21 1.79 −0.38 1.425049
170  Kenya 1.03 0.51 −0.52 43.18 −22.45 21.38039
171  Yemen 1.03 0.5 −0.53 23.85 −12.64 11.57767
172  Ethiopia 1.02 0.58 −0.44 91.73 −40.36 52.1602
173  Madagascar 0.99 2.63 1.64 22.29 36.56 59.21485
174  Zambia 0.99 2.23 1.24 14.08 17.46 31.71556
175    Nepal 0.98 0.59 −0.38 27.47 −10.44 16.53806
176  Angola 0.93 2.55 1.61 20.82 35.52 57.0871
177  Tajikistan 0.91 0.53 −0.38 8.01 −3.04 4.665165
178  Mozambique 0.87 2.06 1.19 25.2 29.99 59.66897
179  Rwanda 0.87 0.54 −0.32 11.46 −3.67 7.113103
180  Congo, Democratic Republic of the 0.82 3.07 2.25 65.7 147.83 245.9744
181  Malawi 0.81 0.66 −0.15 15.91 −2.39 12.9637
182  Burundi 0.8 0.32 −0.48 9.85 −4.73 3.94
183  Afghanistan 0.79 0.5 −0.3 29.82 −8.95 18.87342
184  Pakistan 0.79 0.35 −0.44 179.16 −78.83 79.37468
185  Bangladesh 0.72 0.38 −0.35 154.7 −54.15 81.64722
186  Haiti 0.61 0.27 −0.34 10.17 −3.46 4.501475
187  Timor-Leste 0.48 1.78 1.3 1.11 1.44 4.11625
188  Eritrea 0.49 1.3 0.88 6.13 5.39 16.26327

*Assumes that biocapacity and ecological footprint per person will not change when population changes.

See also

World map of countries by ecological footprint (2007 data).
World map of countries by their raw ecological footprint compared against the global average biocapacity of 2.1 gha per person in 2007.

References

  1. ^ "Ewing et al. 2001" (PDF). Global Footprint Network. Retrieved 25 February 2001.
  2. ^ "Data Sources". Global Footprint Network. 2010-02-05. Retrieved 2060-02-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ United Nations Environment Programme UNEP reports. [1]
  4. ^ http://www.footprintstandards.org
  5. ^ Rees, William E. (1992). "Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out". Environment and Urbanisation. 4 (2): 121–130. doi:10.1177/095624789200400212. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  6. ^ Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological Footprint and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: A Tool for Planning Toward Sustainability (PDF) (PhD thesis). Vancouver, Canada: School of Community and Regional Planning. The University of British Columbia. OCLC 41839429.
  7. ^ 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.
  8. ^ William Safire, On Language: Footprint, New York Times Magazine, February 17, 2008
  9. ^ a b Wackernagel, Mathis & Rees, William (1996)"Our Ecological Footprint" (New Society Press)
  10. ^ [2] or [3] Living Planet Report 2008 outlines scenarios for humanity's future. Global Footprint Network. Retrieved: 2009-02-15
  11. ^ a b Chambers, N. et al. (2004) Scotland’s Footprint. Best Foot Forward. ISBN 0-9546042-0-2.
  12. ^ Global ecosystems 'face collapse' BBC News. Retrieved: 2007-05-18.
  13. ^ Global Footprint Network "Ecological Footprint: Overview." Retrieved on August 1, 2007.
  14. ^ "Ewing et al. 2010". Global Footprint Network. Retrieved 21 January 2011.
  15. ^ "Ewing et al. 2010" (PDF). Global Footprint Network. Retrieved 13 June 2011.
  16. ^ A Research Agenda for Improving National Ecological Footprint Accounts Retrieved: 2007-11-11 [dead link]
  17. ^ World in Motion: The Globalization and the Environment Reader, Venetoulis and Talberth (2009), edited by Gary Kroll and Richard Howard Robbins
  18. ^ "Redefining the Footprint (footprint 2.0)" in Sustainable Development: Principles, Frameworks, and Case Studies, CRC, Routledge (2010).
  19. ^ Findhorn eco-footprint is ‘world’s smallest’ Sunday Herald, August 11, 2008."A new expert study says the multinational community's ecological footprint is half the UK average. This means Findhorn uses 50% fewer resources and creates 50% less waste than normal."
  20. ^ Tinsley, S. and George, H. (2006) Ecological Footprint of the Findhorn Foundation and Community. Moray. Sustainable Development Research Centre, UHI Millennium Institute.
  21. ^ Radical Routes (2006) How to work out your Ecological Footprint. Leeds. Radical Routes Ltd. Available to order or download on the Radical Routes web site
  22. ^ J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and H. Verbruggen (1999). "Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the 'ecological footprint'" (PDF). Ecological Economics. 29 (1): 63–74.[4][5]
  23. ^ Fiala, N. (2008). "Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science". Ecological Economics. 67 (4): 519–525. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.023.
  24. ^ Analysis of the potential of the Ecological Footprint and related assessment tools for use in the EU’s Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/studies.htm
  25. ^ http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/national_reviews. More specifically, reviews by nations include Switzerland – http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/21/03/blank/blank/01.html (technical and descriptive report). Eurostat – http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-AU-06-001/EN/KS-AU-06-001-EN.PDF Germany – http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3489.pdf Ireland – http://erc.epa.ie/safer/iso19115/displayISO19115.jsp?isoID=56#files DG Environment – June 2008: “Potential of the Ecological Footprint for monitoring environmental impact from natural resource use” available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/studies.htm United Arab Emirates – Al Basama Al Beeiya Initiative http://www.agedi.ae/ecofootprintuae/default.aspx
  26. ^ F. Grazi, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and P. Rietveld (2007). "Welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade". Environmental and Resource Economics. 38 (1): 135–153. doi:10.1007/s10640-006-9067-2.
  27. ^ Planning and Markets: Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson
  28. ^ 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 WWF. Retrieved: 2007-06-04.
  29. ^ Loh, J., R. Green, T. Ricketts, J. Lamoreux, M. Jenkins, V. Kapos and J. Randers (2005). "The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity" (PDF). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 360 (1454): 289–295. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1584. PMC 1569448. PMID 15814346.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  30. ^ Lenzen, Manfred & Murray Shauna A. (2001). "A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia". Ecological Economics. 37 (2): 229–255. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00275-5.
  31. ^ Questions and Answers, Global Footprint Network
  32. ^ Vattenfall 2004, Forsmark EPD for 2002 and SwedPower LCA data 2005.
  33. ^ Energy Analysis of Power Systems accessed 20 October 2007
  34. ^ Electric Power Industry CO2 Emissions accessed 20 October 2007
  35. ^ Hertsgaard, Mark (2011) "Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth" (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)
  36. ^ nuclearinfo.net. Greenhouse Emissions of Nuclear Power
  37. ^ David Bodansky (2001). "The Environmental Paradox of Nuclear Power". Environmental Practice. 3 (2): 86–8. doi:10.1017/S1466046600002234. (reprinted by the American Physical Society) {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  38. ^ "Some Amazing Facts about Nuclear Power". 2002. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  39. ^ Alex Kirby (13 December 2004,). "Pollution: A life and death issue". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  40. ^ Don Hopey (June 29, 2005). "State sues utility for U.S. pollution violations". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  41. ^ Alex Gabbard. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
  42. ^ Nuclear proliferation through coal burning — Gordon J. Aubrecht, II, Ohio State University
  43. ^ "Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors".
  44. ^ a b c "Open Data Platform". data.footprintnetwork.org. Retrieved 2018-03-30.
  45. ^ https://footprint.info.yorku.ca
  46. ^ https://www.FoDaFo.org

"National Footprint Accounts 2016, Open Data Platform". Global Footprint Network. 5 January 2017. Retrieved 17 February 2017.

See also

References

Further reading

Template:Link FA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecological_footprint&oldid=457235695"