Ecological footprint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please
help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced
material may be challenged and removed. (January 2014)

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often
accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should
be clarified or removed. (January 2014)
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 populationconsumes, and to
assimilate 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 2007, humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.5 planet Earths;
that is, humanity uses ecological services 1.5 times as quickly as Earth can renew them.
[2]
Every
year, this number is recalculated to incorporate the three-year lag due to the time it takes for
the UN to collect and publish statistics and relevant research.
Although the term ecological footprint is widely used and well known,
[3]
it goes beyond the
metaphor. It represents an accounting system for biocapacity that tracks how much biocapacity
there is, and how much biocapacity people use. Calculation methods have converged thanks to
standards released in 2006 and updated in 2009.
[4]



Ecological footprint for different nations compared to their Human Development Index.
Contents
[hide]
1 Overview
2 Methodology
3 Studies in the United Kingdom
4 Discussion
5 Footprint by country
6 Implications
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links
Overview[edit]
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 19901994.
[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 with illustrations by Phil Testemale.
[9]

Ecological footprint analysis compares human demands 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), or ecological footprint analysis (EFA), 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 2007, 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, while China's was 1.8 gha.
[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 NGOs offer ecological footprint calculators (see Footprint Calculator, below).
Ecological footprint analysis is now widely used around the Earth 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.
Methodology[edit]
The ecological footprint accounting method at the national level is described in the l Footprint
Atlas 2010
[14]
or in greater 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. However, as
new footprint standards emerge, the calculation methodologies are converging.
[citation needed]

In 2003, Jason Venetoulis, Carl Mas, Christopher Gaudet, Dahlia Chazan, and John Talberth
developed Footprint 2., which offers a series of theoretical and methodological improvements to
the standard footprint approach. The four primary improvements were that they included the
entire surface of the Earth in biocapacity estimates, allocated space for other (i.e., non-human)
species, updated the basis of equivalence factors from agricultural land to net primary
productivity (NPP), and refined the carbon component of the footprint based on the latest global
carbon models.
[17][18]

Studies in the United Kingdom[edit]
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 firstcarsharing 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 ruralintentional 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[edit]
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 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 CO
2
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
theThree 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]

Footprint by country[edit]
Main article: List of countries by ecological footprint
The world-average ecological footprint in 2007 was 2.7 global hectares per person. The average
per country ranges from over 10 to under 1 hectares per person. There is also a high variation
within countries, based on individual lifestyle and economic situation.
[citation needed]

The GHG footprint differs from the ecological footprint in that the former is expressed in units of
GHG warming potential (GGWP) and is generated by products or services, whereas the latter is
expressed in units of land area and is generated by whole societies.
[citation needed]




Tapak Ekologi dan Cara Menghitungnya
Tapak ekologi adalah sejumlah area yang terdiri dari lahan dan air yang produktif secara
biologi yang dibutuhkan oleh individu, populasi atau aktivitas tertentu untuk memproduksi
bahan konsumsi dan untuk mengolah limbahnya dengan teknologi dan management. Tapak
ekologi sering dinyatakan dalam satuan global hektar (gha) karena yang menjadi ruang
lingkup dalam tapak ekologi individu mencakup lahan atau laut dari seluruh dunia. ( sumber
:http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/glossary/#Ecologicalfootprint )
Sebelum menghitung tapak ekologi, dibutuhkan asumsi. Asumsi yang umum digunakan
adalah :
1. Semua sumber daya yang dikonsumsi dan limbah (termasuk emisi) yang dihasilkan dapat
ditelusuri asal muasalnya (tracked).
2. Sebagian besar aliran sumber daya dan buangan dapat diukur dengan menggunakan luasan
bioproduktif untuk menjaga pasokan sumber daya dan absorpsi buangan.
3. Luasan bioproduktif yang berbeda dapat dikonversi menjadi satu ukuran tunggal, yaitu
hektar global (gha). Setiap hektar global pada satu tahun mencerminkan bioproduktif yang
sama dan semua dapat dijumlahkan.
4. 4. Permintaan terhadap sumber daya alam disebut telapak ekologis (ecological
footprint/demand),dan dapat dibandingkan dengan biokapasitas (biocapacity/ supply )
dengan satuan hektar global (gha).
Luasan permintaan (area demanded) bisa lebih besar dari luasan pasokan (area
supplied), jika permintaan suatu ekosistem melebihi kemampuan ekosistemnya untuk
menyediakannya. ( sumber : Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts,
2010 10
th
Edition Brad Ewing)

Metoda yang digunakan untuk menghitung tapak ekologi adalah metoda yang
dikembangkan oleh Global Footprint Networt (GFN-USA). Dalam menghitung tapak ekoologi
ada 2 faktor yang perlu diperhatikan yaitu faktor ekuivalensi dan faktor panen.
Faktor Ekuivalensi
Faktor ini merupakan faktor yang digunakan untuk mengkombinasikan tapak ekologi dari
lahan yang berbeda-beda. Agar ini dapat dikombinasikan maka dibutuhkan koefisien untuk
menyamakannya. Dengan kata lain, ini dipakai untuk mengkonversi satuan lokal lahan
tertentu menjadi satuan yang universal, yaitu hektar global (gha). Faktor penyama telah
ditentukan oleh Global Footprint Network (GFN) untuk 6 (enam) kategori lahan, yaitu: lahan
pertanian (2,64), lahan perikanan (0,40), lahan peternakan (0,50), lahan kehutanan (1,33),
lahan terbangun (2,64) dan lahan penyerapan karbon/lahan yang diperlukan untuk
mengabsorsi CO2 yang bersumber dari bahan bakar fosil (1,33).

Faktor Panen
Faktor panen menggambarkan perbandingan antara luasan lahan bioproduktif di suatu
wilayah dengan luasan lahan bioproduktif yang sama di wilayah yang lain untuk tiap
komoditas yang sama. Faktor ini juga menggambarkan kemampuan suatu populasi untuk
menyertakan penguasaan teknologi dan manajemen dalam pengelolaan lahan. Setiap
wilayah memiliki faktor panen masingmasing dan dihitung per tahun. ( Sumber
:http://penataanruang.net )

Telapak ekologis menggambarkan kebutuhan barang dan jasa yang diperlukan oleh
manusia dari alam yang dicerminkan dalam konsumsi bersih (net consumption) dari
produkproduk yang dikategorikan seperti produk pertanian, produk peternakan, produk
kehutanan, produk perikanan, keperluan ruang dan lahan, serta konsumsi energi. Konsumsi
bersih merupakan konsumsi aktual yang dipengaruhi oleh kegiatan perdagangan
(eksporimpor).

Perhitungan konsumsi aktual akan menambahkan barang yang diimpor dan mengurangi
barang yang diekspor yang dinyatakan dengan persamaan berikut:

Konsumsi Bersih/Total (ton) = Produksi Lokal (ton) + Impor (ton) Ekspor (ton)

Telapak Ekologis(TE/EF) untuk semua kategori lahan dihitung dengan menggunakan
persamaan:

EF =( P x YF x EQF ) / YN

Keterangan :
EF = ecological footprint/telapak ekologis (TE);
P = jumlah produk dipanen atau limbah yang dihasilkan;
YN = produktivitas nasional ratarata untuk P;
YF = yield factor (faktor panen);
EQF = equivalence factor (faktor ekivalensi untuk kategori lahan dimaksud).

Telah tersedia di internet kalkulator ekologi. Dalam web tersebut, dikeluarkan pertanyaan
pertanyaan tentag pola makan, kebiasaan perjalanan atau transportasi yang digunakan,
stuff yang kita miliki, dan tentang rumah seperti kondisi rumah, jumlah urang yang ada di
rumah, sumber energi yang ada di rumah,(sumber
:http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/questionnaires )

Tapak Ekologi Indonesia dan Maknanya

Menurut data yang diperoleh
dari http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint , nilai tapak ekologi
Indonesia adalah 1,21 gha/ orang dan biokapasitasnya 1,35 gha/orang. Arti dari nila ini
adalah rata-rata setiap individu yang ada di Indonesia membutuhkan lahan produktif seluas
1,21 hektar yang didalamnya juga terdapat air yang dapat digunakan manusia untuk
memproduksi sesuatu yang berguna untuk kebutuhan hidupnya serta unruk mengolah
limbahnya sendiri. Nilai ini didapat dengan pendekatan dan rumus yang sudah dijelaskan
diatas. Hal ini juga telah mempertingkan pola-pola tingkah laku manusia yang ada di
Indonesia baik di bidang makanan, tempat tinggal, emisi karbon, energi yang dipakai dan
yang diperbaharui, tingkah laku manusia terhadap air, pola tingkah laku terhadap barang-
barang yang ada di lingkungannya, dll.

Amerika memiliki nilai tapak ekologi semesar 9.7 gha/orang , eropa sebesar 4.7 gha/orang,
china 1.6 gha/orang, India 0.8 gha/orang , dan Jepang 4.8 gha/orang ( sumber : Miller Jr.,
G.T. & S.E. Spoolman. Living in the Environment. 17
th.
Edition. Brooks/Cole: Belmont, CA,
USA. 2012 ).

Normalnya, nilai tapak ekologi maksimal yang masih diizinkan agar bumi bekerja secara
normal adalah 1 gha/ orang. Dengan nilai 1 gha/orang maka dibutuhkan 1 bumi untuk
melakukan produksi dan memanfaatkan hasilnya tanpa menghabiskan modal alam.
Berdasarkan data diatas, India termasuk Negara yang nilai tapak ekologinya bagus.

Sebagaimana yang dijelaskan oleh Miller dalam bukunya, bahwa perubahan budaya yang
semakn canggih dapat memperbesar nilai tapak ekologi. Hal ini sesuai dengan data yang
ada jika dibandingkan dengan kebudayaan yang ada di Negara-negara tersebut.

Jika dibandingka dengan Negara maju lainnya, nilai tapak ekologi Indonesia masih relatif
kecil tetapi sudah melebihi nilai maksimal untuk keoptimalan fungsi kerja bumi.
Berdaasarkan kalkulator tapak ekologi , dapat dikatakan bahwa nilai tapak ekologi akan
semakin tinggi jika teknologi di suatu Negara tinggi pula, karena ini akan merubah kebiasaan
masyarakatnya sehingga masyarakatnya membutuhkan lahan yang sangat luas untuk
kehidupannya serta untuk mengolah limbahnya sendiri.

List of countries by ecological footprint
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main article: Ecological footprint


World map of countries by ecological footprint.
This page is a list of countries by ecological footprint. This table is based on 2007 data from
theGlobal Footprint Network published in 2010. Data is given as global hectares per capita. The
world-average ecological footprint in 2007 was 2.7 global hectares per person (18.0 billion in
total).
With a world-average biocapacity of 1.8 global hectares per person (12 billion in total), this leads
to an ecological deficit of 0.9 global hectares per person (6 billion in total). If a country does not
have enough ecological resources within its own territory, then there is a local ecological deficit
and it is called an ecological debtor country. Otherwise, it has an ecological remainder and it is
called an ecological creditor country.
Countries[edit]
NB this list does not include all countries; it contains 153 of the 192 world countries
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
Puerto Rico 3.95 0.04 0.14 0.10
Timor-Leste 1.06 0.44 1.21 0.77
Afghanistan 26.29 0.62 0.54 -0.08
Bangladesh 157.75 0.62 0.38 -0.24
Haiti 9.72 0.68 0.31 -0.37
Malawi 14.44 0.73 0.70 -0.03
Palestinian
Authority
4.02 0.74 0.16 -0.58
Democratic
Republic of the
Congo
62.52 0.75 2.76 2.01
Mozambique 21.87 0.77 1.89 1.12
Pakistan 173.18 0.77 0.43 -0.34
Eritrea 4.78 0.89 1.60 0.71
Burundi 7.84 0.90 0.50 -0.40
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
India 1164.67 0.91 0.51 -0.40
Zambia 12.31 0.91 2.26 1.35
Yemen 22.27 0.94 0.62 -0.32
Republic of the
Congo
3.55 0.96 13.27 12.31
Guinea-Bissau 1.54 0.96 3.22 2.26
Togo 6.30 0.97 0.60 -0.37
Angola 17.56 1.00 3.00 2.00
Tajikistan 6.73 1.00 0.56 -0.44
Cte d'Ivoire 20.12 1.01 1.67 0.66
Rwanda 9.45 1.02 0.56 -0.46
Cambodia 14.32 1.03 0.94 -0.09
Cameroon 18.66 1.04 1.85 0.81
Sierra Leone 5.42 1.05 1.20 0.15
Lesotho 2.03 1.07 0.81 -0.26
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
Senegal 11.89 1.09 1.20 0.11
Ethiopia 78.65 1.10 0.66 -0.44
Kenya 37.76 1.11 0.59 -0.52
Cape Verde 0.49 1.17 0.51 -0.66
Tanzania 41.28 1.18 1.02 -0.16
Indonesia 224.67 1.21 1.35 0.14
Sri Lanka 19.88 1.21 0.45 -0.76
Morocco 31.22 1.22 0.61 -0.61
Benin 8.39 1.23 0.78 -0.45
Kyrgyzstan 5.35 1.25 1.34 0.09
Zimbabwe 12.45 1.25 0.75 -0.50
Liberia 3.63 1.26 2.47 1.21
Laos 6.09 1.28 1.58 0.30
Philippines 88.72 1.30 0.62 -0.68
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
Burkina Faso 14.72 1.32 1.30 -0.02
Central African
Republic
4.26 1.32 8.44 7.12
North Korea 23.73 1.32 0.58 -0.74
Iraq 29.49 1.35 0.30 -1.05
Moldova 3.67 1.39 0.66 -0.73
Vietnam 86.11 1.40 0.86 -0.54
Gabon 1.42 1.41 29.29 27.88
Comoros 0.83 1.42 0.29 -1.13
Somalia 8.73 1.42 1.40 -0.02
Nigeria 147.72 1.44 1.12 -0.32
Dominican
Republic
9.81 1.47 0.50 -0.97
Swaziland 1.15 1.50 1.00 -0.50
Syria 20.50 1.52 0.70 -0.82
Uganda 30.64 1.53 0.85 -0.68
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
Peru 28.51 1.54 3.86 2.32
Nicaragua 5.60 1.56 2.82 1.26
Algeria 33.86 1.59 0.59 -1.00
Egypt 80.06 1.66 0.62 -1.04
Guinea 9.62 1.67 2.85 1.18
Chad 10.62 1.73 3.17 1.44
Sudan 40.43 1.73 2.42 0.69
Uzbekistan 26.90 1.74 0.92 -0.82
Armenia 3.07 1.75 0.71 -1.04
Ghana 22.87 1.75 1.19 -0.56
Guatemala 13.35 1.77 1.12 -0.65
Madagascar 18.60 1.79 3.07 1.28
Myanmar 49.13 1.79 2.04 0.25
Georgia 4.36 1.82 1.21 -0.61
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
Cuba 11.20 1.85 0.74 -1.11
Azerbaijan 8.63 1.87 0.76 -1.11
Colombia 44.36 1.87 3.98 2.11
Ecuador 13.34 1.89 2.33 0.44
Tunisia 10.07 1.90 0.98 -0.92
Albania 3.13 1.91 0.87 -1.04
Honduras 7.17 1.91 1.84 -0.07
Jamaica 2.70 1.93 0.38 -1.55
Mali 12.41 1.93 2.49 0.56
El Salvador 6.11 2.03 0.67 -1.36
Jordan 5.94 2.05 0.24 -1.81
Papua New
Guinea
6.42 2.14 3.75 1.61
Namibia 2.09 2.15 7.56 5.41
China 1336.55 2.21 0.98 -1.23
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
South Africa 49.17 2.32 1.14 -1.18
Niger 14.14 2.35 2.09 -0.26
Thailand 66.98 2.37 1.15 -1.22
Guyana 0.76 2.38 62.13 59.75
Serbia 9.83 2.39 1.16 -1.23
Bolivia 9.52 2.57 18.84 16.27
Argentina 39.49 2.60 7.50 4.90
Mauritania 3.14 2.61 5.50 2.89
Botswana 1.89 2.68 3.83 1.15
Iran 72.44 2.68 0.81 -1.87
Costa Rica 4.46 2.69 1.90 -0.79
Turkey 73.00 2.70 1.32 -1.38
Romania 21.45 2.71 1.95 -0.76
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
3.78 2.75 1.60 -1.15
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
Panama 3.34 2.87 3.15 0.28
Venezuela 27.66 2.89 2.81 -0.08
Lebanon 4.16 2.90 0.40 -2.50
Ukraine 46.29 2.90 1.82 -1.08
Brazil 190.12 2.91 8.98 6.07
Hungary 10.03 2.99 2.23 -0.76
Mexico 107.49 3.00 1.47 -1.53
Libya 6.17 3.05 0.44 -2.61
Trinidad and
Tobago
1.33 3.09 1.57 -1.52
Paraguay 6.13 3.19 11.24 8.05
Chile 16.64 3.24 3.83 0.59
Gambia 1.62 3.45 1.10 -2.35
Nepal
28.29 3.56 0.55 -3.01
Croatia 4.43 3.75 2.50 -1.25
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
Belarus 9.72 3.80 3.29 -0.51
Turkmenistan 4.98 3.93 3.21 -0.72
Slovakia 5.39 4.06 2.68 -1.38
Bulgaria 7.64 4.07 2.13 -1.94
Mauritius 1.27 4.26 0.56 -3.70
Poland 38.13 4.35 2.09 -2.26
Russia 141.94 4.41 5.75 1.34
Portugal 10.64 4.47 1.25 -3.22
Kazakhstan 15.41 4.54 4.01 -0.53
Lithuania 3.36 4.67 4.36 -0.31
Japan 127.40 4.73 0.60 -4.13
Israel 6.93 4.82 0.32 -4.50
Malaysia 26.56 4.86 2.61 -2.25
South Korea 47.96 4.87 0.33 -4.54
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
New Zealand 4.19 4.89 10.77 5.88
United
Kingdom
61.13 4.89 1.34 -3.55
Italy 59.31 4.99 1.14 -3.85
Oman 2.73 4.99 2.14 -2.85
France 61.71 5.01 3.00 -2.01
Switzerland 7.51 5.02 1.24 -3.78
Germany 82.34 5.08 1.92 -3.16
Saudi Arabia 24.68 5.13 0.84 -4.29
Uruguay 3.34 5.13 9.91 4.78
Austria 8.31 5.30 3.31 -1.99
Slovenia 2.01 5.30 2.61 -2.69
Singapore 4.49 5.34 0.02 -5.32
Greece 11.11 5.39 1.62 -3.77
Spain 44.05 5.42 1.61 -3.81
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
Mongolia 2.61 5.53 15.14 9.61
Norway 4.72 5.56 5.48 -0.08
Latvia 2.27 5.64 7.07 1.43
Macedonia 2.04 5.66 1.43 -4.23
Czech Republic 10.27 5.73 2.67 -3.06
Sweden 9.16 5.88 9.75 3.87
Finland 5.28 6.16 12.46 6.30
Netherlands 16.46 6.19 1.03 -5.16
Ireland 4.36 6.29 3.48 -2.81
Kuwait 2.85 6.32 0.40 -5.92
Australia 23.07 6.84 14.71 7.87
Canada 32.95 7.01 14.92 7.91
Estonia 1.34 7.88 8.96 1.08
Belgium 10.53 8.00 1.34 -6.66
Country
Population in
millions
Ecological
Footprint in
gha/pers
Biocapacity in
gha/pers
Ecological
remainder (if
positive) in gha/pers
United States 310 8.00 3.87 -4.13
Denmark 5.45 8.26 4.85 -3.41
Bahrain 0.76 10.04 0.94 -9.10
Qatar 1.41 10.51 2.51 -8.00
United Arab
Emirates
6.25 10.68 0.85 -9.83
See also[edit]


What is the Ecological Footprint?
The Ecological Footprint is a resource accounting tool that measures how much biologically
productive land and sea is used by a given population or activity, and compares this to how much
land and sea is available. Productive land and sea areas support human demands for food, fiber,
timber, energy, and space for infrastructure. These areas also absorb the waste products from the
human economy. The Ecological Footprint measures the sum of these areas, wherever they
physically occur on the planet. The Ecological Footprint is used widely as a management and
communication tool by governments, businesses, educational institutions, and non-governmental
organizations.
What does the Ecological Footprint measure?
Ecological Footprint accounts answer a specific research question: how much of the biological
capacity of the planet is demanded by a given human activity or population? To answer this question,
the Ecological Footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and water area an
individual, a city, a country, a region, or all of humanity uses to produce the resources it consumes
and to absorb the waste it generates with todays technology and resource management practices.
This demand on the biosphere can be compared to biocapacity, a measure of the amount of
biologically productive land and water available for human use. Biologically productive land includes
areas such as cropland, forest, and fishing grounds, and excludes deserts, glaciers, and the open
ocean.
Global hectares are hectares with world-average productivity for all productive land and water areas
in a given year. Studies that are compliant with current Ecological Footprint Standards use global
hectares as a measurement unit. This makes Ecological Footprint results globally comparable, just as
financial assessments use one currency, such as dollars or Euros, to compare transactions and
financial flows throughout the world.
How accurate are Ecological Footprint measurements?
Current Ecological Footprint accounts provide a robust, aggregate estimate of human demand on the
biosphere as compared to the biospheres productive capacity. As with any calculation system,
Footprint accounts are subject to uncertainty in source data, calculation parameters, and
methodological decisions. Several organizations are seeking to allocate resources towards obtaining
more accurate estimates of this nature.
What can Ecological Footprint Analysis tell us about the future of the planet? Are we all
doomed?
The Ecological Footprint highlights the reality of ecological scarcity, which can be disconcerting and
frightening information. The existence of global overshoot suggests that human society will need to
make significant changes to business as usual if it wants to create a sustainable future. Robust and
accurate Ecological Footprint accounts can help us make decisions towards sustainability, and can
quantitatively show the positive impacts of groups, businesses, and people making decisions that are
helping to bring human demand within the means of the planet.
What is the proper way to use the term Ecological Footprint?
The term Ecological Footprint, capitalized, is a proper name referring to a specific research question:
how much of the biological capacity of the planet is demanded by a given human activity or
population? Often, the word footprint is used generically to refer to human impact on the planet, or to
a different research question. As commonly used today, for example, the term carbon footprint often
refers to the number of tons of carbon emitted by a given person or business during a year, or to the
tons of carbon emitted in the manufacture and transport of a product. In Ecological Footprint
accounts, the carbon Footprint measures the amount of biological capacity, in global hectares,
demanded by human emissions of fossil carbon dioxide. The term Ecological Footprint has been
deliberately excluded from trademark to encourage its widespread use.
How is an Ecological Footprint calculated?
Ecological Footprints can be calculated for individual people, groups of people (such as a nation), and
activities (such as manufacturing a product).
The Ecological Footprint of a person is calculated by considering all of the biological materials
consumed, and all of the biological wastes generated, by that person in a given year. These materials
and wastes each demand ecologically productive areas, such as cropland to grow potatoes, or forest
to sequester fossil carbon dioxide emissions. All of these materials and wastes are then individually
translated into an equivalent number of global hectares.

To accomplish this, an amount of material consumed by that person (tons per year) is divided by the
yield of the specific land or sea area (annual tons per hectare) from which it was harvested, or where
its waste material was absorbed. The number of hectares that result from this calculation are then
converted to global hectares using yield and equivalence factors. The sum of the global hectares
needed to support the resource consumption and waste generation of the person gives that persons
total Ecological Footprint.
How does the Ecological Footprint address waste flows?
From an Ecological Footprint perspective, the term waste includes three different categories of
materials, and each category is treated differently within Footprint accounts.
First, biological wastes such as residues of crop products, trimmings from harvested trees, and
carbon dioxide emitted from fuel wood or fossil fuel combustion are all included within Ecological
Footprint accounts. A cow grazing on one hectare of pasture has a Footprint of one hectare for both
creating its biological food products and absorbing its biological waste products. This single hectare
provides both services, thus counting the Footprint of the cow twice (once for material production and
once for waste absorption) results in double counting the actual area necessary to support the cow.
The Footprint associated with the absorption of all biological materials that are harvested is thus
already counted in the Footprint of those materials.
Second, waste also refers to the material specifically sent to landfills. If these landfills occupy formerly
biologically productive area, then the Footprint of this landfill waste can be calculated as the area
used for its long term storage.
Finally, waste can also refer to toxics and pollutants released from the human economy that cannot in
any way be absorbed or broken down by biological processes, such as many types of plastics.
Assessments of the Footprint of toxics and pollutants, when completed, generally refer to the
Footprint of extracting, p
rocessing, and handling these materials, but not to the Footprint of creating or absorbing these
materials themselves.
How does the Ecological Footprint account for recycling?
As the Ecological Footprint reflects the demand for productive area to make resources and absorb
wastes, recycling can lower the Ecological Footprint by offsetting the extraction of virgin products, and
reducing the area necessary for absorbing wastes. Recycling paper, for example, can decrease the
total amount of virgin timber that must be harvested to meet global demand for paper, thus reducing
humanitys total Ecological Footprint.
The savings that result from the recycling process can be allocated to the person who recycles a
material and/or the person who buys recycled material in a number of different ways:
100% to the person who buys the recycled paper (the wood fiber in a 100% recycled ream of
paper could have no forest Footprint, since the footprint of that wood fiber was already
allocated to the person who bought the virgin paper),
100% to the person who recycles the paper (a person purchasing 100% virgin paper who
recycled all of it would have no Footprint for the wood fiber in that paper, since all of it is
reused later, assuming that no fiber is lost in the recycling process), or
Split between the person who buys recycled paper and the person who recycles paper (the
savings can be split 50%/50%, or in any other allocation).
Different researchers use different allocation principles for the savings from recycling, and standards-
compliant Footprint studies will state their chosen allocation method explicitly. Regardless of
allocation method, however, the largest reductions in Ecological Footprint can most commonly be
achieved by reducing the total amount of materials consumed, rather than attempting to recycle them
afterwards.