The document discusses using ecological footprints to measure sustainability. It examines how ecological footprints can account for aspects of sustainability like resource and emission usage. The study aims to understand which sustainability aspects are covered by existing footprint measures and which could be further accounted for. A survey was conducted in Gujrat, Pakistan that examined demographic data and responses related to environmental, individual, economic and social behavior concerning sustainability. The results showed high individual behavior toward sustainability but potential economic impacts. The document concludes that ecological footprints can help assess sustainability if individuals and societies apply pressure on governments.

1. Ecological Foot Prints and Human
Development Tool to Assess the
Sustainability

2. Zainab Arshad
Department of Environmental Sciences
University of Gujrat

3. Contents
Introduction
Objectives
 Methodology
Results & discussion
Conclusion
References

4. Introduction
The Ecological Footprint is a resource and emission accounting tool designed to
track human demand on the biosphere’s regenerative capacity.
Ecological footprint is an effective tool for measuring human demand and
consumption of natural resources .
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values are used to measure one key aspect of
sustainability: the human appropriation of the Earth’s regenerative capacity.
The Ecological Footprint (EF) is a method for estimating the biologically productive
area necessary to support current consumption patterns, given prevailing technical
and economic processes.

5. Objectives
Objective of my study is to examine:
Which aspects of sustainability are already covered
by existing EF assessments;
Which further aspects of sustainability could be
made accountable through the EF (such as areas
needed to assimilate waste streams that are not yet
accounted for in present assessments).
Those aspects of sustainability that cannot be
accountable through the EF, thereby needing
complimentary auditing tools.

6. Methodology:
The study was a questionnaire survey. I use descriptive sampling. Sample size for
this study is 200.
The samples were selected from public to get information on Ecological Foot Prints
and Human Development Tool to Assess the Sustainability & their behavior toward
sustainability.
Gujrat city is my study area for research.
A questionnaire was developed based on the variables related to behavior toward
environmental sustainability, behavior toward economic sustainability, behavior
toward social sustainability, individual behavior toward sustainability. The data were
analyzed using MS excel 2013.
The averages & results of each indicator are then represented on a graph.

7. Theoretical framework of study
Topic
selection
Problem
statement
Literature
review
objectives
methodology
Analysis
Results &
discussion
Conclusions
References

8. Results & discussion
Questioner
divided into
Demographic
information of
participant
Response toward
sustainability

9. Demographic
information
In demographic information, we
get information on Age (year),
Marital status, Schooling,
Employment Situation.
Age group 11-30 (85%),
unmarried(55%), undergraduate
degree (75%), student (60%) are
participants in our questioner
research.

10. Employment situation of participants
10%
1%
60%
0.50%
5%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Employment
Situation
Unemployed Unpaid family worker Student Retired Self-Employed Employed

11. Education history of participants
1%
4%
6.50%
10%
75%
3%
0.50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Education History
Primary school (years 1-4) Preparatory school (years 5-6) Secondary school (years 7-9) Post-secondary (years 10-12) Undergraduate degree Master degree PhD

12. Marital status of participants
45%
55%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Marital status
married unmarried

13. Age of participants
0
85%
11.50%
8.50%
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
age
>10 11--30 31-45 45<

14. Response to sustainability
 For find the response on sustainability i took four variables Environmental Behavior (EB),
Individual Behavior (IB), Economic Behavior (EcB), Social Behavior (SB).
 In Environmental Behavior (EB) I asked questions related to environment & average of
this variable is 0.88.
 In individual Behavior (IB), I asked about individual/personal behavior toward sustainability,
recycling, recovery, reuse, waste production etc. & average of this variable is 0.7.
 In Economic Behavior (ecb) I asked question about reliability on government policies, economic
growth, public thoughts about government policies, programs. & average of this variable is 0.72.
 In Social Behavior (SB) I asked question about norms, behavior & role playing by society in
sustainability & collectively their ecological footprints. Average of this variable is about 0.77.

15. Variables & their coding
Environmental Behavior EB
Individual Behavior IB
Economic Behavior EcB
Social Behavior SB

16. 0.7
0.88
0.72
0.77
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
IB EB EcB SB
Response to Sustainability

17. Conclusion
The ecological footprints version is very famous with clinical journals,
environmental businesses, and the media.
Its recognition isn't only due to the context however also that ecological footprints
accounting is one of the hottest debate topics in scientific journals today.
Measurement of ecological foot prints can help us to asses’ sustainability. It also can
be used as a good tool for assessment of sustainability.
Research shows that people individual behavior is high to obtain sustainability, this
will less their effect on environment but can cause a great change on economy.
Individuals & society should take step for assessment of sustainability and also
force the government on it.

18. References
Azar, C., Holmberg, J., & Lindgren, K. (1996). Socio-ecological indicators for
sustainability. Ecological economics, 18(2), 89-112.
Blomqvist, L., Brook, B. W., Ellis, E. C., Kareiva, P. M., Nordhaus, T., &
Shellenberger, M. (2013). Does the shoe fit? Real versus imagined ecological
footprints. Plos biology, 11(11), e1001700.
Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A., & Wackernagel, M.
(2010). Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. Global Footprint Network, Oakland.
Galli, A., Halle, M., & Grunewald, N. (2015). Physical limits to resource access and
utilisation and their economic implications in Mediterranean economies.
Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 125-136.