The document discusses the ecological footprint (EF) and biocapacity (BC) concepts. The EF measures humanity's demand on nature in terms of the area required to support resource consumption and waste absorption. The BC measures the regenerative capacity available within an area. The difference between the two is an ecological deficit or reserve. While the EF/BC accounting tool is useful for raising awareness of sustainability issues, it has limitations including transparency issues and an inability to capture all environmental pressures and aspects of sustainable development. The document provides an overview of the concepts and applications, and analyses the strengths and shortcomings of the EF/BC approach.
The document provides information about ecological footprints and biocapacity. It discusses the history and key concepts, including that an ecological footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and sea area required to produce the resources a person, population or activity consumes and absorb the resulting waste. It also discusses how ecological footprints are calculated using factors like yield and equivalence to compare demand to the regenerative capacity of the biosphere. Diagrams and tables are included to help illustrate ecological footprint components and global footprint data.
The document discusses the concept of ecological footprint as a sustainability indicator. It defines ecological footprint as a measure of human demand on nature, and biocapacity as the capacity of ecosystems to provide resources and absorb waste. It notes that currently humanity uses 1.5 planets worth of resources annually. Ecological footprint accounting can track whether a population's demand exceeds the available biocapacity or results in an ecological deficit or overshoot. The indicator is useful for governments to assess resource use and guide more sustainable policies.
This document provides an overview of the ecological footprint, a tool created by William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel to measure human demand on the biosphere. The ecological footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and sea area required to support human consumption and waste absorption. It indicates that humanity is currently in global ecological overshoot, using more than what the Earth can regenerate. The document discusses the methodology, components, and implications of ecological footprint accounting.
This document compares the methodologies of ecological footprint (EF) and water footprint (WF) analyses. Both concepts measure human consumption of natural resources but EF measures consumption in terms of land area (hectares) while WF measures consumption in terms of water volume (cubic meters). Though they have different origins, EF and WF analyses employ similar methodological approaches, such as item-by-item and balance-based calculations. While food consumption significantly impacts both EF and WF, mobility primarily impacts EF. The document argues that EF and WF provide complementary perspectives for assessing sustainability and should both be considered.
TOO4TO Module 5 / Sustainable Resource Management: Part 1TOO4TO
This presentation is part of the Sustainable Management: Tools for Tomorrow (TOO4TO) learning materials. It covers the following topic: Sustainable Resource Management (Module 5). The material consists of 3 parts. This presentation covers Part 1.
You can find all TOO4TO Modules and their presentations here: https://too4to.eu/e-learning-course/
TOO4TO was a 35-month EU-funded Erasmus+ project, running until August 2023 in co-operation with European strategic partner institutions of the Gdańsk University of Technology (Poland), the Kaunas University of Technology (Lithuania), Turku University of Applied Sciences (Finland) and Global Impact Grid (Germany).
TOO4TO aims to increase the skills, competencies and awareness of future managers and employees with available tools and methods that can provide sustainable management and, as a result, support sustainable development in the EU and beyond.
Read more about the project here: https://too4to.eu/
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. Its whole content reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. PROJECT NUMBER 2020-1-PL01-KA203-082076
Ecological Footprint assessment helps to identify what activities are having the biggest impact on nature and opens up possibilities to reduce our impact and live within the means of One Planet. It provides measurement of collective consumption of the population whether they are exceeding the Earth’s ecological limits or not. It is compared with Biocapacity which measures the amount of available bioproductive resources in ecosystem. The introduction of Ecological Footprint has been very necessary for the context of Bangladesh especially in Dhaka as the endless demand and the unplanned consumption pattern of the population here have been producing a very unsustainable situation.
The EF compares human demand on nature with nature’s regenerative capacity.
It is a measure of the demands and the consumption of natural resources by people.
The sizes of ecological footprint vary from country to country and from person to person.
This document summarizes a study on ecological footprints. The ecological footprint measures the amount of productive land and water required to support a population's consumption and waste production. It accounts for resource and land use as well as carbon emissions. The study examines ecological footprints and bio-capacity in Nepal. A literature review and questionnaires were used to collect data on resource consumption. The results show that Nepal's ecological footprint exceeds its bio-capacity, indicating unsustainable resource use. Recommendations are made to reduce resource use and carbon emissions to bring footprints in line with available capacity.
The document provides information about ecological footprints and biocapacity. It discusses the history and key concepts, including that an ecological footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and sea area required to produce the resources a person, population or activity consumes and absorb the resulting waste. It also discusses how ecological footprints are calculated using factors like yield and equivalence to compare demand to the regenerative capacity of the biosphere. Diagrams and tables are included to help illustrate ecological footprint components and global footprint data.
The document discusses the concept of ecological footprint as a sustainability indicator. It defines ecological footprint as a measure of human demand on nature, and biocapacity as the capacity of ecosystems to provide resources and absorb waste. It notes that currently humanity uses 1.5 planets worth of resources annually. Ecological footprint accounting can track whether a population's demand exceeds the available biocapacity or results in an ecological deficit or overshoot. The indicator is useful for governments to assess resource use and guide more sustainable policies.
This document provides an overview of the ecological footprint, a tool created by William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel to measure human demand on the biosphere. The ecological footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and sea area required to support human consumption and waste absorption. It indicates that humanity is currently in global ecological overshoot, using more than what the Earth can regenerate. The document discusses the methodology, components, and implications of ecological footprint accounting.
This document compares the methodologies of ecological footprint (EF) and water footprint (WF) analyses. Both concepts measure human consumption of natural resources but EF measures consumption in terms of land area (hectares) while WF measures consumption in terms of water volume (cubic meters). Though they have different origins, EF and WF analyses employ similar methodological approaches, such as item-by-item and balance-based calculations. While food consumption significantly impacts both EF and WF, mobility primarily impacts EF. The document argues that EF and WF provide complementary perspectives for assessing sustainability and should both be considered.
TOO4TO Module 5 / Sustainable Resource Management: Part 1TOO4TO
This presentation is part of the Sustainable Management: Tools for Tomorrow (TOO4TO) learning materials. It covers the following topic: Sustainable Resource Management (Module 5). The material consists of 3 parts. This presentation covers Part 1.
You can find all TOO4TO Modules and their presentations here: https://too4to.eu/e-learning-course/
TOO4TO was a 35-month EU-funded Erasmus+ project, running until August 2023 in co-operation with European strategic partner institutions of the Gdańsk University of Technology (Poland), the Kaunas University of Technology (Lithuania), Turku University of Applied Sciences (Finland) and Global Impact Grid (Germany).
TOO4TO aims to increase the skills, competencies and awareness of future managers and employees with available tools and methods that can provide sustainable management and, as a result, support sustainable development in the EU and beyond.
Read more about the project here: https://too4to.eu/
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. Its whole content reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. PROJECT NUMBER 2020-1-PL01-KA203-082076
Ecological Footprint assessment helps to identify what activities are having the biggest impact on nature and opens up possibilities to reduce our impact and live within the means of One Planet. It provides measurement of collective consumption of the population whether they are exceeding the Earth’s ecological limits or not. It is compared with Biocapacity which measures the amount of available bioproductive resources in ecosystem. The introduction of Ecological Footprint has been very necessary for the context of Bangladesh especially in Dhaka as the endless demand and the unplanned consumption pattern of the population here have been producing a very unsustainable situation.
The EF compares human demand on nature with nature’s regenerative capacity.
It is a measure of the demands and the consumption of natural resources by people.
The sizes of ecological footprint vary from country to country and from person to person.
This document summarizes a study on ecological footprints. The ecological footprint measures the amount of productive land and water required to support a population's consumption and waste production. It accounts for resource and land use as well as carbon emissions. The study examines ecological footprints and bio-capacity in Nepal. A literature review and questionnaires were used to collect data on resource consumption. The results show that Nepal's ecological footprint exceeds its bio-capacity, indicating unsustainable resource use. Recommendations are made to reduce resource use and carbon emissions to bring footprints in line with available capacity.
- Human waste contains nutrients and energy value in the form of biogas and dried sludge that can be used as fertilizer and alternative energy sources.
- A framework called "Waste to Wealth" was developed to convert human waste into resources using anaerobic digestion, with a focus on rural areas in Uganda. This provides economic and environmental benefits.
- Calculations show the potential energy value from human waste globally each year based on production rates, conversion efficiencies, and comparison to market values of natural gas. There is significant potential value being wasted without proper waste treatment systems.
This document discusses the potential value of human waste as an energy resource. It estimates that if the waste of just those practicing open defecation was converted to biogas, it could be worth over $200 million annually and meet the electricity needs of almost 10 million households. Converting all global human waste could generate $1.6-$9.5 billion worth of biogas annually, offsetting the electricity use of 138 million households or providing the equivalent of 47.5 million kg of charcoal. However, challenges include overcoming cultural aversions and ensuring safety when deriving solid fuels from waste.
This document analyzes the correlation between agricultural production growth and land use changes worldwide from 1960-2010. It finds:
- In the US and EU, agricultural production doubled while forest and pasture land remained stable, due to increased yields on existing farmland.
- In Brazil and Indonesia, agricultural production increased 7-8 times; forest area declined 17-33% as agricultural area tripled through expanding into forests. Yields also rose substantially.
- Statistical analysis shows Brazil and Indonesia had strong correlations between agricultural production growth, increased farming area, and declining forests. The US and EU saw production rise due to higher yields rather than expanding farmland.
- Governance plays a key role. Strong
This document analyzes the correlation between agricultural production and deforestation worldwide from 1960 to 2010. It finds:
- In the US and EU, agricultural production doubled while forest area remained stable. Yields increased to meet demand.
- In Brazil and Indonesia, production increased 7-8 times; forest area declined 17-33%. Agricultural area tripled in Brazil and doubled in Indonesia to boost production alongside yield increases.
- Governance influenced these patterns. Strong governance in the US and EU supported yield growth without expansion. Weaker governance in Brazil and Indonesia allowed more agricultural expansion through deforestation.
Soil Fertility Management and eco-efficiency of small holder agricultural sys...CIAT
This document summarizes a presentation by Deborah Bossio on soil fertility management and eco-efficiency in smallholder agricultural systems. It discusses the global context of soils and land research, including issues of food security, water scarcity, planetary boundaries, and ecosystem services. It outlines Bossio's background working on soil fertility projects in various countries. It also discusses IWMI's work on productive water use and creating impact through strategic research partnerships.
Co managing ecosystem services of forest reserves in ghana-the case of the bo...Alexander Decker
1. The document discusses co-managing the ecosystem services of the Bobiri Forest Reserve (BFR) in Ghana through stakeholder collaboration.
2. The forest communities have traditional rights to collect some non-timber forest products for personal use, but need permits for commercial use. However, overexploitation has led to declines in ecosystem services.
3. Effective co-management requires stakeholders to negotiate management responsibilities to sustainably manage forest resources and ensure long-term provision of ecosystem services through knowledge sharing and coordination between fragmented stakeholders.
Design principles for intelligent research investmentriel-presents
A content-rich celebration of an important knowledge legacy
An opportunity to reflect, and to distil key lessons and insights:
- about important knowledge gaps that remain
- about how best to fill such knowledge gaps
A ‘message in a bottle’ for future research investment
An IChemE Green Paper - Getting to grips with the water-energy-food NexusAlexandra Howe
1) The document discusses how water, energy, and food resources are intrinsically linked as demand for each increases globally. By 2050, the world population is expected to reach over 9 billion people, placing further pressure on these limited and interconnected resources.
2) Chemical engineers can help address this challenge by applying systems thinking approaches like life cycle analysis to understand resource interdependencies and develop sustainable solutions across the water-energy-food nexus.
3) Several case studies are presented that highlight examples where considering interactions between resources (such as using less water in food production or improving energy efficiency in water desalination) can help improve sustainability.
The document discusses the role and work of the European Environment Agency (EEA). It summarizes that the EEA provides independent information to support environmental policy, analyzes trends, and builds networks between science and policy. It focuses on three main systemic challenges - financial/economic, energy/climate, and ecosystems/biodiversity. The EEA is working to advance ecosystem accounting and apply lessons from its reports on early warnings to address these interconnected long-term challenges.
1. Carrying capacity is defined as the maximum population size that an environment can sustainably support. For humans, carrying capacity is difficult to determine due to variable resource use, technology, trade, and environmental impacts.
2. Some argue technology can continually expand human carrying capacity. Others argue technology only increases efficiency, not long-term capacity, which may decline due to environmental degradation.
3. Ecological footprint measures the land area required to sustain a population's resource use and waste, providing an estimate of human carrying capacity. Most developed nations have footprints exceeding a sustainable global share per person.
Human well-being is highly dependent on ecosystems and the benefits they provide such as food and drinkable water. Over the past 50 years, however, humans have had a tremendous impact on their environment.
To better understand the consequences of current changes to ecosystems and to evaluate scenarios for the future, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has launched a comprehensive scientific study, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
What actions could be taken to limit harmful consequences of ecosystem degradation?
Kochi, the commercial capital of Kerala and the
second most important city next to Mumbai on the Western
coast of India, is a land having a wide variety of residential
environments. The present pattern of the city can be classified
as that of haphazard growth with typical problems
characteristics of unplanned urban development. This trend
can be ascribed to rapid population growth, our changing
lifestyles, food habits, and change in living standards,
institutional weaknesses, improper choice of technology and
public apathy. Ecological footprint analysis (EFA) is a
quantitative tool that represents the ecological load imposed
on the earth by humans in spatial terms. This paper analyses
the scope of EFA as a sustainable environmental management
tool for Kochi City.
Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem servicesMichael Newbold
This document discusses measuring the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. It presents a framework for interpreting indicators of ecosystem services at different scales, from the farm field level to global scales. The framework involves considering ecological indicators related to the composition, structure, and function of landscapes, ecosystems, and populations/species. Selecting good indicators requires they represent key features of the ecological system that are important for provision of ecosystem services. Both compositional and structural indicators are often easier to measure than functional indicators but can still provide insights into ecological functions.
Planetary boundaries are nine Earth system processes identified as being critical for human society and the planet. Three of the nine boundaries cited in the document are biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution. Biodiversity refers to genetic diversity within species, species diversity, and ecosystem diversity, and it underpins crucial ecosystem services that humans rely on. The current rate of species extinction is estimated to be hundreds to thousands of times higher than the natural background rate, constituting a sixth mass extinction. Five drivers of biodiversity loss are discussed: land-use change, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and invasive species. Business impacts and relies on biodiversity through its activities and value chains, so it must consider both mitigating
This document discusses the ecological footprints of the United Arab Emirates and Philippines. It begins with introducing ecological footprint as a measure of human demand on ecosystems compared to their regenerative capacity. The UAE has the world's highest per capita footprint of 10.68 global hectares due to its rapid development and reliance on imports. It launched an initiative to study and reduce its footprint. The Philippines' footprint exceeds its domestic biocapacity, increasing ecological deficit over time. Key drivers are examined for both countries' footprints.
NATURE VOL 387 15 MAY 1997 253articlesThe value of.docxhallettfaustina
NATURE | VOL 387 | 15 MAY 1997 253
articles
The value of the world’s ecosystem
services and natural capital
Robert Costanza*†, Ralph d’Arge‡, Rudolf de Groot§, Stephen Farberk, Monica Grasso†, Bruce Hannon¶,
Karin Limburg#✩, Shahid Naeem**, Robert V. O’Neill††, Jose Paruelo‡‡, Robert G. Raskin§§, Paul Suttonkk
& Marjan van den Belt¶¶
* Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Zoology Department, and † Insitute for Ecological Economics, University of Maryland, Box 38, Solomons,
Maryland 20688, USA
‡ Economics Department (emeritus), University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82070, USA
§ Center for Environment and Climate Studies, Wageningen Agricultural University, PO Box 9101, 6700 HB Wageninengen, The Netherlands
kGraduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA
¶ Geography Department and NCSA, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
# Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York, USA
** Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA
†† Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, USA
‡‡ Department of Ecology, Faculty of Agronomy, University of Buenos Aires, Av. San Martin 4453, 1417 Buenos Aires, Argentina
§§ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California 91109, USA
kkNational Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Department of Geography, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106,
USA
¶¶ Ecological Economics Research and Applications Inc., PO Box 1589, Solomons, Maryland 20688, USA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theservicesofecological systemsand thenatural capital stocksthatproduce themarecritical to the functioningof the
Earth’s life-support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent
part of the total economic value of the planet.Wehave estimated the current economic value of 17ecosystemservices
for 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calculations. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of
which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16–54 trillion (1012) per year, with an average of
US$33 trillionperyear.Becauseof thenatureof theuncertainties, thismustbeconsideredaminimumestimate.Global
gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per year.
Because ecosystem services are not fully ‘captured’ in commercial
markets or adequately quantified i.
The CoLaBATS demonstration plant is nearing completion, with the structural frame, solvent extraction baths, and DES syntheses almost finished. The final solvent extraction parameters are being optimized. The presence of DES and ILs chemicals required alternative sourced baths, tubing, and filter presses made from materials other than metal. 'Make-like-production' trials will begin shortly to test the process. An economic and environmental assessment will then evaluate the sustainable capabilities and benefits of the innovative recycling technique. The demonstrator plant will be housed at C-Tech Innovation in the UK, where a workshop will disseminate project outcomes to recycling stakeholders.
The document discusses the challenges at the water-energy-food nexus by 2030 if current trends continue. It notes projections that energy and water demand will increase by 40% and food demand by 50%, putting pressure on scarce land and water resources. Meeting these competing demands through single sector approaches is limiting sustainability. Integrated governance and public-private collaboration will be needed to promote resource efficiency and manage these interconnected systems. Science can contribute by better understanding feedbacks within the nexus and linking global changes to local conditions to inform effective policymaking across scales.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity and The Cost of Policy Inaction prentation by Patrick ten Brink of IEEP at the EEB biodiversity seminar 9 June 2008
Presented by The Global Peatlands Assessment: Mapping, Policy, and Action at GLF Peatlands 2024 - The Global Peatlands Assessment: Mapping, Policy, and Action
- Human waste contains nutrients and energy value in the form of biogas and dried sludge that can be used as fertilizer and alternative energy sources.
- A framework called "Waste to Wealth" was developed to convert human waste into resources using anaerobic digestion, with a focus on rural areas in Uganda. This provides economic and environmental benefits.
- Calculations show the potential energy value from human waste globally each year based on production rates, conversion efficiencies, and comparison to market values of natural gas. There is significant potential value being wasted without proper waste treatment systems.
This document discusses the potential value of human waste as an energy resource. It estimates that if the waste of just those practicing open defecation was converted to biogas, it could be worth over $200 million annually and meet the electricity needs of almost 10 million households. Converting all global human waste could generate $1.6-$9.5 billion worth of biogas annually, offsetting the electricity use of 138 million households or providing the equivalent of 47.5 million kg of charcoal. However, challenges include overcoming cultural aversions and ensuring safety when deriving solid fuels from waste.
This document analyzes the correlation between agricultural production growth and land use changes worldwide from 1960-2010. It finds:
- In the US and EU, agricultural production doubled while forest and pasture land remained stable, due to increased yields on existing farmland.
- In Brazil and Indonesia, agricultural production increased 7-8 times; forest area declined 17-33% as agricultural area tripled through expanding into forests. Yields also rose substantially.
- Statistical analysis shows Brazil and Indonesia had strong correlations between agricultural production growth, increased farming area, and declining forests. The US and EU saw production rise due to higher yields rather than expanding farmland.
- Governance plays a key role. Strong
This document analyzes the correlation between agricultural production and deforestation worldwide from 1960 to 2010. It finds:
- In the US and EU, agricultural production doubled while forest area remained stable. Yields increased to meet demand.
- In Brazil and Indonesia, production increased 7-8 times; forest area declined 17-33%. Agricultural area tripled in Brazil and doubled in Indonesia to boost production alongside yield increases.
- Governance influenced these patterns. Strong governance in the US and EU supported yield growth without expansion. Weaker governance in Brazil and Indonesia allowed more agricultural expansion through deforestation.
Soil Fertility Management and eco-efficiency of small holder agricultural sys...CIAT
This document summarizes a presentation by Deborah Bossio on soil fertility management and eco-efficiency in smallholder agricultural systems. It discusses the global context of soils and land research, including issues of food security, water scarcity, planetary boundaries, and ecosystem services. It outlines Bossio's background working on soil fertility projects in various countries. It also discusses IWMI's work on productive water use and creating impact through strategic research partnerships.
Co managing ecosystem services of forest reserves in ghana-the case of the bo...Alexander Decker
1. The document discusses co-managing the ecosystem services of the Bobiri Forest Reserve (BFR) in Ghana through stakeholder collaboration.
2. The forest communities have traditional rights to collect some non-timber forest products for personal use, but need permits for commercial use. However, overexploitation has led to declines in ecosystem services.
3. Effective co-management requires stakeholders to negotiate management responsibilities to sustainably manage forest resources and ensure long-term provision of ecosystem services through knowledge sharing and coordination between fragmented stakeholders.
Design principles for intelligent research investmentriel-presents
A content-rich celebration of an important knowledge legacy
An opportunity to reflect, and to distil key lessons and insights:
- about important knowledge gaps that remain
- about how best to fill such knowledge gaps
A ‘message in a bottle’ for future research investment
An IChemE Green Paper - Getting to grips with the water-energy-food NexusAlexandra Howe
1) The document discusses how water, energy, and food resources are intrinsically linked as demand for each increases globally. By 2050, the world population is expected to reach over 9 billion people, placing further pressure on these limited and interconnected resources.
2) Chemical engineers can help address this challenge by applying systems thinking approaches like life cycle analysis to understand resource interdependencies and develop sustainable solutions across the water-energy-food nexus.
3) Several case studies are presented that highlight examples where considering interactions between resources (such as using less water in food production or improving energy efficiency in water desalination) can help improve sustainability.
The document discusses the role and work of the European Environment Agency (EEA). It summarizes that the EEA provides independent information to support environmental policy, analyzes trends, and builds networks between science and policy. It focuses on three main systemic challenges - financial/economic, energy/climate, and ecosystems/biodiversity. The EEA is working to advance ecosystem accounting and apply lessons from its reports on early warnings to address these interconnected long-term challenges.
1. Carrying capacity is defined as the maximum population size that an environment can sustainably support. For humans, carrying capacity is difficult to determine due to variable resource use, technology, trade, and environmental impacts.
2. Some argue technology can continually expand human carrying capacity. Others argue technology only increases efficiency, not long-term capacity, which may decline due to environmental degradation.
3. Ecological footprint measures the land area required to sustain a population's resource use and waste, providing an estimate of human carrying capacity. Most developed nations have footprints exceeding a sustainable global share per person.
Human well-being is highly dependent on ecosystems and the benefits they provide such as food and drinkable water. Over the past 50 years, however, humans have had a tremendous impact on their environment.
To better understand the consequences of current changes to ecosystems and to evaluate scenarios for the future, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has launched a comprehensive scientific study, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
What actions could be taken to limit harmful consequences of ecosystem degradation?
Kochi, the commercial capital of Kerala and the
second most important city next to Mumbai on the Western
coast of India, is a land having a wide variety of residential
environments. The present pattern of the city can be classified
as that of haphazard growth with typical problems
characteristics of unplanned urban development. This trend
can be ascribed to rapid population growth, our changing
lifestyles, food habits, and change in living standards,
institutional weaknesses, improper choice of technology and
public apathy. Ecological footprint analysis (EFA) is a
quantitative tool that represents the ecological load imposed
on the earth by humans in spatial terms. This paper analyses
the scope of EFA as a sustainable environmental management
tool for Kochi City.
Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem servicesMichael Newbold
This document discusses measuring the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. It presents a framework for interpreting indicators of ecosystem services at different scales, from the farm field level to global scales. The framework involves considering ecological indicators related to the composition, structure, and function of landscapes, ecosystems, and populations/species. Selecting good indicators requires they represent key features of the ecological system that are important for provision of ecosystem services. Both compositional and structural indicators are often easier to measure than functional indicators but can still provide insights into ecological functions.
Planetary boundaries are nine Earth system processes identified as being critical for human society and the planet. Three of the nine boundaries cited in the document are biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution. Biodiversity refers to genetic diversity within species, species diversity, and ecosystem diversity, and it underpins crucial ecosystem services that humans rely on. The current rate of species extinction is estimated to be hundreds to thousands of times higher than the natural background rate, constituting a sixth mass extinction. Five drivers of biodiversity loss are discussed: land-use change, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and invasive species. Business impacts and relies on biodiversity through its activities and value chains, so it must consider both mitigating
This document discusses the ecological footprints of the United Arab Emirates and Philippines. It begins with introducing ecological footprint as a measure of human demand on ecosystems compared to their regenerative capacity. The UAE has the world's highest per capita footprint of 10.68 global hectares due to its rapid development and reliance on imports. It launched an initiative to study and reduce its footprint. The Philippines' footprint exceeds its domestic biocapacity, increasing ecological deficit over time. Key drivers are examined for both countries' footprints.
NATURE VOL 387 15 MAY 1997 253articlesThe value of.docxhallettfaustina
NATURE | VOL 387 | 15 MAY 1997 253
articles
The value of the world’s ecosystem
services and natural capital
Robert Costanza*†, Ralph d’Arge‡, Rudolf de Groot§, Stephen Farberk, Monica Grasso†, Bruce Hannon¶,
Karin Limburg#✩, Shahid Naeem**, Robert V. O’Neill††, Jose Paruelo‡‡, Robert G. Raskin§§, Paul Suttonkk
& Marjan van den Belt¶¶
* Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Zoology Department, and † Insitute for Ecological Economics, University of Maryland, Box 38, Solomons,
Maryland 20688, USA
‡ Economics Department (emeritus), University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82070, USA
§ Center for Environment and Climate Studies, Wageningen Agricultural University, PO Box 9101, 6700 HB Wageninengen, The Netherlands
kGraduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA
¶ Geography Department and NCSA, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
# Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York, USA
** Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA
†† Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, USA
‡‡ Department of Ecology, Faculty of Agronomy, University of Buenos Aires, Av. San Martin 4453, 1417 Buenos Aires, Argentina
§§ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California 91109, USA
kkNational Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Department of Geography, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106,
USA
¶¶ Ecological Economics Research and Applications Inc., PO Box 1589, Solomons, Maryland 20688, USA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theservicesofecological systemsand thenatural capital stocksthatproduce themarecritical to the functioningof the
Earth’s life-support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent
part of the total economic value of the planet.Wehave estimated the current economic value of 17ecosystemservices
for 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calculations. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of
which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16–54 trillion (1012) per year, with an average of
US$33 trillionperyear.Becauseof thenatureof theuncertainties, thismustbeconsideredaminimumestimate.Global
gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per year.
Because ecosystem services are not fully ‘captured’ in commercial
markets or adequately quantified i.
The CoLaBATS demonstration plant is nearing completion, with the structural frame, solvent extraction baths, and DES syntheses almost finished. The final solvent extraction parameters are being optimized. The presence of DES and ILs chemicals required alternative sourced baths, tubing, and filter presses made from materials other than metal. 'Make-like-production' trials will begin shortly to test the process. An economic and environmental assessment will then evaluate the sustainable capabilities and benefits of the innovative recycling technique. The demonstrator plant will be housed at C-Tech Innovation in the UK, where a workshop will disseminate project outcomes to recycling stakeholders.
The document discusses the challenges at the water-energy-food nexus by 2030 if current trends continue. It notes projections that energy and water demand will increase by 40% and food demand by 50%, putting pressure on scarce land and water resources. Meeting these competing demands through single sector approaches is limiting sustainability. Integrated governance and public-private collaboration will be needed to promote resource efficiency and manage these interconnected systems. Science can contribute by better understanding feedbacks within the nexus and linking global changes to local conditions to inform effective policymaking across scales.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity and The Cost of Policy Inaction prentation by Patrick ten Brink of IEEP at the EEB biodiversity seminar 9 June 2008
Presented by The Global Peatlands Assessment: Mapping, Policy, and Action at GLF Peatlands 2024 - The Global Peatlands Assessment: Mapping, Policy, and Action
Epcon is One of the World's leading Manufacturing Companies.EpconLP
Epcon is One of the World's leading Manufacturing Companies. With over 4000 installations worldwide, EPCON has been pioneering new techniques since 1977 that have become industry standards now. Founded in 1977, Epcon has grown from a one-man operation to a global leader in developing and manufacturing innovative air pollution control technology and industrial heating equipment.
Microbial characterisation and identification, and potability of River Kuywa ...Open Access Research Paper
Water contamination is one of the major causes of water borne diseases worldwide. In Kenya, approximately 43% of people lack access to potable water due to human contamination. River Kuywa water is currently experiencing contamination due to human activities. Its water is widely used for domestic, agricultural, industrial and recreational purposes. This study aimed at characterizing bacteria and fungi in river Kuywa water. Water samples were randomly collected from four sites of the river: site A (Matisi), site B (Ngwelo), site C (Nzoia water pump) and site D (Chalicha), during the dry season (January-March 2018) and wet season (April-July 2018) and were transported to Maseno University Microbiology and plant pathology laboratory for analysis. The characterization and identification of bacteria and fungi were carried out using standard microbiological techniques. Nine bacterial genera and three fungi were identified from Kuywa river water. Clostridium spp., Staphylococcus spp., Enterobacter spp., Streptococcus spp., E. coli, Klebsiella spp., Shigella spp., Proteus spp. and Salmonella spp. Fungi were Fusarium oxysporum, Aspergillus flavus complex and Penicillium species. Wet season recorded highest bacterial and fungal counts (6.61-7.66 and 3.83-6.75cfu/ml) respectively. The results indicated that the river Kuywa water is polluted and therefore unsafe for human consumption before treatment. It is therefore recommended that the communities to ensure that they boil water especially for drinking.
Kinetic studies on malachite green dye adsorption from aqueous solutions by A...Open Access Research Paper
Water polluted by dyestuffs compounds is a global threat to health and the environment; accordingly, we prepared a green novel sorbent chemical and Physical system from an algae, chitosan and chitosan nanoparticle and impregnated with algae with chitosan nanocomposite for the sorption of Malachite green dye from water. The algae with chitosan nanocomposite by a simple method and used as a recyclable and effective adsorbent for the removal of malachite green dye from aqueous solutions. Algae, chitosan, chitosan nanoparticle and algae with chitosan nanocomposite were characterized using different physicochemical methods. The functional groups and chemical compounds found in algae, chitosan, chitosan algae, chitosan nanoparticle, and chitosan nanoparticle with algae were identified using FTIR, SEM, and TGADTA/DTG techniques. The optimal adsorption conditions, different dosages, pH and Temperature the amount of algae with chitosan nanocomposite were determined. At optimized conditions and the batch equilibrium studies more than 99% of the dye was removed. The adsorption process data matched well kinetics showed that the reaction order for dye varied with pseudo-first order and pseudo-second order. Furthermore, the maximum adsorption capacity of the algae with chitosan nanocomposite toward malachite green dye reached as high as 15.5mg/g, respectively. Finally, multiple times reusing of algae with chitosan nanocomposite and removing dye from a real wastewater has made it a promising and attractive option for further practical applications.
Evolving Lifecycles with High Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) and 3-D...Joshua Orris
The incorporation of a 3DCSM and completion of HRSC provided a tool for enhanced, data-driven, decisions to support a change in remediation closure strategies. Currently, an approved pilot study has been obtained to shut-down the remediation systems (ISCO, P&T) and conduct a hydraulic study under non-pumping conditions. A separate micro-biological bench scale treatability study was competed that yielded positive results for an emerging innovative technology. As a result, a field pilot study has commenced with results expected in nine-twelve months. With the results of the hydraulic study, field pilot studies and an updated risk assessment leading site monitoring optimization cost lifecycle savings upwards of $15MM towards an alternatively evolved best available technology remediation closure strategy.
Optimizing Post Remediation Groundwater Performance with Enhanced Microbiolog...Joshua Orris
Results of geophysics and pneumatic injection pilot tests during 2003 – 2007 yielded significant positive results for injection delivery design and contaminant mass treatment, resulting in permanent shut-down of an existing groundwater Pump & Treat system.
Accessible source areas were subsequently removed (2011) by soil excavation and treated with the placement of Emulsified Vegetable Oil EVO and zero-valent iron ZVI to accelerate treatment of impacted groundwater in overburden and weathered fractured bedrock. Post pilot test and post remediation groundwater monitoring has included analyses of CVOCs, organic fatty acids, dissolved gases and QuantArray® -Chlor to quantify key microorganisms (e.g., Dehalococcoides, Dehalobacter, etc.) and functional genes (e.g., vinyl chloride reductase, methane monooxygenase, etc.) to assess potential for reductive dechlorination and aerobic cometabolism of CVOCs.
In 2022, the first commercial application of MetaArray™ was performed at the site. MetaArray™ utilizes statistical analysis, such as principal component analysis and multivariate analysis to provide evidence that reductive dechlorination is active or even that it is slowing. This creates actionable data allowing users to save money by making important site management decisions earlier.
The results of the MetaArray™ analysis’ support vector machine (SVM) identified groundwater monitoring wells with a 80% confidence that were characterized as either Limited for Reductive Decholorination or had a High Reductive Reduction Dechlorination potential. The results of MetaArray™ will be used to further optimize the site’s post remediation monitoring program for monitored natural attenuation.
Improving the viability of probiotics by encapsulation methods for developmen...Open Access Research Paper
The popularity of functional foods among scientists and common people has been increasing day by day. Awareness and modernization make the consumer think better regarding food and nutrition. Now a day’s individual knows very well about the relation between food consumption and disease prevalence. Humans have a diversity of microbes in the gut that together form the gut microflora. Probiotics are the health-promoting live microbial cells improve host health through gut and brain connection and fighting against harmful bacteria. Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus are the two bacterial genera which are considered to be probiotic. These good bacteria are facing challenges of viability. There are so many factors such as sensitivity to heat, pH, acidity, osmotic effect, mechanical shear, chemical components, freezing and storage time as well which affects the viability of probiotics in the dairy food matrix as well as in the gut. Multiple efforts have been done in the past and ongoing in present for these beneficial microbial population stability until their destination in the gut. One of a useful technique known as microencapsulation makes the probiotic effective in the diversified conditions and maintain these microbe’s community to the optimum level for achieving targeted benefits. Dairy products are found to be an ideal vehicle for probiotic incorporation. It has been seen that the encapsulated microbial cells show higher viability than the free cells in different processing and storage conditions as well as against bile salts in the gut. They make the food functional when incorporated, without affecting the product sensory characteristics.
RoHS stands for Restriction of Hazardous Substances, which is also known as t...vijaykumar292010
RoHS stands for Restriction of Hazardous Substances, which is also known as the Directive 2002/95/EC. It includes the restrictions for the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. RoHS is a WEEE (Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment).
RoHS stands for Restriction of Hazardous Substances, which is also known as t...
ecological footprint1.pdf
1. Ecological Footprint
and Biocapacity
The world’s ability to regenerate resources
and absorb waste in a limited time period
2
0
0
6
E
D
I
T
I
O
N
E U R O P E A N
C O M M I S S I O N
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
P
A
P
E
R
S
A
N
D
S
T
U
D
I
E
S
THEME
Environment
and energy
3. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................5
2 FUNDAMENTALS OF ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT................................................5
2.1ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT....................................................................................6
2.2BIOCAPACITY............................................................................................................6
2.3THE EF/BC ACCOUNTING......................................................................................7
3 APPLICATIONS...............................................................................................................7
4 MERITS AND SHORTCOMINGS.................................................................................8
5 AVAILABLE TOOLS AT EUROSTAT............................................................................9
........
SUMMARY......................................................................................................................10
...........
References........................................................................................................................11
4. Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity
The world’s ability to regenerate resources and absorb waste in a limited time period
ABSTRACT
The Ecological Footprint (EF) is one part of a renewable resource accounting tool that is used to
address the underlying issue of sustainable consumption. It measures the extent to which humanity
is using nature’s resources faster than they can regenerate.The components (variables) of sustainable
consumption are aggregated using weighting factors based on the Earth’s regenerative capacities for
the considered resources. EF is usually presented together with biocapacity (BC), which measures
the bioproductive supply. The mathematical difference between EF and BC is called either reserve
or deficit (or overshoot for the globe).
The EF/BC concept is a good tool for awareness rising; EF/BC accounts link ecosystems and
their (over-) use. For discussions among policy makers’ current applications are too diverse and
highly in-transparent. External reviewers should be part of the applied quality management using
independent data sources for comparison. Not for all environmental problems the Earth has a
significant ability for regeneration in a limited time period and the EF/BC transformation of these
environmental pressures into an area of regeneration is questionable. A brief review of the strengths
and shortcomings of the EF/BC accounting is provided. Additionally, some other tools measuring
sustainable development are presented.
Key words and concepts: Ecological footprint, biocapacity, EF/BC accounting.
5. 1 INTRODUCTION
Nature can restore renewable resources only at a certain rate. However, humans consistently and
increasingly consume renewable resources at a faster rate than ecosystems can restore them. The
decisive factor is not just what we use and how much we use, but how fast we use a specific resource.
The idea of using area units as a measure of life-supporting natural capital is based on the fact that
many basic ecosystem services are driven by surfaces at which the process of photosynthesis takes
place. Nowadays the broader regenerative process is included in the definitions of the ecological
footprint and the available biocapacity.
The ecological footprint (EF) measures how much bioproductive area (whether land or water) a
population would require to produce on a sustainable basis the renewable resources it consumes,
and to absorb the waste it generates, using prevailing technology. Biocapacity (BC) measures the
bioproductive supply that is available within a certain area (e.g. of arable land, pasture, forest,
productive sea). EF and BC are tantamount to the concepts demand and supply in Economics.
When used together, they form the EF/BC accounts. “EF/BC accounting” is frequently referred to
only as “EF accounting”. However, we think the use of “EF/BC accounting” is more appropriate as
it considers the fact that the accounting tool compares demand and supply - and not just demand
(as suggested by the term “EF accounting”).
When the EF is larger than the BC the renewable resource accounting results in a deficit.A national ecological
deficit can be compensated through trade with nations that process ecological reserves or through liquidation of
national ecological assets. In contrast, the global ecological deficit cannot be compensated through trade, and
is therefore equal to overshoot. A country with ecological reserves can still experience a local deficit (Global
Footprint Network 2006).Vice versa, if the EF is smaller than the BC, one speaks of an ecological reserve.The
EF decreases with smaller population size for a given area, less consumption per person, and higher resource
efficiency (prevailing technology).
The EF concept was conceived in the early 1990’s and has been developed. The concept has generated
considerable research efforts and has increasingly attracted the attention of policy makers. Being a recent and
relatively “young” accounting tool and research topic, attention has to be paid to the scope of application and the
question of interpretation Its intuitive appeal should not override its need for objective validation techniques
and the consciousness of its limitations.
In this article, we present a critical appraisal of the EF concept and EF/BC accounting tool. In
the next two sections, we outline the basic concepts of the EF/BC approach and explain how the
approach relates and applies to specific human activities for illustrating consumption patterns;
examples of applications are provided. In section 4, we analyze its strengths and weaknesses and
at the same time make recommendations for improving the method. In section 5, we consider
alternative established indicator tools that exist and that are used in the field of environmental
accounting at Eurostat. The paper closes with a summary of the main findings and suggestions for
further developments.
2 FUNDAMENTALS OF ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
TheEF/BCaccountingaddressesanecessarybutnotsufficientconditionforsustainableconsumption:
“Is human demand within the regenerative capacity of the planet?” The accounts are divided into
two parts: demand on nature (or Ecological Footprint, EF) and the ecological supply (or biocapacity,
BC). It is a ‘snapshot’ estimate for a selected time period, which is normally one year. The resource
use (built-up areas, the consumption of energy and renewable resources) is expressed in units of
space. On the supply side, BC aggregates the production of various ecosystems in a certain area
(e.g. of arable land, pasture, forest, or productive sea). Weighting factors harmonize heterogeneous
6. contributions and transform different units (tonnes (t) or hectares (ha)) into a standardized unit
(global hectares, gha). Each global hectare represents an equal amount of biological productivity.
In this section, we first present the basic concepts of EF and BC and then the EF/BC accounting
tool, which constitutes a more comprehensive approach to the EF analysis. The definitions are
based on the nomenclature described in Wackernagel et al. (2005).
2.1 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
The Ecological Footprint (EF) is a method to answer the following research question: “How much
of the regenerative capacity of the biosphere is occupied by human activities?” EF expresses
the consumption of renewable resources (crops, animal products, timber, and fish), the result of
the consumption of energy and the use of built-up areas in standardized units of biologically
productive area (in gha). It is a measure of how much biologically productive land and sea an
individual, population or activity requires to produce the renewable resources it consumes and to
absorb the waste.
The global yield factor by type of consumption (e.g. crops, pasture, fisheries, timber) translates a product (or
waste) into an area (local hectares) required to produce the product (or to absorb the waste). It describes the
resourceproductivityfortheselectedtimeperiod(e.g.oneyear),theselectedproduct(e.g.crops,animalproduct
with pasture fed, fish) and the connected land type (e.g. cropland, pasture, fisheries area).
The equivalence factor (in gha/ha) translates a specific land type (such as crop-land or forestland) into a global
hectare. This equivalence factor represents the world’s average potential productivity of a given bioproductive
area relative to the world average potential productivity of all bioproductive areas. For example, because the
average productivity of cropland is higher than the average productivity of all other land types, it needs to be
converted using its corresponding equivalence factor in order to be expressed in global hectares. Equivalence
factors are the same for all countries, but vary from year to year due to changes in the relative productivity
of ecosystem or land-use types because of environmental factors (such as weather patterns). The equivalence
factors are derived from the suitability index of GlobalAgro-Ecological Zones (GAEZ) 2000, which is a spatial
model of potential agricultural yields.
EF measures the demand on nature that results from specific human activities. Normally, it is the
action of an entity (person, city, country) that creates the demand on bioproductive space. The
question arises whether the full impact of the resource use, e.g. for an airport, is included (the
geographical principle) or only the part of the impact that is attributable to the population within
the region (the responsibility principle). This has to be specified.
2.2 BIOCAPACITY
The biocapacity (BC) is a method to answer the question: “How many of the renewable resources
have been made available by the biosphere’s regenerative capacity (are produced by the various
ecosystems)?” BC represents the bulk of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity. It is an aggregate of
the production of various ecosystems in a certain area (e.g. of arable land, pasture, forest, productive
sea). Some of it may also consist of built up or degraded land. The earth’s BC increases with a larger
biologically productive area and with a higher productivity per unit area (WWF 2005).
In 2004, the Earth had 11.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land and sea.This corresponds
to approximately one quarter of the planet’s surface (2.3 billion hectares of ocean and inland water,
The EF of fossil fuel is calculated by estimating the biological productive area needed to sequester carbon dioxide; the recovery of coal, oil or gas is
not included. See also section 4, point 3.
7. 1.5 billion hectares of cropland, 3.5 billion hectares of grazing land, 3.8 billion hectares of forest
land and 0.2 billion hectares of built-up land; UN Food and Agriculture Organization). A global
hectare (gha) is a unit of land containing the earth’s average productivity. It is a universal unit of
biologically productive area including the absorptive capacity for waste
.
Biocapacity is dependent not only on natural conditions but also on prevailing land use practices
(e.g. farming, forestry). The country-specific yield factor describes the discrepancies between
countries in productivity of a land type and technological advancements. Each country and each
year has its own set of yield factors. For example, in 2002, German cropland was 2.5 times more
productive than world average cropland. The German cropland yield factor of 2.5 is used to convert
German cropland into world cropland.
Again, the equivalence factor (in gha/ha) translates a hectare of a specific land type (such as
cropland, pasture, forestland, marine water, or built-up areas) into a global hectare. It is the same
for all countries but vary from year to year (see 2.1).
2.3 THE EF/BC ACCOUNTING
The EF/BC accounts are formed by combining the EF and the BC, thereby turning the approach into a more
completeaccountingtoolfornaturalresources.ThealgebraicdifferencebetweenBCandEFiscalled“Ecological
Deficit” if it is negative or “Ecological Reserve” if it is positive.
EF/BC accounts make use of extensive data sets largely from national and international statistical
and scientific bodies like UN agencies or countries’ annual statistics in areas like agriculture,
forestry and energy. Domestic production and trade are taken into consideration for consumption
(or final demand) calculation. Data gaps are filled in with the help of a variety of governmental,
academic or private sources. The margin of error of EF/BC accounts based on shortcomings of the
data sources is hard to quantify.
The EF project community has grown, forming the Global Footprint Network (GFN). The intention of the
GFN is to establish the EF accounts as a default indicator for sustainability and to present it as an organizing
frameworkfordiscussionamongpolicymakers(CharterforGFNCommitteesfrom28March2005).Therefore,
the scientific credibility and accuracy of the EF/BC accounts is of great importance. We will come to this point
in section 4. In general, the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the EU Sustainable
Development Strategy makes reference to a four-pillar definition or approach: the economical,
social, environmental and institutional pillar. It is clear that the EF/BC approach does not, and cannot,
cover all of these four key aspects of sustainable development. Moreover, even the environmental
dimension cannot be completely covered by the approach, as we will see below.
3 APPLICATIONS
The applications of the EF range from the study of resource demand at global, national and much
smaller level (i.e. regional, city, household, or type of product). Recent examples of EF studies
that have been carried out at international level are the WWF “Living Planet Report 2004” (WWF,
2004) and the “Europe 2005 The Ecological Footprint” report (WWF 2005). The methodological
notes to calculate the EF/BC accounts are reported in Wackernagel et al (2005). In a recent study
(EEA 2005b) the Earth’s biologically productive area was approximately 11.2 billion hectares or
1.8 global hectares per person in 2002 (assuming that no capacity is set aside for wild species).
In 2002, humanity’s demand on the biosphere, its global Ecological Footprint, was 13.7 billion
Only waste where nature has a significant absorptive capacity in the selected time period (e.g. one year) can be covered by the concept. See section
4, point 3.
8. global hectares, or 2.2 global hectares per person. Thus in 2002, humanity’s Ecological Footprint
exceeded global biocapacity by 0.4 global hectares per person, or 23 percent. This finding indicates
that the human economy is in an ecological overshoot: the planet’s ecological stocks are being
depleted faster than nature can regenerate them. This means that we are eroding the future supply
of ecological resources and operating at the risk of environmental collapse.
Examples of national and regional EF studies are: “An Ecological Footprint of the UK. Providing
a Tool to Measure the Sustainability of Local Authorities” (Barrett and Simmons 2003), “The
Ecological Footprint of Greater Nottingham and Nottinghamshire” (Birch et al. 2005), and “An
ecological footprint analysis of Essex - East England” (Vergoulas and Simmons 2004).
For the moment, the two main uses of the EF/BC concept are for communication and education
purposes. The EF/BC accounting is a pedagogical presentation of a complex model that aims to
answer the question of the sustainable consumption of the earth’s renewable resources. It shows
whether the current consumption is respecting the limits of what the earth can sustain. This is
because EFs can be presented in a very “visual” and “accessible” manner. To be used for policy-
makers an appropriate quality management needs to be applied for EF/BC accounts as it is done
for Economic Accounting or for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
greenhouse gas inventories.
4 MERITS AND SHORTCOMINGS
In this section, we will focus first on the strengths of the EF/BC accounts and afterwards we will
analyze some of its weaknesses. Our objective is to clarify merits and shortcomings of the EF/BC
accounts.
As already referred to in section 3, EF concept is quite attractive and intuitive. This is probably
its main strength. In the last decades, humanity has been wakening to the ecological problem of
sustainable development. EF is probably a result of this self-consciousness and at the same time it
became an engine to operate it. Its attempt to quantify the ecological consumption and supply, the
simplicity of a single calculated figure gives it the status of an objective tool for measurement of
phenomena that are difficult to quantify. EF’s potential for pedagogical purposes and dissemination
is without any competitor.
However, we also think the tool suffers from important shortcomings that we enumerate in what
follows. The weaknesses are perceived as points where the methodology needs improvements.
1. Non-robust policy message: The use of other data sources, modifications in the choice of input
variables, and/or in the weighting system can change the message significantly.
2. Heterogeneous ingredients: The EF/BC accounts aggregate a variety of sub-components
(consumption of food, fiber, timber, energy and prevailing land use) according to their estimated
demand on biocapacity. The fact that a single figure is obtained does not guarantee that its
interpretation is straightforward.
3.Limitationofscope:TheEF/BCconceptcannotrepresentthefullrangeofenvironmentalproblems:
resources without a significant regenerative capacity do not fit in the concept of biologically
productive area. For example, the biocapacity needed to sequester CO2
emissions is covered but not
the regeneration of the “burnt” fuel stocks. Moreover, nature has no significant absorptive capacity
for several important environmental problems: pollution by heavy metals, radioactive materials or
persistent synthetic compounds. That means that substances without a significant absorption or
regenerative capacity cannot be covered by the EF/BC accounts.
9. 4. Sensitivity to problems of data quality: High quality is needed for all input variables. The analysis
relies on having access to a reliable environmental database. Available statistics contain missing
values, which call for some kind of imputation technique to estimate them. Often data gaps are
filled under the use of a variety of different sources with different quality standards. The margin of
error of EF/BC accounts based on shortcomings of the data sources is hard to quantify.
5. In-transparency of the assumptions and selections: The construction of the composite indicator
involves a number of stages at which the analyst has to make judgments. For example, the selection
of input variable (consumption of resources and generation of waste), the choice of weighting
factors and the treatment of missing values (imputation technique) requires a number of decisions
which are not transparent due to lacking detailed documentation although there is the possibility to
get a academic edition by signing a license.
6. Scientific basis of the weighting factors: EF/BC accounting includes a huge set of variables (or
resource categories) for which weighting factors have to be applied. The estimation procedures
for these factors are not adequately documented to allow independent reviews to be carried out.
It is unclear what kind of environmental pressure is included in the transfer coefficients and how
this is scientifically justified. In the WWF (2005) study, a unit of nuclear energy is considered as
equal to one unit of fossil energy. This politically-wanted transfer coefficient does not reflect the
environmental pressure from nuclear power activities.
A guidebook with clear standards could help to solve some of the problems, e.g. the “lack of
international standards and lack of transparency”. At the moment the selection of variables, the
origin of the data and the weighting factors that are used can be perceived as being of an arbitrary
nature and based on in-transparent assumptions. Moreover, a guidebook should give clear guidelines
to the issues of “validation techniques” and “quality assessment”. The Global Footprint Network is
preparing a first draft of a Standardization Guide. However, not all weaknesses are addresses for the
time being and it is still not clear if the standards therein are widely accepted.
EF/BC accounts could take as a role model the independent reviews performed for the UNFCCC
greenhouse gas inventories, which have proven to be very important for the high quality of these
inventories. It should be possible to carry out a quality assessment including the comparison with
alternative techniques.
For further reading: Barett et al. (2004), Nijkamp et al. (2004), DG Research (2001), and two
studies from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK (2005).
5 AVAILABLE TOOLS AT EUROSTAT
In this section, we make reference to other statistical tools for monitoring sustainable development
at Eurostat: Structural Indicators (SI), Sustainable Development Indicators (SDI), and NAMEA
(National Accounting Matrix including Environmental Accounts). These frameworks are more
transparent and they make it possible to identify areas where efforts have to be done. Moreover, the
results of EU policy on both, renewable and non-renewable resources, and moreover on sustainable
production and consumption patterns, can be monitored in detail using these techniques.
SI and SDI are used to monitor the Lisbon Strategy and Sustainable development Strategy,
respectively. These two sets of indicators include a breakdown by policy issues (environmental,
social and economic aspects). Some of these aspects are also touched by the EF/BC accounting (e.g.
distribution and availability of renewable resources) but some others not (non-renewable resources,
biodiversity, pesticides).
10. 10
Environmental Accounts is a satellite system to the National Accounts and therefore fully
comparable with the well established economic system. NAMEA, National Accounting Matrix
including Environmental Accounts, is a conceptual tool that organizes and holds information on
the economy and the environmental pressure expressed in monetary and physical units. In the
environmental accounting the view of land as providing economic benefits is only part of the
picture. In the System of Environmental and Economic Accounts (SEEA) the Land and Ecosystem
Accounts (LEAC) consists of statistics on land cover, land use and changes in stock. Especially in
the land cover-oriented accounts the basic accounts are extended by describing in more detail the
potentials of land and the aspects of biodiversity. The potential of land relates to the richness of
natural habitats in terms of extent of biodiversity, their vulnerability, to the characteristics of the
soil, and to the social and economic activities, which it supports (SEEA 2003). At the moment the
EEA has a LEAC database, based on Corine land cover data (EEA 2005a).
Eurostat has previously not been involved with EF/BC accounting. Despite this fact, Eurostat is
open to supply any available data that are necessary for the production of EF/BC accounts. The
role of Eurostat is to provide good and sound statistics that can be used to follow-up policies.
With the establishment of the three data centers on Integrated Product Policy (IPP), Waste and
Natural Resources at Eurostat a further way of co-operating could be envisaged. The IPP policy
seeks to minimize the impact of products on the environment, from their manufacturing, use and
disposal, and to take action where it is most effective. The Natural Resources Strategy goes the
same way, and asks for the environment impact of the use of Natural Resources. This is where the
EF/BC accounts may be helpful for crosschecks, data exchange and estimation aid in the detailed
information available within the EF/BC account.
SUMMARY
The Ecological Footprint (EF) measures the extent to which humanity is using nature’s resources
faster than they can regenerate. EFs are usually presented together with biocapacities (BCs), which
measure the bioproductive supply. If an EF is larger than the available BC for a selected time period
the EF/BC resource accounting results in a deficit or overshoot. A deficit occurs in case of human
resource extraction and waste generation exceed an ecosystem’s ability to regenerate the extracted
resources and to absorb the generated waste. A global overshoot (at the planet level) leads to a
depletion of the earth’s life supporting natural capital and a build-up of waste.
In this paper, we reviewed the EF/BC accounting tool. The strength of the EF/BC accounts is
also its weakness: it is a complex, multi-dimensional composite indicator. It summarises some
of the problems of the sustainable consumption using several technical decisions (e.g. selections
of input variable, weighting factors, and data sources), which are not transparent or comparable
with other information due to the lack of agreed standards. Additionally, its scope is limited to
renewable resources, i.e. resources that can regenerate in a limited time period can be covered
by knowledge-based weighting factors. A number of important environmental issues cannot be
included appropriately because nature has no significant regenerative or absorptive capacity.
The problem of standardization and transparency can be solved by a guidebook. As yet, there is only
a first draft of a guidebook available to set standards for the variables included in the accounting
or the weighting factors based on the concept of regenerative capacities. Additionally, to improve
the transparency of the methodology all used data sources and the date of extraction have to be
specified. Moreover, the handling of missing values and estimation procedures has to be specified.
A high transparency of all procedures and clear standards for the quality assessment, together
with independent reviews, are essential to give the EF/BC accounting the status of a science-based
tool.
11. 11
Eurostat is open for future co-operation and will be available for any further questions concerning
statistical expertise or data deliveries.
Acknowledgements: Mathis Wackernagel, Environment Statistics Unit at Eurostat and the
Director’s Meeting on Environment Statistics and Accounts, the Working Group on Environmental
Accounts and DG Environment for interesting discussions and fruitful dialogue.
References:
Barrett, J. and C. Simmons, 2003: “An Ecological Footprint of the UK: Providing a Tool to Measure the Sustainability of Local
Authorities”. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Stockholm, Sweden
Barrett,J., R. Birch, N. Cherrett, and C. Simmons, 2004: “An Analysis of the Policy and Educational Applications of the Ecological
Footprint”, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Stockholm, Sweden
Birch, R., T.Wiedmann, and J. Barrett, 2005. “The Ecological Footprint of Greater Nottingham and Nottinghamshire – Results and
Scenarios”. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), University of York, York, United Kingdom
CPS, 2003. “2003/51/7: Report on the work of the Task Force on the development of a European Strategy for the development of
Environmental Accounting”.
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2005. “An international peer review of a DEFRA funded report sustainable
consumption and production – development of an evidence base study of ecological footprinting”
DG Research, 2001: “ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTING - Final Study Working document for the STOA Panel”. STOA Scientific and
Technological Options Assessment, Luxemburg.
EEA, 2005a: The Ecological Footprint: A resource accounting framework for measuring human demand on the biosphere
EEA, 2005b: Land and Ecosystem Accounts (LEAC)
Global Footprint Network, 2006: Ecological Footprint Standards 1.0
Nijkamp, P., E. Rossi and G. Vindigni, 2004: Ecological Footprints in Plural: A meta-analytic comparison of empirical results.
Regional Studies, Vol 38.7, 747-765. DOI: 10.1080/00343400500128390
Perman R.,Y. MA, J. McGilvray, and M. Common, 1999. “Natural Resource and Environmental Economics”. Pearson Education
Limited, Essex, England
Risks Policy Analysts Limited for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2005. “Sustainable Consumption
and Production - Development of an Evidence Base: Study of Ecological Footprinting”
SEEA, 2003: Handbook of National Accounting “Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting”. System of integrated
Environmental and EconomicAccounts (SEEA). United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank. p.372-389.
Swedish environmental protection agency, 2002: Kunskap om produkters miljöpåverkan - vad ger dagens statistik? Finnveden,
Looström Urban, Moberg, Palm, Wadeskog. Naturvårdsverket 2002 (Knowledge about the en-vironmental impact of products - what
can the statistics of to-day produce?
UN Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO),2004 .“GlobalAgro-Ecological Zones (GAEZ) 2000”.
UN Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO),2004/2005.“Agricultural Data (FAOSTAT)”.
Vergoulas, G. and C. Simmons, 2004. “An ecological footprint analysis of Essex - East England”. Best Foot Forward Ltd.,
Commissioned by Essex County Council.
Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Callejas Linares,A., López Falfán, I.S., Méndez García, J., Suárez Guerrero,A.I., Guadalupe Suárez
Guerrero, Ma., 1997. “Ecological Footprints of Nations”. Centro de Estudios para la Sustentabilidad, Universidad Anahuac de
Xalapa, Xalapa, Mexico
Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Moran, D.,Wermer, P., Goldfinger, S., Deumling, D., Murray, M., 2005. “National Footprint and
Biocapacity Accounts 2005: The underlying calculation method”. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, California, USA
WWF, 2004. “Living Planet Report 2004”. World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), Gland, Switzerland
WWF, 2005. “Europe 2005 The Ecological Footprint”. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) European Policy Office, Brussels,
Belgium.