Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Ecological footprint analysis, as defined and developed by Mathis Wackernagel
and William Rees (1996), refers to the total area of productive land and water
required continuously to produce all the resources consumed by a region (or city)
and
to assimilate all the wastes produced by a particular population, wherever on
Earth that land is located. The ecological footprint is therefore a land-based substitute
measure of the population's demands on natural capital. It assumes that it is poss-
ible to accurately measure a given population's resource consumption and waste
production, and that these flows can be converted to a biotically productive area.
It should not be confused with the related concept of 'environmental space', designed
by the pressure group Friends of the Earth in the 1990s (McLaren
et al
., 1998).
Environmental space methodology identifies the ecological capacity of a particular
resource used by people and sets a target of what consumption of it ought to be if
everyone has a fair share (of, say, CO
2
) - that is to say, a share that allows everyone
to live within the Earth's carrying capacity. Environmental space sets normative
sustainability targets and, through setting such targets, the methodology articulates
a philosophy of environmental justice as well as providing a useful policy tool for
governmental and corporate decision-makers. However, space targets do not always
readily appeal to individuals or adequately express how different resource uses and
material substitutions interact with one another. Environmental footprint analysis,
on the other hand, although it too has certain disadvantages, is arguably easier to
understand and communicate to a broad non-specialist public. The major strength
of the footprinting approach is its conceptual simplicity - it is accessible, intuitive
and easily communicable in graphic forms, making the idea of ecological restraint
more meaningful or acceptable to those reluctant to embrace pro-sustainability behav-
iour change. The footprint aggregates ecological flows associated with consumption
and production, translating them into an appropriate land area serving as the key
indicator and ready comparator between demand for ecological space and its finite
supply.
A moderate business-as-usual approach to using the planet's ecosystem services is
likely to lead to complete ecosystem collapse during this century, but there are also
currently differences in individual nation's environmental impacts. The WWF (2006)
states that, given the world's present population, the average biocapacity per capita
is 1.8 hectares. The actual per capita ecological footprint is 9.6 hectares for the
average American, 5.6 for the Briton, 1.6 for the Chinese and 0.8 for the Indian,
with the economies of the latter two states growing quickly and massively. However,
the rapid economic expansion of the BRIICS group of countries - Brazil, Russia,
India, Indonesia and China - combined with their population growth and increase
in average consumption, each person is adding further pressure on the planet's
biocapacity, leading to more losses in biodiversity. As the richer countries continue
to purchase import resources from poorer ones and development occurs at the expense
of the environment, the situation of the poorest countries rapidly worsens. The 2012
WWF International's Living Planet Report states:
The trend in low income countries is potentially catastrophic, not just for
biodiversity but also for the people living there. While everyone depends ultimately
on the biodiversity that provides ecosystem services and natural assets, the impact
of environmental degradation is felt most directly by the world's poorest people,
particularly by rural populations, and forest and coastal communities. Without
