Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 51, Issue 1–2, pp 511–529

The Ecological Footprint: an Indicator of Progress Toward Regional Sustainability

  • Mathis Wackernagel
  • J. David Yount


We define regional sustainability as the continuous support of human quality of life within a region's ecological carrying capacity. To achieve regional sustainability, one must first assess the current situation. That is, indicators of status and progress are required. The ecological footprint is an area-based indicator which quantifies the intensity of human resource use and waste discharge activity in relation to a region's ecological carrying capacity. If the ecological footprint of a human population is greater than the area which it occupies, the population must be doing at least one of the following: receiving resources from elsewhere, disposing of some of its waste outside of the area, or depleting the area's natural capital stocks. To achieve global sustainability, the sum of all regional footprints must not exceed the total area of the biosphere. This paper explains the mechanics of a footprint calculation method for nations and regions. As the method is standardized, the relative ecological load imposed by nations and regions can be compared. Further, a nation's or region's consumption can be contrasted with its local ecological production, providing an indicator of potential vulnerability and contribution to ecological decline.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ayres, R. and Simmonis, U. (eds.). 1994, Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for Sustainable Development. UN University Press, Tokyo and New York.Google Scholar
  2. Abel, S., Braunschweig, A. and Müller-Wenk, R.: 1990, Methodik für Ökobilanzen auf der Basis ökologischer Optimierung (Methodology for life cycle assessment based on ecological optimization). Bern: Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft. Schriftenreihe Umwelt, Vol. 133.Google Scholar
  3. Baudepartement Basel Stadt: 1997, ‘Nur Abgasreduktion schützt dauerhaft vor Ozon’ (only a reduction in emissions will durably reduce ozone). Unser Lebensraum 1/97, Baudepartement Basel Stadt, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  4. Buitenkamp, M., Venner, H. and Wams, T. (editors): 1993, 1033 Action Plan Sustainable Netherlands. Dutch Friends of the Earth, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. E.: (this volume). ‘Emergy Analysis of Human Carrying Capacity and Regional Sustainability: An Example Using the State of Maine’.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. E.: 1995: How Many People Can the Earth Support? W. W. Norton & Co., New York.Google Scholar
  7. Duchin, F. and Lange, G. M.: 1994: The Future of the Environment: Ecological Economics and Technological Change. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Folke, C., et al.: 1996, ‘Renewable Resource Appropriation by Cities.’ in Costanza, R. et al.: 1996. Getting Down to Earth. Island Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  9. Gallopin, G., Hammond, A., Raskin, P. and Swart, R.: 1997, Branch Points: Global Scenarios and Human Choice. PoleStar Series Report No. 7, Stockholm Environment Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Graszl, H.: 1996, Der Fussabdruck Feldbachs (The Footprint of Feldbach), Universität Graz, Austria.Google Scholar
  11. Hall, C. A., Tian, H., Qi, Y., Pontius, G., Cornell, J. and Uhlig, J. 1995, Spatiatty Explicit Models of Land Use Change and Their Application to the Tropics, DOE Research Summary, CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  12. Hofstetter, P.: 1991. Persönliche Energie — und CO 2 Bilanz. (Personal Energy and CO2 Balance). Second draft. Büro für Analyse und Ökologie, Zürich.Google Scholar
  13. Holdren, J. and Ehrlich, P.: 1974. ‘Human Population and the Global Environment.’ American Scientist 62, 282–292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Janzen, D. H.: 1997. The Carbon Crop. Science 277, 883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ko, J. Y., Hall, C. A. and L. G. L. Lemus: (this volume), ‘Resource Use Rates and Efficiency as Indicators of Regional Sustainability: An Examination of Five Countries’.Google Scholar
  16. Krotscheck, C. and Narodoslawsky, M. 1996, “The Sustainable Process Index: A New Dimension in Ecological Evaluation”. Ecological Engineering, Vol. 6 p241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lieth, H., and Whittaker, R. (eds.): 1975. The Primary Productivity of the Biosphere, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Meadows, D., Meadows, D. and Randers, J.: 1992, Beyond the Limits. Chelsea Green Publishing Co., Post Mills, Vermont, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.: 1972, Limits to Growth, Universe Books, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Moffat, A. S., 1997, ‘Resurgent Forests can be Greenhouse Gas Sponges’, Science 277, 315–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neumann, I.: 1994, Der ökologische Fussabdrack der Region Trier (The Ecological Footprint of the Trier Region). Diplomarbeit, Universität Trier, Germany.Google Scholar
  22. Noss, R. F. and Cooperrider, A. Y.: 1994, Saving Nature's Legacy — Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  23. Odum, H. T.: 1994, Ecological and General Systems, revised edition. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
  24. Omernick, J. M.: 1987, ‘Ecoregions of the conterminous United States’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77, 118–125.Google Scholar
  25. Pimentel, D., Houser, J., Preiss, E., White, O., Fang, H., Mesnick, L., Barsky, T., Tariche, S., Schreck, J. and Alpert, S.: 1997, ‘Water Resources: Agriculture, the Environment, and Society’, BioScience 47, 97–106.Google Scholar
  26. Postel, S.: 1996, ‘Forging a Sustainable Water Strategy’, in Brown, L. et al.: 1996, State of the World, N.N. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Rees, W. E.: 1996. ‘Revisiting Carrying Capacity: Area-Based Indicators of Sustainability’, Population and Environment 17, 195–215.Google Scholar
  28. Rosenbaum, W. A.: 1995, Environmental Politics and Policy. CQ Press, Congressional Quarterly Inc. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Schmidt-Bleek, F.: 1994, Wieviel Umwelt braucht der Mensch: MIPS — das Mass für ökologisches Wirtschaften. (How Much Environment Do People Need? MIPS: The Measure for Managing Ecological Economies) Birkhäuser, Basel, Boston. English edition forthcoming: “The Fossil Makers”, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Sarmiento, J. L. and Le Quéré, C.: 1996, ‘Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Uptake in a Model of Century-Scale Global Warming’, Science 274, 1346–1350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) annual. Human Development Report. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Vitousek, P. M., Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H. and Matson, P. A.: 1986. ‘Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis’, BioScience 34, 368–372.Google Scholar
  33. Wackernagel, M., Macintosh, J., Rees, W. E. and Willard, R.: 1993, How Big Is Our Ecological Footprint? A Handbook for Estimating a Community's Appropriated Carrying Capacity. Draft. The UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  34. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. E.: 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Linares, A. C., Falfán, I. S. L., Garcia, J. M., Guerrero, A. I. S., Guerrero, M. G. S.: 1997, Ecological Footprints of Nations: How Much Nature Do They Use? How Much Nature Do they Have?. Commissioned for the Rio+5 Forum. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Toronto (available through ICLEI: iclei@iclei.org).Google Scholar
  36. WCED: 1987, Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development, (Gro Harlem Brundtland, chair). Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Whittaker, R. H.: 1975. Communities and Ecosystems, MacMillan Publishing New York.Google Scholar
  38. World Resources Institute (WRI): 1994, World Resources 1994–95. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  39. World Resources Institute (WRI): 1996, World Resources 1996–97. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathis Wackernagel
    • 1
  • J. David Yount
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro de Estudios para la SustentabilidadUniversidad Anáhuac de Xalapa, Apdo.Xalapa, Ver.MEXICO
  2. 2.Mid-Continent Ecology DivisionUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryDuluthUSA

Personalised recommendations