Population and Environment

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 303–313

The Assumptions Underlying Eco-Footprinting

  • Andrew R. B. Ferguson
Article

Abstract

In essence, the concept of a person's ecological footprint is simple: it is the area of land needed to support permanently a specified lifestyle. But in practice eco-footprinting is more complex. It is the purpose of this paper to investigate the most important aspects of that complexity. We avoid discussion of a recent elaboration of eco-footprinting, namely including the sea as a component of the ecological footprint and the use of equivalence factors. The reason is that we see those changes as being less fundamental, and intend to cover them in a separate paper. The current paper—concentrating on the fundamentals—concludes that eco-footprinting is the best method available for making a quantitative assessment of the extent to which consumption, by a specified human population, is exceeding biocapacity.

ecological footprints ecology biocapacity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ferguson, A.R.B. (1999). The Logical Foundations of Ecological Footprints, Environment. Development and Sustainability, 1(2), 149-156.Google Scholar
  2. Pimentel, D. (as Chairman of Gasohol Study Group). (1980). Gasohol, Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board.Google Scholar
  3. Pimentel, D. (1991). Ethanol Fuels: Energy Security, Economics, and the Environment. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 4, 1-13.Google Scholar
  4. Pimentel, D., Bailey, O., Kim, P., Mullaney, E., Calabrese, J., Walman, L., Nelson, F. & Yao, X. (1999). Will Limits of the Earth's Resources Control Human Numbers? Environment, Development and Sustainability 1, 19-39.Google Scholar
  5. Pimentel, D. & Pimentel, M. (1996). Food, Energy, and Society, Revised edition. Niwot CO: University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar
  6. Rees, W.E. (2000). Eco-footprint analysis: merits and brickbats. Ecological Economics 32(3), 371-374.Google Scholar
  7. Smil, V. (1993). Global Ecology: Environmental change and social flexibility. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Linares, A. C., Falfan, I. S. L., Garcia, J. M., Guerrero, A. I. S., & Guerrero, M. G. S. (1997). Ecological Footprints of Nations. Mexico: Centro de Estudios para la Sustentabilidad.Google Scholar
  9. Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Wackernagel, M., & Yount, J. D. (2000). Footprints for sustainability: the next steps. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2, 21-42.Google Scholar
  11. Willey, D.A., & Ferguson. A. R. B. (1999). Carrying Capacity Ethics. Manchester, U.K.: Optimum Population Trust.Google Scholar
  12. Willey, D.A., & Ferguson, A. R. B. (2001). Choosing a Focus for Eco-footprinting. Environment, Development and Sustainability (in press).Google Scholar
  13. WWF (2000). Living Planet Report 2000. Gland, Switzerland, WWF-WorldWide Fund for Nature. Contributors to the eco-footprinting section of the report were, Wackernagel, M., Callejas Linares, A., Deumling, D, Schulz, N. B., Vásquez Sánchez M.A., López Falfán, I.S. This 32 page booklet was produced by the World Wide Fund for Nature International (Switzerland), together with the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UK), the Centre for Sustainability Studies (Mexico), and Redefining Progress (U.S.A.). It can be downloaded from <http://panda.org/livingplanet/lpr00/>.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew R. B. Ferguson
    • 1
  1. 1.Optimum Population TrustUSA

Personalised recommendations