Ecological footprintFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis articleneeds additional citations forverification.Please helpimprove this articlebyadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(January 2014)

This articlecontainsweasel words: vague phrasing that often accompaniesbiasedorunverifiableinformation.Such statements should beclarified or removed.(January 2014)

Theecological footprintis a measure of human demand on the Earth'secosystems. It is a standardized measure of demand fornatural capitalthat may be contrasted with the planet'secologicalcapacity to regenerate.[1]It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a humanpopulationconsumes, and to assimilate associated waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of theEarth(or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody followed a given lifestyle. For 2007, humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.5 planet Earths; that is, humanity usesecological services1.5 times as quickly as Earth can renew them.[2]Every year, this number is recalculated to incorporate the three-year lag due to the time it takes for theUNto collect and publish statistics and relevant research.Although the termecological footprintis widely used and well known,[3]it goes beyond the metaphor. It represents an accounting system forbiocapacitythat tracks how much biocapacity there is, and how much biocapacity people use. Calculation methods have converged thanks to standards released in 2006 and updated in 2009.[4]

Ecological footprint for different nations compared to theirHuman Development Index.Contents[hide] 1Overview 2Methodology 3Studies in the United Kingdom 4Discussion 5Footprint by country 6Implications 7See also 8References 9Further reading 10External linksOverview[edit]The first academic publication about the ecological footprint was byWilliam Reesin 1992.[5]The ecological footprint concept and calculation method was developed as the PhD dissertation ofMathis Wackernagel, under Rees' supervision at theUniversity of British Columbiain Vancouver, Canada, from 19901994.[6]Originally, Wackernagel and Rees called the concept "appropriated carrying capacity".[7]To make the idea more accessible, Rees came up with the term "ecological footprint", inspired by a computer technician who praised his new computer's "small footprint on the desk".[8]In early 1996, Wackernagel and Rees published the bookOur Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earthwith illustrations by Phil Testemale.[9]Ecological footprint analysis compares human demands on nature with the biosphere's ability to regenerate resources and provide services. It does this by assessing the biologically productive land and marine area required to produce the resources a population consumes and absorb the corresponding waste, using prevailing technology. Footprint values at the end of a survey are categorized for Carbon, Food, Housing, and Goods and Services as well as the total footprint number of Earths needed to sustain the world's population at that level of consumption. This approach can also be applied to an activity such as the manufacturing of a product or driving of a car. This resource accounting is similar tolife cycle analysiswherein the consumption ofenergy,biomass(food,fiber),building material,waterand otherresourcesare converted into a normalized measure of land area calledglobal hectares(gha).Per capita ecological footprint (EF), or ecological footprint analysis (EFA), is a means of comparing consumption and lifestyles, and checking this against nature's ability to provide for this consumption. The tool can inform policy by examining to what extent a nation uses more (or less) than is available within its territory, or to what extent the nation's lifestyle would be replicable worldwide. The footprint can also be a useful tool to educate people aboutcarrying capacityandover-consumption, with the aim of altering personal behavior. Ecological footprints may be used to argue that many current lifestyles are notsustainable. Such a global comparison also clearly shows the inequalities of resource use on this planet at the beginning of the twenty-first century.In 2007, the average biologically productive area per person worldwide was approximately 1.8global hectares(gha) per capita. TheU.S.footprint per capita was 9.0 gha, and that ofSwitzerlandwas 5.6 gha, whileChina's was 1.8 gha.[10][11]TheWWFclaims that the human footprint has exceeded thebiocapacity(the available supply of natural resources) of the planet by 20%.[12]Wackernagel and Rees originally estimated that the available biological capacity for the 6 billion people on Earth at that time was about 1.3 hectares per person, which is smaller than the 1.8 global hectares published for 2006, because the initial studies neither used global hectares nor included bioproductive marine areas.[9]A number of NGOs offer ecological footprint calculators (seeFootprint Calculator, below).Ecological footprint analysis is now widely used around the Earth as an indicator of environmentalsustainability.[citation needed]It can be used to measure and manage the use of resources throughout the economy. It can be used to explore the sustainability of individual lifestyles, goods and services, organizations, industry sectors, neighborhoods, cities, regions and nations.[13]Since 2006, a first set of ecological footprint standards exist that detail both communication and calculation procedures.Methodology[edit]The ecological footprint accounting method at the national level is described in the l Footprint Atlas 2010[14]or in greater detail in the Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts.[15]The National Accounts Review Committee has also published a research agenda on how the method will be improved.[16]There have been differences in the methodology used by various ecological footprint studies. Examples include how sea area should be counted, how to account for fossil fuels, how to account for nuclear power (many studies[weaselwords]simply consider it to have the same ecological footprint as fossil fuels),[citation needed]which data sources used, when average global numbers or local numbers should be used when looking at a specific area, how space for biodiversity should be included, and how imports/exports should be accounted for. However, as new footprint standards emerge, the calculation methodologies are converging.[citation needed]In 2003, Jason Venetoulis, Carl Mas, Christopher Gaudet, Dahlia Chazan, and John Talberth developed Footprint 2., which offers a series of theoretical and methodological improvements to the standard footprint approach. The four primary improvements were that they included the entire surface of the Earth in biocapacity estimates, allocated space for other (i.e., non-human) species, updated the basis of equivalence factors from agricultural land to net primary productivity (NPP), and refined the carbon component of the footprint based on the latest global carbon models.[17][18]Studies in the United Kingdom[edit]The UK's average ecological footprint is 5.45global hectaresper capita (gha) with variations between regions ranging from 4.80 gha (Wales) to 5.56 gha (East England).[11]Two recent studies have examined relatively low-impact small communities.BedZED, a 96-homemixed-income housingdevelopment in SouthLondon, was designed by Bill Dunster Architects and sustainability consultants BioRegional for thePeabody Trust. Despite being populated by relatively "mainstream" home-buyers, BedZED was found to have a footprint of 3.20 gha due to on-site renewable energy production, energy-efficient architecture, and an extensive green lifestyles program that included on-site London's firstcarsharingclub. The report did not measure the added footprint of the 15,000 visitors who have toured BedZED since its completion in 2002.Findhorn Ecovillage, a ruralintentional communityinMoray,Scotland, had a total footprint of 2.56 gha, including both the many guests and visitors who travel to the community to undertake residential courses there and the nearby campus ofCluny HillCollege. However, the residents alone have a footprint of 2.71 gha, a little over half the UK national average and one of the lowest ecological footprints of any community measured so far in the industrialized world[19][20]Keveral Farm, an organic farming community in Cornwall, was found to have a footprint of 2.4 gha, though with substantial differences in footprints among community members.[21]Discussion[edit]Early criticism was published by van den Bergh and Verbruggen in 1999;[22]another criticism was published in 2008.[23]A more complete review commissioned by theDirectorate-General for the Environment (European Commission)and published in June 2008 provides the most updated independent assessment of the method.[24]A number of countries have engaged in research collaborations to test the validity of the method. This includes Switzerland, Germany, United Arab Emirates, and Belgium.[25]Grazi et al. (2007) have performed a systematic comparison of the ecological footprint method with spatial welfare analysis that includes environmentalexternalities, agglomeration effects and trade advantages.[26]They find that the two methods can lead to very distinct, and even opposite, rankings of different spatial patterns of economic activity. However, this should not be surprising, since the two methods address different research questions.Calculating the ecological footprint for densely populated areas, such as a city or small country with a comparatively large population e.g. New York and Singapore respectively may lead to the perception of these populations as "parasitic". This is because these communities have little intrinsic biocapacity, and instead must rely upon largehinterlands. Critics argue that this is a dubious characterization since mechanized rural farmers in developed nations may easily consume more resources than urban inhabitants, due to transportation requirements and the unavailability ofeconomies of scale. Furthermore, such moral conclusions seem to be an argument forautarky. Some even take this train of thought a step further, claiming that the Footprint denies the benefits of trade. Therefore, the critics argue that the Footprint can only be applied globally.[27]The method seems to reward the replacement of original ecosystems with high-productivity agriculturalmonoculturesby assigning a higher biocapacity to such regions. For example, replacing ancient woodlands or tropical forests with monoculture forests or plantations may improve the ecological footprint. Similarly, iforganic farmingyields were lower than those of conventional methods, this could result in the former being "penalized" with a larger ecological footprint.[28]Of course, this insight, while valid, stems from the idea of using the footprint as one's only metric. If the use of ecological footprints are complemented with other indicators, such as one forbiodiversity, the problem could maybe be solved. Indeed,WWF'sLiving Planet Reportcomplements the biennial Footprint calculations with the Living Planet Index of biodiversity.[29]Manfred Lenzen and Shauna Murray have created a modified Ecological Footprint that takes biodiversity into account for use in Australia.[30]Although the ecological footprint model prior to 2008 treatednuclear powerin the same manner as coal power,[31]the actual real world effects of the two are radically different. A life cycle analysis centered on the SwedishForsmark Nuclear Power Plantestimated carbon dioxide emissions at 3.10 g/kWh[32]and 5.05 g/kWh in 2002 for theTorness Nuclear Power Station.[33]This compares to 11 g/kWh for hydroelectric power, 950 g/kWh for installed coal, 900 g/kWh for oil and 600 g/kWh for natural gas generation in the United States in 1999.[34]Figures released by Mark Hertsgaard, however, show that because of the delays in building nuclear plants and the costs involved, investments in energy efficiency and renewable energies have seven times the return on investment of investments in nuclear energy.[35]

The Swedish utilityVattenfalldid a study of full life cycle emissions of Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind which the utility uses to produce electricity. The net result of the study was that nuclear power produced 3.3grams of carbon dioxide per KW-Hr of produced power. This compares to 400 fornatural gasand 700 forcoal(according to this study). The study also concluded that nuclear power produced the smallest amount of CO2of any of their electricity sources.[36]Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.[37][38]A 2004 article from the BBC states: "TheWorld Health Organization(WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."[39]In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.[40]A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.[41]It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as theThree Mile Islandincident.[42]In addition, fossil fuel waste causesglobal warming, which leads to increased deaths from hurricanes, flooding, and other weather events. TheWorld Nuclear Associationprovides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced (in UK and USA) from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.[43]Footprint by country[edit]Main article:List of countries by ecological footprintThe world-average ecological footprint in 2007 was 2.7 global hectares per person. The average per country ranges from over 10 to under 1 hectares per person. There is also a high variation within countries, based on individual lifestyle and economic situation.[citation needed]TheGHG footprintdiffers from the ecological footprint in that the former is expressed in units of GHG warming potential (GGWP) and is generated by products or services, whereas the latter is expressed in units of land area and is generated by whole societies.[citation needed]

Tapak Ekologi dan Cara MenghitungnyaTapak ekologi adalah sejumlah area yang terdiri dari lahan dan air yang produktif secara biologi yang dibutuhkan oleh individu, populasi atau aktivitas tertentu untuk memproduksi bahan konsumsi dan untuk mengolah limbahnya dengan teknologi dan management. Tapak ekologi sering dinyatakan dalam satuan global hektar (gha) karena yang menjadi ruang lingkup dalam tapak ekologi individu mencakup lahan atau laut dari seluruh dunia. ( sumber :http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/glossary/#Ecologicalfootprint)Sebelum menghitung tapak ekologi, dibutuhkan asumsi. Asumsi yang umum digunakan adalah :1. Semua sumber daya yang dikonsumsi dan limbah (termasuk emisi) yang dihasilkan dapat ditelusuri asal muasalnya (tracked).2. Sebagian besar aliran sumber daya dan buangan dapat diukur dengan menggunakan luasan bioproduktif untuk menjaga pasokan sumber daya dan absorpsi buangan.3. Luasan bioproduktif yang berbeda dapat dikonversi menjadi satu ukuran tunggal, yaitu hektar global (gha). Setiap hektar global pada satu tahun mencerminkan bioproduktif yang sama dan semua dapat dijumlahkan.4. 4.Permintaan terhadap sumber daya alam disebut telapak ekologis (ecological footprint/demand),dan dapat dibandingkan dengan biokapasitas (biocapacity/ supply) dengan satuan hektar global (gha).Luasan permintaan (area demanded) bisa lebih besar dari luasan pasokan (area supplied),jika permintaan suatu ekosistem melebihi kemampuan ekosistemnya untuk menyediakannya. ( sumber : Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2010 10thEdition Brad Ewing)Metoda yang digunakan untuk menghitung tapak ekologi adalah metoda yang dikembangkan olehGlobal Footprint Networt(GFN-USA). Dalam menghitung tapak ekoologi ada 2 faktor yang perlu diperhatikan yaitu faktor ekuivalensi dan faktor panen. Faktor EkuivalensiFaktor ini merupakan faktor yang digunakan untuk mengkombinasikan tapak ekologi dari lahan yang berbeda-beda. Agar ini dapat dikombinasikan maka dibutuhkan koefisien untuk menyamakannya. Dengan kata lain, ini dipakai untuk mengkonversi satuan lokal lahan tertentu menjadi satuan yang universal, yaitu hektar global (gha). Faktor penyama telah ditentukan olehGlobal Footprint Network(GFN) untuk 6 (enam) kategori lahan, yaitu: lahan pertanian (2,64), lahan perikanan (0,40), lahan peternakan (0,50), lahan kehutanan (1,33), lahan terbangun (2,64) dan lahan penyerapan karbon/lahan yang diperlukan untuk mengabsorsi CO2 yang bersumber dari bahan bakar fosil (1,33). Faktor PanenFaktor panen menggambarkan perbandingan antara luasan lahan bioproduktif di suatu wilayah dengan luasan lahan bioproduktif yang sama di wilayah yang lain untuk tiap komoditas yang sama. Faktor ini juga menggambarkan kemampuan suatu populasi untuk menyertakan penguasaan teknologi dan manajemen dalam pengelolaan lahan. Setiap wilayah memiliki faktor panen masingmasing dan dihitung per tahun. ( Sumber :http://penataanruang.net)Telapak ekologis menggambarkan kebutuhan barang dan jasa yang diperlukan oleh manusia dari alam yang dicerminkan dalam konsumsi bersih(net consumption)dari produkproduk yang dikategorikan seperti produk pertanian, produk peternakan, produk kehutanan, produk perikanan, keperluan ruang dan lahan, serta konsumsi energi. Konsumsi bersih merupakan konsumsi aktual yang dipengaruhi oleh kegiatan perdagangan (eksporimpor).Perhitungan konsumsi aktual akan menambahkan barang yang diimpor dan mengurangi barang yang diekspor yang dinyatakan dengan persamaan berikut:Konsumsi Bersih/Total (ton) = Produksi Lokal (ton) + Impor (ton) Ekspor (ton)Telapak Ekologis(TE/EF) untuk semua kategori lahan dihitung dengan menggunakan persamaan:EF = ( P x YF x EQF ) / YNKeterangan :EF =ecological footprint/telapak ekologis (TE);P = jumlah produk dipanen atau limbah yang dihasilkan;YN = produktivitas nasional ratarata untuk P;YF =yield factor(faktor panen);EQF =equivalence factor(faktor ekivalensi untuk kategori lahan dimaksud).Telah tersedia di internet kalkulator ekologi. Dalam web tersebut, dikeluarkan pertanyaan pertanyaan tentag pola makan, kebiasaan perjalanan atau transportasi yang digunakan, stuff yang kita miliki, dan tentang rumah seperti kondisi rumah, jumlah urang yang ada di rumah, sumber energi yang ada di rumah,(sumber :http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/questionnaires)

Tapak Ekologi Indonesia dan MaknanyaMenurut data yang diperoleh darihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint, nilai tapak ekologi Indonesia adalah 1,21 gha/ orang dan biokapasitasnya 1,35 gha/orang. Arti dari nila ini adalah rata-rata setiap individu yang ada di Indonesia membutuhkan lahan produktif seluas 1,21 hektar yang didalamnya juga terdapat air yang dapat digunakan manusia untuk memproduksi sesuatu yang berguna untuk kebutuhan hidupnya serta unruk mengolah limbahnya sendiri. Nilai ini didapat dengan pendekatan dan rumus yang sudah dijelaskan diatas. Hal ini juga telah mempertingkan pola-pola tingkah laku manusia yang ada di Indonesia baik di bidang makanan, tempat tinggal, emisi karbon, energi yang dipakai dan yang diperbaharui, tingkah laku manusia terhadap air, pola tingkah laku terhadap barang-barang yang ada di lingkungannya, dll.Amerika memiliki nilai tapak ekologi semesar 9.7 gha/orang , eropa sebesar 4.7 gha/orang, china 1.6 gha/orang, India 0.8 gha/orang , dan Jepang 4.8 gha/orang ( sumber : Miller Jr., G.T. & S.E. Spoolman.Living in the Environment. 17th.Edition. Brooks/Cole: Belmont, CA, USA. 2012 ).Normalnya, nilai tapak ekologi maksimal yang masih diizinkan agar bumi bekerja secara normal adalah 1 gha/ orang. Dengan nilai 1 gha/orang maka dibutuhkan 1 bumi untuk melakukan produksi dan memanfaatkan hasilnya tanpa menghabiskan modal alam. Berdasarkan data diatas, India termasuk Negara yang nilai tapak ekologinya bagus.Sebagaimana yang dijelaskan oleh Miller dalam bukunya, bahwa perubahan budaya yang semakn canggih dapat memperbesar nilai tapak ekologi. Hal ini sesuai dengan data yang ada jika dibandingkan dengan kebudayaan yang ada di Negara-negara tersebut.Jika dibandingka dengan Negara maju lainnya, nilai tapak ekologi Indonesia masih relatif kecil tetapi sudah melebihi nilai maksimal untuk keoptimalan fungsi kerja bumi. Berdaasarkan kalkulator tapak ekologi , dapat dikatakan bahwa nilai tapak ekologi akan semakin tinggi jika teknologi di suatu Negara tinggi pula, karena ini akan merubah kebiasaan masyarakatnya sehingga masyarakatnya membutuhkan lahan yang sangat luas untuk kehidupannya serta untuk mengolah limbahnya sendiri.

List of countries by ecological footprintFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMain article:Ecological footprint

World map of countries by ecological footprint.This page is alist of countries by ecological footprint. This table is based on 2007 data from theGlobal Footprint Networkpublished in 2010. Data is given as global hectares per capita. The world-average ecological footprint in 2007 was 2.7 global hectares per person (18.0 billion in total).With a world-average biocapacity of 1.8 global hectares per person (12 billion in total), this leads to an ecological deficit of 0.9 global hectares per person (6 billion in total). If a country does not have enough ecological resources within its own territory, then there is a local ecological deficit and it is called an ecological debtor country. Otherwise, it has an ecological remainder and it is called an ecological creditor country.Countries[edit]NB this list does not include all countries; it contains 153 of the 192 world countriesCountryPopulation in millionsEcological Footprint in gha/persBiocapacity in gha/persEcological remainder (if positive) in gha/pers

Puerto Rico3.950.040.140.10

Timor-Leste1.060.441.210.77

Afghanistan26.290.620.54-0.08

Bangladesh157.750.620.38-0.24

Haiti9.720.680.31-0.37

Malawi14.440.730.70-0.03

Palestinian Authority4.020.740.16-0.58

Democratic Republic of the Congo62.520.752.762.01

Mozambique21.870.771.891.12

Pakistan173.180.770.43-0.34

Eritrea4.780.891.600.71

Burundi7.840.900.50-0.40

India1164.670.910.51-0.40

Zambia12.310.912.261.35

Yemen22.270.940.62-0.32

Republic of the Congo3.550.9613.2712.31

Guinea-Bissau1.540.963.222.26

Togo6.300.970.60-0.37

Angola17.561.003.002.00

Tajikistan6.731.000.56-0.44

Cte d'Ivoire20.121.011.670.66

Rwanda9.451.020.56-0.46

Cambodia14.321.030.94-0.09

Cameroon18.661.041.850.81

Sierra Leone5.421.051.200.15

Lesotho2.031.070.81-0.26

Senegal11.891.091.200.11

Ethiopia78.651.100.66-0.44

Kenya37.761.110.59-0.52

Cape Verde0.491.170.51-0.66

Tanzania41.281.181.02-0.16

Indonesia224.671.211.350.14

Sri Lanka19.881.210.45-0.76

Morocco31.221.220.61-0.61

Benin8.391.230.78-0.45

Kyrgyzstan5.351.251.340.09

Zimbabwe12.451.250.75-0.50

Liberia3.631.262.471.21

Laos6.091.281.580.30

Philippines88.721.300.62-0.68

Burkina Faso14.721.321.30-0.02

Central African Republic4.261.328.447.12

North Korea23.731.320.58-0.74

Iraq29.491.350.30-1.05

Moldova3.671.390.66-0.73

Vietnam86.111.400.86-0.54

Gabon1.421.4129.2927.88

Comoros0.831.420.29-1.13

Somalia8.731.421.40-0.02

Nigeria147.721.441.12-0.32

Dominican Republic9.811.470.50-0.97

Swaziland1.151.501.00-0.50

Syria20.501.520.70-0.82

Uganda30.641.530.85-0.68

Peru28.511.543.862.32

Nicaragua5.601.562.821.26

Algeria33.861.590.59-1.00

Egypt80.061.660.62-1.04

Guinea9.621.672.851.18

Chad10.621.733.171.44

Sudan40.431.732.420.69

Uzbekistan26.901.740.92-0.82

Armenia3.071.750.71-1.04

Ghana22.871.751.19-0.56

Guatemala13.351.771.12-0.65

Madagascar18.601.793.071.28

Myanmar49.131.792.040.25

Georgia4.361.821.21-0.61

Cuba11.201.850.74-1.11

Azerbaijan8.631.870.76-1.11

Colombia44.361.873.982.11

Ecuador13.341.892.330.44

Tunisia10.071.900.98-0.92

Albania3.131.910.87-1.04

Honduras7.171.911.84-0.07

Jamaica2.701.930.38-1.55

Mali12.411.932.490.56

El Salvador6.112.030.67-1.36

Jordan5.942.050.24-1.81

Papua New Guinea6.422.143.751.61

Namibia2.092.157.565.41

China1336.552.210.98-1.23

South Africa49.172.321.14-1.18

Niger14.142.352.09-0.26

Thailand66.982.371.15-1.22

Guyana0.762.3862.1359.75

Serbia9.832.391.16-1.23

Bolivia9.522.5718.8416.27

Argentina39.492.607.504.90

Mauritania3.142.615.502.89

Botswana1.892.683.831.15

Iran72.442.680.81-1.87

Costa Rica4.462.691.90-0.79

Turkey73.002.701.32-1.38

Romania21.452.711.95-0.76

Bosnia and Herzegovina3.782.751.60-1.15

Panama3.342.873.150.28

Venezuela27.662.892.81-0.08

Lebanon4.162.900.40-2.50

Ukraine46.292.901.82-1.08

Brazil190.122.918.986.07

Hungary10.032.992.23-0.76

Mexico107.493.001.47-1.53

Libya6.173.050.44-2.61

Trinidad and Tobago1.333.091.57-1.52

Paraguay6.133.1911.248.05

Chile16.643.243.830.59

Gambia1.623.451.10-2.35

Nepal28.293.560.55-3.01

Croatia4.433.752.50-1.25

Belarus9.723.803.29-0.51

Turkmenistan4.983.933.21-0.72

Slovakia5.394.062.68-1.38

Bulgaria7.644.072.13-1.94

Mauritius1.274.260.56-3.70

Poland38.134.352.09-2.26

Russia141.944.415.751.34

Portugal10.644.471.25-3.22

Kazakhstan15.414.544.01-0.53

Lithuania3.364.674.36-0.31

Japan127.404.730.60-4.13

Israel6.934.820.32-4.50

Malaysia26.564.862.61-2.25

South Korea47.964.870.33-4.54

New Zealand4.194.8910.775.88

United Kingdom61.134.891.34-3.55

Italy59.314.991.14-3.85

Oman2.734.992.14-2.85

France61.715.013.00-2.01

Switzerland7.515.021.24-3.78

Germany82.345.081.92-3.16

Saudi Arabia24.685.130.84-4.29

Uruguay3.345.139.914.78

Austria8.315.303.31-1.99

Slovenia2.015.302.61-2.69

Singapore4.495.340.02-5.32

Greece11.115.391.62-3.77

Spain44.055.421.61-3.81

Mongolia2.615.5315.149.61

Norway4.725.565.48-0.08

Latvia2.275.647.071.43

Macedonia2.045.661.43-4.23

Czech Republic10.275.732.67-3.06

Sweden9.165.889.753.87

Finland5.286.1612.466.30

Netherlands16.466.191.03-5.16

Ireland4.366.293.48-2.81

Kuwait2.856.320.40-5.92

Australia23.076.8414.717.87

Canada32.957.0114.927.91

Estonia1.347.888.961.08

Belgium10.538.001.34-6.66

United States3108.003.87-4.13

Denmark5.458.264.85-3.41

Bahrain0.7610.040.94-9.10

Qatar1.4110.512.51-8.00

United Arab Emirates6.2510.680.85-9.83

See also[edit]

What is the Ecological Footprint?TheEcological Footprintis a resource accounting tool that measures how much biologically productive land and sea is used by a given population or activity, and compares this to how much land and sea is available. Productive land and sea areas support human demands for food, fiber, timber, energy, and space for infrastructure. These areas also absorb the waste products from the human economy. The Ecological Footprint measures the sum of these areas, wherever they physically occur on the planet. The Ecological Footprint is used widely as a management and communication tool by governments, businesses, educational institutions, and non-governmental organizations.What does the Ecological Footprint measure?Ecological Footprintaccounts answer a specific research question: how much of the biological capacity of the planet is demanded by a given human activity or population? To answer this question, the Ecological Footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and water area an individual, a city, a country, a region, or all of humanity uses to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb the waste it generates with todays technology and resource management practices. This demand on the biosphere can be compared to biocapacity, a measure of the amount of biologically productive land and water available for human use. Biologically productive land includes areas such as cropland, forest, and fishing grounds, and excludes deserts, glaciers, and the open ocean.Global hectares are hectares with world-average productivity for all productive land and water areas in a given year. Studies that are compliant with current Ecological Footprint Standards use global hectares as a measurement unit. This makes Ecological Footprint results globally comparable, just as financial assessments use one currency, such as dollars or Euros, to compare transactions and financial flows throughout the world.How accurate are Ecological Footprint measurements?CurrentEcological Footprintaccounts provide a robust, aggregate estimate of human demand on the biosphere as compared to the biospheres productive capacity. As with any calculation system, Footprint accounts are subject to uncertainty in source data, calculation parameters, and methodological decisions. Several organizations are seeking to allocate resources towards obtaining more accurate estimates of this nature.What can Ecological Footprint Analysis tell us about the future of the planet? Are we all doomed?TheEcological Footprinthighlights the reality of ecological scarcity, which can be disconcerting and frightening information. The existence of global overshoot suggests that human society will need to make significant changes to business as usual if it wants to create a sustainable future. Robust and accurate Ecological Footprint accounts can help us make decisions towards sustainability, and can quantitatively show the positive impacts of groups, businesses, and people making decisions that are helping to bring human demand within the means of the planet.What is the proper way to use the term Ecological Footprint?The termEcological Footprint, capitalized, is a proper name referring to a specific research question: how much of the biological capacity of the planet is demanded by a given human activity or population? Often, the word footprint is used generically to refer to human impact on the planet, or to a different research question. As commonly used today, for example, the term carbon footprint often refers to the number of tons of carbon emitted by a given person or business during a year, or to the tons of carbon emitted in the manufacture and transport of a product. In Ecological Footprint accounts, the carbon Footprint measures the amount of biological capacity, in global hectares, demanded by human emissions of fossil carbon dioxide. The term Ecological Footprint has been deliberately excluded from trademark to encourage its widespread use.How is an Ecological Footprint calculated?Ecological Footprints can be calculated for individual people, groups of people (such as a nation), and activities (such as manufacturing a product).TheEcological Footprintof a person is calculated by considering all of the biological materials consumed, and all of the biological wastes generated, by that person in a given year. These materials and wastes each demand ecologically productive areas, such as cropland to grow potatoes, or forest to sequester fossil carbon dioxide emissions. All of these materials and wastes are then individually translated into an equivalent number of global hectares.To accomplish this, an amount of material consumed by that person (tons per year) is divided by the yield of the specific land or sea area (annual tons per hectare) from which it was harvested, or where its waste material was absorbed. The number of hectares that result from this calculation are then converted to global hectares using yield and equivalence factors. The sum of the global hectares needed to support the resource consumption and waste generation of the person gives that persons total Ecological Footprint.How does the Ecological Footprint address waste flows?From anEcological Footprintperspective, the term waste includes three different categories of materials, and each category is treated differently within Footprint accounts.First, biological wastes such as residues of crop products, trimmings from harvested trees, and carbon dioxide emitted from fuel wood or fossil fuel combustion are all included within Ecological Footprint accounts. A cow grazing on one hectare of pasture has a Footprint of one hectare for both creating its biological food products and absorbing its biological waste products. This single hectare provides both services, thus counting the Footprint of the cow twice (once for material production and once for waste absorption) results in double counting the actual area necessary to support the cow. The Footprint associated with the absorption of all biological materials that are harvested is thus already counted in the Footprint of those materials.Second, waste also refers to the material specifically sent to landfills. If these landfills occupy formerly biologically productive area, then the Footprint of this landfill waste can be calculated as the area used for its long term storage.Finally, waste can also refer to toxics and pollutants released from the human economy that cannot in any way be absorbed or broken down by biological processes, such as many types of plastics. Assessments of the Footprint of toxics and pollutants, when completed, generally refer to the Footprint of extracting, processing, and handling these materials, but not to the Footprint of creating or absorbing these materials themselves.How does the Ecological Footprint account for recycling?As theEcological Footprintreflects the demand for productive area to make resources and absorb wastes, recycling can lower the Ecological Footprint by offsetting the extraction of virgin products, and reducing the area necessary for absorbing wastes. Recycling paper, for example, can decrease the total amount of virgin timber that must be harvested to meet global demand for paper, thus reducing humanitys total Ecological Footprint.The savings that result from the recycling process can be allocated to the person who recycles a material and/or the person who buys recycled material in a number of different ways: 100% to the person who buys the recycled paper (the wood fiber in a 100% recycled ream of paper could have no forest Footprint, since the footprint of that wood fiber was already allocated to the person who bought the virgin paper), 100% to the person who recycles the paper (a person purchasing 100% virgin paper who recycled all of it would have no Footprint for the wood fiber in that paper, since all of it is reused later, assuming that no fiber is lost in the recycling process), or Split between the person who buys recycled paper and the person who recycles paper (the savings can be split 50%/50%, or in any other allocation).Different researchers use different allocation principles for the savings from recycling, and standards-compliant Footprint studies will state their chosen allocation method explicitly. Regardless of allocation method, however, the largest reductions in Ecological Footprint can most commonly be achieved by reducing the total amount of materials consumed, rather than attempting to recycle them afterwards.