Ecological footprint (EF) analytics looks to tract the impact of man on environment. It compares man's and woman's use of natural resources with global Earth's ecological potential to regrow them. It is an average of the total of nature produced earth and water area needed to regrow (if possible) the resources a human society burns through and to absorb and make harmless the by product waste, given prevailing technology and current understanding. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how many planet Earths it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. While the measure is widely used, some also criticize the approach.

Ecological footprint analysis

Ecological footprint for different nations compared to their HDI. Recent evidence[citation needed] suggests that improvements in the Human Development Index in most cases generally results in a worsening of a nation's position on its ecological footprint.
Ecological footprint for different nations compared to their HDI. Recent evidence[citation needed] suggests that improvements in the Human Development Index in most cases generally results in a worsening of a nation's position on its ecological footprint.

You can make a difference in your ecological footprint by purchasing products that are 100% organic and don't add more pollutants into the air. Natures Organic Market is a complete organic online store.

The ecological footprint concept and calculation method was developed as the PhD dissertation of Mathis Wackernagel under Prof. William Rees at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, from 1990-1994.[1] Originally, they called the concept "appropriated carrying capacity.[2] To make the idea more accessible, William Rees came up with the term "ecological footprint," inspired by a computer technician who praised his new computer's "small footprint on the desk." The first academic publication on the ecological footprint was printed in 1992.[3] In early 1996, Wackernagel and Rees published the book Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.

Ecological footprint analysis compares human demand 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. 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 to life cycle analysis wherein the consumption of energy, biomass (food, fiber), building material, water and other resources are converted into a normalized measure of land area called 'global hectares' (gha).

Per capita ecological footprint (EF) 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 about carrying capacity and over-consumption, with the aim of altering personal behavior. Ecological footprints may be used to argue that many current lifestyles are not sustainable. Such a global comparison also clearly shows the inequalities of resource use on this planet at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

In 2003, the average biologically productive area per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. The U.S. footprint per capita was 9.6 gha, and that of Switzerland was 5.1 gha per person, whilst China's was 1.6 gha per person.[4] [5] The WWF claims that the human footprint has exceeded the biocapacity (the available supply of natural resources) of the planet by 20%.[6] 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 because it did not include bioproductive marine areas.

Ecological footprinting is now widely used around the globe as an indicator of environmental sustainability.[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.[8]. Since 2006, a first set of ecological footprint standards exist that detail both communication and calculation procedures. They are available at www.footprintstandards.org and were developed in a public process facilitated by Global Footprint Network and its partner organizations.

Methodology

The ecological footprint accounting method at the national level is described in the Living Planet Report or in more detail in Global Footprint Network's method paper. The national accounts committee of Global Footprint Network has also published a research agenda on how the method will be improved.

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 simply consider it to have the same ecological footprint as fossil fuels), 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.[6].[7] However, with the new footprint standards, the methods are converging.[citation needed]

Ecological footprint studies in the United Kingdom