Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Land Use Policy 21 (2004) 271–278

Calculating national and global ecological footprint time series:


resolving conceptual challenges
Mathis Wackernagela,*, Chad Monfredaa,1, Niels B. Schulzb, Karl-Heinz Erbb,
Helmut Haberlb, Fridolin Krausmannb
a
Formerly at: Redefining Progress, 1904 Franklin St., 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612, USA
b
Department of Social Ecology, Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of Austrian Universities, Schottenfeldgasse 29, 1070 Vienna, Austria
Received 29 July 2003; received in revised form 17 October 2003; accepted 20 October 2003

Abstract

This study addresses the conceptual challenges that emerge when calculating Ecological Footprint time series. Building on core
concerns arising from the various existing Footprint time series at the national and global scale, this paper discusses conceptual and
methodological implications, and suggests improvements for enhancing the clarity, validity and reliability of Ecological Footprint
results. Unlike static accounts, time series show trends that allow researchers to test the noise in the data. Also, time series offer the
opportunity to examine results and question interpretations, a fertile ground for comparing methodological alternatives. This paper
addresses two conceptual issues that determine method design: the specific meaning and measurement challenges of ecological
overshoot; and the range of research questions that can be addressed with productivity-adjusted hectares versus actual hectares. The
conclusions from this discussion build the groundwork for showcasing time series for three countries.
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ecological footprints; Method; Time series; Ecological overshoot; Yield factor; Equivalence factor

Introduction to meet the resource demand and waste absorption


requirements of a given population. If global demand
Managing natural capital is at the heart of sustain- exceeds the globally available supply, there is strong
ability. But effective management depends on reliable indication that natural capital is being liquidated—a
measures of what needs to be managed. Hence, reliable state that has been termed overshoot. One important
natural capital accounts would inform policymakers, goal of the Ecological Footprint is thus to document
researchers, and the public about the state of these overshoot and link this concern to socio-economic
ecological assets and allow them to set goals, monitor variables such as demographic trends, economic expan-
progress and make choices consistent with their sion, changes in resource efficiency, and economic
expressed values and intentions. prosperity or lifestyle.
One way to account for natural capital is to compare This is even more important because, contrary to
human demands on natural capital with the ability of popular misunderstanding, ecological limits can be hard
natural capital to produce the services that humans use. to detect. Many of the consequences of stock depletion
This is what Ecological Footprint accounts do: they are time delayed, so it is possible to use natural capital
measure how much life-supporting natural capital, faster than it is being replenished, thereby depleting it
expressed in biologically productive area, is necessary without obvious immediate consequences. For example,
groundwater resources can be overused for quite some
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +43-510-839-8879; fax: +43-510-834- time. Or, if forest cover is reduced in a watershed it may
9202. take decades until the loss of water retention capacity
E-mail addresses: mathis@ecofoot.net (M. Wackernagel), results in a catastrophic flood event. Time lags of several
clmonfreda@wisc.edu (C. Monfreda).
URLs: http://www.redefiningprogress.org, http://www.iff.ac.at/
decades exist between increases in greenhouse gas
socec, http://www.ecofoot.net. concentrations in the atmosphere and the changes in
1
Also for correspondence. climate they cause. Moreover, environmental problems

0264-8377/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS
272 M. Wackernagel et al. / Land Use Policy 21 (2004) 271–278

can affect people that did little, if anything, to cause overshoot. To date, few Ecological Footprint time series
them. For example, airborne pollutants can be trans- have been calculated, and it is the aim of this article to
ported over hundreds or even thousands of kilometers. facilitate future studies on this issue by addressing some
The relatively small proportion of people living in of the methodological challenges that have been
industrialized countries contribute most to climate encountered.
change, but its impact is more severe in poor countries Reliable and relevant time series depend on clarity
that cannot afford to adapt to rising temperatures (and about the conceptual basis for measuring life-supporting
the consequent spread of disease, such as malaria), natural capital, as well as clarity about the methods used
changing precipitation patterns, or rising sea levels. In to translate the underlying principles into numbers.
fact, those contributing most to climate change through Time series of the Ecological Footprint indicate that its
their energy intensive lifestyles will most likely be less results and interpretation are dependent on underlying
affected by, and better shielded from, the outfalls of premises. Through time series, this paper aims at
climate change than poor people living on marginal land resolving uncertainties highlighted in previous studies.
or in underserved urban conditions. Such disparities It does this by exploring both the conceptual basis and
between those who profit from resource consumption underlying research questions behind the accounts, as
and those who bear the environmental burden strongly well as some methodological choices made for actually
encourage overuse of resources. computing results. It then discusses the current method’s
Local overshoot, or overuse of ecosystems resulting limitations and potential as a descriptor of ecological
in a degradation of their regenerative capacity, has overshoot.
happened for thousands of years. Prominent examples
can be found in the Mediterranean or in the once fertile
valleys in central Mexico. But now, overshoot is Conceptual and methodological challenges
becoming a global phenomenon, and human pressure
on the planet is mounting as documented in many UN To date, few extended time series have attempted to
sponsored reports (UNEP, 2002; WRI, 2000). Pressure track national and global ecological overshoot. Those
on natural capital through pollution and resource that have been completed (Haberl et al., 2001; Loh,
extraction is no longer limited to local deforestation, 2002; Wackernagel et al., 2002) raise interesting ques-
fishery collapse or water shortage, but has taken global tions. These time series, in addition to accumulated
proportions. The rising carbon concentration in the experience in constructing Footprint assessments and
atmosphere is one example. Recent work indicates that extensive academic debate, identify measurement chal-
global overshoot is rising, and that it takes the biosphere lenges regarding the accounts’ relevance and reliability.
currently 1.2 years to regenerate what humans use in 1 Time series inherently reveal more about the ac-
year (Wackernagel et al., 2002). Socio-economic factors counts’ sensitivity to different assumptions and the
such as population and economic growth, increases in potential for noise in the data than do the single-year
per-capita consumption, and urbanization fuel this calculations that have characterized the earlier Ecologi-
dynamic (Geist and Lambin, 2002; York et al., 2003). cal Footprint assessments. The distortions revealed by
Without counterbalancing these forces, and their impact time series can be broken into conceptual issues or
on global justice and ecological integrity, humanity may methodological concerns. The first category refers to the
not only be narrowing its options for a sustainable conceptual basis for measuring life-supporting natural
future, but may also be increasing the likelihood of capital. This means clarifying the driving research
violent confrontations from local unrest, human rights question and the extent to which the accounting
abuses, terrorism, armed conflicts, and possibly geno- principles of the method are consistent with the specific
cide. research question being answered. The second category
Since overshoot is a dynamic concept, involving time refers to the adequacy of the methods used to translate
delays and cumulative effects, time trends are of the underlying principles into numbers.
particular value for documenting human use of natural The above-mentioned studies, as well as other recent
capital. Providing effective support to help decision- research (Ayres, 2000; Lenzen and Murray, 2001; Luck
makers track ecological overshoot over time and et al., 2001; Moffatt, 2000; van den Bergh and
identify policies as they struggle with present choices is Verbruggen, 1999; van Vuuren et al., 1999), have raised
a prime opportunity for sustainability science. Much of the following issues:
the success and popularity of the Ecological Footprint Conceptual challenges
stems from its ability to detect and communicate
overshoot in conceptually intuitive units of area (Rees, * What exactly constitutes overshoot? And how can it
2000). By moving beyond single-year assessments and be measured?
analyzing time series, such accounts can reveal whether * Should national Footprints be measured using global
we are moving towards or away from ecological yields, local yields, or constant yields? Does the use of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Wackernagel et al. / Land Use Policy 21 (2004) 271–278 273

global yields make accounts insensitive to local humans are able to alter the bioproductivity of
yields? ecosystems by a significant margin, even by orders of
* Are accounts systematically biased against trade? magnitude (Haberl et al., 2001). Fourth, technology
* Are the accounts blind to the quality or kind of allows human societies to adapt to a shortage of a
environmental impacts and resource management? specific material or waste-absorption capacity through
* What is the difference between inherent productivity strategies such as substitution, increased resource
and actual yield? efficiency, and expanded trade, at least as long as
* What are the options for calculating the energy alternative sources are available. As a result, overshoot
Footprint? and natural capital depletion need not necessarily result
in a crash in the sense of drastic population decline as
would be typical for species that do not have these four
Ecological Footprint accounts have grown in rigor choices available.
and can address many of these challenges. Whereas It would therefore be misleading to assume that the
Monfreda et al. (2004) detail advancements in the ‘carrying capacity of ecosystems for humans’ is a static
underlying methodology of national accounts, and limit imposed by natural conditions. Ecological limits to
Wackernagel et al. (2004) explain the methodological human populations emerge rather within a historically
challenges of time-series applications, such as how yields contingent process of society–nature interaction (Cohen,
should be measured and compared and how domestic 1995). The overshoot calculations in Ecological Foot-
production should be compared to imports, this paper print accounts incorporate this complexity: the accounts
discusses the conceptual challenges each of the above include both the endosomatic as well as exosomatic
questions raises in terms of calculating time series. metabolism of human societies, hence reflecting the
variability in human consumption. Biocapacity is
What constitutes overshoot? determined using not only the respective year’s yields,
but also by taking into account ecosystem management
William Catton identifies overshoot as ‘‘growth strategies and technology. So for each year, the actual
beyond an area’s carrying capacity, leading to crash’’ demand on nature can be compared with that year’s
(Catton, 1980). Natural animal or plant populations actual Biocapacity.
can, in principle, be limited by various environmental With these accounts, comparing global Footprint and
factors, but one of these will generally be in shortest Biocapacity is straightforward, because the Earth as a
supply and will thus actually determine the maximum whole has no foreign trade. But analyses of lower spatial
density of a given population on a defined area—or in levels are more difficult to interpret. Unlike the Earth,
other words, the area’s carrying capacity for that regions or nations can import physical resources like
species. Overshoot can happen if the limiting resource food and fiber from abroad or externalize demand for
can be overused temporarily, resulting in resource environmental services like CO2 sequestration. As a
depletion, or if population regulation acts with too consequence, populations with access to less Biocapacity
large a time delay. In both cases the population than is required to satisfy their demands must liquidate
surpasses carrying capacity, resulting in a potentially their own natural capital or import the difference. This
sharp decline in population density. Such population situation is becoming increasingly typical for resource-
dynamics are typical when a species enters a new intensive industrialized nations with strong ties to the
habitat, giving the species an exaggerated sense of food global economy (Krausmann et al., 2004).
abundance, such as deer introduced to an unoccupied Hence there is a difference between ecological deficits
island or yeast added to a bowl of sugar. and ecological overshoot, terms that many studies
This dynamic becomes more complex with humans, (including some of our own) have used interchangeably.
for several reasons. First, the socio-economic metabo- To increase descriptive clarity, we reserve overshoot to
lism of humans is historically highly variable. Most of its denote resource overuse, use of an ecosystem beyond its
resource demand is ‘‘exosomatic’’; or external to the maximum sustainable yield, while an ecological deficit
human body’s metabolism. In other words, most refers to the difference between a population’s Ecologi-
resources of human societies are not used for direct cal Footprint and the Biocapacity available to that
human consumption but rather for the production, use population (Monfreda et al., 2004). Note, though, that
and maintenance of machinery and shelter, or for globally the ecological deficit is equal to the global
domesticated animals. As a consequence, per-capita overshoot.
demand is highly variable and not determined by Being able to identify overshoot, and promoting an
biological, species-specific characteristics. Second, trade understanding of its relevance, are at the core of
can support high local population densities through Ecological Footprint efforts. Studies of Ecological
transportation of resources. Third, through ecosystem Footprints are designed to make visible the difference
management practices, such as agriculture or forestry, between regenerative use of natural capital and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
274 M. Wackernagel et al. / Land Use Policy 21 (2004) 271–278

liquidation of this capital. Recognizing the liability and Biocapacity ðghaÞ


risk associated with depleted natural capital may ¼ Area ðhaÞEquivalence Factorannual ðgha=haÞ
encourage behavior and policy changes that reverse
Yield Factorannual ðdimensionlessÞ:
overshoot.
Built-up area is calculated in terms of its forgone
productivity. Hence, for every year, the built-up
Global or local yields? Biocapacity of a country equals its built-up Footprint:
Biocapacity ðghaÞ
Recognizing the significant variation in yields over
space and time, the Austrian study tested three different ¼ Footprintbuild-up ðghaÞ
methods, using variable global yields, constant global ¼ Area ðhaÞEquivalence Factorannual
yields, and variable local yields to calculate the ðgha=haÞYield Factorannual ðdimensionlessÞ:
Footprint and Biocapacity of Austria from 1926–1995
(Haberl et al., 2001). Their findings suggest that while it Note that the Biocapacity and Footprint of built-up
may be possible to conduct national Footprints in time land are multiplied by an annual yield factor, which
series, alternate methods and variations in yield describes the national yield relative to the global.
complicate interpretations, especially of overshoot. Consequently, changes in national productivity relative
They concluded that different assumptions influenced to the world average will alter the built-up Biocapacity
the results by at least a factor of two. Moreover, the and Footprint, even if the national productivity and the
general trends of Footprint and Biocapacity differed actual size of the built area has stayed constant in
between methods. This divergence of results led to the absolute terms.
conclusion that ‘‘although it is feasible to calculate the Time series derived from global yields reflect a
Footprint of nations in a long-time series, it is not number of changes simultaneously: the compound effect
straightforward to interpret the results. Currently used of population, per capita consumption and resource
methods are useful to demonstrate local availability and efficiency. We can single out a particular one of these
appropriation of biocapacity for one point in time’’ effects in a number of ways. For instance, in order to
(Haberl et al., 2001, p. 44). track the amount of consumption, one can hold yields
What causes this apparent contradiction is that each constant and show the area demand per capita. This
method is answering a different research question. With trend then shows development of per capita consump-
large yield differences between the Austrian and the tion. Or to track actual land use, which can provide
global average, it is not a surprise that a method using insights on conservation pressures, we can perform
local yields produces results (expressed in Austrian similar calculations using actual yields.
hectares) significantly different from a method convey- By expressing everything in global hectares, the
ing the results in global average hectares. calculations document the share of local demand and
Here we explore the different research questions supply relative to the global demand and supply in a
driving each method, what each method can and cannot particular year. If, for example, local yields and
measure, and why different results between methods do consumption patterns remain the same while global
not imply conflicting interpretations of overshoot. yields rise, local Footprint and Biocapacity will decrease
Global yields—The method using global yields aims at even though local conditions remain identical. In fact, it
answering the question of how much of the biosphere’s is conceivable that rising consumption and constant or
regenerative capacity is used by a population or even decreasing local yields could register a declining
available within a given territory. Hence the conven- Footprint with sufficient increases in global yields. This
tional Ecological Footprint is calculated by dividing the is fully consistent with the research question: the trend
quantity of resources consumed in a particular year by reflects the global context in which the locale is placed.
that year’s global yield. The area is then multiplied by As long as Footprint and Biocapacity are expressed in
the equivalence factor, also for a specific year, of the consistent units (global hectares or Austrian hectares),
type of bioproductive area occupied. The resulting they will change in direct proportion, thus preserving the
Footprint is expressed in global hectares (gha): ratio between supply and demand. If Footprints are
expressed in actual hectares, the ratio will be different,
Footprint ðghaÞ but the interpretation is not obvious since areas of
¼ Consumption ðtonsÞ=Global Yieldannual ðtons=haÞ different productivity are compared.
In order to make sense of trends in Footprint or
Equivalence Factorannual ðgha=haÞ: Biocapacity, they must be interpreted in reference to
other trends—never alone. Table 1 shows four basic
The Biocapacity is likewise calculated using the appro- combinations for comparing one region (1) with another
priate factors for each year: region or the world (2).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Wackernagel et al. / Land Use Policy 21 (2004) 271–278 275

Table 1 cropland, are valued equally (as a result, people living in


Options to compare per-capita Footprint and Biocapacity and their the African Sahel with very low yields could have
interpretation
‘‘Footprints’’ larger than people living in Holland
Comparingy Withy Indicates they endowed with rich soils), and (3) Biocapacity expressed
EF1 BC1 Ability of domestic Biocapacity in unweighted hectares provides a poor comparison with
to meet domestic demand. demand imported from more or less productive regions.
EF1 BCG Ability of the Earth to meet Local yields, expressed in hectares, approximate the
domestic demand. demand for bioproductive land (and sea), not biopro-
EF1 EF2 Relative demand for BC (e.g.
ductivity, which is reflected in global hectares. Ecologi-
between countries, economic
sectors, or imports and exports). cal deficit and overshoot (with perhaps the exception of
BC1 BC2 Relative BC between regions. built-up land), however, are ultimately questions about
the ecological goods and services land provides, not of
The index 1 denotes region/country 1; the index 2 denotes region/
country 2; G means ‘‘global.’’ land itself. Since these questions pertain most directly to
productivity, not land, their aggregation can only be
justified when measured in common units of productiv-
In essence, by using global hectares, the method ity. That is not to suggest that global yields are the only
divides the global Footprint among all nations in method for standardizing hectares; one could just as well
proportion to their consumption. The Footprint be- express everything in standardized Austrian hectares (as
comes a measure of demand, where a given quantity of a result the number of hectares on the globe, expressed
product imparts a given Footprint. The Biocapacity in Austrian hectares, would shrink).
likewise depicts a country’s share of the global capacity While local yields may approach questions about
to procure ecological goods and services. Ecological overshoot in a single bioproductive area (i.e. forest or
Footprint accounts calculated with the global yield pasture) when trade is insignificant, they become less
thereby describe both the natural productivity and relevant when comparing areas of disparate productiv-
technical and managerial capacity required to support ity. In valuing all areas equally, the Footprint derived
the consumption patterns and the distribution of from local yields becomes less useful for comparing
resource use and supply. supply and demand. Rather it becomes a mapping
Global yields can thus answer questions about parameter. For instance, complete accounts would link
resource supply and demand in a global context: How this information geographically, to reveal, for example,
much of the biosphere’s capacity does humanity use? Austria’s demand for cropland all over the world (Erb,
Which nations use how much of this capacity? What 2004). A similar project sought to map Netherlands’
products is the demand for? How much does each land use in Costa Rica, Benin, and Bhutan (van Vuuren
nation produce? et al., 1999).
Local yields—The method using local yields aims at Still, area demands calculated in actual hectares offer
answering the question of how much actual area is used insights for land management and other applications
by a population. Hence this calculation of ‘‘actual area dependent on spatial components. While standardized
demand’’ using local yields reveals the physical expanse hectares facilitate ‘‘comparisons between regions at one
occupied in each bioproductive area, without weighting point in time and can be useful for communicating
that area according to its productivity. While global resultsyknowing land-use patterns and socioeconomic
hectares always use the global yield to transform metabolism of a country, it might be interesting to
quantities into weighted area, estimates of actual determine the area equivalent of imported biomass or
hectares attempt to use the actual, unweighted area fossil energy consumption (e.g., Sieferle, 1997) to assess
occupied to produce the quantities in question.2 how much area would have been necessary to make the
While a useful tool for quantifying demand for metabolism of a country sustainable.’’ (Haberl et al.,
different ecosystems, such a calculation in actual 2001, p. 44).
hectares loses information in three related ways as In summary, local yields answer questions different
compared to the ‘‘conventional’’ Footprint: (1) It says from those answered by global yields: How much area is
little on distribution and equitable access to natural actually occupied by the economic metabolism of a
capital (as opposed to land), (2) bioproductive areas given population? Where is it located? What is the
with disparate productivities, like shrub land and fertile distribution of land use across the world, and where is
ecosystem stress greatest?
2
Here local yields signify the actual yields of the quantities in Constant yields—Constant yields, that is yields from a
question, whether they are produced domestically or abroad. By local
single year used for every year in the time series, reveal
yields, other studies signify the use of domestic yields to calculate the
Footprint of imports, exports, and domestically produced goods, changes in the consumption and biological capacity
thereby standardizing hectares to domestic productivity and making relative to the year from which the constant yield is
the measure conceptually similar to the global yields approach. taken. While useful for demonstrating how resource
ARTICLE IN PRESS
276 M. Wackernagel et al. / Land Use Policy 21 (2004) 271–278

consumption and bioproductivity change through time, extensive trade among nations. The desirability of
it is doubtful that this information is relevant to ecological deficit is thus open to interpretation. Some
interpreting overshoot, which occurs when supply out- may argue that countries that depend on resource
strips demand at a specific point in time. It is therefore imports for critical goods face potential risks. They see
neither surprising nor alarming that the Ecological ecological deficits as a liability. Others claim that regions
Footprint of constant yields produces results different need to live within their ecological capacity (or that
from other methods. The utility of this method is mainly trade needs to be ecologically balanced). Yet others may
to help separate out factors contributing to the celebrate trade for alleviating local economies from local
compound Footprint of a population. constraints.
Sensitivity to local yields—The use of global hectares The strength of Ecological Footprint analysis is to
as a common unit leads some to believe that the identify these critical questions and to provide an
accounts are insensitive to local yields (Luck et al., empirical base for shedding light on these issues.
2001). However, this is not the case. Local differences in
Biocapacity are merely represented in the common units Resource management
of global hectares. The accounts could as well be
presented in any other special units (Austrian hectares, The Ecological Footprint’s focus on the specific
or hectares of a particular watershed). This corresponds question of supply and demand may be seen as a
to a simple conversion similar to expressing financial strength as well as a limitation. It is a strength in the
accounts in yen, rather than dollars. While a popula- sense that it provides an answer to a testable, method-
tion’s Ecological Footprint represents its fraction of unspecific hypothesis. But it is a weakness in the sense
humanity’s total demand on nature, a population’s that it does not answer other questions related to
Biocapacity reflects its contribution to global Biocapa- sustainability, such as effects on people’s quality of life
city. The accounts will therefore register increased or the intensity of resource use. For instance Lenzen and
Biocapacity with changes in productivity from techno- Murray (2001) argue that the method needs to be able to
logical inputs or resource management. Some argue that reflect not only the demand on Biocapacity but also the
increased yields should be reflected in a smaller quality of impact on Biocapacity.
Footprint rather than a larger Biocapacity. Such While it is true that the Ecological Footprint does not
accounting is possible if done in a consistent way that inform about potential effects of current use on future
does not lead to double counting. The ratio between the productivity such as biodiversity loss, salinization, non-
Footprint and Biocapacity, however, remains the same linear effects, and aquifer depletion (van Kooten and
with both approaches. Bulte, 2000), it documents present ecological demand
and supply. Present demand that damages future supply
Anti-trade bias? will only show up in future Footprint assessments.
The Footprint and Biocapacity thus derive directly
Past confusion between ecological deficit and ecolo- from prevailing yields, and do not make adjustments for
gical overshoot have led critics to accuse the Ecological ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘bad’’ management practices. But, time series
Footprint accounts for being anti-trade: ‘‘there isyan are not blind to the quality of impacts and resource
unjustified implication that no country should have an management because they incorporate yield changes.
EF ‘deficit’’’ and ‘‘[the Ecological Footprint] implies Activities that systematically degrade resource capacity
that ecological autarky is desirable, hence that trade is will automatically register this in changing yields
undesirable’’ (Ayres, 2000, p. 348). However, Ecological through time, although disaggregating these changes
Footprint accounts are not normative but merely from their constituent factors may prove more spec-
document demands on nature. Yes, the accounts are ulative.
motivated to show how we use ecological assets and to The connection between specific kinds of activities
what extent we protect these assets. But the accounts do and future productivity loss is also speculative and may
not ‘‘prove’’ whether trade in itself is problematic. They hence undermine the measurement’s ability to document
show if, or to what extent, a region’s resource demand overshoot. While in some instances the effect of present
exceeds the Biocapacity available in this region. A use on future productivity may be more clearly
resource deficit, however, differs from ecological over- established, the scientific and data obstacles to making
shoot, which indicates the overuse of natural capital. such adjustments are extreme, especially when creating a
As international trade opened access to distant measure that aggregates different activities in different
resources, the expansion of the global economy un- countries.
doubtedly fueled much ecological destruction in the 20th Hence, by answering a less demanding question more
century. At the same time, the unequal distribution of precisely it allows the measure to remain more credible
biological capacity suggests that normative concerns when identifying overshoot. This conservative ap-
about equitable access to this capacity must admit proach of underestimating demand on nature minimizes
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Wackernagel et al. / Land Use Policy 21 (2004) 271–278 277

uncertainties in the analysis and supports the robustness The question of inherent productivity has special
of the results. In this sense, the Ecological Footprint is a implications for the Footprint and Biocapacity of
baseline measure of unsustainable overshoot, not a technically enhanced areas. Should yields boosted
measure of ecological sustainability. For the latter through irrigation or fertilizer increase the ‘‘value’’ of
purpose, it needs to be complemented by indicators on a hectare, even though these practices may be unsus-
specific management practices, some of which are tainable? A measure based solely on inherent produc-
outlined in this special issue (Krausmann et al., 2004; tivity would not be weighed more or less heavily
Wrbka et al., 2004). according to production practices.
Furthermore, the Footprint and Biocapacity of time
The difference between inherent productivity and actual series derived from productivity factors could be more
yield easily interpreted than those from yield factors. Time
series of the Footprint and Biocapacity produced from
The Ecological Footprint uses equivalence and yield yield factors must be interpreted in reference to a second
factors to aggregate bioproductive areas of different Footprint or Biocapacity due to the effect of changing
productivity. Although productivity is an intuitively global yields through time. Productivity factors could
attractive concept, it is difficult to define in precise also stabilize the Footprint of built-up areas, which
terms. Should productivity be defined as actual biomass change in accordance with cropland yield factors even
production or potential biomass production? How do when the built area itself remains the same.
we reconcile an area that may be excellent for one use
but poor for another? Most basically, productivity can Options for calculating the energy Footprint
be seen as a product of environmental and socio-
economic factors (Fischer et al., 1999), but in reality it is Some have argued that the Footprint of fossil fuel is
difficult to separate these two with precision. ‘‘hypothetical’’ and should not be part of the overall
We work around this issue by taking an anthropo- accounts (Lomborg, 2002). The calculation of fossil fuel
centric, utilitarian approach, focusing on what we call Footprints, however, is consistent with the research
‘usable bioproduction’ or that portion of biomass that question of how much of the biosphere’s capacity is
can be renewably harvested and is, with current necessary to maintain resource flows. The current
technology, valuable to people (Monfreda et al., 2004). method, if anything, underestimates demands from
Hence, current Ecological Footprint accounts mea- .
fossil fuels (Stoglehner, 2003). ‘‘Hypothetical’’ is a
sure productivity with equivalence factors and yield misleading qualifier—the Footprint of timber or fish-
factors. The equivalence factor (calculated globally) eries is equally so, being based on the ‘hypothetical’ area
reflects the potential agricultural productivity in a given needed to maintain production. The procurement of
area, and the yield factor (calculated nationally) energy and the assimilation of its waste are dependent
captures the difference between local and global average on ecological services.3 In the case of fossil fuels, the
yields. The equivalence factor thus reflects environmen- overuse of the biosphere’s sequestration capacity results
tal, or inherent, productivity, while the yield factor in the accumulation of atmospheric CO2, just as
combines environmental and socio-economic factors. overlogging leads to deforestation. The biosphere’s
These differences raise several issues, including whether sequestration capacity can theoretically be translated
or not natural capital should include both inherent into biologically productive hectares, in much the same
environmental characteristics as well as capacities way resource managers determine sustainable yields of
emerging from its use by people. forests and fisheries.
Future developments of the Ecological Footprint
could ask whether the yield factor be based on inherent
potential productivity (e.g. a productivity factor). The
difference between such yield and productivity factors Conclusions
reflects technical enhancement. This distinction alone
would be a useful addendum to the accounts, but there Producing reliable and valid results depends on being
may not be sufficient data to substantiate such a clear about the nature of the research question being
distinction. Productivity factors could also substitute asked. Past Ecological Footprint applications have
for the yield factor, in which case the accounts would helped us to sharpen our research questions and
measure the allocation of inherent potential production, understand their methodological implications. After
not actual production. The framework used to deter- resolving the conceptual challenges about how to define
mine the productivity factor would thus be consistent 3
In this paper the energy Footprint refers to fossil fuels and nuclear
with that used to calculate the equivalence factor power. Some studies include fuelwood and hydropower under the
because both would separate environmental factors energy Footprint, but here we allocate them within forest and built-up
from socio-economic ones. land respectively.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
278 M. Wackernagel et al. / Land Use Policy 21 (2004) 271–278

overshoot, how to address the variety in eco-productiv- Lenzen, M., Murray, S.A., 2001. A modified ecological footprint
ity, and how to account for differences in resource method and its application to Australia. Ecological Economics 37
management, it becomes more obvious how to select the (2), 229–255.
Loh, J. (Ed.), 2002. Living Planet Report 2002. World-Wide Fund for
method for calculating the various components and the Nature International (WWF), UNEP World Conservation Mon-
corresponding yield and equivalence factors. The fruit of itoring Centre, Redefining Progress, Center for Sustainability
this clarification applied to three case studies of national Studies, Gland, Switzerland.
Ecological Footprints—time series from 1961–1999 for Lomborg, B., 2002. Assessing the Ecological Footprint. Institut for
Austria, the Philippines, and South Korea—is presented Milj^vurdering, Copenhagen.
Luck, M., Jenerette, G.D., Wu, J., Grimm, N.B., 2001. The urban
in the complementary paper in this issue (Wackernagel funnel model and the spatially heterogeneous ecological footprint.
et al., 2004). Ecosystems 4, 782–796.
Moffatt, I., 2000. Ecological footprints and sustainable development.
Ecological Economics 32, 359–362.
Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., Deumling, D., 2004. Establishing
Acknowledgements
national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological
footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy,
The research presented in this article was funded by doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.009.
the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Rees, W., 2000. Eco-footprint analysis: merits and brickbats.
Culture in the research programme Kulturlandschafts- Ecological Economics 32, 371–374.
forschung (Cultural Landscapes Research). The study is .
Sieferle, R.P., 1997. Ruckblick .
auf die Natur. Luchterhand, Munchen.
.
Stoglehner, G., 2003. Ecological footprint—a tool for assessing
part of the project ‘‘Land use change and socio- sustainable energy supplies. Journal of Cleaner Production 11,
economic metabolism: a long-term perspective’’ for- 267–277.
mally endorsed by the Land-Use and Cover Change UNEP, 2002. Global Environment Outlook 3. Past, present and future
(LUCC) project jointly sponsored by the IGBP and the perspectives. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
IHDP. We also appreciate Redefining Progress for Earthscan, London.
Van den Bergh, J., Verbruggen, H., 1999. Spatial sustainability, trade
hosting and supporting the research, and Steve Gold- and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘‘Ecological Footprint’’.
finger and Chris Martiniak for final editing. Ecological Economics 29 (1), 61–72.
van Kooten, G.C., Bulte, E.H., 2000. The ecological footprint: useful
science or politics? Ecological Economics 32, 385–389.
References Van Vuuren, D.P., Smeets, E., de Kruijf, H., 1999. The Ecological
Footprint of Benin, Bhutan, Costa Rica, and the Netherlands.
RIVM report, Bilthoven.
Ayres, R.U., 2000. Commentary on the utility of the ecological
Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N., Deumling, D., Callejas Linares, A.,
footprint concept. Ecological Economics 32, 347–349. Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Monfreda, C., Loh, J., Myers, N.,
Catton, W., 1980. Overshoot: the ecological basis of revolutionary Norgaard, R., Randers, J., 2002. Tracking the ecological overshoot
change. University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL. of the human economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Cohen, J.E., 1995. How Many People Can the Earth Support? W.W.
Science 99 (14), 9266–9271.
Norton & Company, New York, London. Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., 2004.
Erb, K.-H., 2004. Actual land demand of Austria 1926–2000, A Ecological Footprint time series of Austria, the Philippines,
variation on ecological footprint assessments. Land Use Policy, and South Korea for 1961–1999: comparing the conventional
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.010.
approach to a true-area approach. Land Use Policy, doi:10.1016/
Fischer, G., Makowski, M., Granat, J., 1999. AEZWIN: an interactive j.landusepol.2003.10.007.
multiple-criteria analysis tool for land resources appraisal. World WRI, 2000. World Resources 2000–2001—People and Ecosystems:
Soil Resources Reports, Rome.
The Fraying Web of Life. World Resources Institute (WRI),
Geist, H.J., Lambin, E.F., 2002. Proximate causes and underlying Washington DC, USA.
driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52 (2), 143–150. Wrbka, T., Erb, K.-H., Schulz, N.B., Peterseil, J., Hahn, C.O., Haberl,
Haberl, H., Erb, K., Krausmann, F., 2001. How to calculate and H., 2004. Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An
interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time: the case of
empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use
Austria 1926–1995. Ecological Economics 38 (1), 25–45. Policy, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.012.
Krausmann, F., Haberl, H., Karl-Heinz E. , Wackernagel, M., 2004. York, R., Rosa, E.A., Dietz, T., 2003. Footprints on the earth: the
Resource flows and land use: using the MEFA framework to environmental consequences of modernity. American Sociological
monitor society–nature interaction for sustainability. Land Use
Review 68, 279–300.
Policy, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.005.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen