DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Questioning the Ecological Footprint 1 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Questioning the Ecological Footprint 1 2 *Manuscript Click here to view linked References 1 QUESTIONING THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT 2 3 Alessandro Galli1, Mario Giampietro2, Steve Goldfinger3, Elias Lazarus4, David Lin5, Andrea 4 Saltelli6, Mathis Wackernagel7, Felix Müller#8 5 6 ABSTRACT 7 In this perspective paper a critical discussion about the concept of the Ecological Footprint is 8 documented based on 10 questions which are answered from critical and supporting points-of- 9 view. These key questions are directed towards the underlying research objectives of the 10 approach, a comparison with similar concepts, the quantification methodology and its accuracy, 11 the characteristics of the observed flows, the role of scales and resolutions, the implementation 12 of food security, the utility of the ecological footprint for society, the political relevance of the 13 concept and the differences from other international indicator systems. 14 15 KEY WORDS 16 Footprint relevance, footprint methodology, footprint applicability, footprint utility, footprint 17 critics 18 19 HIGHLIGHTS 20 10 key questions concerning the Ecological Footprint are asked 21 The questions are answered from a critical and a supporting viewpoint 22 Overall, discussion and clarity regarding indicators and their representation of 23 sustainability is needed and should be continued 24 1 Global Footprint Network, 7-9 Chemin de Balexert, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland. Tel.+39-346-6760884, E-mail: [email protected] 2 Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), ICTA-UAB and Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), E-mail: [email protected] 3 Global Footprint Network, 312 Clay Street, Suite 300, Oakland, CA 94607-3510, USA, E-mail: [email protected] 4 Global Footprint Network, 312 Clay Street, Suite 300, Oakland, CA 94607-3510, USA, Tel. +1-510-839-8879, E- mail: [email protected] 5 Global Footprint Network, 312 Clay Street, Suite 300, Oakland, CA 94607-3510, USA, Tel. +1-510-839-8879, E- mail: [email protected] 6 Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities (SVT) - University of Bergen (UIB); Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA) -Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB),E-mail: [email protected] 7 Global Footprint Network, 312 Clay Street, Suite 300, Oakland, CA 94607-3510, USA, Tel. +1-510-839-8879, E- mail: [email protected] 8 Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, University of Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 75, D 24118 Kiel, Germany.Tel. +49431-8803251, E-mail: [email protected] # corresponding author 1 25 INTRODUCTION 26 Scientific debates are focal elements of progress in research and development of academic 27 conceptions and methodologies. According to the strong epistemological tradition which 28 demarcates science from other endeavors, the capacity to progress by successive refutations 29 and rectifications is a focal element of scientific discussions. Although they are sometimes 30 executed in an obstinate and less tolerant atmosphere, the outcome can be a productive “cross 31 fertilization”, opening the objects of research for new aspects, setting new questions, 32 demanding for adapted concepts and targets and widening the knowledge in the respective 33 field of science. 34 Indicators provide aggregated and simplified information on phenomena which often are hardly 35 directly determinable, and as such they are suitable objects of intensive debates: Their 36 definitions, the relations to the indicandum, the elaborated methodology and its transparency, 37 the respective measurements and collections, the produced results and their interpretations 38 are often related with certain inaccuracies and uncertainties. Furthermore, the contextual 39 extents of indicators as well as their degrees of aggregation provide a wide field of problems, 40 challenges, potential ambiguities, normative loadings and, consequently severe discussions. 41 In the following, unusual article, a hopefully constructive step in the scientific debate about the 42 Ecological Footprint is made: The paper is based on the exchange of several letters, replies and 43 articles in which conceptual and methodological aspects of the Ecological Footprint have been 44 discussed in this journal (see Giampietro and Saltelli 2014 a, b, Goldfinger et al. 2014, Lin et al. 45 2015 and additionally van den Bergh and Grazi 2015). To avoid a long-term sequence of papers 46 the authors agreed to produce this joint perspective article. It aims to shed light on the roots of 47 ongoing critical discussions regarding the Ecological Footprint and its methodology. This has 48 been boiled down to ten key questions by which we identify strengths and limitations of the 49 Ecological Footprint from different perspectives. Therefore, in this article the authors do not 50 agree with the overall contents; In the opposite, the paper is documenting basic disagreements. 51 One perspective is offered by Mario Giampietro and Andrea Saltelli. The other perspective is 52 presented by researchers associated with Global Footprint Network: David Lin, Mathis 53 Wackernagel, Alessandro Galli, Elias Lazarus, and Steve Goldfinger. Both parties suggested five 54 questions each to frame the discussion about the validity and the utility of Ecological Footprint 55 accounting. Each perspective is offering their particular answers for all 10 questions. 56 This paper starts from a common point of departure. Both parties recognize that it is 57 fundamental for policy formulation and monitoring to have a quantitative approach capable of 58 measuring human demand on nature against nature’s ability to provide ecological services. The 59 position of Global Footprint Network is that Ecological Footprint Accounting adds up ecological 60 services people demand in as far as they compete for biologically productive space9. According 61 to this claim the Ecological Footprint can be compared against the available bioproductive area 62 which provides these services - biocapacity for short (Borucke et al. 2013). Giampietro and 63 Saltelli, on the contrary, argue that the claim of Global Footprint Network does not stand 64 scrutiny (Giampietro and Saltelli, 2014 a, b) and that the Ecological Footprint is not a 9 For an introduction of the footprint methodology, see e.g. Borucke et al. (2013) and Wackernagel et al. (2014) 2 65 quantitative approach capable of measuring human demand on nature against nature’s ability 66 to provide ecological services, and that the results generated by this methodology are not 67 useful. This divergence of opinions led to the present paper. 68 69 The differences between the basic attitudes of the co-authors are already visible by focusing on 70 the basic definitions: 71 72 The Footprint Network provides the following terminology: Ecological Footprint accounting 73 answers the question: How much of the regenerative capacity of the biosphere is occupied by 74 human demand? Humanity’s Ecological Footprint is the sum of all biologically productive 75 surfaces of the planet for which all the human demands compete. These biologically productive 76 surfaces renew resources, provide services such as carbon sequestration, or accommodate 77 urban infrastructure. Human demand can be a single activity, the consumption of one person, a 78 city, a country or humanity as a whole. Ecological Footprints, or human demand (in a given 79 year) is compared to the amount of resources and services that are generated by the 80 biologically productive surfaces of the planet or a region (in that given year) – the biocapacity. 81 Both biocapacity and Ecological Footprint are measured in hectare-equivalent units, namely 82 global hectares. These are biologically productive hectares with world average productivity. 83 Note that not only the Ecological Footprint but also biocapacity changes over time with shifting 84 climate conditions, soil quality and management practice. As a consequence, the value of a 85 global hectare also changes from year to year. Hence results are presented in constant global 86 hectares, i.e., the value of a global hectare in a given year. 87 88 At the other side, Giampietro and Saltelli comment on the basic term of biocapacity with the 89 following paragraph: What is called “biocapacity” in Ecological Footprint Accounting is better 90 described as “agricultural productivity”. It measures actual yields of biomass per hectare that 91 are due to human manipulation of ecological processes (with no consideration for the damage 92 to the environment) and massive injections of fossil energy based inputs (entailing the 93 depletion of a non-renewable stock). Therefore, what is measured in the Ecological Footprint 94 protocol under the label “biocapacity” is not an assessment of how much can be produced on 95 this planet according to its ecological limits. 96 97 Basing upon these general contradictions, both parties suggested five questions each to frame 98 the discussion about the validity and the utility of Ecological Footprint accounting. Both parties 99 have answered all questions. 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 3 108 KEY QUESTIONS 1. What underlying research question does the Ecological Footprint address?10 Giampietro and Saltelli Lin, Wackernagel, Galli Goldfinger, and Lazarus The mathematical protocol developed by the Ecological Footprint accounting addresses Global Footprint Network (GFN) aims to one key question: How much of the assess man’s impact on the planet and biosphere’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mediterranean Ecological Footprint Trends Content
    MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS CONTENT Global Footprint Network 1 Global Footprint Network EDITOR Foreword Promotes a sustainable economy by Alessandro Galli advancing the Ecological Footprint, Foreword Plan Blue 2 Scott Mattoon a tool that makes sustainability measureable. Introduction 3 AUTHORS Alessandro Galli The Ecological Footprint 8 Funded by: of World Regions David Moore MAVA Foundation Established in 1994, it is a family-led, Nina Brooks Drivers of Mediterranean Ecological Katsunori Iha Footprint and biocapacity changes 10 Swiss-based philanthropic foundation over time whose mission is to engage in strong Gemma Cranston partnerships to conserve biodiversity Mapping consumption, production 13 for future generations. CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWER and trade activities for the Mediterranean Region Jean-Pierre Giraud In collaboration with: Steve Goldfi nger Mediterranean Ecological Footprint 17 WWF Mediterranean Martin Halle of nations Its mission is to build a future in which Pati Poblete people live in harmony with nature. Anders Reed Linking ecological assets and 20 The WWF Mediterranean initiative aims economic competitiveness at conserving the natural wealth of the Mathis Wackernagel Toward sustainable development: 22 Mediterranean and reducing human human welfare and planetary limits footprint on nature for the benefi t of all. DESIGN MaddoxDesign.net National Case Studies 24 UNESCO Venice Conclusions 28 Is developing an educational and ADVISORS training platform on the application Deanna Karapetyan Appendix A 32 of the Ecological Footprint in SEE and Hannes Kunz Calculating the Ecological Footprint Mediterranean countries, using in (Institute for Integrated Economic particular the network of MAB Biosphere Research - www.iier.ch) Appendix B 35 Reserves as special demonstration and The carbon-plus approach learning places.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecological Footprint Emerged As a Response to the Challenge of Sustainable Development, Which Aims at Securing Everybody's Well-Being Within Planetary Constraints
    16 Ecological Footprint accounts The Ecological Footprint emerged as a response to the challenge of sustainable development, which aims at securing everybody's well-being within planetary constraints. It sharpens sustainable development efforts by offering a metric for this challenge’s core condition: keeping the human metabolism within the means of what the planet can renew. Therefore, Ecological Footprint accounting seeks to answer one particular question: How much of the biosphere’s (or any region’s) regenerative capacity does any human activity demand? The condition of keeping humanity’s material demands within the amount the planet can renew is a minimum requirement for sustainability. While human demands can exceed what the planet renew s for some time, exceeding it leads inevitably to (unsustainable) depletion of nature’s stocks. Such depletion can only be maintained temporarily. In this chapter we outline the underlying principles that are the foundation of Ecological Footprint accounting. 16 Ecological Footprint accounts Runninghead Right-hand pages: 16 Ecological Footprint accounts Runninghead Left-hand pages: Mathis Wackernagel et al. 16 Ecological Footprint accounts Principles 1 Mathis Wackernagel, Alessandro Galli, Laurel Hanscom, David Lin, Laetitia Mailhes, and Tony Drummond 1. Introduction – addressing all demands on nature, from carbon emissions to food and fibres Through the Paris Climate Agreement, nearly 200 countries agreed to keep global temperature rise to less than 2°C above the pre-industrial level. This goal implies ending fossil fuel use globally well before 2050 ( Anderson, 2015 ; Figueres et al., 2017 ; Rockström et al., 2017 ). The term “net carbon” in the agreement further suggests humanity needs far more than just a transition to clean energy; managing land to support many competing needs also will be crucial.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact Food Labels Combining Carbon, Nitrogen, and Water Footprints ⇑ Allison M
    Food Policy 61 (2016) 213–223 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol Environmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints ⇑ Allison M. Leach a,e, , Kyle A. Emery a, Jessica Gephart a, Kyle F. Davis a, Jan Willem Erisman b,c, Adrian Leip d, Michael L. Pace a, Paolo D’Odorico a, Joel Carr a, Laura Cattell Noll a, Elizabeth Castner a, James N. Galloway a a Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, 291 McCormick Road, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA b Louis Bolk Institute, 3972LA Driebergen, The Netherlands c VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands d European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy e Department of Natural Resources and The Sustainability Institute, University of New Hampshire, 107 Nesmith Hall, 131 Main Street, Durham, NH 03824, USA article info abstract Article history: The environmental impact of the production and consumption of food is seldom depicted to consumers. Received 18 March 2015 The footprint of food products provides a means for consumers to compare environmental impacts across Received in revised form 11 February 2016 and within product groups. In this study we apply carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints in tandem and Accepted 31 March 2016 present food labels that could help inform consumers about the environmental impacts of individual food products. The footprint factors used in this study are specific to the United States, but the concept can be applied elsewhere. We propose three methods of footprint calculations: footprint weight, sustainability Keywords: measures, and % daily value.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Study Report Aims to Analyse More in Depth the Strategies
    Rebound effects and the ecological rucksack in the light of resource policies ESDN Case Study No. 7 Nisida Gjoksi ESDN Office Team www.sd-network.eu June 2011 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................3 RESOURCE EFFICIENCY AND THE REBOUND EFFECTS .........................................................................3 DEFINITION OF THE REBOUND EFFECT ......................................................................................................4 TYPES OF REBOUND EFFECT ...................................................................................................................4 POLICY RESPONSES ..............................................................................................................................4 MAGNITUDE OF REBOUND EFFECTS .........................................................................................................5 RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................................................................5 RESOURCE EFFICIENCY AND THE ECOLOGICAL RUCKSACK .................................................................6 DEFINITION OF THE ECOLOGICAL RUCKSACK ..............................................................................................6 WEAKNESSES OF THE ECOLOGICAL RUCKSACK FACTOR .................................................................................7 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2010
    Action Earth ACRES Adeline Lo Thank You Ai Xin Society for your invaluable support Anderson Junior College Andrew Tay Assembly of Youth for the Environment So many individuals, food outlets AWARE Balakrishnan Matchap and organizations gave their Betty Hoe invaluable effort, time and Bishan Community Library resources to light the path Bright Hill Temple British Petroleum (BP) towards vegetarianism. Space Bukit Merah Public Library may not have allowed us to list Cat Welfare Society Catherina Hosoi everyone, but all the same, we Central Library of the National Library Board extend our most heartfelt thanks Chong Hua Tong Tou Teck Hwee movement to you. Douglas Teo Dr Raymond Yuen Environmental Challenge Organisation Vegetarian Society (Singapore) ROS Registration No.: ROS/RCB 0123/1999 Singapore 3 Pemimpin Drive, #07-02, Lip Hing Bldg, Charity Registration No.: 1851 UEN: S99SS0065J Family Service Centre (Yishun) Singapore 576147 Foreign Domestic Worker Association (address for correspondence only) Gelin www.vegetarian-society.org Genesis Vegetarian Health Food Restaurant [email protected] Global Indian International School Green Kampung website Greendale Secondary School Green Roundtable Noah’s Ark Natural Animal Sanctuary Guangyang Primary School NUS SAVE GUI (Ground Up Initiative) NutriHub Herty Chen Post Museum Indonesia Vegetarian Society Queensway Secondary School International Vegetarian Union Prof Harvey Neo Juggi Ramakrishnan Raffles Institution Lim Yi Ting Rameshon Murugiah Kevin Tan Rosina Arquati Heng Guan Hou Serene Peh Hort Park Singapore Buddhist Federation Kampung Senang Charity and Education Singapore Kite Association Foundation Singapore Malayalee Association Loving Hut Restaurants Singapore Polytechnic Singapore Sports Council Mahaya Menon Singapore Tourism Board Maria and Ana Laura Rivarola Singapore Vegetarian Meetup Groups ANNUALREPORTFOR2010 Mayura Mohta SPCA Maitreyawira School St Anthony’s Canossian Secondary School Media Corp Straits Times MEVEG (Middle East Vegetarian Group) T.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Sustainability of Our Planet the Environment
    Chapter 1 Sustainability of our planet The environment Everything around you; both living and nonliving things Examples: air, water, sunlight, people, plants, animals Environmental Science The study of how humans interact with the environment. Involves many subjects such as: engineering, biology, chemistry, earth science, economics, political science, ethics, moral judgments Goals of Environmental Science There are 3 goals to studying environmental science. 1. Learn how life on Earth has survived and thrived. 2. Understand how humans interact with the environment. 3. Find ways to deal with environmental problems and live more sustainably. What is sustainability? The ability of Earth’s natural systems that support life to adapt to the changing environmental conditions indefinitely. Scientific factors to sustainability Why has life existed on the planet for about 3.8 billion years? 1. Solar energy - photosynthesis 2. Biodiversity – variety of species, genes, ecosystems on the planet to help with adapting to new environmental conditions 3. Nutrient cycling – when an organism dies, it decays, nutrients go back into ground for another organism Social factors to sustainability How have past decisions on environmental problems effected today’s society? 1. Economics –production and consumption of goods and services 2. Political science – government/politics and how it relates to the environment 3. Ethics – study of right and wrong Natural Capital Natural resources and ecosystem services that keep humans and other species alive and
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecological Footprint of British City Residents
    October 2007 Alan Calcott and Jamie Bull CarbonPlan Ecological footprint of British city residents What we can do to reduce ours Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude to the people who gave their time and rendered assistance during the course of the preparation of this report. These include the Stockholm Environment Institute at York University for their assistance in providing the data used in the report and Anthony Field at WWF-UK for his contributions to the report. Background note on the authors CarbonPlan is an environmental consultancy which champions sustainable development in business. It specialises in working with business organisations to implement programmes to understand, measure and reduce the carbon and ecological impacts associated with both their business operation and office premises or estate. In conjunction with Bristol Zoo Gardens and the National Wildlife Conservation Park CarbonPlan developed SALOME – a structured process to allow visitor attractions to systematically reduce impacts and move towards sustainability. Contents Executive summary 4 Introduction 8 What is the issue? 10 What is Ecological Footprinting 12 The Ecological Footprint of the UK 14 Calculating a city footprint 16 Results 20 England – top 10 Smallest Footprints 21 top 10 Largest 22 10 Facts 23 Case Study: London Transport 24 Winchester and Salisbury – a comparison 24 Scotland – smallest to largest footprints 28 10 Facts 29 Wales – smallest to largest footprints 30 10 Facts 31 Edinburgh and Cardiff – a comparison 32 Recommendations 35 Top 10 recommendations to reduce your footprint 36 Conclusions 38 Appendix – The breakdown of city residents ecological footprint 39 3 3 Executive summary INTRODUCTION The choices we make in our everyday lives about our homes, transport, food and the goods we buy have impacts right across the world – from Indonesian rainforests to the Antarctic.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Footprint Network Response to the “Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress” (Or “Stiglitz Commission”) Report
    Global Footprint Network response to the “Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress” (or “Stiglitz Commission”) Report www.footprintnetwork.org September 17, 2009 Headquarters Zürich Office Brussels Office 312 Clay Street, Suite 300 c/o Hürzeler & Schmid 168 avenue de Tervurenlaan, Oakland, CA 94607-3510 Ausstellungsstrasse 114 7th Floor USA CH - 8005 Zürich mailbox 15 SWITZERLAND B - 1150 Brussels Tel. +1-510-839-8879 BELGIUM Fax +1-510-251-2410 Tel. +41 44 271 00 67 [email protected] Fax +41 44 251 36 34 Tel. +32-2-773-5198 1 Global Footprint Network response to The “Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress” (“Stiglitz Commission”) Report September 17, 2009 Summary of Global Footprint Network’s comments Global Footprint Network welcomes the Commission’s report and appreciates the Commission’s tremendous work on synthesizing the complex field of measuring economic performance and social progress. This report is a milestone in the history of public indicators and will become a significant platform for further debate. The Commission report’s most significant contribution may be its emphasis on the need to track distinct policy goals separately: economic performance, quality of life, and environmental sustainability. The Ecological Footprint has tremendous potential to support this agenda, for instance as a resource accounting tool and part of a micro-dashboard of economic performance and social progress indicators. The Ecological Footprint fully and wholly contains the carbon Footprint, and takes a comprehensive, more effective, approach by tracking other human demands on the biosphere’s regenerative capacity. But it needs to be complemented by socio- economic metrics.
    [Show full text]
  • THE Guizhou FOOTPRINT REPORT METRICS for an ECOLOGICAL CIVILIZATION
    THE Guizhou FOOTPRINT REPORT METRICS FOR AN ECOLOGICAL CIVILIZATION Prepared in collaboration with Guizhou Institute of Environmental Science Research and Design “We should no longer judge the political Executive Summary ...............................................................5 performance simply by GDP growth. Instead, we should look at welfare WHY IS ECOLOGICAL CIVILIZATION improvement, social development, and 01 ESSENTIAL? ecological benefits to evaluate leaders.” China: An Extraordinary Country Facing Extraordinary – President Xi Jinping Challenges ............................................................................8 Constraints Rule on a Finite Planet ................................... 10 Biocapacity: Our Ultimate Resource ................................ 12 China’s Top Trade Partners: Stable or Vulnerable? ........ 14 MEASURING FOOTPRINT EFFICIENCY 02 Production Footprint associated with generating GDP in China ........................................................................18 Production Footprint associated with generating GDP in Switzerland ....................................................................20 Ecological Footprint of Consumption ...............................22 Ecological Footprint & Human Development Index (HDI) ...26 GUIZHOU, A MODEL FOR DEVELOPING 03 AN ECOLOGICAL CIVILIZATION How does Guizhou’s Resource Situation Compare to other provinces? ............................................................30 “China will continue to commit to international Guizhou’s Development Path ...........................................34
    [Show full text]
  • CBD Briefing
    CBD Briefing Ecological Footprint Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) New Strategic Plan 2011 – 2020 targeting the Ecological Footprint The CBD’s Strategic Plan must point the way for innovative solutions that can deliver on the explicit goals of biodiversity conservation with respect to inter alia humanity’s consumption impact on biodiversity. Therefore WWF proposes to include a “footprint target” to the Strategic Plan (actual target 4). By 2020, humanity’s global ecological footprint falls below its 2000 level and continues its downward trend. This measurable target relates directly to the concept of ecological footprint. Ecological footprint is already an indicator under the CBD , adopted by COP 8 decision VIII/15 in 2006. More information on the Ecological Footprint is presented below: (Source: Global Footprint Network - Advancing the Science of Sustainability http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/ ) What is the Ecological Footprint? The Ecological Footprint is a resource accounting tool used widely as a management and communication tool by governments, businesses, educational institutions and NGOs to answer a specific resource question: How much of the biological capacity of the planet is required by a given human activity or population? What does the Ecological Footprint measure? The Ecological Footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and sea area an individual, a region, all of humanity, or a human activity requires to produce the resources it consumes and absorb the waste it generates, and compares this measurement to how much land and sea area is available. Biologically productive land and sea includes area that 1) supports human demand for food, fiber, timber, energy and space for infrastructure and 2) absorbs the waste products from the human economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon and Water Footprints
    SIDE PUBLICATIONS SERIES :04 Carbon and Water Footprints Concepts, Methodologies and Policy Responses A. Ertug Ercin and Arjen Y. Hoekstra UNITED NATIONS WORLD WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME Published in 2012 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France © UNESCO 2012 All rights reserved ISBN 978-92-3-001095-9 The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. Photographs: Cover: © Shutterstock / Eduard Stelmakh (left), © Shutterstock / E.G.Pors (centre), © Fernando Weberich (right); p.1: © Shutterstock / yxm2008; p.3: © UN Photo / Guilherme Costa; p.5: © Shutterstock / SVLuma; p.8: © WFP / Susannah Nicol; p.11: © Shutterstock / Dudarev Mikhail; p.16: © Shutterstock / Steve Mann; p.18–19: © Shutterstock / pick. Original concept (cover and layout design) of series: MH Design / Maro Haas Layout: Phoenix Design Aid A/S Printed by: UNESCO Printed in France 2 UNITED NATIONS WORLD WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME Summary The objective of this study is to analyse the origins and characteristics of the carbon and water footprints in order to understand their similarities and differences and to derive lessons on how society and business can adequately build on the two concepts. We compare the two concepts from a methodological point of view and discuss response mechanisms that have been developed, with the hope that experiences in one field might be able to benefit the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors That Affect the Ecological Footprint Depending on the Different Income Levels
    AIMS Energy, 4(4): 557-573. DOI: 10.3934/energy.2016.4.557 Received: 23 December 2015 Accepted: 15 May 2016 Published: 19 May 2016 http://www.aimspress.com/journal/energy Research article Factors that affect the ecological footprint depending on the different income levels Sheng-Tung Chen * and Hui-Ting Chang Department of Public Finance, Feng Chia University, Taichung, 40724 Taiwan * Correspondence: Email: [email protected]; Tel: +886-4-2451-7250 Ext. 4310; Fax: +886-4-2451-2749. Abstract: The ecological footprint provides a method for measuring how much lands can support the consumption of the natural resources. Development and biocapacity debates revolve mainly around the factors that affect the ecological footprint and the approaches to improve the environmental quality. Therefore, we conducted the panel analysis of data for 99 countries from 1981 to 2006 to determine what factors affect the ecological footprint. The empirical results show that the effect of GDP per capita on the ecological footprint varies for different income levels. The effect of urbanization is significantly positive across income levels, which means that the higher the rate of urbanization in high or low income country, the higher the ecological footprint. As developing countries pursue economic development, there will be an impact on the environment. The developed countries may seek to develop their economies through activities that are more detrimental to the environment. Additionally, the export of goods and services divided by GDP is significant, which means that the higher the volume of exports, the greater the burden on the environment. However, this effect is not significant across different income level models.
    [Show full text]