2
1 General Introduction
this challenging era, there is a great need for novel approaches to modeling anthropogenic effects that are the key to identifying the driving forces of contemporary
environmental change.
Ecological footprint analysis (EFA) was originally introduced and advocated to
evaluate the effects of anthropogenic activities on urban sustainability (Rees 1992).
It compiled, on an area basis, the inputs of biological resources and the outputs of
carbon emissions (i.e., the ecological footprint) and compared to the regenerative and
assimilative capacity of urban ecosystems (i.e., the biocapacity), indicating whether
or not the situation remains sustainable (Rees 1997). At the human–environment
interface, six types of land use on which human disturbance is most likely to place
have been taken into account, including cropland, grassland, fishing ground, woodland, built-up land, and carbon uptake land. These relate to six ecosystem services,
respectively: plant-based food production, animal-based food production, fish-based
food production, timber production, living space supply, and carbon sequestration.
In view of the success in raising public awareness of environmental issues and in
evoking effective policy actions, Wackernagel and Rees (1997) have implemented
an extension to the methodological application of the EFA, particularly pinpointing
nation-wide economy. In the latest edition of the National Footprint Accounts
(NFAs), the ecological footprint is defined as the area of biologically productive
space required to produce the resources consumed and to absorb the waste generated, considering the prevailing technology and resources management practices
(Borucke et al. 2013). The biocapacity, which probably can be traced back to the
attempts that quantify human carrying capacity (e.g., Cohen 1995; Ehrlich 1982),
is conceived in such a way that it can provide a region-specific threshold value for
the ecological footprint of a given population. The comparison of the ecological
footprint and biocapacity makes it possible to contrast sustainable and unsustainable
consumption or production in an explicit manner.
1.2 The Development of Environmental Footprints
Despite the worldwide popularity gained in the past two decades, the EFA is found
incapable of capturing all aspects of human disturbance to the biosphere (Goldfinger
et al. 2014), let alone to the atmosphere and hydrosphere. For this reason, a growing
number of footprint-style indicators have been developed in order to complement
the EFA in different dimensions. Examples in the environmental domain include the
water footprint (Hoekstra and Hung 2002), the energy footprint (Stöglehner 2003),
the carbon footprint (Wiedmann and Minx 2008), the chemical footprint (Hitchcock
et al. 2012), the phosphorus footprint (Wang et al. 2011), the biodiversity footprint
(Lenzen et al. 2012), the nitrogen footprint (Leach et al. 2012), the land footprint
(Weinzettel et al. 2013), the material footprint (Wiedmann et al. 2015), the resource
footprint (Huysman et al. 2014), and so on.
1 General Introduction
this challenging era, there is a great need for novel approaches to modeling anthropogenic effects that are the key to identifying the driving forces of contemporary
environmental change.
Ecological footprint analysis (EFA) was originally introduced and advocated to
evaluate the effects of anthropogenic activities on urban sustainability (Rees 1992).
It compiled, on an area basis, the inputs of biological resources and the outputs of
carbon emissions (i.e., the ecological footprint) and compared to the regenerative and
assimilative capacity of urban ecosystems (i.e., the biocapacity), indicating whether
or not the situation remains sustainable (Rees 1997). At the human–environment
interface, six types of land use on which human disturbance is most likely to place
have been taken into account, including cropland, grassland, fishing ground, woodland, built-up land, and carbon uptake land. These relate to six ecosystem services,
respectively: plant-based food production, animal-based food production, fish-based
food production, timber production, living space supply, and carbon sequestration.
In view of the success in raising public awareness of environmental issues and in
evoking effective policy actions, Wackernagel and Rees (1997) have implemented
an extension to the methodological application of the EFA, particularly pinpointing
nation-wide economy. In the latest edition of the National Footprint Accounts
(NFAs), the ecological footprint is defined as the area of biologically productive
space required to produce the resources consumed and to absorb the waste generated, considering the prevailing technology and resources management practices
(Borucke et al. 2013). The biocapacity, which probably can be traced back to the
attempts that quantify human carrying capacity (e.g., Cohen 1995; Ehrlich 1982),
is conceived in such a way that it can provide a region-specific threshold value for
the ecological footprint of a given population. The comparison of the ecological
footprint and biocapacity makes it possible to contrast sustainable and unsustainable
consumption or production in an explicit manner.
1.2 The Development of Environmental Footprints
Despite the worldwide popularity gained in the past two decades, the EFA is found
incapable of capturing all aspects of human disturbance to the biosphere (Goldfinger
et al. 2014), let alone to the atmosphere and hydrosphere. For this reason, a growing
number of footprint-style indicators have been developed in order to complement
the EFA in different dimensions. Examples in the environmental domain include the
water footprint (Hoekstra and Hung 2002), the energy footprint (Stöglehner 2003),
the carbon footprint (Wiedmann and Minx 2008), the chemical footprint (Hitchcock
et al. 2012), the phosphorus footprint (Wang et al. 2011), the biodiversity footprint
(Lenzen et al. 2012), the nitrogen footprint (Leach et al. 2012), the land footprint
(Weinzettel et al. 2013), the material footprint (Wiedmann et al. 2015), the resource
footprint (Huysman et al. 2014), and so on.