Fischer-Kowalski and Rotmans (2009), comprising natural and societal metabolic
processes. This was encapsulated by Haberl (2001, 2002; Haberl et al. 2007) as a
system of ecological energy flows affecting net primary production (FischerKowalski and Haberl 1998). The indicators involved can be grouped according to
input, output, consumption, and trade, with trade indicators – including, for instance,
domestic material consumption and total material consumption – relaying natural
resource use and national consumption patterns (Giljum et al. 2006) and vice versa,
since they are coevolving. These authors considered the Ecological Footprint as their
second method of natural resource accounting as a sustainability measure.
In an ecosystems approach (see Figure 5 in Allen et al. 1993, p 13), ecosystems
are impacted by humans from a full-world understanding that is necessarily multifaceted. The spatial relationships between multiple species evident in communities
are apparent in the landscape, while process and function focus on material and
energy (matter-energy) flows. According to Allen et al. (1993), these fluxes are
affected by decisions based on what is important at the time, so depend on specific
spatial and temporal scales setting the context. The model is essentially biophysical
because of its emphasis on interacting biota and environment in ecological systems
set in a spatiotemporal context.
1.3 Conceptual Framework
The most critical concepts relevant to this research are the ‘Ecological Footprint’ and
‘biocapacity’. The former is a measure of resource consumption comprising the
demand for natural capital and the latter is natural capital itself measured through
bioproductivity. Making up the Ecological Footprint are the six components of crop
land, grazing land, forest land, fishing grounds, built-up land, and carbon as the
carbon Footprint (cF – see Box 1.1 for relevant abbreviations after Lin et al. 2019).
Carbon is the only waste-based component (Lin et al. 2019), while all remaining
components of the Ecological Footprint are based on land productivity. Importantly,
the Ecological Footprint has two main counterparts – that of consumption (EF C ) and
production (EF P ), as denoted in Box 1.1. These terms also appear in the Glossary,
that is based on Lin et al. (2019), and appears at the end of this brief. As exhaustively
as possible, it conveys the important concepts necessary to comprehend this system
of sustainability accounting.
Box 1.1 Acronyms
BC ¼ Biocapacity
cF ¼ carbon Footprint
CO 2 ¼ Carbon Dioxide
CO 2 -eq. ¼ Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
(continued)
1.3 Conceptual Framework
5
processes. This was encapsulated by Haberl (2001, 2002; Haberl et al. 2007) as a
system of ecological energy flows affecting net primary production (FischerKowalski and Haberl 1998). The indicators involved can be grouped according to
input, output, consumption, and trade, with trade indicators – including, for instance,
domestic material consumption and total material consumption – relaying natural
resource use and national consumption patterns (Giljum et al. 2006) and vice versa,
since they are coevolving. These authors considered the Ecological Footprint as their
second method of natural resource accounting as a sustainability measure.
In an ecosystems approach (see Figure 5 in Allen et al. 1993, p 13), ecosystems
are impacted by humans from a full-world understanding that is necessarily multifaceted. The spatial relationships between multiple species evident in communities
are apparent in the landscape, while process and function focus on material and
energy (matter-energy) flows. According to Allen et al. (1993), these fluxes are
affected by decisions based on what is important at the time, so depend on specific
spatial and temporal scales setting the context. The model is essentially biophysical
because of its emphasis on interacting biota and environment in ecological systems
set in a spatiotemporal context.
1.3 Conceptual Framework
The most critical concepts relevant to this research are the ‘Ecological Footprint’ and
‘biocapacity’. The former is a measure of resource consumption comprising the
demand for natural capital and the latter is natural capital itself measured through
bioproductivity. Making up the Ecological Footprint are the six components of crop
land, grazing land, forest land, fishing grounds, built-up land, and carbon as the
carbon Footprint (cF – see Box 1.1 for relevant abbreviations after Lin et al. 2019).
Carbon is the only waste-based component (Lin et al. 2019), while all remaining
components of the Ecological Footprint are based on land productivity. Importantly,
the Ecological Footprint has two main counterparts – that of consumption (EF C ) and
production (EF P ), as denoted in Box 1.1. These terms also appear in the Glossary,
that is based on Lin et al. (2019), and appears at the end of this brief. As exhaustively
as possible, it conveys the important concepts necessary to comprehend this system
of sustainability accounting.
Box 1.1 Acronyms
BC ¼ Biocapacity
cF ¼ carbon Footprint
CO 2 ¼ Carbon Dioxide
CO 2 -eq. ¼ Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
(continued)
1.3 Conceptual Framework
5