Table 1.2 (continued)
Major themes
Selection of sources
(2008), Monfreda et al. (2004), van den Bergh
and Grazi (2014, 2015), van den Bergh and
Verbruggen (1999), van Vuuren and Smeets
(2000), Wackernagel (2014), Wackernagel and
Yount (2000), Wackernagel et al. (2004a) and
Wiedmann et al. (2006)
(4) Utility (3) – draws heavily from utility theory and an anthropocentric version of environmentalism; therefore, counts biocapacity only
in terms of portions of the Earth which can be of
direct use by people, e.g. biocapacity calculations exclude 36 billion hectares of land considered too unproductive – by excluding
significant natural areas from estimates of
biocapacity, the accounts do not recognise the
interdependence of all ecosystems – from a
systems approach
Kitzes et al. (2008), Lamb et al. (2014) and
Venetoulis and Talberth (2008)
(5) Quality (33) – a measure of extensive production, but does not consider intensive production and its environmental impacts, e.g. land
degradation
Blomqvist et al. (2013b), Borucke et al. (2013),
Curry and Maguire (2011), Erb (2004), Fang
et al. (2015), Fiala (2008), Galli et al. (2011,
2012, 2016), Giampietro and Saltelli (2014),
Kharrazi et al. (2014), Kitzes and Wackernagel
(2009), Kitzes (2013), Kitzes et al. (2007,
2008, 2009), Lenzen and Murray (2001, 2003),
Lenzen et al. (2007), Mancini et al. (2017),
McManus and Haughton (2006); Rees and
Wackernagel (2013), Solarin and Bello (2018),
Troell et al. (2002), van den Bergh and Grazi
(2014), van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999),
Venetoulis and Talberth (2008), Wackernagel
(1998, 2019), Wackernagel et al. (2004a, b)
and Zhang et al. (2017)
(6) Land use (18) – single land-use functions
are considered, when that may not be the reality,
in order to avoid double-counting; however,
neglect of multiple use can bias the Ecological
Footprint upwards; furthermore, it is an incomplete environmental measure because it does
not consider water use, persistent pollutants,
and biodiversity
Borucke et al. (2013), Goldfinger et al. (2014),
Holmberg et al. (1999), Kharrazi et al. (2014),
Kitzes (2013), Kitzes and Wackernagel (2009),
Lenzen et al. (2007), Mayer (2008), McManus
and Haughton (2006), Peters et al. (2008),
Troell et al. (2002), van den Bergh and Grazi
(2015), van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999),
Wackernagel (2014), Wiedmann and Minx
(2008), Wiedmann et al. (2006, 2007) and
Wright et al. (2011)
(7) Energy-centrism (11) – the Ecological
Footprint is dominated by energy, e.g. carbon
Footprint – ecological overshoot is mostly
attributable to the carbon Footprint, due to the
hypothetical conversion of energy to land use,
based on one strategy (reforestation) to assimilate wastes
Barrett et al. (2005), Fiala (2008), Galli et al.
(2020), Giampietro and Saltelli (2014),
Jóhannesson et al. (2020), McManus and
Haughton (2006), Minx et al. (2009), Strezov
et al. (2017), van den Bergh and Grazi (2014),
van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999) and
Zhang et al. (2017)
(continued)
1.4 Quality Analysis
13
Major themes
Selection of sources
(2008), Monfreda et al. (2004), van den Bergh
and Grazi (2014, 2015), van den Bergh and
Verbruggen (1999), van Vuuren and Smeets
(2000), Wackernagel (2014), Wackernagel and
Yount (2000), Wackernagel et al. (2004a) and
Wiedmann et al. (2006)
(4) Utility (3) – draws heavily from utility theory and an anthropocentric version of environmentalism; therefore, counts biocapacity only
in terms of portions of the Earth which can be of
direct use by people, e.g. biocapacity calculations exclude 36 billion hectares of land considered too unproductive – by excluding
significant natural areas from estimates of
biocapacity, the accounts do not recognise the
interdependence of all ecosystems – from a
systems approach
Kitzes et al. (2008), Lamb et al. (2014) and
Venetoulis and Talberth (2008)
(5) Quality (33) – a measure of extensive production, but does not consider intensive production and its environmental impacts, e.g. land
degradation
Blomqvist et al. (2013b), Borucke et al. (2013),
Curry and Maguire (2011), Erb (2004), Fang
et al. (2015), Fiala (2008), Galli et al. (2011,
2012, 2016), Giampietro and Saltelli (2014),
Kharrazi et al. (2014), Kitzes and Wackernagel
(2009), Kitzes (2013), Kitzes et al. (2007,
2008, 2009), Lenzen and Murray (2001, 2003),
Lenzen et al. (2007), Mancini et al. (2017),
McManus and Haughton (2006); Rees and
Wackernagel (2013), Solarin and Bello (2018),
Troell et al. (2002), van den Bergh and Grazi
(2014), van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999),
Venetoulis and Talberth (2008), Wackernagel
(1998, 2019), Wackernagel et al. (2004a, b)
and Zhang et al. (2017)
(6) Land use (18) – single land-use functions
are considered, when that may not be the reality,
in order to avoid double-counting; however,
neglect of multiple use can bias the Ecological
Footprint upwards; furthermore, it is an incomplete environmental measure because it does
not consider water use, persistent pollutants,
and biodiversity
Borucke et al. (2013), Goldfinger et al. (2014),
Holmberg et al. (1999), Kharrazi et al. (2014),
Kitzes (2013), Kitzes and Wackernagel (2009),
Lenzen et al. (2007), Mayer (2008), McManus
and Haughton (2006), Peters et al. (2008),
Troell et al. (2002), van den Bergh and Grazi
(2015), van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999),
Wackernagel (2014), Wiedmann and Minx
(2008), Wiedmann et al. (2006, 2007) and
Wright et al. (2011)
(7) Energy-centrism (11) – the Ecological
Footprint is dominated by energy, e.g. carbon
Footprint – ecological overshoot is mostly
attributable to the carbon Footprint, due to the
hypothetical conversion of energy to land use,
based on one strategy (reforestation) to assimilate wastes
Barrett et al. (2005), Fiala (2008), Galli et al.
(2020), Giampietro and Saltelli (2014),
Jóhannesson et al. (2020), McManus and
Haughton (2006), Minx et al. (2009), Strezov
et al. (2017), van den Bergh and Grazi (2014),
van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999) and
Zhang et al. (2017)
(continued)
1.4 Quality Analysis
13