on a mass scale can cause problems of dwindling resources that need safeguarding.
In this chapter, the literature that supports this framework is delineated to set the
stage for the Ecological Footprint as a consumption-based composite indicator. The
chapter conveys the evolution of this sustainability metric from a theoretical perspective that is grounded in the socioenvironment as well as ecological economics in
order to track the development of this composite indicator.
The Ecological Footprint is a composite indicator that comprises six components,
including crop land, grazing land, forest land, fishing grounds, building-up land, and
carbon. All components are consumption-based, except for the carbon Footprint that
solely represents wastes. The consumption-based components are really productionbased because production needs to precede consumption and the two are inevitably
tied. For this, a systems approach is mandatory so that all components are seen
connected to the whole – of the Ecological Footprint. In fact, one of the unique
characteristics of the Ecological Footprint is its comparability to biocapacity in the
determination of global ecological overshoot (Fang et al. 2015; Wackernagel 2014).
The Ecological Footprint itself cannot be separated from its components nor
biocapacity, which is needed to support consumption. Biocapacity represents the
natural production behind the resources needed for consumption to be possible.
When there is a biocapacity deficit, consumption eventually suffers because it is
circumscribed by limited resources. Although it is counterintuitive to consider the
two (the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity) separately, for the sake of conveying
different aspects of Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting, the two will be
isolated in this and the next chapter (Chap. 3) in order to focus on each independently as different parts of the whole.
This chapter begins by relaying the evolution of the Ecological Footprint since its
introduction in the early 1990s by Rees and Wackernagel. It proceeds by building
the context for its development as a sustainability metric, specifically as a performance indicator. Lastly, it is placed within an integrated (systems) theoretical
framework based on environmental and socioeconomic (sustainability) aspects
most specific to ecological economics and emerging environmental accounts. This
needs to be framed from a systems approach that is necessarily securely grounded in
sustainability.
2.1 Ecological Footprint Evolution
The Ecological Footprint was established first conceptually before the methodology
was more rigorously developed. Conceptually, the Ecological Footprint is part of an
accounting system that contextualises it relative to biologically productivity
(or ‘bioproductivity’) measured by biocapacity. As a land-based composite indicator
(Borucke et al. 2013), the Ecological Footprint simply encompasses the amount of
land required to sustain human consumption. The accounting system, namely
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting, is based on global hectares (gha)
that represent a hectare calibrated using an equivalence factor to ensure
32
2 The Ecological Footprint
In this chapter, the literature that supports this framework is delineated to set the
stage for the Ecological Footprint as a consumption-based composite indicator. The
chapter conveys the evolution of this sustainability metric from a theoretical perspective that is grounded in the socioenvironment as well as ecological economics in
order to track the development of this composite indicator.
The Ecological Footprint is a composite indicator that comprises six components,
including crop land, grazing land, forest land, fishing grounds, building-up land, and
carbon. All components are consumption-based, except for the carbon Footprint that
solely represents wastes. The consumption-based components are really productionbased because production needs to precede consumption and the two are inevitably
tied. For this, a systems approach is mandatory so that all components are seen
connected to the whole – of the Ecological Footprint. In fact, one of the unique
characteristics of the Ecological Footprint is its comparability to biocapacity in the
determination of global ecological overshoot (Fang et al. 2015; Wackernagel 2014).
The Ecological Footprint itself cannot be separated from its components nor
biocapacity, which is needed to support consumption. Biocapacity represents the
natural production behind the resources needed for consumption to be possible.
When there is a biocapacity deficit, consumption eventually suffers because it is
circumscribed by limited resources. Although it is counterintuitive to consider the
two (the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity) separately, for the sake of conveying
different aspects of Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting, the two will be
isolated in this and the next chapter (Chap. 3) in order to focus on each independently as different parts of the whole.
This chapter begins by relaying the evolution of the Ecological Footprint since its
introduction in the early 1990s by Rees and Wackernagel. It proceeds by building
the context for its development as a sustainability metric, specifically as a performance indicator. Lastly, it is placed within an integrated (systems) theoretical
framework based on environmental and socioeconomic (sustainability) aspects
most specific to ecological economics and emerging environmental accounts. This
needs to be framed from a systems approach that is necessarily securely grounded in
sustainability.
2.1 Ecological Footprint Evolution
The Ecological Footprint was established first conceptually before the methodology
was more rigorously developed. Conceptually, the Ecological Footprint is part of an
accounting system that contextualises it relative to biologically productivity
(or ‘bioproductivity’) measured by biocapacity. As a land-based composite indicator
(Borucke et al. 2013), the Ecological Footprint simply encompasses the amount of
land required to sustain human consumption. The accounting system, namely
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting, is based on global hectares (gha)
that represent a hectare calibrated using an equivalence factor to ensure
32
2 The Ecological Footprint