socioeconomic metric lacks the ability to integrate the environmental dimension that
the Ecological Footprint focuses on as a measure (Strezov et al. 2017). The Ecological Footprint has been correlated to the Human Development Index in order to
check its performance against a human-based index (e.g., one that considers socioeconomics). The research by Lin et al. (2018) concluded that countries that score
high on the Human Development Index have a high Footprint, so that there is a direct
(positive) correlation between the two measures. This is mainly attributable to the
carbon Footprint that has been observed (as the ‘energy Footprint’) to convey
wealth, even at household level (cf. Minx et al. 2009). Although this linkage can
broaden the human dimension being considered by the Ecological Footprint, it does
not on its own merit represent a full integration of this aspect. Arguably, this can be
executed through the questions in the Footprint Calculator that will be presented in
Chap. 4.
2.3 Systems Approach
The Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting is a unique methodology
because of its comparison of human consumption with Earth’s natural capital, its
ability to assimilate wastes, and regeneration capacity. It inherently adopts a systems
approach that considers inputs and outputs as well as flows and stocks or components in the system (e.g., Borucke et al. 2013; Mancini et al. 2017; Niccolucci et al.
2009, 2011). It has been conceptualised as a simple input-output (I-O) system, where
inputs include the natural stocks that support human life and activities. Human
outputs are also considered in the system through its components that include wastes
from production, such as CO 2 emissions from manufacturing. It is possible to derive
stocks from the available flows of global hectares per year.
As a cross-scalar metric, the methodology allows for calculations of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity at various scales, from the individual (household)
level using the Footprint Calculator, to the regional scale with accumulation of
responses in a bottom-up approach – for instance, as part of a multiregional inputoutput (MRIO) model. Otherwise, it is possible to use the National Footprint
Accounts in a top-down approach that allows for national–global level calculations.
The former (bottom-up) approach provides contextualisation based on local influences, such as cultural aspects that influence the balance between nature’s production (biocapacity) and human consumption. However, the information is acquired in
a top-down approach based on national government data. The ecosystems approach
(cf. Allen et al. 1993) is appropriate to encapsulate the multi-scalar characteristic of
the methodology because of its similar multilevel approach or multifaceted approach
to landscapes.
36
2 The Ecological Footprint
the Ecological Footprint focuses on as a measure (Strezov et al. 2017). The Ecological Footprint has been correlated to the Human Development Index in order to
check its performance against a human-based index (e.g., one that considers socioeconomics). The research by Lin et al. (2018) concluded that countries that score
high on the Human Development Index have a high Footprint, so that there is a direct
(positive) correlation between the two measures. This is mainly attributable to the
carbon Footprint that has been observed (as the ‘energy Footprint’) to convey
wealth, even at household level (cf. Minx et al. 2009). Although this linkage can
broaden the human dimension being considered by the Ecological Footprint, it does
not on its own merit represent a full integration of this aspect. Arguably, this can be
executed through the questions in the Footprint Calculator that will be presented in
Chap. 4.
2.3 Systems Approach
The Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting is a unique methodology
because of its comparison of human consumption with Earth’s natural capital, its
ability to assimilate wastes, and regeneration capacity. It inherently adopts a systems
approach that considers inputs and outputs as well as flows and stocks or components in the system (e.g., Borucke et al. 2013; Mancini et al. 2017; Niccolucci et al.
2009, 2011). It has been conceptualised as a simple input-output (I-O) system, where
inputs include the natural stocks that support human life and activities. Human
outputs are also considered in the system through its components that include wastes
from production, such as CO 2 emissions from manufacturing. It is possible to derive
stocks from the available flows of global hectares per year.
As a cross-scalar metric, the methodology allows for calculations of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity at various scales, from the individual (household)
level using the Footprint Calculator, to the regional scale with accumulation of
responses in a bottom-up approach – for instance, as part of a multiregional inputoutput (MRIO) model. Otherwise, it is possible to use the National Footprint
Accounts in a top-down approach that allows for national–global level calculations.
The former (bottom-up) approach provides contextualisation based on local influences, such as cultural aspects that influence the balance between nature’s production (biocapacity) and human consumption. However, the information is acquired in
a top-down approach based on national government data. The ecosystems approach
(cf. Allen et al. 1993) is appropriate to encapsulate the multi-scalar characteristic of
the methodology because of its similar multilevel approach or multifaceted approach
to landscapes.
36
2 The Ecological Footprint