Ecological Footprint of 2.8 global hectares per person remains far above the
biocapacity available to each person. In other words, the current world average of
1.7 Earths (based on the Global Footprint Network 2020) needs to be reduced either
by curtailing consumption or increasing production (and/or efficiency) in order to
counteract persistent overshoot.
3.4 Conclusions
One of the unique characteristics of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity
accounting is the ability to compare supply versus demand. In this way, it is possible
to ascertain whether there is a net reserve or deficit. The latter is indicative of
humanity overshooting its consumption beyond what is available from the Earth’s
natural resources. This chapter has focused on the balance used in the determination
of the carrying capacity of an environment and to define production as well as
ecological overshoot. Importantly, humanity needs to stay within the boundaries set
by nature (e.g. 1 Earth) for sustainability to ensue. Admittedly, there is more to
sustainability than just the environment, and it is necessary to also consider socioeconomics as well as cultural aspects that may influence it.
In the next chapter, a case study from Costa Rica will provide the basis for
analysis (Chap. 4) and discussion (Chap. 5) of a developing country. Rural peasant
farmers (or ‘campesinos’) located in the Alexander Skutch Biological Corridor will
provide a basis for a cross-scalar examination of the Ecological Footprint. Importantly, by examining producers, it is possible to consider a more than typically
‘balanced’ population sample. The results will be compared to the national score
for Costa Rica and deployed to scrutinise the human impact on the environment based on a developing country.
References
Blomqvist L, Brook BW, Ellis EC, Kareiva PM, Nordhaus T, Shellenberger M (2013) The
ecological footprint remains a misleading metric of global sustainability. PLoS Biol 11(11):
e1001702. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001702
Fang K, Heijungs R, de Snoo GR (2015) Understanding the complementary linkages between
environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a footprint–boundary environmental
sustainability assessment framework. Ecol Econ 114:218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2015.04.008
Giampietro M, Saltelli A (2014) Footworking in circles. Ecol Indic 46:260–263. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.019
Global Footprint Network (2020) National Footprint Accounts. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
Lin D, Hanscom L, Murthy A, Galli A, Evans M, Neill E, Mancini MS, Martindill J, Medouar F-Z,
Huang S, Wackernagel M (2018) Ecological footprint accounting for countries: updates and
results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources 7(3):58. https://doi.org/10.
3390/resources7030058
48
3 Biocapacity Accounting
biocapacity available to each person. In other words, the current world average of
1.7 Earths (based on the Global Footprint Network 2020) needs to be reduced either
by curtailing consumption or increasing production (and/or efficiency) in order to
counteract persistent overshoot.
3.4 Conclusions
One of the unique characteristics of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity
accounting is the ability to compare supply versus demand. In this way, it is possible
to ascertain whether there is a net reserve or deficit. The latter is indicative of
humanity overshooting its consumption beyond what is available from the Earth’s
natural resources. This chapter has focused on the balance used in the determination
of the carrying capacity of an environment and to define production as well as
ecological overshoot. Importantly, humanity needs to stay within the boundaries set
by nature (e.g. 1 Earth) for sustainability to ensue. Admittedly, there is more to
sustainability than just the environment, and it is necessary to also consider socioeconomics as well as cultural aspects that may influence it.
In the next chapter, a case study from Costa Rica will provide the basis for
analysis (Chap. 4) and discussion (Chap. 5) of a developing country. Rural peasant
farmers (or ‘campesinos’) located in the Alexander Skutch Biological Corridor will
provide a basis for a cross-scalar examination of the Ecological Footprint. Importantly, by examining producers, it is possible to consider a more than typically
‘balanced’ population sample. The results will be compared to the national score
for Costa Rica and deployed to scrutinise the human impact on the environment based on a developing country.
References
Blomqvist L, Brook BW, Ellis EC, Kareiva PM, Nordhaus T, Shellenberger M (2013) The
ecological footprint remains a misleading metric of global sustainability. PLoS Biol 11(11):
e1001702. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001702
Fang K, Heijungs R, de Snoo GR (2015) Understanding the complementary linkages between
environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a footprint–boundary environmental
sustainability assessment framework. Ecol Econ 114:218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2015.04.008
Giampietro M, Saltelli A (2014) Footworking in circles. Ecol Indic 46:260–263. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.019
Global Footprint Network (2020) National Footprint Accounts. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
Lin D, Hanscom L, Murthy A, Galli A, Evans M, Neill E, Mancini MS, Martindill J, Medouar F-Z,
Huang S, Wackernagel M (2018) Ecological footprint accounting for countries: updates and
results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources 7(3):58. https://doi.org/10.
3390/resources7030058
48
3 Biocapacity Accounting