This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
Mainstream competitiveness and international development analyses pay little attention to the significance of a country’s resource security for its economic performance. This paper challenges this neglect, examining the economic implications of countries resource dynamics, particularly for low-income countries. It explores typologies of resource patterns in the context of those countries’ economic prospects. To begin, the paper explains why it uses Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting for its analysis. Data used for the analysis stem from Global Footprint Network’s 2018 edition of its National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts. Ranging from 1961 to 2014, these accounts are computed from UN data sets. The accounts track, year by year, how much biologically productive space is occupied by people’s consumption and compare this with how much productive space is available. Both demand and availability are expressed in productivity-adjusted hectares, called global hectares. Using this biophysical accounting perspective, the paper predicts countries’ future socio-economic performance. This analysis is then contrasted with a financial assessment of those countries. The juxtaposition reveals a paradox: Financial assessments seem to contradict assessments based on biophysical trends. The paper offers a way to reconcile this paradox, which also elevates the significance of biophysical country assessments for shaping successful economic policies.
Mathis Wackernagel; David Lin; Mikel Evans; Laurel Hanscom; Peter Raven. Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2164 .
AMA StyleMathis Wackernagel, David Lin, Mikel Evans, Laurel Hanscom, Peter Raven. Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (7):2164.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMathis Wackernagel; David Lin; Mikel Evans; Laurel Hanscom; Peter Raven. 2019. "Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends." Sustainability 11, no. 7: 2164.
Ecological Footprint accounting quantifies the supply and demand of Earth’s biocapacity. The National Footprint Accounts (NFA) are the most widely used Ecological Footprint (EF) dataset, and provide results for most countries and the world from 1961 to 2014, based primarily on publicly available UN datasets. Here, we review the evolution of the NFA, describe and quantify the effects of improvements that have been implemented into the accounts since the 2012 edition, and review the latest global trends. Comparing results over six editions of NFAs, we find that time-series trends in world results remain stable, and that the world Ecological Footprint for the latest common year (2008) has increased six percent after four major accounting improvements and more than thirty minor improvements. The latest results from the NFA 2018 Edition for the year 2014 indicate that humanity’s Ecological Footprint is 1.7 Earths, and that global ecological overshoot continues to grow. While improved management practices and increased agricultural yields have assisted in a steady increase of Earth’s biocapacity since 1961, humanity’s Ecological Footprint continues to increase at a faster pace than global biocapacity, particularly in Asia, where the total and per capita Ecological Footprint are increasing faster than all other regions.
David Lin; Laurel Hanscom; Adeline Murthy; Alessandro Galli; Mikel Evans; Evan Neill; Maria Serena Mancini; Jon Martindill; Fatime-Zahra Medouar; Shiyu Huang; Mathis Wackernagel. Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources 2018, 7, 58 .
AMA StyleDavid Lin, Laurel Hanscom, Adeline Murthy, Alessandro Galli, Mikel Evans, Evan Neill, Maria Serena Mancini, Jon Martindill, Fatime-Zahra Medouar, Shiyu Huang, Mathis Wackernagel. Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources. 2018; 7 (3):58.
Chicago/Turabian StyleDavid Lin; Laurel Hanscom; Adeline Murthy; Alessandro Galli; Mikel Evans; Evan Neill; Maria Serena Mancini; Jon Martindill; Fatime-Zahra Medouar; Shiyu Huang; Mathis Wackernagel. 2018. "Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018." Resources 7, no. 3: 58.
The increasing rate of urbanization along with its socio-environmental impact are major global challenges. Therefore, there is a need to assess the boundaries to growth for the future development of cities by the inclusion of the assessment of the environmental carrying capacity (ECC) into spatial management. The purpose is to assess the resource dependence of a given entity. ECC is usually assessed based on indicators such as the ecological footprint (EF) and biocapacity (BC). EF is a measure of the biologically productive areas demanded by human consumption and waste production. Such areas include the space needed for regenerating food and fibers as well as sequestering the generated pollution, particularly CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels. BC reflects the biological regeneration potential of a given area to regenerate resources as well to absorb waste. The city level EF assessment has been applied to urban zones across the world, however, there is a noticeable lack of urban EF assessments in Central Eastern Europe. Therefore, the current research is a first estimate of the EF and BC for the city of Wrocław, Poland. This study estimates the Ecological Footprint of Food (EFF) through both a top-down assessment and a hybrid top-down/bottom-up assessment. Thus, this research verifies also if results from hybrid method could be comparable with top-down approach. The bottom-up component of the hybrid analysis calculated the carbon footprint of food using the life cycle assessment (LCA) method. The top-down result of Wrocław’s EFF were 1% greater than the hybrid EFF result, 0.974 and 0.963 gha per person respectively. The result indicated that the EFF exceeded the BC of the city of Wrocław 10-fold. Such assessment support efforts to increase resource efficiency and decrease the risk associated with resources—including food security. Therefore, there is a need to verify if a city is able to satisfy the resource needs of its inhabitants while maintaining the natural capital on which they depend intact.
Małgorzata Świąder; Szymon Szewrański; Jan K. Kazak; Joost Van Hoof; David Lin; Mathis Wackernagel; Armando Alves. Application of Ecological Footprint Accounting as a Part of an Integrated Assessment of Environmental Carrying Capacity: A Case Study of the Footprint of Food of a Large City. Resources 2018, 7, 52 .
AMA StyleMałgorzata Świąder, Szymon Szewrański, Jan K. Kazak, Joost Van Hoof, David Lin, Mathis Wackernagel, Armando Alves. Application of Ecological Footprint Accounting as a Part of an Integrated Assessment of Environmental Carrying Capacity: A Case Study of the Footprint of Food of a Large City. Resources. 2018; 7 (3):52.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMałgorzata Świąder; Szymon Szewrański; Jan K. Kazak; Joost Van Hoof; David Lin; Mathis Wackernagel; Armando Alves. 2018. "Application of Ecological Footprint Accounting as a Part of an Integrated Assessment of Environmental Carrying Capacity: A Case Study of the Footprint of Food of a Large City." Resources 7, no. 3: 52.
David Lin; Mathis Wackernagel; Alessandro Galli; Ronna Kelly. Ecological Footprint: Informative and evolving – A response to van den Bergh and Grazi (2014). Ecological Indicators 2015, 58, 464 -468.
AMA StyleDavid Lin, Mathis Wackernagel, Alessandro Galli, Ronna Kelly. Ecological Footprint: Informative and evolving – A response to van den Bergh and Grazi (2014). Ecological Indicators. 2015; 58 ():464-468.
Chicago/Turabian StyleDavid Lin; Mathis Wackernagel; Alessandro Galli; Ronna Kelly. 2015. "Ecological Footprint: Informative and evolving – A response to van den Bergh and Grazi (2014)." Ecological Indicators 58, no. : 464-468.
Human pressure on ecosystems is among the major drivers of biodiversity loss. As biodiversity plays a key role in supporting the human enterprise, its decline puts the well-being of human societies at risk. Halting biodiversity loss is therefore a key policy priority, as reflected in the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets under strategic goal A. The Ecological Footprint has become a widely used metric for natural capital and ecosystem accounting, and is frequently cited in the sustainability debate, where it is often used for tracking human-induced pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. Given its potential role as an indirect metric for biodiversity-related policies, this paper breaks down the Ecological Footprint into its components and analyzes resource and ecosystem service flows at an international level. We discuss its usefulness in tracking the underlying drivers of habitat impacts and biodiversity loss. We find that: China is a major net importer of all biomass biocapacity components; the largest net exporters of forest biocapacity are not low-income countries; a very high proportion of the Ecological Footprint of fishing grounds is traded internationally; Singapore and at least three Middle East countries are almost wholly reliant on net imports for the cropland biocapacity they consume.
Elias Lazarus; David Lin; Jon Martindill; Jeanette Hardiman; Louisa Pitney; Alessandro Galli. Biodiversity Loss and the Ecological Footprint of Trade. Diversity 2015, 7, 170 -191.
AMA StyleElias Lazarus, David Lin, Jon Martindill, Jeanette Hardiman, Louisa Pitney, Alessandro Galli. Biodiversity Loss and the Ecological Footprint of Trade. Diversity. 2015; 7 (2):170-191.
Chicago/Turabian StyleElias Lazarus; David Lin; Jon Martindill; Jeanette Hardiman; Louisa Pitney; Alessandro Galli. 2015. "Biodiversity Loss and the Ecological Footprint of Trade." Diversity 7, no. 2: 170-191.