Next Article in Journal
Formulating Future Just Policies: Applying the Delhi Sustainable Development Law Principles
Next Article in Special Issue
Application of an Expanded Sequestration Estimate to the Domestic Energy Footprint of the Republic of Ireland
Previous Article in Journal
E-Waste Recycling Systems and Sound Circulative Economies in East Asia: A Comparative Analysis of Systems in Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Nutrients and Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the Ecological Footprint of Products
Sustainability 2010, 2(6), 1645-1693; doi:10.3390/su2061645
Review

A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods

*  and
Received: 20 April 2010; in revised form: 11 May 2010 / Accepted: 1 June 2010 / Published: 7 June 2010
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ecological Footprint Indicator)
Download PDF [605 KB, uploaded 7 June 2010]
Abstract: We present a comprehensive review of perceptions and methods around the Ecological Footprint (EF), based on a survey of more than 50 international EF stakeholders and a review of more than 150 original papers on EF methods and applications over the last decade. The key points identified in the survey are that the EF (a) is seen as a strong communication tool, (b) has a limited role within a policy context, (c) is limited in scope, (d) should be closer aligned to the UN System of Environmental and Economic Accounting and (e) is most useful as part of a basket of indicators. Key issues from the review of methods are: (a) none of the major methods identified can address all relevant issues and questions at once, (b) basing bioproductivity calculations on Net Primary Production (NPP) is a promising approach, (c) advances in linking bioproductivity with ecosystem services and biodiversity have been made by the Dynamic EF concept and the HANPP indicator, (d) environmentally extended input-output analysis (IOA) provides a number of advantages for improving EF calculations and (e) further variations such as the emergy-based concept or the inclusion of further pollutants are not regarded as providing a fundamental shift to the usefulness of EF for policy making. We also discuss the implications of our findings for the use of the EF as a headline indicator for sustainability decision-making.
Keywords: ecological footprint; perception; methodology; policy relevance ecological footprint; perception; methodology; policy relevance
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Export to BibTeX |
EndNote


MDPI and ACS Style

Wiedmann, T.; Barrett, J. A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1645-1693.

AMA Style

Wiedmann T, Barrett J. A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods. Sustainability. 2010; 2(6):1645-1693.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wiedmann, Thomas; Barrett, John. 2010. "A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods." Sustainability 2, no. 6: 1645-1693.


Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert