Towards a 3D National Ecological Footprint Geography

V. Niccolucci, A. Galli, A. Reed, E. Neri, M. Wackernagel and S. Bastianoni

Ecological Modelling, 2011, vol. 222, issue 16, 2939-2944

Abstract: In the last decades several indicators have been proposed to guide decision makers and help manage natural capital. Among such indicators is the Ecological Footprint, a resource accounting tool with a biophysical and thermodynamic basis. In our recent paper (Niccolucci et al., 2009), a three dimensional Ecological Footprint (3DEF) model was proposed to better explain the difference between human demand for natural capital stocks and resource flows. Such 3DEF model has two relevant dimensions: the surface area (or Footprint size – EFsize) and the height (or Footprint depth – EFdepth). EFsize accounts for the human appropriation of the annual income from natural capital while EFdepth accounts for the depletion of stocks of natural capital and/or the accumulation of stocks of wastes. Building on the 2009 Edition of the National Footprint Accounts (NFA), global trends (from 1961 to 2006) for both EFsize and EFdepth were analyzed. EFsize doubled from 1961 to 1986; after 1986 it reached an asymptotic value equal to the Earth's biocapacity (BC) and remained constant. Conversely, EFdepth remained constant at the “natural depth” value until 1986, the year in which global EF first exceeded Earth's BC. A growing trend was observed after that. Trends in each Footprint land type were also analyzed to better appraise the land type under the higher human induced stress. The usefulness of adopting such 3DEF model in the National Footprint Accounts was also discussed. In comparing any nation's demand for ecological assets with its own biocapacity in a given year, four hypothetical cases were identified which could serve as the basis for a new Footprint geography based on both size and depth concepts. This 3DEF model could help distinguish between the use of natural capital flows and the depletion of natural capital stocks while maintaining the structure and advantages of the classical Ecological Footprint formulation.

Keywords: Ecological Footprint; Flow; Footprint size; Footprint depth; Stock (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380011002286
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:222:y:2011:i:16:p:2939-2944

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.04.020

Access Statistics for this article

Ecological Modelling is currently edited by Brian D. Fath

More articles in Ecological Modelling from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().