Global Footprint Network Research Articles

Reply to the first systematic response by the Global Footprint Network to criticism: A real debate finally?

We respond to a reaction of the Global Footprint Network/GFN on our 8-point criticism of the ecological footprint. We also refer to, and comment on, an associated debate in this journal between Giampietro and Saltelli (2014a, 2014b), on the one hand, and Goldfinger et al. (2014), on the other. We conclude that criticism on the footprint is accumulating and coherent across the various studies and disciplines and among the different authors. This was the first time that Wackernagel/GFN systematically responded to our criticisms. Hence, our response contains several original elements and the resulting exchange can be seen to add value to the existing literature. It ultimately allows readers to better make up their mind about the different viewpoints on the ecological footprint.

Economic Productivity Flip-Flop in the Danube Countries

Productivity emphasizes the strength and vigor of an economy, but could we use it to capture the strength and vigor of the society within which the economic processes take place? This paper analyzes economic productivity in relation with its social dimension. The research hypothesis on which the paper is built is that measuring economic productivity reveals the economic results, but hides the social effects. In order to test the hypothesis we start by computing the capital and labor productivity of the selected countries, scores which in a subsequent stage are summed up in order to establish the total productivity. Further in our analysis we adjust the level of productivity through three equations meant to reflect the fairness of the income distribution, the level of human development and also the sustainability of the economic processes that generate the computed levels of productivity. The paper uses the methodology developed by the author in a previous study. The countries chosen for the empirical analysis are the Danube countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Croatia, Hungary, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbian Republic, Slovak Republic and Ukraine. The research is based on statistical data provided by the World Bank, the Global Footprint Network, Eurostat and the UNDP. All the data we use in this study is for the year 2007, the purpose of the paper being to test the model developed and not to capture current events. The results confirm the hypothesis, showing that the levels of productivity would be much lower if economic activity were scaled by its social implications.

Natural resources - food nexus: food-related environmental footprints in the mediterranean countries.

Immediate action is required in the Mediterranean to address environmental degradation that is mainly driven by consumption patterns. Increasing stress on biological and social systems is put by unsustainable consumption patterns. Food consumption patterns are important drivers of environment degradation. The objective of this review paper is to explore natural resources-food nexus in the Mediterranean region by highlighting the environmental footprints of the current consumption and production patterns. Secondary data from different sources such as FAOSTAT, the World Bank, Water Footprint Network (WFN), and Global Footprint Network were used to analyze the situation in 21 Mediterranean countries. The region faces many environmental challenges, e.g., land degradation, water scarcity, environment pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change. The current consumption patterns imply high ecological, carbon, and water footprints of consumption and unfavorable national virtual-water balances. Food Balance Sheets data show that the contribution of vegetal and animal-based food product groups to food supply is variable among the Mediterranean countries. This has implications also in terms of the WF of food supply, which was calculated for Bosnia, Egypt, Italy, Morocco, and Turkey. The WF of the current diet resulted lower than that of the proposed Mediterranean one in the case of Italy. There is a strong scientific evidence supporting assumption that it is so also for other Mediterranean countries. The Mediterranean is characterized by a high resource use intensity that is further exacerbated by food losses and waste (FLW). In fact, FLW implies the loss of precious resources (water, land, energy) and inputs (fertilizers). Therefore, it is crucial to increase adherence to the traditional Mediterranean diet and to reduce FLW in order to foster transition to more sustainable food consumption patterns thus reducing pressure on the scarce resources of the Mediterranean region.

Potentials for prosperity without growth: Ecological sustainability, social inclusion and the quality of life in 38 countries

Recent contributions to ecological economics and related social sciences indicate that issues such as climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation cannot be effectively addressed under conditions of continued economic growth. This paper aims at empirically identifying structural potentials and policy challenges for prosperity at scales where economic development remains within ecological carrying capacities. Building on the growing literature that interprets prosperity ‘beyond’ economic growth, the paper presents a three-dimensional concept to operationalise prosperity in terms of ecological sustainability, social inclusion, and the quality of life. These dimensions are measured using data from sources such as The World Bank, the Global Footprint Network and the OECD. The results of cluster and correspondence analyses indicate the existence of five ‘prosperity regimes’ and demonstrate that all aspects of prosperity – including (unsatisfactory) ecological performance – are linked to economic development. However, our findings also indicate that in order to achieve a decent minimum of prosperity moderate levels of the material living standard are sufficient. Further increases in the material living standard do not lead to significant additional prosperity; instead they cause greater environmental harms. The paper concludes by highlighting potentials for prosperity for each of the ‘prosperity regimes’ and corresponding policy challenges.

Consumer income and its relation to sustainable food consumption – obstacle or opportunity?

The consumption of food is associated with significant environmental impacts, and the disposable incomes of individuals and households play an important role in what food is consumed. It may be assumed that the higher the income, the more food consumed. However, it may also be supposed that people with higher incomes are more likely to lead healthier lifestyles and therefore consume more moderately.This analysis is based on food consumption data from the Household budget and living conditions survey of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office, combined with the latest database from the Global Footprint Network. Results show that a higher level of consumption is able to offset a healthier consumption structure. For the upper three income deciles ecological footprints for food consumption are not notably higher, as the individuals in these groups use their higher incomes to purchase and consume more fruit and vegetables. A scenario analysis is carried out along the income deciles to illustrate the changes needed to move towards a healthier food consumption structure. Results highlight that the ecological footprint of food consumption is not equally distributed among the income groups, and that middle–upper level income groups have a greater responsibility to decrease their food consumption. The footprints of this group would be decreased to a greater extent by consuming healthier diets than they would with lower income deciles.Policy measures that are employed to reduce the ecological footprint should take into account the responsibility of the different socio-economic levels. Correspondingly, identifying and targeting social groups by income level may be a suitable approach for better communicating about sustainable consumption.

Taiwan’s Ecological Footprint (1994–2011)

According to the 2011 edition of the National Footprint Accounts (NFA) published by the Global Footprint Network (GFN), humankind consumed the resources and services of 1.5 planets in 2008; the corresponding number in 1961 was 0.7 planets. North Americans have an ecological footprint of 8.7 global hectares per person whereas Africans have a footprint of only 1.4 global hectares per person. The global mean biological capacity is only 1.8 global hectares per person so human beings are overshooting ecological resources. The ecological footprint measures the resources that are consumed by humans from the biosphere, and serves as an index of the sustainability of development. The NFA includes the ecological footprints of over 200 countries and regions, but not Taiwan. Hence, Taiwan must establish and update its own ecological footprint databases. Ecological footprint is one indicator of the sustainability of development, and can be compared across nations. This study extends previous studies by analyzing Taiwan’s ecological footprint from 2008–2011. With reference to the ecological footprint accounts of the Global Footprint Network and the Taiwan’s ecological footprint analysis for 1997–2007, this study presents Taiwan’s ecological footprint from 2008–2011. Most of the data that are used herein are taken from the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Energy Agency, Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture and Taiwan’s National Development Council. The results thus obtained reveal that Taiwan’s ecological footprint from 2008–2011 exceeded that from 1997–2007. To respond to this trend toward un-sustainable development and to help Taiwan move toward sustainability, carbon reduction and energy saving policies should be implemented to effectively manage Taiwan’s ecological resources.

Building the Eco-social State: Do Welfare Regimes Matter?

AbstractAuthors such as Dryzek, Gough and Meadowcroft have indicated that social-democratic welfare states could be in a better position to deal with development of the ‘green’ or ‘eco’ state, and the intersection of social and environmental policies, than conservative or liberal welfare regimes (synergy hypothesis). However, this hypothesis has as yet not been examined in comparative empirical research. Based on comparative empirical data from EUROSTAT, the World Bank, the OECD, the Global Footprint Network and the International Social Survey Programme, we are carrying out two research operations: First, by applying correspondence analysis, we contrast the macro-structural welfare and sustainability indicators of thirty countries and ask whether clusters largely follow the synergy hypothesis. Second, we raise the issue of whether differences in the institutional and organisational capabilities of combining welfare with environmental policies are reflected in people's attitudes and opinions. With regard to the first issue, our results suggest that there is no ‘automatic’ development of the ecostate based on already existing advanced welfare institutions. Representatives of all welfare regimes are spread across established, deadlocked, failing, emerging and endangered ecostates. As for the second issue, the results are mixed. While responses to the statements ‘economic growth always harms the environment’ and ‘governments should pass laws to make ordinary people protect the environment, even if it interferes with people's rights to make their own decisions’ did not vary according to welfare regimes, people from social-democratic countries expressed more often than average their willingness to accept cuts in their standard of living in order to protect the environment.

Ecological footprint of nations: Comparison of process analysis, and standard and hybrid multiregional input–output analysis

The ecological footprint (EF) is an indicator of human requirements on bio-productive land, an essential but limited resource, which use is related to environmental burden. In this article, we compare three methods for calculating national EF: a) the process analysis represented by Global Footprint Network (GFN) accounts; b) a standard environmentally extended multi-regional input–output model (EE-MRIOM); and c) a hybrid EE-MRIOM. The process analysis accounts for total domestic production and international trade of selected products. A standard EE-MRIOM further accounts for the upstream footprint of all traded products, but has a low resolution of relevant products in available datasets. The hybrid EE-MRIO method assessed here traces the primary biomass products in physical units through environmental extensions. Our results show that the standard MRIO model might introduce a significant error due to low resolution and poor data quality. The hybrid MRIO approach provides more accurate results than the standard MRIO method since it applies data from additional sources on a more detailed level. The process analysis underestimates the footprint of imports and exports as it ignores trade in services and other products as well as the upstream flows of products included in the analysis.

Towards a new framework to account for environmental risk in sovereign credit risk analysis

Despite the growing body of evidence on ecosystem degradation and on-going development in measuring its economic implications, there remains a lack of understanding and integration of environmental risks into investment decision. There is, therefore, currently a weak financial rationale and a limited choice of tools to assess the materiality of environmental risk for the sovereign bond market. Improving investor understanding of the materiality of environmental risks is likely to be crucial to limiting risk exposure of important investments and to encouraging the transition to a greener more sustainable economy. This article presents the development and initial application of a framework that aims to improve the financial rationale for assessing the materiality of environmental risk in the sovereign bond market. It is the result of a collaborative and inter-disciplinary project of researchers and practitioners from a group of financial institutions, the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, and Global Footprint Network. Results not only show the long- and short-term implications of environmental risk for a wide variety of resource profiles, but also how these risks relate to macroeconomic factors that are already recognised as relevant to sovereign credit risk. This, therefore, presents a more accurate reflection of how these factors might influence the risk or return situation for an investor. More collaborative and innovative research between scientists and practitioners could improve both knowledge and methods to effectively account for the financial materiality of natural resource risks for a country's economy.

Extreme Outliers in the Database for Calculation of Ecological Footprint; The Problems of Grazing Land Footprint as Well as the Fishing Ground Footprint Calculation

The appreciation of ecological footprint has been increasing since the study by Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi’ [Stiglitz et al. 2009]. At the same time, owing to the methodological and standardization problems as well as the shortcomings of data collection, its accuracy can be questioned. In our study, we were looking for countries with a significantly differing from the world average composition of the ecological footprint, with the help of cluster analyses and data from the database used for calculating the ecological footprint index by the Global Footprint Network. Comparing data from two years, we were trying to find answer to the question if the outlier data can trace back to professional errors or data collection problems. Basing on our studies, we can determine a two members group with an outstanding grazing land footprint (Mongolia, Uruguay), which can be considered as outliers according to every examination method. The formation of a stable group characterized by a big fishing ground footprint in 2010 can trace back to an inconsistency in the database, which is proved by the example of Gambia and Norway. In our opinion, a control of outliers is necessary for proper calculation of the EF index every year.

From Knowledge to Action—New Paths Towards Sustainable Consumption

In March 2011, the Journal of Consumer Policy published a special issue on sustainable consumption. The main focus of that issue was on how the different relevant actors (consumers, business, government, and NGOs) are “putting sustainable consumption into practice” (Schrader and Thogersen 2011). That issue continued a row of special issues on sustainable consumption (and production) in 2010 by the Journal of Industrial Ecology (in January/February, edited by Arnold Tukker, Maurie J. Cohen, Klaus Hubacek, and Oksana Mont), the Natural Resources Forum (in February, edited by David Le Blanc), the Journal of Macromarketing (June, edited byWilliam E. Kilbourne), and the Journal of Consumer Behaviour (November/December, edited by Iain Black). The calls for these special issues were well received in the research community and so were the published articles. This, together with the ending of a number of large research projects on sustainable consumption in 2011, convinced the editors of the Journal of Consumer Policy that they should once more support the development of this fertile research field by offering space for another special issue on sustainable consumption, just 1 year after the previous one. The backcloth of the stream of research reported in these special issues is a shared understanding that changes in consumer behaviour are crucial if we are to move to a sustainable development path. Research has shown ways through which it might be possible to fulfil consumers’ needs without harming the ecological, social, and economic well-being of people today and in the future. However, the prevailing consumption patterns in modern societies are still far from being sustainable (EEA 2010). For example, the Global Footprint Network has calculated that it takes the Earth 1 year and 6 months to regenerate what we currently use in a year (Pollard et al. 2010). The imminent J Consum Policy (2012) 35:1–5 DOI 10.1007/s10603-012-9188-7

Online calculators of ecological footprint: do they promote or dissuade sustainable behaviour?

AbstractEcological footprint (EF) indices estimate the impact of an individual's lifestyle on the planet by converting levels of consumption into the amount of land needed to sustain production levels and lifestyle choices. Several popular organizations (e.g. WWF, Global Footprint Network) now offer personalized EF calculators to help inform consumers of the impacts of their personal consumption habits. In this paper, we evaluate the most popular online EF calculators and find that, even when the most environmentally friendly options are adopted, for the majority of available indices, one still exceeds the planet's biocapacity levels. The absence of options to fully offset one's environmental impacts implicitly suggests that there is no truly sustainable level of consumption at current population levels, even under the most prudent consumer choices. Although all online EF calculators claim to be a tool for education to promote sustainable behaviour, their calculations suggest, to the contrary, that as consumers we may postpone but not necessarily prevent environmental catastrophes. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Editorial: Chemistry, Science, and Our Sustainable Future

Editorial: Chemistry, Science, and Our Sustainable Future

The real wealth of nations: Mapping and monetizing the human ecological footprint

The earth provides myriad ecosystem services or ‘benefits’ that enable and enhance human existence. Humanity, in turn, imposes myriad environmental impacts or ‘costs’ on the earth. We explore the idea of mapping these ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ using proxy measures. We set the total value of the world's ecosystem services to be equal to the total cost of anthropogenic environmental impacts at fifty trillion dollars (roughly the global GDP in the year 2000). A global representation of ecosystem service value is mapped at 1 km 2 resolution using Net Primary Productivity (NPP) as a proxy measure of ecosystem service value (‘benefit’). A similar global representation of environmental impact is mapped using pavement (i.e., anthropogenically created impervious surface area or ISA) as a proxy measure of ‘cost’. Subtracting the 50 trillion mapped onto ISA from the 50 trillion mapped onto NPP produces a 1 km 2 resolution map of those areas where: (1) human imposed costs exceed naturally supplied benefits, resulting in an ecological deficit, (2) human costs balance with environmental benefits and (3) environmental benefits exceed human costs, resulting in an ecological surplus. Mapping this ecological balance produces a spatially explicit and monetized representation of ecological sustainability that can be aggregated to national, sub-national, and regional levels. Aggregations of this map at the national level are compared with other national measures of biophysical sustainability such as the Global Footprint Network's ‘Eco-Deficit’. An additional benefit of this approach is that the national values derived from this difference map suggest a starting point for discussions of the dollar values and costs of both under and over consumption of ecosystem services on the part of the nations of the world.

The Environmental Predicament in the Asia-Pacifc Region Compared With Other Regions

An elaborate attempt to measure pollution has been made by the Global Footprint Network (GFN). Its statistics offer quantitative measures of both pollution and its opposite, namely biocapacity. The basic division is that between CO2 pollution and other kinds of pollution. In the GFN data, carbon pollution is of such a size as to create a global ecological defcit. Whereas CO2 pollution follows the level of economic development, the variation in biocapacity is very much determined by country specifc ecological factors. The Asia-Pacifc region has a huge ecology defcit due to the immense carbon pollution in India and China, which is not compensated for by the bio-capacity assets in the region, such as in Oceania.

Calculating ecological footprints at the municipal level: what is a reasonable approach for Canada?

No clear ecological footprint calculation strategy is available for small- and mid-sized communities within Canada. By adjusting provincial or national footprint findings using data sets available in the public domain, we develop and test a calculation strategy to estimate municipal ecological footprints. Because the calculation approach is consistent with the Global Footprint Network standardised methodology, it permits meaningful comparisons between communities and with global and national footprint estimates. It offers planners, policy-makers, and community leaders an accessible, straight forward, and cost effective strategy for estimating the ecological footprint at the community and municipal level. The suggested approach is best suited for using the ecological footprint as an awareness and education tool. The large number of limitations associated with calculating the municipal approach and limitations associated with calculating ecological footprints in general at the local level make it an unsuitable tool to inform community planning and policy development.

A research agenda for improving national Ecological Footprint accounts

Nation-level Ecological Footprint accounts are currently produced for more than 150 nations, with multiple calculations available for some nations. The data sets that result from these national assessments typically serve as the basis for Footprint calculations at smaller scales, including those for regions, cities, businesses, and individuals. Global Footprint Network's National Footprint Accounts, supported and used by more than 70 major organizations worldwide, contain the most widely used national accounting methodology today. The National Footprint Accounts calculations are undergoing continuous improvement as better data becomes available and new methodologies are developed. In this paper, a community of active Ecological Footprint practitioners and users propose key research priorities for improving national Ecological Footprint accounting. For each of the proposed improvements, we briefly review relevant literature, summarize the current state of debate, and suggest approaches for further development. The research agenda will serve as a reference for a large scale, international research program devoted to furthering the development of national Ecological Footprint accounting methodology.

A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade — MRIO versus PLUM

The Ecological Footprint as an indicator that accounts for human demand on global bioproductivity sets out to quantify the impacts associated with consumption in a given country, including the impacts associated with trade. The National Footprint Accounts (NFA) by Global Footprint Network (GFN) calculate trade-embodied Footprints by multiplying yield and embodied energy factors with mass volumes of traded goods in a “Product Land Use Matrix (PLUM)”. This article compares energy Footprints embodied in trade from and to the United Kingdom in 2002 as calculated by the NFA-PLUM with the results from a recently developed multi-region input–output model (MRIO) for the UK. Although totals for imports and exports are comparable, breaking down the results by economic sectors reveals large differences and hardly any correlation between the two methods. The omission of trade in services (especially transport services) and upstream impacts of energy goods (fossil fuels) and the use of inappropriate embodied energy factors in the NFA-PLUM method are identified as the main reasons for these differences. In the light of the results it seems that a comprehensive Footprint account of trade can better be achieved with an input–output based approach. I conclude that MRIO models – once fully developed – will be particularly suitable in the future to estimate the Ecological Footprints of imports and exports of nations with the possibility to track their origin via inter-industry linkages, international supply chains and multi-national trade flows.

WITHDRAWN: University of Siena and Global Footprint Network are pleased to announce the Footprint Forum 2006: Learn Share Connect: Colle Val d’Elsa and Siena, Italy June 14–17, 2006

WITHDRAWN: University of Siena and Global Footprint Network are pleased to announce the Footprint Forum 2006: Learn Share Connect: Colle Val d’Elsa and Siena, Italy June 14–17, 2006

FORUM: Monetary analysis: turning a blind eye on sustainability

We study the effects of foreign direct investment (FDI) on the rate of exhaustion of bioproductive physical land. We test for differential ecological performance of FDI in developed vs. developing countries, as well as in “clean” vs. “dirty” sectors. We examine the impact of six sector-level FDI flows on four ecological footprints (EF): Consumption EF, Production EF, Imports EF, and Exports EF, compiled by the Global Footprint Network. We estimate a dynamic panel model incorporating an Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and differentiating across country development levels. The findings are intriguing. First, High Income countries tend to experience a consumption-related ecological impact of FDI, whereas Low- and Middle-Income countries tend to experience a production-related ecological impact of FDI. Second, the burden of FDI-generated Exports EF is born disproportionately by Middle Income countries; High Income countries bear none (evidence of FDI ecological haven). Third, in High Income countries, financial services FDI reduces the Production EF (evidence of FDI ecological halo). Finally, non-financial services FDI is more ecologically damaging than manufacturing FDI.