Ecological Footprint

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under the ecological footprint (also English ecological footprint ), the biologically productive area is on the ground understand that is necessary to meet the lifestyle and standard of living to allow a person permanently (under current production conditions). It is known as a sustainability indicator. This includes areas that are required for the production of clothing and food or for the provision of energy, but e.g. B. also for the disposal of garbage or to bind the carbon dioxide released by human activities . The footprint can then be compared with the biocapacity of the world or the region, i.e. the biologically productive area that is available.

The concept was developed in 1994 by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees . In 2003, Wackernagel founded the Global Footprint Network , which u. a. is supported by Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai , Founder of the Worldwatch Institute Lester R. Brown and Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker .

The ecological footprint is often used in connection with the concept of education for sustainable development to point out social and individual sustainability deficits - depending on whether a person turns his ecological reserve into an ecodeficit .

Unit of measurement

The fertility of soils on earth is not evenly distributed. Mountains and deserts are naturally less fertile than meadows or cultivated fields. Therefore, the normal hectare would give a wrong perception. In order to be able to compare the ecological footprint of different countries or various other areas, the values ​​are given in “global hectares” per person and year. The unit mostly has the abbreviation "gha". The global hectare corresponds to one hectare with world-wide average biological productivity.

methodology

The Global Footprint Network attaches great importance to the transparency of its methodology, which is presented and scientifically proven in a large number of publications.

The instrument of the ecological footprint is based on a question: "How much biological capacity of the planet is used by a given human activity or population group?" The method relates two areas to one another: The average land and water area available to a person ( biocapacity ) are compared with those of land and water, which claimed to be to meet the need to produce this humans and receive the waste thus generated (the footprint ). However, the ecological footprint is limited to biologically productive land and water areas, which are divided into the categories of arable land, pasture land, sea areas used for fishing and inland water areas, and forests. Areas that cannot be used biologically (built-up areas, but also deserts and high mountains) are considered neutral.

The methodological success of the ecological footprint is based on converting these areas into global hectares with the help of productivity factors . This means that one can refer to an average productive “standard hectare” as a common unit of measurement in order to be able to compare very different areas around the world. In addition, figures back to 1960 could be calculated on this basis, although the ecological footprint was only "invented" in 1994. The methodology has since been refined without changing the basic concept.

The focus of the ecological footprint is on biological resources. Instead of non-renewable resources such as oil or minerals, it is biological resources that limit the material possibilities of humanity the most. For example, the amount of fossil fuel that is still underground is limited; but the ability of the biosphere to deal with the CO 2 emitted during combustion is even more limiting. This demand for biocapacity competes with other uses of the planet's biocapacity. Similarly, minerals are limited by the energy available; that is, the energy that is necessary to extract and concentrate it from the lithosphere. This energy is also limited by the available biocapacity. The possibilities of ecosystems to renew biomass are limited by factors such as water availability, climate, soil fertility, solar radiation, technology and management practices. This capacity for renewal, driven by photosynthesis, is known as biocapacity.

From the outset, the ecological footprint imposes a number of methodological restrictions that influence its informative value:

  1. Carbon dioxide as the most important greenhouse gas: Anthropogenic CO 2 is mainly produced when fossil fuels are burned. The ecological footprint assumes a land consumption in the form of forest for these emissions , which would be necessary to biologically bind the CO 2 generated . Existing forest is assumed that has an annual increase in biomass (as living plants or rotting humus) that is not removed. This share of the area is responsible for the high ecological footprint of most industrialized countries. However, that portion of CO 2 that is absorbed by the oceans, which is viewed as a natural depot for CO 2 , is deducted . This does not take into account that the acidification of the world's oceans by CO 2 represents one of the planetary limits .
  2. Waste is divided into three categories: (1) Biodegradable waste that is not included in the invoice as “neutral” (or is included in the footprint of the relevant producing area). (2) "Normal" waste that can be landfilled, which should actually be received with the space that is necessary for long-term landfilling. At the moment, however, only anthropogenic CO 2 is included. (3) Materials that are not produced by biological processes or are not absorbed by biological systems (especially plastics, but also toxic and radioactive substances). They do not have a defined ecological footprint; other indicators are required for such waste. Ultimately, no waste in the colloquial sense is recorded by the ecological footprint. Recycling is not explicitly recorded as it "automatically" reduces the footprint.
  3. Non-renewable resources such as copper, tin, coal and oil come from outside the biosphere and have no ecological footprint in the sense of the methodology. The "secondary consumption" of production such as energy consumption and other material consumption can be taken into account. Fossil fuels are a special case of non-renewable resources because they are at least part of the biological cycle, even if they come from another age. For them, the area is set that is necessary tobiologically bind the releasedCO 2 . If you wanted to define an area that would be necessary to regenerate fossil fuels, you would end up with footprints that would be hundreds of times larger than those calculated today.
  4. Fresh water consumption is not considered, as water is only a biologically neutral "circulating quantity" and on balance is neither consumed nor generated. Likewise, there is no loss of biodiversity . However, both sizes belong to the planetary limits .
  5. Since 2008, nuclear energy has only been included in the calculation to a marginal extent (by only considering secondary consumption). As a result, countries with a high share of nuclear power and comparable energy consumption have a smaller ecological footprint. These are e.g. B. France, Switzerland, Sweden etc. Energy consumption, waste heat, risks due to nuclear accidents, the storage of nuclear waste and much more are not taken into account because there is no recognized, scientifically verifiable conversion method. In addition, the calculation is generally based only on past burdens and does not make any estimates for the future. Between 1997 and 2008, the energy was converted into CO 2 according to the mix for generating electricity from fossil fuels. The reactor accident in Fukushima in Japan shows that taking risks into account can have a huge impact on the ecological footprint.

rating

The concept of the ecological footprint has a number of strengths and weaknesses, which the authors discuss with the same openness as the methodology .

The strengths include: The concept is easy to visualize and communicate, a global hectare is very clear. His strong reductionism is helpful, especially in the field of environmental education. The basis is the status quo, there is neither speculation about future technologies, nor assumptions about “sensible” consumption or “necessary” standard of living. The concept of load-bearing capacity is deliberately avoided. The methodology was developed in 1994 and has remained basically unchanged since then. Old numbers can be compared with new ones, numbers for past periods can be calculated.

On the other hand, there are the following weaknesses: The reduction to a parameter is also an elementary weakness. The authors admit that this incomplete picture needs to be supplemented by complementary indicators that take into account “other important aspects of sustainability”. In addition, the hectare approach cannot be used for all biological factors (water consumption, biodiversity). Non-biological factors such as waste, non-renewable resources or toxic and other dangerous substances have no place in the methodology. The production of CO 2 accounts for more than half of the footprint in most industrialized countries. This dominance of a single factor, which falls a bit out of the methodology of biologically productive areas, is methodologically problematic. The productivity factor is also not unproblematic - intensive and monoculture agriculture has a smaller land use than organic farming and does better in terms of footprint.

The ecological footprint provides an overview of the situation as well as insights for individual regions. However, a balanced ecological footprint is only a necessary minimum requirement for sustainability and is not sufficient. There is a risk of being instrumentalized by countries or organizations that score relatively well on this criterion.

The complex and extensive Sustainable Process Index (SPI) serves as an alternative to the ecological footprint according to the global hectare , with which not only all material and energy flows but also all emissions can be recorded.

Data from continents and states

Ecological footprint
(in global hectares per person. Data from 2013, published in 2017)
  •  5.3-10.7
  •  4.7-5.4
  •  4.0-4.7
    		•
  •  3.2-4.0
  •  2.5-3.2
  •  1.8-2.5
    		•
  •  1.1-1.8
  •  0.4-1.1
  •  no data
    		•
    Biocapacity
    (data from 2013, published in 2017)
  •  5.5-29.2
  •  4.7-5.5
  •  3.9-4.7
    		•
  •  3.0-3.9
  •  2.2-3.0
  •  1.4-2.2
    		•
  •  0.6 - 1.4
  •  0-0.6
  •  no data
    		•
    Ecological deficit (less than 0) or reserve (greater than 0)
    (in global hectares per person. Data from 2013, published in 2017)
  •  2 to 27.9
  •  1 to 2
  •  0 to 1
    		•
  •  -1 to 0
  •  -2 to -1
  •  -3 to -2
    		•
  •  -4 to -3
  •  -9.8 to -4
  •  no data
    		•
    Ecological footprint and biocapacity (2013)
    region Population* Ecological
    footprint **    		 Biocapacity ** Ecological deficit
    (<0) or reserve (> 0)     		Population * Biocapacity corresponds to ecological footprint ***
    world 7181.7 2.87 1.71 0.6 4279
    Africa 1176.7 1.4 1.23 0.9 1133.8
    Asia 4291.3 2.32 0.77 0.3 1424.3
    North America 352.4 8.61 5.02 0.6 205.5
    South America 410.0 3.01 7.48 2.5 1018.9
    Australia and New Zealand 27.7 8.21 14.76 1.8 49.8
    Europe 736.8 4.87 3.24 0.7 490.2
    country Population* Ecological
    footprint **    		 Biocapacity ** Ecological deficit
    or reserve **     		Population * Biocapacity corresponds to ecological footprint ***
    America
    Brazil 204.3 3.02 8.85 5.83 598.7
    Canada 35.2 8.76 16.18 7.42 65
    United States 317.1 8.59 3.78 -4.81 142.7
    Asia
    People's Republic of China 1393.6 3.59 0.93 -2.66 361
    India 1279.5 1.06 0.44 -0.62 531.1
    Israel 7.8 5.96 0.32 -5.64 0.42
    Japan 126.9 4.99 0.71 -4.28 18.1
    Qatar 2.1 12.6 1.21 -11.39 0.2
    Europe
    Belgium 11.15 6.89 1.13 - 5.76 1.83
    Denmark 5.6 6.11 4.57 - 1.54 4.19
    Germany 80.57 5.46 2.25 - 3.21 33.2
    Finland 5.45 6.73 13.34 6.61 10.8
    France 63.88 5.06 2.91 - 2.15 36.7
    Norway 5.1 5.76 7.9 2.14 6.9
    Sweden 9.62 6.53 10.41 3.88 15.1
    Switzerland 8.1 5.28 1.23 - 4.04 1.9
    UK 63.96 5.05 1.27 - 3.78 16.1

    * in millions
    ** in global hectares per person (or gha / person)

    *** Population in millions where the biocapacity corresponds to the ecological footprint (biocapacity / ecological footprint) * Population with constant biocapacity. With this population, the ecological footprint could be equalized by the biocapacity. This does not take into account the fact that biocapacity increases / decreases when the population decreases / increases.

    In 2013, the inhabitants of Luxembourg had the largest ecological footprint on average with 13.09 gha / person, the inhabitants of Qatar with 12.57 gha / person and the population of Australia with 8.8 gha / person. The lowest was found in Burundi with 0.63 gha / person, Haiti with 0.61 gha / person and Eritrea with 0.51 gha / person .

    According to data from the Global Footprint Network and the European Environment Agency, the global use to meet human needs currently exceeds the capacity of the available space by a total of 68%. According to this, 2.87 gha are currently consumed per person, but only 1.71 gha are available. The use of the area is distributed very differently across the various regions: Europe, for example, needs 4.87 gha per person, but can only provide 3.24 gha itself. This means an overuse of European biocapacity by over 50%. France claims almost twice as much, Germany almost two and a half times and Great Britain almost four times its biocapacity. Similar imbalances can also be found between urban and rural areas.

    The latest data is available on the open footprint platform at data.footprintnetwork.org. The latest figures from the 2019 edition go to 2016.

    Ecological Debt Day

    The ecological deficit can be calculated using the ecological footprint . The "Ecological Debt Day" or " Earth Overshoot Day ", which is also known in German as "Ecological Debt Day" or "World Creation Day", is an annual campaign by the Global Footprint Network . This indicates the calendar day of each year from which the resources consumed by humanity exceed the earth's capacity to generate them. The Ecological Debt Day is calculated by dividing the worldwide biocapacity, i.e. the natural resources produced by the earth during a year, by the ecological footprint of humanity multiplied by 365, the number of days in the Gregorian calendar. In 2019 it is on July 29th. The annual trend shows an earlier date, although there is a certain range of fluctuation due to the methodology and new findings.

    reception

    • Exhibition Foundation Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig - Leibniz Institute for Biodiversity (ZFMK) in Bonn: Human Footprint - Human Action in Satellite Images (January to March 2014)

    See also

    Publications

    literature

    Movies

    Web links

    theory
    Calculate footprint
    Teaching material
    Related topic

    Individual evidence

    1. ^ Wackernagel, Mathis; Beyers, Bert (2010): The Ecological Footprint. Measure the world anew. European Publishing House, Hamburg, ISBN 978-3-931705-32-9
    2. ↑ a b Global Footprint Network, Introduction ( Memento from September 29, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
    3. ↑ For the methodology see in particular: Borucke, Michael et al .: Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts' underlying methodology and framework In: Ecological Indicators 24 (2013), pp. 518-533.
    4. ↑ a b Global Footprint Network, FAQ ( Memento from October 29, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
    5. ^ Wackernagel, Mathis; Beyers, Bert (2010): The Ecological Footprint. Measure the world anew. European Publishing House, Hamburg, ISBN 978-3-931705-32-9
    6. ↑ Borucke, Michael et al .: Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts' underlying methodology and framework In: Ecological Indicators 24 (2013), p. 519.
    7. ↑ a b Global Footprint Network, Technical FAQ ( Memento from October 29, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
    8. ↑ FAQ - Global Footprint Network. Retrieved June 16, 2019 (American English).
    9. ↑ Borucke, Michael et al .: Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts' underlying methodology and framework In: Ecological Indicators 24 (2013), p. 529 ff.
    10. ↑ Galli, Alessandro et al .: Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water Footprint: Defining the "Footprint Family" and its Application in Tracking Human Pressure on the Planet ( Memento of September 14, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Ed. Of OPEN: EU One Planet Economy Network
    11. ↑ a b c http://data.footprintnetwork.org/compareCountries.html?yr=2013&type=BCpc&cn=all (link not available)
    12. ↑ a b Data Explorer of the footprint network in an updated version from 2017
    13. ↑ "World Exhaustion Day" falls on August 22 this year . In: Der Standard , August 21, 2012. Retrieved August 25, 2012.
    14. ↑ Earth Overshoot Day. From today on it's down to the substance . In: TAZ , August 23, 2012. Retrieved August 25, 2012.
    15. ↑ un-dekade-biologische-vielfalt.de ( Memento from March 2, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) (March 2, 2014)