Ecological Footprint
2022-11-01 12:00:00 UTC
Goal B
Target 15
Target 16
The Ecological Footprint compares human demand on nature against nature supply. Demand is measured in terms of the biologically productive areas – also called ecological assets – that a population requires for producing all the renewable resources it consumes and absorbing its waste. The availability of nature, called biocapacity, is also measured in area equivalents, and represents the availability of ecological assets and their regenerative capacity for such resources and waste. An increase in a nation’s Ecological Footprint stands for an increase in its population’s pressure on ecosystems and biodiversity, and thus a greater risk of biodiversity loss. Used in combination, Ecological Footprint and biocapacity provide an indication of the human-induced direct drivers of change in the functioning of ecosystems and the state of the biodiversity inhabiting them.
Direct anthropogenic threats to biodiversity include habitat loss or damage, resource overexploitation, pollution, invasive species and climate change. These direct threats are the result of more distant, indirect drivers of biodiversity loss arising from consumption of resources and the generation of waste. The ultimate drivers of threats to biodiversity are human demands for food, fibre and timber, water, energy and area on which to build infrastructure.
The Ecological Footprint measures the pressure such demands place on the regenerative capacity of productive ecosystems, measured through a sister indicator called biocapacity. The main aim of Ecological Footprint methodology is to promote recognition of ecological limits. This recognition should help safeguard the ecosystems’ viability (such as healthy forests, clean air, fertile soils and biodiversity) and life-supporting services.
Globally, the Ecological Footprint shows that in 2018 – the latest year for which data is available – humans demanded 1.75 planets worth of ecological resources and services, compared to only 0.7 planets worth in 1961 (see Figure 1). Since 1971, almost 50-year of continued overshoot have caused annual deficits in the use of ecological resources and services (aka biocapacity deficits) to accumulate in an ecological debt of 19-years worth of planetary regeneration, leading to a widespread degradation of ecosystems and an GHGs accumulation in the atmosphere.
While these demands have increased for all land types, demand placed on forest ecosystems for timber products and carbon sequestration has increased fastest (see Figure 1). Moreover, countries’ average per capita Ecological Footprints vary due to varying lifestyles and consumption patterns: compared to an average global availability of about 1.58 global hectares in 2018, average per capita Ecological Footprint is approximately 6 gha (increased from 5 gha in 1961) in high-income countries, about 3.5 gha (increased from 1.4 gha in 1961) in high-middle-income countries, about 1.4 in low- middle-income countries and approximately 1.1 gha (almost unvaried since 1961) in low-income countries. Comparing national demands against national biocapacities indicates the presence of significant biocapacity deficits in many countries (see Figures 2 and 3). When such biocapacity deficits take place, stocks are likely being depleted, and/or emissions accumulating in the biosphere (such as CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans). Thus a minimum condition for sustainable consumption is not being met. When this is the case, competition for ecological resources and reductions in area for biodiversity result in pressure on species populations and, ultimately, biodiversity loss. A reduction in countries’ Ecological Footprint, and especially the elimination of a global overshoot, would indicate reduced pressure on the world’s ecosystems and their services, and a lower risk of biodiversity loss.
Figure 1. Humanity’s Ecological Footprint by component, 1961-2018. Source: Global Footprint Network, 2022. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
Figure 2. Ecological Footprint vs. Biocapacity for world countries, 1961. Biocapacity reserve (green) is defined as a domestic Ecological Footprint of consumption less than domestic biocapacity; biocapacity deficit (red) as an Ecological Footprint of consumption greater than domestic biocapacity. Source: Global Footprint Network, 2022. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
Figure 3. Ecological Footprint vs. Biocapacity for world countries, 2018. Source: Global Footprint Network, 2022. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
It does so by means of two metrics: Ecological Footprint and biocapacity:
Ecological Footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and water area (biocapacity) required to produce the food, fibre and renewable raw materials an individual, population or activity consumes, and to absorb carbon dioxide emissions they generate, given prevailing technology and resource management. Both a production and a consumption perspective are provided, with this latter representing the most commonly used and reported perspective. A country’s Ecological Footprint of consumption (EFC) is derived by tracking the biologically productive land demanded to produce the resources and services “harvested” within the geographical boundaries of such country, plus those imported and minus those exported. The six ecological assets considered are: cropland for the provision of plant-based food and fiber products; grazing land and cropland for animal products; fishing grounds (marine and inland) for fish products; forests for timber and other forest products as well as for climate regulation via CO2 sequestration; and built-up surfaces for the provision of shelter and other urban infrastructures.
Biocapacity measures the bioproductive areas available to provide food, fibre, and renewable raw materials as well as sequester carbon dioxide. Biocapacity is measured for five categories of bioproductive surfaces (or ecological assets): cropland, grazing land, fishing grounds, forest land, and built-up land, which satisfy human demands in the six Footprint categories described above. Because forest land biocapacity can be used either to generate forest products to harvest or to sequester carbon, this land type satisfies two demand categories (Wackernagel et al., 2014; Mancini et al., 2016).
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity are expressed in a common hectare-equivalent unit called global hectare (gha), where 1 gha represents a biologically productive hectare with world average productivity (Borucke et al., 2013; Galli, 2015).
Results come typically with a four year delay between year of publication and year of the analysis. Global and country-level now-casted estimates (up to year 2022) are available as well as global business-as-usual projections (up to year 2050) and a simple scenario tool.
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity can be calculated at scales ranging from single products, to cities and regions, and up to countries and the world as a whole. However, nation-level Ecological Footprint and biocapacity assessments – known as National Footprint and biocapacity Accounts (NFBA) – are often regarded as the most complete. Details on data needs, collection and processing at national level are summarized here below.
Global Footprint Network has published 13 NFBA editions since the first one in 2004; since 2019 the NFBA are produced by the Footprint Data Foundation (FoDaFo) with York University in Toronto.
The NFBA 2022 Edition calculates and reports Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values for approximately 200 countries, as well as global totals, from 1961 to 2018.
To perform such calculation, approximately 15,000 underlying data points per country per year from approximately 30 data sets are used. The calculations in the NFBA are based primarily on data sets from UN agencies or affiliated organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAOSTAT), the UN Statistics Division (UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database – UN Comtrade), and the International Energy Agency (IEA). Other data sources include studies in peer-reviewed journals and thematic collections. The complete list of data sources can be found in Borucke et al. (2013).
For each edition, a rigorous quality-assurance (QA) process is followed to validate the calculations. Multiple QA stages follows the download and upload of datasets, testing and integration of improvements, and assignment of quality scores. Each input dataset is annually downloaded from its respective UN data source and uploaded in an internal database to ensure incorporation of the most current information, then reviewed extensively to detect any changes to raw data or data structure. At each stage, calculated results that incorporate new data are compared to a control or baseline dataset to ensure changes have been implemented without error. Similarly, accounting-methodology improvements are incorporated one by one, and new results are compared to ensure all changes have been completed as intended.
After all new data and accounting updates have been implemented and rigorously checked, the finalized National Footprint and biocapacity Accounts are reviewed by researchers at York
University country by country. This final QA step is also intended to assign quality scores based on the reliability of the results (www.footprintnetwork.org/data-quality-scores). The final results and quality scores are then made freely available online in an Excel-based public data package and on an open-data website (data.footprintnetwork.org).
The indicator methodology can be used to calculate – among others – country’s results. More precisely, national values for the indicator Ecological Footprint (as well as the sister indicator biocapacity) are now calculated by FoDaFo for a period of almost six decades and made available at https://data.footprintnetwork.org/. Countries interested in reviewing, verifying and eventually using this indicator can request the NFBA calculation workbook at data@footprintnetwork.org or by contacting the Ecological Footprint Initiative at York University. Re-calculation of the national Ecological Footprint value through nationally-sourced data is possible (independently or in collaboration with FoDaFo) and encouraged.
Countries interested in producing this indicator can refer to the NFBA calculation workbook (available upon request at https://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free/) as well as to the Guidebook to the National Footprint and biocapacity Accounts. The most recent edition of the guidebook is available at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/uploads/2019/05/National_Footprint_Accounts_Guidebook_ 2019.pdf .
Additional information on the Ecological Footprint methodology can be found in Borucke et al., 2013, published in Ecological Indicators (Vol. 24: pages 518-533) and Lin et al., 2018, published in Resources (7(3), 58; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030058).
National Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values are derived from internally recognized data- bases, such as the UN-FAO, IEA, UN COMTRADE as well as data from peer-reviewed publications. Full details on the data sources used for calculating this indicator can be found in Borucke et al., 2013, Galli et al., 2014 as well as in the most recent Lin et al., 2018
The indicator is available now and is updated annually. The next edition of the National Footprint and biocapacity Accounts – the NFBA 2023 Edition – is scheduled for release by Q1 2023.
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity trends are currently available for the world as a total and for about 200 countries, for the 1961-2018 period. Next planned update is in Q1 2023 (covering the period 1961-2019). Each edition also provides an extended time coverage up until the year of publication, with the added time period being calculated on the basis of projections and proxy data rather than on actual, country-reported, data points. The NFBA 2023 edition will thus contain calculated Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values for the 1961-2019 period, and estimated/projects values for the 2020-2022 (or 2023) period.
National Footprint and biocapacity values are compiled by the Footprint Data Foundation with York University in Toronto, following the peer-reviewed methodology initially developed and published by Global Footprint Network.
Global and regional data are based on existing data and missing data from countries are not included or estimated. Per capita values at global level are calculated using data from available countries divided by the population of the same group of countries. Missing countries are not represented in Global results.
Scale of application (please check all relevant boxes): Global, Regional, National
Scale of data disaggregation/aggregation: Regional and national level. *Sub-national level can also be derived upon request.
Global/ regional scale indicator can be disaggregated to national level:
National data is collated to form global indicator: Yes
Regional and Global results are aggregated from national data.
Producing this indicator nationally: Applied at the national level, Ecological Footprint provides a proxy measure of underlying drivers of habitat loss (directly) and biodiversity loss (indirectly). Its results show that significant biocapacity deficits (when national consumption of provisioning and regulatory ecosystem services exceeds the capacity of national ecosystems to supply these services) exist in many countries, and distinguishes between countries that are driving global displacement of human- induced pressure and countries where such pressure displacement is taking place (see Galli et al., 2014). Due to the global interconnectedness of national economies, results seem to indicate that, for many countries, pressure on ecosystems and the consequent habitat loss could be more effectively addressed by reducing the demand for resource provisioning and regulatory ecosystem services elsewhere.
Use at the national level: There are national subsets of global data available to calculate this indicator. Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values (a sister indicator measuring countries’ supply of ecological assets) are available for approximately 200 countries over the period 1961-2018.
National values for the indicator Ecological Footprint (as well as the sister indicator biocapacity) are already calculated by FoDaFo for a period of almost six decades and made available at https://data.footprintnetwork.org/. Countries interested in reviewing, verifying and eventually using this indicator can request the NFBA calculation workbook at https://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free/. Countries interested in producing this indicator can refer to the NFBA calculation workbook (available upon request at https://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free/) as well as to the Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts. The most recent edition of the guidebook is available at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/uploads/2019/05/National_Footprint_Accounts_Guidebook_/. Additional information on the Ecological Footprint methodology can be found in Borucke et al., 2013, published in Ecological Indicators (Vol. 24: pages 518-533) and Lin et al., 2018, published in Resources (7(3), 58; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030058).
6d.1 Description Of The Methodology
6d.2 Additional Methodological Details
6d.3 Description Of The Mechanism For Collecting Data From Countries
All underlying input data used in the calculation of country level Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values are drawn from official UN data sources (e.g., FAO, COMTRADE) or other international sources (e.g., IEA). Data is populated in these data sources by the various UN bodies thanks to the UN ongoing collaboration with National Statistical Offices and is then pulled from such sources by the York University team. As such, data drawn from these datasets and used in Ecological Footprint calculations uses official UN classification and coding systems, and does not therefore undergo any major adjustment.
The Ecological Footprint is used by the IPBES as a core indicator of direct (anthropogenic) drivers of change in the state of biodiversity and ecosystems functioning (and their derived services) that affect the supply of nature’s benefit to people.
IPBES reports that have included Ecological Footprint trends are:
The Ecological Footprint was also considered by the European Commission as part of its Beyond GDP Initiative, in the search for indicators to complement the use of GDP to more inclusively monitor progresses in environmental and social aspects. Further details on how the Ecological Footprint might support the Beyond GDP initiative to measure progresses, wealth and well-being were discussed and summarized in the following factsheet, which was updated in 2018: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/economy-and-finance/alternative-measures-progress-beyond-gdp/beyond-gdp-publications_en
Yes
National Footprint and biocapacity values are usually provided in both absolute and per capita terms. Per capita Footprint results indicates the pressure on earth ecosystems due to the average inhabitant of a country. However, disaggregation of results is possible by major socio-economic and demographic parameters, such as by age and income group, sex, education level, types of employment, etc. Sub-national disaggregation among different geographies (e.g., regions) can also be possible, although they are not regularly calculated by FoDaFo and York University.
Global Footprint Network
Alessandro Galli: alessandro.galli@footprintnetwork.org
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/3/58 https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/
Galli, A., 2015. On the Rationale and Policy Usefulness of Ecological Footprint Accounting: the case of Morocco. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 210 – 224. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901115000106
Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Iha K, Larson J, Lazarus E, Morales JC, Wackernagel M, Galli A. 2013. Accounting for demand and supply of the Biosphere's regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Accounts' underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, 24, 518-
533. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470160X12002968
Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K., Lazarus, E., 2014. Ecological Footprint: implications for biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 173, 121-132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320713003741
Mancini., M.S., Galli, A., Coscieme, L., Niccolucci, V., Lin, D., Pulselli, F.M., Bastianoni, S., Marchettini, N. 2018. Exploring Ecosystem Services assessment through Ecological Footprint Accounting. Ecosystem Services, 30, 228-235. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212041617301390
Figure 1. Humanity’s Ecological Footprint by component, 1961-2018. Source: Global Footprint Network, 2022.
The Ecological Footprint results can also be viewed and explored on the BIP Dashboard, which includes downloadable graphs of trends. Further graphs and maps are also available through the Ecological Footprint Open data platform.
Ecological Footprint
2022-11-01 12:00:00 UTC
Goal B
Target 15
Target 16
The Ecological Footprint compares human demand on nature against nature supply. Demand is measured in terms of the biologically productive areas – also called ecological assets – that a population requires for producing all the renewable resources it consumes and absorbing its waste. The availability of nature, called biocapacity, is also measured in area equivalents, and represents the availability of ecological assets and their regenerative capacity for such resources and waste. An increase in a nation’s Ecological Footprint stands for an increase in its population’s pressure on ecosystems and biodiversity, and thus a greater risk of biodiversity loss. Used in combination, Ecological Footprint and biocapacity provide an indication of the human-induced direct drivers of change in the functioning of ecosystems and the state of the biodiversity inhabiting them.
Direct anthropogenic threats to biodiversity include habitat loss or damage, resource overexploitation, pollution, invasive species and climate change. These direct threats are the result of more distant, indirect drivers of biodiversity loss arising from consumption of resources and the generation of waste. The ultimate drivers of threats to biodiversity are human demands for food, fibre and timber, water, energy and area on which to build infrastructure.
The Ecological Footprint measures the pressure such demands place on the regenerative capacity of productive ecosystems, measured through a sister indicator called biocapacity. The main aim of Ecological Footprint methodology is to promote recognition of ecological limits. This recognition should help safeguard the ecosystems’ viability (such as healthy forests, clean air, fertile soils and biodiversity) and life-supporting services.
Globally, the Ecological Footprint shows that in 2018 – the latest year for which data is available – humans demanded 1.75 planets worth of ecological resources and services, compared to only 0.7 planets worth in 1961 (see Figure 1). Since 1971, almost 50-year of continued overshoot have caused annual deficits in the use of ecological resources and services (aka biocapacity deficits) to accumulate in an ecological debt of 19-years worth of planetary regeneration, leading to a widespread degradation of ecosystems and an GHGs accumulation in the atmosphere.
While these demands have increased for all land types, demand placed on forest ecosystems for timber products and carbon sequestration has increased fastest (see Figure 1). Moreover, countries’ average per capita Ecological Footprints vary due to varying lifestyles and consumption patterns: compared to an average global availability of about 1.58 global hectares in 2018, average per capita Ecological Footprint is approximately 6 gha (increased from 5 gha in 1961) in high-income countries, about 3.5 gha (increased from 1.4 gha in 1961) in high-middle-income countries, about 1.4 in low- middle-income countries and approximately 1.1 gha (almost unvaried since 1961) in low-income countries. Comparing national demands against national biocapacities indicates the presence of significant biocapacity deficits in many countries (see Figures 2 and 3). When such biocapacity deficits take place, stocks are likely being depleted, and/or emissions accumulating in the biosphere (such as CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans). Thus a minimum condition for sustainable consumption is not being met. When this is the case, competition for ecological resources and reductions in area for biodiversity result in pressure on species populations and, ultimately, biodiversity loss. A reduction in countries’ Ecological Footprint, and especially the elimination of a global overshoot, would indicate reduced pressure on the world’s ecosystems and their services, and a lower risk of biodiversity loss.
Figure 1. Humanity’s Ecological Footprint by component, 1961-2018. Source: Global Footprint Network, 2022. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
Figure 2. Ecological Footprint vs. Biocapacity for world countries, 1961. Biocapacity reserve (green) is defined as a domestic Ecological Footprint of consumption less than domestic biocapacity; biocapacity deficit (red) as an Ecological Footprint of consumption greater than domestic biocapacity. Source: Global Footprint Network, 2022. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
Figure 3. Ecological Footprint vs. Biocapacity for world countries, 2018. Source: Global Footprint Network, 2022. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
It does so by means of two metrics: Ecological Footprint and biocapacity:
Ecological Footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and water area (biocapacity) required to produce the food, fibre and renewable raw materials an individual, population or activity consumes, and to absorb carbon dioxide emissions they generate, given prevailing technology and resource management. Both a production and a consumption perspective are provided, with this latter representing the most commonly used and reported perspective. A country’s Ecological Footprint of consumption (EFC) is derived by tracking the biologically productive land demanded to produce the resources and services “harvested” within the geographical boundaries of such country, plus those imported and minus those exported. The six ecological assets considered are: cropland for the provision of plant-based food and fiber products; grazing land and cropland for animal products; fishing grounds (marine and inland) for fish products; forests for timber and other forest products as well as for climate regulation via CO2 sequestration; and built-up surfaces for the provision of shelter and other urban infrastructures.
Biocapacity measures the bioproductive areas available to provide food, fibre, and renewable raw materials as well as sequester carbon dioxide. Biocapacity is measured for five categories of bioproductive surfaces (or ecological assets): cropland, grazing land, fishing grounds, forest land, and built-up land, which satisfy human demands in the six Footprint categories described above. Because forest land biocapacity can be used either to generate forest products to harvest or to sequester carbon, this land type satisfies two demand categories (Wackernagel et al., 2014; Mancini et al., 2016).
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity are expressed in a common hectare-equivalent unit called global hectare (gha), where 1 gha represents a biologically productive hectare with world average productivity (Borucke et al., 2013; Galli, 2015).
Results come typically with a four year delay between year of publication and year of the analysis. Global and country-level now-casted estimates (up to year 2022) are available as well as global business-as-usual projections (up to year 2050) and a simple scenario tool.
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity can be calculated at scales ranging from single products, to cities and regions, and up to countries and the world as a whole. However, nation-level Ecological Footprint and biocapacity assessments – known as National Footprint and biocapacity Accounts (NFBA) – are often regarded as the most complete. Details on data needs, collection and processing at national level are summarized here below.
Global Footprint Network has published 13 NFBA editions since the first one in 2004; since 2019 the NFBA are produced by the Footprint Data Foundation (FoDaFo) with York University in Toronto.
The NFBA 2022 Edition calculates and reports Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values for approximately 200 countries, as well as global totals, from 1961 to 2018.
To perform such calculation, approximately 15,000 underlying data points per country per year from approximately 30 data sets are used. The calculations in the NFBA are based primarily on data sets from UN agencies or affiliated organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAOSTAT), the UN Statistics Division (UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database – UN Comtrade), and the International Energy Agency (IEA). Other data sources include studies in peer-reviewed journals and thematic collections. The complete list of data sources can be found in Borucke et al. (2013).
For each edition, a rigorous quality-assurance (QA) process is followed to validate the calculations. Multiple QA stages follows the download and upload of datasets, testing and integration of improvements, and assignment of quality scores. Each input dataset is annually downloaded from its respective UN data source and uploaded in an internal database to ensure incorporation of the most current information, then reviewed extensively to detect any changes to raw data or data structure. At each stage, calculated results that incorporate new data are compared to a control or baseline dataset to ensure changes have been implemented without error. Similarly, accounting-methodology improvements are incorporated one by one, and new results are compared to ensure all changes have been completed as intended.
After all new data and accounting updates have been implemented and rigorously checked, the finalized National Footprint and biocapacity Accounts are reviewed by researchers at York
University country by country. This final QA step is also intended to assign quality scores based on the reliability of the results (www.footprintnetwork.org/data-quality-scores). The final results and quality scores are then made freely available online in an Excel-based public data package and on an open-data website (data.footprintnetwork.org).
The indicator methodology can be used to calculate – among others – country’s results. More precisely, national values for the indicator Ecological Footprint (as well as the sister indicator biocapacity) are now calculated by FoDaFo for a period of almost six decades and made available at https://data.footprintnetwork.org/. Countries interested in reviewing, verifying and eventually using this indicator can request the NFBA calculation workbook at data@footprintnetwork.org or by contacting the Ecological Footprint Initiative at York University. Re-calculation of the national Ecological Footprint value through nationally-sourced data is possible (independently or in collaboration with FoDaFo) and encouraged.
Countries interested in producing this indicator can refer to the NFBA calculation workbook (available upon request at https://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free/) as well as to the Guidebook to the National Footprint and biocapacity Accounts. The most recent edition of the guidebook is available at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/uploads/2019/05/National_Footprint_Accounts_Guidebook_ 2019.pdf .
Additional information on the Ecological Footprint methodology can be found in Borucke et al., 2013, published in Ecological Indicators (Vol. 24: pages 518-533) and Lin et al., 2018, published in Resources (7(3), 58; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030058).
National Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values are derived from internally recognized data- bases, such as the UN-FAO, IEA, UN COMTRADE as well as data from peer-reviewed publications. Full details on the data sources used for calculating this indicator can be found in Borucke et al., 2013, Galli et al., 2014 as well as in the most recent Lin et al., 2018
The indicator is available now and is updated annually. The next edition of the National Footprint and biocapacity Accounts – the NFBA 2023 Edition – is scheduled for release by Q1 2023.
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity trends are currently available for the world as a total and for about 200 countries, for the 1961-2018 period. Next planned update is in Q1 2023 (covering the period 1961-2019). Each edition also provides an extended time coverage up until the year of publication, with the added time period being calculated on the basis of projections and proxy data rather than on actual, country-reported, data points. The NFBA 2023 edition will thus contain calculated Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values for the 1961-2019 period, and estimated/projects values for the 2020-2022 (or 2023) period.
National Footprint and biocapacity values are compiled by the Footprint Data Foundation with York University in Toronto, following the peer-reviewed methodology initially developed and published by Global Footprint Network.
Global and regional data are based on existing data and missing data from countries are not included or estimated. Per capita values at global level are calculated using data from available countries divided by the population of the same group of countries. Missing countries are not represented in Global results.
Scale of application (please check all relevant boxes): Global, Regional, National
Scale of data disaggregation/aggregation: Regional and national level. *Sub-national level can also be derived upon request.
Global/ regional scale indicator can be disaggregated to national level:
National data is collated to form global indicator: Yes
Regional and Global results are aggregated from national data.
Producing this indicator nationally: Applied at the national level, Ecological Footprint provides a proxy measure of underlying drivers of habitat loss (directly) and biodiversity loss (indirectly). Its results show that significant biocapacity deficits (when national consumption of provisioning and regulatory ecosystem services exceeds the capacity of national ecosystems to supply these services) exist in many countries, and distinguishes between countries that are driving global displacement of human- induced pressure and countries where such pressure displacement is taking place (see Galli et al., 2014). Due to the global interconnectedness of national economies, results seem to indicate that, for many countries, pressure on ecosystems and the consequent habitat loss could be more effectively addressed by reducing the demand for resource provisioning and regulatory ecosystem services elsewhere.
Use at the national level: There are national subsets of global data available to calculate this indicator. Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values (a sister indicator measuring countries’ supply of ecological assets) are available for approximately 200 countries over the period 1961-2018.
National values for the indicator Ecological Footprint (as well as the sister indicator biocapacity) are already calculated by FoDaFo for a period of almost six decades and made available at https://data.footprintnetwork.org/. Countries interested in reviewing, verifying and eventually using this indicator can request the NFBA calculation workbook at https://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free/. Countries interested in producing this indicator can refer to the NFBA calculation workbook (available upon request at https://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free/) as well as to the Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts. The most recent edition of the guidebook is available at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/uploads/2019/05/National_Footprint_Accounts_Guidebook_/. Additional information on the Ecological Footprint methodology can be found in Borucke et al., 2013, published in Ecological Indicators (Vol. 24: pages 518-533) and Lin et al., 2018, published in Resources (7(3), 58; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030058).
6d.1 Description Of The Methodology
6d.2 Additional Methodological Details
6d.3 Description Of The Mechanism For Collecting Data From Countries
All underlying input data used in the calculation of country level Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values are drawn from official UN data sources (e.g., FAO, COMTRADE) or other international sources (e.g., IEA). Data is populated in these data sources by the various UN bodies thanks to the UN ongoing collaboration with National Statistical Offices and is then pulled from such sources by the York University team. As such, data drawn from these datasets and used in Ecological Footprint calculations uses official UN classification and coding systems, and does not therefore undergo any major adjustment.
The Ecological Footprint is used by the IPBES as a core indicator of direct (anthropogenic) drivers of change in the state of biodiversity and ecosystems functioning (and their derived services) that affect the supply of nature’s benefit to people.
IPBES reports that have included Ecological Footprint trends are:
The Ecological Footprint was also considered by the European Commission as part of its Beyond GDP Initiative, in the search for indicators to complement the use of GDP to more inclusively monitor progresses in environmental and social aspects. Further details on how the Ecological Footprint might support the Beyond GDP initiative to measure progresses, wealth and well-being were discussed and summarized in the following factsheet, which was updated in 2018: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/economy-and-finance/alternative-measures-progress-beyond-gdp/beyond-gdp-publications_en
Yes
National Footprint and biocapacity values are usually provided in both absolute and per capita terms. Per capita Footprint results indicates the pressure on earth ecosystems due to the average inhabitant of a country. However, disaggregation of results is possible by major socio-economic and demographic parameters, such as by age and income group, sex, education level, types of employment, etc. Sub-national disaggregation among different geographies (e.g., regions) can also be possible, although they are not regularly calculated by FoDaFo and York University.
Global Footprint Network
Alessandro Galli: alessandro.galli@footprintnetwork.org
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/3/58 https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/
Galli, A., 2015. On the Rationale and Policy Usefulness of Ecological Footprint Accounting: the case of Morocco. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 210 – 224. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901115000106
Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Iha K, Larson J, Lazarus E, Morales JC, Wackernagel M, Galli A. 2013. Accounting for demand and supply of the Biosphere's regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Accounts' underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, 24, 518-
533. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470160X12002968
Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K., Lazarus, E., 2014. Ecological Footprint: implications for biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 173, 121-132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320713003741
Mancini., M.S., Galli, A., Coscieme, L., Niccolucci, V., Lin, D., Pulselli, F.M., Bastianoni, S., Marchettini, N. 2018. Exploring Ecosystem Services assessment through Ecological Footprint Accounting. Ecosystem Services, 30, 228-235. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212041617301390
Figure 1. Humanity’s Ecological Footprint by component, 1961-2018. Source: Global Footprint Network, 2022.
The Ecological Footprint results can also be viewed and explored on the BIP Dashboard, which includes downloadable graphs of trends. Further graphs and maps are also available through the Ecological Footprint Open data platform.
Feedback: UNEP-WCMC is keen to ensure that our data is accurate and up to date. We welcome any feedback on the quality, reliability, and accuracy of the information on this site. If you see any errors or missing information, please get in touch.