What is it about?

After a series of paper pro or against the Ecological Footprint on the journal Ecological Indicators the editor suggested to the two 'battling' teams a joint work, in the form of ten questions, formulated by the two teams, five each, in turn answered in full by the two teams within given words limits. The questions concerns the quantification methodology and its accuracy, the characteristics of the observed flows, the role of scales and resolutions, the implementation of food security, the utility of the ecological footprint for society, and the political relevance of the concept.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Given the universal use of the Ecological Footprint (countries use the EF accounting. It is alluded to in speeches by Ms Clinton, and Pope Francis, and Google refers to it on Earth day) it is important to assess whether this measure is relevant and useful.

Perspectives

The 1.6 planets used by man in the narrative of the Ecological Footprint could well be 16, 160 or 16,000 with different use of the assumptions. It is a crisp result but it is illusory. The 1.6 number offers an optimistic view of man's impact on the planet as it neglects irreversible damage and depletion of non-renewable stocks.

Professor Andrea Saltelli
University Pompeo Fabra, Barcelona School of Management

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Questioning the Ecological Footprint, Ecological Indicators, October 2016, Elsevier,
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.014.
You can read the full text:

Read

Resources

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page