Towards a 3D National Ecological Footprint Geography

被引:196
作者
Niccolucci, V. [1 ]
Galli, A. [2 ]
Reed, A. [2 ]
Neri, E. [1 ]
Wackernagel, M. [2 ]
Bastianoni, S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Siena, Dept Chem, Ecodynam Grp, I-53100 Siena, Italy
[2] Global Footprint Network, Oakland, CA 94607 USA
关键词
Ecological Footprint; Flow; Footprint size; Footprint depth; Stock;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.04.020
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
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 ((EF)-E-3D) model was proposed to better explain the difference between human demand for natural capital stocks and resource flows. Such (EF)-E-3D 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 (EF)-E-3D 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 (EF)-E-3D 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. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:2939 / 2944
页数:6
相关论文
共 18 条
[11]   How deep is the footprint? A 3D representation [J].
Niccolucci, V. ;
Bastianoni, S. ;
Tiezzi, E. B. P. ;
Wackernagel, M. ;
Marchettini, N. .
ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2009, 220 (20) :2819-2823
[12]  
Rees WE., 1992, Environment and Urbanization, V4, P121, DOI [10.1177/095624789200400212, DOI 10.1177/095624789200400212]
[13]  
Rees WilliamE., 2006, Renewables-Based Technology: Sustainability Assessment, P143, DOI [DOI 10.1002/0470022442.CH9., 10.1002/0470022442.ch9]
[14]  
Tiezzi E., 1984, Tempi storici, tempi biologici
[15]  
Tiezzi E., 2003, END TIME
[16]   Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective [J].
Wackernagel, M ;
Rees, WE .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 1997, 20 (01) :3-24
[17]  
Wackernagel M, 1998, Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth, V9
[18]  
Wackernagel M., 2008, Encycl. Ecol. Five-Volume Set, V3, P1031, DOI [10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00620-0, DOI 10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00620-0]