Evaluating the use of natural capital with the ecological footprint

Ambio

Volumn 28, Issue 7, 1999, Pages 604-612

  Wackernagel, Mathis ^a,b,c   Lewan, Lillemor ^d,e   Hansson, Carina Borgström ^d,f  

^a Indicat Prog Redefining Progress   (United States)

^b Obreros Textiles 57 Departamento 6   (Mexico)

^c Lund University ^*  (United States)

^d LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^e University Helgonavagen 3B   (Sweden)

^f NONE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAPITAL MARKET; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

SWEDEN;

EID: 0033367888     PISSN: 00447447     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Cohen, J. E. 1995. How Many People Can the Earth Support? W. W. Norton & Co., New York.
2. Martínez-Alier, J. 1987. Ecological Economics: Energy, Environment, and Society. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
3. Borgström, G. 1973. Harvesting the Earth. (First published under the title World Food Resources). Abelard-Schuman, New York.
4. Catton, W. Jr. 1980, Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
5. Odum, H.T. 1994. Ecological and General Systems. Revised edition. University of Colorado Press: Boulder.
6. Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J. and Behrens, W. 1972. Limits to Growth. Universe Books, New York.
7. Meadows, D., Meadows, D. and Randers, J. 1992. Beyond the Limits. McClelland & Stewart Inc, Toronto.
8. Holdren, J. and Ehrlich, P. 1974. Human Population and the Global Environment. Am. Sci. 62, 282-292.
9. Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems. Macmillan Publishing, New York.
10. Lieth H. and Whittaker, R.H. (eds.), 1975. The Primary Productivity of the Biosphere. Springer, New York.
11. Abel, S., Braunschweig, A., and Müller-Wenk, R. 1990. Methodik für Ökobilanzen auf der Basis ökologischer Optimierung (Methodology for life cycle analysis based on ecological optimisation). Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft. Schriftenreihe Umwelt, Bern, Vol. 133.
12. Buitenkamp, M., Venner, H. and Wams, T. (eds). 1993. Action Plan Sustainable Netherlands. Dutch Friends of the Earth, Amsterdam.
13. Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H. and Mateson, P.A. 1986. Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience 34, 368-373.
14. Ayres, R. and Simmonis, U. (eds). 1995. Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for Sustainable Development. UN University Press, Tokyo and New York.
15. Pimentel, D., Herdendorf, M., Eisenfeld, S., Olander, L., Carroquino, M., Corson, C., McDade, J., Chung, Y., Cannon, W., Roberts, J., Bluman, L. and Gregg, J. 1994. Achieving a secure energy future: Environmental and economic consequences. Ecol. Econ. 9, 201-219.
16. Schmidt-Bleek, F. 1994. Wieviel Umwelt braucht der Mensch? MIPS Das Maß für ökologisches Wirtschaften (How much nature do people need? MIPS a measure for ecological management). Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.
17. Krotscheck, C. and Narodoslawsky, M. 1996. The Sustainable Process Index: A New Dimension in Ecological Evaluation. Ecol. Engin 6, 241-258.
18. Christian Azar, C., Holmberg, J. and Lindgren, K. 1996. Socio-ecological indicators for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 18, 89-112.
19. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Faber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystems services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253-260.
20. Daily, G. (ed). 1997. Nature's Services: Social Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
21. Duchin, F. and Lange, G.M. 1994. The Future of the Environment: Ecological Economics and Technological Change. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
22. Hall, C.A.S., Tian, H., Qi, Y., Pontius, G., Cornell, J. and Uhlig, J. 1995. Spatially Explicit Models of Land Use Change and Their Application to the Tropics. DOE Research Summary, CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
23. Gallopin, G., Hammond, A., Raskin, P. and Swart, R. 1997. Branch Points: Global Scenarios and Human Choice. PoleStar Series Report No. 7, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
24. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W.E., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC.
25. Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Larsson, J. and Costanza, R. 1997. Ecosystem Appropriation by Cities. Ambio 26, 167-172.
26. Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Callejas Linares, A., López Falfán, I.S., Méndez García, J., Suárez Guerrero, A.I. and Suárez Guerrero, M.G. 1999. National natural accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecol. Economics 29, 375-390.
27. The World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 147, p. 166.
28. Noss, R.F. and Cooperrider, A.Y. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy - Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.
29. Rees, W. E. 1992. Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban Economics Leaves Out." Environ. Urban. 4, 121-130.
30. Doughty, M. 1997. The Use of Ecological Footprint for Promoting Sustainable Development. Environmental Science, Policy and Planning Thesis, MSc., University of Bath, UK.
31. Wackernagel, M. 1998. The Ecological Footprint of Santiago de Chile. Local Environment, Vol. 3 No. 1.
32. Kautsky, N., Berg, H., Folke, C., Larsson, J. and Troell, M., 1997. Ecological footprint for assessment of resource use and development limitations in shrimp and tilapia aquaculture. Aquacult. Res. 28, 753-766.
33. Wada, Y. 1993. The Appropriated Carrying Capacity of Tomato Production: The Ecological Footprint of Hydroponic Greenhouse versus Mechanized Open Field Operations. M.A. Thesis. School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
34. IPCC. 1997. Greenhouse Gas Inventory: Workbook. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines. Volume 2. International Panel on Climate Change, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Energy Agency, Paris.
35. The data sources are: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1995. FAO Yearbook: Production 1994, Vol. 48. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1994. FAO Yearbook: Trade 1993, Vol. 47. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1995. FAO Yearbook: Forest Production 1993, FAO, Rome. World Resources Institute, 1996. World Resources 1996-1997. World Resources Institute, UNEP, UNDP, The World Bank, Washington DC. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1995. State of the World's Forests, FAO, Rome.
36. The data sources are: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1995. FAO Yearbook: Production 1994, Vol. 48. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1994. FAO Yearbook: Trade 1993, Vol. 47. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1995. FAO Yearbook: Forest Production 1993, FAO, Rome. World Resources Institute, 1996. World Resources 1996-1997. World Resources Institute, UNEP, UNDP, The World Bank, Washington DC. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1995. State of the World's Forests, FAO, Rome.
37. The data sources are: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1995. FAO Yearbook: Production 1994, Vol. 48. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1994. FAO Yearbook: Trade 1993, Vol. 47. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1995. FAO Yearbook: Forest Production 1993, FAO, Rome. World Resources Institute, 1996. World Resources 1996-1997. World Resources Institute, UNEP, UNDP, The World Bank, Washington DC. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1995. State of the World's Forests, FAO, Rome.
38. The data sources are: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1995. FAO Yearbook: Production 1994, Vol. 48. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1994. FAO Yearbook: Trade 1993, Vol. 47. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1995. FAO Yearbook: Forest Production 1993, FAO, Rome. World Resources Institute, 1996. World Resources 1996-1997. World Resources Institute, UNEP, UNDP, The World Bank, Washington DC. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1995. State of the World's Forests, FAO, Rome.
39. The data sources are: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1995. FAO Yearbook: Production 1994, Vol. 48. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1994. FAO Yearbook: Trade 1993, Vol. 47. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1995. FAO Yearbook: Forest Production 1993, FAO, Rome. World Resources Institute, 1996. World Resources 1996-1997. World Resources Institute, UNEP, UNDP, The World Bank, Washington DC. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1995. State of the World's Forests, FAO, Rome.
40. Biomass yields, measured in dry weight, are taken from FAO statistics as listed in note 35. In the case of sea space, the production of fish protein is directly compared to the animal protein production of pasture as discussed in note 39.
41. 2 per capita of protected space for water provision (World Resources Institute. 1996. World Resources 1996-1997. Oxford Press, New York. p. 306).
42. A rough analysis is provided in Cox, G. and Atkins, M. 1979. Agricultural Ecology: An Analysis of World Food Production Systems. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, p. 571. More detailed accounts are given by Pauly, D. and Christensen, V. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature. Vol. 374. The first inclusion of sea space in footprint accounting was presented by Wada, Y., 1995. Ecological Foolprint of Consumption of an Average Japanese - (Aquatic Area), University of British Columbia, Canada.
43. A rough analysis is provided in Cox, G. and Atkins, M. 1979. Agricultural Ecology: An Analysis of World Food Production Systems. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, p. 571. More detailed accounts are given by Pauly, D. and Christensen, V. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature. Vol. 374. The first inclusion of sea space in footprint accounting was presented by Wada, Y., 1995. Ecological Foolprint of Consumption of an Average Japanese - (Aquatic Area), University of British Columbia, Canada.
44. A rough analysis is provided in Cox, G. and Atkins, M. 1979. Agricultural Ecology: An Analysis of World Food Production Systems. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, p. 571. More detailed accounts are given by Pauly, D. and Christensen, V. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature. Vol. 374. The first inclusion of sea space in footprint accounting was presented by Wada, Y., 1995. Ecological Foolprint of Consumption of an Average Japanese - (Aquatic Area), University of British Columbia, Canada.
45. The ratio for the sea is 0.2 based on the fact that the area appropriated for the catch of one unit of fish protein is three times the area of unimproved pasture appropriated for the production of the same quantity of meat protein.
46. For arable land, the factor is calculated by dividing national cereal yield by global cereal yield. The Swedish average yields were taken from the government statistics. The global yields stem from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1995. FAO Yearbook: Production 1994. Vol. 48.: FAO: Rome. In the case of the Kävlinge catchment area, local yields were extrapolated from averages in Södra Götaland's coastal area and Södra Götaland's intermediate areas.
47. Statistik för avrinningsområden 1992 (Statistical data for drainage areas 1992), Na11 SM9501, Statistiska Centralbyrån and Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm. (In Swedish).
48. 2-abs.xls). The spreadsheets also document the references used. The tables in the text present condensed aspects of the spreadsheet for illustrative purposes. The main spreadsheet and the two supplementary ones can be downloaded from Lund University's server at http://www.darwin.biol.lu.se/zoofysiol/ Lewan/Footprint.html.
49. 2 Balance). Büro für Analyse und Ökologie, Zürich. For chemical products the footprint component is that of its embodied energy (assumed to be fossil fuel).
50. 2 accumulation in the atmosphere.
51. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W.E. 1997. Unser ökologischer Fußabdruck. (The improved version of Our Ecological Footprint (24) in German).: Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel. p. 104.
52. An additional argument for calculating nuclear power like fossil fuel is the nuclear industry's economic shortcomings, nuclear power (without government subsidies) is not economic because of the high operational costs, not to mention the long-term costs for waste handling, safeguarding or risk. The simplest, least expensive for the operator (but not for our climate) and therefore most likely energy substitute at present is fossil fuel. This supports the idea of calculating nuclear power as if it were fossil fuel.
53. 2 concentration in the atmosphere (Alan AtKisson. private communication, November 1997).
54. Folke et al., 1997 (see 25).
55. Leonardsson, L. 1995. Retention av växtnäring i vätmarker och sjöar. Kväve och fosfor i mark och vatten - en ödesfråga inför 2000-talet. Seminarium 22-23 mars. Kungliga Skogs och Lantbruksakdemiens Tidskrift 135/3. (In Swedish).
56. The capacity of plant nutrient detention per wet area and of leakage from agricultural land was estimated by the Landskrona Ecology Group Consultants who are employed in a long-term project by the Kävlinge River Water Alliance.
57. Sturm, A., Wackernagel, M., Müller, K. 1999. Die Gewinner und die Verlierer im globalen Wettbewerb: Warum Öko-Effizienz die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit stärkt: 44 Nationen im Test, Verlag: Rüegger, Chur/Zürich.
58. The agricultural load in Malmöhus County exceeds the load from sewage plants. In e.g. the Kävlinge catchment with small nucleated settlements the factor is at least 20. K-Konsult, 1992. Kävlingeån Landskapsvårdsplan. The load balance is documented in the spreadsheet file malmö.xls., see note (42).
59. We thank Carl Folke, Charles Hall, Larry Onisto, David Yount and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable and encouraging comments. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research (FRN), the Swedish Council for Forestry and Agricultural Research (SJFR), the Human Ecology Department of Lund University, the Lund University International Master's Programme in Environmental Science, the Institute for Resource Theory at Chalmers University, the Department of Systems Ecology at Stockholm University, The Baltic Youth Forum, the Stockholm Environment Institute, The Natural Step, Sweden, and Anáhuac University of Xalapa, Mexico.
60. First submitted 27 July 1998. Accepted for publication after revision 11 February 1999.