*Research Assistant, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka-1000. E- mail: shshakil.buet@gmail.com, Cell: 01717189153 **Associate Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka-1000. E- mail: ishratislam@urp.buet.ac.bd

National Research Conference – 2012

Organized by: Bangladesh Peace and Development Mission

In Association With: National Academy for Educational Management

Ecological Footprint as a Sustainability Indicator Shahadat Hossain Shakil*, Dr. Ishrat Islam**

Abstract Ecological Footprint assessment helps to identify what activities are having the biggest impact on nature and

opens up possibilities to reduce our impact and live within the means of One Planet. It provides

measurement of collective consumption of the population whether they are exceeding the Earth’s ecological

limits or not. It is compared with Biocapacity which measures the amount of available bioproductive

resources in ecosystem. The introduction of Ecological Footprint has been very necessary for the context of

Bangladesh especially in Dhaka as the endless demand and the unplanned consumption pattern of the

population here have been producing a very unsustainable situation.

Keywords: Ecological Footprint, Biocapacity, Environmental Sustainability

Introduction The 21st century is going to introducing us to a more complicated scenario than ever to access the ecosystem

service. The current trend of consumption, urbanization, industrialization is sending us closer to food

shortage, biodiversity loss, depleted fisheries, soil erosion and freshwater stress. The effect of these will be

reflected by the global supply-demand crisis of essential resources. To manage both ecological reserve and

demand in a better way, immediate strategies should be put forth and one of the major indicators for making

these strategies is Ecological Footprint (Ewing, Moore, Goldfinger, Oursler, Reed, & Wackernagel, 2010).

The Ecological Footprint is a well-respected, internationally applied indicator of sustainability. It was

developed in 1990 by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees as a means of making our ecological

constraints clear and our sustainability strategies more effective and livable. Ecological footprint is one of

the approaches working as a successful sustainability indicator. It is an evolving topic and modification of

this tool is still going on.

The emergence of Ecological Footprint has taken place to measure humanity’s demand on nature. It

measures how much land and water area a human population requires to produce the resource it consumes

and to absorb its carbon dioxide emissions, using prevailing technology. To provide the resources we use

and absorb our waste, humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets today. This means the Earth now needs

one year and six months to regenerate what we use in a year. Moderate UN scenarios suggest that if current

population and consumption trends continue, by the 2030s, we will need the equivalent of two Earths to

support us and of course, we only have one (Footprint Basics–Overview,Global Footprint Network, 2011).

Concepts and Definition Footprint accounts are divided into two parts: ecological supply (Bioproductive Area or Biocapacity) and

human demand on nature (Ecological Footprint).

Ecological Footprint – Demand It is a measure of how much biologically productive land and water an individual, population or activity

requires to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the carbon dioxide emissions it generates

using prevailing technology and resource management practices (Glossary,Global Footprint Network,

2011). Components of Ecological Footprint Account have been illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Components of Ecological Footprint

Source: WWF (2010) Formula of Ecological Footprint derived from National Footprint Account Methodology 2010 (Ewing, Reed, Galli, Kitzes, & Wackernagel, 2010):

EF = (P/YN). YF. EQF

Where, P = Amount of Product Harvested or Waste Emitted

YN = National Average Yield for P or its Carbon Uptake Capacity

YF = Yield Factor, EQF = Equivalency Factor

Footprint is expressed in global hectares. Global hectares are estimated with the help of two factors: the

yield factors (that compare national average yield per hectare to world average yield in the same land

category) and the equivalence factors (which capture the relative productivity among the various land and

sea area types).

Biocapacity – Supply Biocapacity is the capacity of ecosystems to produce biological materials useful for people, and to absorb

waste they generate (including carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning), using current management schemes

and extraction technologies (Glossary, Global Footprint Network, 2011).

Biocapacity is usually expressed in units of global hectares. The biocapacity of an area is calculated by

adjusting the area for its productivity. This is achieved by multiplying the actual physical area by the area

specific yield factor and the appropriate equivalence factor.

According to National Footprint Account Methodology 2010 (Ewing, Reed, Galli, Kitzes, & Wackernagel,

2010), a country’s biocapacity BC for any land use type is calculated as follows:

BC = A. YF. EQF

Where,

A= Area Available for a Given Land Use Type

YF and EQF = Yield Factor and Equivalence Factor, respectively, for the Country, Year, and Land Use

Type in Question

Ecological Deficit or Overshoot The difference between the Biocapacity and Ecological Footprint of a region or country is termed as

Ecological Deficit or Overshoot. An ecological deficit occurs when the footprint of a population exceeds the

biocapacity of the area available to that population. Conversely, an ecological reserve exists when the

biocapacity of a region exceeds its population's footprint. If there is a regional or national ecological deficit,

it means that the region is importing biocapacity through trade or liquidating regional ecological assets. In

contrast, the global ecological deficit cannot be compensated through trade, and is therefore equal to

overshoot (Glossary, Global Footprint Network, 2011). Notion of Ecological Overshoot has been

exemplified in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Footprint and Biocapacity Factors that Determine Global Overshoot Source: Ewing, Moore, Goldfinger, Oursler, Reed, & Wackernagel (2010)

Ecological Footprint as Sustainability Indicator The Ecological Footprint attempts to answer one central sustainability question: “How much of the

bioproductive capacity of the biosphere is used by human activities?” Footprint accounting answers this

question by translating all human demands on the biosphere into the amount of productive area required to

support those demands, either through producing resources or assimilating wastes. This can then be

compared to the total amount of biologically productive land available at the global level or within a specific

region. Such a measure of the supply of and human demand on natural capital is indispensable for tracking

progress, setting targets and driving policies for sustainability. To manage our natural capital wisely, it is

important to know how much we have and how much we use (McIntyre & Peters, 2007).

Ecological footprint accounts allow governments to track a city or region’s demand on natural capital, and to

compare this demand with the amount of natural capital actually available. The accounts also give

governments the ability to answer more specific questions about the distribution of these demands within

their economy. In other words, it gives them information about their resource metabolism (Footprint for

Cities, Global Footprint Network, 2011).

Conclusion

Ecological footprint figure confirms us the about degree of sustainability of our lifestyle from the

environmental perspective. It demonstrates how much resources we have and how rapidly we are using them

for our present existence. It illustrates whether we are on right track by maintaining the balance or we are

living on ecological credits, borrowing resources from our future generations.

References Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A., & Wackernagel, M. (2010). Ecological

Footprint Atlas 2010. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.

Ewing, B., Reed, A., Galli, A., Kitzes, J., & Wackernagel, M. (2010). Calculation Methodology for the

National Footprint Accoounts, 2010 Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.

Global Footprint Network. (2011). Foorprint Basics-Overview. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Global

Footprint Network : Advancing the Science of Sustainability:

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overview/

Global Footprint Network. (2011). Footprint For Cities . Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Global Footprint

Network : Advancing the Science of Sustainability :

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_cities/

Global Footprint Network. (2011). Glossary. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Global Footprint Network :

Advancing the Science of Sustainability: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/

McIntyre, S. A., & Peters, H. M. (2007, June 26). The Ecological Footprint of Utah. Retrieved April 4,

2011, from Utah Vital Sign: http://www.utahpop.org/vitalsigns/research/report_2007.htm

WWF. (2010). Living Planet Report 2010. Switzerland: World Wide Fund For Nature International.

Xu, S., & Martin, I. S. (2010). Ecological Footprint for The Twin Cities: Impacts of the Consumption in the

7-County Metro Area. Minneapolis: Metropolitan Design Centre, College of Design, University of

Minnesota.