
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods

doi: 10.3390/su2061645
We present a comprehensive review of perceptions and methods around the Ecological Footprint (EF), based on a survey of more than 50 international EF stakeholders and a review of more than 150 original papers on EF methods and applications over the last decade. The key points identified in the survey are that the EF (a) is seen as a strong communication tool, (b) has a limited role within a policy context, (c) is limited in scope, (d) should be closer aligned to the UN System of Environmental and Economic Accounting and (e) is most useful as part of a basket of indicators. Key issues from the review of methods are: (a) none of the major methods identified can address all relevant issues and questions at once, (b) basing bioproductivity calculations on Net Primary Production (NPP) is a promising approach, (c) advances in linking bioproductivity with ecosystem services and biodiversity have been made by the Dynamic EF concept and the HANPP indicator, (d) environmentally extended input-output analysis (IOA) provides a number of advantages for improving EF calculations and (e) further variations such as the emergy-based concept or the inclusion of further pollutants are not regarded as providing a fundamental shift to the usefulness of EF for policy making. We also discuss the implications of our findings for the use of the EF as a headline indicator for sustainability decision-making.
- Center for Innovation United States
- Center for Innovation United States
TJ807-830, perception, TD194-195, Renewable energy sources, GE1-350, Environmental effects of industries and plants, methodology, ecological footprint; perception; methodology; policy relevance, Environmental sciences, ecological footprint, policy relevance, jel: jel:Q, jel: jel:Q0, jel: jel:Q2, jel: jel:Q3, jel: jel:Q5, jel: jel:O13, jel: jel:Q56
TJ807-830, perception, TD194-195, Renewable energy sources, GE1-350, Environmental effects of industries and plants, methodology, ecological footprint; perception; methodology; policy relevance, Environmental sciences, ecological footprint, policy relevance, jel: jel:Q, jel: jel:Q0, jel: jel:Q2, jel: jel:Q3, jel: jel:Q5, jel: jel:O13, jel: jel:Q56
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).237 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Top 1% influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Top 1% impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Top 1%
