I’m sure that most of us are aware of the term ‘carbon footprint’ which relates to how much carbon we produce by living a certain way or buying certain products. However, the idea of using the concept of a footprint to measure our impact on the environment is nothing new. What I’m referring to is an ecological footprint. I have seen this term wrongly used a few times recently, with people getting it confused with a carbon footprint, which is a smaller cousin of the ecological footprint, but not the same. So to clear things up for everyone, I shall clarify exactly what an ecological footprint is. I will explain some history behind the concept, tell you how you can very easily measure your own, and of course we shall see how we can all – yes, including me - lower our footprints.
What is an ecological footprint?
William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel first introduced the theory of the ecological footprint when they published their 1996 book Our Ecological Footprint [1]. Although slightly different ecological footprinting methods are now in existence, the original idea is that by measuring specific variables we can make an educated judgment on how much land is required to sustain a hypothetical settlement, be it a house, town or city. The four main criteria used to quantify the total amount of land needed are: consumed land, farm land, forest land and energy land [2].
Consumed land. This assumes the area of land that is required to build the urban environment in question. For a city it would include all of the buildings and associated infrastructure, such as roads, railways and airports. On a smaller scale, if the footprint was to just include one house, this may consider the house, driveway and garden.
Farm land. As we all need food to live, this criteroen encompasses all of the farm land that is taken to grow our food and graze our livestock, while also allowing for water catchment areas.
Forest land. The land used to grow all the timber that we use for construction is accounted for with this, as is the timber used to fill our buildings with tables, chairs and bookshelves. While we may not use timber in every building, it may perhaps be argued that you can replace forest land with quarry land; this is just a thought of mine and isn’t included in the original concept.
Energy land. This is slightly more contentious than the others as it assumes we set aside a proportion of land to collect solar energy. Wackernagel and Rees recognised that this may be seen as a little optimistic, and thus unrealistic. Instead they used a combination of calculations that give a proportion of the land for biomass as an energy fuel, plus an area need to absorb the carbon emissions produced from burning fossil fuels.
How do I measure my footprint?
This is a very simple task nowadays, with many different footprint calculators available online. Just search for ‘ecological footprint’ and you’ll soon be up and running. In my university days I calculated my footprint and it was a pretty complicated process, asking for amounts of rubbish, energy bills, fuel consumption, etc. While a little removed from the original process, the calculators I tried recently were much more simpler – which I am blaming for my less that perfect results.
When an ecological footprint is calculated we input various different figures for such activities as where we go on holiday, how we get there, how much we use the car, how much meat we eat, how many people live in our house and how often we do our recycling. The results are offered up as the area needed to sustain the lives we have laid bare in front of the unforgiving footprint calculator. On many of the web-based calculators, you will also get a figure expressed in how many planets we would need to support our lifestyle if every inhabitant of the planet were living in the same way as us. Now I like to think I’m a pretty conscientious, green-living member of society, but my household footprint came up at well over 2 planets and an average of 4.5 hectares of land needed – that’s over 6 football pitches. Oh dear.
I console myself here with the fact that this is very rough science, but it doesn’t detract from the glaring reality that I am not living a very sustainable life, even though I try – really I do.
To try and bolster my defence I also did a footprint as if I were a vegan who walks everywhere, doesn’t take holidays, lives in a very energy efficient flat and never buys anything. Surprisingly (and scarily), I would still need 1.7 planets to sustain my lifestyle. So…
How can I lower my footprint?
Phew! How long is a piece of string? There are a plethora of things that you can do to lower your footprint. The ESW learning portal is full of articles on how to do this, so to avoid repetition, I will keep it brief and give an overview of how we can lower our footprints with particular reference to the issues covered in the calculations. If you want to pursue any of these you can look further into the learning portal; I have highlighted a couple of articles that you may find interesting:
Go vegetarian or buy more local food
- Reduce your Carbon Footprint by Changing the way you Eat
- Thinking Inside the Box – A Look at Organic Box Schemes
Reduce your waste and recycle more
Lower your impact from travelling; use the bus and train more and have your holidays in the UK (we do get 1 week of good weather, you know)
Improve your home’s energy efficiency. There are far too many articles on this subject to name one or two, so do have a look.
Ironically enough, some footprint calculators will ask if we buy local or organic produce, the theory being that this is good for the planet (which it is). However, in the context of farm land, free range hens need more space that battery hens; ergo, our footprint will be bigger if we buy free range eggs. Strange.
The above highlights that ecological footprinting is not a precise tool, but more a way for us to gauge our lives against a set of predetermined measurements. Saying that, however, there is a place for this tool as an environmental indicator and then as a catalyst to positive change. To provide a quick example of how this indicator can highlight change in a negative direction, think on this: Even as little as 50 years ago (1961), the majority of counties had an ecological surplus [3]. They don’t now. So what state are we going to be in after another 50 years?
The global perspective
One other piece of information that reassured me as to my large ecological footprint was that I am just below the UK average of 4.7 hectares and well below the US average of 8 hectares [4]. To put these figures into context; the average Chinese person needs 2.2 hectares to support their needs, an Indian 0.9 hectares, and if you live in Afghanistan you can expect your footprint to be just 0.6 hectares. The average per capita figure for the entire planet is about 1.5 hectares.
In summary then…
Ecological footprinting is a means of assessing our impact on the environment and can also be used as at tool for managing our remaining ecological stocks. We must recognise our limits and start to live within them. On a global scale we aren’t doing so bad, but with rising global populations, increasing standards of living, less land available for agriculture, collapsing fish stocks and dwindling reserves of fossil fuels, this will not last. Do go and have a go at measuring your footprint, compare yourself to the UK average and see if you can adjust anything in your life that gets flagged up as being unsustainable. It only takes few minutes, it’s a little bit of fun and it’s also a great indicator – or in my case awakening – as to how our lives really need to become more sustainable. Oh, and it stops us getting too complacent as well.
References
[1] Wackernagel, M and Rees, W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, New Society Publishers.
[2] Morris, D. Freeland, J. Hinchcliffe, S. Smith, S (2003)Changing Environments. Open University, Milton Keynes
[3] http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_debtors_and_creditors/
[4] http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/
