Anonymous. 1996. "How Big is Our Ecological Footprint?" Earth Island Journal , v11n2 (Spring 1996): p18(1).

[Ecological footprint analysis indicates that ecologically productive land available per person has decreased to four acres. 'Ecological footprint' is a method of measurement to ensure sustainability of communities by balancing nature's productivity with the human consumption of resources. A University of British Columbia task force suggests that an increase in city density may reduce land-use requirements. It has urged politicians and planners to take up the ecological cause and recommends increase in city density and less energy-intensive lifestyles.]

Moffatt, I. 1996. "An Evaluation af Environmental Space as the Basis for Sustainable Europe," International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, v3n4 (Dec, 1996): 49-69.

[Environmental Space is being used by many groups throughout Europe as the basis for describing targets to make development in Europe sustainable. The concept is described together with the policy suggestions for a sustainable Europe emanating from the use of this method. The methodology of Environmental Space is then evaluated critically and its similarity with Ecological Footprints is noted. It is also noted that alternative calculations, using a materials balance approach, give a very different solution to some of the problems of making development sustainable, as addressed by the use of Environmental Space. This difference raises the questions of whether the approach is roughly right or not, and whether the policy prescriptions by using the Environmental Space method are misguided.]

Rees, William E. 1995. "Reducing Our Ecological Footprints," Siemens Review, v62n2 (Mar-Apr, 1995): 30-35.

[Editorial]

Rees, William E. 1996. "Revisiting Carrying-Capacity: Area-Based Indicators of Sustainability," Population and Environment, v17n3 (Jan, 1996): 195-215.

[Conventional wisdom suggests that because of technology and trade, human carrying capacity is infinitely expandable and therefore virtually irrelevant to demography and development planning. By contrast, this article argues that ecological carrying capacity remains the fundamental basis for demographic accounting. A fundamental question for ecological economics is whether remaining stocks of natural capital are adequate to sustain the anticipated load of the human economy into the next century. Since mainstream (neoclassical) models are blind to ecological structure and function, they cannot even properly address this question. The present article therefore assesses the capital stocks, physical flows, and corresponding ecosystems areas required to support the economy using "ecological footprint" analysis. This approach shows that most so-called "advanced" countries are running massive unaccounted ecological deficits with the rest of the planet. Since not all countries can be net importers of carrying capacity, the material standards of the wealthy cannot be extended sustainably to even the present world population using prevailing technology. in this light, sustainability may well depend on such measures as greater emphasis on equity in international relationships, significant adjustments to prevailing terms of trade, increasing regional self-reliance, and policies to stimulate a massive increase in the material and energy efficiency of economic activity.]

Rosenberg, J. 1997. "Ecological Footprint," Science, v275n5303 (Feb 21, 1997): 1052-1053.

Wackernagel, Mathis & William Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC, CAN: New Society Publishers.

Wackernagel, Mathis & William. E. Rees. 1997. "Perceptual and Structural Barriers to Investing in Natural Capital: Economics from an Ecological Footprint Perspective," Ecological Economics, v20n1 (Jan, 1997): 3-24.

[Argues that perceptual distortions and prevailing economic rationality discourage investment in natural capital, and actually accelerate the depletion of natural capital stocks. Makes the case for direct biophysical measurement of relevant stocks and flows, and uses for this purpose the ecological footprint concept. Elaborates the natural capital concept and shows how the ecological footprint can be used as a biophysical measure for such capital, and applies this concept as an analytical tool for examining the barriers to investing in natural capital. It picks four issues from a rough taxonomy of barriers and discusses them from an ecological footprint perspective: it shows why marginal prices cannot reflect ecological necessities; how interregional risk pooling encourages resource liquidation; how present terms of trade undermine both local and global ecological stability; and how efficiency strategies may actually accelerate resource throughput. Affirming the necessity of biophysical approaches for exploring the sustainability implications of basic ecological and thermodynamic principles, it draws lessons for current development.]

Return to top of page