Ecological footprint: Encyclopedia II - Ecological footprint - Criticisms

Ecological footprint - Criticisms

The concept of ecological footprinting has been challenged on several grounds. First, many factors of the calculations are based on crude estimates and it is questioned whether the numbers are applicable to other places (the method is biased to Northern Hemisphere lifestyles). Second, the model generally does not count multiple uses of land: a forest is a carbon sink and the same area is not counted for food production. Third, at the household level, the model is biased in favor of households with more children and against, for instance, single-person ones. The model looks only at the consumption of the household in the present moment, ignoring that each offspring is l consuming household. A large house with ten children can have a "smaller" ecological footprint than a house half its size with only one person.

To counter these uncertainties, the models of ecological footprinting are constantly being refined. Moreover, the use of ecological footprint analysis is considered to be a guide, rather than an exact measure, of sustainability. For instance, few ecological footprint models include the use of fresh or salt water. But since the focus of the ecological footprint is heuristic—to awaken people, particularly those in more heavily industrialized societies, to their extensive resource use and its externalized costs—greater precision or detail might actually get in the way of this teaching goal.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Criticisms", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki