Journal of Environmental Waste Management and Recycling

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +44 1518081136

Perspective - Journal of Environmental Waste Management and Recycling (2024) Volume 7, Issue 6

Ecological Footprint: Measuring Our Impact on the Planet

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Italy

*Corresponding Author:
Davy Mba-Wright
European Commission
Joint Research Centre (JRC), Italy
E-mail: davy.mw@ec.europa.eu

Received: 01-Nov-2024, Manuscript No. AAEWMR-24-155190; Editor assigned: 05-Nov-2024, Pre QC No. AAEWMR-24-155190 (PQ); Reviewed: 19-Nov-2024, QC No.AAEWMR-24-155190; Revised: 22-Nov-2024, Manuscript No. AAEWMR-24-155190 (R); Published: 29-Nov-2024, DOI: 10.35841/aaewmr-8.6.236

Citation: Wright D. Ecological Footprint: Measuring Our Impact on the Planet. 2024; 7(6):236

Abstract

  

Introduction

The ecological footprint is a measure of the environmental impact of human activities, specifically how much natural resources and ecosystem services we consume compared to the Earth's capacity to regenerate them. It quantifies the amount of land, water, and resources needed to support our lifestyle and absorb the waste we produce, including carbon emissions. In a world with limited resources, understanding our ecological footprint is crucial to ensuring that we live within the planet’s ecological limits and work toward a more sustainable future [1, 2].

Components

The concept of the ecological footprint was developed to provide a simple way to assess the environmental consequences of human consumption. It encompasses several key components the amount of land required to absorb the carbon dioxide emissions generated by activities such as transportation, electricity use, and industrial processes [3-5]. The land and water needed to produce the food we consume, including agriculture, livestock, and fishery production. The space required for buildings, roads, and other infrastructure that support urban living. The resources necessary to produce the goods we use daily, from clothing and electronics to paper and furniture [6-8]. The ecological footprint also takes into account the concept of bio capacity, which refers to the Earth’s ability to regenerate resources and absorb waste. When our footprint exceeds the planet's bio capacity, we are essentially "living beyond our means," depleting natural resources and causing environmental degradation. This phenomenon is known as ecological overshoot. Currently, humanity is in ecological overshoot, consuming more resources than the Earth can sustainably provide, leading to issues such as deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate change [9, 10].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ecological footprint is an important tool for understanding the environmental consequences of our actions and guiding us toward more sustainable lifestyles. By reducing our ecological footprint—through energy conservation, waste reduction, sustainable consumption, and responsible resource management—we can help ensure that future generations inherit a planet capable of sustaining life. As individuals, businesses, and governments take steps to reduce their ecological footprints, we can move toward a future where human activities coexist more harmoniously with the Earth's natural systems.

References

  1. Chan HY, Ho RC, Mahendran R, et al. Effects of horticultural therapy on elderly’health: protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC geriatrics. 2017; 17(1):1-0.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  2. Cheng L, De Vos J, Zhao P, et al. Examining non-linear built environment effects on elderly’s walking: A random forest approach. Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2020; 88:102552.

    3. Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Danielewicz AL, d'Orsi E, Boing AF. Association between built environment and the incidence of disability in basic and instrumental activities of daily living in the older adults: Results of a cohort study in southern Brazil. Prev Med. 2018; 115:119-25.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. de Belvis AG, Avolio M, Spagnolo A, et al. Factors associated with health-related quality of life: the role of social relationships among the elderly in an Italian region. Public health. 2008; 122(8):784-93.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Dujardin C, Lorant V, Thomas I. Self-assessed health of elderly people in Brussels: Does the built environment matter?. Health & place. 2014; 27:59-67.

    6. Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  6. Fernández-Niño JA, Bonilla-Tinoco LJ, Manrique-Espinoza BS, et al. Neighborhood features and depression in Mexican older adults: A longitudinal analysis based on the study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE), waves 1 and 2 (2009-2014). PloS one. 2019; 14(7):e0219540.

    7. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Finlay J, Franke T, McKay H, et al. Therapeutic landscapes and wellbeing in later life: Impacts of blue and green spaces for older adults. Health & place. 2015; 34:97-106.

    8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  8. Gaglione F, Cottrill C, Gargiulo C. Urban services, pedestrian networks and behaviors to measure elderly accessibility. Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2021; 90:102687.

    9. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Gao M, Ahern J, Koshland CP. Perceived built environment and health-related quality of life in four types of neighborhoods in Xi’an, China. Health & place. 2016; 39:110-5.

    10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  10. Grossi G, Lanzarotti R, Napoletano P, et al. Positive technology for elderly well-being: A review. Pattern Recognit Lett. 2020; 137:61-70.

    11. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App