The ecological footprint shows how much of Earth's natural resources humans use to support people and their economies. It uses a system to track how much nature is needed for human activities. This system compares the area of land and water people use to meet their needs with the area of land and water available in a place, country, or the whole world (called biocapacity). Biocapacity is the amount of land and water that can naturally replace what humans take from Earth. Therefore, the ecological footprint measures how humans affect the environment. These measurements help determine whether human activities stay within Earth's limits, making them important for understanding sustainability.
The Global Footprint Network promotes this metric and created rules to compare results across different areas. FoDaFo, with support from the Global Footprint Network and York University, now provides national reports on ecological footprints and biocapacity.
Ecological footprints and biocapacity can be compared at the level of individuals, regions, countries, or the world. Both change yearly based on population, how much people use resources, how efficiently resources are produced, and how productive ecosystems are. Globally, these assessments show how much humans use compared to what Earth can renew. As of 2022, the Global Footprint Network estimates that humans use natural resources 71% faster than Earth can replace them. This overuse is called ecological overshoot, meaning humans are using more than Earth can sustain.
Ecological footprint analysis is used worldwide to help assess sustainability. It allows people to measure and manage resource use across the economy and examine the sustainability of lifestyles, products, services, organizations, industries, neighborhoods, cities, regions, and countries.
Overview
The idea of an ecological footprint and how to calculate it was created during a research project by Mathis Wackernagel, with help from his teacher, William Rees, at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, between 1990 and 1994. The first scientific paper about ecological footprints was written by William Rees in 1992. At first, Wackernagel and Rees called the idea "appropriated carrying capacity." To make the concept easier to understand, Rees chose the term "ecological footprint," inspired by a computer technician who said his new computer had a "small footprint on the desk." In 1996, Wackernagel and Rees published a book titled Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.
An ecological footprint measures the amount of natural resources needed to produce the goods and services that support a person’s lifestyle, a country’s wealth, or the total economic activity of all humans. This model helps compare lifestyles, how much individuals use, and population numbers with the planet’s ability to provide resources, called biocapacity. It can help governments understand whether a country uses more or less than its own resources or whether its lifestyle and population size could be repeated globally. This tool can teach people about overusing resources and overpopulation, aiming to change personal habits or policies. Ecological footprints may show that current lifestyles and human population levels are not sustainable. Comparing footprints across countries highlights how unevenly resources are used worldwide.
The touristic ecological footprint (TEF) measures the ecological impact of visitors to a specific place and depends on how tourists act. Comparing TEFs can show the advantages of choosing different destinations, travel methods, food, lodging, and activities.
A carbon footprint is part of the total ecological footprint. When only the carbon footprint is reported, it is often measured in weight of CO₂ (or CO₂e, which represents the warming effect of greenhouse gases). It can also be measured in land areas, like ecological footprints. Both carbon footprints and ecological footprints can be used to evaluate products, people, or entire societies.
According to Mathis Wackernagel, it is likely true that a smaller ecological footprint usually means the environment is more resilient.
Methodology
Ecological footprint accounting focuses on the idea that regenerative resources—those that can be naturally replaced—are the most limited resources on Earth. Even the use of fossil fuels is more limited by how much carbon dioxide the biosphere can absorb than by how much fuel remains underground. The same is true for ores and minerals, where the main limit is how much harm to the biosphere people are willing to accept during extraction, not how much of these materials remains underground. Therefore, ecological footprint accounting centers on how humans compete for regenerative resources.
The planet’s ability to renew resources and absorb waste is called biocapacity. Ecological footprints measure how much biocapacity is needed to support human activities, such as using energy, food, water, and other resources. These calculations can be done for any scale, including individuals, communities, cities, regions, nations, or the entire world.
Footprints can be divided into categories like food, housing, and goods and services. They can also be grouped by land types, such as cropland, pasture, forests used for products, forests used to store carbon, and marine areas.
When applied to activities like manufacturing a product or driving a car, ecological footprint calculations use data from life-cycle analysis. This process converts the use of energy, biomass (such as food and fiber), building materials, water, and other resources into a unit of measurement called global hectares (gha), which represents the land area needed to provide these resources.
Since 2003, the Global Footprint Network has used data from the United Nations to calculate the ecological footprint for the world and over 200 nations (called the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts). This work is now managed by FoDaFo and York University. These calculations also determine how many Earths would be needed to sustain the world’s population at current consumption levels. Every year, these numbers are updated with the latest United Nations statistics. Historical data is sometimes revised, so past results are recalculated with each update. The findings are shared on an open data platform.
A study by Lin et al. (2018) found that trends for countries and the world remain consistent even after data updates. A recent study by Switzerland’s Ministry of Environment also confirmed similar trends for Switzerland, with results matching within 1–4% for the period 1996–2015. Since 2006, standards for ecological footprint accounting have been established, detailing how to calculate and communicate results. The most recent version of these standards was updated in 2009.
Information about ecological footprint accounting at the national level is available on the Global Footprint Network’s website or in academic papers, such as those by Borucke et al. The National Accounts Review Committee has also published a plan to improve the accuracy and usefulness of these accounts.
Footprint measurements
In 2023, the Global Footprint Network estimated that humanity’s ecological footprint was equal to 1.71 Earths. This means that the resources humans use each year exceed what Earth’s ecosystems can naturally replace. If this pattern continues, Earth’s ecosystems may suffer long-term damage, and the planet’s ability to support human life could permanently decrease.
In 2022, the average amount of biologically productive land and water available per person worldwide was about 1.6 global hectares (gha) per person. The United States had a footprint of 7.5 gha per person, Switzerland 3.7 gha, China 3.6 gha, and India 1.0 gha. The World Wildlife Fund’s 2022 Living Planet Report noted that vertebrate populations worldwide declined by 69% between 1970 and 2022, linked to humans using more resources than Earth can provide. Wackernagel and Rees estimated in earlier studies that Earth’s biological capacity for 6 billion people was about 1.3 hectares per person, which is less than the 1.6 gha measured in 2024 because earlier research did not use global hectares or include marine areas.
According to the 2018 National Footprint Accounts, humanity’s total ecological footprint has grown steadily since 1961, increasing by an average of 2.1% each year. In 1961, the ecological footprint was 7.0 billion gha, and by 2014, it had risen to 20.6 billion gha. This increase was due to higher resource use per person and population growth. In 2014, the average ecological footprint per person globally was 2.8 gha. The carbon footprint, which includes emissions from burning fossil fuels, is the fastest-growing part of the ecological footprint and now makes up about 60% of the total.
Earth’s biocapacity, or the ability of ecosystems to produce resources and absorb waste, has not grown as quickly as the ecological footprint. Biocapacity increased by an average of 0.5% per year, from 9.6 billion gha in 1961 to 12.2 billion gha in 2016. However, this growth came at a cost to other species. Intensive farming practices increased fertilizer and pesticide use, harming water quality and pollinators. More water use reduced river health, and less land left wild decreased wildlife populations. These changes show that ecological footprint calculations focus on human needs, not the needs of other species. If biocapacity for other species is considered, the ecological overshoot is even greater.
Since the 1970s, Earth has been in "overshoot," meaning humans use resources faster than ecosystems can replenish them. Currently, humans use Earth’s resources at about 171% of what is sustainable. This means the planet’s human carrying capacity is exceeded. In 2025, Earth Overshoot Day occurred on July 24, marking when humanity used all the natural resources Earth could provide for the year. After this date, humans rely on borrowed resources and accumulate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
More than 85% of the global population lives in countries that use more resources than their ecosystems can support. Some countries have high per-person resource use, exceeding the global average of less than 1.7 gha per person in 2019. Examples include France, Germany, and Saudi Arabia. Other countries, like China, India, and the Philippines, use fewer resources per person but still exceed their biocapacity due to large populations. Countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States exceed their biocapacity because of both high per-person use and large populations.
In 2011, William Rees wrote that the average person uses about 2.7 gha of bioproductive land and water, but only 2.1 gha is available globally. This means humans have already exceeded Earth’s biocapacity by 30%. Since then, available biocapacity per person has decreased further, now less than 1.7 gha globally. Rees now believes that reducing economic and population growth is necessary to create sustainable societies and avoid collapse.
Footprint by country
The world average ecological footprint in 2013 was 2.8 global hectares per person. The average per country ranged from 14.3 (Qatar) to 0.5 (Yemen) global hectares per person. Ecological footprints also vary within countries, depending on lifestyle and wealth.
In 2022, the ten countries with the highest per person ecological footprints were: Qatar (14.3 global hectares), Luxembourg (13.0), Cook Islands (8.3), Bahrain (8.2), United States (8.1), United Arab Emirates (8.1), Canada (8.1), Estonia (8.0), Kuwait (7.9), and Belize (7.9). A nation’s total ecological footprint is calculated by multiplying its per person footprint by its total population. Total ecological footprints ranged from 5,540,000,000 global hectares (China) to 145,000 global hectares (Cook Islands). The ten countries with the largest total ecological footprints in 2022 were: China (5.54 billion global hectares), United States (2.66 billion), India (1.64 billion), Russian Federation (774 million), Japan (586 million), Brazil (542 million), Indonesia (460 million), Germany (388 million), Republic of Korea (323 million), and Mexico (301 million). These nations used the most resources, placing the greatest pressure on global ecosystems.
In 2007, the average ecological footprint in Western Australia was seven times the global average, totaling about 15 hectares per person.
A graph compares the ecological footprint of countries with their UN Human Development Index (a measure of living standards). It shows the balance needed between maintaining a good standard of living and using resources sustainably. Generally, higher living standards are harder to sustain. Population growth also affects resource use, as larger populations tend to use more resources. Most countries are growing in population, though some have stabilized or decreased slightly. Reports from national, regional, and city levels support the global trend of societies becoming less sustainable over time.
The UK’s average ecological footprint is 5.45 global hectares per person, with regional differences ranging from 4.80 (Wales) to 5.56 (East England) global hectares per person.
BedZED, a 96-home mixed-income housing project in South London, was designed by Bill Dunster Architects and sustainability experts BioRegional for the Peabody Trust. Despite its residents having average lifestyles, BedZED’s ecological footprint was 3.20 global hectares per person, due to on-site renewable energy, energy-efficient buildings, and a green lifestyle program, including London’s first car-sharing club. Findhorn Ecovillage, a rural community in Scotland, had a total ecological footprint of 2.56 global hectares per person, including visitors. Residents alone had a footprint of 2.71 global hectares, slightly over half the UK average and one of the lowest in the industrialized world. Keveral Farm, an organic farming community in Cornwall, had a footprint of 2.4 global hectares per person, though individual footprints varied among members.
Ecological footprint at the individual level
A 2012 study compared people who try to be environmentally friendly (called "green") versus those who do not (called "brown"). The study expected green people to have much lower effects on the environment than brown people. However, the research found that the amount of carbon (a type of pollution) produced by green and brown people was not different. A similar study in 2013 reached the same conclusion.
Reviews and critiques
Van den Bergh and Verbruggen wrote about problems with the ecological footprint in 1999. They updated their work in 2014. Their colleague, Fiala, shared similar concerns in 2008.
In 2008, the European Commission asked for a detailed study on the ecological footprint. The study found the concept helpful for evaluating progress on the EU's Resource Strategy. It also suggested ways to improve data quality, methods, and assumptions.
Blomqvist and others published a critical paper in 2013. Rees and Wackernagel responded in 2013. Blomqvist and others replied again in 2013.
Giampietro and Saltelli (2014) also criticized the concept. Goldfinger and others responded in 2014. Giampietro and Saltelli replied again in 2014. A joint paper by critics and supporters of the ecological footprint summarized the debate in the journal Ecological Indicators. Van den Bergh and Grazi added more comments in 2015.
Many national government agencies tested the ecological footprint method. They confirmed the results were reliable, with some studies producing nearly identical findings. These studies were done by agencies in Switzerland, Germany, France, Ireland, the United Arab Emirates, and the European Commission.
The Global Footprint Network shared a detailed report on the method's limitations and criticisms on its website.
Newman (2006) argued the ecological footprint might unfairly focus on cities. He said the method does not consider how cities benefit from growth. For example, calculating the footprint of densely populated areas like New York or Singapore might make them seem like they depend too much on rural areas. However, cities actually rely on rural regions for resources. Critics say this view is misleading because people in rural areas in developed countries may use more resources than city residents due to transportation and lack of efficiency. These arguments suggest a preference for self-reliance, but they do not cancel out the usefulness of comparing ecological footprints to evaluate environmental policies.
The ecological footprint measures biocapacity, which is the ability of ecosystems to produce resources. Replacing natural ecosystems with high-productivity farms can increase biocapacity, making the footprint appear smaller. For example, replacing forests with plantations might reduce the footprint. Similarly, organic farming might have lower yields than traditional farming, leading to a larger footprint. Tools that track biodiversity help address these issues. The WWF's Living Planet Report combines footprint calculations with a biodiversity index. A version of the ecological footprint that considers biodiversity has been used in Australia.
For many years, environmentalists have used the ecological footprint to measure how much the environment is harmed by human activity. Recently, there has been debate about whether this method is reliable.