Ecological footprints and sustainable development

By Ian Moffatt. 2000

214 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/46f067f50bb3653e37413d9d880f834824950a07

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. F. Krausmann
2. K. Erb
3. H. Haberl
4. Manfred Lenzen
5. T. Wiedmann
6. G. P. Peters
7. C. Monfreda
8. N. Schulz

Citations in the corpus

• Calculating national and global ecological footprint time series: resolving conceptual challenges (2004, result): “The above-mentioned studies, as well as other recent research (Ayres, 2000; Lenzen and Murray, 2001; Luck et al., 2001; Moffatt, 2000; van den Bergh and Verbruggen, 1999; van Vuuren et al., 1999), have raised the following issues:”
• Consumption and Environmental Degradation: A Cross-National Analysis of the Ecological Footprint (2003, unknown): “This makes it accessible for empirical use while providing a clear, unambiguous message in an easily digested form (Moffatt 2000).”
• Actual land demand of Austria 1926–2000: a variation on Ecological Footprint assessments (2004, background): “This "snapshot approach" (Rees, 2000; Moffatt, 2000) poses a conceptual problem, especially when dealing with forestry.”
• The Consumption of a Finite Planet: Well-Being, Convergence, Divergence and the Nascent Green Economy (2013, methodology): “These include the Human Development Index (UNDP), Genuine Progress Indicator (Daly and Cobb 1989), Ecological Footprints using global hectare equivalents (Moffatt 2000; WWF 2010, 2012), the Happy Planet Index (NEF 2013), and planetary boundaries (Rockstom et al. 2009).”
• Energy requirements of Sydney households (2004, background): “While ecological footprints are an instructive educational resource for raising awareness about global unsustainability, they have been criticised, for example, because the aggregated form of the final value makes it difficult to understand the specific reasons for the unsustainability of the consum”
• The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept (2000, unknown): “Some argue in favor of its broad use for policy questions about sustainability (Rees, 2000; Templet, 2000; Wackernagel and Silverstein, 2000), while others, acknowledging the EF’s pedagogic value, see a much more limited use for policy-making (Ayres, 2000; Opschoor, 2000; van Kooten and Bulte, 2000)”
• Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. (2008, background): “Some have argued that the index is useful only as an awarenessraising tool, and should not be considered scientific (Moffatt, 2000; van Kooten and Bulte, 2000).”
• Ecological Footprint Policy? Land Use as an Environmental Indicator (2014, background): “…and environmental scientists (e.g., Van den Bergh and Grazi 2010; Fiala 2008; Grazi et al. 2007; Lenzen et al. 2007; EAI 2002; Ayres 2000; Moffatt 2000; Opschoor 2000; Van den Bergh and Verbruggen 1999; VROM-raad 1999; Gordon and Richardson 1998).4 It will be argued here that such…”
• Convergence of ecological footprint and emergy analysis as a sustainability indicator of countries: Peru as case study (2010, background): “Even so, it has received strong critiques, as it happens with all the tools that try to evaluate such a complex concept as sustainability [53,1,25,31,36,54,55,59,20].”