The DOI matches its Crossref record; 118 of the 118 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods
Open accessAbstract
We present a comprehensive review of perceptions and methods around the Ecological Footprint (EF), based on a survey of more than 50 international EF stakeholders and a review of more than 150 original papers on EF methods and applications over the last decade. The key points identified in the survey are that the EF (a) is seen as a strong communication tool, (b) has a limited role within a policy context, (c) is limited in scope, (d) should be closer aligned to the UN System of Environmental and Economic Accounting and (e) is most useful as part of a basket of indicators. Key issues from the review of methods are: (a) none of the major methods identified can address all relevant issues and questions at once, (b) basing bioproductivity calculations on Net Primary Production (NPP) is a promising approach, (c) advances in linking bioproductivity with ecosystem services and biodiversity have been made by the Dynamic EF concept and the HANPP indicator, (d) environmentally extended input-output analysis (IOA) provides a number of advantages for improving EF calculations and (e) further variations such as the emergy-based concept or the inclusion of further pollutants are not regarded as providing a fundamental shift to the usefulness of EF for policy making. We also discuss the implications of our findings for the use of the EF as a headline indicator for sustainability decision-making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Our Ecological Footprint: reducing human impact on the earth
Bazan, G. (1997) · Electronic Green Journal · doi:10.5070/g31710273 · Cited by 4,654
Global patterns in biodiversity
Gaston, K. J. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35012228 · Cited by 3,355
Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 · Cited by 3,158
Quantitative Input and Output Relations in the Economic Systems of the United States
Leontief, W. W. (1936) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.2307/1927837 · Cited by 2,753
Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out
Rees, W. E. (1992) · Environment and Urbanization · doi:10.1177/095624789200400212 · Cited by 2,398
Environmental accounting: EMERGY and environmental decision making
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-0412 · Cited by 2,114
Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach
Leontief, W. (1970) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.2307/1926294 · Cited by 1,959
Haberl, H., Erb, K. H., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Bondeau, A., Plutzar, C., Gingrich, S., Lucht, W., & Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0704243104 · Cited by 1,617
Environmental Repercussions And The Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach
Leontief, W. (2018) · Green Accounting · doi:10.4324/9781315197715-18 · Cited by 1,506
Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis
Vitousek, P. M., Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H., & Matson, P. A. (1986) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1310258 · Cited by 1,505
Cited by
A good life for all within planetary boundaries
O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F., & Steinberger, J. K. (2018) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4 · Cited by 1,452
Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., & Giljum, S. (2012) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.017 · Cited by 928
Self-citationMeasuring circular economy strategies through index methods: A critical analysis
Elia, V., Gnoni, M. G., & Tornese, F. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.196 · Cited by 892
Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J. C., Wackernagel, M., & Galli, A. (2013) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005 · Cited by 699
Defining and measuring urban sustainability: a review of indicators
Huang, L., Wu, J., & Yan, L. (2015) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0208-2 · Cited by 372
Metadata
- Authors
- Wiedmann, T., & Barrett, J.
- Venue
- Sustainability
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2010-06-07
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1645-1693
- ISSN
- 2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2049388904
- Cited by
- 321
- References
- 118
- FWCI
- 57.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/su2061645
- The paper
- Wiedmann, T., & Barrett, J. (2010). A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2061645
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
