The Cornerstone of Sustainability: Ecological Footprint

Öz

With the increase of human population and the development of technology, the demand for Natural Resources is increasing day by day. The natural resources used to supply the needs of production and consumption are destroyed and used thoughtlessly because of people's belief that they own the world. The term of ecological footprint is a numerical method used for sustainable usage of resources. Ecological footprint expression is a numerical method for sustainable use of resources. This method represents whole of the concepts of ecological economy and sustainability which that present ecological resources have economic value. This method represents a whole of the concepts of Ecological Economics and sustainability, which indicate that ecological resources have economic values. The concept of ecological footprint digitizes ecological resource consumption by ensuring that the amounts of ecologically efficient resources consumed and those resources are determined on a field basis. Recently, as a result of the interdisciplinary evaluation of the concept of sustainability, the concept of ecological footprint has been expanded and the concept of footprint family has been created. The footprint family provides the sustainability of each resource by ensuring that the consumption of ecological resources is assessed on a resource-by-resource basis. In this study, a detailed review of the history of the ecological footprint concept, which plays a key role in the sustainable management of ecological resources, and the footprint family that is effective in the management of resources, has been conducted.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ecological Footprint,Sustainability,Environment,Ecological Economy

Sürdürülebilirliğin Temel Taşı: Ekolojik Ayak İzi

Öz

İnsan nüfusunun artması ve teknolojinin gelişmesiyle birlikte doğal kaynaklara olan talep her geçen gün artmaktadır. Üretim ve tüketim ihtiyaçlarını sağlamak için kullanılan doğal kaynaklar insanların dünyanın sahibi olduğuna dair düşüncelerinden dolayı tahrip edilerek düşüncesizce kullanılmaktadır. Ekolojik ayak izi ifadesi kaynak kullanımının sürdürülebilir bir biçimde gerçekleştirilebilmesi için kullanılan sayısal bir metottur. Bu metot ekolojik kaynakların ekonomik değerlerinin olduğunu belirten ekolojik ekonomi ve sürdürülebilirlik kavramlarının bir bütününü temsil etmektedir. Ekolojik ayak izi kavramı, tüketilen ekolojik verimli kaynak miktarlarını ve bu kaynakların alan bazında belirlenmesini sağlayarak ekolojik kaynak tüketimini sayısallaştırmaktadır. Son zamanlarda sürdürülebilirlik kavramının disiplinler arası değerlendirilmesi sonucunda ekolojik ayak izi kavramı genişletilerek ayak izi ailesi kavramı oluşturulmuştur. Ayak izi ailesi, ekolojik kaynakların tüketiminin kaynak bazında değerlendirilmesini sağlayarak her bir kaynağın sürdürülebilirliğini sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, ekolojik kaynakların sürdürülebilir yönetiminde anahtar rol oynayan ekolojik ayak izi kavramının tarihçesi ve kaynakların yönetiminde etkin olan ayak izi ailesi hakkında detaylı bir derleme çalışması yapılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekolojik Ayak İzi,Sürdürülebilirlik,Çevre,Ekolojik Ekonomi

Kaynakça

1. Atlas E.F., (2010), Global Footprint network, http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/ındex.php/gfn/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_ 2010, [Erişim 28 Temmuz 2011].
2. Best A., Blobel D., Cavalieri S., Giljum S., Hammer M., Lutter S., Lewis K., (2008), Potential of The ecological footprint for monitoring environmental impacts from natural resource use, Report to The European Commission, DG Environment.
3. Brown L., Kane H., (1994), Full house: Reassessing the earth's population carrying capacity, W.W. Norton, New York, 261ss.
4. Carson R., (1962), Silent spring, Fortieth Anniversary Edition, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 400ss.
5. Chambers N., (2004), Scotland's footprint: a resource flow and ecological footprint analysis of Scotland, Best Food Forward Limited.
6. Chang B., Xiong L., (2005), Ecological Footprint analysis based on RS and GIS in arid land, Journal Of Geographical Sciences, 15(1), 44-52.
7. Čuček L., Klemeš J.J., Kravanja Z., (2012), A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability, Journal Of Cleaner Production, 34, 9-20.
8. Ehrlich P.R., (1982), Human carrying capacity, extinctions, and nature reserves, Bioscience, 32(5), 331-333.

9. Fang K., Heijungs R., De Snoo G.R., (2014), Theoretical exploration for the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: overview of a footprint family, Ecological Indicators, 36, 508-518.
10. Giampietro M., Saltelli A., (2014), Footprints to nowhere, Ecological Indicators, 46, 610-621.
11. GFN, (2019), Ecological Footprint explorer, https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/, [Erişim 28 Ocak 2020].
12. Goldfinger S., Wackernagel M., Galli A., Lazarus E., Lin D., (2014), Footprint facts and fallacies: a response to giampietro and saltelli (2014) “footprints to nowhere”, Ecological Indicators, 46, 622-632.
13. Hammond G.P., (2006), ‘People, planet and prosperity’: the determinants of humanity's environmental footprint, Natural Resources Forum, 27-36.
14. Herva M., Franco A., Carrasco E.F., Roca E., (2011), Review of corporate environmental indicators, Journal Of Cleaner Production, 19(15), 1687-1699.
15. Hoekstra A.Y., Mekonnen M.M., (2012), The Water footprint of humanity, Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, 109(9), 3232-3237.
16. Hoekstra A.Y., Wiedmann T.O., (2014), Humanity’s Unsustainable environmental footprint, science, 344(6188), 1114-1117.
17. Kissinger M., Gottlieb D., (2010), Place oriented ecological footprint analysis—the case of Israel's Grain supply, Ecological Economics, 69(8), 1639-1645.
18. Kitzes J., Galli A., Bagliani M., Barrett J., Dige G., Ede S., Erb K., Giljum S., Haberl H., Hails C., Jolia-Ferrier L., Jungwirth S., Lenzen M., Lewis K., Loh J., Marchettini N., Messinger H., Milne K., Moles R., Monfreda C., Moran D., Nakano K., Pyhälä A., Rees W., Simmons C., Wackernagel M., Wada Y., Walsh C., Wiedmann T., (2009), A research agenda for improving national ecological footprint accounts, Ecological Economics, 68(7), 1991-2007.
19. Kıvılcım İ., (2013), 2020’ye doğru Kyoto-Tipi iklim değişikliği müzakereleri, avrupa birliği’nin yeterliliği ve Türkiye’nin konumu, İktisadi Kalkınma Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul.
20. Koroneos C.J., Rokos D., (2012), Sustainable and integrated development-a critical analysis, Sustainability, 4(1), 141-153.
21. Leach A.M., Galloway J.N., Bleeker A., Erisman J.W., Kohn R., Kitzes J., (2012), A nitrogen footprint model to help consumers understand their role in nitrogen losses to the environment, Environmental Development, 1(1), 40-66.
22. Marques A., Verones F., Kok M.T.J., Huijbregts M.A.J., Pereira H.M., (2017), How to quantify biodiversity footprints of consumption? a review of multi-regional input–output analysis and life cycle assessment, Current Opinion In Environmental Sustainability, 29, 75-81.
23. McManus P., Haughton G., (2006), Planning with ecological footprints: a sympathetic critique of theory and practice, Environment And Urbanization, 18(1), 113-127.
24. Meadows D.H., Meadows D.L., Randers J., Behrens W.W., (1972), The Limits to growth, New York, 102, 27.
25. Moffatt I., (2000), Ecological footprints and sustainable development, Ecological Economics, 32(3), 359-362.
26. Nature W.W.F.F., (2006), Living planet report, The Fund, https://wwf.ru/en/resources/publications/booklets/living-planet-report-2006/, [Erişim 08 Ekim 2019].
27. Network G.F., (2007), Ecological footprint: overview, Global Footprint Network, https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/, [Erişim 01 Ağustos 2007].
28. Parıltı H., (2019), Küresel çevre rejimleri ve ülkelerin uluslararası ticaret politikaları, Haliç Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 323-370.
29. Paul B.D., (2008), A history of the concept of sustainable development: literature review, The Annals of The University of Oradea, 17(2), 581.
30. Penna A.N., (2010), The human footprint: a global environmental history, Second edition, John Wiley-Blackwell, ss. 1-13, ISBN 978-1-118-91246-1.
31. Rees W.E., (1992), Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out, Environment And Urbanization, 4(2), 121-130.
32. Rees W.E., (1995), Cumulative environmental assessment and global change, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15(4), 295-309.
33. Rees W.E., (1996), Revisiting Carrying capacity: area-based indicators of sustainability, Population and Environment, 17(3), 195-215.
34. Rees W.E., Wackernagel M., (1996), Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable-and why they are a key to sustainability, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(4-6), 223-248.
35. Robertson M., (2014), Sustainability Principles and practice, Routledge, New York, 1-18, ISBN 978-0-415-84018-7.
36. Røpke I., (2005), Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, Ecological Economics, 55(2), 262-290.
37. Rojas-Fernández A.G., Aguilar-Santelises L., Millán M.C., Aguilar-Santelises M., García-Del Valle A., (2017), Teaching Chemistry with sustainability, multidisciplinary journal for education, Social And Technological Sciences, 4(1), 102-121.
38. San-Francisco A., Sopelana N., Fernandez J.M., Otegi J.R., ve Minguez R., (2020), Analysis about the incorporation of remanufacturing concept into life cycle assessment theorie, Journal of Remanufacturing, 1-13.
39. Tiezzi E., (1984), Tempi storici, tempi biologici, Garzanti, Milano,(English Translation: Tiezzi, E., 2003), WIT Press, Southampton, UK.
40. Toprak D., (2006), Sürdürülebilir kalkinma çevresinde çevre politikalari ve mali araçlar, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2, 146-169.
41. Turan E., Güner E.D., (2017), Türkiye’de çevresel etki değerlendirme mevzuatının değişimi, Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi, 3(1), 39-47.
42. URL-1, (2019), On birinci kalkınma planı (2019-2023), T.C. Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı, http://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/OnbirinciKalkinmaPlani.pdf, [Erişim 28 Ocak 2020].
43. Van Rooyen C.J., (2005), Synergy of agriculture, community development, and eco-tourism agri-tourism farm complex, Doktora Tezi, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
44. Wackernagel M., (1991), Using ‘appropriated carrying capacity’as an indicator: measuring the sustainability of a community, The UBC Task Force On Healthy And Sustainable Communities, UBC School of Community and Regional Planning, Vancouver.
45. Wackernagel M., (1994), Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: a tool for planning toward sustainability, Doktora Tezi, University of British Columbia.
46. Wackernagel M., Onisto L., Linares A.C., Falfãn I.S.L., Garcia J.M., Guerrero A.I.S., (1997), Ecological Footprints of Nations, Universidad Anahuac de Xalapa, Centro de Estudios para la Sustentabilidad, 1-9.
47. Wackernagel M., Rees W., (1998), Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, 7-85.
48. Wackernagel M., Lewan L. ve Hansson C. B., (1999), Evaluating the use of natural capital with the ecological footprint: applications in sweden and subregions, Ambio, 604-612.
49. Wackernagel M., Onisto L., Bello P., Callejas Linares A., Susana López Falfán I., Méndez Garcı́a J., Isabel Suárez Guerrero A., Guadalupe Suárez Guerrero M., (1999), National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept, Ecological Economics, 29(3), 375-390.
50. Wackernagel M., Monfreda C., (2004), Ecological footprints and energy, Encyclopedia Of Energy, 2(1), 1-11.
51. WCED S.W.S., (1987), World commission on environment and development, Our Common Future, 17, 1-91.