Representing the forest management dilemma in the ecological footprint indicator

Abstract

Over the last decade the ecological footprint (EF) methodology has become widely used for estimating the biocapacity and the impact of human consumption in terms of global hectares. Although it represents a very impressive method for calculating the EF and biocapacity of an area, problems can arise regarding the incorporation of ecological factors into the calculation process. In this study we point out some problematic issues with use of the current EF methodology from an ecological point of view, taking as our focus forest biocapacity in Hungary. The EF concept ignores the differences in productivity of different species and forest types and their associated ecological values as well. We argue that the ecological ‘quality’ of different kinds of forests and tree species should be reflected in EF calculations in order to obtain a more accurate estimation of biocapacity. The presence of invasive and non-local species may reduce biodiversity and crowd out native tree species. As a result we distinguish between three main forest types (natural, cultural and energy forests) and additionally suggest the introduction of an additional parameter which refers to the ‘naturalness’ of the specified forest types. Results show a 15% increase in forest biocapacity when incorporating the naturalness factor.