Summary of area types Cropland Cropland is the most bioproductive of all the land-use types. It consists of areas used to produce food and fiber for human consumption, feed for livestock, oil crops and rubber. Current cropland Footprint calculations do not take into account the extent to which farming techniques or unsustainable agricultural practices cause long-term degradation of soil.
Grazing land Grazing land is used to raise livestock for meat, dairy, hide and wool products. The grazing land Footprint is calculated by comparing the amount of feed crops that are fed to livestock with the total amount required to support livestock. The difference is assumed to come from grazing land.
Fishing grounds The fishing grounds Footprint is calculated using estimates of the maximum sustainable catch for a variety of fish species. These sustainable catch estimates are converted into an equivalent mass of primary production based on the various species’ trophic levels. This estimate of maximum harvestable primary production is then divided among the continental shelf areas of the world. Fishing grounds Footprint and biocapacity take into account the ocean, inland waterways and aquaculture.
Forest Forest biocapacity provides for two mutually exclusive demands:
a) Forest product Footprint The forest product Footprint is calculated based on the amount of lumber, pulp, timber products and fuelwood consumed by a population.
b) Carbon Footprint Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the only waste product included in the current national Ecological Footprint methodology. On the demand side, the carbon component of the Ecological Footprint, the carbon Footprint, is calculated as the amount of forestland required to sequester (through photosynthesis) carbon emissions released by humans and not sequestered by oceans. It is the largest portion of humanity’s current Footprint, but quite small in some low-income countries. We use carbon Footprint, the carbon component of the Ecological Footprint, with a more specific meaning than it typically carries in the general literature and the climate debate. In much of the
The Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity of California ¦ March 2013
Page 11 of 49