Since the Ecological Footprint was invented, research groups around the world have adapted the concept to their particular circumstances. In particular, researchers have used different metrics that pertain to different research questions. For example, while the metric used by the organisers of the Global Footprint Network expresses bioproductivity requirements in global hectares, an Australian approach examines land disturbance in local hectares. This report – co-authored by researchers from ISA and WWF – follows up on discussions at the Ecological Footprint Forum in Italy (2006). It highlights a number of situations, where managing for bioproductivity alone may lead to counter-productive incentives. We conclude that in these cases, the bioproductivity metric needs to be complemented with additional information such as on land disturbance and biodiversity.
