Ecological Economics 32 (2000) 351 – 355 COMMENTARY FORUM: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT The ‘ecological footprint’: communicating human dependence on nature’s work Lisa Deutsch a, *, A  sa Jansson a , Max Troell b , Patrik Ro ¨ nnba ¨ck a , Carl Folke a,b , Nils Kautsky a,b a Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm Uniersity, Stockholm S -106 91, Sweden b Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Box 50005, Stockholm S -104 05, Sweden www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon We agree with many of the points raised by van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999) in their critique of ‘ecological footprint’ (EF) analysis. However, it is important to note that there are different objec- tives for and different ways of performing ecolog- ical footprint analysis. van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999) focus on the method devel- oped by Rees and Wackernagel (for example, Rees and Wackernagel, 1994; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). It is a global budgeting approach dividing the planet into available ecological space per capita. A major objective is to estimate the relative share of global resources appropriated by a certain human population, activity, region or country as a basis for decision-making on (un)sustainability. It often involves a discussion of equitable sharing of resources between nations (Wackernagel et al., 1999), and is generally critical of trade (Wackernagel and Rees, 1997). The objective of our EF analysis is different. We use the EF approach to try to make visible nature’s work — the ecosystems required for the generation of essential ecosystem services that hu- manity depends upon. We estimate our EF from a bottom-up perspective using available ecological data and understanding of local and regional ecosystem performance. We have analyzed the dependence of aquaculture and fisheries produc- tion on the work of marine and coastal ecosys- tems in this context (for example, Folke and Kautsky, 1989; Larsson et al., 1994; Berg et al., 1996; Kautsky et al., 1997; Folke et al., 1998). We have also analyzed the dependence of people in cities and regions on life-support ecosystems and environmental functions for food and timber con- sumption, freshwater use, and waste assimilation (for example, Folke et al., 1997; Deutsch, 1999; Jansson et al., 1999). Rees and Wackernagel interpret carrying capac- ity of human activities as the maximum rate of resource consumption and waste discharge that can be sustained indefinitely without progressively impairing the functional integrity and productiv- ity of ecosystems. We are sympathetic with this interpretation, but do not attempt to address car- rying capacity in our own EF estimates. Our EF * Corresponding author. 0921-8009/00/$ - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII:S0921-8009(99)00152-4