Kenya Footprints and biocapacities (hectares per person) Tanzania United States Canada Footprint from grazing land 0.27 0.36 0.19 0.42 Footprint from forestland 0.28 0.24 0.86 0.74 Total ecological footprint 0.95 1.19 7.19 6.43 Percent footprint from grazing and forest 58 Biocapacity of grazing land 0.27 0.39 0.26 0.23 Biocapacity of forestland 0.02 0.13 1.56 8.27 Total biocapacity 0.53 1.02 3.86 14.92 Percent biocapacity from grazing and forest 57
Research shows that much of humanity’s footprint on biodiversity
comes from our use of grasslands for grazing livestock
and forests for timber and other resources. Grasslands
and forests contribute different amounts to each nation’s biocapacity
(a region’s natural capacity to provide resources and
absorb our wastes), depending on how much of these habitats
each nation has. Likewise, the per capita biocapacity and
per capita ecological footprints of each nation vary further
according to their populations. When footprints are equal to
or below biocapacity, then resources are being used sustainably.
When footprints surpass biocapacity, then resources are
being used unsustainably.
In the table, fill in the proportion of each nation’s per capita
footprint accounted for by use of grazing land and forestland.
Then fill in the proportion of each nation’s per capita biocapacity
provided by grazing land and forestland.
Do forest use and grazing comprise a larger part of the
footprint for temperate-zone industrialized nations such
as Canada and the United States, or for tropical developing
nations such as Kenya and Tanzania? What do you
think accounts for this difference between these two
types of nations? What else besides use of forests and
grasslands contributes to an ecological footprint?
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
