Economic assessment of the ecological footprint’s impact on ecosystem productivity

Abstract

The evaluation of humanity’s ecological footprint has become imperative in contemporary discourse due to escalating environmental concerns. Approaches to economically assess this footprint now employ concrete tools, such as cost-benefit analysis, input-output modeling, contingent valuation, and ecological efficiency ratios, which capture both direct and indirect impacts on ecosystems. This study provides an overview of these prevailing approaches in economic evaluation, emphasizing their methodological application and their significance in quantifying the ecological consequences of human activities. Particular attention is given to the valuation of ecosystem services, including measurable processes, such as oxygen production, carbon sequestration rates, water purification efficiency, and biodiversity indices, which are critical for a comprehensive assessment of humanity’s ecological footprint. The article also examines assessment frameworks through legislative and policy instruments, highlighting the role of environmental impact assessment, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The analysis evaluates the adequacy of these measures and identifies areas where legislative improvements are required, particularly in climate action, technological innovation, water resource management, sustainable production, and biodiversity conservation. This paper integrates scientific perspectives from seminal scholars. It applies empirical data on the ecological and economic role of forests, focusing on carbon storage potential, biodiversity preservation metrics, soil and water protection functions, and modeling impacts of air quality improvement. The study concludes by underscoring the need for legislative enhancements and the adoption of open data practices at both national and international levels to comprehensively address and mitigate the ecological footprint. Overall, this article combines economic valuation techniques, quantitative indicators, and policy analysis to provide a scientifically rigorous perspective on evaluating and reducing the ecological footprint to support sustainable development.

Keywords

Ecological footprint / Carbon dioxide emissions / Economic evaluation / Ecosystems

Funding

This research was conducted within the framework of the Visegrad Fund project (Slovakia, grant No. 52510523) and as part of the Ivan Vyhovskyi Award research fellowship (internship under the Award, Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw, Poland) in 2025. No external funding was received for this work.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

References

[1] Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. London: HM Treasury. p. 610. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/602e92b2e90e07660f807b47/the_economics_of_biodiversity_the_dasgupta_review_full_report.pdf [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08].

[2] Fletcher, R. Review of Partha Dasgupta. 2021. The economics of biodiversity: The Dasgupta review. J Polit Ecol. 2021; 28(1). doi: 10.2458/jpe.2289

[3] Rathnayake, N, Rathnayake, U, Chathuranika, I, Dang, TL, Hoshino, Y. Cascaded-ANFIS to simulate nonlinear rainfall-runoff relationship. Appl Soft Comput. 2023; 147:110722. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110722

[4] Daly, HE. Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Popul Dev Rev. 1996; 22(4):783-789.

[5] Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. England: Cambridge University Press; 2007. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511817434

[6] Costanza, R, D’Arge, R, De Groot, R, et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997; 387(6630):253-260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0

[7] Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. United States: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2017. p. 309.

[8] Pan, Y, Birdsey, RA, Fang, J, et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science. 2011; 333:988-993. doi: 10.1126/science.1201609

[9] Pimm, SL, Jenkins, CN, Abell, R, et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science. 2014; 344(6187):1246752. doi: 10.1126/science.1246752

[10] Nave, LE, Vance, ED, Swanston, CW, Curtis, PS. Impacts of elevated N inputs on north temperate forest soil C storage, C/N, and net N-mineralization. Geophys Res Lett. 2010; 37(9):231-240. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.08.012

[11] Nowak, DJ, Hirabayashi, S, Bodine, A, Hoehn, R.Modeled PM2.5 removal by trees in ten U.S. Cities and associated health effects. Environ Pollut. 2013; 178:395-402. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.050

[12] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.

[13] Distribution of Humanity’s Ecological Footprint in 2020, by Land Use; 2024. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1188761/ecological-footprint-worldwide-share-by-land-use [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08].

[14] Abekoon, T, Sajindra, H, Rathnayake, N, Ekanayake, IU, Jayakody, A, Rathnayake, U. A novel application with explainable machine learning (SHAP and LIME) to predict soil N, P, and K nutrient content in cabbage cultivation. Smart Agric Technol. 2025; 11:100879. doi: 10.1016/j.atech.2025.100879

[15] Annual Private Investments in Nature-Based Financing as of 2021 Worldwide, by Category; 2024. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240557/annual-private-investment-nature-financing-by-category [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08].

[16] Globalne Statystyki, GUS. Available from: https://sdg.gov.pl [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08].

[17] Gross Domestic Product of the European Union from 2011 to 2022; 2024. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/279447/gross-domestic-product-gdp-in-the-european-union-eu [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08].

[18] Largest Rainforests in the World; 2020. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1346900/largest-rainforests [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08].

[19] Leading Benefits from Engaging in Data Ecosystems Worldwide as of 2021; 2024. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1251458/worldwide-benefits-amount-data-ecosystems [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08].

[20] Pearce, DW, Kerry, RK. Economics of natural resources and the environment. Am J Agric Econ. 1991; 73(1):211-218. doi: 10.2307/1242904

[21] Share of Global Ecological Footprint by Country; 2015. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494990/ecological-footprint-worldwide-share-by-country [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08].

[22] The, World Bank. The World Bank in Poland. Overview; 2024. Available from: https://www.worldbank.org [Last accessed on 2020 Oct 09].

[23] Statista, Data. Empowering People with Data. Insights and Facts Across 170 Industries and 150+ Countries. Available from: https://www.statista.com [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08].

[24] Tzannatos, Z. Effects of gender inequality in employment and pay in Jordan, Lebanon and the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Three questions answered/Zafiris Tzannatos. Geneva: ILO; 2016.

[25] Yakymchuk, A, Baran-Zglobicka, B. Natural Economic Values of National Parks in Development of Territorial Communities. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology; 2023. p. 753-772. Available from: https://surl.li/odnbf [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08].

[26] Yakymchuk, A, Valyukh, A, Diugowanets, O, et al. Public Administration and Economic Aspects of Ukraine’s Nature Conservation in Comparison with Poland. In: Kantola J, Nazir S, Salminen V,editors. Advances in Human Factors, Business Management and Leadership. AHFE 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Vol 1209. Cham:Springer; 2020

[27] Vasyltsiv, T, Irtyshcheva, I, Lupak, R, et al. Economy’s innovative technological competitiveness: Decomposition, methodics of analysis and priorities of public policy. Manag Sci Lett. 2020; 10(13):3173-3182. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.5.004

[28] Wagner, M. Business Strategy and the Environment. Vol. 26. United States: Wiley; 2017. p. 588-608.

[29] What are the Sustainable Development Goals?; 2024. Available from: https://www.sightsavers.org/policy-and-advocacy/global-goals/?gad_source=1&gclid=cj0 kcqiay9msbhd0arisanbk0a8x3z2onydamw8anyh0x_ j1zig90-bahcascos_sq2d5uocrks7gksaappaealw_wcb [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 08].

[30] Yakymchuk, A, Valyukh, A, Diugowanets, O. Public administration and economic aspects of ukraine’s nature conservation in comparison with Poland. In: Kantola J, Nazir S, Salminen V,editors. Advances in Human Factors, Business Management and Leadership. AHFE 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Vol. 1209. Cham:Springer; 2020.