A pegada ecológica como indicador de sustentabilidade: uma análise sob a perspectiva dos Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável

Carlos Vinicius dos Santos  Rodrigues; Karolina Marie Alix Benedictte Van Sebroeck  Dória

doi:10.61411/rsc2025118418

Autores

Carlos Vinicius dos Santos Rodrigues Centro Universitário Módulo Autor
Karolina Marie Alix Benedictte Van Sebroeck Dória Centro Universitário Módulo Autor

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61411/rsc2025118418

Palavras-chave:

Pegada ecológica; Sustentabilidade; Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável; Inovação tecnológica; Indicadores ambientais.

Resumo

A crescente complexidade das problemáticas ambientais voltadas a sustentabilidade demanda instrumentos que auxiliem na compreensão, monitoramento e formulação de respostas eficazes. Nesse contexto, os indicadores ambientais se configuram como ferramentas fundamentais para avaliar impactos, acompanhar tendências e subsidiar políticas públicas e estratégias de gestão relacionada a políticas públicas. Este presente trabalho tem como objetivo analisar a função e os limites dos indicadores ambientais no monitoramento da sustentabilidade, destacando suas potencialidades quando aplicados em conjunto e de forma crítica e evidente. A pegada ecológica consolidou-se como um dos principais indicadores de sustentabilidade, por permitir avaliar a pressão antrópica sobre ecossistemas e a compatibilidade entre padrões de consumo e limites planetários vigentes. A finalidade desta revisão é analisar a pegada ecológica e sua relação com os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (ODS), refletindo suas potencialidades, limites e interações com metodologias complementares. Para tanto, realizou-se uma revisão sistemática da literatura em bases científicas internacionais, selecionando artigos recentes que tratam da temática. A análise foi organizada em seis eixos: (a) métricas e abordagens metodológicas; (b) importância da pegada nos ODS; (c) ferramentas complementares; (d) inovação tecnológica e pegada; (e) estudos de caso; e (f) sinergias e trade-offs. Os resultados apontam que, embora seja uma métrica robusta, a pegada apresenta variações metodológicas que dificultam a padronização e carece de integração a indicadores sociais e econômicos. Para tanto, constata-se que o progresso em diversos ODS tem sido acompanhado devido aumento da pegada, revelando contradições estruturais no modelo de desenvolvimento recente. Assim, perfaz-se que a pegada ecológica, quando articulada a ferramentas complementares e inserida em estratégias de inovação tecnológica e governança sustentável, torna-se mais eficaz para orientar políticas e práticas em direção à sustentabilidade.

Referências

AL-BARAKANI, Abdo et al. Spatial analysis of financial development’s effect on the ecological footprint of Belt and Road Initiative countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 366, p. 132696, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132696

AYTUN, Cengiz et al. Associating environmental quality, human capital, financial development and technological innovation in middle-income countries: a disaggregated ecological footprint approach. Technology in Society, v. 76, p. 102445, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102445

BIAGETTI, Sergio et al. Comparison of the use of life cycle assessment and ecological footprint methods for evaluating environmental performances in dairy production. Science of the Total Environment, v. 896, p. 164337, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166845

CHEN, Jie; HUANG, Shoujun; KAMRAN, Hafiz Waqas. Empowering sustainability practices through energy transition for Sustainable Development Goal 7. Energy Policy, v. 176, p. 113499, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113499

DAM, Mehmet Metin; KAYA, Funda; BEKUN, Festus Victor. How does technological innovation affect the ecological footprint? Evidence from E-7 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 443, p. 141020, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141020

DASGUPTA, Partha; DASGUPTA, Aisha; BARRETT, Scott. Population, ecological footprint and the sustainable development goals. Environmental and Resource Economics, v. 84, p. 659-675, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00595-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00595-5

DESTEK, Mehmet Akif; MANGA, Muge. Technological innovation, financialization, and ecological footprint: evidence from BEM economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, v. 28, n. 17, p. 21991-22001, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11845-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11845-2

EISENMENGER, Nina et al. The Sustainable Development Goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use. Sustainability Science, v. 15, n. 4, p. 1101-1110, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00813-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00813-x

GARZILLO, Juliana et al. Ultra-processed food intake and diet carbon and water footprints: Brazil. Revista de Saúde Pública, v. 56, p. 75, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2022056004086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2022056004551

GIANNETTI, B. F. et al. The Ecological Footprint of Happiness: a case study of a low-income community in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Sustainability, v. 14, n. 19, p. 12056, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912056. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912056

HAMETNER, Markus. Economics without ecology: how the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability. Ecological Economics, v. 199, p. 107490, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107490

HICKEL, Jason. The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: growth versus ecology on a finite planet. Sustainable Development, v. 27, n. 5, p. 873-884, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1947

JAHANGER, Atif et al. The linkages between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint. Resources Policy, v. 76, p. 102569, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102569

JAIN, Prerna; JAIN, Pragati. Are the Sustainable Development Goals really sustainable? Sustainable Development, v. 28, n. 6, p. 1642-1651, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2112

JIANG, Hao; ZHANG, Wei; LI, Chunhua. A quantified methodology for evaluating engineering sustainability: ecological footprint measurement modeling. Buildings, v. 14, n. 11, p. 3552, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14113552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14113552

KHAN, Salim; WANG, Yahong; ZEESHAN, Asma. Impact of poverty and income inequality on the ecological footprint in Asian developing economies. Energy Reports, v. 8, p. 670-679, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.001

KOVSHUN, N. et al. Global measurement of ecological footprint in the context of sustainable development. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, v. 1269, p. 012032, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1269/1/012032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1269/1/012032

LI, Qiang; ZHANG, Shuliang. Impact of globalization and industrialization on ecological footprint: do institutional quality and renewable energy matter? Frontiers in Environmental Science, v. 13, p. 1535638, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1535638. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1535638

LIANG, Wen et al. Fairness evaluation on achieving Sustainable Development Goals of ecological footprint: case study of Guanzhong Plain. Sustainability, v. 17, n. 10, p. 4728, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104728

MARQUEZINE CALDEIRA, T. C. et al. Differences in cost and environmental impact between current diet and healthy diets. Nutrition Journal, v. 23, p. 76, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-024-00991-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-024-00973-x

MARTINS, Miriam Souza; FONTGALLAND, Isabel Lausanne. A Pegada Ecológica como instrumento de educação ambiental: o estudo de caso da cidade de Campina Grande-PB. Research, Society and Development, v. 10, n. 15, p. e546101523145, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i15.23145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i15.23145

MARQUEZINE CALDEIRA, T. C. et al. Brazilian adolescents' dietary environmental footprints. Sustainability in Debate, v. 16, p. 211-229, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v16n2.2025.

MOINUDDIN, Mustafa; OLSEN, Simon Høiberg. Examining the unsustainable relationship between SDG performance, ecological footprint and international spillovers. Scientific Reports, v. 14, p. 11277, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61530-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61530-4

MUNAGALA, Lalitha; NAGAMMAL, Jothilakshmy. Impact of ecological footprint on achieving sustainability in urban neighbourhoods. Journal of Lifestyle and SDGs Review, v. 5, n. 4, p. 06177, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47172/2965-730x.sdgsreview.v5.n04.pe06177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47172/2965-730X.SDGsReview.v5.n04.pe06177

OPOKU, Eric Evans Osei; DOGAH, Kingsley E.; ALUKO, Olufemi Adewale. The contribution of human development towards environmental sustainability. Energy Economics, v. 106, p. 105782, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105782. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105782

SAQIB, Najia et al. Integration of renewable energy and technological innovation in realizing environmental sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, v. 30, n. 6, p. 16372-16385, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23345-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23345-6

SAQIB, Najia; USMAN, Muhammad; OZTURK, Ilhan; SHARIF, Arshian. Harnessing the synergistic impacts of environmental innovations, financial development, green growth, and ecological footprint. Energy Policy, v. 184, p. 113863, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113863. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113863

SAQIB, Najia; OZTURK, Ilhan; USMAN, Muhammad. Technological innovations, financial inclusion, and renewable energy in diminishing ecological footprints. Geoscience Frontiers, v. 14, n. 6, p. 101667, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101667. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101667

SUN, Yunpeng et al. The nonparametric causal effect of sustainable governance structure on energy efficiency and ecological footprint. Gondwana Research, v. 121, p. 383-403, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.05.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.05.007

URSAVAŞ, Selim; KORKMAZ, Sinem; DEMIR, Ahmet. Short- and long-term environmental effects of technological innovations: a panel study on ecological footprint. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v. 102, p. 107282, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107282.

WANG, Qiang; GE, Yanan; LI, Rui. Does improving economic efficiency reduce ecological footprint? Energy Policy, v. 176, p. 113623, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113623

YANG, Yi et al. Ecological degradation and green development at crossroads. Environment, Development and Sustainability, v. 27, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05544-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05544-y

ZADGAONKAR, A. S.; MANDAVGANE, S. A. Localized ecological footprint assessment using emergy and life cycle approaches: The LEEF framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 258, p. 120658, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120658.