Content uploaded by Ho Ngoc Son
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ho Ngoc Son on Jul 03, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Socioeconomics and Development. 2024. 7(1): 14-23
Journal of Socioeconomics and Development
https://publishing-widyagama.ac.id/ejournal-v2/index.php/jsed
Ecological footprint and the wealth of people from a socio-
ecological point of view
Muhammad Fathurrahman Mulyawan1, Ernoiz Antriyandarti2*, and Ho Ngoc Son1
1Advanced Education Program, the Ministry of Education and Training, Vietnam
2Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia
*Correspondence email: ernoiz_a@staff.uns.ac.id
INTRODUCTION
Population growth has long been considered an
environmental issue, leading to a higher demand for
natural resources, threatening people with an
environmental scarcity, and unbalancing natural
resources. The concern gets further complicated due
to people’s lack of knowledge about this
environmental issue (Danish & SU-Din, 2019).
Wackernagel and Rees (1996) developed a
powerful tool to access human carrying capacity in
1992. They inverted the standard carrying capacity
ratio and extended the concept of this ecological
footprint, hence, this tool could be used to measure
how much “nature” is available for specific populations
and how much natural resources are consumed by the
population based on their lifestyle, income, and
technology. They defined that ecological footprint is
inversely related to the attempts to measure human
carrying capacity in terms of waste and natural
resource consumption. Ecological footprint became
one of the indicators to measure sustainable
To cite this article: Mulyawan, M. F., Antriyandarti, E., & and Son, H. N. (2024). Ecological footprint and the wealth of
people from a socio-ecological point of view. Journal of Socioeconomics and Development, 7(1), 14-23.
https://doi.org/10.31328/jsed.v7i1.4218
ISSN 2615-6075 online; ISSN 2615-6946 print
©UWG Press, 2024
ABSTRACT
With time it is getting more difficult to solve environmental issues as several
people are unaware of the current environmental concerns. Using the ecological
footprint analysis, people can know their daily use of natural resources.
Therefore, this study aims to determine the ecological footprint of people in Solo,
Indonesia. We applied the Ecological Footprint Test to the 152 respondents that
consist of students, academicians and ordinary people. Through survey and
questionnaire, this study found the relationship between different statuses of
occupation and determined which category was more eco-friendly. Furthermore,
this study hypothesized about the effects of education level on the use of natural
resources and explained that educational level does affect the use of natural
resources. Regression analysis was used to examine the determinant of
ecological footprint score of the Solo people. The result showed that the
estimated parameter of education has positively significant to the ecological
footprint of the people of Solo. The higher the education, the higher the
ecological footprint score of the Solo people. This is indirectly related to mobility
and the goal of earning more income for those with higher education. Therefore,
their consumption of natural resources is higher than that of ordinary people.
The economic improvement is directly proportional to increases in income and
natural resources
ARTICLE INFO
►Research Article
Article History
Received 21 June 2023
Accepted 18 December 2023
Published 27 March 2024
Keywords
ecological footprint;
education level;
environmental education;
Java culture;
JEL Classification
P18; Q01; Q30
15
Journal of Socioeconomics and Development, Vol 7, No 1, April 2024
development due to its ability to measure human
impact on the biosphere (Wackernagel, 1994). Hence,
the ecological footprint analysis is a successful
indicator of ecological overshoot in measuring human
consumption of natural resources and has been widely
used in sustainability analyses (Venetoulis & Talberth,
2007).
Moran et al. (2008) found a way to measure the
sustainable development of nations using the
ecological footprint analysis. However, the
development of a nation enlarges its ecological
footprint, and only a few low-income countries
successfully develop without enlarging their ecological
footprint score. Nonetheless, high-income countries
have exhibited the opposite trend. According to
studies, economic development pushes
industrialization, thus, increasing natural resource
extractions (Ahmed et al., 2022; Collins et al., 2017;
Danish & SU-Din, 2019; Lin et al., 2018; Majeed &
Mazhar, 2019; Nathaniel et al., 2020; Usman et al.,
2022; Wiedmann & Barrett, 2010). Large amounts of
natural resource consumption, through agriculture,
industrialization, deforestation, and mining, can
adversely affect the environment, leading to a larger
ecological footprint. These findings are supported by
Jorgenson & Clark (2011) and prove that “urbanized
nations are more consumptive based on their
environmental impacts” and lead to a larger ecological
footprint of a country (Figge et al., 2016). To work
with the ecological footprint tool, six fundamental
assumptions from Wackernagel et al. (2002) should
be understood.
The ecological footprint represents the area
required for resource production and waste
assimilation. The area unit in ecological footprint is
defined as “global hectare” (gha), and the biocapacity
is divided into five usage categories – grazing land,
cultivated land, forest, fishing areas, and built-up
land. Most countries run a biocapacity deficit because
nature cannot meet the demands born of human over-
consumption, which automatically leads to scarcity.
However, some countries, usually found in the tropics
and boreal latitudes, still have abundant natural
resources. Indonesia is one of the countries facing a
natural resource deficiency. The footprint in Indonesia
is more significant than the biocapacity, indicating that
Indonesians are over-consuming natural resources
(Network, 2018).
Education plays an essential role in the
development of a country. If a country does not have
proper education, it will be left behind by other
countries that support education. To eliminate
poverty, famine, or environmental energy problems,
the solutions will always include education. Education
is critical in environment conservation to provide
learners with the opportunity to gain awareness and
sensitivity toward the environment, knowledge, and
experience in facing environmental problems. These
will bring a positive attitude toward the environment,
the skills required to identify and solve environmental
problems, and the motivation and ability to participate
(Jacobson et al., 2006). However, several studies say
that gender difference impacts environmental
concerns and behaviors and state that females tend
to be more environmentally concerned than males
(Hunter et al., 2004; Kawgan-Kagan, 2020; Lee,
2009). However, it is difficult to determine if females
have better education than males. Several factors
affect the education system of a country, such as
culture, technology, and economic matters.
Solo City, Indonesia, located in Central Java, is
known for its culture, art, and healthy manner of
society. It is on its way to developing an “Eco-Cultural
City,” followed by four components – tangible cultural
heritage, self-sufficient local economies, good quality
public spaces enhanced by a clean environment, and
adequate infrastructure (Kota Kita, 2019). However, it
is unclear whether Solo is aware of the environmental
changes and how they balance economic and
environmental status. This study examined whether
the education level relates to natural resource usage.
RESEARCH METHOD
Solo, or Surakarta City in Central Java Province,
Indonesia, has a population of around 550,000 people
(Indonesia Access, 2018). Solo was chosen as the
study location to collect data by surveying the
respondents as it has a fascinating culture toward the
environment.
To gather data on the ecological footprint of the
respondents, a questionnaire based on the “Ecological
Footprint Test” was distributed among the
participants. This survey aimed to assess and quantify
their ecological footprints, providing insights into their
environmental impact, based on various lifestyle
factors and consumption patterns.
This study uses the descriptive approach, an
effective method for collecting and analyzing data.
Surveys and interviews involved personal interaction
between the researcher and the participants to collect
16
Mulyawan et al.,
Ecological footprint and the wealth...
the necessary information. The researcher used a
descriptive sampling method. All close-ended
questions were asked to define respondents’
characteristics. The sample size was 152 respondents.
Purposive sampling was used to find out how the
ecological footprint is viewed from the perspective of
students, academics, and ordinary people. The
number of people per group is based on a minimum
sample of 30, hence, the more samples, the better it
can describe the actual situation (Sugiyono, 2016).
The participants were chosen using a direct selection
method according to three layers or strata.
This study involved a diverse group of participants,
with 50 respondents being students. These individuals
were selected from colleges, representing various
academic disciplines. By including students, the study
aimed to capture insights into the ecological footprints
of the younger generation, shedding light on their
lifestyle choices and behaviors and their contribution
to the environment.
Another subset of respondents comprised 52
academicians from scientific fields. This group
included teachers, lecturers, and researchers who are
actively engaged in academic pursuits. The inclusion
of academicians examined the ecological footprints of
individuals with a strong academic background,
exploring how their professional activities and
knowledge in scientific areas influence their
environmental behaviors.
This study incorporated the perspectives of 50
ordinary people, representing various occupations,
such as vendors, drivers, farmers, and workers. This
diverse group of respondents from different walks of
life provided valuable insights into the ecological
footprints of individuals who may not have a direct
connection to academia. Understanding the
environmental impact of ordinary people was crucial
for obtaining a comprehensive view of the broader
community and the varied factors influencing
ecological footprints across different societal roles.
Data and Variable
The questionnaire was translated to Bahasa
Indonesia for better understanding. The questionnaire
was divided into four sections.
It investigates phenomena, such as the ecological
consequences of dietary habits, emphasizing the role
of meat consumption and the ecological benefits
associated with plant-based diets. The socio-
ecological viewpoint scrutinizes how food choices
intertwine with broader societal patterns, influencing
individual well-being and the overall ecological health
of the communities.
This study delves into phenomena associated with
housing, exploring the ecological implications of
different materials, energy-efficient technologies, and
sustainable architectural trends. This examination
extends beyond the environmental impact,
considering the socio-economic dimensions of housing
choices, community planning, and their collective
influence on the ecological footprint of individuals and
societies.
This study investigates phenomena related to
commuting habits, examining the carbon footprint
associated with various transportation modes. It
sheds light on the adoption of sustainable alternatives,
such as electric vehicles, and scrutinizes the socio-
ecological dimensions of public transportation
systems. The discussion emphasizes the
interconnectedness of accessibility, affordability, and
social equity in shaping transportation choices and
their subsequent impact on ecological footprints.
It explores varied phenomena, ranging from the
environmental consequences of consumer behavior to
the nuanced connections between mental well-being
and sustainable lifestyles. This study investigates the
role of conscious consumerism in mitigating ecological
footprints and highlights how lifestyle choices
intersect with cultural, economic, and social
dimensions. Through this holistic perspective, the
article seeks to uncover the intricate ways in which
individual lifestyle choices contribute to the broader
socio-ecological fabric and presents valuable insights
into the intricate relationships between individual
choices and the broader well-being of both the
environment and society.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using the qualitative
analysis method by using the descriptive method to
explain the data of ecological footprint score and the
quantitative analysis method by using multiple
regression linear methods to estimate the significant
relationship between the dependent and independent
variables (Wooldridge, 2013).
Regression analysis was chosen to understand the
dependence of one variable on one or more variables.
With those variables, this study could estimate and
predict the (population) mean or average value of the
former in terms of the knowledge or fixed (in repeated
17
Journal of Socioeconomics and Development, Vol 7, No 1, April 2024
sampling) values of the latter. The best linear
unbiased estimator (BLUE) should be understood. The
variable average or expected value should be equal to
the actual value. An unbiased estimator with a minor
variance is known as an efficient estimator (Gujarati,
2003). The following test became a part of the
analysis.
The scoring guide (Table 1) is provided with the
questionnaire. This ecological footprint (EF) test is
available on the internet (www.footprint.wwf.org.uk).
It is divided into four sections, depending on the
question classification. Each choice in the
questionnaire has corresponding points.
Table 1. Scoring Guide
Section
Questions
Score
Diet and Food
Choices
#1 to 5
A = 1 Point
B = 2 Points
C = 3 Points
D = 4 Points
E = 5 Points
Shelter/Home Life
#6 to 8
A = 1 Point
B = 2 Points
C = 3 Points
D = 4 Points
E = 5 Points
#9 to 10
A = 1 point
B = 5 Points
Transportation
#11 to 15
A = 1 Point
B = 2 Points
C = 3 Points
D = 4 Points
E = 5 Points
Lifestyle Choices
#16 to 17
A = 1 point
B = 5 Points
#18 to 20
A = 1 point
B = 3 Points
C = 5 Points
This study manually calculated the total points
following the score guide. The score was divided into
three ranges, each describing how the respondents
behaved toward the environment based on their total
points. The lower the score, the more ecologically
friendly they are. The higher the score, the less eco-
friendly and less sustainable the lifestyle.
The analysis of the collected data involved the
utilization of the PAST software. This software enabled
the examination of trends and patterns within each
respondent group. By employing statistical tools and
algorithms, PAST facilitated a comprehensive
exploration of the ecological footprints of each
respondent group, allowing for a nuanced
understanding of their environmental behaviors.
For further insights and a detailed data
examination, STATA software was employed. STATA,
a powerful statistical software, was utilized to describe
the data by comparing different respondent groups.
The goal was to identify any statistically significant
differences in the ecological footprint scores among
these groups. This rigorous analysis unveiled patterns
or correlations for a deeper understanding of the
factors influencing ecological footprints within the
surveyed population.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Characteristics of Respondents
From the total sample, 52.7% of the respondents
were females and 47.2% were males (Table 2). The
high percentage of females may be attributed to the
fact that women are involved in ecological footprint in
more areas than men, such as diet and food choices,
home life, transportation, and lifestyle choices.
Regarding age, 66.4% of the respondents were 21–
40 years old, followed by 41–60 years old (22.3%),
and below 20 years old (6.5%).
Table 2. Characteristics of Respondents
Item
Frequency
Proportion
people
%
Age
≤ 20 years
10
6.5
21 – 40 years
101
66.4
41 – 60 years
34
22.3
61 – 80 years
7
4,8
Education level
Diploma
44
28.9
Bachelor's Degree
56
36.8
Master Degree
27
17.7
Doctoral Degree
25
16.6
Average (years)
15.9
Sex
Male
72
47.3
Female
80
52.7
Status
Student
50
32.8
Academics
52
34.4
Ordinary people
50
32.8
The other categories were the least represented
(4.8%). This implies that the respondents did not
have an awareness of ecological footprint. About
36.8% of the respondents were at the bachelor’s
degree level, followed by a diploma (28.9%), master’s
degree (17.7%), and doctoral degree (16.6%).
18
Mulyawan et al.,
Ecological footprint and the wealth...
Furthermore, 34.4% of respondents were from
academics, and 32.8% were students and ordinary
people. Hence, the respondents had basic knowledge
of environmental issues.
The minimum ecological footprint score was 38
and the maximum score was 82 (Table 3). The age
range was from 18–70 years. The shortest education
duration was 12 years and the longest was 21 years
of education. It calculated the mean of the data and
the standard deviation and successfully compared
each category. All the data was positively significant.
Table 3. Statistics Data
Variable
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Ecologycal
Footprint Score
55.1513
7.7943
38
82
Age
31.5263
12.2544
18
70
Education
15.9144
3.0097
12
21
Ecological Footprint Score
Each respondent had a different score based on
their occupation status and their answers to the
questionnaire. Through these scores, the researcher
was able to determine whether the respondent was
eco-friendly or not. The lower the score, the more eco-
friendly the respondent. Furthermore, the score was
divided into three ranges (20–44, 45–75, and 76–
100), and each range had a score description.
Respondents scoring between 20 and 44
demonstrated commendable environment-conscious
behavior. They exhibited a careful and considerate
approach to resource utilization, essentially “tip-toeing
on earth in bare feet.” Their ability to use natural
resources wisely suggested a heightened awareness
of ecological sustainability and a commitment to
minimizing their environmental impact. Individuals
scoring between 45 and 75 were progressing toward
becoming eco-friendly, global citizens. They showed
positive inclinations toward adopting sustainable
practices and reducing their ecological footprint. The
scores indicated a growing awareness and effort to
align their lifestyles with environmentally responsible
choices. Respondents scoring between 76 and 100
were categorized as “destroyers.” They demonstrated
a concerning trend of using natural resources with a
disregard for their finite nature. The categorization –
“destroyers” – signifies the need for heightened
awareness and a shift toward more sustainable
practices to mitigate their impact on the environment.
Understanding their behavior is crucial for
implementing targeted interventions aimed at
promoting sustainable and responsible resource
consumption.
Table 4 shows that there were five males and
seven females in the 20–44 score range, and were
eco-friendly citizens. Most others were in the middle
range. However, there were only two females in the
76–100 score range, and need to change their
behavior toward the environment. The differences
between both genders are almost the same.
Table 4. Ecological Footprint Score based on the Sex
Sex
Ecological Footprint Score
20-44
45-75
76-100
Male (72)
5
67
0
Female (80)
7
71
2
Total (152)
12
138
2
This study categorized the data based on the
education of the respondents (Table 5).
Approximately 36.84% of the survey data was
dominated by bachelor’s degrees and six were in the
20–44 score range, indicating that they were eco-
friendly. However, the two “destroyers” had higher
education levels.
Table 5. Ecological Footprint Score Based on the
Education
Education
Ecological Footprint Score
20-44
45-75
76-100
Diploma (44)
4
40
0
Bachelor's Degree (56)
6
50
0
Master Degree (27)
1
25
1
Doctoral Degree (25)
1
23
1
Total (152)
12
138
2
Table 6. Ecological Footprint Based on the Status of
Occupation
Status of Occupation
Ecological Footprint Score
20-44
45-74
75-100
Students (50)
3
47
0
Academicians (52)
2
48
2
Ordinary People (50)
7
43
0
Total (152)
12
138
2
Table 6 compares the total points of the
respondents from different groups based on their
status of occupation. A total of 90.78% of people were
in the 45–74 score range, hence, they were on their
way to being eco-friendly, global citizens. However, 12
19
Journal of Socioeconomics and Development, Vol 7, No 1, April 2024
people were eco-friendly global citizens, and only two
respondents, both academicians, were classified as
“destroyers.”
The results based on sex and education are
presented in Figures 1 and 2. An interesting trend
emerged in the Figure 1 graph based on gender. The
data revealed that males were closer to the 45–75
range. This suggests that, on average, men exhibit
behaviors of becoming more eco-friendly, global
citizens. Understanding gender-specific patterns in
ecological footprints can contribute to targeted
strategies for environmental education and awareness
campaigns. In contrast, the ecological footprint of
females showed a different pattern. Women aligned
more closely with the 20–44 range and were notably
distant from the 76–100 range. However, both
genders demonstrated a similar inclination toward the
45–75 range. This shared tendency highlights a
common ground where efforts for promoting eco-
friendly behaviors can be effectively directed, bridging
the gender gap in ecological footprint ranges. A
notable observation across both genders is that they
are collectively distant from the 76–100 range. This
uniformity suggests a shared awareness and
avoidance of environmentally destructive behaviors.
Recognizing this commonality provides an opportunity
for targeted interventions and educational initiatives
to emphasize sustainable practices and encourage the
avoidance of resource-depleting behaviors.
Figure 1. Correspondence analysis based on the sex
Figure 2 provides valuable insights into the
relationship between education levels and ecological
footprint tendencies. Notably, individuals with a
diploma degree exhibited a tendency closer to the 20–
44 range. This suggests that, on average, individuals
with a diploma degree displayed behaviors aligned
with an environmentally conscious lifestyle,
showcasing a heightened awareness of resource
utilization. Examining the ecological footprint
tendencies based on education levels, those with a
bachelor’s degree displayed a unique pattern. They
fell between the 20–44 and 45–75 ranges, placing
them in the middle ground. This indicates a balanced
approach where individuals with a bachelor’s degree
are progressing toward eco-friendly behaviors without
fully reaching the higher ecological footprint range.
Figure 2. Correspondence analysis based on the
education
The analysis further revealed intriguing trends
among individuals with higher academic qualifications.
Those with a master’s and doctoral degree displayed
tendencies closer to the 45–75 range. In addition,
these groups were closer to the 76–100 range as
compared to other educational categories. This
suggests that individuals with advanced degrees may
need targeted interventions to reinforce sustainable
practices and mitigate the potential for higher
ecological footprints. Understanding these educational
dynamics can inform tailored strategies for
environmental education and awareness campaigns.
Figure 3 presents the correspondence analysis
based on the status of occupation. The PAST software
was used to determine the tendencies of each
respondent category. Upon analyzing the results,
distinct ecological footprint tendencies emerged
among different respondent categories. Notably, the
ecological footprint tendency of students was
identified as closer to the 45–75 range. This indicates
20-44
45-75
76-100
Male
Female
-0,96-0,84-0,72 -0,6 -0,48-0,36-0,24-0,12 00,12
Axis 1
-0,96
-0,84
-0,72
-0,6
-0,48
-0,36
-0,24
-0,12
0
0,12
Axis 1
20-44
45-75
76-100
Diploma
Bachelor Degr ee
Master Degree
Doctoral Degree
-0,9 -0,6 -0,3 00,3 0,6 0,9 1,2 1,5 1,8
Axis 1
-0,016
0
0,016
0,032
0,048
0,064
0,08
0,096
Axis 2
20
Mulyawan et al.,
Ecological footprint and the wealth...
that students, on average, exhibit behaviors that align
more closely with becoming eco-friendly, global
citizens. Moreover, their tendencies were notably
distant from both the 20–44 and 76–100 ranges.
In contrast, the ecological footprint tendencies of
ordinary people were closer to the 20–44 range
compared to academicians. Both categories, however,
positioned themselves in the middle ground, between
20–44 and 45–75. This suggests that, on average,
ordinary people demonstrate a more eco-friendly
behavior compared to academicians.
Figure 3. Correspondence analysis based on the
status of occupation
Analyzing the ecological footprint tendencies of
academicians revealed a unique pattern. Their
tendencies were closer to the 45–75 range; however,
they exhibited proximity to the 20–44 range as well.
Despite being far from the 76–100 range,
academicians were one step closer to the higher
ranges than the other categories. This implies that
targeted efforts may be needed to address and
mitigate potential higher ecological footprints among
academicians, even though all the categories were
collectively distant from the 76–100 range.
Understanding these distinctions is crucial for tailoring
interventions to specific respondent categories and
fostering broader adoption of eco-friendly practices.
The respondents showed scattered results. The
hypothesis that education affects the ecological
footprint score of each respondent was not completely
supported by the results. Education does affect
ecological footprint scores since academicians did not
reach the 76–100 range; however, the result of the
academicians was higher than the other categories
and two academicians reached the 76–100 range. This
indicates that the higher education level would
automatically increase academicians’ standard of
living and lead to a higher ecological footprint on the
environment.
Table 7 indicates that the estimated education
parameter is positively significant to the ecological
footprint score at a 99% confidence level. While the
variables of age and sex did not significantly affect the
ecological footprint score, higher education leads to
an increased score. This result is consistent with the
result from PAST software, which indicates that the
higher the education level, the higher the
consumption of natural resources.
Table 7. Factors that Affect Ecological Footprint
Score
Variable
Coefficient
Standard
Error
t-value
Age
Education
Sex
Constant`
-0.0617
0.8789
-0.4902
43.341
0.0550
0.2414
1.3272
3.7733
-1.12
3.64***
-0.37
11.49
F-stat
R-squared
Number of obs
5.91***
0.107
152
*** denotes significant level at 0.01
Thus, we may conclude that the variables of age
and sex do not influence the ecological footprint
scores. This means that young and older adults,
irrespective of sex, have the same behavior toward
the environment, which is distinguished by their
standard of living. This finding is in contrast with
previous research findings that men have higher
carbon emissions because men drive more than
women, which leads to a higher ecological footprint
(Medina & Toledo-Bruno, 2016), and women are more
social compared to men, thus, more socially
responsible and more concerned about the
environmental (Zelezny et al., 2000).
This study hypothesized that education aligns with
the use of natural resources. Several people assume
that education does not correlate with the ecological
footprint. According to Jacobson et al. (2006),
education is important in environment conservation to
provide learners with the opportunity to gain
awareness or sensitivity, knowledge, and experience
of facing environmental problems. Furthermore, it
brings a positive attitude toward the environment, the
skills required to identify and solve environmental
problems, and the motivation and ability to
participate. However, the analyzed data demonstrates
that education is the only one that has a significant
20-44
45-75
76-100
Student s
Academicians
Ordinary People
-0,9 -0,6 -0,3 00,3 0,6 0,9 1,2 1,5 1,8
Axis 1
-0,16
-0,08
0
0,08
0,16
0,24
0,32
0,4
0,48
Axis 2
21
Journal of Socioeconomics and Development, Vol 7, No 1, April 2024
role in human’s ecological footprint. Furthermore,
some believe that men are worse than women in
treating the environment, whereas the data shows
that both are the same regarding the use of natural
resources.
Research Implication
As education is not the main factor, but rather the
variables related to it, such as income and occupation,
based on the study result, academicians have higher
education levels, leading to higher income and
standard of living. Hence, academicians can easily
access natural resources (Danish & SU-Din, 2019;
Jacobson et al., 2006; Dogan & Taspinar, 2019). The
financial sector has the potential to support global
efforts toward environmental protection (Majeed &
Mazhar, 2019).
The culture in Solo or the culture of people in Java
plays an essential role in environmental behavior, their
dress, and their food. Hence, the “students” group
does not reach the highest range, indicating a good
attitude toward the environment.
Human consumption patterns will increase along
with economic growth. This consumption pattern is
influenced by the desire to fulfill basic human needs.
There is an increase in consuming various types.
Excessive demand will have an impact on
environmental imbalance. This is because increasing
consumption behavior will also increase activity
production of various types of needs. This study
conducted in Solo City and used ecological footprints
to analyze natural resource consumption and waste
decomposition. Carbon Footprint is the amount of
carbon or greenhouse gases produced from various
human activities over a certain period of time.
Education is the main factor that contributes to the
condition and quality of the living environment. Good
knowledge causes good attitudes and participation
towards the environment. The results also confirm
that the higher education of people lead the higher
their level of knowledge about the environment, so
that concern for the quality of the environment and
motivation to participate in responsible environmental
behavior will also be higher. Therefore, the research
results provide the implication that the government
needs to improve the level of public education and
implement an environmental education curriculum
from early childhood education. It is hoped that
environmental education and awareness, which can
ultimately change lifestyles, can be a solution in
reducing carbon footprints. So that people will
implement behaviors as an effort to reduce their
carbon footprint, such as reducing consumption of
animal products, not wasting food and having a zero
waste spirit, traveling by foot or bicycle if possible
using public transportation, reducing wasteful energy
usage habits, planting trees and others. In addition,
the people can also be educated and given
socialization on calculating the carbon footprint
resulting from daily activities through a carbon
footprint calculator which can be accessed via the
internet. By knowing the carbon footprint produced
every day, people can become wiser and more
motivated to reduce their carbon footprint.
Reducing the carbon footprint in people's daily
lives is a shared responsibility as Indonesians.
Moreover, with the existence of Pancasila values,
Indonesian people must strengthen efforts to protect
and protect the environment so that a sustainable
heritage is maintained for future generations. Through
these concrete actions, especially with the spirit of
mutual cooperation that exists in the lives of
Indonesian people, we can further increase efforts to
protect the earth and achieve sustainable
development in Indonesia.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
Most people in Solo are eco-friendly, as evidenced
by their ecological footprint score. This indicates that
the people in Solo know how to treat the environment.
The biocapacity in Indonesia is decreasing
dramatically, which, according to “The Ecological and
Biocapacity of Central Java,” is the only component
still in “reserve” in the forest. Thus, society should be
aware of this condition, especially in Solo. The
determinant that influences the ecological footprint of
the people of Solo is education, whereas age and
gender do not have a significant effect. The higher the
education, the higher the ecological footprint score of
the Solo people. This is indirectly related to mobility
and the goal of earning more income for those with
higher education. Hence, they have a higher
consumption of natural resources than ordinary
people.
The results imply that an increase in the economy
is directly proportional to an increase in income and
natural resources. Economic development drives
natural resource exploitation. From an economic
perspective, this will increase GDP by increasing
22
Mulyawan et al.,
Ecological footprint and the wealth...
people’s income. However, it will damage the earth, if
done continuously. Ecological footprint awareness
remains minimal, even at the academic level. Several
things can be done to reduce ecological footprint and
increase awareness. Increasing literacy about
ecological footprint through campaigns, seminars,
advertisements, and an environment-friendly lifestyle
with renewable resources can increase the importance
of conservation. With rising income, a higher budget
should be allocated to innovations in renewable
energy projects.
Income, coupled with strict environmental
measures, can control pollution and ensure
sustainable use of natural resources. The
policymakers should increase the literature on
ecological footprint and renewable energy as a choice
from natural resources. The goal of renewable energy
is to manage natural resources efficiently and control
their urbanization pattern and current implications to
establish a sustainable future. Hence, people and
policymakers should contribute to better sustainability
for future generations. For further research, it is
recommended to conduct another survey to measure
awareness progression, and whether people’s
perspectives have changed (for better or worse) over
time. Further research can also be expanded to a
national scale and more detailed observational
indicators. So we can also find out how the
comparison between people living on Java Island and
outside Java Island is.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, Z., Hussain, N., Ahmad, M., Rjoub, H., &
Kalugina, O. A. (2022). Economic growth,
renewable energy consumption, and ecological
footprint : Exploring the role of environmental
regulations and democracy in sustainable
development. Sustainable Development, 30(4),
595–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2251
Collins, A., Cooper, C., & Collins, A. (2017). Measuring
and managing the environmental impact of
festivals : the contribution of the Ecological
Footprint. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(1),
148–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1189922
Danish, U. R., & SU-Din, K. (2019). Determinants of
the ecological footprint: Role of renewable energy,
natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable
Cities and Society, 101996.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996
Dogan, E., & Taspinar, N. (2019). Determinants of
ecological footprint in MINT countries. Energy and
Environment, 0(0), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X19834279
Figge, L., Oebels, K., & Offermans, A. (2016). The
effects of globalization on Ecological Footprints: an
empirical analysis. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, (3), 863–876.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9769-8
Gujarati. (2003). Basic Econometrics (4th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., & Johnson, A. (2004). Cross-
national gender variation in environmental
behaviors. Social Science Quarterly, 3, 677–694.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00239
Indonesia Access. (2018). Solo.
Jacobson, S. K., McDuff, M. D., & Monroe, M. C.
(2006). Conservation Education and Outreach
Techniques. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198567714.001.0001
Jorgenson, A. K., & Clark, B. (2011). Societies
consuming nature: A panel study of the ecological
footprints of nations, 1960–2003. Social Science
Research, 1, 226–244. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.09.004
Kawgan-Kagan, I. (2020). Are women greener than
men? A preference analysis of women and men
from major German cities over sustainable urban
mobility. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary
Perspectives, 100236.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.202
0.100236
Kota Kita. (2019). Solo City Vision Profile. Retrieved
from https://kotakita.org
Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong
adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2, 87–96.
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760910940456
Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Murthy, A., Galli, A., Evans, M.,
Neill, E., … Huang, S. (2018). Ecological footprint
accounting for countries : Updates and results of
the national footprint. Resources, 7(58), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030058
Majeed, M. T., & Mazhar, M. (2019). Financial
development and ecological footprint : A global
panel data analysis A Global Panel Data Analysis.
Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences
(PJCSS), 13(2), 487–514.
Medina, M. A. P., & Toledo-Bruno, A. G. (2016).
Ecological footprint of university students: Does
23
Journal of Socioeconomics and Development, Vol 7, No 1, April 2024
gender matter? Global Journal of Environmental
Science and Management, 4. https://doi.org/
10.22034/gjesm.2016.02.04.003
Moran, D. D., Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J. A.,
Goldfinger, S. H., & Boutaud, A. (2008). Measuring
sustainable development — Nation by nation.
Ecological Economics, 3, 470–474. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.017
Nathaniel, S. P., Adeleye, N., & Adedoyin, F. F. (2020).
Natural resource abundance, renewable energy,
and ecological footprint linkage in mena countries.
Studies of Applied Economics, 39, 1–31.
Network, G. F. (2018). Ecological Deficit dan
Reserves. Retrieved from
https://data.footprintnetwork.org
Sugiyono. (2016). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif,
Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: PT.Alfabet.
Usman, M., Jahanger, A., Sohail, M., Makhdum, A.,
Radulescu, M., Balsalobre-lorente, D., & Jianu, E.
(2022). An empirical investigation of ecological
footprint using direct investment. Energies,
15(6442), 1–26.
Venetoulis, J., & Talberth, J. (2007). Refining the
ecological footprint. Environment, Development
and Sustainability, 4, 441–469.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9074-z
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our Ecological
Footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth.
Gabriola Island, BC; Philadelphia, PA: New Society
Publishers.
Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological footprint and
appropriated carrying capacity : a tool for planning
toward sustainability (T). University of British
Columbia. Retrieved from
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/
831/items/1.0088048
Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N. B., Deumling, D., Linares,
A. C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., & Randers, J. (2002).
Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human
economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 9266–9271.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.142033699
Wiedmann, T., & Barrett, J. (2010). A review of the
ecological footprint indicator—Perceptions and
methods. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2, 1645–
1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2061645
Wooldridge, J. (2013). Introductory Econometrics: A
Modern Approach. Fifth Edition (5th editio).
Michigan, USA: Michigan State University.
Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). New
ways of thinking about environmentalism:
elaborating on gender differences in
environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 3,
443–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-
4537.00177
