IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i12p5415-d1677158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Personal Ecological Footprints for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: A Case Study in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmed Abugabal

    (Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK)

  • Mawada Abdellatif

    (Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK)

  • Ana Armada Bras

    (Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK)

  • Laurence Brady

    (Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK)

Abstract

Climate change is one of our most critical challenges, requiring urgent and comprehensive action across all levels of society. Individual actions and their roles in mitigating and adapting to climate change remain underexplored, despite global efforts. Under this context, this study was conducted to evaluate the ecological footprint of individuals for climate change mitigation. A structured online survey was designed and distributed through email lists, social media platforms, and community organisations to over 200 potential participants in the northwest of the UK. Due to the anonymous nature of the survey, only 83 individuals from diverse demographics completed the questionnaire. A carbon footprint calculator using conversion factors has been employed, based on energy consumption, travel, and material goods use. Participants are categorised into four groups based on their annual CO 2 emissions, ranging from less than 2 tonnes to over 10 tonnes. Personalised recommendations provided by the calculator focus on practical strategies, including adopting renewable energy, minimising unnecessary consumption, and opting for sustainable transportation. Results showed that only 5.5% of participants who employed advanced technologies and smart home technologies, 1.8% were implementing water-saving practices and 65.4% preferred to use their own car over other modes of transportation. In addition, the study found that 67.3% of participants had no or only a very limited knowledge of renewable energy technologies, indicating a need for education and awareness campaigns. The findings also highlight the importance of addressing demographic differences in ecological footprints, as these variations can provide insights into tailored policy interventions. Overall, despite the study’s limited sample size, this research contributes to the growing body of evidence on the importance of individual action in combating climate change and provides actionable insights for policymakers and educators aiming to foster a more sustainable lifestyle. Future studies with larger samples are recommended to validate and expand upon these findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmed Abugabal & Mawada Abdellatif & Ana Armada Bras & Laurence Brady, 2025. "Evaluation of Personal Ecological Footprints for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: A Case Study in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-36, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5415-:d:1677158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5415/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5415/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Lei & Li, Lianqing & Cheng, Kun & Pan, Genxing, 2019. "Comprehensive evaluation of environmental footprints of regional crop production: A case study of Chizhou City, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Hugues Chenet, 2024. "Climate change and biodiversity loss: new territories for financial authorities," Post-Print hal-04814052, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhai, Yijie & Zhang, Tianzuo & Ma, Xiaotian & Shen, Xiaoxu & Ji, Changxing & Bai, Yueyang & Hong, Jinglan, 2021. "Life cycle water footprint analysis of crop production in China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    2. Elisa Biagetti & Barbara Pancino & Angelo Martella & Ilenia Maria La Porta & Clara Cicatiello & Tommaso De Gregorio & Silvio Franco, 2023. "Is Hazelnut Farming Sustainable? An Analysis in the Specialized Production Area of Viterbo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-10, July.
    3. Yijing Chu & Yingying Wang & Zucheng Zhang & Shengli Dai, 2022. "Decoupling of Economic Growth and Industrial Water Use in Hubei Province: From an Ecological–Economic Interaction Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Rui Song & Jing Liu & Kunyu Niu, 2023. "Agricultural Carbon Emissions Embodied in China’s Foreign Trade and Its Driving Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, January.
    5. Angelo Martella & Ilenia Maria La Porta & Marco Nicastro & Elisa Biagetti & Silvio Franco, 2023. "Ecological Balance of Agri-Food Supply Chains—The Case of the Industrial Tomato," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-12, May.
    6. Foyuan Kuang & Jiatong Li & Jianjun Jin & Xin Qiu, 2023. "Do Green Production Technologies Improve Household Income? Evidence from Rice Farmers in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, September.
    7. Bolun Luo & Jie Zhou & Huadong Zang & Abdurahman Sawut & Ximei Feng & Yadong Yang & Leanne Peixoto & Xiquan Wang & Jørgen E. Olesen & Zhaohai Zeng, 2025. "Optimize farm size and agronomic practices to improve agricultural sustainability: a case of multi-indicator assessment from the North China Plain," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 6599-6618, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5415-:d:1677158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.