Ecological Footprint analysis has been applied at various levels, from the global scale,[7]​ to the household level.[8]​ In this study, Guernsey's ecological footprint component has been calculated and then used as a tool to explore decision making. This has been done by considering the ecological footprint of travel passengers, looking at time series data and developing scenarios.

The base component approach, first documented by Simmons and Chambers in 1998 and then by Simmons et al., in 2000, is a different approach to the ecological footprint. Instead of considering the consumption of raw materials, it considers the effect of transportation, energy, water and waste. This resulted in a more simplified and educational structure with greater significance at the regional level. This is mainly because it is built around activities that people can reason and in which they participate (such as waste production and electricity consumption). Simmons and Chambers (1998) calculated the first series of algorithms capable of converting “Resource Use” to “Equivalent Land Area”, entitled “Eco-pioneer Methodology.

In the Base Component model, the value of the ecological footprint for certain activities is precalculated using data from the region studied (Simmons et al., 2000). With the Wackernagel approach, known as the Composite Ecological Footprint, six main land types of productive space are used: fossil energy land, arable land, pasture, forestry, buildable land and sea space. The Composite approach considers human demand on each of those types of land, for a given population, wherever this land may be.

According to this same report, for the year 2005 the number of global hectares (or hectares) per person was estimated at 2.1. However, for the entire world, consumption stands at 2.7. Therefore, at least for this year (and the trend is increasing, since in 2003 the global ecological footprint was estimated at 2.23), we were over-consuming with respect to the planet's capacity: we are destroying resources at a speed greater than their rate of natural regeneration.

Although the ecological footprint aspires to be above all a quantitative and precise indicator, its main fruits have been as a conceptual framework that allows completely disparate societies to be compared and to evaluate their impact on the planetary environment.

In a basically well-organized agrarian life without extensive monocultures, it is estimated that between 1 and 2 hectares are approximately the land necessary to meet the needs of a family in a self-sufficient manner.

On the other hand, it has been concluded that two more planets like this would be necessary so that the current 6 billion human beings could all live the way that, for example, an average French citizen lives, that is, in an industrial society based on the availability of fossil fuels.

These first conclusions make it necessary to distinguish two fundamental elements:

The didactic value of the concept of ecological footprint lies in the fact that it makes evident two linked realities that remain outside the reach of intuition. First, the way of life characteristic of the richest countries on the planet cannot be extended to all of its inhabitants. Second, a sustainable planetary economy requires that the same wealthy minority reduce their consumption; and also their standard of living, to the extent that it cannot be compensated with an equivalent increase in the efficiency of production processes.

By calculating the ecological footprint it is possible to know the magnitude with which human activities contribute to the total size. It is important to remember that the ecological footprint refers, in part, to the surface area necessary to absorb the waste generated, which is why the burning of fossil fuels appears as the most significant activity, as shown below:[12]​.

Ecological Footprint analysis has been applied at various levels, from the global scale,[7]​ to the household level.[8]​ In this study, Guernsey's ecological footprint component has been calculated and then used as a tool to explore decision making. This has been done by considering the ecological footprint of travel passengers, looking at time series data and developing scenarios.

The base component approach, first documented by Simmons and Chambers in 1998 and then by Simmons et al., in 2000, is a different approach to the ecological footprint. Instead of considering the consumption of raw materials, it considers the effect of transportation, energy, water and waste. This resulted in a more simplified and educational structure with greater significance at the regional level. This is mainly because it is built around activities that people can reason and in which they participate (such as waste production and electricity consumption). Simmons and Chambers (1998) calculated the first series of algorithms capable of converting “Resource Use” to “Equivalent Land Area”, entitled “Eco-pioneer Methodology.

In the Base Component model, the value of the ecological footprint for certain activities is precalculated using data from the region studied (Simmons et al., 2000). With the Wackernagel approach, known as the Composite Ecological Footprint, six main land types of productive space are used: fossil energy land, arable land, pasture, forestry, buildable land and sea space. The Composite approach considers human demand on each of those types of land, for a given population, wherever this land may be.

According to this same report, for the year 2005 the number of global hectares (or hectares) per person was estimated at 2.1. However, for the entire world, consumption stands at 2.7. Therefore, at least for this year (and the trend is increasing, since in 2003 the global ecological footprint was estimated at 2.23), we were over-consuming with respect to the planet's capacity: we are destroying resources at a speed greater than their rate of natural regeneration.

Although the ecological footprint aspires to be above all a quantitative and precise indicator, its main fruits have been as a conceptual framework that allows completely disparate societies to be compared and to evaluate their impact on the planetary environment.

In a basically well-organized agrarian life without extensive monocultures, it is estimated that between 1 and 2 hectares are approximately the land necessary to meet the needs of a family in a self-sufficient manner.

On the other hand, it has been concluded that two more planets like this would be necessary so that the current 6 billion human beings could all live the way that, for example, an average French citizen lives, that is, in an industrial society based on the availability of fossil fuels.

These first conclusions make it necessary to distinguish two fundamental elements:

The didactic value of the concept of ecological footprint lies in the fact that it makes evident two linked realities that remain outside the reach of intuition. First, the way of life characteristic of the richest countries on the planet cannot be extended to all of its inhabitants. Second, a sustainable planetary economy requires that the same wealthy minority reduce their consumption; and also their standard of living, to the extent that it cannot be compensated with an equivalent increase in the efficiency of production processes.

By calculating the ecological footprint it is possible to know the magnitude with which human activities contribute to the total size. It is important to remember that the ecological footprint refers, in part, to the surface area necessary to absorb the waste generated, which is why the burning of fossil fuels appears as the most significant activity, as shown below:[12]​.