Comparison of two biophysical indicators under different landscape complexity

• Two methods (EF and ELIA) are compared to estimate the imprint of society on nature. Results show EF ELIA only overlap when landscape structure is highly simplified. cannot distinguish between different agricultural landscapes food systems. considers complexity metabolic energy flows in landscapes. Methodologies at level (ELIA) required for farmers policymakers. Ecological Footprint (EF) Energy-Landscape Integrated Analysis human societies’ Both aim provide overviews regarding biophysical society–nature interactions. The purposes this article compare how conceptualize human-nature relationships, what results they produce applied same scale, order consider their methodological similarities differences can account Land Use Cover Change (LUCC). This conceptual comparison acknowledges “ecocentric” perspective adopted relate end consumption baskets populations with land biocapacities, “social metabolism” take into transformations spatial distribution matter-energy uses. two were a case study 46 municipalities Qazvin Province (Iran). These grouped according values by cluster analysis correlated heterogeneity. correlation demonstrates that indicators However, lower accuracy as an indicator socioecological impacts types practices confirmed. Although remains useful unequal appropriation Earth’s biocapacity, it does so taking average patterns production given. To environmentally friendly from degrading practices, more precise such farmers, consumers policymakers choose sustainable options decisions.