⊿ Point. {R} Glossary. ◢ Keyword: E. ◥ University. {q} PhD. {tr} Training. ⚪️ Europe. ⚫ UK. ⚫ England. ⬤ London. ↂ EndNote. ☝️ Weerakkody. Ecological fallacy. Logical fallacy that occurs when group characteristics are applied to individuals An ecological fallacy (also ecological inference fallacy[1] or population fallacy) is a formal fallacy in the interpretation of statistical data that occurs when inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inferences about the group to which those individuals belong.
"Ecological fallacy" is a term that is sometimes used to describe the fallacy of division, which is not a statistical fallacy. From the conceptual standpoint of mereology, four common ecological fallacies are: Correlation/relation: confusion regarding relations belonging to parts versus relations belonging to wholes, Characteristics: confusion between characteristics of parts and characteristics of a whole, Extrapolation/extension. And confusion between qualities not bound to individual parts, "atmospheres", "moods" and "vibes", versus properties, hæccities or identities of indivisible units. Examples[edit] Mean and median[edit] When.
Ecological footprint. Individual's or a group's human demand on nature The ecological footprint measures human demand on natural capital, i.e. the quantity of nature it takes to support people and their economies.[1][2][3] It tracks human demand on nature through an ecological accounting system. The accounts contrast the biologically productive area people use to satisfy their consumption to the biologically productive area available within a region, nation, or the world (biocapacity). Biocapacity is the productive area that can regenerate what people demand from nature. Therefore, the metric is a measure of human impact on the environment.
As Ecological Footprint accounts measure to what extent human activities operate within the means of our planet, they are a central metric for sustainability. The metric is promoted by the Global Footprint Network which has developed standards[4] to make results comparable. Footprint and biocapacity can be compared at the individual, regional, national or global scale.