Presentation on theme: "“ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BASED ON EMERGY (EEF)"— Presentation transcript:
1 “ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BASED ON EMERGY (EEF) Universidade Estadual de CampinasLaboratório de Engenharia Ecológica e Informática Aplicada, Campinas, SP, Brasil.“ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BASED ON EMERGY (EEF)– PERU AS CASE STUDY”Raúl Siche,Enrique Ortega&Feni AgostinhoInternational Ecological Footprint Conference8 – 10 May 2007
2 IntroductionIn recent years, interesting contributions appeared to measure the world population demand on nature, particularly the Ecological Footprint (EF) and Emergy Assessment (EMA).These two scientific approaches are rather different, but they aim to solve the same basic problem: to estimate the gap between production (based on natural resources) and human consumption.Our hypothesis is that it is possible to combine both methods as Zhao and coworkers (2005) did a few years ago using China’s regions as study case.Thus, in this study the impact of Peruvian society consumption on the environment was analyzed using the Ecological Footprint based on Emergy (EEF).
3 IntroductionZhao et al. (2005) proposed a combination of EF-GAEZ and EMA, but they didn’t care of the problems detected in both methodologies.
4 EEF MethodFour changes were introduced in the present wok to improve the proposal of Zhao et al. (2005):In the method proposed (EEF) it was assumed that biocapacity is the sum of external energy received by biosphere (R direct) and the internal flows produced by biodiversity (R indirect) . Biocapacity is calculated as a function of all renewable resources available, considering Sun radiation, Earth deep heat, Moon gravity and biological stocks energy.
5 EEF MethodFour changes were introduced in the present wok to improve the proposal of Zhao et al. (2005):The total area of the evaluated system was considered, including productive land (cropland, forest, pasture, ocean, etc) and non-productive land (desert, ice covered land, etc). Instead, the EF-GAEZ method considers only a fraction (2/3) of the total area as productive land;
6 EEF MethodA percentage of biocapacity area (14.2%) to cover other species needs was included. It corresponds to the size of territories in Peru protected for biodiversity preservation (INRENA, 2006). It could be more, for instance 25% or 50% (additional research is necessary);Two important categories concerning natural resources use were included: top soil loss and water consumption. These categories aren’t accounted by EF-GAEZ but are very important to obtain more accurate results.
7 Biocapacity is a function of the Renewable Resources EEF MethodBiocapacity is a function of the Renewable ResourcesRenewable resourcessolargeothermal or geologicalgravitationalbiological natural capitalEmergy(i)(seJ) = Exergy(i)(J) x Transformity(i)(seJ/J)BC(i) (gha) =Emergy(i) (seJ)[global emergy density (seJ/gha)]
8 Footprint is a function of resource consumption EEF MethodFootprint is a function of resource consumptionHuman consumption categoriesagricultural (food and soil loss)pasture (cattle)fishingWood and firewoodNon- renewable energy resourcesHydroelectricityWater for human useFootprint(i) (gha) =Emergy(i) (seJ)[global emergy density (seJ/gha)]
9 Results for Peru (2004 data) Biocapacity calculation using EEF methodologyNote (i)ItemQuantity (ii) (J)Transformity (seJ/J) (i)Total emergy (seJ)Emergy per capita (seJ/ people )(iii)Biocapacity (gha/person) (iii)Renewable resources1Solar7.26E+210.027E+160.862Gravitation2.39E+1873 7001.16E+230.647E+1620.843Geological9.68E+1812 0001.76E+230.427E+1613.754Biological2.79E+2010002.79E+231.020E+1633.07Total of renewable resources68.52Other species (14.2%) (iv)9.73Total Biocapacity58.79
10 Results for Peru (2004 data) Footprint calculation using EEF methodologyItemHuman demand data (J)Transformity a (seJ/J)Total emergy (seJ)Emergy per person (seJ/person)Footprint (gha/person)1. Agriculture8.99E+223.30E+151.1. Food2.44E+178.21E+223.02E+159.71941.2. Soil loss6.26E+167.78E+212.86E+140.92072. Cattle production7.91E+152.66E+229.77E+143.14613. Fishing2.44E+158.19E+213.01E+140.96974. Wood and firewood8.36E+1622 1001.85E+216.79E+130.21875. Energy resources3.04E+221.12E+153.59265.1. Coal2.23E+1666 9001.49E+215.48E+130.17665.2. Petroleum2.96E+1789 0002.63E+229.68E+143.11815.3. Natural gas4.28E+1658 8002.52E+219.25E+130.29796. Hydroelectricity6.51E+167.23E+212.65E+140.85537. Water b8.30E+159.29E+213.41E+141.0991Total Footprint1.56E+235.74E+1520.53
11 Results58.7920.53Ecologic balance for Peru in 2004, using EEF
12 Load capacity factor (BC/F) obtained with different methodologies EF-NPPEMA12345Biocapacity / FootprintEF-NPP: Ecological Footprint based on NPPEF-GAEZ: Standard Ecological FootprintEEF: Emergy Ecological FootprintEMA: Emergy AssessmentEEFEF-GAEZResultsBC/F = 2.9Load capacity factor (BC/F) obtained with different methodologies
13 ConclusionsThe ecologic balance results obtained with Ecological Footprint Based on Emergy (EEF) for Peru show a value lower than that of EF-GAEZ and EF-NPP. The capacity factor (BC/F) of Peru (using EEF with 2004 data) was calculated as being This means that the territory of Peru has the capacity to support almost three times its population considering the lifestyle of its population in that year.
14 ConclusionsEEF has limitations that demand future studies. For instance: the present impossibility to compare the categories as it is common in EF-GAEZ and EF-NPP. Another limitation is that the transformity values need to consider the total impact of production on ecosystems and its variation throughout time.
15 ConclusionsOn the other hand, because there is available global data on renewable resources production and consumption, EEF is easy to carry out.
16 ReferencesINRENA – Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales Sistema Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado. Lima, Perú. Available in:Odum, H.T., Environmental Accounting, Emergy and Decision Making. J. Wiley, NY.Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., Deumling, D Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity accounts. Land Use Policy 21, 231 – 246.Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N., Deumling, D., Callejas, A., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Monfreda, C., Loh, J., Myers, N., Norgaard, R. e Randers, J Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99 (14):Zhao, S.; Li, Z.; Li, W A modified method of ecological footprint calculation and its application. Ecol. Model. 185, 65–75