1. 2 1 Ecological Footprints Material (Resource) Flow Analysis Scott Matthews 12-712 / 19-622 Lecture 7 1

2. 2 2 Administrative Issues HW 2 Solutions, Returned HW 3 Due Today Thoughts on Due Dates for Final/etc? Project Report Updates Due Short class today 2

3. 2 3 Timeline Planning SunMonTuesWedThursFriSat 10/13 – Last Class (projects Due) Take- home final due? 10/20 Mini 2 Starts 10/22 Mini Grades Due 3 Main question is when to make projects, take home finals due Note Friday 10/17 is “midsemester break”

4. 2 4 Cities More than 50% of population in cities, growing Why the crunch from rural to urban? –Ability to meet needs locally versus needing to depend on transport/etc for fulfillment –Where does food come from (1000s of miles) Not just a developed world issue – developing world shifting quickly Interdependence, also globalization of production./cost minimization/etc –New supply chains, including refrigeration Tradeoffs between simplicity of meeting needs locally versus potential scale of distant production. Which weighs more? Urbanization tends to magnify the imapcts because of the large scale (non-linear) 4

5. 2 5 Summary: An Ecological Footprint Process –Factors in a number of categories of consumption and use –Converts these inputs to a quantity of land One specific model used –Redefining Progress –Based on research of Wackernagel and Rees http://www.absentofi.org

6. 2 6 Ecological Footprint from www.footprintnetwork.org (specifically the data/methods page)www.footprintnetwork.org An indicator that takes a variety of inputs and converts into equivalent land use –e.g., carbon emissions need biocapacity to be mitigated –Food/etc – land needed to farm it Relevant benchmark “number of earths” (similar to carrying capacity) “Earths” basis defined by biocapacity See the reports and spreadsheets there if you have not already done so! 6

7. 2 7 Biocapacity vs. Ecological Footprint Units: global hectares (equivalent land measure) 7 2003 difference: about 25%. Meaning?

8. 2 8 Delving Deeper into EF Approach Majority of resources we use can be approximated by biocapacity (biologically productive area) needed to sustain it –Those that cannot be estimated are excluded (examples/effect)? –Describe the kinds of data needed for the biocapacity and EF side of such a comparison Carbon land: first considers ocean uptake, everything else forest sequestration Used to compare national resource consumption with bioproductive land available –200 resource categories 8

9. 2 9 In last 40 years, 9

10. 2 10 Relevant Country Measures Macro-level (total global hectares) and ratios for each country, and per-capita 10 Population Ecol. Footprint (ha/person) Bio-capacity (ha/person) Deficit (%) World 6,301.52.2 1.8+26% High income countries 955.66.43.3+95% Middle income countries 3,011.71.92.1-9% Low income countries 5 2,303.10.80.7+13%

11. 2 11 Highest/Lowest Where is US? Top Five “Worst”Top Five “Best” 11 CountryFactor Iraq25.33 Kuwait21.77 United Arab Emirates13.13 Israel11.11 Lebanon9.71 CountryFactor Brazil-0.78 Zambia-0.82 Bolivia-0.91 Congo-0.92 Gabon-0.93

12. 2 12 Lower Levels Ecological Footprints at local levels “spatial ft-prints” Same data/etc. Alternate visualization e.g., urban funnels (Grimm 2001) 12

13. 2 13 Traditional Ecological Footprints for Phoenix, AZ

14. 2 14 Increasing Distribution of Agricultural Food Production Data: US Department of Agriculture 1998

15. 2 15 Distribution of Renewable Water Availability (Precipitation - Evapotranspiration) Precipitation: Daly and Taylor 1994; ET (Actual): Ahn and Tateishi 1987

16. 2 16 Distribution of Carbon Assimilation Data: Century model by VEMAP project Increasing

17. 2 17 Spatially Explicit Ecological Footprints for Phoenix, AZ WaterFood Note –circles are traditional method of calculating footprint, for each resource

18. 2 18 Central Arizona Project Canal EFs Domestic water use only Domestic + agricultural water use CAP canal watershed

19. 2 19 Water EF for 20 largest US cities

20. 2 20 Water EF with agriculture interaction

21. 2 21 Caveats/Discussion EF is just one, albeit highly controversial approach. However its in the right direction of sustainability metrics, especially with respect to scientific data/methods and showing results by country/etc. 21

22. 2 22