2 1 Ecological Footprints Material (Resource) Flow Analysis Scott Matthews 12-712 / 19-622 Lecture 7...
-
Upload
kristina-hardy -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
0
Transcript of 2 1 Ecological Footprints Material (Resource) Flow Analysis Scott Matthews 12-712 / 19-622 Lecture 7...
2
1
Ecological FootprintsMaterial (Resource) Flow Analysis
Scott Matthews12-712 / 19-622
Lecture 7
1
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
2
3
Timeline Planning
Sun Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat
10/13 – Last Class (projects Due)
Take-home final due?
Take-home final due?
Take-home final due?
Take-home final 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 dueNote Friday 10/17 is “midsemester break”
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
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
2
6
Ecological Footprintfrom www.footprintnetwork.org
(specifically the data/methods page)
• 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
2
7
Biocapacity vs. Ecological Footprint
• Units: global hectares (equivalent land measure)
7
2003 difference: about 25%. Meaning?
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
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 6,301.5 2.2 1.8 +26%High income countries 955.6 6.4 3.3 +95%Middle income countries 3,011.7 1.9 2.1 -9%Low income countries5 2,303.1 0.8 0.7 +13%
2
11
Highest/Lowest
• Where is US?• Top Five “Worst” Top Five “Best”
11
Country Factor
Iraq 25.33
Kuwait 21.77United Arab Emirates 13.13
Israel 11.11
Lebanon 9.71
Country Factor
Brazil -0.78
Zambia -0.82
Bolivia -0.91
Congo -0.92
Gabon -0.93
2
12
Lower Levels
• Ecological Footprints at local levels “spatial ft-prints”• Same data/etc.• Alternate visualization• e.g., urban funnels (Grimm 2001)
12
2
14
Increasing
Distribution of Agricultural Food Production
Data: US Department of Agriculture 1998
2
15
Distribution of Renewable Water Availability(Precipitation - Evapotranspiration)
Precipitation: Daly and Taylor 1994; ET (Actual): Ahn and Tateishi 1987
2
17
#
Phoenix, AZ
Spatially Explicit Ecological Footprints
for Phoenix, AZWater Food
Note –circles are traditional method of calculating footprint, for each resource
2
18
Central Arizona Project Canal EFs
Domestic water use only
Domestic + agricultural water use
CAP canal watershed
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