UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Getting serious about sustainability : exploring the potential for one-planet living in Vancouver Moore, Jennie Lynn 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2013_fall_moore_jennie.pdf [ 3.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0074187.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0074187-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0074187-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0074187-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0074187-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0074187-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0074187-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0074187-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0074187.ris

Full Text

  GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY: EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL FOR  ONE-PLANET LIVING IN VANCOUVER  by JENNIE LYNN MOORE MA, University of British Columbia, 1994  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Planning) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2013 ? Jennie Lynn Moore, 2013   ii  Abstract One-planet living represents the per capita share of global ecosystem services that each person on Earth could use were humanity to live equitably within ecological carrying capacity. My research uses ecological footprint analysis to explore the potential for the City of Vancouver to achieve one-planet living. Specifically, I examine what reductions in per capita ecological footprint would be necessary, what policies or changes to management practices are available to the City to facilitate those reductions, and what one-planet living might ?look like? if those policies and changes to urban management practices were implemented. I use 2006 data to conduct an integrated urban metabolism and ecological footprint assessment for the City in order to establish a baseline from which to estimate the necessary reductions in material and energy consumption. I develop lifestyle archetypes of societies living at a one-planet ecological footprint (both real and hypothetical) to inform estimates on how changes in diet, buildings, consumables and waste, transportation and water could achieve one-planet living in Vancouver. I also draw on examples from the international sustainable cities literature and interviews with City of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver staff and elected representatives to develop policy proposals for reducing Vancouver?s ecological footprint. Getting to one-planet living in Vancouver requires at least a 58% reduction in the per capita ecological footprint with the greatest contributions coming from reducing food waste, red meat consumption, and virtually eliminating personal motor vehicle use (shifting instead to an 86% walk, cycle and transit mode share which the City already achieves in its Downtown). The City has and can continue to influence individual and corporate choices through zoning and permitting. However, citizens would have to accept lifestyle changes pertaining to food and personal iii  consumption to achieve the one-planet living goal. Involvement by senior governments in reducing the ecological footprint is also required. It remains to be seen whether Vancouverites, or any population accustomed to modern consumer lifestyles, will voluntarily accept and implement the changes necessary to achieve equitable sustainability as articulated by one-planet living.    iv  Preface This research received approval from the Behavioural Research Ethics Board, certificate number: H10-00996. It was supervised by Doctor William Rees with the technical assistance of several of his former and present students in particular: Doctor Meidad Kissinger, Doctor Cornelia Sussmann, Ruth Legg and Walleed Giratalla. The method for developing the ecological footprint used in this research was developed collaboratively with Dr. Meidad Kissinger as described in chapter 3. Specifically, I designed the overall structure of the ecological footprint including the components, sectors and sub-sectors that orient to the way that local governments in Metro Vancouver address demand side management analysis of energy and materials consumption. Doctor Kissinger contributed the data for the food component based on his research of Canada?s food footprint (see section 3.2.3.1 in chapter 3). Doctor Kissinger and I developed an aggregated list of food categories that could be used to group the foods assessed by his research, and I then organized the data according to the structure that I developed for the ecological footprint, e.g., materials, embodied energy, operating energy (i.e., food miles) and built area. Professor Maged Senbel provided unpublished schematic drawings that were used by Walleed Giratalla with assistance from Doctor Meidad Kissinger to estimate both the materials and the embodied energy of residential and institutional archetypal buildings (see section 3.2.3.2 in chapter 3). Additional data about the embodied energy of institutional buildings was provided by Robert Sianchuck. I collected all the operating energy data for buildings in Vancouver and estimated the materials and embodied energy within the building stock, based on Giratalla?s, Kissinger?s, and Sianchuck?s estimates for each archetypal building. I also estimated the built area occupied by buildings in the City. Doctor Kissinger v  developed the lifecycle factors that were used to estimate the embodied energy and materials within consumable goods (see section 3.2.3.3 in chapter 3). Cornelia Sussmann undertook a literature review to collect lifecycle assessment data for the various materials. This provided the data for both the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the manufacturing process of the materials as well as the input data for the lifecycle factors. I collected the data for the City?s waste, including its composition, and estimated the proportions of waste distributed to the various waste management facilities within the region. I also estimated the energy used to provide waste management services for both solid and liquid waste, including associated greenhouse gas emissions, as well as landfill gas and biogas recovery and use. I also estimated the total land area occupied by waste management services. Walleed Giratalla estimated the embodied energy within the water and sewer pipes, and I estimated the embodied energy within the Cleveland Dam. Doctor Kissinger estimated the embodied energy in an average mid-size sedan vehicle and Walleed Giratalla estimated the embodied energy in roads (see section 3.2.3.4 in chapter 3). Ruth Legg estimated the fuel consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions for air travel by the Metro Vancouver population. I oversaw this research including its design. I then extrapolated Vancouver?s share of greenhouse gas emissions from air travel. I collected fuel consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions data for all other forms of transportation. I also estimated all the potential reductions required to get to one-planet living. The text in this dissertation is original. However, several publications have resulted either as a direct outcome of this research or as a means to further explore issues related to the research methods and/or its findings. These include two co-authored book chapters with my supervisor. The first is: Moore, J., Rees, W.E. 2013. Getting to one planet living, chapter 4 in Linda Starke vi  ed., State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible? Washington DC: Island Press in which I wrote most of the text with editorial assistance by the co-author. The second is: Rees, W.E., Moore, J. 2013. Ecological footprints, fair earth-shares and urbanization, chapter 1 in B. Vale and R. Vale, eds., Living within a Fair Share Ecological Footprint. London: Routledge in which I wrote the text pertaining to the Vancouver case study based on preliminary findings from this dissertation research. There are two publications for which I reviewed and provided editorial feedback: i) Kissinger, M., Sussmann C., Moore, J. Rees, W.E. 2013. Accounting for greenhouse gas emissions of materials at the urban scale - Relating existing process life cycle assessment studies to urban material and waste composition in Low Carbon Economy 4(1): 36-44 and ii) Kissinger, M., Sussmann, S., Moore, J., Rees, W.E. 2013. Accounting for the ecological footprint of materials in consumer goods. Sustainability 5(5): 1960-1973. Finally, I am solely responsible for the writing of: Moore, J. 2012. Measuring climate action in Vancouver: Comparing a city?s greenhouse gas emissions inventory protocol to the inventory of consumption, in Benjamin Richardson, ed. Local climate change law: environmental regulation in cities and other localities. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.     vii  Table of Contents  Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. x List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... xi Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... xii Dedication ................................................................................................................................................... xiv 1 Getting Serious About Sustainability ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Research Purpose and Questions ....................................................................................................... 4 1.3.1 Research Questions...................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Scope of the Research ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Structure of the Dissertation ............................................................................................................ 10 1.6 Significance of the Study and Contribution to Knowledge ............................................................... 11 1. 7 Sustainability and Cities (Literature Review) ................................................................................... 11 1.7.1 Urban Sustainability ................................................................................................................... 11 1.7.2 Complexity Theory and the Laws of Thermodynamics, ............................................................. 16 1.7.3 Ecological Footprint Analysis ..................................................................................................... 29 1.7.4 One-Planet Living ....................................................................................................................... 35 2 Introducing Vancouver as the Case for Analysis ...................................................................................... 39 2.1 Introduction to the Case Study ......................................................................................................... 40 2.1.1 Vancouver the Sustainable City ................................................................................................. 41 2.1.2 Vancouver the Consumer City ................................................................................................... 51 2.1.3 A Tale of Two Cities? .................................................................................................................. 53 2.2 Vancouver?s Regional Context .......................................................................................................... 55 3 Methods ................................................................................................................................................... 61 3.1 Develop Lifestyle Archetypes ............................................................................................................ 61 3.2 Calculate the Ecological Footprint of Vancouver .............................................................................. 68 viii  3.2.1 Orientation to Local Government .............................................................................................. 74 3.2.2 Data Management ..................................................................................................................... 77 3.2.3 Data and Calculations to Estimate the EF Components ............................................................ 78 3.3 Calculate Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap ....................................................................................... 100 3.4 Identify Policy Interventions ........................................................................................................... 101 3.5 Develop Baseline Estimates for Closing Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap ....................................... 101 3.6 Analyze Options .............................................................................................................................. 102 3.7 Develop Policy Proposals ................................................................................................................ 104 4 One-Planet Living and Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap ......................................................................... 105 4.1 Lifestyle Archetypes ........................................................................................................................ 105 4.1.1 One-Planet Living ..................................................................................................................... 108 4.2 Vancouver?s Ecological Footprint .................................................................................................... 113 4.2.1 Material Flows Analysis ............................................................................................................ 115 4.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Consumption ........................................................... 118 4.2.3 Ecological Footprint ................................................................................................................. 121 4.3 Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap ....................................................................................................... 140 4.3.1 Exploring the Sustainability Gap for Food................................................................................ 146 4.3.2 Exploring the Sustainability Gap for Buildings ......................................................................... 153 4.3.3 Exploring the Sustainability Gap for Consumables and Wastes .............................................. 156 4.3.4 Exploring the Sustainability Gap for Transportation ............................................................... 162 4.4. Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 164 5 Exploring the Potential for One-Planet Living in Vancouver .................................................................. 168 5.1 Vancouver?s Policy Framework Pertaining to One-Planet Living .................................................... 169 5.1.1 Policy Framework for Transportation ...................................................................................... 172 5.1.2 Changes to Transportation Policy and Management .............................................................. 173 5.1.3 Policy Framework for Food ...................................................................................................... 178 5.1.4 Changes to Food Policy and Management .............................................................................. 179 5.2 Estimating a One-Planet Living Baseline for Vancouver ................................................................. 187 5.2.1 Baseline 1 - Big Things First ...................................................................................................... 187 5.2.2 Baseline 2 ? Greenest City Action Plan 2020 with Local Food and Zero Emissions ................. 194 5.2.3 Baseline 3 ? Multi-Faceted Approach Toward One-Planet Living ........................................... 200 5.3 Conceptualizing One-Planet Living at the Neighbourhood Scale ................................................... 204 ix  5.3.1 Conceptualizing Food for One-Planet Living in Southeast False Creek.................................... 206 5.3.2 Conceptualizing Transportation for One-Planet Living in Southeast False Creek ................... 210 5.3.3 Conceptualizing Buildings for One-Planet Living in Southeast False Creek ............................. 212 5.3.4 Conceptualizing Consumables and Waste for One-Planet Living in Southeast False Creek .... 213 5.4 Policy Proposals .............................................................................................................................. 214 5.4.1 Interviewee Feedback on Policy Proposals .............................................................................. 217 5.5 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 229 5.6 Translating Proposed Actions into Policy and Urban Management Practice ................................. 238 6 Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 245 6.1 Findings and Research Contributions ............................................................................................. 247 6.1.1 Answers to the Research Questions ........................................................................................ 247 6.1.2 Contributions to the Study of One-planet Living ..................................................................... 253 6.1.3 Contributions to the Field of Sustainability Planning .............................................................. 256 6.2 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 261 6.3 Limitations of the Research ............................................................................................................ 275 6.4 Potential Applications of the Research Findings............................................................................. 277 6.5 Ideas for Future Research ............................................................................................................... 278 6.5 Final Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 280 References ................................................................................................................................................ 283 APPENDIX A: List of Countries Selected for the Research ........................................................................ 318 APPENDIX B: Detailed Profiles of Intentional Communities ..................................................................... 319 APPENDIX C: Lifecycle Factors for Consumable Materials EF Conversion ................................................ 323 APPENDIX D: EF of International Case Studies in One-Planet Archetype ................................................. 324 APPENDIX E: Food Consumption of International Case Studies in the One-Planet Archetype ................ 325 APPENDIX F:  Calculations Pertaining to Closing the Sustainability Gap for Buildings ............................. 326 Appendix G: Names of Research Interviewees ......................................................................................... 327 Appendix H: Interview #1  Preliminary Identification of Policy Interventions ......................................... 328 Appendix I: Interview #2  Reflective Assessment of Proposed Policy Interventions ................................ 331 Appendix J: Procedural Steps to Calculate EF Adjustments for Baseline 1............................................... 333 Appendix K: Vancouver Landfill Carbon Dioxide Coefficient per Tonne of Municipal Solid Waste ......... 334 Appendix L: Additional Baselines .............................................................................................................. 336  x  List of Tables Table 3.1 Lifestyle Archetypes According to Per Capita Ecological Footprint Values .................. 62 Table 3.2a Cities and Countries Studied by Lifestyle Archetype Grouping .................................. 65 Table 3.2b Cities and Countries Studied by Lifestyle Archetype Grouping .................................. 67 Table 3.2c Cities and Countries Studied by Lifestyle Archetype Grouping................................... 68 Table 4.1: Summary of Consumption Data by Lifestyle Archetype ............................................ 107 Table 4.2 International Profile of One-Planet Living (under 2.0 gha/ca) ................................... 108 Table 4.3 Super Green Profile of One-Planet Living using the Footprint Calculator .................. 111 Table 4.4 Intentional Community Composite Profile of One-planet Living................................ 112 Table 4.5 Summary of Data Outputs .......................................................................................... 114 Table 4.6 Summary of Vancouver Urban Metabolism of Consumption..................................... 116 Table 4.7 Vancouver?s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Consumption ......................... 119 Table 4.8 Consumption Land Use Matrix .................................................................................... 122 Table 4.9 Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint for Food ............................. 128 Table 4.10 Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint for Buildings ..................... 130 Table 4.11 Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint for Consumables and Wastes..................................................................................................................................................... 133 Table 4.12 Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint for Transportation ........... 137 Table 4.13 Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint for Water ......................... 139 Table 4.14: Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap by Land Type ......................................................... 142 Table 4.15: Vancouver?s Net Sustainability Gap by Land Type ................................................... 143 Table 4.16: Global Hectares per Tonne of Food Based on Vancouver?s Consumption Patterns 149 Table 4.17 Vancouver EF of Food Compared with One-Planet Lifestyle Archetype Profiles. .... 150 Table 4.18 Comparison of the Potential Reductions in the Food Footprint ............................... 153 Table 4.19 Comparison of the Potential Reductions in the Buildings Footprint ........................ 155 Table 4.20 Comparison of Vancouver and One-planet International Profile of waste .............. 158 Table 4.21: Comparison of Potential Reductions in the Consumables and Waste Footprint .... 161 Table 4.22: Comparison of the Potential Reduction in the Transportation Footprint ............... 164 Table 4.23 Lifestyle Archetype Potential to Reduce Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap ................ 165 Table 5.1 Baseline 1 - Big Things First ......................................................................................... 191 Table 5.2 Baseline 2 ? Greenest City 2020 Action Plan with Intensive Food Production and Conservation as well as Zero Emissions Transportation and Buildings ...................................... 197 Table 5.3 Baseline 3 ? Multi-faceted Approach to One-Planet Living ........................................ 203 Table 5.6 Potential EF Reductions within City?s Jurisdiction vs. Personal Lifestyle Choice ........ 234   xi  List of Figures Figure 3.1: Structure and Sequence of Data Inputs and Outputs for the Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint Assessment ....................................................................... 74 Figure 3.2: Component Structure of the Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 4.1 Vancouver?s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Consumption ........................ 120 Figure 4.2 Vancouver?s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory using territorial approach ........ 121 Figure 4.3 Vancouver?s Ecological Footprint by Land Type ........................................................ 126 Figure 4.4 Vancouver?s Ecological Footprint by Consumption Activity ...................................... 127 Figure 4.5 Vancouver Food Footprint by Food Type .................................................................. 129 Figure 4.6 Vancouver Food Footprint by Materials and Energy Demand .................................. 129 Figure 4.7 Vancouver Buildings Footprint .................................................................................. 131 Figure 4.8 Vancouver Consumables and Waste Footprint ......................................................... 135 Figure 4.9 Vancouver Consumables Footprint by Material Type ............................................... 136 Figure 4.10 Vancouver Transportation Footprint ....................................................................... 138 Figure 4.11 Vancouver Water Footprint ..................................................................................... 140 Figure 4.12: Vancouver?s Per Capita EF Compared to Per Capita Global Biocapacity Supply .... 141 Figure 4.13: Vancouver?s EF, Global Biocapacity Supply, and Vancouver EF at One-Planet ...... 143 Figure 4.14: Vancouver EF at One-Planet ................................................................................... 144 Figure 4.15: Vancouver?s EF, Global Biocapacity Supply, Vancouver at One-Planet, and the One-Planet International Profile ......................................................................................................... 144 Figure 4.16: EF of International Profile for One-Planet Archetype ............................................ 146 Figure 4.17: Vancouver Food Consumption Compared to the One-Planet International Profile..................................................................................................................................................... 148 Figure 4.20: Comparison of Vancouver Household Goods Consumption Patterns to the One-planet archetype using international case study data ............................................................... 159 Figure 5.1 Comparing Vancouver?s 2006 EF to Baseline 3b for One-Planet Living .................... 233     xii  Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor (now Emeritus) William E. Rees for serving as my supervisor and for constantly keeping the faith. I would also like to thank Professor Thomas A. Hutton and Professor Ronald Kellett who served on my supervisory committee with good cheer and, along with Professor Rees, always supplied thoughtful feedback to my written submissions in a timely manner. Your contributions to my learning have been immense and I remain deeply indebted. Thank you. I would also like to thank Professor Stephen Sheppard for serving as my Prospectus examiner and Professors Ray Cole and Robert F. Woollard for providing thoughtful feedback and enthusiasm for the research. I would like to thank Professor Leonie Sandercock, director of SCARP?s PhD program, for sage advice and unwavering support, and I would like to extend my appreciation to Professors Penny Gurstein and Stephanie Chang, as well as Sherli Mah, Rhoda Thow, Patti Toporowski, and Karen Zeller. Rob Sianchuck and Professor Maged Senbel generously shared unpublished research about institutional building embodied energy and Professor Senbel also provided schematic drawings that were used to estimate the embodied energy of residential buildings. I am deeply appreciative of the research assistance provided by Meidad Kissinger, Cornelia Sussmann, Walleed Giratalla, and Ruth Legg who helped with the Vancouver ecological footprint assessment. I am grateful to the research interviewees and the many staff at the City of Vancouver, Metro Vancouver, TransLink and BC Government who graciously gave of their time to answer questions, search for data, and supply reports not available online. Specifically at the City of Vancouver I would like to acknowledge: Bob McLennen, Brian Beck, Carolyn Drugge, Dave Boyko, Doug Thomas, Lindsay Moffatt and SJ Santos. At Metro Vancouver, I would like to acknowledge: Ali Ergudenler, Chantal Babensee, xiii  Derek Jennejohn, Ed von Euw, Ken Stephens, Laurie Fretz, Marcel Petre, Mike Stringer, Richard Visser, Robert Hicks, Roger Quan, and Ruben Anderson. At TransLink I would like to acknowledge Lyle Walker. At BC Government, I would like to acknowledge Hillary Kennedy, Jonn Braman, and Ted Sheldon. Several individuals from private sector organizations also provided insights and data, specifically I would like to thank: Graham Finch and Warren Knowles at RDH Building Engineering Ltd., Rob Sianchuck at Coldstream Consulting, Mike van Ham at Sylvis Environmental, Helen Goodland at Brantwood, Aviva Savelson and Innes Hood at Stantec (formerly Sheltair), and Sebastian Moffatt at Consensus Institute (and past president of Sheltair). I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge the support of friends and family who have seen me through some of life?s most challenging moments, on all fronts. I would especially like to acknowledge my husband, Jonn Braman, friends Mike Van Ham, Dan Klingspon, Mark Roseland, and especially library comrade Sue Ann Mitchell, and sister in spirit Rhona Berens. In addition I would like to thank John English and Rod Goy who have both, in their capacity as Dean of the BCIT School of Construction and the Environment, provided unwavering support and encouragement to see this project through to completion. I am indebted to them both. Finally, this research would not have been possible without the support of the BCIT Professional Development Program and the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) PhD Fellowship (752-2009-2166), the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions Fellowship (10901), the British Columbia Pacific Century Graduate Scholarship (6413), the University of British Columbia Graduate Fellowship (6302). Major funding came from SSHRC (410-2007-0473) to Doctor Rees on ?Getting Serious About Urban Sustainability.?   xiv  Dedication  In memory of my mother, Rita Moore. Always ahead of her time and an exemplar of one-planet living.      1  1 Getting Serious About Sustainability 1.1 Introduction There comes a time in every relationship when a decision is reached to ?get serious? or to keep things casual. This marks the difference between being committed or merely involved with something or someone. Commitment can be scary. It often entails life changes that respond to the needs and demands of the other. For example the accountability and assumption of responsibility required of a parent to his/her child, or of a government to its people, or of Nations to each other in binding agreements and protocols. Arguably, we have passed through the early stages of our affair with the concept of Sustainability. Silent Spring (1962) and The Limits to Growth (1972) raised our interest. The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm (1972), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature?s World Conservation Strategy (1980), the World Commission on Environment and Development?s report Our Common Future (1987), the Rio Earth Summit (1992), Agenda 21, Local Agenda 21, UN Conventions on Biodiversity and Climate Change, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002), the Millennium Development Goals (2010), and Rio+20 (2012) give evidence to our infatuation. But as the saying goes: ?actions speak louder than words,? meaning the truth, or integrity, behind the value of our commitment is revealed by what we do. It is our actions that matter ? not our declarations. This is not to dismiss the formulation of consensus that is emerging globally about the value of sustainability and the need for the human community to address pressing ecological and social issues. These are important steps. I remain hopeful that the momentum that has taken decades to achieve will carry us through a sustainability transition in order to secure humanity?s future. 2  However, my intent is to examine what a sustainability transition entails for cities and more specifically high-consuming cities of the developed world such as Vancouver, Canada. This chapter introduces the research that explores what it would take to ?get serious about sustainability? as well as the theoretical framework, presented as part of the literature review, which is used to guide the analysis and inform the findings.  1.2 Problem Statement There can be little dispute that the direct or proximate driver of global ecological change and the (un)sustainability conundrum is excessive energy and resource consumption and waste production by the human enterprise. The global urban transition increasingly positions cities as a nexus of consumption activity, pollution, and an important locus of influence in determining sustainability outcomes (Rees 2012, 1999a, 1995; Rees and Wackernagel 1996; Wackernagel et al. 2006; McGranahan and Satterthwaite 2003; Barrett et al. 2002; Satterthwaite 1997; Folke et al. 1997). As much as two thirds of global energy and materials consumption and related pollution can be attributed to consumption in cities of wealthy countries (MEA 2005; Rees and Wackernagel 1996). Excessive consumption in these high-income cities contributes to an unsustainable trajectory of development (Rees 2009; WWF 2008; Wilson and Anielski 2005; Carley and Spapens 1998).  In order for the global population to live within the ecological carrying capacity of Earth, the World Wide Fund for Nature1 (2008, 14) has shown that there are under two global hectares2 of biologically productive land and water on Earth to sustain each person, assuming those shares                                                           1 The original World Wildlife Fund changed its name in 1986 to World Wide Fund for Nature which is used outside North America (http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_quick_facts.cfm#initials viewed November 25, 2010). 2 A global hectare is assumed to be a hectare with global average biocapacity, i.e. the average net primary productive potential of global ecosystems. 3  were equally distributed. However, despite growing awareness about the properties of cities that contribute to ecological sustainability through physical design, utilization of new technologies, and engagement of citizens in behaviour change and environmental initiatives (Newman and Jennings 2008; Register 2006; Beatley 2004, 2000; Devuyst et al. 2001; Newman and Kenworthy 1999; Weizsacker 1997), there has been very little analysis of the cumulative effects of such strategies to achieve a level of consumption commensurate with such a ?fair Earthshare.?3 This target is estimated at approximately 1.8 global hectares per capita (BioRegional 2009; Ravetz 2007; James and Desai 2003).4  Vancouver is often cited in the literature as an example of a sustainable city (Wheeler and Beatley 2009, 429; Register 2006, 131; Wheeler 2004, 120). However, Rees (2009, 2010) argues that Vancouver is unsustainable based on its ecological footprint. Despite achievements in creating a compact, mixed use, liveable urban environment, Vancouver?s ecological footprint is on par with most high-income cities at approximately seven global hectares per capita (Boyd 2009; Sheltair 2008; Wilson and Anielski 2005). If everyone lived with the ecological footprint of an average Vancouverite, it is estimated that an additional three to four earth-like planets would be needed to yield sufficient resources and waste assimilation services without incurring problems of ecosystem destruction (Boyd 2009; Rees 2009). Critical analysis about what actually constitutes an ecologically sustainable city is needed.                                                           3 The term ?fair Earthshare? was coined by Wackernagel and Rees (1996) to describe the per capita availability of global biocapacity supply. 4 Since the initiation of this study, the global population has reached 7 billion and the fair Earthshare has reduced to 1.7 gha/ca (Rees personal communication, March 11, 2013). 4  The original intention of ecological footprint analysis (EFA) was to serve as a policy and planning tool (Rees 1992; Wackernagel 1994; Wackernagel and Rees 1996). EFA is widely acclaimed for its ability to communicate the need to live within ecological limits (Mcmanus and Haughton 2006; Aall and Norland 2005; Barrett et al. 2004; Rees 2000b). Numerous ecological footprint assessments have been undertaken for cities (Wilson and Anielski 2005; Aall and Norland 2005; Barrett et al. 2005, 2004, 2002; Wackernagel 1998), including several for Vancouver (Sheltair 2008; Wilson and Anielski 2005; Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Nevertheless, criticism persists regarding the utility of EFA as a tool for policy analysis at the municipal scale based on: a) disbelief that modified national data sets accurately reflect the local policy context (Xu and San Martin 2010; A. Fournier, personal communication November 27, 2009; Wilson and Grant 2009; Aall and Norland 2005; Chambers, Simmons and Wackernagel 2004; Levett 1998), and b) difficulty accessing locally relevant data and related resource requirements in terms of money and staff and/or consultant time to compile a bottom-up component footprint (Currey et al. 2011; Weidman et al. 2006; A. Fournier, personal communication, November 27, 2009; Wilson and Grant 2009; Aall and Norland 2005). Exploration of how EFA can be adapted to support the needs of municipal governments who seek to achieve the fair Earthshare target therefore remains an important area for research and a primary motivator for this research.  1.3 Research Purpose and Questions The purpose of this study is to identify, using EFA, some of the most important changes to policy and planning that the City of Vancouver could implement to enable its residents to lead lifestyles which, on average, are equivalent to biocapacity demand of two global hectares per capita, approximating the fair Earthshare. This target is commensurate with a goal of one-5  planet living (www.oneplanetcommunities.org). The concept of ?One Planet Living,? coined by BioRegional, an enterprising not-for-profit consultancy, and delivered through an international campaign in cooperation with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), represents an attempt to position sustainable living, and indeed urban sustainability, as a quantifiable objective (Durney and Desai 2004; WWF 2004). The value of targeting a global fair Earthshare is acknowledged in the literature (Vale and Vale 2013; James and Desai 2003; Haughton 1999, 1997; Rees 1997a, 1996). More recently this value has been depicted in the language of one-planet living (Mayhew and Campbell 2008; Eaton et al. 2007; Sutcliffe et al. 2007; James and Desai 2003). However, research on specific urban policy measures to achieve such goals in connection with ecological footprint analysis is still in a fledgling state (Cardiff 2012; BioRegional 2011; Ravetz 2007; James and Desai 2003). It is to this gap in knowledge that my dissertation research contributes.  1.3.1 Research Questions My inquiry pursues the following questions:  1. What are some changes to planning policy and practice that the City of Vancouver could make to facilitate one-planet living options for its residents?  2. What reduction of ecological footprint could be achieved through implementation of these changes to planning policy and practice? 3. What could an ecologically sustainable Vancouver ?look like,? meaning what changes to urban lifestyles and/or urban morphology might result from the identified changes to policy and planning practice? 6  1.4 Scope of the Research Following the philosophy articulated by proponents of the ecological footprint that the consumer bears ultimate responsibility for production activities (BioRegional 2011; Barrett et al. 2005; Wackernagel and Rees 1996), the research focuses on changes to municipal planning policy and management practice within the City of Vancouver that affect both the city?s operations and urban residents? consumption patterns. Although consumption and production are inherently linked, in order to limit the scope of the research production will be explored only to the degree that changes in city policy and reductions in the ecological footprint affect production processes, e.g., introduction of urban agricultural production that reduces the need to transport food over long distances. While urban morphology and management practices are identified as important factors in reducing a city?s demand for energy and materials (Rees 2010; Wackernagel et al. 2006; Satterthwaite 1997; Haughton and Hunter1994), a focus on these alone may be insufficient to achieve levels of consumption that would be commensurate with what would be required to stay within ecological carrying capacity (Newman 2010; Rees 2008; Register 2006; Onyx 2005; Lenzen et al. 2004; Hoyer and Holden 2003; James and Desai 2003; Carley and Spapens 1980). The choices that urban residents make about their lifestyles are critical (Lenzen et al. 2004). Examples include choices about diet, housing, appliances, personal electronics and other consumables, transportation and travel abroad for vacation or work, just to name a few. Although the ecological footprint is not a comprehensive indicator of urban sustainability, let alone ecological sustainability (Rees 2000b), it nevertheless is an important indicator for determining whether a city?s resident population exists within its equitable share of global 7  ecological carrying capacity. EFA has the capacity to capture information about personal consumption choices by a city?s residents as well as consumption resulting from urban morphology and its related demand on ecosystem services. Therefore it is an important indicator to study in connection with policy effectiveness aimed at achieving ecological sustainability generally, and one-planet living in particular. To identify which changes in policy or practice could bear the most significant reduction in ecological footprint, I refine existing ecological footprint assessments of Vancouver using material flow analysis and lifecycle assessment methods, following the work of Barrett et al. (2002). Based on my own experience as a demand side management planner focussed on reducing consumption of energy and materials in Metro Vancouver,5 I adapt the ecological footprint to organize data about resource consumption using taxonomy familiar to planners in the Greater Vancouver area, including planners at the City of Vancouver. This structure is intended to enable planners to use EFA more effectively as a policy tool. The resulting analysis is used to identify the components of consumption that comprise the largest contribution to Vancouver?s ecological footprint. I then target consumption patterns in order to explore how to reduce the ecological footprint associated with these components. Examples of components include: food, buildings, transportation, consumables and wastes, and water.   Ecological footprint assessments previously undertaken for Vancouver (Sheltair 2008) as well as the Global Footprint Network?s (2010) Ecological Footprint Calculator                                                           5 Metro Vancouver (previously known by its legal name: Greater Vancouver Regional District) comprises four legal entities. These are the: Greater Vancouver Regional District, Greater Vancouver Water District, Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, and the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation. The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, known as TransLink, is a separate, sister organization.  8  (http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/) reveal that the federal and provincial services component of the Ecological Footprint comprising: military, healthcare, and other services of national and provincial interest account for approximately two global hectares of biocapacity per capita (i.e., this component alone approximates demand equivalent to a fair Earthshare). It is not clear whether and how municipal policy intervention could significantly influence this portion of the footprint. Because the focus of the research is on changes to Vancouver?s planning policy and practice, I do not assess service sectors predominantly affiliated with senior government jurisdiction. Future research regarding how nationally provided services affect the potential of cities to enable their citizens to achieve sustainable lifestyles defined as one-planet living is needed but falls outside the scope of this research.  The fair Earthshare and one-planet living are essentially dynamic indicators. Increasing population and per capita consumption coupled with deteriorating biocapacity results in a shrinking value for the fair Earthshare year-over-year, making one-planet living ever more difficult to achieve. For illustrative purposes, I focus on a value of 1.8 gha/ca in order to fix the analysis within the data space provided for the 2006 study year.  Population itself is an important driver of consumption and demand for natures? services. However, the research does not address excessive population and population growth per se. Vancouver, Metro Vancouver, the Province of British Columbia, and the Government of Canada should, of course, develop population and/or immigration policies as part of their overall sustainability strategies. 9  The fair Earthshare, EFA, and one-planet living do not address social factors related to self-interest, greed, corruption, political agenda, and other issues that intervene through community activism, corporate strategies, and politics. These factors are important, but I do not address them in depth. I also acknowledge that global market forces and international politics could have a bearing on the potential for implementation of policy interventions identified in the research. However, these factors are also outside the scope of my analysis. My focus is on what is ecologically necessary for sustainability, unfettered by what is perceived as politically and economically feasible. Finally, for the ecological footprint analysis, I use national data to supplement gaps in local data collected by the regional and municipal government levels. This is an accepted practice in the component6 ecological footprint method (Barrett et al., 2002). However, this approach is not compliant with the standards articulated by the Global Footprint Network for EFA of cities (Kitzes 2009). Only a top-down, i.e. compound,7 EFA method is accepted by the Global Footprint Network (Kitzes 2009). If local data are used to supplement nationally derived data then results must be presented using both approaches, i.e. an exclusively top-down component method in comparison with a modified top-down method that uses some locally derived data (Kitzes 2009). Future research to explore whether and how the method I am using for completing a bottom-up, i.e. component, ecological footprint analysis could align with the                                                           6 The component method relies on locally available data to estimate the ecological footprint. See chapter 3 for a detailed description of how it is applied to this study. 7 The original method for estimating an ecological footprint relies on national data that assesses consumption as a value of total domestic production plus imports, minus exports (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). This approach is referred to as the ?compound? method (Chambers, Simmons and Wackernagel 2004, 67; Barrett et al. 2002, 24). See section 1.7.3 for additional information. 10  standards promoted by the Global Footprint Network is warranted but outside the scope of this research. 1.5 Structure of the Dissertation The dissertation uses complexity theory, the laws of thermodynamics, and ecological footprint analysis as a theoretical framework in which to undertake an exploratory case study of what one-planet living might entail in the City of Vancouver. Chapter 1 introduces the research and frames its contribution to knowledge in terms of assessing whether proposed policies for urban sustainability can actually achieve consumption levels within ecological carrying capacity, i.e., commensurate with a fair Earthshare target. It identifies the following areas of exploration: i) what policies the City could implement to reduce its ecological footprint and/or what policies the City could implement to enable citizens to make lifestyle choices that reduce their footprint, ii) what level of reduction in the ecological footprint could be achieved by implementation of such polices, and iii) what one-planet living might look like in Vancouver if those policies were implemented. Chapter 2 introduces the City of Vancouver as the case study. Chapter 3 describes my research methods, including development of lifestyle archetypes and an ecological footprint analysis for Vancouver that is designed to serve municipal policy and planning needs for identifying interventions that the City of Vancouver could take to enable its residents to make one-planet living lifestyle choices. Chapter 4 comprises an analysis of Vancouver?s sustainability gap based on the City?s ecological footprint in 2006 compared to the actual fair Earthshare. Chapter 5 explores various scenarios for one-planet living in Vancouver using ecological footprint analysis coupled with identification of policy interventions and changes to urban management practices informed by interviews with City of Vancouver staff 11  and other key informants. Chapter 6 discusses the research findings, draws conclusions, and proposes ideas for future research.  1.6 Significance of the Study and Contribution to Knowledge The research makes the following contributions:  1. Refines ecological footprint analysis as a policy tool to meet municipal policy and planning needs, specifically focussed on Vancouver. 2. Develops lifestyle archetypes to inform one-planet living research based on empirical data about how people in different cities around the world are consuming coupled with scenarios for one-planet living in Vancouver developed through the application of a refined ecological footprint analysis. 3. Uses the refined ecological footprint assessment of the City of Vancouver to identify policy interventions or changes to City management practices that the City could implement to enable its residents to choose one-planet lifestyles.  4. Conceptualizes Vancouver as a One-Planet City and creates a vision of what Vancouver might be like if everyone were to live within their ecological fair Earthshare. 1. 7 Sustainability and Cities (Literature Review) 1.7.1 Urban Sustainability As the world urbanizes, the role of cities in determining sustainability outcomes grows in importance (Seitzinger et al. 2012; Rees 2012, 2010, 1999a, 1999b; Rees and Wackernagel 1996; Wackernagel et al. 2006; McGranahan and Satterthwaite 2003; Girardet 1999). Cities are the dominant form of human habitat, and most of the world?s resources are either directly or indirectly consumed in cities (Rees 2012, 2009, 1999b; McGranahan and Satterthwaite 2003). 12  Friedmann (2002) explores three definitions of urbanization. The first corresponds with demographic movement of people to urban settlements, denoted by higher population density than the surrounding area. A second definition of urban is economically derived as land-based, primary forms of production related to agricultural and resource extraction give way to other forms of economic activity. The third definition of urbanization is socio-cultural and refers to participation in urban ways of life. Examples include high levels of literacy and participation in ?communication-intensive networks? (Friedmann 2002, 5). Friedmann (2002, 3) uses the term ?city-region? to denote the dependent relationship that a city has on its immediately surrounding hinter-land, ?typically extending outward from a core for a distance of ? fifty to one hundred kilometers.? Rees (2009), however, argues that this distance extends much further as an outcome of global trade. A city?s hinterland is, in fact, scattered all around the world. Therefore, cities should be reconceived and considered within their global context (Rees 2012, 2010, 2009; Rees and Wackernagel 1996). Indeed, economic and socio-cultural urbanization has transgressed urban boundaries in the same way that Rees (2009) argues the flow of energy and materials has exceeded the boundaries of what Friedmann (2002) conceptualizes as the city region. Cities effectively become nodes of consumption in a global urban web of material and energy flow, capital flow, migration flow, and information flow (Rees 2012; Seitzinger et al. 2011). This distinction between the city per se and the urban ecosystem upon which a city depends is helpful in understanding the extension of urban organizational structure beyond the physical representation of a specific geographic location and shall be addressed in more detail below.  13  ?Sustainable? in its simplest sense means capable of being maintained indefinitely (Rees 2006a; Dale 2001; Beatley 1995a). Applied to human civilization, it takes a decidedly anthropocentric perspective that combines aspirations for human flourishing tempered by the recognition of factors that impede it (Dale 2001; UNCED 1992; WCED 1987; Meadows et al. 1972). There are many working definitions of sustainable development from the popularized Brundtland Commission?s: development that ?meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs? (WCED 1987, 8) to more specific prescriptions such as that offered by Rees: ?Sustainable development is positive socioeconomic change that does not undermine the ecological and social systems upon which communities and society are dependent? (Rees 1989, 3 cited in Dale 2001, 6). Common to these definitions is a recognition that sustainable development ?involves a progressive transformation of economy and society? for the purposes of satisfying ?human needs and aspirations? (WCED 1987, 43). It also requires a societal transformation that addresses humanity?s relationship to the natural environment rather than mere environmental conservation efforts that fail to question societal structure and its impacts (Lovelock 2006; Dale 2005; Fowler 2004; Wheeler 2004; Becker and Jahn 1999; Rees 1995; Beatley 1994).  Strong sustainability argues for the need to preserve adequate natural capital8 per capita as a non-substitutable form of capital that is essential to provision of life support services, as well as the provision of utility to support man-made capital (Neumayer 2003; Rees and Wackernagel 1996). Strong sustainability clearly aligns with the paradigm that recognizes ecological limits (Meadows et. al 1972) and the Steady State Economy articulated by Herman Daly (1977) and                                                           8 Natural capital refers to a stock of ecosystem assets that yield ecological goods and services (Neumayer 2003). 14  later evolved further as ecological economics (Victor 2008; Neumayer 2003; Rees 1995). Furthermore, Wackernagel and Rees (1996) observe that because humanity, particularly in wealthy countries, is already unsustainable such that world consumption is in excess of global ecological carrying capacity, sustainability also requires reducing consumption and reversing ecological deterioration. The specific question of how humanity can continue to develop in the face of ecological limits distinguishes the concept of sustainable development, implying continuing improvement, from sustained growth. The prevailing growth paradigm is predicated on neoclassical economic thinking that values market-based approaches to sustainability. Sustained economic growth is seen as a means to create the wealth necessary to eradicate poverty while simultaneously addressing environmental challenges (UNDESA 2006; UNWSSD 2002; UNCED 1992; WCED 1987; IUCN 1980).  Various analysts challenge the growth paradigm as being at odds with the achievement of sustainable development (Victor 2008; Montague 2006; Hayes 2006; Nijkamp et al. 2004; Rees 2002, 2000a, 1995; Dale 2001). First, the benefits of growth go mainly to the wealthy9 and it is consumption by the wealthy that poses the real challenge (Victor 2008; Rees 2002). Second, consumption has historically increased with income so the net effect is that ecological impacts constantly increase with income, regardless of technological innovation ? and, indeed, sometimes precisely because of it (Victor 2008; Lenzen et al. 2004; Nijkamp et al. 2004; Satterthwaite 1997). Third, ?sustained [material] economic growth? is a biophysical                                                           9 The ?wealthy? refers to the 20% of global population that is responsible for approximately 80% of private consumption and waste production (Shah 2012). 15  impossibility given Earth?s finite ecological capacity (Montague 2006; Rees 2002, 2000a, 1995). Fourth, economic growth on its own has not and cannot address the issue of equitable distribution of wealth, let alone the challenge of equitable opportunities to secure one?s own chances for economic prosperity (Montague 2006; Giddings et al. 2005; Daly 1977). Indeed, as Herman Daly (1977, 8) observes: ?If we are serious about helping the poor, we shall have to face up to the moral issue of re-distribution and stop sweeping it under the rug of aggregate growth.?  In summary, focusing exclusively on economic growth side-steps the issue of distributive justice (Rees 2008, 2002, 2000a; Montague 2006) and ignores mounting evidence that decades of economic growth have not alleviated global poverty (UNDESA 2011, 2006; UNDP 2010; Victor 2008). Instead it threatens to increase the vulnerability of the poor to ecological risks from climate change, unsafe drinking water, desertification, and deforestation, to name a few effects (Rees 2012, 2002; UN DESA 2011, 2006; UNDP 2010, 2007; Victor 2008; Hayes 2006; Dale 2001; Karr 2000; Westra 2000). Moreover, the historical evidence reveals that growth-oriented economics has entrenched global economic disparities while simultaneously degrading global ecosystem integrity (UNDP 2010, 20007; WWF 2008; UN DESA 2006, MEA 2005). The ideological dominance of the growth paradigm and its inherent value system are barriers to new ways of thinking (Rees 2010; Victor 2008; Dale 2001; von Weizs?cker et al. 1997; Daly 1977).  Given these considerations, I believe urban sustainability represents an integrated approach to both the built environment and social behaviour as two important and related aspects that 16  enable cities to contribute to an ecologically sustainable world (McGranahan and Satterthwaite 2003; Kay et al. 1999). 1.7.2 Complexity Theory and the Laws of Thermodynamics, Complexity theory and the laws of thermodynamics provide a useful theoretical framework for exploring the research questions. Thermodynamics is part of ?the science of complex systems? (Prigogine and Stengers 1984, 122). It explores how systems respond to exogenously imposed change (Prigogine and Stengers 1984). It is founded upon two laws: first, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and second, that energy is degraded by physical and chemical processes which are irreversible (i.e., nature?s tendency towards maximum disorder or entropy) (Schneider and Kay, 1994). A complex, thermodynamic system tends to gravitate toward a dynamic equilibrium state - exogenous forces imposed upon it are neutralized by the system?s ability to dissipate those forces at an equivalent rate (Prigogine and Stengers 1984). A complex system can be defined as interacting, identifiably separate entities that when taken together form an organization, a systemic whole or holon, wherein the parts express different behaviours than they would in isolation. Furthermore, the system as a whole performs tasks that cannot be accomplished individually by the entities comprising it (Partridge 2000; Kay and Regier 2000; Wilber 1995; von Bertalanffy 1950).  The ecosphere, and indeed the universe, can be characterized as a nested hierarchy of sub-systems or holons that exist in dynamic relationship from the sub-cellular organelle to the macro social organizations of species into ecosystems (Rees 2012; Kay and Regier 2000; Partridge 2000; Wilber 1995; Miller 1978). Open systems, which include all living systems, are characterized by a continuous exchange of energy and materials (Rees 2012; Kay and Regier 17  2000; Prigogine and Stengers 1984; von Bertalanffy 1950). These systems include both naturally or biologically occurring entities, such as animal organisms and ecosystems, as well as socio-cultural entities such as human civilization, cities, nations, and also social constructs such as the economy (Rees 2012, 1995; Victor 2008; Prigogine and Stengers 1984; von Bertalanffy, 1950).  Open systems exchange energy and materials with their surroundings through dissipative processes (Prigogine and Stengers 1984; Rees 2012; Kay 2000). Structure (i.e., order or negentropy) within systems emerges and is maintained at the expense of imported available energy and materials, e.g., sunlight, fossil fuels, plants (Kay et al. 1999; Schneider and Kay 1994). This process follows the laws of thermodynamics and the law of mass balance whereby energy and material gradients are dissipated as they are exchanged between systems, yet the total amount of energy and/or mass remains the same. In other words, local systems build order by creating disorder in their host systems. This self-organizing phenomenon occurs continuously: as new structure emerges, a new organizational context develops within which new dissipative processes and structures can emerge (Kay and Regier 2000). Thus, self-organizing holarchic open (SOHO) systems build local internal structure (i.e., create order or negentropy) by importing high-grade available energy and materials from their host systems and export degraded energy and material wastes thereby creating disorder or entropy in their host systems (Rees 2012; Kay and Regier 2000).  On Earth, a nested hierarchy of integrated systems can be conceptualized beginning with the ecosphere that is the largest system, meaning it has the greatest span of energy, materials, and information. From the ecosystem, the sub-system of society evolved in dependent relationship, 18  drawing on the energy, materials, and information of the ecosystem. Society is a system within which the economy, as a societal sub-system, was created and upon which it depends. Urban systems, including cities, develop from and are governed by socio-economic system processes and are ultimately dependent on ecosystems (Rees 2012; Victor 2008; Girardet 2004; Prigogine and Stengers 1984). The first gives birth to the next and so on. The literature frequently defines sustainability as comprising three (and sometimes more) dimensions, i.e., ecological, social, and economic that are of equal importance, e.g. three legs of a stool, three imperatives, three overlapping spheres or goals (Onyx 2005; Wheeler 2004; Dale 2001; Carley and Spapens 1998). However, this approach masks the hierarchical context in which these dimensions exist and thereby avoids confronting the reality of the economy?s and society?s absolute dependence on global ecosystems (Rees 2012, 1995; Lovelock 2006). Using complexity theory and the laws of thermodynamics as a theoretical framework for analysis helps make these relationships explicit. Cities emerge and maintain their internal structure through dissipative socio-economic processes that create negentropy in their host ecosystem(s) (Prigogine and Stengers 1984; Rees 2012, 2010; 2009). There is a direct link between urban development and dissipation of ecosystems. Furthermore, SOHO systems follow the ?maximum power principle? described by Lotka in 1922 as the propensity to utilize all available energy and materials. This is a universally observed survival tactic in all species including humans (Rees 2008). Because energy and materials are limited, competition among systems and their component parts emerges as a characteristic of systems evolution (von Bertalanffy 1950). However, cooperative or symbiotic behaviour also emerges to increase the competitive position of cooperating entities (Miller 1978). Indeed, it is 19  the characteristics of components and their interactions within systems that give rise to a system?s characteristics and behaviour (Meadows et al. 1972). Therefore, qualitative changes in the structure of feedback relationships within and among systems can stimulate new evolutionary trajectories (Meadows et al. 1972). Thus, it may be possible to introduce qualitative changes to the operation of urban processes in order to change their development trajectory, e.g. from one of high consumption and wastefulness to one of lower consumption.  Finally, allometric growth is a function of an entity?s ability to capture a proportion of what is totally available within the system (von Bertalanffy 1950). Positive allometry means that the capacity of an individual entity is greater than its proportional relationship to the whole system, i.e. the individual entity captures relatively more than others and grows more quickly. Differing capacity to capture resources determines an entity?s ability to thrive and competitively displace, to the point of extinction, those with lesser capacity (von Bertalanffy 1950). The record of successful self-organization is encoded in both genes and cultural memes (i.e., taught beliefs and behaviours) of the surviving entities (Rees 2008; Key and Schneider 1994). Genes and memes that confer evolutionarily success persist and give rise to a hierarchy of values and decision rules (Miller 1978). As these emerge, their force of influence gains dominance and creates an increasingly endogenous system orientation, meaning internal regulation grows and the capacity for flexibility and adaptation diminishes (Holling and Gunderson 2002). This process can be seen in the dominance and entrenchment of the growth paradigm, promoted by high-consuming western European and North American cultures that comprise only a small percentage of global population but consume most of the world?s resources (as described above).  20  The endogenous relevance of values held by dominant cultures is an important area of investigation. In simple systems, components act predominantly in response to environmental triggers, i.e. exogenous factors. However, in highly evolved systems, including human systems, some system components are capable of exercising choice. Agency is the ?capacity, condition or state of acting or exerting power? (Merriam-Webster Dictionary online 2012) or the means by which action is taken to achieve a result (WordNet 2009). In more highly evolved, complex systems, feedback mechanisms enable the system and its components, some of which are capable of exercising choice, to respond according to a combination of exogenous and endogenous factors. Systems and their components exist in dynamic relationships of agency and communion (Wilber 1995).10 Agency in complex systems can be understood as: action expressed by a component in response to external or internal triggers that predominantly serves its own interest as a distinct entity (Wilber 1995). Similarly, communion is expressed by components acting as part of a larger system (Wilber 1995). Positive agency works within the constraints of communion and contributes to the health of the system and it?s supra and subordinated systems (Wilber 1995). Pathological agency conflicts with the constraints of communal relationship of the system, creating stress that can break the structural relationships between the component and the system of which it is part (Wilber 1995). The outcome of pathological agency causes harm to the system and sub-systems dependent upon it (Miller 1978), while releasing super-systems and their component parts from further influence (Wilber 1995). Therefore, an important challenge for urban sustainability is how to elicit positive agency within dominant (i.e., western) society and socio-economic processes that give rise to cities                                                           10 Gidden?s (1984) observes this relationship in Structuration Theory that explores the ways that individuals are governed by social institutions while simultaneously contributing to their recreation. 21  that operate within global ecological carrying capacity. To this end, an inquiry into qualitative changes that can alter the structure of urban system relationships and their related feedback mechanisms becomes a fertile field of investigation. This includes the policies and urban management practices that a city government invokes and implements. Despite the dominant cultural memes, citizens can choose to act differently to affect urban development trajectories and related consumption patterns. Urban policy that enables such choices becomes an important focus. The concepts of city and urban ecosystem in this research assume an integration of socio-economic and bio-physical processes whereby human agency gives rise to urban systems and the agglomeration of many individuals acting as a social entity can be interpreted as an animated city. Cities are dissipative structures (Rees 2012, 1997b) that emerge through the self-organizing processes of people acting within socio-economic systems that draw on available resources from surrounding ecosystems. Because cities emerge through dissipative processes, limits to the availability of energy and materials constrain their potential growth and development (Rees 2012). This is a critical reality pertaining to the sub-system?s dependence on its super-system. Urban systems can influence the rate at which cities consume energy and materials from their supra-system, but they must consume, i.e., dissipate, energy and materials to survive, i.e., maintain structural integrity (Kay and Regier 2000). Excessive demand, i.e., growth, will degrade the structural integrity of the host system (Rees 2012, 1997b). In effect, the need to conserve the super-system imposes constraints or limits on sub-systems. There is a range or domain of stability (a ?window of vitality?) within which the sub-system can flourish, and a sub-system?s survival depends on its operating within that optimum, not at maximum 22  dissipative capacity (Kay and Regier 2000; Kay et al. 1999; Tainter 1995; Schneider and Kay 1994). The most successful sub-systems are those that are superior competitors for energy and matter within the constraints of the host system. If a sub-system does ?not conform with the circumstances of the super-system it is part of, it will be selected against? Living systems that are evolutionarily successful have learned what these constraints are and how to live within them? (Kay and Schneider 1994, 36). Complex systems, including urban systems, follow an adaptive cycle of organization, growth and solidification, climax and collapse (Holling and Gunderson, 2002). As certain components within a system and their attendant relationships gain dominance, their trajectories of evolution foreclose the potential of other possible futures and greater predictability emerges within the system (Holling and Gunderson 2002). The frequent and dense structural relationships that form during the organizational phase create an inertia that constrains flexibility and capacity to respond to novelty (Holling and Gunderson 2002). This momentum, once it has established a growth phase, confounds intervention. Connections among dominant components within the system tighten, with an emphasis on maximizing the efficiency of existing relational exchange processes; meanwhile, new entrants find it difficult to gain access (Holling and Gunderson, 2002).11 Ironically, the strategies that bring early wins and contribute to the trajectory of the system?s evolution also eventually contribute to its demise (Harris 2007; Holling and Gunderson 2002).                                                           11 This process parallels the logic behind Kuhn?s (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that describes the entrenchment of the dominant paradigm which holds sway over competing concepts and suppresses innovation in response to anticipated changes. Only at the point of collapse, when the dominant paradigm can no longer successfully meet the needs of those who abide by it, does the need for change become self-evident. Yet, through this process, the ability for proactive agency has been squandered.   23  Although some of the components in highly evolved systems have the capacity to exercise choice, the constraints of the relational structures in which they are situated limit the range of choices that can be effectively implemented. Risk from endogenous or exogenous forces increases as a system?s structure solidifies and reaches its climax stage because variability within the system has diminished (Holling and Gunderson 2002).  Conflict can occur between two competing systems at the same or different levels. Examples include: competition for the same scarce input or when ?a system makes demands which threaten the existence of its supra-system? (Miller, 1978, 39). When adjustment processes, in the form of negative feedback, fail to re-stabilize a system, ?the structure and process of the system alter markedly ? perhaps to the extent that the system does not survive? (Miller, 1978, 37). However, rather than a gradual transition, change can be episodic with periods of slow evolution punctuated by rapid change when a threshold to system stability is crossed (Holling and Gunderson 2002; Kay and Regier 2000).  A stability threshold is the point in a system at which energy and material inputs exceed the system?s dissipative capacity (Kay et al. 1999). Conversely, a stability threshold can also be a point at which scarcity of energy and material inputs fail to supply what would be necessary to sustain the system in its existing structure. The system loses internal coherence as the relational bonds among its components break-down. An abrupt ?flip into an irreversible (typically degraded) state controlled by unfamiliar processes? emerges (Holling et al. 2002, 9). As described above in the tension between agency and communion, the system itself 24  disintegrates as the components that comprised it are freed from their relational structure to each other. Applying these theoretical observations from complex systems theory to the challenges of achieving sustainable urban development, Kay et al. (1999) observe that complex systems thinking, and in particular the behaviour of self-organizing open holarchic (SOHO) systems, accurately reflects ecological and human systems. There is wide agreement in the urban sustainability literature that an ecosystems-based approach is an appropriate theoretical framework for understanding how cities and their relationships to economy, society and ecology function (Newman and Jennings 2008; Register 2006; Fowler 2004; Hough 2004; Wheeler 2004; Girardet 1999; Todd and Tukel 1981). However, Kay et al. (1999) argue that this approach is insufficient and propose that a theoretical framework grounded in complex systems theory is required. It subsumes the ecosystem approach because ecosystems are themselves complex systems, and more importantly it adds depth of understanding about the unstable, unpredictable and uncontrollable ways that such systems operate (Kay et al. 1999; Kay and Schneider 1994).  Jane Jacobs is credited as the first to propose that the city is an example of ?organized complexity? (Batty 2007, 4) requiring exploration of ?how individuals behave and the processes that they use to develop their environment? including the built environment of cities and the structural relationships of energy and material flows that support them (Batty 2007, 3). Rees (2009, 1999a, 1999b), Batty (2007), Folke (2006), Hallsmith (2003), Odum and Odum (2001), Holmberg et al. (1999) pay particular attention to the interpretation of urban sustainability 25  through complex systems theory. There is an emerging literature in the fields of planning, physics, economics, engineering (including industrial ecology and biomimicry) that explores urban sustainability through complex systems theory and promises to bring valuable insights about how to navigate towards policies that support the development of sustainable cities (Innes and Booher 2010; Baynes 2009; Chen and Jiang 2009; Weik and Walter 2009; Frame 2008; Garmestani et al. 2008; Batty 2008; Isalgue et al. 2007; Ruth and Coelho 2007; Bai 2003; Funtowicz et al. 1999; Rees 1995).12 Interpreting urban sustainability through complex systems theory yields insights about: the way that urban structure develops and functions (Batty 2007; Hallsmith 2003; Crabbe 2000), the multi-scalar context of relationships within which a city is situated (Chen and Jiang 2009; Garmestani et al. 2008; Batty 2008), how and why cities transform and the power of global forces to affect urban outcomes (Odum and Odum 2001), the viability and vulnerability of cities in terms of their needs and dependencies (Rees 2009, 1999a; Odum and Odum 2001), and the life cycle of cities that follow an inevitable pattern of creation, growth, decay, and ,sometimes, renewal (Gunderson and Holling 2002; Odum and Odum 2001; Kay and Regier 2000).  For example, understanding how self-organizing holarchic open (SOHO) systems: a) develop structure in response to available energy, b) dissipate and degrade the available energy, and c) in so doing create entropy in the supra-systems of which they are part (Kay and Regier 2000;                                                           12 It should be noted that in the evolution of planning theory, ?systems theory? has historically been understood as positivist analysis of structural relationships from which deterministic outcomes could be predicted, thereby biasing favour towards a technocratic role for planners (Taylor 2003; Allemendinger 2002). The nuance of complexity theory which perceives systems as fundamentally uncertain with indeterminate outcomes, and therefore aligned with a post-positivist perspective biasing towards a communicative role for planners in the formulation of political decisions (Innes and Booher 2010; Rees 1995), has been slow to emerge. 26  Kay and Schneider 1994; Schneider and Kay 1994) yields insights about the way that cities , as dissipative structures, developed and grew through the industrial, post-industrial and post-modern periods (Rees 2012; Odum and Odum 2001). Fossil fuels represented an energy bonanza. People in industrializing cities harnessed this energy and thus were able to develop massive infrastructure and political power structures that in turn required and enabled the city to grow and develop further through trade, a form of co-option of resources from afar that yields additional energy and material inputs (Rees 2006b).  This cycle demonstrates a positive feedback; it is the maximum power principle at work (Odum and Odum 2001). Cities seen through a complex systems theory lens are interpreted as performing according to the laws of thermodynamics, as open dissipative structures (Rees 2012). The structural transformation affecting todays growing, post-industrial cities is a process of only apparent de-industrialization that results in energy and materials dissipation over a wider territory. In effect, the industry that emigrated through de-industrialization didn?t functionally leave the city system, it merely geographically relocated. This urban structural transformation creates local dislocation (Hutton 2008) but also the emergence of the city as a super-urban structural system with extensions to remote locations that enable it to attract more resource-inputs to its centre. In summary: cities grow and create structural networks with other locations as they transform into a complex, globally networked, hierarchical urban system structure (Odum and Odum 2001; Girardet 1999). Thus we can describe the emergence of the ?consumer city? (Erdkamp 2001) as a post-modern outcome whereby cities, functioning as dissipative structures, extend their reach across the vast areas needed to support their ever-growing structural demands for energy and material resources.  27  Odum and Odum (2001, 77) observe that all systems function through ?pulses? of growth and decline. Kay and Schneider (1994) connect these cycles to catastrophe theory. Holling and Gunderson (2002) use the notion of a repeating, adaptive cycle to explain the concept in terms of an evolutionary process of emergence, climax, decline and regeneration. These insights challenge both the notion of unlimited growth and the notion of growth that eventually levels-off to a ?steady-state? (Odum and Odum 2001). Tainter (1995) observes that the greater the complexity of a system the more energy and materials are required to support it. This leads to his conclusion that because of limits to resource availability eventual collapse of complex societies is to be expected (Tainter 1995). Tainter?s observations are corroborated by Meadows et al. (1972) and Diamond (2005) who note that the prevalence of collapse remains constant throughout history despite ever-increasing levels of technological sophistication that humanity achieves. Schneider and Kay (1994) observe that stressed ecosystems will retreat, devolving to previous, i.e. more primitive, stages of structural development. In decline, therefore, systems contract and reduce their footprint.  An important strategy in planning for urban sustainability is to know where in the cycle of growth and decline society is located in order to inform how to appropriately adapt to anticipated changes (Odum and Odum 2001; Tainter 1995). Adaptive capability is important: history reveals that cities that have lasted the longest were not necessarily the biggest nor did they offer inhabitants the highest standard of living. Rather, they were able to moderate their demands on the land (Sorenson et al. 2004) and function within a window of vitality.  28  Because of energy and resource constraints, Tainter (1995), Odum and Odum (2001), Kunstler (2005) and Lovelock (2006) anticipate a need to prepare for decline of the current global, urban, socio-economic system. Cities are predicted to retract following a pattern of ?decentralized concentration? (Odum and Odum 2001, 209). This means there will be pockets of dense urbanization distributed across rural and/or wild areas. The rise in cost of fossil fuels will reduce material transportation over large distances and the resulting scarcity will trigger depopulation in cities as people return to rural areas to secure subsistence (Kunstler 2005; Odum and Odum 2001). Societal values are also predicted to shift from competition to cooperation (Odum and Odum 2001).  A number of strategies are proposed to facilitate the transition from climax to decline including: reintegration of the city to its immediately surrounding region (e.g. bioregionalism), integration of municipal and regional governance, rebirth of inner city living, dense and ground oriented development replacing high-rises, avoidance of infill development and increase in green spaces in an attempt to support local bio-capacity (e.g. urban agriculture), increased recycling and materials repurposing as well as sharing of resources following strategies informed by industrial ecology (Kunstler 2005; Odum and Odum 2001). Not surprisingly, many of these strategies parallel those proposed for sustainable cities, communities, and livelihoods (Roseland 2012; Register 2006; Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Aberley 1994; Jack-Todd and Todd 1994; Mollison 1988; Todd and Tukel 1981). From this analysis it is evident that a dual approach to urban sustainability is warranted that pays attention to: i) the thermodynamic operation of a city in terms of its energy and materials 29  consumption and waste production, and ii) the social organization in terms of access to knowledge and information, governance regimes, individual and organizational activities. In effect, a sustainable city requires a sustainable society living within it. This means that while a focus on: land use; buildings; transportation; utility services for water, energy, and waste; agriculture; and green space provide important focal points, they represent only part of what constitutes a sustainable city. The other part addresses institutional and socio-cultural issues pertaining to: ethics and values, social capital, governance structure, participation and cooperation, equity and access, organizational capacity, and shared vision.  One can argue, therefore, that what constitutes urban sustainability includes:  - A prioritization of ecological integrity and commitment to stay within ecological limits, defined by both local and global carrying capacity. - A local governance regime that supports individual and organizational activities aimed at achieving the above objectives.  - A high level of effort by citizens to behave in ways conducive to achieving the above objectives.  - Adaptive capabilities within society to respond to feedback and adjust goals accordingly. 1.7.3 Ecological Footprint Analysis The fact that cities are dissipative structures implies that those who reside in cities will need to become active agents in sustaining that which sustains them. Ecological footprint assessment can inform an integrated approach to urban policy development that addresses both urban form and social behaviour. Such an integrated approach is essential to achieving sustainability, 30  and more specifically it is essential to the ability of cities to contribute to a sustainable world (McGranahan and Satterthwaite 2003; Kay et al. 1999). To this end, there is growing support for the use of ecological footprint analysis and its related concept of the fair Earthshare (Eaton et al. 2007; Sutcliffe et al. 2007; Mcmanus and Haughton 2006; Holden 2004; Nijkamp et al. 2004; Portney 2003; Rees 2000b; Holmberg et al. 1999).  Ecological footprint analysis is a quantitative method developed by Professor William Rees and his students, most notably Dr. Mathis Wackernagel, which ?acknowledges that humanity is facing difficult challenges, makes them apparent, and directs action toward sustainable living? (Wackernagel and Rees 1996, 3). EFA recognizes that ?every category of energy and material consumption and waste discharge requires the productive or absorptive capacity of a finite area of land or water? ecosystems (Wackernagel and Rees 1996, 51). A significant innovation behind the concept is that it inverses the traditional approach to calculating carrying capacity. Rather than asking how many people a given area can support, ecological footprint analysis asks how much area is needed to support a specific population (Rees 1992). Specifically it estimates the area of biologically productive land and water required to continuously support the material and energy consumption and waste assimilation demands of a given population at prevailing levels of technology, money income, and socio-cultural values (Wackernagel and Rees 1996).  EFA orients the city within its global context by accounting for its ecological load, meaning the productive land required to support its biological and industrial metabolism ?wherever on Earth that land is located? (Wackernagel and Rees 1996, 11). It therefor addresses not only the life processes of urban residents but also the technological, physical and mechanical demands of 31  modern lifestyles (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). This enables the ecological footprint to be applied to anything that consumes energy and materials ? including cities, their buildings and infrastructure, and/or the urban populations that reside within them (Wackernagel et al. 2006).  Eco-footprint estimates can be made at any scale from individuals to entire populations. Sub-populations can be analyzed, providing potentially important information about how urban built form, income, and lifestyle choices interact to affect consumption patterns and ecological load in different parts of a city (Lenzen et al. 2004; Holden, 2004). Similarly differing consumption patterns and ecological loads can be compared across cities or countries or used to inform equity issues when the footprint is assessed against the ?fair Earthshare,? the amount of bio-productive capacity available on a global per capita basis (Wackernagel and Rees 1996, 54). This last point is important in light of uneven global development patterns. ?In the Third World, ? cities are faced with unacceptably low levels of quality of life to the extent that even human health is at stake? (Finco and Nijkamp 2001, 290). Most people in these cities have an ecological footprint of less than two global hectares per capita while people in the developed world, particularly Europe and North America, have a per capita ecological footprint that is more than twice this amount (WWF 2008). Ecological footprint analysis and the fair Earthshare concept have the potential to inform urban policy pertaining to i) global social equity in terms of increasing access to resources by those who are otherwise marginalized, and ii) global ecosystem integrity in terms of reducing demand for nature?s services by those who consume a disproportionate share to levels that could be considered ecologically sustainable. The emphasis on municipal government and its influence 32  on the city?s role in the global context may seem far-fetched because municipal jurisdiction is confined to issues of local concern. However, as demonstrated above, urban form can influence both consumption patterns and urban management practices, particularly those related to demand side management that affect people?s lifestyle choices. Indeed, the ecological footprint was conceived as a tool to inform the sustainable development of cities, or more precisely as a ?tool to help us plan for sustainability ? (that) addresses such global concerns as ecological deterioration and material inequity? (Wackernagel and Rees 1996, 28).  The original ecological footprint method relied on national data to assess consumption defined as domestic production plus imports, minus exports (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). This approach is referred to as the ?compound? method (Chambers, Simmons and Wackernagel 2004, 67; Barrett et al. 2002, 24). If relevant local data are available, a more detailed city-level analysis of urban metabolism can be undertaken combining material flows analysis, lifecycle assessment, and input-output analysis (Kennedy et al. 2011; Barrett et al. 2002). This approach is referred to as the ?component method? because it better reveals the contribution of different components that contribute to a city?s ecological footprint (Chambers, Simmons and Wackernagel 2004, 68; Barrett et al. 2002, 24). Examples of components include: energy, shelter, food, transportation, goods and services (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). Component EFA has been adapted over time to address: household, infrastructure, commercial and public service sectors (Barrett et al 2002), as well as water, materials and wastes (Chambers, Simmons and Wackernagel 2004). In all cases and for all methods, the ecological footprint expresses human demands on nature?s services in terms of the corresponding area of ecologically productive cropland, pasture land, fish area, forest land, energy land, and built area (Chambers, 33  Simmons and Wackernagel  2004; Barrett et al. 2002; Wackernagel 1998; Wackernagel and Rees 1996). These estimates are then converted to global hectares (gha). The term ?global hectare? refers to the average biological productivity of the world?s land and water area (Ewing et al. 2009, 8). Because ecological footprint estimates and available biocapacity are both measured in global hectares, the ecological footprint allows a comparison between the supply and demand for nature?s services (Ewing et al. 2009). This enables assessment relative to biocapacity thresholds for a variety of ecosystem types, thereby expanding the scope of analysis beyond that which can be measured by a carbon footprint, for example, with its singular focus on carbon sink capacity. The use of locally derived data in the component method for ecological footprint analysis is preferred for urban policy purposes (A. Fournier, personal communication, November 27, 2009; Seyfang 2009; Aall and Norland 2005; Barrett et al. 2002). According to Barrett et al. (2002) this component method was first documented by Simons and Chambers (1998). The component method supports claims by Rees and Wackernagel (1996, 231) that ?unlike ordinary measures of total resource use, ecological footprint analysis provides secondary indices that can be used as policy targets.? However, in practice a hybrid approach that relies on local consumption data to the extent that it is available is combined with national statistical data to derive the footprint (Aall and Norland, 2005). The challenge to secure relevant data for sub-national EFA, particularly at the municipal scale continues (Xu and San Martin 2010; Wilson and Grant 2009). EFA is criticized in the literature for its limited scope (Weidman and Barrett 2010; Fiala 2008; Mcmanus and Haughton 2006; Aall and Norland 2005; Nijkamp et al. 2004; van Kooten and 34  Bulte 2000; Van den Bergh and Verbruggen 1999). Other criticisms rest primarily on issues pertaining to: aggregation of data and boundary definition of the study area (Weidman and Barrett 2010; Fiala 2008; McManus and Haughton 2006; van Kooten and Bulte 2000; Van den Bergh and Verbruggen 1999); a singular focus on land as a unit of measure and the exclusivity of land uses (Fiala 2008; Mcmanus and Haughton 2006; Yencken and Wilkinson 2000); singular focus on greenhouse gas emissions (Fiala 2008) or more precisely carbon dioxide emissions (Nijkamp et al. 2004; Ayers 2000; Van den Bergh and Verbruggen 1999) to express waste; lack of transparency and available data (Wilson and Grant 2009; Aall and Norland 2005); inconsistency of method (Curry et al. 2011); and lack of capacity by local government to undertake EFA analysis (Curry et al. 2011; Wilson and Grant 2009; Aall and Norland 2005). This last criticism is linked to use of input-output analysis (Wilson and Grant 2009).13 However, many of these arguments have been refuted (Kissinger 2008; Rees 2006a; 2000b; Barrette et al. 2005), and the positive attributes of the ecological footprint have secured local government interest in EFA and its potential use as a policy tool (Weidmann et al. 2006; Collins and Flynn 2006; Aall and Norland 2005). Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that the ecological footprint is an index of demand for biophysical goods and services and not a comprehensive indicator of human-induced environmental impacts including pollution, geological excavation, disruptions in hydrological flows, etc. In other words the ecological footprint does not assess all of humanity?s demands on nature and as such provides only a single, albeit important, lens through which to assess ecological unsustainability.                                                           13 An additional criticism laid at input-output analysis deals with the issue of proportionality because dollars are assumed to be a reliable proxy for physical flows (Levett 1998). 35  1.7.4 One-Planet Living The concept of one-planet living adopts the fair Earthshare target, of 1.8 global hectares per capita, and relies on the ecological footprint as its primary metric (James and Desai 2003).14 Sustainable urban development approaches including: bioregionalism, circular metabolism, compact cities and eco-villages inform a vision for one-planet living that comprises a series of small, interconnected, high-density, mixed-use, pedestrian oriented communities that are well served by transit, produce their own heat and power locally without relying on fossil fuels, keep waste to a minimum, and are surrounded by space for: recreation, wildlife habitat, and growing food (James and Desai 2003; Desai and Riddlestone 2002). Each community is oriented around a transportation interchange and envisioned as ?a distinct element within the unified whole? of the city (James and Desai 2003, 17).  The vision is similar to what is proposed in the sustainable urban development literature generally (Downton 2009; Newman and Jennings 2008; Register 2006; Jenks and Dempsey 2005; Viljoen 2005; Roseland 1997; Girardet 1996) and what is informed by complex systems theory specifically (Rees 2012; Batty 2005; Odum and Odum 2001). With regard to the sustainable urban development literature, these visions, in-turn, originate from the works of: Ebenezer Howard?s Garden Cities of To-morrow (c. 1898); Patrick Geddes (c. 1915) Cities in Evolution, and Lewis Mumford?s body of work (c. 1930-60) that advocate for the re?integration of country-urban linkages, a whole systems perspective, fostering of human ecology and an orientation to the bioregion (Register 2006; Wheeler 2004; Haughton and Hunter 1994; Aberley 1994). Indeed, Mumford?s articulation of an ideal city (as reported by Wheeler 2004)                                                           14 Estimates vary. For example Rees (1995) cites a value of 1.5 gha/ca whereas Desai and Riddlestone (2002) cite a value of 1.9 gha/ca. More recently, projected targets for the year 2020 of 1.2 gha/ca and 1 tCO2/ca have also been articulated (BioRegional 2011). 36  maps almost precisely to that articulated in a vision for one-planet living as ?an organic community, designed on a human scale, oriented towards human needs, fueled by a life-enhancing economy, surrounded by undeveloped lands, and with streets filled with people instead of automobiles? (Wheeler, 2004, 21). The thread of these early visions can be traced through a lineage of subsequent writers including: Howard Odum (American Regionalism, c. 1938), Kevin Lynch (Good City Form, c. 1981), Christopher Alexandre et al. (A Pattern Language, c. 1977), Ian McHarg (Design with Nature, c. 1969) among others (Haughton and Hunter 1994; Aberley 1994). Aberley (1994) also cites Aldo Leopold and Ludwig von Bertalanffy as thinkers that influenced Geddes and Mumford. Therefore, although one-planet living may not add anything new conceptually to a vision for urban sustainability, it does make explicit a link between vision and performance assessment using EFA and the notion of a fair Earthshare. BioRegional has developed the following ten guiding principles:15 i) Zero Carbon ? build energy efficient buildings with 100% renewable energy. ii) Zero Waste ? reduce, reuse, recycle/compost, and send zero waste to landfill. iii) Sustainable Transportation ? reduce emissions and the need to travel. iv) Sustainable Materials ? source locally, renewable, low-embodied energy products. v) Sustainable Food ? choose seasonal, organic, locally produced with low-impact. vi) Sustainable Water ? use and re-use efficiently with attention to floods and pollution. vii) Land Use and Wildlife ? protect and restore biodiversity and natural habitats. viii) Culture and Heritage ? strengthen local identity and participation in the arts. ix) Equity and Local Economy ? support fair trade and employment in the bioregion.                                                           15 Adapted from www.oneplanetliving.org 37  x) Health and Happiness - facilitate happy and meaningful lives, health and wellbeing. Again, these principles generally echo those identified in the sustainable urban development literature (Wheeler and Beatley 2009; Newman and Jennings 2008; Register 2006; Jenks and Dempsey 2005; Newman and Kenworthy 1999). Initiatives under the one-planet living banner include: BedZed (Beddington Zero Energy Development), a brownfield redevelopment site near London, and the restructuring of Brighton, an existing community also near London (www.oneplanetliving.org). Several other initiatives are promoted by BioRegional as one-planet living communities including: Sutton and Manchester in the UK; Masdar in the United Arab Emirates, Jinshan in China, and Sonoma Mountain Village in the USA (www.bioregional.com). A similarly inspired approach called SuN Living is also being tested in Emerald Hills, Alberta (Mayhew and Campbell 2008). Whether any of these communities can achieve the one-planet living goal remains to be seen. One-planet living provides a framework for sustainable urban development that serves both as a call to action and as a means for monitoring progress using EFA. The benefit is two-fold. First, the fair Earthshare target sets a limit to personal demand for ecological goods and services. By adopting the fair Earthshare target, the concept of one-planet living communicates the parameters or ?window of vitality? for personal consumption and establishes a benchmark against which progress can be measured. This creates a context in which feedback can occur. People and cities can assess their ecological footprint relative to the fair Earthshare target, and by continually assessing their footprint they can determine their progress and adjust behaviour accordingly. They are informed and can choose to act in communion with positive agency. 38  Second, by using a metric that is scalable, the target for one-planet living links agents (i.e. people) to the emergent structures (e.g. cities) and behaviours (e.g. trade) of the urban system of which they are part. In this way one-planet living informs the emergence of a one-planet city.  39  2 Introducing Vancouver as the Case for Analysis This research comprises an exploratory case study (Yin 2005) that uses ecological footprint analysis (Wackernagel and Rees 1996) to inform policy directed at enabling one-planet living. I focus on municipal government because it has authority for land-use planning decisions and several factors lend support to a focus on the City of Vancouver specifically. By contrast, the regional metropolitan government of which Vancouver is part oversees delivery of utility services and management of unincorporated16 lands but does not have direct land use planning authority. As noted in chapter 1, Vancouver is held up in the urban planning and urban sustainability literature as an example of a sustainable city (Wheeler and Beatley 2009, 429; Register 2006, 131; Wheeler 2004, 120) despite exceeding per capita ecological carrying capacity (Rees 2009, 2010; Boyd 2009; Sheltair 2008; Wilson and Anielski 2005). This contradiction demands further investigation, especially since the ecological footprint was invented at the University of British Columbia?s Vancouver campus. The City of Vancouver has strong discretionary planning powers thanks to the Vancouver Charter (see details below). More recently, Vancouver has put the sustainability spotlight on itself stating an intent to become the world?s ?Greenest City? which includes in initiative aimed at achieving one-planet living (COV 2011a). These factors position the City favourably in terms of a unique ability to implement policies aimed at one-planet living.                                                            16 Unincorporated lands are rural areas that are not part of a municipality. In southwester BC, these lands tend to be forested areas such as watersheds and small islands; agricultural land generally falls within municipal jurisdiction. 40  2.1 Introduction to the Case Study The City of Vancouver, defined by its municipal boundaries and legal powers granted by the Province of British Columbia through the Vancouver Charter, comprises an area of 11,467 hectares (Metro Vancouver 2006a). The population at the time of the 2006 census was 578,041 (Statistics Canada 2006a). Although Vancouver?s population has grown since then, the research uses 2006 as the base year for analysis because this was the most recent census data available at the time of the study, and therefore, most of the data required to undertake the research was available for this year.  In 2006, Vancouver had an average density of 50 people per hectare, making it the most densely populated municipality among the 21 municipalities that comprised Metro Vancouver (Statistics Canada 2011). Vancouver is also Canada?s most densely populated city (Statistics Canada 2011). Multi-family apartment dwelling constituted 59% of total housing, followed by ground-oriented, attached dwellings (22%) and single detached dwellings (20%) (Metro Vancouver 2007a). Surprisingly, however, over one-third of Vancouver?s land area was dedicated to single family detached and duplex housing (37%) and almost another third was used for roads, including communication, utility and lane right-of ways (27%). The remaining land area comprised: multi-family residential and mixed use housing (9%), commercial and institutional (8%), industrial and port lands (4%), agricultural land (1%), and recreational, open space and natural areas (14%) (Metro Vancouver 2006a). Vancouver?s history follows the evolutionary trajectory of cities through their development phases of industrial, post-industrial, and post-modern, from cities as sites of production to cities as sites of consumption (Ley 1996). Founded in 1886, Vancouver served as an industrial port for 41  the processing and shipping of BC?s natural resources and as a terminus of the Canadian Pacific Rail line that united Canada (Berelowitz 2005; Punter 2003). Although Vancouver never reached a fully developed industrial capacity (Hutton 2008, 2004; Ley 1996), during the 1950s, the City was the headquarters for several resource-based companies (Punter 2003). However, by the 1980s Vancouver had transitioned to a post-industrial city (Punter 2003). Today, though the port still serves an important function, Vancouver?s economy is also driven by tourism and film (Punter 2003). Vancouver?s evolution has resulted in an urban economy that largely relies on small and medium sized enterprises specializing in consumer goods and services (Hutton 2008; Ley 1996). Seventy percent of the businesses in Vancouver employ fewer than ten people (VEC 2011). These businesses are diverse comprising one third office workers, one third retail and hospitality, and the remaining distributed predominantly between manufacturing and health care, followed by construction, creative services, and transportation (VEC 2011).  2.1.1 Vancouver the Sustainable City Through the 1990s and 2000s Vancouver gained an international reputation as one of the world?s most livable and sustainable cities (Wheeler and Beatley 2009; Register 2006; Beatley 2004; Berelowitz 2005; Punter 2003). The genesis for this distinction tracks to the granting of the Vancouver Charter by the Province of British Columbia in 1953. The Vancouver Charter is a unique piece of legislation that singularly allows the City of Vancouver to exercise far greater authority over its domain than is enjoyed by other municipalities in BC. Through the Vancouver Charter, the City has introduced discretionary zoning, development controls over height and views, development cost levies and amenity cost-charges, heritage conservation and transfer of 42  development rights. These tools enable the City to respond innovatively to changing circumstances and needs (Punter 2003).  Shortly after the adoption of the Vancouver Charter in 1956, City council introduced new zoning to allow high density development in the West End of Vancouver?s downtown peninsula and also in the Kitsilano neighbourhood. The population in the West End doubled between 1950 and 1980, stimulated by demand for housing in close proximity to the central business district (Punter 2003). Despite the increase in population density, however, the size of living units also increased. High-rise residential development offering larger suites and balconies replaced the smaller unit, three story low-rise buildings that had stood before (Punter 2003). Furthermore, the manifestation of high-density directly adjacent to one of the largest urban parks, Stanley Park, with close proximity to nature including the ocean and nearby mountains served to attract residents (Boddy 1994 in Punter 2003) and bolster the City?s livability (Register 2006). Thus, the City?s distinguishing feature: its ability to combine high-density with high amenity living (Punter 2003) was born along with its endemic challenge to maintain social inclusion through protection of affordable housing choices. Paralleling Vancouver?s rise to fame as a livable city is the story of Vancouver?s emerging social and environmental activism. The Non-Partisan Association (NPA) ruled City council for 30 years (starting in the 1940s), and through the 1950s and 1960s City planning was driven by Council working directly with development interests and planning staff without input from other citizens (Punter 2003; Harcourt et al. 2007). Indeed, even the high density development of the West End was initiated by the business community who wanted to bring shoppers closer to the 43  central business district (Punter 2003). However, in 1968, Vancouver residents from the Strathcona neighbourhood successfully confronted the City?s plans to demolish homes and build a freeway through downtown (Harcourt et al. 2007). Then, in 1972, ?The Electoral Action Movement (TEAM)? wrested control of City council from the NPA (Hutton 2004; Punter 2003; Harcourt et al. 2007). TEAM ushered in a new and more democratic approach to land use planning, advocated by Alderman Walter Hardwick. Hardwick, a Geography Professor at the University of British Columbia (UBC,) promoted a vision for the City as a ?livable city through good planning practice? (Punter 2003, 26). TEAM hired a new Director of Planning, Ray Spaxman, who oversaw the reorganization of the planning process through reforms to permit processing and refined uses of discretionary zoning, the introduction of new design goals and guidelines, and activation of Official Development Plans (ODPs) to guide development (Punter 2003).  The first ODP to be developed, in 1974, was for False Creek South. The ?brainchild? of Hardwick and his students who developed a concept for the project in 1965 (Punter 2003, 34), False Creek South is arguably Vancouver?s first living laboratory of sustainability. The redeveloped industrial lands follow design principles informed by the work of McHarg (Design with Nature, 1969), Lynch (Image of the City, 1960), and Jacobs (The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961) among others and feature (Punter 2003, 37-9):  ? Social mix of incomes and variety of tenures, including retention of some land ownership by the City; ? Compact, clustered, ground-oriented housing designed to promote social interaction; 44  ? Range of dwelling types from townhomes to multi-unit and multi-storied buildings; ? Terraced and landscaped roofs and balconies, complemented by landscaped private and semi-private ?outdoor rooms;?  ? Protection of solar axis and maximum daylight penetration in suites;  ? Articulation of views to both the community, e.g. eyes on the street, and farther reaching vistas; ? Preservation of adaptability through a hierarchy of open space that gives primacy to large public open spaces linked by pedestrian pathways to semi-private and private yards. With 47% of the land dedicated to park and 40% dedicated to housing, False Creek South demonstrates strategic use of density to maximize open space (Punter 2003). At build-out, in 1981, densities ranged from 35-65 units per hectare (Punter 2003).  The second ODP to be put forward in 1975 was for the downtown central area. It called for ?lively, safe, attractive? streets and public amenities balanced with well-designed private residences (Punter 2003, 73). The formula for a compact, mixed-use, urban centre was born. The economic downturn in 1982 lent further support to the plan through a reduced demand for commercial space that triggered planners to reappraise their forecasts for business? requirements in the downtown central business district (Punter 2003). In 1986, the Expo86 world?s fair was held in Vancouver resulting in senior government infrastructure investments and an international marketing opportunity for the City (Murray and Hutton 2012; Punter 2003). Punter (2003) perceives Expo 86 as the catalyst that began a long trend of marketing Vancouver real estate directly over seas that persisted through the 1990s and 2000s with 45  development of mega projects in Coal Harbour and False Creek North, among others. Indeed, by the late 1980s, an obsession with views coupled with an influx of Asian immigration and foreign direct investment in real estate that drove demand for condominium development at premium prices created a strong stimulus for residential development in the downtown (Murray and Hutton 2012; Berelowitz 2005; Punter 2003). These factors: an ODP that enabled residential development in the central business district coupled with strong demand for urban real estate from Asian markets further entrenched one of Vancouver?s most interesting paradoxes. On the one hand, Vancouver achieved the highly compact and mixed-use urban form that characterizes the City?s downtown peninsula and proliferation of high-rise development around False Creek. On the other hand, during this same period Vancouver lost half of its affordable housing in the downtown as lower income properties were replaced by premium, high-density and high amenity residences that were marketed directly to more affluent, overseas buyers (Punter 2003). Trading livability for affordability remained one of Vancouver?s most challenging predicaments. A second challenge was managing the tension between a desire to engage citizens in planning their city and a desire by Council and planning staff to appease developer?s seeking high returns on their investments. By 1986, the NPA had regained control of Council and efforts were underway to curtail the extensive public engagement processes and relative autonomy in discretionary powers enjoyed by the planning department under TEAM (Punter 2003). Following these changes, in 1989, Ray Spaxman resigned as Director of Planning (Punter 2003). By 1990, Larry Beasley was the Associate Director of Planning for the Central Area and Ann McAfee was the Associate Director for General Planning; they eventually became the co-46  directors of Vancouver?s Planning Department in 1994. Also in 1990, City Council unanimously adopted the Clouds of Change Report (COV 1990) marking the City?s first official commitment to climate action. The Report was prepared by a specially designated citizen?s Task Group on Atmospheric Change that was co-chaired by Professor William Rees, from UBC?s School of Community and Regional Planning, and Professor Robert Woollard, Dean of Family Practice, in the Faculty of Medicine at UBC. The report called for 35 recommendations that covered energy-efficient land use and energy conservation measures including: prioritization for transit, cycling and walking; energy efficient buildings; and the re-instatement of the City?s Special Office of the Environment (SOE) (COV 1990). Dominic Losito, the City?s Environmental Health Manager assumed SOE leadership with participation from various municipal departments including engineering and building permits. The SOE was charged with monitoring and reporting on implementation progress of the Clouds of Change Report?s recommendations (Moore 1994). The Report called for a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions below 1988 levels to be achieved by 2005. Furthermore, all major development projects undergoing rezoning required an official comment to Council by the SOE about anticipated impacts towards achieving the report?s objectives (COV 1990).  In 1991, City council adopted the Central Area Plan (Murray and Hutton 2012; Hutton 2004). It created a more compact business district, allowing deeper penetration of residential and mixed land uses within the downtown peninsula. Close proximity of jobs and housing allowed for a ?New Economy? in the inner city to take shape (Hutton 2004, 1955). These planning efforts played a decisive role in shaping the trajectory of Vancouver?s subsequent development (Murray and Hutton 2012; Hutton 2004). Also in 1991, Vancouver council launched the CityPlan 47  process to engage a wide spectrum of people from across the City to think about the future of their neighbourhoods and articulate a vision for the City. The final outcome, presented in 1995, was a vision for a ?city of neighbourhood centres? (Punter 2003, 162). It featured improved community safety and services, reduced need to travel by car, variety and affordability of housing, diversity of parks and public places, and greater participation by citizens in decision-making (Punter 2003; COV 2011b). The outcomes of CityPlan appear to embrace sustainable development (Punter 2003); however, I argue that this reading masks many residents? desire to retain a suburban lifestyle. Through the CityPlan process, residents also articulated their preference to retain the single family character of neighbourhoods from Dunbar in the west to Cedar Cottage in the east (Punter 2003). ?Concentrating development in neighbourhood centres would have less impact on existing low-density neighbourhoods? (Punter 2003, 165). And, although secondary suites were supported, infill housing was not. The bias towards a ?low density, green village character with limited development? prevailed (Punter 2003, 170).   Nevertheless, in contrast to the polite NIMBYism17 evident through CityPlan, a palpable activism was brewing in the City, aimed at advancing social equity and ecological integrity. In 1994, environmental and social activists held the ?Greening Our Cities? conference in Vancouver that culminated with a pledge by participants to work towards the sustainable development of the City and its region (Carr 2004, 221). This marked the birth of Vancouver?s Eco-city Network that was launched the same year to enable non-government organizations and grass roots interests to advance a sustainability agenda (Carr 2004; Moore 1997). The Network served as a forum for activists to collaborate towards the achievement of                                                           17 NIMBY is an acronym for Not in My Back Yard. 48  sustainability within their communities, including spurring on the implementation of the recommendations in the Clouds of Change Report. Participants in the Network came from a wide background of community organizers, non-government organizations, academics, municipal elected officials and staff. Many participants had also participated in developing the Clouds of Change Report or were participating in assessing its ongoing implementation.18 One of the initiatives called for in the Clouds of Change Report was the re-development of the industrial zoned Southeast False Creek lands as a model sustainable community (Sussmann 2012; Punter 2003; Moore 1994; COV 1990). In 1994, City Council asked the SOE to explore with the City?s Real Estate Division the potential for sustainable development of Southeast False Creek (Punter 2003). This initiative was also subsequently targeted for action by the Eco-city Network who in collaboration with a range of community organizations and neighbourhood associations formed the Southeast False Creek Working Group to advocate for a community-oriented development that pushed the limits of green performance (Sussmann 2012; Carr 2004; Moore 1997). In 1996, the City Manager?s Office, again in collaboration with the Real Estate Division, commissioned a study of the Southeast False Creek lands following the model used to develop North False Creek and Coal Harbour, aimed at generating maximum revenues (Sussmann 2012; Punter 2003). It was the activism of the Southeast False Creek Working Group that ?convinced council that sustainability was something worth pursuing? (Punter 2003, 230). This observation draws attention to the role of social and environmental activism in the City as an important driver in Vancouver?s sustainability leadership (Sussmann 2012; Carr 2004). Yet,                                                           18 I am included in this group and I served as a founding member and coordinator of the Eco-city Network. 49  residents are not unified. The outcomes of CityPlan reveal a fragmented citizenry, some favouring traditional suburban development and some who want a more sustainable approach.  In 1997, the City struck the Southeast False Creek Advisory Group, including subject matter experts,19 land owners, residents from neighbouring South False Creek, and representatives from the Southeast False Creek Working Group to develop a policy to guide the model sustainable community development (Sussmann 2012). The Southeast False Creek Policy Statement was delivered to council and unanimously adopted in 1999 (Punter 2003). However, many of the environmental performance targets that the Advisory Group recommended were stripped from the actual document and supplied in an appendix to the report instead (Sussmann 2012; Punter 2003).  This action was taken to appease concerns that the targets being put forward were unachievable, or uneconomic (Sussmann 2012). To this, the Advisory Group responded with a request that their role be transitioned, subsequent to the adoption of the Policy Statement, to become a ?Stewardship Group? that would serve in both a watch-dog capacity to ensure that the intention of the policy be upheld through the ODP phase, as well as to help orient new residents to sustainability upon occupancy.  This move is lauded in the literature for its innovative foresight (Punter 2003).  In 2004, the City launched the Sustainability Office, replacing the SOE (Lee 2010). The Sustainability Office reports to the City Manager?s Office and includes the climate action portfolio along with green buildings and a range of other initiatives. Staff serves as a resource to the various departments in City Hall. In 2006, under an NPA council led by Mayor Sam                                                           19 I was a member of the Southeast False Creek Advisory Group, serving in the capacity of energy specialist. John Irwin was the representative from the South East False Creek Working Group. 50  Sullivan, Brent Toderian was hired as the new Director of Planning, following the retirement of Beasley and McAfee. Toderian?s selection was supported by Beasley who mentored Toderian as a young planner working in Calgary. Immediately, Toderian set to work developing an ?EcoDensity" charter. EcoDensity was passionately supported by Mayor Sullivan, who participated in the Eco-City Network as a City of Vancouver councillor (Carr 2004) prior to his tenure as Mayor. He coined the term EcoDensity, and the EcoDensity Charter was unanimously approved by council in 2008. The EcoDensity Charter (COV 2011b) commits the City to prioritize environmental sustainability in its planning decisions while retaining values of livability and affordability. It builds on the vision put forward through CityPlan and climate action leadership initiated through The Clouds of Change Report, and focuses on adapting the City and ways of life of its residents with the aim of achieving a ?more sustainable, affordable and livable? future (COV 2011b). The EcoDensity Charter (COV 2011b, 4) proposes that the City move toward becoming an ?Eco-city? and references similar objectives to those articulated in the sustainability literature for: ?? green energy and waste systems, affordable housing for all, ? urban agriculture and local food access?? It also proposes infill and laneway housing (COV 2011b, 4); something that residents said they did not support through the CityPlan process. Finally, while the EcoDensity Charter mentions the ecological footprint it does not specifically call for its use as a metric to assess progress towards achieving ecological sustainability (COV 2011b).   In 2009, however, a council dominated by the newly minted Vision Vancouver party, led by Mayor Robertson, adopted a new initiative aimed at making Vancouver the Greenest City. Vancouver 2020: A Bright Green Future (Boyd 2009) is the title of the ten point action plan 51  proposal developed by a Mayoral appointed Greenest City Action Team.  The initiative aims to enable Vancouverites to achieve a ?one planet ecological footprint? (Boyd 2009, 14) by focusing on developing a green economy, green communities, and protecting human health. The Greenest City 2020 Action Plan articulates how the City will implement these points and was officially adopted by council in July 2011 (COV 2011a). 2.1.2 Vancouver the Consumer City A strong planning regime based on political consensus about the importance of the City?s livability, environmental quality, and participatory planning are frequently cited as merits worthy of Vancouver?s sustainable city label (Punter 2003). The City has achieved the lowest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in North America and is a leader in building construction (Boyd 2009). However, contrasting the story of Vancouver as a sustainable city is its evolution as a consumer city. Vancouver?s sustainability is contested in the literature on the grounds of its consumerist orientation to lifestyle (Berelowitz 2005; Punter 2003; Ley 1996) that results in the use of natural resources above ecological carrying capacity (Rees 2009; Berelowitz 2005; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). Berelowitz (2005, 25) goes so far as to observe that: ?Vancouverites tend to over-idealize their place in the world as a natural paradise and to underestimate their impact on it.? He remarks further that: ?Vancouver?s apparently happy co-existence with its natural environment is far more ambiguous than it would have the world (or itself) believe? (Berelowitz 2005, 37). Vancouver is also home to extreme economic polarization including some of the wealthiest and the poorest postal codes in Canada (Murray and Hutton 2012). 52  Indeed, the City of Vancouver has the characteristics of what is described in the literature as a ?consumer city.? In contemporary analysis, consumer cities emerge from the post-modernism era with its effects of gentrification, spatial fragmentation and social-polarization (Ruppert 2006; Ley 1996). The successive emergence of the consumer city as a post- modern phenomenon can be traced to the role of ?consumption as a major engine of urban social change? that includes issues of urban redevelopment and lifestyles (Ruppert, 2006, 89). Consumer cities reflect the increasing wealth of citizens who can vote with their feet and move to preferred locations, regardless of work or other socio-economic obligations. Attributes of consumer cities generally include: a mild and sunny climate and proximity to the coast; high levels of human capital including education and income; and reverse commuting, where citizens who live in the central business district commute to suburbs (Glaeser et al. 2001) or other countries.  ?Selected efforts to attract mega-events by its community leaders? (Murray and Hutton 2012, 314) contributed to Vancouver?s emerging cultural tourism economy. When coupled with the City?s bio-physical attributes this economic trajectory strengthens Vancouver?s characterization as a consumer city and reflects its mature development as a post-modern, transnational city (Hutton, 2008). The migration of economic activity from Vancouver proper to the suburbs and the introduction of regional town centres, followed by additional layering-in of neighbourhood centres (Murray and Hutton 2012; Hutton, 2008) marks the transition of Vancouver, and the metropolitan region in which it is situated, to a postmodern expression of development. Vancouver?s transition to a consumer city is further revealed by a continued fracturing of land-use driven by land economics that favour commercial development in low-density suburban 53  areas (i.e., commercial parks) and residential development in high-density urban centres that can command a premium. Even the desire on the part of the City?s officials (i.e., council and staff) to turn Vancouver into the world?s greenest city represents an expression of ?green consumerism.? It is belied by the hopes that economic activity can be generated through: a) tourism, based on people visiting the City to learn about how it achieved sustainability, and b) export of technology and consulting services to help people in other cities achieve sustainability following Vancouver?s model (Boyd 2009). This characterization of cultural economy, with an emphasis on tourism, can also be seen as a reflection of the emergence of the consumer city (Hutton, 2008). 2.1.3 A Tale of Two Cities? City officials? desire for Vancouver to become sustainable may be one of the City?s most ?sustainable? attributes. Fainstein et al. (1983, 1) observe that cities are constantly being reproduced through a ?complex interaction of private and public decisions? where socio-economic conditions represent fast cycles of change and physical conditions represent slow cycles. Thus, while the aspirations of Vancouverites are significant to the future direction of the City?s evolution, its legacy of physical infrastructure, i.e. the built environment, represents a challenge to the City?s ability to effect change in the near term. Nevertheless, Frey (1999) positions the task of urban planning to enhance the city?s advantages and reduce or eliminate its disadvantages. This includes a focus on social engagement of the citizenry in sustainability coupled with near-term initiatives to leverage aspects of the built environment that enable citizens to choose more sustainable lifestyles, while simultaneously removing barriers and directing long-term plans towards a sustainable urban form.  54  Certainly the City of Vancouver can point to evidence of sustainability as a value in its municipal planning and management efforts. Examples include its leadership to address climate change, commencing with the adoption of the 1990 Clouds of Change Report; densification of the downtown through adoption of the Central Area Plan in 1991; efforts to develop Southeast False Creek as a model sustainable community (1997-2010); formation of a ?Sustainability Office? (c. 2004); adoption of the EcoDensity Charter subsequently rebranded as an ?EcoCity? charter (2006-2008);20 articulation of its aspiration to become the world?s greenest city (2009-2011); and hosting of the 2010 Winter Olympics predicated on delivering a ?sustainable games.? In this regard, the urban regime that sets the context for local governance appears supportive of sustainability, reflecting Wheeler?s (2009) prediction of an emerging ecological worldview as the next era to super-cede post-modernism. The ecological worldview is influenced by ?(e)cological science; chaos theory; systems theory. ? (It e)mphasizes interrelationships, networks, systems? and ?(a)cknowledges pluralism but also a shared core value set based on common problems? (Wheeler, 2004, 30). However, juxtaposed with the desire to become the world?s greenest city is the fact that Vancouver comprises a diverse community with diverging interests. For example, a growing majority (52%) of the City?s residents are immigrants, most of whom (25%) hail from Chinese origin (Punter 2003). The cultural beliefs and values of this group will undoubtedly play a strong role in the unfolding path that the City takes. Indeed, whereas Punter (2003) observes that Asian immigration in the 1980s drove the condominium market, assisting Vancouver to achieve                                                           20 A December 2010 Planning By-Law Administration Bulletin entitled EcoCity Polices for Rezoning of Large Sites issued by the City of Vancouver Director of Planning notes that henceforth the EcoDensity Charter would be referred to as the EcoCity Revised Charter.  55  a super-compact central area, today Ley (2010) notes that Asian immigrants show a decided preference for the single-family detached homes typical of the more sprawling neighbourhoods within the City, e.g., Dunbar, Shaughnessy and Kerrisdale.  Structural formation of the city is stimulated by global economic processes, and it is also influenced by local urban policies and management strategies (Hutton; 2009). The latter are, in turn, determined by socio-political values and cultural norms (Hutton, 2008). Therefore, global and local drivers of change exist in iterative tension, each acting on the other in a dialectical production and reproduction of urban form and culture (Hutton 2004). How Vancouver: its elected officials, public servants, residents and business owners navigate this tension may be the most important factor in determining the City?s sustainability outcomes.  2.2 Vancouver?s Regional Context The City of Vancouver is situated at the western edge of Metro Vancouver?s Burrard Peninsula, located in the southwestern corner of the Province of British Columbia, on the west coast of Canada. The peninsula is bordered by the Fraser River to the south, the Strait of Georgia to the west, and Burrard Inlet to the North. To the east the land stretches up the Fraser Valley. Only Vancouver Island and the Pacific Ocean lie west of Vancouver. Surrounding Vancouver to the North, East and South is the metropolitan region, Metro Vancouver, that includes some of Canada?s most fertile agricultural land; the delta of one of Canada?s largest rivers: the Fraser River; forested mountains; and coastal shores with salmon, crab and smelt fisheries (Hutton 2011). A moderate climate supports commercial agriculture (Carr 2004), and deep sea ports both in Burrard Inlet and the mouth of the Fraser River allow for extensive shipping and industrial activities along the foreshore.  56  In 2006, the study year for this research, the region was home to 2,116, 581 people (Statistics Canada 2006b) spanning an area of 283,183 hectares (Metro Vancouver 2006a).21 Adjacent to Metro Vancouver is the Fraser Valley Regional District, which is predominantly rural comprising mostly agricultural farmland that is part of the Fraser River flood zone. In 2006, it was home to an additional 257,031 people and spanned an area of 133,617 hectares (Statistics Canada 2006c). Together, the lands within Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Regional District comprise the Lower Fraser Valley, representing that portion of the local bioregion that falls within Canada. This river delta and its watershed comprise part of the larger Fraser Basin drainage area. It is bordered to the northeast by the Coast Mountains and to the southeast by the Cascade Mountains. These mountain ranges converge at the far eastern point of the Fraser Valley giving the region its triangular shape. The mountains also form the bases for the regional air-shed. The valley fans out as one heads westward and is intersected to the south by the United States Border (Carr, 2004, 227).   Approximately sixty percent of Metro Vancouver?s land area is protected in the ?Green Zone? comprising: agricultural land (19%), watersheds (17%), natural and recreational areas (24%). An additional 9% is open or undeveloped land. Almost fifteen percent of the region?s land area comprises residential development of which: 3% is rural and 10% is urban or suburban single-detached and duplex housing, 1% is in townhouse development, and the remaining 1% is in multi-family and mixed use residential high-rise and low-rise development. Nine percent of the                                                           21 Population and land area include City of Vancouver. Statistics Canada (2006b) reports a slightly larger area (287,736 ha) which may include unincorporated lands adjacent to the region. 57  region?s land is devoted to industrial, commercial and institutional uses. Eight percent is used for roads and utility right-of ways (Metro Vancouver 2010).  Metro Vancouver comprises four legal entities that, in 2006, delivered regional utility and development services to twenty-one member municipalities, including the City of Vancouver. Although the phrase Metro Vancouver is currently used, the legal names of all four entities use ?Greater Vancouver? as follows. The Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation provides affordable housing to over ten thousand people (Metro Vancouver 2011a). The Greater Vancouver Regional District oversees the coordination of growth management in cooperation with its member municipalities, air quality protection, and management of multiple regional parks. The Greater Vancouver Water District oversees the watershed lands that surround three coastal mountain watersheds from which the metropolitan region, including the City of Vancouver, derives its drinking water supply. The Greater Vancouver Water District also operates three drinking water treatment facilities within the watershed and a man-made reservoir, Little Mountain, located within the City of Vancouver. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District operates five wastewater treatment facilities, of which one: the Iona wastewater treatment plant treats all of the City of Vancouver?s wastewater. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District also oversees solid waste management including operation of five waste transfer stations that collect and sort recycled materials and organize municipal solid waste to be transferred either to the Waste-to-Energy Facility, where waste is incinerated, or to landfill. There are two municipal solid waste landfills. One is operated by the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District and is called the Cache Creek Landfill, located outside the region some 500 kilometres away. The other, the Vancouver Landfill, is 58  owned by the City of Vancouver but is located in the Corporation of Delta, another member municipality comprising Metro Vancouver. The Waste-to-Energy Facility is a municipal solid waste incinerator located in Burnaby, a municipality within Metro Vancouver. It is also operated by the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District. It supplies some electricity back to the BC Hydro electrical grid as well as steam to nearby industries. Several privately owned demolition and land clearing landfills also operate throughout the region. In 2006, Metro Vancouver achieved a 52% waste diversion rate through its various recycling and product stewardship programs (Metro Vancouver 2006b). For the City of Vancouver, in terms of the solid waste it disposed in 2006: approximately 75% was disposed to the Vancouver Landfill, 7% was disposed to the Cache Creek Landfill, and 14% was disposed to the waste-to-energy facility (COV 2007a; Petre personal communication, July 27, 2010).  Regional transportation services are delivered through TransLink, legally known as the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. It functions as a sister agency to the Greater Vancouver Regional District and is obligated to coordinate its transportation planning services with the region?s growth management plans. TransLink oversees the operation of five subsidiary companies providing: i) bus and sea-bus service, ii) regional elevated light-rapid rail system known as SkyTrain, iii) commuter rail, iv) local car ferry, v) AirCare vehicle emissions testing facilities (GVTA 2002). A separate federal agency operates the Vancouver International Airport, located in the City of Richmond, located on the south border of the City of Vancouver.  Paralleling the City of Vancouver?s articulation of a livable city in the early 1970s, the Greater Vancouver Regional District produced its first vision, calling for The Livable Region, adopted in 59  1975 (Hutton 2011; Murray and Hutton 2012; Carr 2004; Punter 2003). It articulates a future comprising five regional centres, including downtown Vancouver, and an accompanying open space plan. In 1986, the notion that each municipality should be self-contained was added to the plan. In 1996, the Region adopted the Livable Region Strategic Plan premised on four strategies: to protect the green zone, to build a compact metropolitan region, to build complete communities, and to increase transportation choice by prioritizing pedestrian, cycling, transit, goods movement and lastly the motor vehicle (GVRD 1999). The Livable Region Strategic Plan is predicated on a concept of the metropolitan region situated within its larger bioregion comprising not only the Fraser Valley as described above, but the entire ?Georgia Basin and Puget Sound regions? (GVRD 1999, 5). This is an area that extends from Whistler to the North all the way to Olympia, Washington in the South. The Livable Region Strategic Plan relies on consensus agreement by all of its member municipalities and is deemed to be the regional growth management strategy by the Province of British Columbia (GVRD, 1999). The Livable Region Strategic Plan calls for updating every five years.   In 2002, Metro Vancouver introduced the ?Sustainable Region Initiative? that establishes a framework for the development of all new regional plans aligned with sustainability aspirations to protect natural capital assets and live within ecological carrying capacity, promote social justice through inclusive and collaborative governance, and support economic prosperity through efficient use of infrastructure and pricing mechanisms that account for ecological and social costs and equitable distribution of benefits (Metro Vancouver 2011b).22 The first regional                                                           22 In my role as Division Manager, Strategic Initiatives at Metro Vancouver I oversaw the development of this framework and the corresponding template for regional plans which was first applied in 2005 to the regions Drinking Water, Air Quality, and Regional Parks plans.  60  plans to be revised under this framework were adopted in 2005; however, it was not until 2011 that a revised growth management strategy (replacing the 1996 Livable Region Strategic Plan) was adopted.23 The new plan is called Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future (Metro Vancouver 2011c). The focus is on land use policy to guide regional development towards the achievement of five goals: i) create a compact urban area, ii) support a sustainable economy, iii) protect the environment and respond to climate change impacts, iv) develop complete communities, v) support sustainable transportation choices.                                                            23 This delay was primarily due to the challenges associated with reaching consensus among the member municipalities regarding the contents of the revised plan. 61  3 Methods This chapter describes the methods used to: a) develop Vancouver?s ecological footprint using the bottom-up component method, b) identify and explore policy interventions and changes to urban management practices that have the potential for reducing Vancouver?s ecological footprint to a level commensurate with a fair Earthshare, c) estimate the level of reduction in ecological footprint that could be achieved if the identified policy interventions and changes to urban management practices were implemented, and d) develop a vision of Vancouver as a one-planet city. My approach comprises seven steps:  i) develop lifestyle archetypes,  ii) estimate Vancouver?s ecological footprint,  iii) calculate Vancouver?s sustainability gap,  iv) identify policy interventions and changes to urban management practices,  v) develop baseline estimates for closing Vancouver?s sustainability gap, vi) analyze options, vii) develop policy proposals for what Vancouver might look like as a one-planet city. 3.1 Develop Lifestyle Archetypes The word ?lifestyle? means an approach to living, including moral attitudes (Stein 1984). A lifestyle can also be affected by the political, geo-physical, and socio-economic conditions in which a person finds themselves. The word ?archetype? means an original pattern, model, or prototype (Stein 1984). In this research, the two words combined describe patterns of living that can be used as prototypes.  62  I use the concept of ?lifestyle archetype? to explore various patterns of living articulated to a fair Earthshare of less than two global hectares per capita. This is commensurate with one-planet living. By correlating consumption and waste data for various cities to their ecological footprint data, I am able to establish a range of consumption benchmarks for: food, shelter, consumables and waste, transportation, and water. I then use these consumption benchmarks to develop a lifestyle archetype for one-planet, two-planet and three-plus-planet living (see table 3.1). Although I acknowledge that socio-cultural factors may have a tremendous impact on personal consumption, the method does not attempt to determine how socio-cultural factors affect consumption. This limitation helps manage the overall scope of the research.  Table 3.1 Lifestyle Archetypes According to Per Capita Ecological Footprint Values One-Planet Living Two-Planet Living Three-Plus-Planet Living < 2.0 gha/ca 2 to 4 gha/ca > 4.0 gha/ca  I begin with an analysis of literature for various cities around the world that document household and per capita consumption (WRI 2010; Menzel and Mann 1994; Menzel and D?Aluisio 2005; Holden 2004; Hoyer and Holden 2003; Lenzen, Dey and Foran 2004) and urban metabolism studies (Scotti et al. 2009; Sahely, Dudding and Kennedy 2003; Warren-Rhodes and Koenig 2001; Folke et al. 1997). I compare this to per capita ecological footprint assessments for the same cities (where possible) or the countries in which they are located (WWF 2010a; Scotti et al. 2009; Wilson and Anielski 2005; Hoyer and Holden 2003; Warren-Rhodes and Koenig 2001; Wackernagel 1998). I use the findings to build ?international profiles? of what one-planet, two-planet and three-plus-planet living looks like. Each profile includes a qualitative 63  description of personal and household consumption patterns coupled with quantitative data pertaining to both consumption and ecological footprint.   I then use the Global Footprint Network (2010) calculator to develop ?super green? lifestyle profiles. The term super green is used by GFN to depict the most sustainable choice in every set of questions presented in the calculator. The calculator uses nationally derived, i.e., compound method, ecological footprint data and a series of questions that allow the user to choose from a range of pre-determined answers to build hypothetical personal consumption profiles for various cities and countries around the world. I run through the questions, always choosing the super green option, for a sample of cities and countries that match those in the international profiles which were developed based on empirical research. I compare the characteristics of the super green scenarios to the findings in the international profiles in order to further probe the lifestyle characteristics associated with one-planet living.  Next, I analyze literature that documents consumption and ecological footprints of ?intentional communities? (Giratalla 2010; Hodge and Haltrech 2009; Tinsley and George 2006; Haraldsson, Ranhagen and Sverdrup 2001). An intentional community comprises a group of people, representing several households, who choose to live in a sustainable way. This includes choosing to live in a built environment that is designed to reduce their ecological footprint, e.g. an eco-village. In order to narrow the scope of the research, I focus on intentional communities located in countries that on-average have a per-capita ecological footprint equivalent to three-plus-planet living, i.e., similar to the ecological footprint of the case study city of Vancouver, 64  Canada. I compare the information on consumption patterns and ecological footprint to build profiles of what attempts to achieve one-planet living looks like in intentional communities.  Table 3.2 lists the cities and countries studied according to their respective lifestyle archetype groupings. The table also indicates the different types of data used. Since there are still relatively few urban metabolism studies that are combined with city-level ecological footprint studies, the sampling is determined by what I could find in the literature. Rees (2004) argues that in countries with urbanization levels of 80% or higher it is appropriate to use a national footprint to represent city-level ecological footprints. I have followed this guideline to expand the scope of the sample. For each archetype grouping, I analyze the household and per capita consumption data documented in field research and/or statistical data sources that describe the number of family members, personal possessions including: motor vehicles; housing type and square footage; consumables including: furniture, appliances, personal electronics, hobby equipment; amount of energy consumed and/or carbon dioxide emissions emitted; and per capita consumption of various foods. I also document statistical data for each selected country, including: average income and human development indicators (e.g. daily caloric intake, literacy, and longevity). Based on these data, I am able to interpret a lifestyle archetype for each grouping including: diet, density (i.e., dwelling space per capita), home energy use, personal consumption (e.g. appliances, personal electronics) and wastes, motor vehicle ownership, transit ridership, air travel, and drinking water use. 65  My goal is to first understand what one-planet living looks like based predominantly on empirical evidence in order to establish baselines and benchmarks for consumption. I then use this information to explore what one-planet living could look like in Vancouver using scenarios that are also informed by data gathered for Vancouver?s ecological footprint analysis, as will be described in subsequent sections. Table 3.2a Cities and Countries Studied by Lifestyle Archetype Grouping Three-Plus-Planets National Urbanization Over 80%24 EF25 International Profiles of household consumption and/or urban metabolism GFN Calculator: Super Green  Intentional Communities USA ? 7.99  ?  Pearland, TX   ?   San Antonio, TX   ?   Raleigh, NC   ?   Canada ? 7.00    Calgary    ?  Toronto   ?   Quayside in North Vancouver     ? Australia ? 6.83  ?  Sydney   ?   Brisbane   ?   Kuwait ? 6.33    Kuwait City   ?   Sweden ? 5.88    Toarp in  Malmo     ? Norway 77% 5.55    Greater Oslo   ?   Mongolia 57% 5.53    Ulanbataar   ?                                                             24 WRI 2010  25  WWF 2010a 66  Three-Plus-Planets National Urbanization Over 80% EF International Profiles of household consumption and/or urban metabolism GFN Calculator: Super Green  Intentional Communities Spain 77% 5.42    Segovia   ?   Germany 75% 5.09    Cologne   ?   Italy 68% 4.98  ?  Pienza   ?   UK ? 4.90    BedZed in Greater London, England     ? Godalming, England   ?   Findhorn, Scotland     ? New Zealand ? 4.89     Auckland   ?   Israel ? 4.82       Tel Aviv   ?   Japan 66% 4.71  ?   Tokyo   ?   Kodaira   ?   Russia 73% 4.40       Suzdal   ?      67   Table 3.2b Cities and Countries Studied by Lifestyle Archetype Grouping Two-Planets National Urbanization Over 80% EF International Profiles of household consumption and/or urban metabolism GFN Calculator: Super Green  Intentional Communities Chile ? 3.23    Santiago de Chile    ?   Mexico 76% 2.99    Guadalajara   ?   Cuernavaca   ?   Brazil ? 2.90  ?  Sao Paulo   ?   Bosnia/ Herzegovina 46% 2.76    Sarajevo   ?   Argentina ? 2.6  ?  Salta   ?   Thailand 32% 2.36    Ban Muang Wa   ?   South Africa 59% 2.3  ?  Soweto   ?   China 40% 2.21  ?  Beijing   ?   Shiping   ?   Hong Kong   ?      68  Table 3.2c Cities and Countries Studied by Lifestyle Archetype Grouping One-Planet National Urbanization Over 80% EF International Profiles of household consumption and/or urban metabolism GFN Calculator: Super Green Intentional Communities Mali 31% 1.93    Kouakourou   ?   Ecuador 63% 1.88  ?  Tingo   ?   Cuba 76% 1.84    Havana   ?   Guatemala 47% 1.78    Todos Santos   ?   San Antonio De Palopo   ?   Uzbekistan 37% 1.74    Tashkent   ?   Viet Nam 26% 1.4    Viet Doan   ?   Iraq 67% 1.35    Baghdad   ?   Philippines 63% 1.3    Manila   ?   Ethiopia 16% 1.11    Moulo   ?   India 29% 0.91  ?  Ujjain   ?   Ahraura Village   ?   Haiti 39% 0.67    Maisssade   ?    3.2 Calculate the Ecological Footprint of Vancouver The scope of the ecological footprint assessment is limited to: a) data obtained by tracking the energy and materials consumption and waste production of Vancouver residents and b) estimating the amount of biologically productive ecosystems, measured in global hectares, 69  required to provide these resources and assimilate the wastes.26 The intent is to understand the biocapacity demand associated with the lifestyles of the Vancouver population, not the total flow-through of energy and materials that constitute Vancouver?s role as one of Canada?s most important trade gateways. This distinction is noted in the literature as the difference between a territorial assessment and a residential assessment (Chambers et al. 2002; Eurostat 2001). In a territorial assessment all energy and materials flowing through a geographic entity, such as a municipality, are counted. However, this excludes up-stream energy and materials that may have been used to produce manufactured goods that are imported into the territory. By the same token, the territorial approach includes energy and materials that flow through the territory and are used in industrial processes to manufacture goods that are destined for export markets. In a residential assessment only the energy and materials associated with the consumption of a territories? resident population is counted. This includes energy and materials flows that are directly or indirectly destined for residential consumption as well as the up-stream energy and materials used in supply-chains to manufacture imported goods that are consumed by the resident population.  I use the residential approach in my research. This means that I exclude energy and materials consumption associated with large industrial processes (e.g., chemical manufacturing, rail and shipping activities tied to the port). However, I have chosen to include the commercial sector in the analysis which I assume to be in service to the resident community because the majority of businesses in Vancouver are small to medium enterprises with less than ten employees (Hutton 2011; Muarry and Hutton 2008; VEC 2011). Likewise, the institutional sector is counted because                                                           26 The ecological footprint only assesses the assimilation of carbon dioxide wastes.  70  the majority of Vancouver?s institutional enterprises, including hospitals and schools, serve the needs of Vancouver residents. However, centralized government services that benefit Vancouverites but are operated in the Provincial and national capital (e.g., military and treasury) are excluded from this study due to limited data and the associated challenge of their estimation. The research, therefore, includes energy and materials flowing into the territory for direct or indirect consumption by residents and includes the energy and materials required to produce the various products consumed by Vancouver residents, regardless of where in the world they were produced. The energy and materials associated with managing the wastes produced by the resident population is also considered.  The year 2006 is chosen as the base year for the study because it represents the most recent Canadian census and the most recent year for which complete data were available at the time this study was undertaken. The approach I use integrates a residential urban metabolism study, using material flows analysis and lifecycle assessment,27 coupled with a component ecological footprint assessment to produce three data outputs:  i) material flows analysis quantifying energy and materials consumed,  ii) greenhouse gas emissions inventory of consumption, iii) ecological footprint.                                                            27A residential urban metabolism study focuses only on the energy, materials and associated wastes related to residents? lifestyles. This excludes the industrial production processes that may take place in the city, but serve the needs of non-residents. A material flow analysis tracks energy and materials entering the city and corresponding wastes and emissions leaving the city. Lifecycle assessment estimates the amount of energy and materials associated with all the phases of a product?s lifecycle from primary resource extraction, through manufacturing, distribution, and final disposal. 71  This approach enables me to understand the impact of consumption from various perspectives. First, the residential urban metabolism provides insight into which consumption activities constitute the greatest demand for energy and materials, providing both a sector analysis (e.g., residential, commercial, institutional) and component analysis (e.g., food, buildings, transportation). This includes the magnitude of embodied energy from upstream production and downstream disposal associated with the lifecycle of various products consumed.  Second, the greenhouse gas emissions inventory of consumption provides insight into the greenhouse gas emissions associated with consumption activities regardless of where in the world products were made. Again, this analysis can be broken down by sector and/or component. The greenhouse gas emissions associated with consumption can be compared to greenhouse gas emissions inventories that are defined by municipal boundaries, i.e., a territorial emissions inventory that tracks emissions sourced within the municipality. These are prepared by local governments using protocols such as the Partners for Climate Protection program administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in cooperation with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), now known as ICLEI ? Local Governments for Sustainability.28  Third, the ecological footprint assessment provides insight into the demand on nature?s services that is needed to both supply the materials and energy consumed by the residents of the City and absorb its wastes in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. Only carbon dioxide emissions are counted in the ecological footprint (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). The rationale is that only                                                           28 Internationally this program is administered by ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability as the Cities for Climate Protection Program. 72  carbon dioxide emissions can be absorbed by the oceans and sequestered through photo synthesis by terrestrial ecosystems. The ecological footprint assessment can be used to compare total ecological demand by Vancouver residents with both the available biocapacity (i.e., ecological carrying capacity) of the region in which the City is located and the global per capita ecological carrying capacity of Earth. Figure 3.1 illustrates the data inputs and outputs derived in sequence starting with: (A) Primary data inputs for the material flows analysis that informs the metabolism study. These data are collected in units of tonnes, litres, Giga Joules, kilowatt hours, cubic metres, and litres.  (B) Actual hectares (ha) occupied by the urban environment are counted regardless of where they are physically located (e.g. the area of a remote landfill that serves the city is counted). Land required to produce the renewable resources, such as wood and wheat, consumed by city?s residents is also counted. The productive ecosystem area required to produce the renewable resources is calculated using national and international yield data provided by the Government of Canada and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization respectively. Land within the urban environment that is preserved for natural habitat protection, e.g., a protected watershed, is not counted but disturbed land within protected areas, e.g., service roads within the watershed are counted.  (C) Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the embodied and operating energy of the primary inputs are calculated. For example: the energy associated with logging and manufacturing of dimension lumber is considered as part of the embodied energy of the 73  wood. The energy consumed to operate a house made from that wood is considered as operating energy. The embodied energy data are derived from lifecycle assessment literature and the operating energy data come from government statistics and municipal greenhouse gas emission inventories. The unit of measure is tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) denoting that several greenhouse gases are measured and valued according to their carbon dioxide equivalent. (D) Carbon dioxide emissions that comprise part of the greenhouse gas emissions inventoried in step (C) described above are then estimated. The unit of measure is tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO2) (E) Ecological footprint calculations use data from (B) and (D). Actual hectares and carbon dioxide emissions are converted into global hectares (gha) (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Details about the calculations to convert actual hectares and carbon dioxide emissions into global hectares are provided below.    74  Figure 3.1: Structure and Sequence of Data Inputs and Outputs for the Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint Assessment  Component Name A. Material Flows Analysis B. Actual Area (ha) or Yield (t/ha) C. Greenhouse Gases (tCO2e) D. Carbon Dioxide (tCO2) E. EFA (gha) 1. Materials      Residential Commercial Institutional n tonnes n litres n  ha   n gha 2. Embodied Energy      Residential Commercial Institutional n tonnes n GJ  n tCO2 e n tCO2 n gha 3. Operating Energy      Residential Commercial Institutional n GJ n kWh  n tCO2e n tCO2 n gha 4. Built Area      Residential Commercial Institutional  n ha   n gha TOTAL   GHG CO2 gha  3.2.1 Orientation to Local Government The study is structured to facilitate local government interpretation and use of the ecological footprint analysis and related findings. I have drawn on my own experience as a planner in the region to develop the structure for the ecological footprint assessment using a framework informed by local government demand side management efforts.29 I reviewed the structure and preliminary data findings with staff in the City of Vancouver Sustainability Office (August 2010)                                                           29 Regional demand side management planning shapes the demand for energy and resources through education, regulation and incentives. Program delivery focuses on the residential and industrial, commercial, institutional (ICI) sectors. Program services include: solid and liquid waste management, transportation, and water. More recently programs addressing food and buildings have also been introduced. Energy demand management initiatives are carried out in tandem with local energy utility service providers. 75  and subsequently with staff from the City?s planning, engineering and social policy departments (March 2011) to test whether they could easily understand the structure of the analysis and whether they felt they could use the findings to inform their work. Specifically, I organized the ecological footprint assessment using the following consumption categories: Food, Buildings (including residential, commercial and institutional), Consumables and Wastes (including solid and liquid wastes), Transportation, and Water. The materials and energy passing through the City are allocated according to each category of consumption. Within each category, sub-components are established to provide a more refined analysis. The sub-components are structured in order to capture both the weight and type of materials, embodied energy associated with producing and transporting the materials, direct operating energy associated with using the products made by the materials, and built area associated with the accommodation of those products within or outside the City.  The sub-components are disaggregated further to allocate the material flows to either the residential or: industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sectors. This follows the same division used by the City of Vancouver and all local governments in Metro Vancouver. However, as described above, industrial consumption is excluded because the purpose of the study is to capture data associated with urban residents? consumption. Therefore, industrial process energy is excluded unless it passed through an electrical or gas meter in the residential, commercial or institutional sectors. This exception applies to the operation of light industry, e.g. buildings and vehicle operations associated with warehousing, which are commercially metered. Therefore, with regard to addressing the ICI sector, the research reflects predominantly commercial and institutional consumption with the understanding that light 76  industrial activities are rolled into the former, hence the brackets around the first ?I? of ?(I)CI? in figure 3.2. The embodied energy and materials generated through up-stream supply-chain manufacturing (i.e., the industrial metabolism of consumer goods) that are consumed in Vancouver (whether produced locally or abroad) is captured in the lifecycle analysis of materials described below. Finally, where possible, the data are disaggregated further by type: e.g., type of food, type of building, type of consumable material, type of vehicle and/or mode of transportation, etc.  Figure 3.2 demonstrates the basic structure of data organization for each category. Organizing the data in this way enables further manipulation to extract, for example, the embodied and operating energy associated with each component (or sub-components) in order to calculate the ?energy footprint? for the City. It also allows more refined analysis of which sub-  Category (component) Materials Residential (I)CI Embodied Energy Residential (I)CI Operating Energy Residential (I)CI Built Area Residential (I)CI Figure 3.2: Component Structure of the Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint Assessment  77  components constitute the largest consumption, e.g., residential or commercial or institutional sectors. Recall that given Vancouver?s predominant service economy comprising small-to-medium enterprises, the commercial and institutional sectors are assumed to reflect, for the most part, the demand for goods and services by local residents, i.e. residential consumption in the City. 3.2.2 Data Management The information derived from an integrated urban metabolism and ecological footprint assessment should be useful to urban policy-makers who seek to reduce consumption of energy and materials and their associated wastes. I believe therefore that it is important to observe the following guidelines when making decisions about data sources:  i) Accuracy: There are frequent discrepancies among data sources (Chambers, Simmons and Wackernagel 2004, 69). For example, in lifecycle analysis, the same product produced by multiple countries could have varying embodied energy profiles depending on what method and energy source was used to manufacture and transport it. Studies also vary in terms of the scope of what factors are included and excluded. Therefore, whenever possible, I used multiple data inputs. Where there was convergence among the data, I used the most commonly cited value or an average of at least three data inputs that closely approximate each other. Outliers were excluded unless there was strong documentation to support the validity of the research, thereby warranting its inclusion.  ii) Subsidiarity: Locally produced data were preferred, especially when local authorities trusted its validity and used it to inform policies and management practices. I believe that 78  locally derived data reflect the nuance of the local community being profiled and can resonate more readily with local authorities who also use these same data points for their work.  iii) Conservatism: In cases where two data sources equally met the accuracy and subsidiarity criteria, the final decision rested on which data point conveyed a more conservative estimate. The purpose of this approach is to err on the side of caution and avoid overstating consumption amounts. 3.2.3 Data and Calculations to Estimate the EF Components 3.2.3.1 Food Estimating food consumption at a city scale is problematic, given that data about food production and consumption is mostly gathered at the national scale. Therefore, I assume in this research that Vancouver food consumption is similar to average Canadian food consumption patterns and includes food lost due to spoilage and plate waste (Statistics Canada 2007a). The food types are as follows: i) fruits and vegetables (including processed fruits and vegetables); ii) fish, meat and eggs (including beef, veal, pork, and poultry); iii) stimulants (including tea, coffee, sugar and cocoa); iv) grains (including flour, other grain products, and rice); v) oils, nuts and legumes; vi) dairy products; vii) beverages (including soft drinks and products from breweries, wineries,  and distilleries). These groupings were developed collaboratively with Dr. Meidad Kissinger, a graduate from the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia. The metabolism and ecological footprint for the food component were calculated by Dr. Kissinger as described below.  Data on the quantity of food available for consumption in Canada were taken from Statistics Canada (2007a). Dr. Kissinger also relied in part on research undertaken for his PhD to compile 79  Canada?s food footprint, including disaggregated statistical information provided by Agriculture Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Kissinger 2008).30 Data on the money value for domestically produced food were taken from Statistics Canada (2009) and data on trade adjustments (imports and exports) were taken from Industry Canada (2010). Dr. Kissinger ran these data through environmental input-output assessment tools (Statistics Canada 2008a; Green Design Initiative 2010) to estimate the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the lifecycle production of the food consumed. This includes carbon dioxide emissions associated with the material inputs to food production including: fertilizers, pesticides, and fuel used in on-farm activities, as well as food processing including sterilization and refrigeration.31 The greenhouse gas emissions emitted through the transportation of imported food (i.e., as part of the ?food miles?) that covers the distance between the exporting country and Canada was also estimated. Domestic food miles, meaning the transportation of food produced and distributed within Canada, are not counted due to lack of data. To calculate the food miles for imported food, Dr. Kissinger?s research used the distance from a major port in the exporting countries or a central geographic point in each U.S.A. state exporting food to Canada. Within Canada, as the recipient of these exports, Dr. Kissinger identified the major cities within each Province and used this as the proxy destination to which imported food arrives. He decided to calculate the total food miles for the country because data on transportation of food within Canada is not available; therefore, it is impossible to track how food imports are distributed to Vancouver once they have landed on domestic soil. Dr. Kissinger used the Canadian Computing in Human                                                           30 Dr. Meidad Kissinger, personal communication, March 30, 2012. 31 The emissions associated with the disposal of food (e.g. plate waste) are counted in the Consumables and Waste component. For additional information about calculating Canada?s food ecological footprint see Kissinger (2013). 80  and Social Science (CHASS) Trade Analyzer Database (CHASS 2010) to determine the amount of food by quantity and type arriving to each of the major cities within each Province in Canada. He estimated both land (rail and truck) and sea import distances using a combination of tools including Google Maps Travel Distance Calculator and the PortWorld.com and then used emission coefficients for truck, rail and sea transportation found in the literature to estimate the carbon dioxide emissions associated with Canadian food imports (i.e., food miles). Air travel was not assessed because only a very small amount of food is important this way (Kissinger 2012).  So far I have described how to calculate the metabolism of food for Canada including the total materials, in tonnage, related carbon dioxide emissions from embodied energy for production and processing, and related carbon dioxide emissions from transportation energy, i.e., food miles. To determine that portion of Canada?s food metabolism that can be attributed to the Vancouver population, I divided the output data by the total population of Canada in 2006 using the 2006 Census data (Statistics Canada 2006d). This gives the per capita value that can subsequently be multiplied by the total population of Vancouver. The latter is also determined using Statistics Canada 2006 Census Data (Statistics Canada 2006a).32 To calculate the ecological footprint of food, Dr. Kissinger followed the procedure recommended by the Global Footprint Network (Ewing et al. 2008b; Ewing et al. 2009). He used                                                           32 At this point, the per capita consumption values for each food type could also be further modified by weighting the consumption of various food types to reflect Vancouver household consumer preferences. This is done by using the Statistics Canada (2001) Food Expenditure Survey that documents a sample of Vancouver household food consumption over a two week period. This was the most recently available survey at the time of the research. However, because the household consumer survey data pre-dates the census data by several years, I decided to omit this step to avoid introducing additional uncertainty to the data set. 81  all of the above data inputs to calculate the total land and fish area required to actually produce the food as well as the associated land area required to sequester the carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil-based energy used to produce and transport the food. Then he translated these actual land estimates into global hectares. The following formula is used to calculate the ecological footprint of consumption of product ?i? in global hectares (Ewing et al. 2009):  EFi (gha) = Ci (t)/YiN(t/ha)*YF*EQF     (1) Where: i) EFi represents the ecological footprint for the product in question measured in global hectares,  ii) C represents the weight of product measured in tonnes,  iii) YN represents the national yield for that product measured in tonnes per hectare,  iv) YF represents the yield factor ( a ratio of the national yield divided by the global yield for that same product) measured in tonnes per hectare, and  v) EQF represents the equivalence factor (a ratio of the average global productivity of a specific ecosystem type (e.g., cropland) divided by the global average productivity of all ecosystem types) measured in global hectares.  Since the formula calls for the multiplication of 1/YN by YF, and since YF comprises a ratio of YN/YG (where YG represents the global average yield), the result is a cancelling-out of the YN value. Therefore, the formula can be contracted for practical purposes (Ewing et al. 2009) and represented as:  82   EFi (gha) = Ci(t)/YGi*EQF  (2) In this formula, YG represents the global average yield for the product in question. Global average yield data for a wide range of agricultural products is available on-line from (FAO 2010a).  To convert actual hectares to global hectares, the unit of measurement of the ecological footprint, I multiplied Dr. Kissinger?s output data for the total actual hectares of cropland, pasture land, and fish area used to produce each food product by the global equivalence factor for cropland, pasture land, and fish area respectively. The equivalence factors for all land types are made available by the Global Footprint Network (www.footprintnetwork.org). Global equivalence factors for cropland, pasture land, and fish area in 2006 are reported in the Ecological Footprint Atlas (Ewing et al. 2009).  The following formulas demonstrate how the equivalence factors are used to calculate the global hectares, i.e. ecological productive capacity, of cropland with an EQF in 2006 of 2.39 (4), pasture land with an EQF in 2006 of 0.51 (5), and fishing area with an EQF in 2006 of 0.41 (6):  EF Crop Land (gha) = C(t)/YN*YF* 2.39 gha/ha   (3)  EF Pasture Land (gha) = C(t)/YN*YF* 0.51 gha/ha  (4)  EF Fish Area (gha) = C(t)/YN*YF * 0.41 gha/ha  (5) Second, by documenting the energy inputs associated with growing (e.g. fertilizing), harvesting, processing and distributing food products as part of the lifecycle assessment, Dr. Kissinger was able to determine the total amount of fossil fuels used and the amount of energy land required 83  to sequester the carbon dioxide emissions associated with this energy use. The following formula, recommended by the Global Footprint Network (Ewing et al. 2008b), was used to calculate the energy land, measured in global hectares, that was required to sequester the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production, processing and transportation of the food consumed:   EF Energy Land = PtCO2 (1 ? Socean)/Yc*EQF  (6) Where P represents the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of the food, (1-Socean) represents the amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions sequestered by the world?s oceans, and Yc represents the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered by the world?s forests. In this formula, EQF represents the 2006 equivalence factor for energy land which is the same as that of forest land (Ewing et al. 2009). Dr. Kissinger substituted the following values for global ocean carbon dioxide sequestration: Socean = (1-.26) and for global terrestrial carbon dioxide sequestration: Yc = 3.7 tCO2/ha based on the work of Kitzes and Wermer (2006). Thus the formula becomes:   EF Energy Land = (PtCO2 (1 ? 0.26)/3.7)*1.24  (7) Where P represents the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the fossil based energy inputs to growing, harvesting, processing and distributing the food product in question, SOcean has a value of (1-26) and assumes that 26% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are sequestered in world oceans (Kitzes and Wermer 2006; IPCC 2001), Yc has a value of 3.7 tCO2/ha and assumes that the global average terrestrial sequestration rate for carbon dioxide is 84  3.7 tonnes carbon dioxide per hectare (Kitzes and Wermer 2006), and the equivalence factor for energy land in 2006 is 1.24 (Ewing et al. 2009). After aggregating the EF values for cropland, pasture land, fish area, and energy land (i.e., the total land (and sea) area required for agricultural production, processing and transportation of specific food commodities consumed in Canada), Dr. Kissinger was able to calculate Canada?s ecological footprint of food. To determine that portion of Canada?s food footprint that can be attributed to the Vancouver population, I subsequently divided the output data by the total population of Canada in 2006 using the 2006 Census data (Statistics Canada 2006d). This provided the per capita value that could then be multiplied by the total population of Vancouver. The latter was also determined using Statistics Canada 2006 Census Data (Statistics Canada 2006a).  3.2.3.2 Buildings To estimate the urban metabolism associated with buildings, I first established four sub-components to help organize the data: i) building materials, e.g., wood, steel, concrete, glass; ii) embodied energy in building materials; iii) operating energy, e.g., electricity and natural gas for water heating, lighting and space conditioning; and iv) built area occupied by the buildings. Within each sub-component, there was further disaggregation to apportion consumption of energy and materials to residential or commercial/institutional uses. As described above, electrical and heating loads for light industry activities, e.g., warehousing, were counted with commercial buildings.  Instead of calculating the materials and related embodied energy associated with new construction in 2006, I attempted to estimate the materials and embodied energy of the entire 85  building stock amortized over the lifespan of the buildings in the City. This enabled an estimate of the average, annual quantity of materials and energy embodied in the building stock unaffected by industry cycles, e.g., economic booms and busts that affect the construction industry from year to year.  To determine the amount of building materials and related embodied energy in Vancouver?s building stock I utilized research (Sianchuck 2009 unpublished; Senbel 2009 unpublished) that uses the Athena Institute?s Impact Estimator for Buildings 4.0 ? selected for Vancouver (ASMI 2008). This software is capable of estimating the required materials and related embodied energy necessary to build a variety of building archetypes representative of Vancouver?s building stock, e.g., single family detached, duplex, wood-frame multi-unit under five stories, and concrete high-rise over five stories. These archetypes generally matched those used by Statistics Canada (2006a). For each of these archetypes, I selected case buildings in consultation with City of Vancouver staff (D. Ramslie, personal communication, February 16, 2011) based on the average square footage and building materials representative of each archetype. Data from building drawings for the case buildings were input to the Athena Impact Estimator to estimate the materials and embodied energy associated with their construction. Commercial and institutional building archetypes were developed in consultation with City of Vancouver staff (D. Ramslie, personal communication, February 16, 2011) and included: high-rise office tower, low-rise (under five story), and community centre. The high-rise office tower was assumed to be similar to the high-rise residential building archetype in terms of materials used for construction and related embodied energy. The low-rise building was assumed to be similar to buildings located on the University of British Columbia Point Grey Campus which had already 86  been modeled, and for which the output data were permitted to be used in this study.33 The Round-House Community Centre was selected as the case building for the community centre archetype. All selections were again confirmed with City staff (D. Ramslie, personal communication February 23, 2011) as being reasonable, broad approximations of Vancouver?s commercial and institutional building stock, given the intent of the research.  The stock of each building archetype in Vancouver was calculated using statistical data (Statistics Canada 2006a; Natural Resources Canada 2007). Census data provides the total number of residential dwellings in Vancouver and a percentage break-down by dwelling type. The total number of dwellings by type is calculated by multiplying the percentage representation of each building type by the total number of dwellings in the stock (Statistics Canada 2006a). The total number of dwellings for each building type is then multiplied by the materials and embodied energy calculated for the case building that matches that type, i.e. the archetype. This yields an estimate of the total materials and embodied energy in the residential building stock. Natural Resources Canada (2007) data provides the total number of commercial and institutional buildings in British Columbia. I assumed that half of these buildings were located in Metro Vancouver, where half of BC?s population resides (Statistics Canada 2006b). I further assumed that 30% of Metro Vancouver?s commercial and institutional building stock is located in the City of Vancouver, where approximately one-third of the region?s population resides (Statistics Canada 2006a, 2006b). The total amount of materials and embodied energy comprising Vancouver?s building stock was then amortized by an average building life of 40                                                           33 Research assistant Walleed Giratalla obtained permission from Robert Sianchuk, Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia.  87  years for wood frame constructed buildings, e.g., spanning single family to low rise, and by 75 years for concrete buildings, e.g., high-rises, in order to determine an annual estimate of the materials and embodied energy represented in the total building stock.34 The operating energy was estimated by the Province of British Columbia?s Ministry of Environment as part of a larger study to assess greenhouse gas emission sources in the Province (BC MOE 2010). Built area was estimated by Metro Vancouver (2006). The building ecological footprint comprises three land categories ? forestry land, energy land, and built land. The standard formula to calculate the ecological footprint of forestry land required to sustainably yield the wood used in construction of Vancouver?s building stock follows the general formula introduced in equation (1):  EF Forest Land (gha)= C(t)/YN(t/ha)*YF*1.24  (8) Where EF represents the ecological footprint for forest land, C is the amount of timber, YN is the national yield for timber, YF is the yield factor that is a ratio of the national yield divided by the global average yield for timber, and 1.24 is the equivalence factor for forest land calculated by the Global Footprint Network for the 2006 study year (Ewing et al. 2009).  However, I assumed in this research that timber used for wood frame construction is entirely domestically sourced. Therefore, I omit the global yield factor (which accounts for the yields of imported wood). My formula therefore becomes:   EF Forest Land (gha) = C(t)/YN(t/ha)*1.24  (9)                                                           34 These values fall within the Canadian Standards Association Guideline on Durability in Buildings as referenced by Metro Vancouver?s Build Smart program (GVRD 2001).  88  First, I calculated the sustainable yield for Canadian forestry land by taking the total wood harvested in round logs (184,008,000 m3) divided by the ?allowable cut?35 area designated for harvest in 2006 (831,424 ha) (National Forest Inventory 2006). Then I amortized the harvest over the average life of Canadian forests (70 years) (Wackernagel and Rees 1996, 83) to calculate a national, sustainable yield.  YN = (184,008,000 m3/831,424 ha) x (1/70) = 3.16 m3/ha/yr (10) Next, I converted the units of measure from cubic meters to tonnes using standard metric conversion factors as follows: i) to convert m3 to ounces multiply by 33814.02, ii) to convert ounces to kilograms multiply by 0.02835, iii) to convert kilograms to tonnes multiply by 0.001.  YN = 3.16 m3/ha/yr x 33814.02 x 0.02835 x 0.001= 3.03 t/ha/yr (11) Then, I multiplied the national yield by the total lumber in the building stock, amortized for a 40 year lifespan in wood frame buildings as described above, in order to calculate the amount of land that would be required annually to supply timber for the building stock.  The energy land calculation to estimate the carbon sink capacity required to absorb emissions associated with the embodied energy of building materials, including for concrete and steel, was described above (see equation 7).  Built land is the amount of land occupied by a city?s residential, commercial and institutional buildings (Metro Vancouver 2006a). I calculated the ecological footprint of built land using the following formula (Ewing et al. 2010):                                                            35 The ?allowable cut? is calculated by the Canadian Forest Service based on the amount of wood that can be harvested sustainably year after year without compromising the forest?s yield capacity. 89   EF Built Land (gha) = A*YF*2.39   (12) Where A is the area of land occupied by the city, YF is the global yield factor (assumed in this case to be a constant value of 1 because there is no crop production), and 2.39 is the equivalence factor for crop land calculated by the Global Footprint Network (Ewing et al. 2009). The assumption is that cities develop close to where people grow food and, therefore, occupy the same land type as cropland (Ewing et al. 2009).  Finally, to calculate the ecological footprint of buildings I added the EF values for forest land, energy land and built land (as described above).  3.2.3.3 Consumables and Wastes To estimate the urban metabolism associated with consumables and wastes, I first established four sub-components to help organize the data: i) materials contained in the final product as well as those used up-stream in the manufacturing process (i.e., embodied materials), ii) embodied energy associated with the manufacturing process, iii) operating energy associated with the management of consumable products once they enter the waste stream (including both solid and liquid waste), iv) built area associated with the land occupied by waste management facilities (for both solid and liquid waste).  I used a forensic approach, based on regional solid waste composition survey data, to estimate the amount and type of materials consumed (Chambers, Simmons and Wackernagel 2004, 96). I used City and regional solid waste and recycling reports (COV 2007b; COV 2007b; TRI 2008; Metro Vancouver 2006b) to determine the total amount of solid waste generated within the 2006 study year by: a) each sector (e.g. residential, commercial and institutional) and b) 90  method of disposal (e.g., City owned landfill, regional landfill, regional incinerator).36 I estimated the total tonnage of Vancouver?s solid waste distributed to each facility for disposal according to data provided by Metro Vancouver (Petre, personal communication July 27, 2010) and the City of Vancouver (COV 2007b). I also used regional and City greenhouse gas emissions inventory data (Metro Vancouver 2008a; COV 2007c) and consultant reports (CH2M Hill 2009) to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste at these facilities. I calculated the per tonne greenhouse gas emissions associated with waste disposal in order to estimate the City?s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste. The tonnage of waste diverted from disposal, i.e. through recycling, is estimated for the urban metabolism study but not added to the materials sub-component of the ecological footprint. I assume these materials will be utilized as inputs to new manufacturing processes; therefore, they are not fully consumed.37 Regional reports on liquid waste management are also used to assess the total flows of wastewater and bio-solids (measured in dry tonnes) extracted from wastewater treatment facilities (Metro Vancouver 2008a). These are counted in the urban metabolism but not included in the ecological footprint to avoid double-counting.38  Lifecycle assessment data were used to estimate the materials and embodied energy associated with the production of consumable items (e.g., paper, cardboard, plastics, diapers) that were disposed to landfills and the incinerator as solid waste. Lifecycle assessment data were also used to estimate only the embodied energy of recycled products. The choice to                                                           36 The incinerator co-generates heat and power and is known as the Waste-to-Energy Facility. 37 An alternative approach would be to track the recycled content of materials consumed. However, because this study uses a forensic approach that relies on waste audits, the amount of materials recycled post consumption is used instead. 38 Since biosolids are predominantly the waste from digested food, they are not counted because these materials have already been counted in the food component of the ecological footprint. 91  include the embodied energy of recycled products is based on the assumption that the energy required to manufacture these products is consumed over the course of their use. Although their material content can be re-purposed through recycling, additional energy inputs will be required to re-manufacture the products into something new. Reference values were developed for: a) the amount of material inputs as well as b) the amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of one tonne of product for a range of household consumer items, based on the literature (Norgate and Haque 2010; Jawjit, Kroeze and Rattanapan 2010; Steinberger et al. 2009; Leroy 2009; Humbert et al. 2009; Aumonier, Collins and Garrett 2008; Shen and Patel 2008; Dias, Arroja and Capela 2007; Norgate, Jahanshahi, and Rankin 2007; Tucker et al. 2006; Mata and Costa 2001).  Lifecycle assessment data were also used to calculate the embodied energy of liquid waste infrastructure, i.e. sewer pipes. Lifecycle data of the sewer system was estimated using embodied energy data for concrete pipe (Ambrose et al. 2002; Baetz 1999) and applied to the total length (1,900 km) and diameter (300 mm) of Vancouver?s concrete sewer pipes (COV 2009). Operating energy data were collected for the buildings and heavy duty equipment at the waste management facilities, e.g. landfills, incinerator, and waste transfer stations (Beck and Santos, personal communication, August 4, 2010; COV 2007c). Operating energy data were also collected for the buildings and equipment at the Iona wastewater treatment facility where all of 92  the City?s wastewater is treated (Metro Vancouver 2008a).39 Beneficial use of landfill gas (in the case of solid waste management) and biogas (in the case of liquid waste management) that offsets demand for natural gas purchased from the provincial gas utility is counted but not added to the mass flow balance because, like recycling, it represents a re-purposing and use of a waste product.40  I estimated the built area of all solid and liquid waste treatment facilities that serve the City of Vancouver (Metro Vancouver 2008a; COV 2007b; COV 2010; Stephens 2010). For the Cache Creek Landfill and Burnaby Waste-to-Energy Facility, I apportioned the land according to the percentage of waste managed at these facilities that is sourced from the City, i.e. 7% and 14% respectively (Petre, personal communication July 27, 2010)  The consumables and waste ecological footprint component comprises four land categories: energy land, cropland, forest land, and built land. To estimate the energy land, I first added the total carbon dioxide emissions generated from: a) solid waste disposed to landfill or incinerator, b) embodied energy associated with the manufacture of consumable products, and c) operation of the solid and liquid waste facilities. Specifically, to calculate the emissions associated with the embodied energy of consumable products, I used reference values (Sussmann unpublished data)41 for the amount of carbon dioxide produced per tonne of product manufactured for various materials in consumable items. I multiplied these by the tonnage of the various                                                           39 The Iona Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) also treats a small amount of wastewater from the City of Richmond and YVR. However, this accounts for less than 10% of total WWTP volume, and therefore, was not excluded from the study due to the almost insignificant impact this has on the total ecological footprint. 40 Recall that carbon dioxide emissions from waste were already counted as part of the materials sub-component. 41 For a detailed description of the method and some of the reference values it generated see Kissinger et al. (2013a).  93  materials comprising the consumable items found in the waste stream (including waste disposed and recycled). I repeated this step for every identifiable material, e.g., paper, metal, glass, etc. and then summed the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions. I then estimated the amount of forested area required to sequester all of the carbon dioxide emissions (see equation 7 above).  To estimate the crop land and forest land required to produce the materials (e.g., cotton, latex, wood) that were used to manufacture the consumable items (e.g., textiles, rubber, paper), I relied on reference values (Kissinger and Sussmann unpublished data)42 for the amount of upstream materials, measured in tonnes, that are required to produce one tonne of product for various consumable items. The amount of land required to produce the materials for each product was calculated using global average yield data (FAO 2010a) that was then converted into global hectares to derive the ecological footprint for each land type (see equations 3 and 9). The output data are an estimate of biocapacity demand (i.e., ecological footprint) associated with the production of one tonne of product, calculated for various consumable products. I multiplied these values, called ?life cycle assessment factors,? by the total tonnage of the various consumer products found in the waste stream to estimate their respective ecological footprint.  To estimate the built land, I summed the built area occupied by all the solid and liquid waste management facilities and/or the appropriate proportion therefore that could be attributed to Vancouver?s use. I then calculated the ecological footprint for this total sum (see equation 12).                                                            42 For a detailed description of the method and some of the reference values it generated see Kissinger et al. (2013b). 94  Finally, to calculate the ecological footprint of consumables, I added the total EF values for energy land, cropland, forest land, and built land (as described above). 3.2.3.4 Transportation To estimate the urban metabolism associated with transportation, I first established four sub-components to help organize the data: i) transportation materials encompassing: total number of vehicles by vehicle type and total kilometres of road (measured in lane-kilometres); ii) embodied energy of vehicles and roads, iii) operating energy, measured in terms of fossil fuels consumed, and iv) built area of roads. The Provincial Government (BC MOE 2010) estimates the total number of vehicles registered in Vancouver by type (e.g., light duty, heavy duty, motorcycle, etc.) and also by use: private vehicles, commercial vehicles and public transportation vehicles. The tonnage of materials comprising the private vehicle fleet (which accounts for 99% of the total vehicle stock) was estimated using BC MOE (2010) data for number of vehicles and Zamel and Li (2006) for average weight (1,324 kg) of a passenger vehicle. Data from Zamel and Li (2006) was also used to estimate the weight of specific materials within an average passenger vehicle (e.g., steel, aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, glass, rubber, plastics, other) and total kilometers driven by an average vehicle over its lifespan (estimated at 300,000 km). The total lane kilometres of roads was estimated from the literature (Puil 1999), and the total built area of roads in Vancouver was estimated by Metro Vancouver (2006a). Materials used for road construction were estimated using data from Athena Institute (2006).43                                                            43 The tonnage of materials comprising the total vehicle fleet and the materials used for road construction are not needed to estimate the ecological footprint. For non-biological materials, e.g. steel, glass, cement, stone, only the 95  I relied on lifecycle data taken from the literature (EPA 2006) to assess the embodied energy of the total vehicle stock by vehicle type. These data were calculated in units of carbon dioxide emissions (Kissinger unpublished). The embodied energy associated with construction and maintenance of the total road area assumes a lifecycle of 50 years for roads, using data from the literature (Athena Institute 2006). These data were also presented in units of carbon dioxide emissions (Giratalla unpublished).  Operating energy and equivalent carbon dioxide emissions for the private and commercial vehicle fleet as well as the public transit bus fleet is estimated by the Province of British Columbia (BC MOE 2010). Operating energy for other public transit vehicles including: electric trolley buses, Westcoast Express commuter rail, SeaBus, and SkyTrain were estimated by a study undertaken by RWDI Consultants for TransLink (RWDI 2008).44 These data were obtained by request to TransLink. Operating energy for air travel was estimated by calculating total fuel consumption for all outbound travel from the Vancouver International Airport to all major international and domestic destinations (Legg unpublished). This value was then doubled to estimate the fuel consumed for the return trip as well. Total consumption of fuel for round trip travel was scaled by 29% to represent the amount of travel that the Vancouver International Airport Authority estimates is representative of Metro Vancouver residents (YVR 2010a). This                                                                                                                                                                                            area affected by mining activities and the energy associated with material extraction, processing and manufacturing is counted in the ecological footprint. Furthermore, because materials such as steel and road aggregate have a very high recycled content, I omitted the calculation of up-stream land affected by mining activity. Therefore, only the embodied energy used to produce steel, the primary material in vehicles, and aggregates such as crushed gravel which is the primary material in roads are counted in this ecological footprint study. 44 Translink is the Metro Vancouver public transportation service agency operated by the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. 96  value was then divided by the population of the Metro Vancouver population to yield a per capita value that could be used to represent the Vancouver per capita EF of air travel.  This paragraph describes in detail how the fuel consumed for air travel was calculated. Because fuel consumption data are not available from the airport or from the jet airlines, it was estimated as a function of total passenger kilometres travelled by vehicle engine type (Legg unpublished). Data on the number of outbound passengers, sorted by destination, from the Vancouver International Airport (YVR 2010a, b; Statistics Canada 2006e) was used in combination with the International Travel Survey, Air Exit Surveys for Canadian Resident Trips Abroad (Statistics Canada 2008b) to group major travel destinations by continent for international travel and by sub-region within the United States. The most frequently visited major international airport within each continent (e.g., London, Mexico City, Dubai, Johannesburg) was selected to represent average distance for all travel to that region. A majority of outbound trips were to U.S. destinations. Statistics Canada (2008b) establishes eleven US sub-regions, and the most frequented airport in each sub-region was selected to serve as the representative distance for all travel to that sub-region. Domestic travel originating from the Vancouver International Airport was obtained by request to the Vancouver International Airport Authority (YVR 2010a). The distances between the Vancouver International Airport and the selected destination airports were obtained using the World Airport Codes (2010) web tool. Data were obtained about the type of aircraft flown (YVR 2010a), capacity and average number of occupied seats (Air Broker Center International 2009; Environment Canada 2010), mileage (Air Broker Center International 2009; RITA 2010) and number of hours flown per one-way trip (Kayak Flight Finder 2010). Finally, the total estimated 97  fuel consumed for outbound trips was doubled in order to account for the return flight and scaled by 29% which is the estimated number of passengers originating from Metro Vancouver (YVR 2010). Jet fuel emission coefficients (Environment Canada 2010; Leblanc 2010) were used to estimate the amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with the total amount of fuel consumed (Legg unpublished). To calculate the amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with the fuel consumed in air travel by the City of Vancouver residents, I assumed that their travel patterns were the same as the regional population and simply divided total carbon dioxide emissions by the regional population (Statistics Canada 2006b) to calculate a per capita fuel consumption value. Then I multiplied this number by the total population in Vancouver (Statistics Canada 2006a). The ecological footprint of transportation comprises two land types ? energy land and built area. To estimate the energy land, I first added the total carbon dioxide emissions associated with a) the embodied energy of the vehicle fleet, b) the operating energy of private, commercial and public transit vehicles, and c) the operating energy (i.e., jet fuel) of air travel. I then estimate the amount of forested area required to sequester all of the carbon dioxide emissions (see equation 7 above). To estimate the built area, I used the Metro Vancouver (2006a) statistic for Vancouver?s road area (3,372 ha) and calculated the ecological footprint for this total sum (see equation 12).45 Finally, to calculate the ecological footprint of transportation, I add the total EF values for energy land and built land.                                                           45 I did not estimate the portion of the Vancouver International Airport surface area that could be attributed to Vancouverites use. 98  3.2.3.5 Water To estimate the urban metabolism associated with water, I first established four sub-components to help organize the data: i) total volume of drinking water flows ii) embodied energy of the water distribution system (i.e., dams and pipes), iii) operating energy, meaning energy consumed by drinking water treatment facilities, and iv) area of watershed, including the reservoirs, and built area dedicated to access roads and water treatment facilities. The total annual volume flows of treated drinking water were counted using data provided by Metro Vancouver (2008b). The materials comprising the largest dam, Cleveland Dam, and the water distribution infrastructure, i.e. pipes, were estimated and amortized over their lifetime. I assumed a lifecycle of 100 years for the dam (R. Anderson, personal communication, February 23, 2011) and 50 years for the pipes (Metro Vancouver 2011d; COV 2009). The embodied energy associated with these materials was estimated (Giratalla unpublished) using lifecycle data obtained through the literature (Flower and Sanjayan 2007; Ambrose et al. 2002). The total amortized embodied energy for the drinking water infrastructure system (i.e., the dam and pipes) was then apportioned on a per capita basis and multiplied by the population of Vancouver using 2006 census data (Statistics Canada 2006a) in order to estimate that proportion that should be attributed to the City of Vancouver population. The operating energy for the three facilities that treat all of Metro Vancouver?s drinking water was estimated by Metro Vancouver as part of its corporate greenhouse gas emissions inventory (Metro Vancouver 2008a). The total amount of water treated was estimated by Metro Vancouver (2008b). For purposes of this study, the operating energy per litre of water treated was estimated based on the total energy consumed to treat drinking water (Metro Vancouver 99  2008a) divided by the total average daily water consumption for the region (Metro Vancouver 2008b) multiplied by 365 days. I then divided by the total population of the region using 2006 census data (Statistics Canada 2006b) to calculate the amount of per capita energy used to treat the drinking water, which is assumed to be the same for Vancouver residents. Metro Vancouver (2006a) estimates the total area of watershed lands (46,689 ha) that encompass all three reservoirs supplying drinking water to the region. Metro Vancouver (2007b) also estimates the total length of roads (125 km) that traverse the watershed for use by Metro Vancouver staff for maintenance and operation of the reservoirs. The ecological footprint of Vancouver?s water system comprises two land types ? energy land and built land. To estimate the energy land, I first added the total carbon dioxide emissions associated with a) the embodied energy of the drinking water distribution infrastructure and b) the operating energy of the drinking water treatment facilities. I then estimated the amount of forested area required to sequester all of the carbon dioxide emissions (see equation 7 above). To estimate the built area, I converted the Metro Vancouver estimate for total kilometres of roads within the watershed to hectares. Then I divided the area by the population of the region to calculate a per capita value for regional watershed roads and multiplied by the total population of Vancouver, using 2006 census data (Statistics Canada 2006a), to estimate the total portion of watershed roads associated with the Vancouver population. The area of land dedicated to the watersheds was not counted because Metro Vancouver has designated these lands as ecological reserves meaning their ecological functions are protected (e.g., there is no public access and timber harvesting is prohibited). Next I calculated the ecological footprint for built land, which comprised the Vancouver portion of the watershed roads (see equation 12). 100  Finally, to calculate the ecological footprint of Vancouver?s water system, I added the total EF values for energy land and built land.  3.3 Calculate Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap The term ?sustainability gap? refers to the difference between available ecological biocapacity and an existing population?s level of consumption, as measured by the ecological footprint (Wackernagel and Rees 1996, 159-160). In effect, this is the difference between overshoot and one-planet living.  To calculate Vancouver?s sustainability gap, I first compared the City?s per capita EF to the global fair Earthshare of 1.8 global hectares per capita (WWF, 2008). Specifically, I compared Vancouver?s EF based on demand for ecosystem services from cropland, pasture land, fish area, forest land, energy land, and built area to the global per capita biocapacity supply for each of these land types. This enabled me to estimate which land types in Vancouver?s EF are in overshoot and by how much. Next, I assessed the demand on ecological services represented by activities. I compared Vancouver?s EF based on demand for ecosystem services for food, buildings, consumables and wastes, transportation, and water to the lifestyle archetypes starting with the international profile (where demand is expressed in terms of consumption benchmarks), the Global Footprint Network super green hypothetical profile, and the intentional communities profile. Specifically, with regard to the latter, I compare Vancouver?s EF to the EF of various intentional communities in Western society, as documented in the literature, that are able to come close 101  to the one-planet consumption target (Tinsley and George 2006; Haraldsson, Ranhagen and Sverdrup 2001). This process is described in further detail in chapter 4. 3.4 Identify Policy Interventions I reviewed the urban sustainability literature covered in step 1 above to identify examples of policy interventions in cities around the world. I also reviewed City of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver policies and initiatives aimed at sustainability. I limited the research by focusing on those activities that contribute the most to Vancouver?s sustainability gap. Then I conducted a first round of interviews with City of Vancouver staff and Metro Vancouver staff to further inform my efforts to identify policy interventions or changes to the City?s management practices that could enable citizens to reduce their ecological footprint, with the ultimate aim of reducing Vancouver?s EF to a level commensurate with the fair Earthshare. The interviews were intended to both capture initiatives that I may have missed in my literature and archive research, as well as identify any new and emerging initiatives. I also asked interviewees to identify additional people whom they believed I should interview, including key informants from outside local government. 3.5 Develop Baseline Estimates for Closing Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap First I estimated the potential reduction in demand within each component and/or sub-component of Vancouver?s ecological footprint needed to achieve the one-planet target of 1.8 gha/ca. I estimated the potential reduction in tonnage of materials, kilowatt hours and Giga Joules of energy consumed and then translated the revised consumption data into global hectares. I proceeded to develop multiple baselines for one-planet living in order to identify 102  which reductions in which components and/or sub-components could yield a cumulative EF of 1.8 gha/ca. Next, I selected a case study neighbourhood, informed by the research interviews, and used it to explore what the reductions in ecological footprint might look like if implemented at a neighbourhood scale. Using the insights gained from this exercise, I then developed a preliminary scope of policy interventions and/or changes to management practices sufficient to achieve EF reductions capable of reaching the 1.8 gha/ca target. These were informed by the baseline and visualization exercise as well as exploration of interventions (outlined in Section 3.4) that the City could implement to reduce consumption of energy and materials or production of carbon dioxide emissions.  3.6 Analyze Options Based on the outcomes of step 3.5, I reviewed the sustainability literature along with Vancouver?s existing policies and the outcomes from the interviews (step 3.4) and assessed which potential policies or changes to management practices identified thus far could be introduced within the Vancouver context to achieve the one-planet living target. I assumed the base year of 2006 is held constant. In effect, I am focusing on what one-planet living could have looked like in 2006 by assuming constant population and consumption levels. Therefore, the ecological footprint for each component in 2006 serves as the starting point for analysis. Potential reductions are assumed to be implemented in the same year. I also assume that reductions are cumulative, meaning that energy and materials consumption reductions are achieved incrementally with the introduction of each change to policy or management practice. In addition to changes that yield quantitative reductions in the EF, I also reflect on the potential 103  of qualitative changes in urban system relational structures that could emerge as a result of implementing the identified policies and/or changes to urban management practices. Recall from chapter 1 that complexity theory, as a theoretical lens for the research, draws attention to the qualitative characteristics of system components and their relational structures. Changes that affect the way feedback mechanisms function give rise to the system?s properties (Meadows et al. 1972). Therefore, a transition to sustainability, manifested as one-planet living, likely requires qualitative change in the urban system?s existing structural relationships and feedback mechanisms. Next, I conducted a second round of interviews with the same people interviewed previously. In the second interview, I presented the baselines and preliminary analysis that identified policy interventions and/or changes to management practices that could be implemented to reduce the EF in each component, e.g., food, buildings, consumables and wastes, transportation, and water. I asked interviewees to identify technical, financial or jurisdictional issues that could impede implementation of the policy interventions and/or changes to management practices identified. I also asked them to reflect on any other institutional barriers or market challenges, including issues pertaining to existing built form of the City, that could impede implementation of selected policy interventions. Interviewees were also asked to identify technical or regulatory constraints at senior government levels as well as opportunities for collaboration with senior governments, for example through advocacy for needed changes to policy and/or management practices to overcome barriers.  104  3.7 Develop Policy Proposals I developed policy proposals to enable one-planet living based on reflection of the outcomes from the second round of interviews. I considered the potential for energy and materials consumption reductions in light of the proposed policies? technical and institutional feasibility. While the primary purpose of the research is to identify what policy interventions and changes to management practices could enable Vancouverites to adopt lifestyles conducive with one-planet living, the feasibility of implementation is a secondary consideration that could bring additional insights to the research findings. 105  4 One-Planet Living and Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap This chapter introduces the lifestyle archetypes and Vancouver?s ecological footprint followed by an exploration of Vancouver?s sustainability gap. First I describe the lifestyle archetypes with specific focus on one-planet living including: international profiles (compiled using statistical consumption benchmarks), super green profiles using the Global Footprint Network?s ecological footprint calculator, and profiles of intentional communities. Next I present the findings of Vancouver?s integrated residential urban metabolism and ecological footprint. This includes a greenhouse gas emissions inventory of consumption. Finally, I explore Vancouver?s sustainability gap which is the difference between the City?s per capita demand on nature?s services and what could be sustained within global ecological carrying capacity, i.e. at the one-planet level of consumption. I probe each component of Vancouver?s ecological footprint and compare it with consumption data compiled for the one-planet archetype in order to illuminate: a) the size of the sustainability gap relative to each component, b) lifestyle patterns of people who are already consuming at the one-planet level, c) hypothesized lifestyle patterns at the one-planet level, and d) attempts by people who are trying to reduce their consumption and/or achieve a goal of one-planet living. Finally, I review the cumulative reductions in ecological footprint that could be achieved if Vancouverites adopted the lifestyle patterns presented in the one-planet archetype, and I identify which components present the greatest potential for reducing Vancouver?s per capita ecological footprint. 4.1 Lifestyle Archetypes Empirical data for lifestyle patterns of people living at the one-planet, two-planet, three-planet and three-plus-planet levels of consumption are summarized in Table 4.1. Data documenting 106  household consumption in various countries were obtained from field studies (FAO 2010b, 2008, 2003a, 2003b, 2001a, 2001b, 1999a, 1999b; UN Habitat 2010; Menzel and D?Aluisio 2005; Menzel 1994) and statistical data bases (UNDP 2011; World Bank 2011; WRI 2010; Worldmapper 2010; International Civil Aviation Organization 2005). The countries were then grouped according to their national ecological footprint assessments based on study year 2007 (WWF 2010b).46 The average values for EF and consumption within each grouping (i.e., one-planet, two-planet, etc.) were then calculated.  Each archetype, therefore, represents average consumption and household characteristics from a sample of countries according to their average ecological footprint. Countries were selected based on availability of data, particularly respecting ease of access to field-study research at the household level within cities. Eleven countries were included in the one-planet category, eight in the two-planet category, and fifteen in the three-plus-planet category, for a total of thirty-four countries (see Appendix A).  In the three-plus-planet category, there was a marked difference between the four highest-consuming countries and the rest. The four highest consuming countries were: USA, Canada, Australia and Kuwait. For illustrative purposes, I have separated these highest consuming countries and retained the label of ?three-plus-planets? because the average per capita ecological footprint exceeds 6 gha/ca. The remaining countries fall into a new category called ?three-planets? because the average ecological footprint ranges between 4 and 6 gha/ca.                                                           46 This report is produced every two years, hence 2007 is the closest and most recent study year to 2006 for which data are available.  107  Table 4.1: Summary of Consumption Data by Lifestyle Archetype Component Three-Plus- Planets   (>6 gha/ca) Three-Planets  (6 - 4 gha/ca) Two-Planets   (4 - 2 gha/ca) One-Planet   (< 2 gha/ca ) World Average Ecological Footprint (gha/ca) 7.04  5.11 2.76 1.45 2.21 Carbon Footprint (tCO2/ca) 19 9 4 1.5 4.1 Food (t/ca)  Daily caloric supply 0.693 3,525 0.857 3,240 0.693 2,893 0.548 2,424 n/a 2,809 Buildings (kWh/ca) and  Built Area (m2/ca) 14,381  51 8,850  29 2,545  13 692  8 2,596  10 Consumables (Paper t/ca) and Wastes (solid waste t/ca)  0.2  0.55  0.2  n/a  0.1  0.41  0.01  0.25  0.1  n/a Transportation (VkmT/ca) (AkmT/ca) Transit Ridership  9,482 3,622 10%  5,550 2,264 20%  1,265 484 24%  582 125 19% 2,600 564 Water (m3/ca) % domestic 1,159 23% 498 24% 702 13% 822 9% 632 10% Other/Government (HDI)   0.869  0.849  0.703  0.544  n/a  Table 4.1 reveals that the three-plus-planet countries have the highest levels of consumption across virtually all component categories. They also have the highest human development index rating. In general, the progression from high to low consumption correlates with the archetype groupings, where the lowest levels of consumption and human development index are associated with the one-planet archetype. There are some exceptions within and between the archetypes that reveal important opportunities for further investigation. For example, many of the countries in the three-planet archetype, e.g., Germany and Japan, achieve commensurate levels of education and longevity 108  with countries in the three-plus archetype.47 Also, some countries in the one-planet archetype, e.g. Ecuador and Cuba, achieve a high human development index (UNDP 2011; WRI 2010).  4.1.1 One-Planet Living The countries selected for study in the one-planet category have an ecological footprint at or below 2 gha/ca. I include a range of countries including those with ecological footprint values close to the 1.8 gha/ca target all the way down to some of the lowest per capita values at under 1 gha/ca.  4.1.1.1 International Profile Table 4.2 comprises a summary of statistical data and a description of average lifestyles within the one-planet countries studied.48 The study draws on information provided by: FAO (2010b, 2008, 2003a, 2003b, 2001a, 2001b, 1999a, 1999b), World Bank (2011), UN Habitat (2010), WRI (2010), Worldmapper (2010), International Civil Aviation Organization (2005), Menzel and D?Aluisio (2005), Menzel and Mann (1994).  Table 4.2 International Profile of One-Planet Living (under 2.0 gha/ca) Component Consumption (units/ca/yr) Comments Ecological Footprint 1.45 gha Ecological footprint values range from 1.93 to 0.67 gha/ca. Carbon Dioxide Emissions 1.5 tCO2 Includes total country emissions amortized over the entire population. Emissions range from 5 to 0.1 tCO2/ca. Approximately 0.2 tCO2/ca can be attributed to emissions from home heating and electrification.                                                            47 Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) observe that equality within a society contributes more to social health outcomes than average wealth. In comparative analyses of social health, equality, and wealth in western countries, Germany and Japan rank higher on the first two than the USA, which rankest highest in the latter. 48 I have chosen to represent the average rather than the median because the data that I draw on for this research also relies on statistical averages. My assumption is that consistent representation of data using average values captures the full range of consumption across a given study group, whereas the use of median data may under-represent total consumption. Also consistent use of averages supports an easy to understand method that can be repeated, challenged and improved upon in future research. 109  Component Consumption (units/ca/yr) Comments Food 548 kg  Includes:  - meat 21 kg The diet is predominantly vegetarian with 60-40% of daily energy supplied from cereal crops and 7-4% from meat. Average daily consumption is 2,424 calories. Approximately 66% of total income is spent on food, supplemented by subsistence agriculture. With the exceptions of Ecuador and Cuba, malnutrition and food insecurity remain a challenge.  Buildings and Built Area 10 m2  692 kWh 0.2 toe49 0.2 tCO2 Less than half the population (45%) is urban, with approximately 5 people per household. Approximately 70% of the urban population has access to sanitation services and infrastructure.  Consumables and Wastes 0.3 radio 0.2 telephone 0.2 TV 0.02 computer 247 kg waste There is no disposable income. Most consumable items are shared both within and among households. Many items are re-purposed and reused.  Transportation 0.02 vehicles 582 VkmT 125 AkmT There is low to no ownership of motorized passenger vehicles. Approximately 19% of the population uses public transit for commuting purposes. Personal motorized vehicle travel averages 582 km/ca and air travel 125 km/ca. Water 74 m3 Only 9% of total water consumption (822 m3/ca/yr) is utilized for domestic purposes.  Other/ Government 0.544 HDI With the exceptions of Cuba and Ecuador, the Human Development Index ranges from low (0.430) to medium (0.595).  4.1.1.2 Super Green Profile I compiled the super green profile using the Global Footprint Network (2010) ecological footprint calculator. Further to the preliminary description provided in section 3.1 above, the calculator offers the user a set of choices pertaining to questions about food (e.g., frequency of meat consumption, whether food purchases are organic and locally produced), shelter (e.g., type, size, occupants and percentage of renewable energy used in the home), consumption (e.g., purchases of books and clothing, degree to which wastes are recycled), and                                                           49 Measures the amount of primary energy from all sources consumed by the residential sector (excluding transportation) in unit of tonnes of oil equivalent (toe).  110  transportation (e.g., kilometers travelled by automobile, number of trips by airplane). The least impact choice for every set of questions is termed super green (Global Footprint Network 2010). I use the label super green to reflect the consistent selection of the least impact choice at every decision point in the use of the calculator in order to compile hypothetical profiles of one-planet living. The Global Footprint Network calibrated the calculator based on studies they have completed for various clients around the world. In some cases, the clients are a city, e.g., an ecological footprint compiled for the City of Calgary is used to represent Canada. There are inconsistencies in the answer choices offered across the 15 case studies used to populate the calculator. However, in every case, I chose the least-impact option available, i.e., the super green choice, in order to compile the super-green profile. I created super green profiles for 11 countries, out of a total possible 15 countries that are profiled in the calculator. The countries that I chose are the ones already selected for this research (see Appendix A) and include: USA, Canada, Australia, Italy, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, China, Ecuador, and India. I used characteristics of the one-planet living descriptions summarized in Table 4.2 to inform choices in the super green profile comprising: a primarily vegetarian diet, the highest possible number of people per household in the smallest type of shelter possible, minimal purchases of consumable products such as clothing and appliances, and zero car ownership. Where additional choices were available, I selected what I perceive to be the lowest impact lifestyle including: locally grown, in-season, organic and none-processed food; green construction methods; renewable energy; high transit ridership and no car or air travel. Table 4.3 summarizes the outcomes of those profiles that managed to achieve the one-planet living target. The following countries were eliminated because their profiles remained above the one-111  planet target: USA, Canada, Australia, Italy, and Japan. All five of these countries represent societies at or over three-planet living, and it is possible that the energy intensity of service provision in these economies, including provision of senior government services, exceeds the equivalent of 2 gha/ca. Table 4.3 Super Green Profile of One-Planet Living using the Footprint Calculator Component Consumption (units/ca/yr)  Comments Ecological Footprint 1.13 Ecological footprint values ranged from 1.7 to 0.5 gha/ca. Carbon Dioxide Emissions n/a At least 75% of energy comes from renewable sources.  Food No meat No fish No eggs No dairy The diet is exclusively vegetarian, with virtually no processed food consumed. Most food is grown locally, meaning either within the country or within a 1,000 km radius.  Buildings and Built Area 5 m2  240 kWh 0 toe There are approximately 7 people per household. Dwellings are small studios and/or apartments that use efficient lighting fixtures and renewable energy sources. Consumables and Wastes 0 radio 0 telephone 0 TV 0 computer Purchases of clothing and household furnishings are minimal and everything is recycled. Books, magazines, appliances and personal electronics are never purchased.  Transportation 0 vehicles 0 VkmT 0 AkmT All transportation is by walking, cycling or rideshare.  Water n/a There are no questions pertaining to water consumption in the calculator. Other/Government n/a There are no questions pertaining to other services, including government services.  4.1.1.3 Intentional Community Profile Because my purpose is to explore what life-style changes would be needed for high-income societies to achieve one-planet living, I have selected a sample of intentional communities from western cultures (e.g., North America and Europe) for which an ecological footprint assessment 112  is available (Giratalla 2010; BioRegional 2009; Tinsley and George 2006; Haraldsson et al. 2001). None of the intentional communities identified in this research achieves one-planet living (see Appendix B). However, some register low per capita ecological footprints in certain components. By selecting the lowest ecological footprint value achieved by any of these communities for each component, I can create a hypothetical composite ?community? that meets the one-planet living criterion for the intentional community profile (see Table 4.4). This one-planet composite is drawn from Findhorn, Scotland for food, buildings and transportation (Tinsley and George 2006) and Toarp, Sweden for consumables and services (Haraldsson et al. 2001). The study year for both is 2004-2005. It should also be noted that my composite is not a perfect representation because of methodological differences among the original EF studies of the selected intentional communities. Table 4.4 Intentional Community Composite Profile of One-planet Living Component Consumption (units/ca/yr) EF (gha/ca) Comments Food n/a 0.42 The diet is predominantly vegetarian, comprising mostly locally grown, organic produce. Cheese, meat and eggs are supplied by local, organic farms. Most meals are cooked in communal kitchens. Buildings and Built Area 18.69 m2 0.29 Buildings are predominantly single-family, wood frame construction with some row-housing and co-housing units (i.e. shared kitchen and common space). Electricity is entirely from the on-site wind farm. Hot water and heating is achieved through passive solar design and wood burning stoves, which are dominant, with some gas boilers in small district energy systems for multi-unit buildings. All energy consumption is metered.   Consumables and Wastes n/a 0.19 Purchase of consumer goods is similar to most conventional urban households in Sweden. 113  Component Consumption (units/ca/yr) EF (gha/ca) Comments Transportation 539 VkmT  8,439 AkmT  0.37  Local travel is predominantly by train (25% or 3,055 km/ca/yr), followed by car (4% or 539 km/ca/yr), local bus (1% or 127 km/ca/yr). Motorcycle and walking/cycling account for less than 1% each (with motorcycles accounting for 26 km/ca/yr and walking/cycling accounting for 20 km/ca/yr). Air kilometer travel (AkmT) for business and vacation purposes comprises 70% of total kilometers travelled BUT this is not included in the EF estimate. Transportation infrastructure (e.g. road maintenance) accounts for 10% of the footprint. Water n/a n/a All water consumption is metered. Other/Government n/a 0.09  Total  1.36   4.2 Vancouver?s Ecological Footprint As per the methods description provided in section 3.2.3 above, my component ecological footprint approach relies on data collected directly from local government sources through a residential urban metabolism study based on material flows analysis.50 I also use lifecycle assessment studies, taken from the literature, to estimate the embodied energy in material stocks including: buildings, roads, infrastructure, and consumable goods. All data represent consumption over a one year period. This approach produces three data outputs:  i) material flows (quantifying energy and materials consumed),  ii) greenhouse gas emissions inventory of consumption, iii) ecological footprint.                                                            50 Recall that food estimates rely on national data due to lack of local data. 114  Table 4.5 provides a summary of the data outputs (data sources are identified in section 3.2.3). The following sections provide detailed analysis of these data. Table 4.5 Summary of Data Outputs   Material  (tonnes, litres, cubic metres) Embodied Energy  (kWh, GJ, tCO2) Operating Energy (kWh, GJ, tCO2) Built Area (ha) Total GHGs (tCO2e) Ecological Footprint  (gha) Food  720,125 t 887,554 tCO2 63,381 tCO2 n/a 950,935 1,230,982 Buildings  36,536,669 t 2,924,193 GJ 4,950,470,807 kWh  21,869,767 GJ 6,232 1,449,753  386,752 Consumables  and Wastes 572,40251 t  1,180,987 l fuel  213,690,000 m3 waste H2O  637,770 tCO2 16,111,280 kWh  399,337 GJ 454 931,393 335,330 Transportation 115,890 t  714,510,415 l fuel 192,200 GJ 1,845,195 tCO2 3,372 1,977,702 468,735 Water 125,195,000 m3 drinking H20  28,122 t 39,609 GJ 10,571,029 kWh 3,414 2,086 8,677                                                            51 This includes food waste as well as yard and garden wastes.  115  4.2.1 Material Flows Analysis Table 4.6 summarizes the material and energy inputs and waste outputs for each component of the EF associated with Vancouver residents? lifestyles. The table is based on energy and material flows and lifecycle assessment data. It was not always possible to capture direct energy inputs for all products. For the food component, I rely on Dr. Kissinger?s estimates. Rather than track actual energy inputs for food production, processing, and distribution, Dr. Kissinger follows an economic input-output approach that uses the dollar value of net food consumption in Canada (i.e. production plus imports minus exports) combined with lifecycle analysis data to estimate the volume of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil energy used for food production, processing and distribution. He also estimated the carbon dioxide emissions that would be associated with the transportation of food imports.52  The accuracy of ecological footprint estimates improves with the duration of the data collection period. At least one full, typical year of material flows data should be used to produce an EF snapshot. However, it was not always possible to obtain material inputs for all products on an annualized basis. For example, data about building materials coming into the region are not readily available. I therefore amortized the quantity of materials in the existing building stock over the buildings? lifecycle assuming 40 years for wood-frame structures and 75 years for concrete high-rises (Metro Vancouver 2001) in order to estimate the annual in-flow of building materials in the study year.53  This approach has an added advantage for ecological footprint analysis in that the data are unaffected by ups and downs in construction activity which could create larger values for some years.                                                            52 Transportation data for domestically produced food was not available. 53 Vancouver is and has been a growing city over the last 100 years. According to Statistics Canada (2006a) 40% of the residential stock was built since 1986. 116  Finally, materials that were produced, consumed, and decomposed within the City (such as yard and garden waste) are noted but not included in the material flows analysis. However, the energy inputs required to transport and manage these materials is included. This approach is consistent with the way that recycled materials from the waste stream are addressed, i.e., recycled materials are noted but not counted as a material flow; however, the associated energy inputs are included.  Table 4.6 Summary of Vancouver Urban Metabolism of Consumption   Material Inputs (tonnes of ma-terials, including annually amortized stocks of materials, and cubic metres of water) Energy Inputs (litres of fuel,  GJ of natural gas, kWh electricity) GHG Emissions Outputs (tCO2e) Solid and Liquid Waste Outputs (tonnes of materials, cubic metres of water) Food 720,125 t n/a54  950,935  86,654 t55 Buildings 36,536,669 t56 24,793,960 GJ57 4,950,470,807 kWh 1,449,753 75,004 t58 Consumables and Wastes 482,14059 t 339,337 GJ 16,111,280 kWh 1,180,987 l fuel 931,393 280,007 t60 Transportation 115,890 t61 714,510,415 l fuel 1,977,702 n/a Water 125,195,000 m3 28,122 t62 39,609 GJ 10,571,029 kWh 2,086 213,690,000 m3 63                                                           54Energy inputs are not reported by Kissinger (unpublished) who uses economic input-output data to estimate only the carbon dioxide emissions that result from the energy inputs. 55 Includes 81,654 tonnes of wasted food and 5,000 dry tonnes of biosolids from wastewater treatment. Excludes backyard composting of food waste due to lack of available data. 56 Represents the per year equivalent of materials in the building stock, i.e., total materials in the building stock amortized over its lifecycle (assuming 40 years for wood frame and 75 years for concrete high-rise). 57 Includes 2,924,193 GJ/yr of embodied energy in the building stock. 58 Demolition and land-clearing waste. 59 Excludes 81,654 tonnes of food waste (see footnote 48 above). Excludes 8,608 tonnes of yard and garden waste that was sourced within the City and the compost used beneficially on soils within the City, representing a circular path rather than a flow-through. Approximately 51% of materials consumed were recycled. 60 Approximately 38,920 tonnes of this waste was incinerated to produce steam and electricity that was used locally by industry and residents through BC Hydro?s electrical grid.  61 Represents the per year equivalent of concrete in roads (91,388 tonnes) amortized over a 50 year lifecycle and the per year year equivalent weight of private motor vehicles (24,502 tonnes) amortized over a 15 year life cycle. 117  Kissinger?s method produces a total food consumption estimate that is 12% higher than what Statistics Canada (2007a) reports (630,990 tonnes). This is due to methodological differences. Recall from section 3.2.3.1, that several data sources are used. Variations in data quality between Statistics Canada and other agencies (e.g., Agriculture Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans) can produce differences in reported material volumes. Also, Dr. Kissinger uses extremely disaggregated data in his estimates and there could be some effect of rounding errors.64 Both Dr. Kissinger?s and Statistics Canada?s (2007a) estimates are for gross consumption, i.e., wastage is not subtracted from reported quantities.65  Net consumption represents the amount of food that is assumed to actually be ingested, meaning wastage is subtracted. Comparing Statistics Canada (2007a) data estimates for gross consumption (631,990 tonnes) and net consumption (441,924 tonnes), one sees that approximately 30% is wastage. Wastage can occur throughout the food supply chain and includes spoilage prior to or during retail, carcass by-product not suitable for human consumption, food scraps and plate-waste. When comparing the material inputs and outputs for food in Table 4.6, however, one sees that food waste accounts for approximately 11% of total food consumed. This lower value could reflect the fact that only the portion of food waste that ends up in the municipal solid waste stream is being counted.                                                                                                                                                                                            62 This is the material weight of water infrastructure, e.g. pipes and dams, amortized over their operating life to present a one-year snap shot. 63 The high volume of wastewater treated is primarily due to inflow and infiltration in sewer pipes from ground water and surface runoff. 64 Dr. Meidad Kissinger, personal communication, March 30, 2012. 65 Statistics Canada (2007a) uses the phrase ?not adjusted for losses.? Losses could occur through the supply chain in manufacturing, storage and transportion or from spoilage and plate-waste. 118  4.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Consumption A consumption approach to GHG emission inventorying attributes emissions to the end user (Dawkins, Roelich and Owen 2010; Turner et al. 2006). Ecological footprint methods are consistent with this approach and can be used to guide their development (Bastianoni 2004; Turner et al. 2006; Dodman 2009). By allocating ?emissions to the consumers of products and services,? the approach focusses on why emissions are generated and who is driving that demand (Dawkins, Roelich and Owen 2010, p. 1).  Led in part by EFA (Rees 1992; Rees and Wackernagel 1994; Wackernagel and Rees 1996), the consumption approach is growing in importance as a communication and policy tool. It can complement territorial approaches to emission inventories that are used by most local governments in Canada and around the world (FCM 2012; ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability 2009; FCM and ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability 2008). A territorial approach focuses on the geographic location where emissions occur, but a consumption approach provides important insights about how trade affects emission profiles among countries (Dawkins, Roelich and Owen 2010). This is particularly relevant to international negotiations where issues of equity and accountability are critical (Weidmann 2009). For example, most high-income countries have transitioned to a service economy, which theoretically should be concomitant with lower GHG emissions. Many developing countries now host the industries that still serve the needs of high-income states. A territorial approach to emissions inventories penalizes the developing economies. A consumption approach, on the other hand, could foster greater collaboration and technology transfer to help developing economies manage emissions while simultaneously holding high-income consumers 119  accountable (Weidman 2009; Barrett et al. 2002). The consumption approach also expands the scope of local government?s ability to identify linkages between policy and planning interventions and emissions associated with lifestyle choices (Moore 2012).  Table 4.7 and figure 4.1 present Vancouver?s greenhouse gas emissions inventory of consumption. Greenhouse gas emissions total 5,311,869 tCO2e or 9.2 tCO2e per capita. Transportation accounts for the majority of emissions (37%) followed by buildings (27%), food (18%), consumables and wastes (18%), and water (0.04%).  Table 4.7 Vancouver?s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Consumption Component GHGs (tCO2e) Per Capita GHGs (tCO2e/ca) Food 950,935 1.66    Fruits and Vegetables 174,633 0.30    Meat, Fish, Eggs 321,425 0.56    Grains 88,467 0.10    Stimulants 55,019 0.15    Oils, Nuts, Legumes 73,409 0.13    Dairy 178,337 0.31    Beverages 59,645 0.10 Buildings 1,449,753 2.51    Residential 805,688 1.39    Commercial/Institutional 644,065 1.11 Consumables and Wastes 764,086 1.61    Paper 222,117 0.38    Plastic 155,864 0.27    Metal 94,692 0.10    Glass 32,133 0.16    Organics 55,076 0.06    Household Hygiene 34,396 0.06    Hazardous Material Containers 68,748 0.12    Other  79,377 0.14    Electronic waste 35,309 0.06    Residential solid waste disposed 86,512 0.15    Commercial solid waste disposed 46,022 0.08    Solid waste management 1,883 0.003 120  Component GHGs (tCO2e) Per Capita GHGs (tCO2e/ca)    Liquid waste management 19,263 0.03 Transportation 1,977,702 3.42    Roads 6,727 0.01    Street Lights 1,226 0.002    Private Vehicles 1,465,002 2.53    Commercial Vehicles 153,126 0.26    Public Transit 26,339 0.05    Air Travel 325,282 0.56 Water 2,086 0.004 Water Infrastructure 1,713 0.003 Water Treatment 373 0.001 TOTAL 5,311,868 9.2  Figure 4.1 Vancouver?s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Consumption  Figure 4.2 shows the City of Vancouver?s inventory for 2006 based on the territorial approach to community-based greenhouse gas emissions. The City?s reported emissions are 4.9 tCO2e/ca (COV 2007c) or 2,832,401 tCO2e assuming 2006 census population of 578,041. One sees that the scope of emissions inventoried is limited to transportation, buildings and waste. This limitation in scope was prescribed by the National Climate Change Process (NCCS 1998, 1999; Environment Canada 2006) following the protocol proposed by the Federation of Canadian 18% 27% 18% 37% 0% FoodBuildingsConsumables & WasteTransportationWater121  Municipalities in delivery of the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program in Canada (Moore 2012; FCM 2008). The PCP program is the leading climate change action initiative for local governments in Canada. The rationale for reporting on transportation, buildings and waste is that local governments have greatest influence over these types of emissions (NCCS 1998, 1999). For example, local governments have control over land use which affects transportation patterns. The national greenhouse gas emissions inventory produced by Environment Canada (2008) also uses a territorial approach and reports emissions of 22 tCO2e per capita for study year 2005. This includes the emissions associated with resource extraction (e.g. forestry, oil and gas, minerals) much of which is delivered to export markets. Figure 4.2 Vancouver?s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory using territorial approach  4.2.3 Ecological Footprint Vancouver?s total ecological footprint is 4.21 gha/ca or 2,431,912 gha. This represents an area that is approximately 211 times larger than the City?s actual size (11,500 ha). Vancouver?s ecological footprint is summarized in Table 4.8 as a Consumption Land Use Matrix (CLUM) that breaks down the ecological footprint by the biologically productive land and water ecosystems 53% 4% 43% BuildingsWasteTransportation122  required on a continuous basis to: a) produce the material and energy inputs consumed by residents in the city and b) assimilate the wastes (measured as carbon dioxide emissions). One sees that energy land accounts for the largest land component (2.21 gha/ca), followed by cropland (1.51 gha/ca). The CLUM also summarizes the demand for nature?s services according to the consumption categories used in the study. Here, one sees that food accounts for the greatest demand (2.13 gha/ca) followed by transportation (0.81 gha/ca).  Table 4.8 Consumption Land Use Matrix EF by Land Type: Cropland Pasture Land Fish Forest Energy Built Area Total gha/ca Food 1.47 0.13 0.12   0.41   2.13  Buildings       0.03 0.61 0.03 0.67 Consumables 0.04     0.15 0.39   0.58 Transportation         0.80 0.02 0.81 Water         0.001 0.014 0.02                 Total gha/ca 1.51 0.13 0.12 0.18 2.21 0.06 4.21                 Total gha 874,219 75,145 69,365 103,913    1,272,658  36,612  2,431,912                 As percentage 36 3 3 4 52 2 100   In addition to presenting the ecological footprint by land type (figure 4.3) and consumption activities (figure 4.4), I also present how demand on nature?s services breaks down within each component. In other words, the integrated urban metabolism and ecological footprint approach provides detailed information about the EF of various sub-component categories as well as the EF of the materials and energy used throughout their lifecycle (i.e., from cradle to grave). This approach enables detailed analysis of the resources required to support Vancouverites? lifestyles. By exploring the footprint through various representations, I can 123  better understand how changes in urban planning policy or production technologies could affect residents? consumption activity and their ecological footprint.  Figure 4.3 presents Vancouver?s ecological footprint by land type. One sees that energy land (2.21 gha/ca) accounts for 52% of the total ecological footprint. Cropland (1.51 gha/ca) accounts for 36% of the footprint. Together, energy land and cropland account for 88% of Vancouver?s ecological footprint. Previous studies (Sheltair 2008; Wilson and Anielski 2005) using the compound method also identify these two components as comprising the majority (68% and 74% respectively) of Vancouver?s EF. However, energy land was estimated to range between 3.65 gha/ca (Sheltair 2008) and 4.21 gha/ca (Wilson and Anielski 2005), nearly double the amount presented in this research. This discrepancy is most likely due to a difference in methods, whereby the compound approach is able to capture a more comprehensive scope of carbon dioxide emissions including senior government services. Note, however, that because forest Land also accounts for a larger share of the EF in the compound method, the percentage proportions for energy?s contribution to the EF are similar despite differences in actual quantitative findings.  In my research, forest land accounts for only 4% of the footprint (0.18 gha/ca). This is significantly low compared to previous studies. For example, Sheltair (2008) and Wilson and Anielski (2005) estimate that Vancouver?s EF for forest land ranges between 1.15 gha/ca and 1.18 gha/ca respectively. Again, I hypothesize that this discrepancy is due to a difference in methods since both Sheltair (2008) and Wilson and Anielski (2005) use the compound method. Furthermore, Statistics Canada does not track energy and material flows at the municipal level 124  (Grant and Wilson 2009; Wilson and Anielski 2005) so analysts using the compound method must rely on consumer expenditure (i.e., dollars spent on product purchases) as a proxy to infer energy and material flows at sub-national levels. The compound approach does not appear to account for materials savings from recycling. My use of the component method combined with a residential urban metabolism which does track energy and material flows at the municipal scale allows for finer grained analysis that can distinguish between paper that is consumed and paper that is diverted from the waste stream for recycling. I believe that the low EF for forest land in my analysis is due to the exclusion of that portion of forest land associated with recylced paper. To test this assumption, I compare the Wilson and Anielski (2005) findings for Vancouver (i.e. Metro Vancovuer) to my ecological footprint data (adjusted to reflect the Metro Vancouver population). When I include the forest land associated with recycled paper in my EF the numbers are closer to what Wilson and Anielski (2005) estimate, i.e. a forest land EF of approximately 0.82 gha/ca or 15% of Vancouver?s total EF. Because the majority of paper (78%) is recycled, the difference in data output between the two methods is significant. Fish area accounts for only 3% of the ecological footprint (0.12 gha/ca). This is lower than what it would be if municipal expenditures were used to reflect local consumer preferences. In 2001, Vancouverites spent approximately 8% more than the national average on seafood (Wilson and Anielski 2005). Adjusting for local expenditure preferences yields a higher fish area EF (0.21 gha/ca) for Vancouverites (Wilson and Anielski 2005).66 Pasture land also accounts for only 3% of the footprint (0.13 gha/ca). However, in 2001 Vancouverites spent less on meat than the national average (Wilson and Anielski 2005). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the                                                           66 Note, however, that Sheltair (2008) reports only 0.15 gha/ca for fish area. 125  pasture land estimate would be lower if adjusted for local preferences. However, Wilson and Anielski (2005) report that the expenditure adjusted EF for pasture land, based on Statistics Canada?s (2001) Food Expenditure Survey for Vancouver is 0.23 gha/ca, placing it higher than the Canadian average (0.21 gha/ca). This seems to contradict the statement about lower than average expenditures on meat consumption in Vancouver.67 I cannot explain this discrepancy, nor do Wilson and Anielski (2005). I hypothesize that differences in method account in part for the lower pasture land estimates in my research. I note there are differences in starting assumptions about pasture land (measured in hectares) between Wilson and Anielski (2005) who assume 15,200,000 ha (7,752,000 gha) and Kissinger (unpublished) who assumes 8,029,084 ha (4,094,833 gha). This could explain the substantially lower pasture land estimate in my research.  The total built area of the City accounts for only 2% of Vancouver?s ecological footprint. This is typical of most high-income societies (Rees 1999), but again is lower than the estimates provided by previous studies using the compound method which estimate a built area of 5% in both Sheltair (2008) and Wilson and Anielski (2005). I hypothesize the discrepancy is due to differences in primary data sources. For example, Sheltair (2008) relied on City of Vancouver 2001 land use data and used different equivalence factors generated by the Global Footprint Network in 2003 whereas I use Metro Vancouver 2006 land use data and 2006 equivalence factors.68                                                            67 Sheltair (2008) reports an even higher pasture land EF at 0.40 gha/ca. 68 Note that Wilson and Anielski (2005) do not specify what equivalence factors were used in their calculations. The Global Footprint Network (www.globalfootprint.org) generates year-specific equivalence factors that vary in accordance with changes in biocapacity estimates. 126  Figure 4.3 Vancouver?s Ecological Footprint by Land Type  Figure 4.4 present?s Vancouver?s ecological footprint by consumption activity. Consistent with the CLUM (table 4.8), one sees that food accounts for the largest component (51%), followed by transportation (19%), buildings (16%), and then consumables and waste (14%). Water, specifically the energy used in drinking water treatment, is negligible (less than 1%).  It is important to recall that the food component of this study is derived through the compound method, and represents consumption patterns of all Canadians. Because the compound method is more comprehensive than the component approach, the food component may be larger than had a component method been used.69 It is also customary in the compound method to adapt the national data set to reflect local preferences. This is usually done through application of weighted values to express food preferences according to household expenditure survey data of the local population. However, the most recent household consumer expenditure survey to include food consumption preferences by Vancouverites was completed in 2001 (Statistics Canada 2001; 2003). The national consumption data for the food footprint                                                           69 Lack of available local food consumption data prevented use of the component method for this study. 36% 3% 3% 4% 52% 2% CroplandPasture LandFish AreaForest LandEnergy LandBuilt Land127  uses 2006 statistics. Because my goal is to capture a one-year snapshot of Vancouverite?s demand on nature?s services resulting from consumption, I have chosen to abstain from modifying the data set with the 2001 consumer preferences to avoid biasing the data based on historical patterns.  Figure 4.4 Vancouver?s Ecological Footprint by Consumption Activity  4.2.3.1 Ecological Footprint of Food Table 4.9 reveals that fruits and vegetables comprise the largest sub-component of the food footprint by weight and account for the largest share of emissions from food miles.70 However, fish, meat and eggs comprise the largest sub-component in the food footprint overall due primarily to cropland used to produce animal feed, e.g. corn and hay, and to a lesser extent the pasture land used to graze animals and the carbon dioxide emissions from embodied energy used in the production process. Indeed, this sub-component accounts for almost half of the food footprint (figure 4.5).                                                            70 Note that this term refers to the distance food is transported from farm to plate; however, for purposes of this research distances are measured in kilometres. 51% 16% 14% 19% 0% FoodBuildingsConsumables & WasteTransportationWater128  Table 4.9 Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint for Food FOOD Materials tonnes Embodied Energy (Production) tCO2 Operating Energy  (Food Miles) tCO2 Ecological Footprint gha Fruits and Vegetables 166,227 140,705 33,928 120,180 Meat, Fish, Eggs  88,067 317,546 3,878 590,615 Stimulants 42,764 48.937 6,081 28,488 Grains  94,199 74,943 13,524 122,211 Oils, Nuts, Legumes 94,981 68,333 5,077 183,692 Dairy 129,885 177,443 893 171,004 Beverages 104,002 59,645 n/a 14,792 TOTAL 720,125 887,554 63,381 1,230,982  Figure 4.6 reveals that cropland used to produce food materials (e.g., fruits, grains, nuts) comprises the largest demand on nature?s services within the food component. Moreover, approximately half of the cropland and all of the pasture land is attributed to producing animal feed (e.g., for meat production). Note that built area (e.g. land occupied by farm buildings such as barns and storage sheds) was not measured and therefore has a value of zero.  129  Figure 4.5 Vancouver Food Footprint by Food Type  Figure 4.6 Vancouver Food Footprint by Materials and Energy Demand   4.2.3.2 Ecological Footprint of Buildings Table 4.10 reveals that electricity for the operation of commercial and institutional buildings comprises the largest energy flow. However, natural gas for residential space and water heating represents the largest contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Building materials defined as 10% 48% 10% 2% 15% 14% 1% Fruits and VegetablesFish, Meat, EggsGrainsStimulants (coffee,tea, sugar, cocoa)Oils, Nuts, LegumesDairy ProductsBeverages75% 6% 18% 1% 0%  Materials (Cropland)Materials (Pasture Land) Embodied Energy (Production)Operating Energy (Food Miles) Built Area130  ?other? comprising products such as: gypsum, PVC, foams, fiberglass, etc. account for the largest material flow (36,114,156 tonnes per year) assuming a 40 year lifespan for wood frame buildings and a 75 year lifespan for concrete buildings (Metro Vancouver 2001).  Table 4.10 Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint for Buildings Buildings Sub-components Material Flows Analysis   Ecological Footprint (Energy/Materials) (Emissions)  Tonnes (t) Litres (l) Giga joules (GJ) Kilowatt hours (kWh) Hectares (ha) GHGs  (tCO2e) Carbon Dioxide (tCO2) Global Hectares (gha) Materials Wood Steel Concrete Other        44,094 t          5,750 t      372,669 t 36,114,156 t   18,046 Embodied Energy Residential 2,741,000 GJ 189,700 189,720 47,046 Commercial/ Institutional    183,193 GJ 14,970 14,970 3,713 Operating Energy  Residential 1,813,268,028 kWh 44,728 44,728 150,036 11,052,725 GJ 571,260 560,256 Commercial/ Institutional 3,137,202,779 kWh 77,385 77,385 153,323 10,817,042 GJ 551,710 540,852 Built Area Residential           5,317 ha  12,708 Commercial/ Institutional             915 ha  2,187 TOTAL  36,536,669 t 4,950,470,807 kWh  24,793,960 GJ            6,232 ha 1,449,753 1,274,808 387,057  Operating energy (both electricity and natural gas) for the institutional and commercial building sectors comprises the dominant share (40%) of the building EF (see figure 4.7). This is followed closely by operating energy for residential buildings (39%). Embodied energy within the 131  residential building stock constitutes the third most significant share of the footprint, driven primarily by single family homes. Building materials, namely wood used in residential construction, accounts for the fourth largest share of the buildings footprint, followed by the built area occupied by residential buildings. Recall that most of the city?s land area (37%) is dedicated to single family and duplex construction (Metro Vancouver 2006a).  Figure 4.7 Vancouver Buildings Footprint   4.2.3.3 Ecological Footprint of Consumables and Wastes Residential wastewater (128,214,000 m3 or 128,214,000 tonnes) accounts for the largest material flow in the consumables and waste component (see table 4.11). Electricity used to treat wastewater accounts for the largest energy flow within this component. Nevertheless, wastewater management contributes relatively few greenhouse gas emissions because the biogas that is generated through the treatment process is utilized on-site (i.e., combusted to produce energy). Therefore, wastewater treatment does not account for a major share of the 5% 12% 1% 39% 40% 3% 0% 0% Materials (ResidentialWoodframe only)Embodied EnergyResidentialEmbodied EnergyCommercial/InstitutionalOperating EnergyResidentialOperating EnergyCommercial/InstitutionalBuilt Area ResidentialBuilt Area Commercial132  consumables and waste ecological footprint (see figure 4.8). By contrast, recycled paper (214,975 tonnes) accounts for the second largest material flow and it has the largest contribution of greenhouse gas emissions, due to the energy needed to process the amount of paper being recycled.71 Consequently, paper constitutes the largest sub-component of the consumables and waste ecological footprint (see figure 4.9). Note that food accounts for the largest category of waste disposed to landfills and the incinerator (81,654 tonnes). However, recall that food waste is included in the EF estimate for the food component and is therefore omitted here to avoid double counting.  Lifecycle data taken from the literature (see chapter 3, section 3.2.3.3) was used to determine the material inputs and carbon dioxide emissions associated with various materials in consumer products. The land area required to grow the materials (e.g. wood, cotton) was then estimated using yield data and converted into an ecological footprint value using the equivalence factors provided by the Global Footprint Network for the 2006 study year. Similarly, the land area required to sequester the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the manufacturing process was also estimated (see chapter 3 for equations and equivalence factors). Adding the land area required to produce the materials for a particular product with the land area required to sequester the emissions from the energy used to manufacture that product generates a lifecycle assessment factor that represents the total global hectares required per tonne of materials used in a given product. A summary of the lifecycle assessment factors used in this research for both growing materials and sequestering emissions is provided in Appendix C.                                                            71 Approximately 3.5 times more paper was recycled (214,975) than consumed as virgin product (62,000 tonnes).  133  Table 4.11 Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint for Consumables and Wastes Consumables and Wastes Sub-components Material Flows Analysis Ecological Footprint (Energy/Materials) (Emissions) Tonnes (t) Cubic metres (m3) Litres (l)  Giga joules (GJ) Kilowatt hours (kWh) Hectares (ha) GHGs (tCO2e) Carbon Dioxide  (tCO2) Global Hectares (gha)  Materials  Solid waste72 - Residential - Commercial/ Institutional  182,830 t   97,177 t 86,512 46,022 57,420 30,570 14,294 7,610 Wastewater   - Residential - Commercial/ Institutional  128,214,000 m3   85,476,000 m3   Embodied Energy Sub-component break-down by weight of all goods consumed and recycled: Paper:  Disposed Recycled   61,904 t 214,975 t 43,903 178,214 43,903 178,214 89,685 45,145 Plastic: Disposed Recycled 41,521 t 11,699 t 143,346 12,518 143,346 12,518 35,982 3,159 Metal: Disposed  Recycled  9,451 t 23,106 t 26,460 41,683 22,491 35,431 14,833 10,398 Glass:   Disposed Recycled   6,820 t 42,615 t 12,563 27,700 12,563 27,700 3,143 6,818 Organic:Disposed Recycled    17,549 t73             0 t74 55,076 - 54,181 - 28,761 - Other75 51, 364 t 217,830 190,485 67,341                                                           72 Solid waste only counts waste disposed to landfills and incinerators. Data sources include: Metro Vancouver 2006b; TRI 2008; COV 2007b, 2007c. 73 This sub-component includes wood, rubber and textiles (e.g. cotton fabrics). Although food waste (81,654 tonnes) is excluded from the sub-component breakdown to avoid double counting with the Food footprint, the greenhouse gas emissions from disposal of food waste as well as operating energy associated with managing these wastes is counted in order to capture the post-consumption emissions that are not counted in the Food footprint. Also 8,608 tonnes of yard and garden waste is composted. It is not counted in the urban metabolism or the ecological footprint because the materials were produced and used within the city, e.g., soils produced from the compost are beneficially used in municipal landscaping and/or sold through garden supply stores (COV 2012a; J. Braman, personal communication, Septemeber 28, 2012).  74 Backyard compost data are not available. 134  Consumables and Wastes Sub-components Material Flows Analysis Ecological Footprint (Energy/Materials) (Emissions) Tonnes (t) Cubic metres (m3) Litres (l)  Giga joules (GJ) Kilowatt hours (kWh) Hectares (ha) GHGs (tCO2e) Carbon Dioxide  (tCO2) Global Hectares (gha) Operating Energy Solid Waste  management - Electricity - Fuel - Natural Gas          4,559,760 kWh 1,180,987 l             337 GJ 1,883 1,600 475 Liquid Waste management - Electricity - Natural Gas - Biogas   11,551,520 kWh       1,066 GJ       397,934 GJ76 19,263 19,197 4,761 Built Area Solid Waste  Operations   235 ha  561 Liquid Waste  Operations   190 ha  454 TOTAL       454,341 t 213,690,000 m3  waste H2O         1,180,987 l fuel      16,111,280 kWh        399,337 GJ               425 ha 768,031 654,198 291,257  Figure 4.8 indicates that embodied materials and embodied energy (i.e. the upstream resources used to manufacture products) account for most of the consumables and waste footprint. This                                                                                                                                                                                            75 This category includes household hygiene products (10,748 t), hazardous material containers (5,374 t), electronic waste (10,447 t) and products that could not be categorized (24,805 t). In order to ascribe some sort of numerical representation as it pertains to the EF of these items, I assume that the majority of the weight in electronic waste is plastic and that the majority of unclassified waste is household hygiene. Recycling data for these wastes was not included in the municipal data sheets provided form the City, resulting in potential underestimates. 76 Approximately two-thirds of the biogas (or digester gas) produced at the Iona wastewater treatment plant is used to offset demand for commercial natural gas. The remaining third of unused biogas is flared. 135  is followed by the energy required to recycle products for subsequent consumption. Indeed, 92% of the demand on nature?s services related to the consumption of consumer goods seems to occur in the supply and re-supply (i.e., recycling) chain, before products are consumed. The materials that are managed as municipal solid waste account for only 7% and all the energy (trucks, bull-dozers, facilities operations) and land (landfills) related to solid and liquid waste management account for less than 2% of the consumables and waste ecological footprint.  Figure 4.8 Vancouver Consumables and Waste Footprint   7% 33% 39% 20% 0% 1% 0% 0% Materials DisposedEmbodied Materials DisposedEmbodied Energy of MaterialsDisposedEmbodied Energy of MaterialsRecycledSolid Waste OperationsLiquid Waste OperationsSolid Waste Built AreaLiquid Waste Built Area136  Figure 4.9 Vancouver Consumables Footprint by Material Type   4.2.3.4 Ecological Footprint of Transportation Fuel to operate privately owned vehicles accounts for the largest material flow in the transportation component of the urban metabolism (see table 4.12). It also contributes the most greenhouse gases. Consequently, operating energy for private vehicles also accounts for the largest share (55%) of the transportation footprint (see figure 4.10). Fuel used in air travel by Vancouver residents accounts for the second largest material flow, followed by fuel to operate commercial vehicles. In terms of the ecological footprint of transportation, air travel contributes the second largest share (17%) of the ecological footprint, tied with embodied energy of privately owned vehicles.77                                                             77 The embodied energy of commercial and public transit vehicles and airplanes was not estimated.  52% 14% 11% 9% 3% 11% PaperPlasticOrganicsMetalsGlassOther137  Table 4.12 Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint for Transportation Transportation Sub-components Material Flows Analysis   Ecological Footprint (Energy/Materials) (Emissions)  Tonnes (t) Litres (l) Giga joules (GJ) Kilowatt hours (kWh) Hectares (ha) GHGs in  (tCO2e) Carbon Dioxide  (tCO2) Global Hectares (gha) Materials Private Vehicles   Steel   Aluminum   Plastics   Rubber   Glass   Other 277,590 vehicles  16,396 t   1,499 t   1,851 t       999 t       648 t    3,109 t    Commercial Vehicles 2,591 vehicles Institutional Vehicles 622 vehicles Roads 1,240 lane km Embodied Energy Vehicles           24,502 t78 440,732 314,430 77,979 Roads        192,200 GJ 6,727 5,718 1,429 Operating Energy  Private Vehicles 431,666,210 l 1,028,853 1,021,306 255,327 Commercial Vehicles    57,385,233 l 153,126 155,280 38,820 Institutional Vehicles    10,140,603 l79 26,339 26,662 6,665 Air Travel  215,318,369 l 325,282 316,081 79,020 Built Area Streets, Lanes and Sidewalks              3,372 ha  8,059 TOTAL          367,550 t 714,510,415 l                3,372 ha 1,981,059 1,845,195 469,357                                                           78 This is the sum of the materials? breakdown for vehicles and should not be added to the grand total to avoid double counting. 79 This represents the bus fleet only and includes SkyTrain and Seabus. Exclusions are based on the assumption that most inter-regional travel is by non-Vancouver residents commuting to the City. 138   Figure 4.10 Vancouver Transportation Footprint  4.2.3.5 Ecological Footprint of Water Electricity to operate drinking water treatment facilities accounts for the largest energy flow in the water component of the urban metabolism, and potable water accounts for the largest material flow (see table 4.13). The watersheds are protected areas, meaning they are closed to the public and maintained in their natural state. However, there is an extensive road network that is used by the water utility for watershed maintenance. This road area constitutes the largest share of the water ecological footprint (see figure 4.11). The embodied energy in drinking water infrastructure (e.g., dams amortized over 100 years and pipes amortized over 50 years) constitutes the largest contribution of greenhouse gas emissions and also accounts for the second largest share of the water footprint.80                                                            80 The embodied energy of chemicals such as chlorine used to treat drinking water was note estimated. 0% 0% 17% 55% 8% 1% 17% 0% 2% MaterialsEmbodied Energy RoadsEmbodied Energy VehiclesOperating Energy Private VehiclesOperating Energy Commercial VehiclesOperating Energy PublicTransportationOperating Energy Air TravelOperating Energy Street LightsBuilt Area Roads139  Table 4.13 Integrated Urban Metabolism and Ecological Footprint for Water Water Sub-components Material Flows Analysis   Ecological Footprint (Energy/Materials) (Emissions)  Tonnes (t) Cubic metres (m3) Giga joules (GJ) Kilowatt hours (kWh) Hectares (ha) GHGs in  (tCO2e) Carbon Dioxide (tCO2) Global Hectares (gha) Materials Residential Water Supply 75,117,000 m3    Commercial/ Institutional Water Supply 50,078,000 m3  Concrete  (dams)          28,122 t  Ductile iron (pipes)            1,450 km  Embodied Energy Dams               800 GJ 96 96 24 Pipes         38,809 GJ 1,613 1,613 403 Operating Energy  Water Supply treatment 10,571,029 kWh 328 328 82 Water Supply distribution n/a 45 45 11 Built Area81 Protected Watershed         12,751 ha   Protected Reservoir         15,976 ha   Road Area            3,414 ha  8,159 TOTAL  125,195,000 m3       28,122 t          39,609 GJ      10,571,029 kWh          28,727 ha 2,082 2,082 8,679                                                            81 Land that is protected as natural habitat is not included in the ecological footprint because it represents preservation of existing biocapacity. 140  Figure 4.11 Vancouver Water Footprint   4.3 Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap Vancouver?s per capita ecological footprint of 4.2 gha/ca is well above the 1.8 gha/ca targeted as the fair Earthshare. In order to explore the potential for one-planet living, I first establish the gap between the City?s current demand on nature?s services and available per capita biocapacity supply for each land type.82 Note that the total per capita biocapacity available in the world is 2.1 gha/ca (WWF 2008, p. 33). However, the fair Earthshare assumes that 12% of available biocapacity is set aside for natural preservation. This brings the remaining available biocapacity for human use down to 1.75 gha/ca or 1.8 gha/ca with rounding-up (WWF 2008).  Biocapacity supply is measured using four ecologically productive area types: cropland, pasture land, fish area and forest land. However, the ecological footprint is measured using these plus two additional types: energy land and built area (see figure 4.12). In order to be able to                                                            82 Wackernagel and Rees (1996, 159-160) describe the sustainability gap as the difference between available ecological biocapacity and an existing population?s level of consumption, as measured by the ecological footprint. 0% 5% 1% 94% WaterEmbodied EnergyOperating EnergyBuilt Area141  Figure 4.12: Vancouver?s Per Capita EF Compared to Per Capita Global Biocapacity Supply  estimate the sustainability gap for these two additional land types, I must consider how they relate to existing biocapacity supply. Since energy land represents the exclusive demand on forests for carbon sequestration, I associate it with available biocapacity of the forest land type. Similarly, since built area is generally considered to be crop land that was converted to urban development (Ewing et al. 2010, 11), I associate it with available biocapacity of the cropland type. Therefore, I can calculate the sustainability gap by subtracting Vancouver?s per capita EF for forest land and energy land from the available per capita biocapacity supply of forest land. Similarly, I can subtract Vancouver?s per capita EF for cropland and built area from the available per capita biocapacity supply of cropland (see ?collapsed overshoot? in table 4.14).  Table 4.14 presents the sustainability gap by land type between Vancouver?s per capita EF and global per capita biocapacity supply. One sees that total overshoot83 is 2.46 gha/ca. Vancouverites? demand exceeds supply in cropland by 1.01 gha/ca and forest land by 1.68                                                           83Overshoot means that demand (ecological footprint) exceeds biocapacity supply. 00.511.522.533.544.5Vancouver EF World Biocapacitygha/ca Built AreaEnergy LandForest LandFishing AreaPasturelandCropland142  gha/ca. However, Vancouverites use less pasture land and fish area than available global per capita supply. Furthermore, if one looks at the Vancouver EF for forest land, as distinct from energy land, one sees that Vancouverites demand less forest land (0.18 gha/ca) than available supply (0.71 gha/ca). In other words, it is the EF for energy land alone that exceeds the total available biocapacity supply for forest land. Table 4.14: Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap by Land Type  Cropland Pasture Land Fish Area Forest Land Energy Land Built Area Total Vancouver EF 1.51 0.13 0.12 0.18 2.21 0.06 4.21 World Biocapacity 0.56 0.33 0.15 0.71 0.00 0.00 1.75 Overshoot -0.95 0.20 0.03 0.53 -2.21 -0.06 -2.46 Collapsed Overshoot -1.01 0.20 0.03 -1.68 - - -2.46  Next, I consider what Vancouver?s total EF could be like at a one-planet level of consumption if the excess available biocapacity supply of pasture land and fish area were allocated to offset total demand in cropland, and if the excess in forest land were allocated to offset demand in energy land (see table 4.15 and figure 4.13).84 This approach refines the sustainability gap estimate for each land type. For example, net demand on ecosystem areas to produce food is 0.78 gha/ca. Similarly, net demand on ecosystem areas to sequester carbon dioxide emissions is 1.68 gha/ca. One can now see how demand on various ecosystems might be distributed across the various land types if Vancouver were consuming at a one-planet level (see figure 4.14).                                                           84 I assume that the total built area of the City remains constant. Therefore, the built area demand in Vancouver?s EF under the one-planet scenario is still counted as part of the cropland overshoot. 143  Table 4.15: Vancouver?s Net Sustainability Gap by Land Type   Cropland Pasture Land Fish Area Forest Land Energy Land Built Area Total Vancouver EF 1.51 0.13 0.12 0.18 2.21 0.06 4.2 World Biocapacity    0.56 +0.20 +0.03 -0.06   0.33 - 0.20   0.15 -0.03  0.71 -0.53    0.00 +0.53 0.00   +0.06 1.75 Vancouver EF at One-planet 0.73 0.13 0.12 0.18 0.53 0.06 1.75 Gap: -0.78 0 0 0 -1.68 0.00 -2.46  Figure 4.13: Vancouver?s EF, Global Biocapacity Supply, and Vancouver EF at One-Planet  Now I can compare Vancouver?s EF, as well as the hypothesized Vancouver EF at one-planet, to the actual EF of societies living at one-planet levels of consumption. First, I compare Vancouver?s per capita EF to the EF of the international profile for the one-planet archetype (see figure 4.15). Appendix D shows the individual EF of the eleven countries that comprise the international profile for the one-planet archetype. 00.511.522.533.544.5Vancouver EF World Biocapacity Vancouver One-planetgha/ca Built AreaEnergy LandForest LandFishing AreaPasturelandCropland144  Figure 4.14: Vancouver EF at One-Planet    Figure 4.15: Vancouver?s EF, Global Biocapacity Supply, Vancouver at One-Planet, and the One-Planet International Profile  For Vancouver to achieve one-planet living requires a 58% reduction in the per capita footprint, equivalent to 2.46 gha/ca. If one compares Vancouver?s ecological footprint to the one-planet 42% 8% 7% 10% 30% 3% CroplandPasture LandFishing AreaForest LandEnergy LandBuilt Area00.511.522.533.544.5gha/ca Built AreaEnergy LandForest LandFishing AreaPasture LandCropland145  international profile, with an average ecological footprint of 1.45 gha/ca, the reduction becomes greater still (approximately 66% or 2.76 gha/ca ). A detailed representation of the international profile for the one-planet living archetype is presented in figure 4.16 (compiled with data from WWF 2010b). One sees that demand for nature?s services is distributed approximately in thirds, with one third of ecosystem services dedicated to sequestering carbon dioxide emissions in the form of energy land, one third dedicated to crop production, and another third distributed relatively equally across forest land, pasture land and fish area. A small proportion (4%) is dedicated to the built area.  When compared to Vancouver?s ecological footprint (see figure 4.3), one sees that the one-planet living archetype demonstrates significantly less relative demand for energy land (36% vs. 52%) and slightly less relative demand for cropland (31% vs. 36%). However, the relative demand for all other land types is greater. One sees closer approximation in the distribution of the land-types between the one-planet living archetype and the hypothesized Vancouver EF at the one-planet level of consumption (figure 4.14). There is slightly less demand for energy land in the Vancouver scenario (30% vs. 36%) and significantly more land dedicated to crops (42% vs. 31%). This implies that there is flexibility in the way that demand for nature?s services is expressed by a society at the one-planet level. The observation is consistent with the variations expressed by the EF of the individual case studies that comprise the international profile for the one-planet archetype (see Appendix D).  146  Figure 4.16: EF of International Profile for One-Planet Archetype  4.3.1 Exploring the Sustainability Gap for Food To understand how the sustainability gap reflects differences in consumption patterns, I compare the benchmarks presented above for the one-planet living archetype (see tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4) to Vancouver?s existing consumption. Because I am primarily interested in exploring the impacts of lifestyle choices, I assume that the methods of production and the sources of energy used in the Vancouver case remain constant. In other words, I specifically explore what changes to the ecological footprint could be made if Vancouverites chose to mimic the lifestyle of the one-planet archetype in the existing Vancouver context. For example, I substitute the type and total throughput of food consumed in the equations used to estimate the food EF (see chapter 3), but hold constant the assumptions about the yields and greenhouse gas intensity of food production (i.e., embodied energy) as well as transportation (i.e., operating energy/ food miles). This approach is followed for all subsequent component explorations as well. Cropland 31% Pasture Land 10% Fish Area 9% Forest Land 10% Energy Land 36% Built Area 4% 147  First, I analyze the international benchmarks data for one-planet living (see table 4.2). Total annual food consumption is approximately 0.5 tonnes per capita. This is less than the amount of food consumed by Vancouverites (0.8 t/ca) (Statistics Canada 2007a).85 I use Nutrition Country Profiles (FAO 2010b, 2008, 2003a, 2003b, 2001a, 2001b, 1999a, 1999b)86 to assess what type of food is being consumed and in what quantities for eight of the eleven case study countries that represent the international profile of the one-planet archetype (for details see Appendix E). Note that the average per capita food consumption of the eight countries profiled in detail is only 0.41 t/ca/yr, which is less than the average (0.5 t/ca/yr) for the eleven international cases studies in the one-planet category (table 4.2). Henceforth, the analysis relies on the lower value represented by the FAO case studies so that I can capture detailed data about consumption of different food types.  Figure 4.17 compares average per capita food consumption patterns for the one-planet international profile (based on the FAO case studies) with the Vancouver case study (based on net food consumption). In addition to differences in the total amount of food consumed, there are also differences in their relative proportions. For example, Vancouverites consume more stimulants (21% vs. 6% in the one-planet archetype) and prepared beverages (25% vs. 4%). Although Vancouverites consume more meat and dairy products overall, the relative proportion of meat in the diet (7%) is less than in the one-planet profile (9%) and equal for dairy (at 11% in both cases). The one-planet diets are higher in grain consumption (32% of the diet) than the                                                           85 Refers to net food consumption, meaning plate waste and other in-system losses are excluded. To facilitate comparison to the FAO country profiles which count only net consumption of food, I use Statistics Canada (2006a, 2006d, 2007a) data to estimate net food consumption for Vancouver residents at 441,921 tonnes (or 0.76 t/ca). 86 Nutrition profiles are not available for Uzbekistan, Iraq and India. 148  Vancouver diet (11%). Vegetable consumption is also higher in the one-planet profile (33% vs. 25%). Figure 4.17: Vancouver Food Consumption Compared to the One-Planet International Profile  Table 4.16 presents the gha/t for the various categories of food used in the Vancouver EF. I calculated these numbers by dividing the total gha by total tonnes of food consumed for each food type (see table 4.9 for data inputs). I then used the resulting values to estimate the ecological footprint for food if Vancouverites followed a diet similar to the one-planet archetype. I multiplied the average amount of food consumed by food type in one year by the gha/t as calculated in table 4.16 for that same food type. Through this approach, I assumed that the same production and delivery methods are applied to the one-planet scenario as was estimated for Vancouver?s original food footprint (see table 4.8).  0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90Vancouver Adjustedfor LossesOne Planet Averagetonnes/ca Beverages/OtherDairyOils, Nuts, LegumesGrainsStimulantsFish, Meat, EggsFruits and Vegetables149  Table 4.16: Global Hectares per Tonne of Food Based on Vancouver?s Consumption Patterns Food Category gha/t Fruits and Vegetables 0.72 Fish, Meat, Eggs 6.71 Stimulants 0.67 Grains 1.30 Oils, Nuts, Legumes 1.93 Dairy 1.32 Beverages 0.14  The estimate also reflects the difference between Vancouver?s ecological footprint which is based on gross consumption (i.e., not adjusted for in-system losses/wastes at 2.13 gha/ca) and a footprint based on net consumption (i.e., only the food that was eaten at 0.87 gha/ca). Because the FAO case studies use net consumption, I had to first estimate the ecological footprint of food at one-planet based on net food consumption values (see Appendix E). The estimated food footprint for the one-planet international case studies is 0.64 gha/ca. This is 0.23 gha/ca less than Vancouver?s net food footprint of 0.87 gha/ca. I subtract this difference from Vancouver?s gross food footprint of 2.13 gha/ca to provide a first estimate of the food EF (1.90 gha/ca) that would be achieved if Vancouverites adopted a one-planet diet.  Table 4.17 compares the food EFs for Vancouver (based on gross and net consumption), the societies already living at one-planet (international profile), the super green and super green plus scenarios, and the intentional community composite profile. Note that the one-planet international case studies represent generally mal-nourished societies (FAO 2008, 2003b, 2001b, 1999a, 1999b). Since the percentage of meat and dairy is similar in both diets, it appears that the majority of EF reduction that could be achieved if Vancouverites ate a diet similar to 150  those in the one-planet international profile is achieved through reducing the quantities of food consumed. Table 4.17 Vancouver EF of Food Compared with One-Planet Lifestyle Archetype Profiles.  Vancouver (not adjusted for losses) Vancouver (adjusted for losses) International Profile Super Green Super Green Plus Intentional Community Composite Profile  gha/ca/yr gha/ca/yr gha/ca/yr gha/ca/yr gha/ca/yr gha/ca/yr Fruits and Vegetables 0.21 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.16 n/a Fish, Meat, Eggs 1.02 0.35 0.25 0.00 0.00 n/a Stimulants 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.12 n/a Grains 0.21 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.11 n/a Oils, Nuts, Legumes 0.32 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.11 n/a Dairy 0.30 0.11 0.06 0.00 0.00 n/a Beverages/ Other 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 n/a TOTAL 2.13 0.87 0.64 0.41 0.54 0.42  The super green scenarios (table 4.3) derived through the Global Footprint Network calculator indicate that total elimination of meat, fish, eggs and dairy from the diet is conducive to one-planet living. Since the Vancouver diet already comprises more food in total than the one-planet archetype, one could argue that compensation for loss of animal protein in the diet may not be necessary. However, since we know that the diet of the one-planet international case studies is correlated with malnutrition, one might reasonably assume that the elimination of animal protein foods must be compensated for by an increase in consumption of other foods. Figure 4.18 represents a comparison of the Vancouver diet (based on net consumption) and the proposed super green diet that eliminates all animal proteins. I also include an additional comparison, called super green plus, that assumes that the total weight of food consumed by 151  Vancouverites remains constant despite the elimination of animal proteins. This means that the elimination of animal proteins is compensated for by an equally distributed increase in the amount of all remaining food types such that the net weight of food consumed is the same.87  Figure 4.18: Comparison of Vancouver Food Consumption to the Super Green Profile  Following the same estimation methods as described above for the international case studies, if Vancouverites followed the super green scenario and eliminated all animal proteins from their diet and did not compensate for this loss by consuming other food stuffs, the per capita EF for food could be reduced by 0.46 gha/ca to 1.67 gha/ca. If Vancouverites followed the super green plus scenario, where the total amount of food consumed is held constant despite the elimination of animal proteins, the per capita EF for food could be reduced by 0.33 gha/ca resulting in a food footprint of 1.80 gha/ca. In both of these scenarios, the reduction potential to the EF for food is greater than what was estimated for the Vancouver diet following the one-                                                          87 This approach represnents a first approximation only because simply increasing the wight of other foods across the diet may not adequately compensate for the nutritional losses from reduced meat consumption. 0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90VancouverAdjusted forLossesSuper Green Super GreenPlustonnes/ca Beverages/OtherDairyOils, Nuts, LegumesGrainsStimulantsFish, Meat, EggsFruits and Vegetables152  planet international case studies. This implies that the type of food consumed affects the EF as much as or more than how much food is consumed. The Intentional Community Composite Profile (table 4.4) represents a mostly vegetarian diet that includes local and organic food production as well as communal food preparation methods. The average per capita food footprint in the Intentional Community Composite Profile is 0.42 gha/ca. If Vancouverites mimicked these food consumption patterns, they could achieve a reduction of 0.45 gha/ca in their food footprint. This would result in a food footprint for Vancouver of 1.68 gha/ca (down from 2.13 gha/ca). Table 4.18 summarizes the potential reduction in the food EF that could be achieved if Vancouverites adopted a diet similar to the one-planet international case studies, super green or super green plus profile, or the intentional community composite profile. In all cases, the potential reduction falls short of what would be necessary to close the sustainability gap of 0.78 gha/ca for cropland (or 2.46 gha/ca overall). The analysis reveals that if Vancouverites changed only the type of food they consumed, i.e. super green plus scenario, the EF for food could be reduced more than if they reduced the total quantity of food consumed following the consumption patterns of the one-planet international case studies. Further reductions might be possible with changes to the way that food is produced and prepared (as implied by the intentional community profile). However, this is only speculation at this point. Further analysis into how production of food could render additional reductions in the food footprint will be explored in subsequent sections of the dissertation.  153  Table 4.18 Comparison of the Potential Reductions in the Food Footprint  Vancouver International Profile Super Green Super Green Plus Intentional Community  Reduction potential - -0.23 -0.46 -0.33 -0.44 Food Footprint 2.13 1.90 1.67 1.80 1.68  4.3.2 Exploring the Sustainability Gap for Buildings Table 4.2 reveals that there is an average of five people per household with an average living space of 8 m2 (86 ft2) per capita for people at the one-planet level of consumption. This is equivalent to 40 m2 (430 ft2) per household. Average per capita energy use is equivalent to 692 kWh per year and approximately 0.2 tCO2 emissions per capita are associated with home energy use. In contrast, the average Vancouverite lives in 43 m2 (467 ft2) or 99 m2 (1,065 ft2) per household, assuming an average of 2.2 people per household (D. Ramslie, personal communication, February 16, 2011; Statistics Canada 2007b). Average annual, per capita electricity use is 3,137 kWh, and there is approximately 1 tCO2 emissions per capita associated with home energy use (BC MOE 2010, Statistics Canada 2007b). Therefore, the average Vancouverite lives in a space five times larger, consumes 4.5 times more electricity, and produces five times more carbon dioxide emissions per capita related to home energy use than the one-planet archetype based on the international profile.  If Vancouverites consumed electricity at the same per capita level as those already living at one-planet, the per capita EF for Vancouver?s buildings footprint could be reduced by 0.02 gha/ca. This would result in an overall building footprint of 0.65 gha/ca (down 3% from 0.67 gha/ca). In other words, a 78% reduction in electricity consumption would only yield a three percent reduction in Vancouver?s building footprint. This is probably due to the low greenhouse 154  gas emission coefficient for electricity in Vancouver (24.666 tCO2/GWh) as a result of significant hydro power capacity (BC MOE 2010).  If, on the other hand, Vancouverites reduced greenhouse gas emissions from residential buildings to a level commensurate with those already consuming at the one-planet level, the per capita EF for Vancouver?s buildings footprint could be reduced by 0.21 gha/ca. This would result in an overall building footprint of 0.46 gha/ca (down 31% from 0.67 gha/ca). This means that an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-based energy sources (e.g. natural gas used for space and water heating) could yield a 69% reduction in the buildings footprint. See Appendix F for calculations. The super green scenario (table 4.3) indicates that average per capita living space is 5 m2 and electricity consumption is 240 kWh/ca. The super green scenario is silent on greenhouse gas emissions; however, most energy (over 75%) is derived from renewable sources. If Vancouverites consumed electricity at the same levels as the super green scenario, the per capita EF for Vancouver?s buildings footprint could be reduced by 0.02 gha/ca. The super green scenario depicts per capita electricity consumption at one-third that of the international profile for one-planet living (i.e., 240 kWh/ca/yr versus 692 kWh/ca/yr). However, because of the low greenhouse gas emission coefficient for electricity in Vancouver, the additional reductions in carbon dioxide and corresponding reduction in the ecological footprint are insignificant. If I assume that 75% of Vancouverites? fossil based energy is converted to renewables with low to no greenhouse gas emissions, the resulting reduction in EF from the buildings component 155  would be 0.18 gha/ca.88 This would result in an overall building footprint of 0.49 gha/ca (down 27% from 0.67 gha/ca). Thus the super green scenario produces results commensurate with the international profile for one-planet living.  The average per capita dwelling space in the intentional community composite profile (table 4.4) is 19 m2/ca (201 ft2/ca) comprising 100% renewable energy sources for electricity and a dominant reliance on renewable energy for space heating. The average per capita buildings footprint is 0.29 gha/ca. If Vancouverites used energy in residential buildings the same way, derived from similar renewable energy sources, they could achieve a reduction of 0.38 gha/ca in the buildings footprint. This would result in an overall buildings footprint for Vancouver of 0.29 gha/ca (down 57% from 0.67 gha/ca). Table 4.19 reveals the potential reduction in the ecological footprint for residential buildings that could be achieved if Vancouverites utilized residential energy the same way as the international, super green, or intentional community composite profiles comprising the one-planet archetype.  Table 4.19 Comparison of the Potential Reductions in the Buildings Footprint  Vancouver International Profile Super Green Intentional Community  Potential Reduction  - 0.21 - 0.18 - 0.38 Buildings Footprint 0.67 0.46 0.49 0.29  The potential reductions fall short of what would be necessary to close the sustainability gap of 1.68 gha/ca for energy land (or 2.46 gha/ca overall). The analysis reveals that the greenhouse                                                           88 Note, however, that if the renewable energy source includes virgin wood, the land associated with the production of that wood would be counted as a contribution to the EF. 156  gas intensity of energy is more important than the overall amount of energy consumed. This means the type of energy (and its greenhouse gas emissions coefficient) is a crucial consideration. Because most electricity consumed in Vancouver is generated from hydropower, it has a very low greenhouse gas emissions coefficient. To close the sustainability gap, therefore, requires a focus on managing fossil based energy used for space conditioning and domestic hot water heating. Consideration of how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from commercial and institutional buildings could also be considered.  4.3.3 Exploring the Sustainability Gap for Consumables and Wastes I estimate consumption data for household goods by analyzing municipal waste and recycling data (see chapter 3). However, it is difficult to ascertain household waste and recycling levels for societies comprising the international profile of the one-planet living archetype. Systems for measuring and weighing waste are rare in developing countries and differences in the way that wastes are classified impede data comparisons (UN Habitat 2010). In many countries municipally provided waste management services do not cover the entire urban population, and a significant portion of recycling is handled through the informal sector (UN Habitat 2010). It is also difficult to determine how municipal solid waste data in the one-planet living case studies translates into energy and material flows. For example, the international benchmark data for one-planet living (table 4.2) reveals that most household electronic appliances (e.g., radio, telephone, television and personal computers) are shared among several members within a household, or even among households. This makes it challenging to ascertain 157  individual usage of such items. In countries such as Zambia,89 most people purchase second hand clothes that are imported from North America and Europe (Mansvelt 2005). Therefore, only the energy required to reuse the clothing (i.e. energy used to transport the clothes from North America and Europe) should be counted.90 To compensate for the challenges in estimating the actual energy and materials flows associated with a high degree of sharing as well as recycling and trade of goods in the informal economy, I assume that reported municipal waste data in the one-planet case studies represents all the materials consumed. This approach most likely produces an underestimate thereby reducing the risk of over-estimating the impacts from materials that contain a high percentage of recycled and re-used content.  I use data from urban waste audits (UN Habitat 2010) to estimate what type of materials are being consumed in household goods and in what quantities for three countries that comprise part of the international profile for the one-planet archetype (i.e., Mali, Philippines and India).91 I average these data to develop a consumption profile for household goods (see table 4.20).  Total annual consumption of goods, based on waste data for the international case studies is 0.24 tonnes per capita (UN Habitat 2010). This is significantly less than the per capita amount of goods consumed and disposed as municipal waste by Vancouverites (0.48 t/ca) and far less still if all materials, including recycling, is counted (0.99 t/ca) (COV 2008a; Statistics Canada 2007b). One sees that organics comprise the largest sub-component of the one-planet waste stream.                                                           89 Zambia is not a one-planet living case study country, but its population does live at the one-planet level of consumption (WWF 2010b). 90 In theory a portion of the embodied energy of the clothing should also be attributed to the second-hand owner according to the amount of use they derive from the clothing ? and this should be subtracted from that originally ascribed to the first owner. 91 Data is for cities in Mali, Philippines, and India. Ciities in the other countries that comprise the international profile were not available. 158  This is probably due to the inclusion of food waste which makes it difficult to ascertain precisely how much of the organic waste is comprised of non-food waste (e.g. wood, rubber, and cotton from discarded household furniture and clothing). Recall that the Vancouver case study does not count food waste in the consumables and waste footprint component (it is assumed under the food footprint). If food waste was counted within consumables and waste, Vancouverites? per capita amount of waste would increase to 1.13 t/ca. Table 4.20 Comparison of Vancouver and One-planet International Profile of waste   Vancouver Municipal Solid Waste  (excluding food waste) Vancouver Municipal Solid Waste  (including food waste) One-Planet Municipal Solid Waste (including food waste)  t/ca/yr % t/ca/yr % t/ca/yr % Paper 0.49 50 0.49 44 0.02 8 Glass 0.09 9 0.09 8 0.01 2 Metal 0.06 6 0.06 5 0.01 3 Plastic 0.09 9 0.09 8 0.02 7 Organic 0.17 18 0.31 28 0.12 49 Household Hazardous 0.03 3 0.03 2 0.00 0 Other 0.06 6 0.06 5 0.07 29 Total 0.99 100 1.13 100 0.24 98  For purposes of comparison, I show both the Vancouver data without food waste (i.e., the data used to compile Vancouver?s EF) as well as with food waste. In both cases, paper remains the dominant material in the waste-stream (mostly from recycling). Comparing Vancouver to the one-planet international case studies, one sees that in addition to variations in the total amount of goods consumed there are also differences in the proportions of materials consumed. Specifically, Vancouverites consume more paper (50% vs. 8% in the one-planet archetype) and glass (9% vs. 2%). Other materials include plastic (9% vs. 7%) and metal (6% vs. 159  3%). In contrast, the majority of waste in the one-planet case studies comprises organics (49% vs. 18% in Vancouver). As noted, this is probably due to the inclusion of food waste in the one-planet data set. However, the one-planet case studies data still shows a greater proportion of organics in the waste stream even when food waste is also included in the Vancouver data (49% vs. 28% in Vancouver). In the one-planet case studies, the category called ?Other? which captures undefined waste materials accounts for 29% (vs. 6% in Vancouver).92  Figure 4.20: Comparison of Vancouver Household Goods Consumption Patterns to the One-planet archetype using international case study data  If Vancouverites consumed the same amount of materials in the same proportions as the one-planet international case studies, and if those materials were manufactured and disposed or recycled in the same manner as what was estimated for Vancouver?s original consumables and waste footprint (see table 4.11), then the Vancouver EF for consumables and wastes could be reduced by 0.25 gha/ca. This would result in an overall consumables and waste footprint of                                                           92 The category called ?Other? includes undefined materials, hazardous household wastes (e.g., household hygiene products) that are soiled by bodily fluids such as feminine pads and diapers, hazardous materials containers (e.g., paint cans), electronic products (e.g., computers and light bulbs). 0.000.200.400.600.801.001.20Vancouver(excluding foodwaste)Vancouver(including foodwaste)One-planet Averagetonnes/ca OtherOrganicPlasticMetalGlassPaper160  0.33 gha/ca (down 43% from 0.58 gha/ca). Note that the high percentage of organics in the waste stream of the one-planet case studies reduces the overall EF reduction potential. Because I assume that the organic materials are manufactured and disposed in the same manner as what was estimated for Vancouver?s original consumables and waste footprint, my estimates attribute a high value to the embodied energy of organic material waste. The super green profile (table 4.3) assumes extremely low levels of consumption and 100% recycling. For example, books, magazines, appliances, and personal electronics are never purchased. Clothing and household furnishings are minimal. However, in the Global Footprint Network (2010) calculator, the super green profile does not indicate energy and material units of consumption which are needed to compile benchmark data. To overcome this data constraint, I subtract the previously estimated super green per capita food footprint of 0.41 gha/ca (see table 4.17 above) from the total super green per capita ecological footprint of 1.13 gha/ca (see table 4.3) and then distribute the difference (0.72 gha/ca) across the remaining four components. This produces an estimate of 0.18 gha/ca per component. If Vancouverites consumed in a similar way to the super green profile, then based on the assumptions outlined above, the Vancouver EF for consumables and waste footprint could be reduced by 0.40 gha/ca. This would result in an overall consumables and waste footprint of 0.18 gha/ca (down 69% from 0.58 gha/ca).93 (The same estimates apply for the super green plus profile with a food footprint of 0.54 gha/ca and total ecological footprint of 1.26 gha/ca.)                                                            93 If I further assume that the water component is insignificant (as it is in the Vancouver case) and distribute the difference equally across the remaining three components, I could assume that the consumables and waste component is approximately 0.24 gha/ca for the Super Green Scenario. 161  The intentional community composite profile (table 4.4) indicates that consumption of goods and production of wastes is similar to conventional urban households in Sweden at 0.19 gha/ca.94 If Vancouverites consumed with an EF similar to the value reported for the intentional community composite profile, the Vancouver EF for consumables and waste could be reduced by 0.39 gha/ca. This would result in an overall consumables and waste footprint of 0.19 gha/ca (down 67% from 0.58 gha/ca). Table 4.21 summarizes the findings from this analysis and reveals the potential reduction in the ecological footprint for consumables and wastes that could be achieved if Vancouverites consumed household goods at the same rate as the one-planet international profile case studies, super green and super green plus profiles, or the intentional community composite profile. Note that these numbers are based on significant assumptions. The potential reductions fall short of what would be necessary to close the sustainability gap of 0.78 gha/ca for cropland and 1.68 gha/ca for energy land (or 2.46 gha/ca overall).  Table 4.21: Comparison of Potential Reductions in the Consumables and Waste Footprint  Vancouver International Profile Super Green Super Green Plus Intentional Community  Potential Reduction  - 0.25 - 0.40 - 0.40 - 0.39 Consumables and Waste Footprint 0.58 0.33 0.18 0.18 0.19                                                            94 Other intentional communities report per capita footprints for consumables and wastes of: 0.23 gha/ca for Quayside Village in North Vancouver, Canada (Giratalla 20010), 0.3 gha/ca for Findhorn in Scotland (Tinsley and George 2006), and 0.79 gha/ca for BedZed in London, England (BioRegional 2009). Note that the latter value for BedZed exceeds Vancouver?s per capita EF for consumables and wastes. 162  4.3.4 Exploring the Sustainability Gap for Transportation Table 4.2 indicates that there is 0.02 per capita car ownership and a total of 582 vehicle kilometers travelled (VkmT) per capita in the one-planet living archetype. Air travel is minimal at an average of 125 AkmT/ca. In Vancouver, there are 0.5 vehicles per capita and a total of 6,363 VkmT/ca (BC MOE 2010). Air travel is approximately 4,857 AkmT per person (Legg unpublished). Table 4.2 also indicates that there is approximately 19% transit ridership for commuting purposes. These statistics imply that most transportation in the one-planet archetype is by foot or bicycle (e.g., up to 81%). In Vancouver, the mode split is: 17% walking, 3% cycling, 18% transit, 12% passenger in a private vehicle, 50% driver of a private passenger vehicle (Memon et al. 2006). If Vancouverites followed similar patterns of motor vehicle ownership and average per capita vehicle kilometers travelled as those already living at one-planet, the reduction in Vancouver?s per capita transportation footprint would be 0.5 gha/ca. This would result in an overall transportation footprint of 0.31 gha/ca (down 62% from 0.81 gha/ca). If I also assume that Vancouverites switch to using air travel as infrequently as those already living at one-planet, the reduction in Vancouver?s per capita transportation footprint is an additional 0.13 gha/ca. This means the total reduction in Vancouver?s transportation footprint would be 0.63 gha/ca. This would result in an overall transportation footprint of only 0.18 gha/ca (down 78% from 0.81 gha/ca). The super green profile (table 4.3) indicates that there is virtually zero motor vehicle ownership per capita. Almost all transportation is by walking, cycling and transit/rideshare. This means there is practically no motorized forms of private vehicle transportation and no air travel. If 163  Vancouverites achieved the same modal split as the super green profile, the reduction in Vancouver?s per capita transportation footprint would be 0.67 gha/ca. This would result in an overall transportation footprint of only 0.14 gha/ca (down 83% from 0.81). The intentional community composite profile (table 4.4) is silent on the level of per capita vehicle ownership and indicates that per capita car travel is 539 km annually. The ecological footprint presented in table 4.4 associated with the transportation component (0.37 gha/ca) appears to only account for this mode of transportation. If Vancouverites drove an average of 539 km/ca annually the ecological footprint for transportation could be reduced by 0.40 gha/ca. This would result in an overall transportation footprint of only 0.41 gha/ca (down 49% from 0.81). However, for the intentional community profile there is also a significant amount of air travel at 8,439 AkmT/ca which was not included in the ecological footprint estimate. This is almost twice the average per capita travel estimated for Vancouverites.95 If Vancouverites drove and flew the same amount as in the Intentional Community Composite Profile, then Vancouver?s transportation footprint would actually increase by 0.17 gha/ca. This would result in an overall transportation footprint of 0.98 (up 21% from 0.81).  Table 4.22 summarizes the findings of this analysis and reveals the potential change in the transportation footprint that could be achieved if Vancouverites travelled in the same way as the one-planet case studies, super green scenario, or intentional community composite profile. In all cases, the potential reduction falls short of what would be necessary to close the sustainability gap of 1.68 gha/ca for energy land (or 2.46 gha/ca overall). Indeed, when air                                                           95 I suspect the high air mileage for the intentional community profile is partly associated with the hotel operations of Findhorn, which accommodates people who visit for short durations (weeks to months) inorder to experience an intentional life as a form of lifestyle tourism. 164  travel is factored into the Intentional Community Composite Profile the result exceeds Vancouver?s per capita transportation footprint. This observation calls attention to the importance of including all aspects of lifestyle-related consumption activities when measuring ecological footprints, particularly with regard to attempts to model sustainable lifestyles in intentional communities.  Table 4.22: Comparison of the Potential Reduction in the Transportation Footprint   Vancouver International Case Studies Super Green Intentional Community (without air travel) Intentional Community  (with air travel) Potential Reduction  - 0.63 - 0.67 - 0.40 +    0.17 Transportation Footprint 0.81 0.18 0.14 0.41 0.98  4.4. Summary Table 4.23 summarizes Vancouver?s sustainability gap for the four components: food, buildings, consumables and waste, and transportation. Recall that because the ecological footprint for the water component was so small (0.02 gha/ca), I have excluded it from further analysis. This reduces the total EF represented in Table 4.23 accordingly to 4.19 gha/ca (down 0.02 gha/ca from 4.21 gha/ca).  Table 4.23 reveals that if Vancouverites adopted lifestyle patterns similar to those in the one-planet archetype, they could reduce their footprint but not enough to achieve the one-planet living target. Recall that the analysis assumes that the modes of production and sources of energy in the Vancouver case study are held constant in order to isolate for the impact of resident lifestyle choices. Therefore, it appears that the energy and materials intensity of the 165  modes of production used to deliver goods and services to Vancouverites comprises a significant share of the ecological footprint. Lifestyle choices that reflect the one-planet archetype are insufficient to reduce the per capita ecological footprint to a level commensurate with one-planet living. Changes to economy-wide energy and materials intensity would also be needed. In most cases these types of changes fall outside the scope of local government jurisdiction, implying that engagement by senior government (i.e., the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada) is needed. Table 4.23 Lifestyle Archetype Potential to Reduce Vancouver?s Sustainability Gap  Vancouver International Case Studies Super Green Super Green Plus Intentional Community (without air travel) Intentional Community (with air travel) Food Potential Reduction  - -0.23 -0.46 -0.33 -0.44  Food Footprint 2.13 1.90 1.67 1.80 1.68  Buildings Potential Reduction  - 0.21 - 0.18  - 0.38  Buildings Footprint 0.67 0.46 0.49  0.29  Consumables and Waste Potential Reduction  - 0.25 - 0.38  - 0.37  Consumables and Waste Footprint 0.58 0.33 0.20  0.21  Transportation Potential Reduction  - 0.63 - 0.67  - 0.40 +    0.17 Transportation Footprint 0.81 0.18 0.14  0.41 0.98 Total 4.19 2.87 2.50 2.61 2.59 3.14  166  The hypothetical super green profile depicted by the Global Footprint Network?s (2010) ecological footprint calculator generates the greatest cumulative potential reduction in total per capita EF (down 1.69 gha/ca to 2.50 gha/ca). This is primarily due to EF reductions in food and transportation reflecting: a) a reduction in the total amount of food consumed combined with a vegan diet comprising primarily organic, in-season, locally produced food, and b) relying exclusively on walking, cycling and public transit with no air travel. The intentional community profile generated the second greatest cumulative potential reduction. Specifically, it shows the greatest single reduction in the buildings component, implying that fuel type (predominantly renewable energy) affects the EF more than density. However, the intentional community shows the lowest potential reduction in the transportation component, and even exceeds the Vancouver per capita average when air travel is included. While the data for the intentional community profile is too limited to draw precise conclusions, it appears that use of single occupant vehicles and air travel are key determinants in the EF. Even among communities who choose to reduce their ecological footprint through multiple strategies, this element of lifestyle choice is critical to achieving one-planet living. In this light, while density may not be a determining factor in the buildings component of the footprint, it may play an important indirect role in affecting the transportation component. Of course the context in which density occurs is also important. An isolated dense community that stimulates a desire for people to drive or fly to other places may not prove as effective a choice as a dense community situated in a location where access to abundant services and amenities contribute to a high-quality of life that reduces a desire to travel elsewhere. Finally, the intentional community shows strong potential reductions in the food component. This is due to 167  the predominantly vegan diet. Communally prepared meals are also a common characteristic in the intentional communities. This could be an important energy-saving strategy. According to my methodology, the energy savings would appear in the buildings component (i.e., reduced operating energy). This may be another factor that explains the very low buildings EF in the intentional community profile. The super green profile and intentional community profile show similar reduction potential in the consumables and waste component. Recall, however, that the super green profile assumes virtually zero consumption of any household goods, and the intentional community profile data represents the community with the lowest ecological footprint achieved in the consumption component. Therefore, it seems that my method, using available data taken from the literature, under-estimates consumption in intentional communities.  The international case studies profile is, among all three profiles in the one-planet archetype, the one that is supported with the most robust data available through the literature. Curiously, however, it did not generate the greatest potential reduction in any of the components. Nevertheless there is general convergence across the one-planet archetype revealing that lifestyle choices could potentially contribute between 1.32 and 1.69 gha/ca reductions in Vancouverites? ecological footprint. This is approximately equivalent to a 32% to 41% EF reduction, with the most significant impacts generated through changes in transportation, followed by food, and to a lesser extent buildings and consumables.   168  5 Exploring the Potential for One-Planet Living in Vancouver This chapter explores changes to planning policy and management practices that the City of Vancouver could implement to facilitate one-planet living options for its residents. The research builds on the findings from chapter 4 that identifies transportation and food as the two components with the greatest potential for reducing Vancouver?s per capita ecological footprint. As outlined in chapter 3, I conducted a first round of interviews (see Appendices G ? names of interviewees and H ? interview 1 script) with City of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver staff to share my preliminary findings based on an analysis of Vancouver?s sustainability gap (see chapter 4). The purpose of this round of interviews was to investigate: a) what policies the City has in place to manage demand for energy and materials across the various components that comprise the EF, b) what changes to policy and/or management practices are being developed, and c) what additional changes interviewees would like to see introduced. I supplemented the findings from the interviews with archival research based on reports, plans and policies from the City?s records as well as Metro Vancouver and TransLink reports. I also surveyed the international sustainable cities literature in order to search beyond local boundaries for innovative changes to planning policy and/or urban management practices that could further enable a reduction in the City?s ecological footprint. Next, I analyzed the City?s ecological footprint data and developed a one-planet living baseline informed by the findings from the first round of interviews and literature on sustainable cities. I used the baseline to explore what reduction in EF could potentially be achieved through implementation of changes to Vancouver?s planning policies and urban management practices. I considered how these policies might be implemented at a neighbourhood scale and what that might look like in terms 169  of lifestyle patterns for Vancouverites. I selected a neighbourhood in Vancouver as a focal point to help ground this aspect of the research.  My selection of a neighbourhood was informed by the first round of interviews that included a question asking participants to identify neighbourhoods in the city that, in their opinion, best reflect urban sustainability (see Appendix H ? Interview 1 script).  I explored a variety of options in order to estimate what would be required to reduce Vancouver?s ecological footprint to a level commensurate with one-planet living (see section 5.3 below). Once a baseline for one-planet living in Vancouver was established, I investigated policy interventions and changes to urban management practices that could provide the means through which the City could act to achieve the necessary ecological footprint reductions. Next, I conducted a second round of interviews in order to identify which policy interventions and changes to management practice that I had identified could be implemented within the City?s jurisdiction and what challenges might be encountered (see Appendix I ? Interview 2 script). I also asked interviewees to identify which of the changes to planning policy and management practices they believe would be the most important to achieve the one-planet living goal and why. 5.1 Vancouver?s Policy Framework Pertaining to One-Planet Living The Greenest City 2020 Action Plan (COV 2011a) is the City?s most recent policy initiative, spanning ten action areas that together comprise a sustainability plan for Vancouver. Of most relevance to this research are the chapters within the plan that address a one-planet ecological footprint (chapter 7), transportation (chapter 4), and food (chapter 10). Additional chapters of interest address greenhouse gas emissions management (chapter 2), buildings (chapter 3), 170  waste (chapter 5), and green spaces (chapter 6). My own research helped to inform chapter 7: Achieve a One-planet Ecological Footprint (COV 2011c). I estimated the potential ecological footprint reductions that could be achieved through implementation of actions recommended by a Citizens? Task Group (Boyd 2009) for inclusion in the Greenest City Action Plan using a similar method as that applied in chapter 4 of this dissertation.96  As a preliminary step towards developing the Greenest City Action Plan, Boyd (2009) proposed ten initiatives and anticipated that a 33% reduction in Vancouverites EF could be achieved by 2020 through their implementation. No explanation is provided about how this estimate in potential EF reduction was developed (Boyd 2009). Only five of the proposed initiatives could be assessed with regard to their potential reduction in the components that comprise Vancouver?s ecological footprint, these included:  i) a 20% reduction in operating energy across the entire building stock ii) a majority of trips, over 50%, by walking, cycling and transit iii) a 40% reduction in the amount of waste that is landfilled or incinerated iv) a 33% reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production and distribution v) a 33% reduction in the amount of drinking water consumed I estimated that these initiatives could achieve a 9% reduction in Vancouver?s ecological footprint. Subsequently, City staff expanded the scope of some of the proposed initiatives (specifically addressing food, buildings, consumables and waste) and used my ecological                                                           96 I also explored potential changes to production and energy intensity, e.g., in the food analysis I explored how reductions in the greenhouse gas intensity of food could reduce the ecological footprint. 171  footprint data to re-estimate the potential reduction that could be achieved at 11.5% (COV 2011c, 111).97 Staff also then estimated the potential EF reductions that could be achieved if citizens assumed a leadership role by participating in additional efforts to reduce their EF (e.g., reduce air travel). Staff estimated that an additional 8.2% reduction could be achieved (COV 2011c). Therefore, the total estimate for potential reduction in Vancouverites EF by 2020 is 19.7% below 2006 levels (COV 2011a, 2011c). However, this still falls short of the goal of a 33% reduction in the total EF by 2020. The Greenest City 2020 Action Plan also does not address the long-term goal to achieve one-planet living by 2050 which would, based on chapter 4, require an additional 25% reduction in the EF (i.e., a total reduction of 58% below 2006 levels by 2050). Because I am interested in one-planet living, I focus on policies and changes to management practices that have the potential to reduce Vancouver?s ecological footprint through: i) reducing materials use (e.g., the total number of motor vehicles, food inputs and wastes),  ii) reducing embodied energy (e.g., fossil fuel intensity of infrastructure and food production),  iii) reducing operating energy (e.g., fossil fuels used in buildings for space-heating, in vehicle transportation and for goods movement),  iv) reducing built area (e.g., total area dedicated to roads, parking and paved surfaces).                                                            97 Details of all changes in scope of actions are presented on page 111 of the Greenest City 2020 Action Plan (COV 2011c). Changes include a 10% reduction in consumption of high EF food, a 15% reduction in consumption of goods, a 50% reduction in municipal solid waste, and implementation of district energy systems to further improve the efficient use of energy in buildings. The changes are anticipated to yield a 3.4%, 2% and 0.5% reduction in the EF respectively. 172  5.1.1 Policy Framework for Transportation The City?s 1997 transportation plan set the direction for limiting the existing road network and parking supply to existing levels and increasing capacity for walking, cycling and transit (COV 1997). The plan aligned with the 1995 City Plan and the regional growth management strategy (i.e., the Livable Region Strategic Plan (GVRD 1999)) and regional transportation plan known as Transport 2021 (GVRD 1993). These plans established the framework for a transportation hierarchy that prioritizes pedestrian, cycling, transit, goods movement and lastly the private motor vehicle (COV 1997). The targets set by the 1997 Vancouver Transportation Plan called for a mode shift across the City to achieve 18% walking and cycling, 15% transit, and 67% private automobile by 2021 (COV 1997). The Plan also identified more aggressive targets for travel to the University of British Columbia, along Broadway and to the Downtown. The most aggressive targets were set for travel to and within the Downtown, calling for 14% walking and cycling, 40% transit ridership, and 42% motor vehicle by 2021. The Plan noted these were ambitious targets that point towards a desired future (COV 1997). Nevertheless, the Downtown targets were achieved by 2004 (COV 2006) and the overall targets by 2008 (COV 2011a).  The Greenest City 2020 Action Plan calls for more than 50% of all trips to be by walking, cycling and transit (COV 2011a).98 This mode split has already been achieved in the Downtown where those who live and work downtown achieve an 86% walk, cycle and transit mode share (Klimchuk 2011). The City overall achieves a 42% walk, cycle and transit mode share (COV 2012b).                                                            98 The Greenest City 2020 Action Plan also calls for a 20% reduction in per capita vehicle kilometres travelled (VkmT) below 2007; however, the 2007 VkmT baseline has not been established (COV 2011c). In 2006, the median commute in Vancouver was 5 km/ca (Metro Vancouver 2008c). While this is not a measure of total VkmT, it helps point towards a minimum estimate threshold. For example, assuming people use their vehicles for more than commuting, then total VkmT will be at or above 5 km/ca. 173  A new plan, Transportation 2040, is now being developed. This new plan will share a similar name to the recently adopted Transport 2040 regional transportation plan developed by TransLink (2008). Draft directions proposed for the City?s Transportation 2040 Plan retain the transportation hierarchy that prioritizes walking, cycling and transit, as well as a focus on densification, i.e., co-locating jobs and housing, in areas that are already well-served by transit. The plan incorporates the Greenest City 2020 Action Plan goals and proposes that by 2040 two-thirds of all trips will be by walking, cycling and transit. The plan also advances restrictions on motor-vehicle use through proposals to support regional road pricing, provincial pay-as-you-drive insurance, employer transportation demand management programs, and reductions in available parking. It also calls for a shift to low-carbon fuel vehicles and support for local modes of production and distribution that reduce the need for long-haul transportation of goods. This includes emphasis on the preservation of existing industrial lands as well as support for urban agriculture (COV 2012c). 5.1.2 Changes to Transportation Policy and Management Recall that the second largest component within Vancouver?s ecological footprint is Transportation, and within Transportation the largest sub-component is operating energy for private vehicles (see table 4.12 and figure 4.10 in chapter 4). This sub-component accounts for just over half (55%) of the transportation footprint (255,327 gha out of a total of 468,735 gha) and just over one-tenth (10.5%) of the entire ecological footprint (255,327 gha out of a total 2,430,476 gha).  Research interviewees iden