"Applied Science, Faculty of"@en . "Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Wackernagel, Mathis"@en . "2009-04-15T21:16:34Z"@en . "1994"@en . "Doctor of Philosophy - PhD"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "There is mounting evidence that the ecosystems of Earth cannot sustain current levels of\r\neconomic activity, let alone increased levels. Since some consume Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s resources at a rate that\r\nwill leave little for future generations, while others still live in debilitating poverty, the UN\u00E2\u0080\u0099s\r\nWorld Commission on Environment and Economic Development has called for development that\r\nis sustainable.\r\nThe purpose of this thesis is to further develop and test a planning tool that can assist in\r\ntranslating the concern about the sustainability crisis into public action. The research advances\r\nthe concept of \u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footprint\u00E2\u0080\u009D or \u00E2\u0080\u009CAppropriated Carrying Capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D (EF/ACC) as a\r\nplanning tool for conceptualizing and developing sustainability. To meet this purpose, I\r\ndocument the development of the EF/ACC concept, explore its potential use in public decision-making\r\ntowards sustainability, apply the concept in a real world context, and finally, empirically\r\nanalyze its usefulness to actors in the public domain.\r\nThe research shows that the EF/ACC concept can link global social and ecological concerns to\r\nindividual and institutional decision-making. Though the tool needs further refinement to make\r\nit readily applicable to the planning practitioners\u00E2\u0080\u0099 everyday decisions, it has proved useful as a\r\nconceptual tool for framing the sustainability challenges. More than 20 EF/ACC applications,\r\nby others and by me, range from environmental outdoor education for children to policy and\r\nproject assessments for municipalities and regions. With these examples, EF/ACC has\r\ncontributed to translating sustainability into concrete terms and to providing direction for\r\nplanning toward sustainability."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/7132?expand=metadata"@en . "11161161 bytes"@en . "application/pdf"@en . "ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AN]) APPROPRIAThD CARRYING CAPACITY:A TOOL FOR PLANNING TOWARD SUSTAINABILITYbyMATHIS WACKERNAGELDip!. Ing., The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ZUrich, 1988A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(School of Community and Regional Planning)We accept this thesis as conformingto the r ired standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAOctober 1994\u00C2\u00A9 Mathis Wackernagel, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)&toof of C iwivry ejb\u00E2\u0080\u0099i\u00E2\u0080\u0099t/ Pios-ii\u00E2\u0080\u0099iiGf (il r\u00E2\u0082\u00ACdva k hidi\u00E2\u0080\u0099eThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate O 6))DE-6 (2/88)ABSThACTThere is mounting evidence that the ecosystems of Earth cannot sustain current levels ofeconomic activity, let alone increased levels. Since some consume Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s resources at a rate thatwill leave little for future generations, while others still live in debilitating poverty, the UN\u00E2\u0080\u0099sWorld Commission on Environment and Economic Development has called for development thatis sustainable.The purpose of this thesis is to further develop and test a planning tool that can assist intranslating the concern about the sustainability crisis into public action. The research advancesthe concept of \u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footprint\u00E2\u0080\u009D or \u00E2\u0080\u009CAppropriated Carrying Capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D (EF/ACC) as aplanning tool for conceptualizing and developing sustainability. To meet this purpose, Idocument the development of the EF/ACC concept, explore its potential use in public decision-making towards sustainability, apply the concept in a real world context, and finally, empiricallyanalyze its usefulness to actors in the public domain.The research shows that the EF/ACC concept can link global social and ecological concerns toindividual and institutional decision-making. Though the tool needs further refinement to makeit readily applicable to the planning practitioners\u00E2\u0080\u0099 everyday decisions, it has proved useful as aconceptual tool for framing the sustainabiity challenges. More than 20 EF/ACC applications,by others and by me, range from environmental outdoor education for children to policy andproject assessments for municipalities and regions. With these examples, EF/ACC hascontributed to translating sustainability into concrete terms and to providing direction forplanning toward sustainability.IITABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract iiTable of Contents iiiList of Tables viiList of Figures viiiAcknowledgement . .. ixINTRODUCTIONA. The Challenge 1B. The Purpose of this Thesis Research 4C. Structure of the Thesis\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Presentation 6D. Scope of the Thesis 7E. Significance of the Thesis 9II. THE SUSTAINABILITY CRISIS: EXPLORING ITS FACETS AND LINKINGITS THEMES 10A. Why Worry? Examining the Sustainabiity Crisis 111. The ecological crisis 132. The socioeconomic crisis 213. The political crisis 234. The epistemological crisis 285. The psychological crisis 38B. Making the Connections: The Common Theme ofthe Sustainability Crisis 42C. Reacting to the Crisis: Exploring the Necessary Conditions forSustainability 501. The ecological bottom-line for sustainabiity: a casefor strong sustainability 522. The socioeconomic conditions for sustainability . 553. The political conditions for sustainability 574. The epistemological conditions for sustainability . * 575. The psychological conditions for sustainability . . 58D. Developing Sustainability: The Need for Planning Tools that CanTranslate Sustainability Concerns into Effective Action 60111III. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OR APPROPRIATED CARRYING CAPACITY:DEVELOPING A TOOL FOR PLANNING TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY.. 62A. The Conceptual Foundation of EF/ACC 621. Assessing natural capital 622. Defining EF/ACC 673. EF/ACC and its conceptual ancestors 694. EF/ACC and its conceptual siblings 71B. The Five Rationales for EF/ACC 781. Ecological rationale 782. Socioeconomic rationale 843. Political rationale 884. Epistemological rationale 915. Psychological rationale 95IV. DEVELOPING A CALCULATION PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING EF/ACCOF AN ECONOMY 97A. Establishing an Operational EF/ACC Definition 97B. Outlining the Calculation Procedure 1001. The land-use of consumption 1002. Consumption categories 1013. Land and land-use categories 1024. The matrix 111C. Adopting the Calculation Procedure to Specific Applications . . . 114V. ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF PEOPLE, THEIR CONSUMPTION AN])THEIR TECHNOLOGY: EF/ACC APPLICATIONS 117A. The Appropriated Carrying Capacity of an Average Canadian . . 1171. The purpose of this calculation . . 1172. The calculation procedure 1183. Examples of translating consumption into land-use 1204. Results and comparisons 1225. The precision of EF/ACC estimate 126B. Other EF/ACC Applications 1271. Technology assessment 1282. Local and regional decision-making 1293. National and international decision-making 1324. Social equity 1345. Social behaviour and public education 136ivVI. EXPLORING EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099S USEFULNESS FOR PLANNING TOWARDSUSTAINABILITY 139A. Measuring \u00E2\u0080\u009CUsefulness\u00E2\u0080\u009D 1391. Choosing interviewing as the research method . . 1392. Establishing two scales 1413. Identifying potential barriers to the EFIACC tool 1434. Selecting key informants 1465. Developing an interview questionnaire 1506. The process of the questionnaire-based interviewresearch 1557. Limitations of this interview research 156B. Documenting the Interview Results 1591. The key informants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 understanding of sustainability 1602. The key informants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 support for theEF/ACC concept 165C. Analyzing the Interview Results 1751. Evaluating EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s usefulness 1762. Evaluating the interview process as anEF/ACC application 188VII. CONCLUSION 193A. Conclusion with Respect to the Research Objectives 193B. Suggested Areas for Further Research 1991. Tool improvements: including all competing usesof nature 2002. Local applications: analyzing the impact ofsettlement patterns and consumption 2013. Larger scale applications: analyzing the impactof regional and national policies 2034. Communication: making the tool and its ideasmore accessible 2065. Behavioral analyses: exploring the social psychologyof the sustainability crisis 207C. Implications of the EF/ACC Tool for Planning 2081. Creating public awareness 2092. Planning for sustainable national andinternational development 2133. Planning sustainable communities 216BIBLIOGRAPHY 219VAPPENDICES.246Appendix 1: Land Area Equivalent for Fossil Fuel: Three CalculationApproaches 247Appendix 1.1: Energy-Land Equivalence Ratio Based onEthanol Production 248Appendix 1.2: Energy-Land Equivalence Ratio Based onCO2 Absorption 252Appendix 1.3: Energy-Land Equivalence Ratio Based onCreating Renewable Substitutes 255Appendix 2: Background Data for the Land-use Consumption Matrix 257Appendix 2.1: Data for Calculating the Average Canadian Footprint 258Appendix 2.2: Supplementary Tables on Food Consumptionand Energy 292Appendix 2.3: Data References (for Data in Appendix 2) 303Appendix 2.4: Abbreviations and Units 307Appendix 3: Interview Research 308Appendix 3.1: Summary of Draft Handbook Reviews 309Appendix 3.2: List of the Interviewed Key Informants 310Appendix 3.3: The Questionnaire 311Appendix 3.4: Excerpts from the Answers of the Key Informants . 325viLIST OF TABLESTable 4.1Table 4.2Table 5.1Table 6.1Table 6.2Table A1.1Table A1.2Table A2. 1Table A2.2Table A2.3Table A2.4Table A2.5Table A2.6Table A2.7Table A2.8101103123142152251253292295297298299300301302The five main consumption categoriesThe eight main land and land-use categoriesThe consumption land-use matrixScales for sustainability perspectives and EF/ACC supportStructure of the interviewsComparing results of various ethanol productivity studiesCO2 sequestering by forest ecosystemsGeneral dataCanadian crop production and consumptionCanadian animal products and their consumptionFood supply and caloric value for an average CanadianEmbodied energy in various materialsConsumption energy conversionSpecific energy contentApproximate conversion ratios for biomass productivityvi\u00E2\u0080\u0099LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1.1 Three spheres of health 51Figure 6.1 Distribution of key informants according to their sustainabilityunderstanding and support for the EF/ACC tool 177Figure 7.1 David Pearce\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpolicy wedge\u00E2\u0080\u009D to decouple consumption fromresource throughput 205viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTStudying in Vancouver at the School of Community and Regional Planning was a richand enjoyable experience. I felt fortunate about being surrounded by nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s beauty and, evenmore, about being embedded in a community of caring and supportive friends.Especially grateful am I to my academic friends and mentors, first and foremost mysupervisor and \u00E2\u0080\u009CDoktorvater Bill Rees, but also the other committee members Peter Boothroyd,Tom Hutton and Bob Woollard. In addition, I was generously supported by the UBC Task Forceon Healthy and Sustainable Communities, particularly by its coordinator Janette McIntosh aswell as by the other members of the Task Force composed of my committee (but Tom), LarryGreen, Clyde Hertzman, Judy Lynam, and Sharon Manson-Singer who all stimulated andencouraged my research. Also many people in the Vancouver area who I met through my workwith the Task Force or who I interviewed for my research provided me with many insights andmuch inspiration.Further I would like to thank my other friends from Community Alternatives, from theSchool of Community and Regional Planning and the Centre for Human Settlements, fromInternational House, and the friends who I have met through them. Their company was alwaysinspiring. Particular indebtedness goes to my family and friends abroad who have accompaniedme in thoughts, letters and visits.The greatest gift of my time here in Vancouver has been the many friends who havebecome family, and many of my family who have become close friends. Thank you all.ixI. INTRODUCTIONA. THE CHALLENGEThere is mounting evidence that the ecosystems of Earth cannot sustain current levels ofeconomic activity, let alone increased levels (Goodland 1991, Meadows et a!. 1992:97-103,Postel 1994, Rees & Wackernagel 1992:383). However, economic activities, measured by theGross World Product, are growing at four percent a year\u00E2\u0080\u0099 -- which corresponds to a doublingtime of under 20 years (UNDP 1993:149, Brown et at. 1992b:67). One factor of this expansionis the growth of the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s population, which is expected to almost double between 1990 andthe year 2050 (United Nations 1991). The other ecologically significant factor is the rise in percapita consumption which, in the last 40 years, has been increasing even faster than the humanpopulation (Hoidren & Ehrlich 1974, Brown et at. 1992b:77).Today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s form of conventional economic development was launched after the SecondWorld War, and has become a major element of most nations\u00E2\u0080\u0099 political agendas. Its aim hasbeen to integrate local economies into the global economy, which leads to accelerated industrialproduction (and resource consumption) (Smith 1994, Ohmae 1990, Samuelson & Nordhaus1985:870, 857-868). However, increasing economic production has neither levelled incomedifferences, nor satisfied the basic needs of the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s poorest one billion people. While twentypercent of the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s people live in unprecedented wealth, at least twenty percent live inconditions of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cabsolute poverty\u00E2\u0080\u009D (UNDP 1993:12). Therefore, the conventional economicdevelopment approach has been challenged for not catering effectively to the needs of the poor(Dube 1988, Friedmann 1992, Friedmann & Weavers 1979, George 1984 & 1992, Hadi 1993,Hayter 1985, Laquian 1993).1 The Gross World Product rose in 1987 dollars from $3.8 billion in 1959 to $18.8 billion in 1990. This expansioncorresponds to an average growth rate of 4.1 percent. For the 1980\u00E2\u0080\u0099s, the average growth rate was three percent (Brownet al. 1992b:67).1Now, in the face of global ecological constraints, the criticism becomes even moresevere. Currently, humanity appears to deplete nature, through resource harvesting and wastegeneration, faster than nature can regenerate itself. By 1986, human activities were alreadyappropriating over forty percent of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s terrestrial net primary productivity -- or in otherwords, humanity was channelling through its economy over forty percent of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s chemicalenergy and living matter, which are constantly being accumulated by the land-based naturalprocesses of photosynthesis (Vitousek et a!. 1986). If the appropriation of other functions ofnature are added, such as waste absorption (e.g., biodegrading effluents or sequestering CO2from fossil fuel burning) and life support services (e.g., preserving biodiversity or providingclimate stability), there is indication that the world may already be effectively \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfull\u00E2\u0080\u009D of humanactivity (Goodland 1991, Daly 1991, Rees & Wackemagel 1992).The resource appropriation which has supported the last decades\u00E2\u0080\u0099 economic growth andthe rise of industrialized countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 standard of living has, at the same time, resulted in thedegradation of forests, soil, water, air, and ecological and genetic diversity (Duming 1989,Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1970, Brown et a!. 1984a-1994a). As the world approaches effective\u00E2\u0080\u009Cfullness\u00E2\u0080\u009D, the conventional economic development path has become self-destructive and aburden, particularly to the poor. Many scholars believe that continuing on this path might notonly ultimately impoverish humanity but put at risk its very survival (Duming 1989, Ekins 1986& 1992, Goldsmith eta!. 1991, Gordon & Suzuki 1990, Meadows eta!. 1992, Wolfgang Sachs1992a & 1993, Shiva 1991, The Ecologist 22(4), Trainer 1989).In 1987, with the release of Our Common Future by the United Nations WorldCommission on Environment and Development (WCED), discussions about the destructive socialand ecological impacts of humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s current approach to development became prominent on2political agendas. The starting point for the World Commission\u00E2\u0080\u0099s work was theiracknowledgement that humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s future is threatened. The Commission opened its report bydeclaring:We all depend on one biosphere for sustaining our lives. Yet each community, each country, strives for survivaland prosperity with little regard for its impacts on others. Some consume the Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s resources at a rate thatwould leave little for future generations. Others, many more in number, consume far too little and live withthe prospects of hunger, squalor, disease, and early death (1987:27).To confront these challenges of excessive resource consumption and persistent socialmisery, the Commission called for sustainable development, defined as \u00E2\u0080\u009C...development thatmeets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1987:43). In other words, the conventional economic developmentimperative of maximizing economic production must be reoriented toward minimizing humansuffering today and in the future. This depends, on the one hand, on reducing ecologicaldestruction -- mainly through lowering the resource throughput that the human economy drawsfrom nature -- and, on the other hand, on improving many people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quality of life.How to meet the challenge of developing sustainability2has stimulated much academicand political debate. Expressions of this growing interest in sustainabiity issues have been2 In this thesis, I use the expression \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdeveloping sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D rather than \u00E2\u0080\u009Crustainable development\u00E2\u0080\u009D becausedevelopment is often confused with growth (Daly 1991:243, Kumar et al. 1993:3). This becomes particularly evidentwhen some people as William Reilly (1994) advocate \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainable growth.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Also, Brian Burrows eta!., in their otherwisewell-informed book, write that \u00E2\u0080\u009C... the emphasis shifted from advocacy of zero growth to a recognition of the need forsustainable development, which would include some economic growth, but in a pattern sufficiently well balanced tominimise environmental damage and eventually to avoid the depletion of non-renewable natural resources...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1991:9).However, as pointed out later in this thesis, developing sustainability might require a reduction in aggregate economicproduction, while at the same time providing more consumption to the poorest. Further, the depletion of renewableresources might be a more serious limitation than the depletion of non-renewable resources.Also, the term \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainable development\u00E2\u0080\u009D is semantically ambiguous: it could refer to the necessity to livesustainably (a state), to the process of getting there (a process), to the current unsustainable lifestyle (problem), or tostrategies to solve the crisis (solution). Therefore, debates about \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainable development\u00E2\u0080\u009D can be confusing sinceobjections could be interpreted as disagreement with the problem definition, the proposed solutions, the goal ofsustainability or the process of getting there. As discussed in Chapter II, there is little disagreement on the problem, butmuch on how to address it.3international events such as the 1992 UNCED - \u00E2\u0080\u009CRio Conference\u00E2\u0080\u009D (United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 3-14, 1992) ; national and provincialactivities such as Round Tables and government-sponsored research initiatives; and localinitiatives in schools, municipalities and businesses. However, there is little commonunderstanding across the various academic disciplines on how sustainability can be developed(Folke et al. 1994), and there is little indication that current sustainability initiatives are effectiveat reversing the ecological and social trends. On the one hand, human use of nature apparentlycontinues to exceed global carrying capacity (nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s renewable productivity). On the otherhand, social health, as indicated by a sharpening of economic and social polarization, isdeteriorating, locally and globally (Kaplan 1994, Pimentel & Pimentel 1994, Postel 1994, Brown1994, Brown et al. 1992b). One deficiency of current sustainability initiatives is the lack ofaccepted monitoring tools to measure progress toward sustainability; another is the poor publiccomprehension of the sustainability crisis (Peat Marwick 1993b). Without a clear and generallyaccepted framework of basic criteria for sustainability and without popular support, sustainabilityinitiatives are without direction and fail to move industrial society towards critical social andecological objectives. Therefore, planning tools which can be used to raise public awareness ofthe issues and dilemmas, measure progress towards sustainability, and direct action, could makean important contribution to the development of sustainability.B. THE PURPOSE OF THIS THESIS RESEARCHThe purpose of this thesis is to further develop and test a planning tool that can assist intranslating the concern about the sustainability crisis into public action. As a planning tool forconceptualizing and developing sustainability, the concept of \u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footprint\u00E2\u0080\u009D or\u00E2\u0080\u009CAppropriated Carrying Capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D (EF/ACC) is proposed.4EF/ACC is a simple, yet comprehensive tool: it provides an accounting framework forthe biophysical services that a given economy requires from nature. It is calculated by estimatingthe land area, in various categories, necessary to sustain the current level of consumption by thepeople in that economy, using prevailing technology. An economy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s full Ecological Footprintwould include all the land whose services this economy appropriates from all over the globe toprovide necessary resource inputs and to assimilate corresponding waste outputs. The EF/ACCconcept thereby demonstrates the ecological dependence of economic systems. It is both ananalytical and heuristic device for understanding the sustainability implications of different kindsof human activities, and serves as an awareness tool and an action-oriented planning tool fordecision-making towards sustainability.The EF/ACC concept builds on the human carrying capacity debate (e.g., Meadows eta!. 1972, Vogt 1948, Ehrlich 1982, Pimentel & Pimentel 1990, 1994, Pearce & Barbier et a!.1991:114-127, Buitenkamp eta!. 1993, Postel 1994), and originates in the teaching and researchby Prof. William E. Rees, and later by myself, at The University of British Columbia (Rees1978, 1986, 1992, Cousins & Wackernagel 1991, Wackemagel 1991, 1992, 1993a [see copyin Appendix 3.3], Wackernagel & Rees 1992, Rees 1992, Rees & Wackernagel 1992, Wackernagel et a!. l993). The concept has already found many applications (including Wada 1993,Beck 1993, Harrington 1993, Parker 1993, Commonwealth Forum 1994, Davidson & Robb1994, ESSA 1994, Maguire eta!. 1994, Neumann 1994, UBC Task Force 1994, ZUrcher 1994).Related concepts include \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmental Space\u00E2\u0080\u009D by Maria Buitenkamp et al. from the Dutch Friends ofthe Earth(1993), Jim MacNeill et al. \u00E2\u0080\u0098s \u00E2\u0080\u009Cshadow ecologies\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1991), William Catton\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Cphantom carrying capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1980),Borgstrom\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Cghost acreage\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1965), Ragnar Overby\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccarrying capacity demand\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1985), and William Rees\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00E2\u0080\u009Cregionalcapsule\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1986) and \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpersonal planetoid\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1992c).5C. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS\u00E2\u0080\u0099 PRESENTATIONDeveloping a planning tool requires tasks such as: identifying and conceptualizing thesustainability problem; distilling key issues and mechanisms; clarifying and making explicit thepersonal motivations; values and working assumptions; identifying possible strategic interventionpoints; testing conceptual approaches; and then consolidating and refining them.Therefore, before discussing the EF/ACC concept, I propose a problem statement inChapter II which exposes the concerns that motivated this research and provides some contextabout the issues. I also explore the sustainability crisis and five of its major facets by reviewingdefinitions of, and perspectives on, sustainability from the literature. Particular, the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cconstantnatural capital\u00E2\u0080\u009D principle as the ecological \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbottom-line\u00E2\u0080\u009D requirement for sustainability isemphasized, while acknowledging that it is difficult to measure this capital. I also discusssocioeconomic, political, episternological and psychological conditions for moving towardsustainability -- and analyze their implications for new planning tools.To achieve my overall research purpose of further developing and testing a tool forplanning toward sustainability, I divide it into four research objectives which are explored in thesubsequent chapters. They are:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 to introduce and describe EF/ACC as a new planning tool for developing sustainability, andthen to discuss its rationales and to review its intellectual context (Chapter lii);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 to develop a calculation procedure for concrete EF/ACC applications (Chapter 11\u00E2\u0080\u0099);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 to apply the concept to the Canadian context and list other EF/ACC applications that havebeen or are being completed (Chapter 1\u00E2\u0080\u0099); and,\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 to explore empirically how useful administrators and planners, business people andeconomists, and community activists and local politicians perceive the EF/ACC tool to6be when planning toward sustainability (Chapter VI).Finally in Chapter VII, I draw the conclusions from the research findings and explore thefindings\u00E2\u0080\u0099 implications for planning.D. SCOPE OF THE STUDYRather than discussing paths and strategies for developing sustainability, I explore in thisthesis the usefulness of one particular tool for planning toward sustainability which couldstimulate the sustainability debate, help develop strategies, and evaluate their effectiveness.EF/ACC has further evolved in the context of the work with the UBC Task Force on PlanningHealthy and Sustainable Communities and their engagement with various municipalities andcommunity groups. Also, the EF/ACC tool is meant to be applied in conjunction with othersustainability tools and processes such as for example the \u00E2\u0080\u009CSocial Caring Capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D concept thatis being developed by some members of the UBC Task Force (1994, Aronson & Charles 1993).The activities and concepts of the Task Force are documented by the UBC Task Force (1994),Janette McIntosh (1993), Bob Woollard (1994b), and me (1993a, 1994). For the purpose of thisthesis, I focused the research on the EF/ACC tool, its applications and its perceived usefulness.4The UBC Task Force, composed of Peter Boothroyd (School of Community and Regional Planning), LawrenceGreen (Health Promotion), Clyde Hertzman (Health Care and Epidemiology), Judy Lynam (Nursing), Sharon MausonSinger (Social Work), Janette McIntosh (Task Force co-ordinator), William Rees (Co-Chair, School of Community andRegional Planning), Robert Woollard (Co-Chair, Family Practice), me (and more recently Alec Ostry and Mike Carr),started from the acknowledgement of the two key sustainability imperatives, namely the need:a) to reduce society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (material) draw on nature, andb) to improve society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quality of life,and maintains that only those policies and projects that satisfy these two imperatives move us toward sustainability.Sustainability imperatives refer to the goals that initiatives or activities have to meet in order to be sustainable. Thesustainability conditions, outlined in Chapter II, suggest characteristics for such initiatives that seem necessary to meetthese goals: the political, epistemological and psychological conditions address the process side, while the ecological andsocioeconomic conditions encompass the substantive aspects. In this thesis, I addressed mainly the first sustainabilityimperative.7The thesis documents one EF/ACC application that estimates the land appropriation ofhuman consumption. Land (or ecosystems) were classified into eight land-use categories, whileconsumption was divided into five main consumption categories. The application relies on asimplified operational definition which permits the assessment of EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s magnitude ratherthan documenting the land appropriation with a percentage precision. The key is to emphasizethe conceptual accuracy rather than precision in measuring the material draws on nature.5 In theapplication (Chapter V), I calculated the EF/ACC example from a consumption perspective only,and used secondary data for calculating land equivalencies of consumption patterns. However,other EF/ACC application which have been completed, or are in progress, are briefly discussedtoo.For exploring the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s usefulness to the public, I conducted 21 in-depth interviews.They do not provide statistical evidence of the EF/ACC tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s public acceptance, but documentthe reasoning and understanding by a variety of actors in the public domain, and uncover themesand patterns that influence the psychological predisposition of these actors to plan towardsustainability. Such information is significant when testing the usefulness of the tool because ithelps to identify limitations for planning toward sustainability and possible improvements of theEF/ACC tool for more effectively addressing these limiting factors.\u00E2\u0080\u009CAccurate\u00E2\u0080\u009D refers to pointing in the right direction (or securing a consistent mean), while \u00E2\u0080\u009Cprecision\u00E2\u0080\u009D alludes togood reproducibility of the results (or displaying a low variance -- independent of accuracy). To take the metaphor ofa gun, accuracy refers to how close the centre of the bullet-holes\u00E2\u0080\u0099 cluster comes to the target, while precision indicateshow dense the cluster of the bullet-holes is, regardless of the cluster\u00E2\u0080\u0099s location to the target. For example, the GrossNational Product (GNP) is a very precise tool and can be reproduced within a small margin of error; however, it isinaccurate as a tool for measuring national income because many activities and services, such as informal work or lossin ecosystem assets, are not included in the calculation.8E. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDYEF/ACC is a new ecological-economic tool which goes beyond comparable approaches.It draws on an over 200 year-old tradition of human ecology, including newer fields such asenergetics, environmental planning, impact assessment, resource management and ecologicaleconomics, but moves further in that it:a) reinterprets the carrying capacity concept as land per capita necessary to sustain anindividual\u00E2\u0080\u0099s throughput (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cdemand on nature\u00E2\u0080\u009D), rather than as capita per land (\u00E2\u0080\u009Csupply ofnature\u00E2\u0080\u009D);b) connects all competing uses of nature by translating them into exclusive land-uses as landrepresents a limiting factor for nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity. For many uses it identifies biochemical energy (and the land needed to generate it) as the limiting factor for the humaneconomy. Using such a common ecological \u00E2\u0080\u009Cyardstick\u00E2\u0080\u009D makes it possible to aggregatehuman uses of nature including appropriated biological productivity, consumed fossilenergy, absorptive capacity, and overtaxed water sources;c) addresses cumulative impacts rather than focusing on fragmented events;d) translates the results into (industrial) land-uses all over the globe, thereby linking global(macro) concerns related to the sustainability crisis with individual and institutional(micro) action;e) develops (i.e., applies and quantifies) this concept into a comprehensive tool for a variety ofplanning tasks including communication, education, assessments, evaluations,comparisons, design, and decision-making; and\u00C2\u00B1) examines and challenges the publics\u00E2\u0080\u0099 perception of sustainability and lacking support foraction by using an heuristic approach.9IL THE SUSTAINAB1LITY CRISIS:EXPLORING ITS FACETS AND LINKING ITS THEMESThe World Commission on Environment and Development\u00E2\u0080\u0099s opening statement revealedmany fundamental concerns about the current human condition (1987:27). It acknowledged thathumanity is not living within nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productive capacity, thereby gradually destroying it. It alsoconcedes that many people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s basic needs are still not being met. These concerns reflect the cruxof the sustainability crisis. According to the Collins Dictionaiy, a crisis is \u00E2\u0080\u009C... a situation wheresomething, such as your confidence in someone or something, is so heavily attacked orquestioned that there is serious doubt whether it will continue to exist...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Sinclair 1987). I arguein this chapter that there is serious doubt whether those societies with high-consumptionlifestyles, as enjoyed in industrialized countries over the last fifty years, will be able to maintaintheir current consumption level, and whether the less industrialized countries will be able toemulate the lifestyle of industrialized countries, as promised by the conventional economicdevelopment paradigm -- and analyze the implications for planning tools.Even though human activities have ecologically \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfilled\u00E2\u0080\u009D the entire world, industrialsocieties still operate in an \u00E2\u0080\u009Cempty-world\u00E2\u0080\u009D mode (Daly 1991, Meadows et a!. 1992).Conventional economic development strategies continue to promote expansion of human activitiesin order to combat poverty and to tackle other social and ecological problems, many of whichare actually caused by the prevailing approach to development. This expansion-orientedeconomic development approach is supported by most governments, by the economic branchesof organizations such as the World Bank or the Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD), and even by sections of the World Commission\u00E2\u0080\u0099s report (WCED1987:213-215).10On one level, a large percentage of the people in the North and South know about thedestructiveness of the current development path. For example, a comprehensive Gallup studydirected by Riley Dunlap and conducted in 12 Northern and 12 Southern countries, documentsthe widespread concern about the future of humankind (Dunlap 1993). But this widespreadconcern is not translated into the action necessary to reverse the ecological trends and to improvethe less fortunate people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quality of life. The lack of political action cannot be attributed to anyshortage of adequate information. In fact, over the last quarter of a century, scholars, NGOs,and politicians have consistently used the same set of arguments to warn about the humanpredicament.1Clearly, we need planning tools that go beyond delivering information in order to bridgethe gap between mere concern about the sustainability crisis and effective political action. Asstated, exploring such a planning tool is the purpose of this thesis. However, before addressingmy main research objectives, I discuss the concerns that motivated and directed this research andexplore the sustainability crisis through its ecological, socioeconomic, political, epistemological,and psychological aspects.A. WHY WORRY? EXAMINING THE SUSTAINABILITY CRISISAn average person from the industrialized world does not experience the immediacy ofthe sustainability crisis. This person typically shops in supermarkets overstocked with anoverwhelming variety of goods, and watches television ads which show the newest, and1 Examples are: organizations such as Club of Rome or (Jreenpeace; reports such as The Global 2000 Report(Barney 1980) or The Ecologist\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Blueprintfor Action (1972); conferences such the 1972 UN Conference on the HumanEnvironment in Stockholm (UNCHE 1973), or the second conference on Environment Futures in Reykjavik in 1977Polunin 1980).11technologically most advanced cars dashing through lush and unpopulated landscapes. Not onlyis the abundance of goods overwhelming, but so is that person\u00E2\u0080\u0099s purchasing power. For example,the average Canadian\u00E2\u0080\u0099s income could buy over 200 times more food than he or she requires2 -- which translates into a high level of consumption. However, sustaining such high levels ofconsumption has had detrimental effects: global resource stocks are being used faster then theycan replenish themselves. This imbalance characterizes the ecological crisis.In the meantime, poverty remains rampant. One third of the global population lives inabsolute poverty (UNDP 1993:12). As discussed below, some scholars even argue that prevailingdevelopment programs have generally increased, rather than curtailed, poverty (even in the caseof some low-income countries with rapid economic growth rates). The persisting povertyexemplifies the socioeconomic crisis. On the whole, local and global political institutions havenot been successful in counteracting these trends, and future political breakthroughs in this areado not look promising. While some maintain that government institutions are a part of theproblem, and that deregulation and structural adjustment would be a positive step towardsustainability (Block 1990), many others insist that effectively addressing the above crisesdemands the leadership of global institutions and the establishment of international agreements(WCED 1987, MacNeill 1991:74-128). It is not clear whether global economic integrationstrengthens or detracts from such aims. While globalization has improved communication linksand stimulated economic growth, it has weakened the political institutions of nation states and2 As a rough estimate: in 1991, the average Canadian earned approximately 20,740 [$US GNP/cap/year] (WorldResources Institute 1994:257). In the same year, wheat prices were at 0.140 [$USIkg] (World Resources Institute1994:262). Therefore, the average Canadian income could buy 20,740 / (0.140 * 365 [days per year]) = 406 [kg/day].One kilogram of cereals corresponds to more than a person\u00E2\u0080\u0099s daily food energy requirement (13,000 [kj/cap/day]) -.hence the average income would buy 400 times the calorie requirements for food. For a more protein rich diet likesoybeans, that person could buy about 230 [kg/day], each kilogram containing approximately 220 [g] of proteins and12,000 [kj] of available energy --or over 200 times the daily requirements (World Resources Institute 1994:262, de Looy1987: 136 (data for dry beans)).12regional governments, thereby reducing government\u00E2\u0080\u0099s potential policy choices-- a dilemmaidentified as the institutional or political crisis.Most public science institutions, which are viewed as the official \u00E2\u0080\u009Csensory organs\u00E2\u0080\u009D ofindustrialized societies, have been hampered in their efforts to apprehend these crises, let alonedeal with them. Science\u00E2\u0080\u0099s industrial successes have fortified those parts of the scientificenterprise which concentrate on narrow and marketable studies while compromising on inquiriesdealing with more encompassing concerns such as the ecological, social, and political crisis.Science\u00E2\u0080\u0099s limitation is summarized as the epistemological crisis. In spite of the limitations ofscientific inquiry, individual citizens can sense these crises all the same. Too often, however,they are unwilling to fully acknowledge them or to take appropriate action. These psychologicalbarriers are referred to as the psychological crisis. In this section, I explore these five facets ofthe sustainability crisis. For each facet, I describe the key symptoms and trends, and assess thesuccess of current public action to counteract these trends.1. THE ECOLOGICAL CRISISThe global ecological crisis is deepening. The trends paint a clear picture. Since 1984,the global fish harvest has been dropping, and so has the per capita yield of grain crops (Brown1994: 179-187). Also, stratospheric ozone is being depleted; the release of greenhouse gasesThe literature is not conclusive about whether the decrease in per capita grain production over the last 10 yearsis a long-term trend. Data from the World Resource Institute between 1970-1990 are consistent with Brown\u00E2\u0080\u0099s 1950-1993time series which show a decrease in average per capita productivity of food after 1984 (World Resources Institute1992b, Brown 1994:186 based on USDA data). However, John Bongaarts is optimistic about the future of grainproduction, and claims that feeding a growing world population is technically feasible (1994:36-42). However, the\u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .economic and environmental costs incurred through bolstering food production may well prove too great for manypoor countries. The course of the events will depend crucially on their governments\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ability to design and enforceeffective policies that address the challenges posed by mounting human numbers, rising poverty and environmentaldegradation...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1994:42). In contrast, plant physiologist William Paddock believes that population growth rates areunderestimated, while progress in plant productivity is overstated resulting in misguided optimism (1994:52-65).13has changed the atmospheric chemistry and might lead to climate change; erosion anddesertification is reducing nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s biological productivity; irrigation water tables are falling;contamination of soil and water is jeopardizing the quality of food; other natural resources arebeing consumed faster than they can regenerate; and biological diversity is being lost -- toreiterate only a small part of a long list (Brown et at. 1984-1994, Burrows et a!. 1991, Chiras1992a, Clark & Munn 1987, Corson 1990, Goodland 1991, Myers 1984, and Scien4ficAmericanSeptember 1989). These trends indicate a decline in the quantity and productivity of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099sassets, or, in the language of Ecological Economists, the depletion of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnatural capital\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Janssonet at. 1994).At the same time, the human population and its demands on nature are growing. Between1950 and 1990 alone, the industrial roundwood harvest doubled, fish catches increased five fold(and fell since 1989), water use tripled, and oil consumption rose nearly sixfold (Postel 1994:7,Brown 1994: 179). While human demands are growing exponentially, nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s sustainableproductive capacity is in decline. These opposing trends show how human consumption has cometo exceed the global productive capacity of nature.5 Harvesting in excess of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productiveDonella Meadows eta!. compare the increase of various human activities between 1970 with 1990, and documentin most cases a doubling. For example, the world population grew from 3.6 to 5.3 billion, registered cars increased from250 to 560 million, energy consumption nearly doubled, truck transportation in OECD countries more than doubled, andwaste generation in OECD countries increased by 40 percent (1992:7). For statistical surveys on human activities(including resource harvest) and nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity see Worldwatch (Brown et a!. 1992b, 1993b), World ResourcesInstitute (1986-1994), United Nations Human Development Report (1990-1994), World Bank (1978-1993). Other sourcesinclude the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD), the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Population Reference Bureau, and the United NationsEnvironmental Programme (UNEP).According to my preliminary calculations, today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s human requirements in three of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s main functions alone,namely food, forest products, and CO2 sequestration, already exceed terrestrial carrying capacity by nearly 30 percent(see Chapter V). Also, marine carrying capacity is now fully occupied by human demands: the current global fish harvesthas reached (and since 1989 fallen back from) the Maximum Sustainable Yield as estimated by FAO (in Brown1994:179). However, according to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), with currentpopulation levels the world industrial output would have to be increased by a factor of 2.6 if consumption ofmanufactured goods in developing countries were to rise to current levels in industrialized countries (WCED 1987:213).14capacity is possible only temporarily, at the cost of drawing down nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s assets and weakeningits regenerative capacity.Even though there is wide acknowledgement of, and concern about, the growing humandemands on a limited and already overtaxed planet (Dunlap 1993), there remain some scholarswho claim that this is a fabricated concern.6The main arguments they bring forward include:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the assertion of infinite substitutability. Economists Bruno Fritsch holds that resources are areflection of icnowledge, while George Gilder maintains that resources are \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . a productof the human will and imagination...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Fritsch 1991:299, Gilder 1981 cited in Daly &Cobb 1989:109). Similarly, H. Goeller and Alvin Weinberg\u00E2\u0080\u0099s biophysical resourceassessment, titled The Age of Substitutability, argue that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...most of the essentialresources are in infinite supply: that as society exhausts one raw material, it will turn tolower-grade, inexhaustible substitutes...\u00E2\u0080\u009D7(1976:683). While this may be true for somespecific industrial inputs, such as copper which is being replaced by glass fibres,substitutability does not work for most ecological services on which human activitiesdepend. A major flaw in these assertions about substitutability is their ignorance ofIn fact, using Daly\u00E2\u0080\u0099s simplified model of global income distribution (15 % of the world population makes on average$21,000 per capita and year, the other 85 % only $1,000 [1993:54]), the required increase would rather need to be 5.3times larger.6 Most of the scholarly disagreement about \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainable development\u00E2\u0080\u009D is not so much about the symptoms of thecrisis, but rather about the strategies on how to achieve it. For example, strategies are proposed to advance or reverseeconomic deregulation, technological efficiency, global government, privatization, consumption taxes, or trade, to namea few.\u00E2\u0080\u0098 They also argue that humankind would need an inexhaustible energy source such as nuclear fusion, breederreactors or solar energy, and are positive that such sources can be developed.15human dependence on critical life-support functions of nature.8Human activities not onlyrequire minerals and other industrial resources, many of which are substitutable, but alsorenewable biological resources, waste absorptive capacity and numerous life supportservices for which there are no known or satisfactory substitutes. Finally, the second lawof thermodynamics asserts that the biophysical availability of a resource is ultimatelydetermined by the available chemical and thermodynamic energy (also called \u00E2\u0080\u009Cessergy\u00E2\u0080\u009D)of that resource rather than by human wants.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the belief that falling real prices indicate declining reduced resource scarcity (Barnett &Morse 1963, Simon & Kahn 1984, Ozdemiroglu 1993 [in Pearce & Turner et al.1993:6]), or that increased resource reserves would indicate reduced scarcity (Gee 1994,Fritsch 1991:101). There is strong evidence that prices reflect the scarcity of neither thebiophysical non-marketed resources (Pearce & Turner eta!. 1993:5) nor that of marketedresources.9 Evidently, for essential process resources without a market, prices failabsolutely. Also, interpreting increases in economic reserves of non-renewable assetsignores the fact that the total stock is declining all the same, and that it may become8 Ignorance of what William Rees calls humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009C...obligate dependence on nature...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1990c) -- and in thecrudest sense, on its bio-chemical flows -- is widespread in economics (see also Folke 1991). In fact, in mostdevelopment oriented economics texts, nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s constraints are not even mentioned, with the exception of oil supply andprices. If \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenvironmental concerns\u00E2\u0080\u009D are addressed, then it is only to point out that, building on economist Ronald Coase\u00E2\u0080\u0099sapproach for internalizing \u00E2\u0080\u009Csocial cost,\u00E2\u0080\u009D environmental degradation is caused by lacking property rights (examples areBlochliger et al. 1991, Bromley 1991, Giersch 1993:163-164, McKibbin & Sachs 1991, Jeffrey Sachs 1993). EconomistPeter Kennedy argues that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...those presumed preferences [between which types of natural capital to conserve] are notconsulted to examine the possibility that future generations may actually prefer substitution of manufactured capital fornatural capital...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1993:7). There are several problems with this statement. First, it does not recognize that naturalcapital is already in decline. Second, individual preferences and social preferences might fundamentally contradict aspointed out in the next section. And third, many essential ecological needs dependent on natural capital are not a matterof individual or social preference. For example, human bodies need inter alia 10,000 [kj] of healthy food per day, andthat this is non-negotiable (Schmidheiny 1992:39).The section on the blindness of monetary analysis for assessing natural capital in Chapter ifi provides morediscussion on this subject.16increasingly difficult to exploit the remaining stock for entropic reasons. En any event,focusing on marketed industrial resources is again a much too narrow interpretation ofhuman dependence on nature, as pointed out above. Despite Marcus Gee\u00E2\u0080\u0099s claim that.by almost every measure, life on Earth is better than ever before...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (including risesin world GNP, total exports, adult literacy, food production in developing countries, andcrude-oil reserves; 1994:A1,Dl), there is no guarantee that these trends can be sustained-- particularly on a per capita basis -- nor is there indication that those most in need arebenefitting from these increases.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 charges ofscientific fraud and misinformation (Ray 1993)10. However, the claim that the useof probabilistic results amounts to scientific fraud is misleading. Science is by definitionnot able to predict conclusively events that cannot be replicated. Science can onlyinterpret available data and test hypotheses to develop theory and explore probabilities.Refuting an argument on the grounds that the scientific evidence does not conclusivelyprove future effects is, therefore, merely a reflection on the limits of science, and cannotbe interpreted as a negation of the argument.11 In summary, these scholars\u00E2\u0080\u0099 refutationsof the ecological crisis are based on an incomplete model and partial analyses.Nevertheless, their argument enjoy much public and political support because theyconveniently rationalize status quo and inaction.The relationship between habitat productivity and population (including humanpopulation) has been a scientific topic for over 200 years (Martinez-Alier 1987). Biologists have10 Particularly, the climate change debate has witnessed various books which deny the crisis from this perspective.Examples are Balling (1992) and Michaels (1992).This is further discussed in the section on the epistemological crisis.17documented that the population of most species examined levels out as their demands approachthe productive capacity of their habitats (Krebs 1985:207-22 1). The upper limit at which thepopulation can be sustained is referred to as the carrying capacity of the habitat (Kormondy1969:66).Invader species generally come to exceed the long-term available carrying capacity withconsequent rapid population decline. William Catton calls this phenomenon \u00E2\u0080\u009Covershoot.\u00E2\u0080\u009D A well-known and much cited example of overshoot is the introduced reindeer population on St.Matthew\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Island which grew exponentially from 29 individuals to about 6,000 within nineteenyears. Three years later, only 42 animals remained (Krebs 1985:221).12 Alternatively, thecarrying capacity of a habitat can change. Population sizes are subject to fluctuation due toclimactically induced decreases in net primary productivity or limited absorptive capacities whichgive rise to pathogens (Krebs 1985:324-349, Fenchel 1987:19-23). Similarly, local humanpopulations have frequently collapsed after overshooting their carrying capacity, or whenresource (habitat) productivity has declined. The rapid population decline by at least one orderof magnitude on the Easter Islands around 1680 (Catton 1993, Ponting: 1992:1-7), plague wavesin Europe13 (Ponting 1992:228-232, Fenchel 1987:19-23), famines such as the Irish PotatoFamine in 1845 (Paddock 1994:53-54, Catton 1980:247-250), the Chinese famine during theGreat Leap Forward (1959-1960), and the chronic famines on parts of the African continentsince the early l980s are prominent examples of events where overshoot leading to disease,declining productivity, or other limitations on carrying capacity has contributed to human12 Other examples of crashing animal populations are documented in Krebs (1985:221-223) and Stott (1994:66-69).13 For this decline, the limiting factor was not the available resources, but the insufficient human waste absorption.This same event could also be interpreted from the perspective of the pathogens: these pathogens invaded an area ofabundant carrying capacity (dense human population). By kiffing their hosts off (and by their hosts acquiring resistance),the pathogens depleted their carrying capacity which resulted in the eventual crash of the pathogen population.18population collapses.The situation today differs from these historic examples. Today, overshoot is occurringon a global scale, not just in isolated pockets of the world. One manifestation is the speed atwhich the globe is losing biological diversity as human beings appropriate a growing share ofnature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s primary productivity. Also unprecedented in human history is the yearly four percentgrowth in consumed goods and services over the last forty years (UNDP 1993:2 12, WorldResources Institute 1992:246). While in 1950 there were still 3.6 hectares of ecologicallyproductive land remaining per capita, less than 1.6 are left in 1994.14 A global population of10 billion - expected by 2030 - would leave humanity with only 0.9 hectares per capita, withsome of it degraded.\u00E2\u0080\u00995 This is one-fourth of the per capita area 80 years earlier (WorldResources Institute 1992, Postel 1994:11).Not many of the few countermeasures in place have been successful in addressing theconflict between increasing human demand and nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s supply. In spite of such widespreadpolicy instruments as Environmental Impact Assessment and increasing use of environmentaltaxes and regulations, many important trends have not been mitigated. For example, in the twocountries with arguably the most advanced environmental impact requirements -- namely, theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the USA, and the Environmental Assessment andReview Process (EARP) in Canada -- energy consumption is still on the rise, and resource14 See Chapter V.15 Over the last 45 years 1,964 million hectares of productive land were degraded, 30 percent of it throughdeforestation (Oldeman in Postel 1994:10). Similarly, the Union of Concerned Scientists claim that since 1945 elevenpercent of Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s vegetated surface has been degraded, which would correspond to over 1,200 million hectares, orarea larger than India and China combined...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1992). Assuming continued yearly decline at the same rate, this wouldresult in the degradation of another 900 to 1,500 million hectares or 12-20 percent of the remaining ecologicallyproductive land.19depletion has not been curbed. The latter is evident in the North Atlantic collapse of the cod fishstock affecting the Canadian East Coast, and in the forest land-use conflicts everywhere on theNorth American West Coast.No international efforts have been able either to gather the political momentum necessaryto address the ecological crisis despite some partial international agreements on particular issues.Examples of those agreements: the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of TransboundaryMovements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species (CITES) from the 1970\u00E2\u0080\u0099s, and more comprehensively, the 1992 GlobalBiodiversity Strategy; the 1992 UN Convention on Climate Change; and, the 1987 MontrealProtocol on the reduction of CFC and halon gases, with its 1992 London Amendment (WorldResources Institute 1994:373-384, Environment Canada 1993, Corson 1990). In spite of thisimpressive list, ecological deterioration continues. While it might be argued that it is too earlyto measure significant improvements, there is much evidence to indicate that we would beunwise to rely on the promises of these agreements. Many sustainability concerns are notaddressed by such agreements (including soil conservation, deforestation, resource consumption,and population), and many of the conventions lack rigorous standards, ratification or effectivemechanisms to enforce them. Also, UN agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) or the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) are limited to providing statisticaland some consulting services -- rather than being more pro-active. Worse, in the case of theFAO, their promotion of monoculture, capital intensive agriculture, and export crops isconsidered counterproductive to sustainabiity by many scholars and development groups (TheEcologist 2 1(2)). UN sponsored conferences such as the UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro(June 3-14, 1992), including its resolution (UNCED 1992), may have increased politicalawareness of the issues, but it is doubtful whether these events have developed effective20responses (The Ecologist 22(3), 22(4), New Internationalist 246, Sachs 1993:6-66). Even themuch-praised Montreal Protocol on the reduction of ozone-depleting CFCs is constantlyjeopardized by circumvention (Meadows et a!. 1992:141-160). One example which illustratesthe circumvention of the Protocol was reported by The Economist, which stated that in December1993:America\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Environmental Protection Agency asked [Dupont] to continue [with their CFC production] in 1995.The EPA\u00E2\u0080\u0099s concern with Dupont was that it might leave America\u00E2\u0080\u0099s 140 million or so air-conditioned vehicleswithout CFCs. Car makers have found it hard to produce simple and reliable ways to refit old cooling systemsto take substitutes. ... Another culprit may be some 10,000 tonnes of CFCs imported from Russia, supposedlyto be cleaned up and returned, which is said to have found its way illicitly onto the European market (January29, 1994:69).In summary, ecological deterioration and the parallel growth of human activity mark asharpening conflict. Many international and local efforts have tried to help mitigate this conflictwithout much effect; the gap between human demands and nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s supply widens.2. THE SOCIOECONOMIC CRISISEven though aggregate global consumption has never been as high as today (and, asmentioned, continues to increase) poverty is not receding (UNDP 1993:149, Brown et a!.1992b: 110-111). 16 Of the 5.7 billion people on Earth, over 1.1 billion people in the developingworld are malnourished, i.e., they cannot afford the necessary daily level of calorie intake16 Detailed figures on the state of poverty in the world are hard to find. One reason is the difficulty of definingpoverty (for example, the World Bank uses two benchmarks in defining poverty as a per capita purchasing power of lessthan $370 or $275 per year (1990:27)). Also, poor people work predominantly in the informal sector of the economywhich lacks statistical assessments. Urbanisation and industrialization might also cause significant increases in monetarytransactions, but it is questionable whether these changes translate into higher standards of living. Finally, the commonmonetary analyses of poverty on a country by country basis distort reality. They do not reveal distribution within thecountries, and they are not sensitive to showing income increases of poor people, as their share of the GDP is negligible(the poorest quintile makes typically only 4 percent of the national income [Durning 1989:13]). In fact, a furtherpolarization of incomes has been a general phenomenon in industrialized countries since the 1980s to the effect that thelowest quintile is worse off today than in the early 1980s -- not only in relative but also in absolute terms. It is thereforeparticularly disturbing that the World Development Report 1990 of the World Bank which addressed poverty focusedmainly on per capita GDP growth as a key strategy and main indicator for poverty abatement, while discounting theirfew head-count statistics on poverty even though they do not show a trend of poverty reduction in absolute terms.21required to function fully and in good health (Durning 1989). The poorest fifth of the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099spopulation earns 150 times less than the richest fifth. In 1960, this relative difference in incomewas about half that ratio (UNDP 1993:11). Moreover, of the 1.1 billion people residing inindustrialized countries, about 100 million live below the poverty line (UNDP 1993:13).Areas of rapid urbanization are characterized by their high quota of poor people. Citiesin Third World countries account for over 72 percent of the global population growth, and grow,population-wise, at about 4.5 percent per year (Leaf 1992). This means a doubling time of 16years. By 2025, cities will house over 60 percent of the population in those regions, a trendwhich exacerbate current living conditions in these overcrowded environments (Laquian 1993).Less than 60 percent of today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s urban populations have access to adequate sanitation.Also, according to the WHO/UNEP Global Environmental Monitoring System, 20 out of 23cities in developing country exceed the WHO air quality guidelines for suspended particles andsulphur dioxide emission (Laquian 1993). Waterborne diseases, smog, dust, leaching substancesfrom hazardous waste, unsafe roads and utilities are a constant threat to urban populationsleading to further impoverishment (Hardoy & Satterthwaite 1991, Leonard & Petesch 1990).Without radical improvements in education, health care and economic opportunity for the poor,these trends are likely to persist: the poor without education, health care and opportunities areimpeding their own future well-being, being caught in a downward spiral of ecologicaldestruction, high fertility, and health hazards (Leonard & Petesch 1990:37, Durning 1989).Women bear the brunt of the problems associated with poverty. In 1970, the UnitedNations Commission on the Status of Women reported that women perform two-thirds of thework hours while earning 10 percent of global income and owning less than one percent of the22world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s property (United Nations 1970). Income figures, however, reflect only one aspect ofpoverty. Economic hardship is often accompanied by high mortality rates, diseases, illiteracy,and discrimination (Boucher 1992).There is mounting evidence that conventional economic development efforts of the lastforty years have not been effective in alleviating the plight of the poor, not even through \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctrickledown\u00E2\u0080\u009D effects.17 In fact, an abundant literature blames conventional economic development forexacerbating poverty (Dube 1988, Duming 1989, Ekins 1986 &1992, Friedmann 1992, George1984 & 1992, Goldsmith et al. 1991, Goodland & Daly 1993, Hadi 1993, Hayter 1985, Laquian1993b, Meadows et a!. 1992, Wolfgang Sachs 1992a & 1993, Shiva 1991, The Ecologist 22(4),Trainer 1989).3. THE POLITICAL CRISISThe rapid globalization of the world economy in the last few decades has transformedthe balance of political power.Two major forces can be identified. On the one hand, the debtcrisis has weakened many Northern and Southern governments (George 1992). At the same time,capital mobility has increased international tax competition and reduced the revenues of manygovernments. While mutual international dependence that results from global integration mayreduce the danger of military conflicts, it also reduces choices in social, economic and ecological17 Some possible exceptions in the South in which industrialization has led to two-digit economic growth ratesinclude the Asian tigers, namely, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea now joined by the South of China,and Vietnam. The four Asian tigers have invested their increasing revenues in education thereby building aninternationally competitive high-tech labour force (Globe and Mail June 4, 1994:A6). While some authorities praise thegovernments of these countries for their obsession with economic development and rapid modernization, others point outthe irreversible social and ecological destruction that comes with it and that may ultimately outweigh the economic gains.Also, it is questionable whether these cases can be replicated by other countries. These \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctigers\u00E2\u0080\u009D may just happen to bethe winners of a negative-sum game in which those with the most resource-intensive high-tech economies do best, whileothers -- particularly those with low-throughput economies -- carry the burden (Bello & Rosenfeld 1992, Lohmann 1990,Sarangi & Sherman 1993).23policies. In particular, the global economy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009CNew World Order\u00E2\u0080\u009D has led to deregulating theeconomy and cutting back social spending in the North. Elsewhere, structural adjustmentprograms have been used to reduce public spending, open markets for transnational corporations(Bello & Cunningham 1994:87), and transform Southern economies into exporters of primarygoods for industrialized countries. This further strains local social and ecological health andresults in unilateral, rather than mutual dependence.Clearly, these economic strategies have been successful in accelerating trade. In constantdollars, international trade increased fourfold between 1960 and 1988, and the value of all thecurrently traded goods corresponds to over 60 percent of the goods produced all over the world(World Bank 1990:185,189,205). As a result, production has become increasingly specializedand segregated, increasing many countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 dependence on trade relationships (UNCTC 1993).The opening of global trade is considered the key factor for the rapid and sustained economicgrowth over the last 45 years (Smith 1994). Indeed, it has been international and continentaltrade agreements such as GAIT (1947 and subsequent rounds),\u00E2\u0080\u00998 EEC, and NAFTA, thedevelopment of vast transportation and communication capacities, and the expansion ofinternational currency markets that have made a global economy of this magnitude possible.The abolition of the gold standard in 1976 has enabled unprecedented capital mobility.Today, daily currency trades exceed $1 trillion, or about 20 times the value added by the globaleconomy in the same time period (The Economist March 27, 1993, Paul Kennedy 1993:5 1,World Bank 1990:183). This quantum leap in capital mobility has been a boost to thoseinterested in international business operations and international investments, namely,For a discussion see The Economist (December 4, 1993:11,23-26).24transnational corporations and their shareholders. For instance, in 1990, only 56 countries wereincluded in the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s 100 largest economies -- the other 44 were transnational corporations(calculated from UNDP 1993 and UNCTC 1993:26-27).\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Yet, as ecological economist StephanViederman comments, the latter \u00E2\u0080\u009C...have none of the responsibilities of government for socialwelfare, education, health care and the like...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1993:10).The enhanced mobility of goods, capital, and business people has intensified thefunctional integration of territories, and has exposed economies to greater competition. Thepolitical downfall is that competition for taxes and concentration of financial strength intransnational corporations have weakened the negotiating and regulatory power of local, nationaland international political institutions. As a result, the law of the market (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cone dollar, one vote\u00E2\u0080\u009D)has gained influence at the cost of democratic principles (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cone person, one vote\u00E2\u0080\u009D).The high mobility of fmancial capital has gained a momentum of its own, constantlyrefuelled by higher profit expectations.2\u00C2\u00B0To feed accelerating economic production, and to keepup with rising financial expectations, economies naturally expand their appropriation of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099sproductivity, thereby depleting natural capital assets (Hall 1990). This increased pressure onbiophysical resources has intensified social tension and international conflicts as exemplified bythe continuous civil wars in West Africa (Kaplan 1994). Another example is the furtherdamming of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in Turkey to collect irrigation water, thereby19 Furthermore, \u00E2\u0080\u009C...international trade of the 350 largest TNCs [or Transnational Corporations] accounts for almost40 % of world merchandise trade...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Their sales add up to nearly one third of the combined national products of theindustrialized countries (Daly & Goodland 1994:89, New Internationalist 1993, No.246. p18).20 Paul Kennedy observes that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...from one major exchange to another - Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore,London, Frankfurt and Zurich, New York, Chicago, Toronto - trading yen futures or General Motors stock goes ontwenty-four hours a day and creates a single market...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1993:51). However, more than 90 percent of the trading isunrelated to [merchandise] trade or capital investment (Paul Kennedy 1993:5 1).25reducing the water flow by about two thirds. If the project goes ahead -- and it has already beenstarted -- this could inflame volatile conflicts not only between Turkey, Syria and Iraq, but alsowith the Kurdish people. In fact, according to Stephan Libiszewski from the Environment andConflicts Project at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, the threat of reducing water flowhas been used by the Turkish government to force Syria to relinquish their support for theKurdish movement, and it is likely that Syria in return will use the Kurdish guerillas to retaliateagainst reduced water flow (1994:9). Many wars have been fought to secure oil supply, mostrecently, the 1991 Gulf War. Conflicts over biological resources are also on the increase. Thestruggles over fisheries around Iceland or on the East Coast of Canada (both having sufferedfrom fisheries collapses which have not recovered yet), or conflicts over forestry practices allover the world including those in Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and, much closer to home,in British Columbia, demonstrate the linkage between biophysical scarcity and social conflicts.In the face of increasing resource competition, it is not surprising that military conflictsare still widespread -- despite the end of the \u00E2\u0080\u009CCold War.\u00E2\u0080\u009D According to the UNDP, over 60countries are afflicted by internal conflicts, leading to over 35 million refugees in developingcountries alone (1993:12). How biophysical scarcity translates into social conflicts is explainedand documented by Catton (1980), Homer-Dixon (1993), Gurr (1985), Hall (1990, 1992),Kaplan 1994, and Ophuls et al. (1992). In fact, there is also a growing concern in UN agenciesthat the UN Security Council has not yet fully acknowledged non-military sources of instabilitysuch as poverty, overpopulation or degradation of ecosystems (Globe and Mail May 26,1993:A8). Similarly, the root causes of these rising socioeconomic and ecological conificts arestill not being addressed. On the contrary, destructive modernization projects including dammingand resource extraction still dominate development efforts and may well exacerbate socialconflicts. Rather than adjust their development strategies, most governments rely on military26power to keep the conflicts at bay -- often at tremendous human costs, as witnessed inArgentina, Chile, China, Indonesia, Iraq, the Philippines, Rwanda, and Turkey, to name a few.In particular, the Western world has demonstrated in the recent Gulf War a military superiorityof such overwhelming proportions that the West\u00E2\u0080\u0099s confidence in securing its global statusthrough military force rather than through co-operation has been confirmed once more.In summary, globalization has led to rapid growth in industrial production but may wellhave compromised local autonomy and jeopardized the social and ecological health of poorercountries. Through accelerated resource use, the potential for ecological conflicts increases,while it appears that the political institutions, as well as the community networks that couldmitigate such conflicts, lose capacity and devolve. Increasingly, as economies turn more andmore global, so more people will feel disempowered and become alienated. If these trendscontinue, decisions made in corporate headquarters and by consumers of their products andservices will increase in importance compared to the formal political decisions. Also, corporatelobbying efforts within political institutions and through television might accelerate this trend.The lack of public involvement in long-range decision-making became particularly evident in therecent processes of formalizing free-trade agreements such as the Uruguay GAIT agreement orNAFTA. All these agreements were arranged with minimal input from the public -- in spite oftheir far-ranging consequences. As long as governments persist in focusing on economicexpansion, the range of possible political choices will narrow and the competition for decliningresource stocks will intensify, thereby threatening geo-political stability.274. THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL CRISIS21\u00E2\u0080\u009C...We cannot regulate our interaction with any aspect of reality that our model of realitydoes not include because we cannot by defmition be conscious of it...\u00E2\u0080\u009D commented Stafford Beer(1981). This self-referential trap is the crux of the epistemological crisis. It becomes increasinglydoubtful whether dominant belief systems are adequate for addressing current socioeconomic andecological issues. In particular, traditional science and economic analysis, which are thesocially accepted sensory organs of society, are incapable of comprehending the sustainabilitycrisis (Capra 1982, Catton & Dunlop 1980, Colby 1991, Henderson 1991, Kassiola1990:205,59-70, Maturana & Varela 1992, Milbrath 1989:115-134, Peet 1992, Reason & Rowan1981, Rees 1990c, Rees & Wackemagel 1992:387, Steiner 1992 & 1993).In public decision-making, traditional science (or rather the beliefs of scientificmaterialism) have become the dominant way of understanding issues and their context. Theprominence of neo-classical economics in political decision-making serves as a perfect exampleof such scientific materialism. Also, at least in affluent countries, the public\u00E2\u0080\u0099s faith in market-driven traditional science is alive and well. Many people believe that, through the use of science-driven technological innovations, humanity will always be able to defeat scarcity and ecological21 When analyzing inquiry paradigms, Egon Guba and Yvonna Lincoln approach them in three subsequent steps.They ask the ontological question: \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhat is the form and nature of reality and, therefore, what is there that can be knownabout it?\u00E2\u0080\u009D, the epistemological question: \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhat is the nature of the relationship between the knower or would-be knowerand what can be known?\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and the methodological question: \u00E2\u0080\u009CHow can the knower [or would-be knower] go aboutfinding out what he or she believes can be known?\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Guba & Lincoln 1994:108). Since I argue in this section that thescientific institutions have been unable to fully apprehend the ecological and socioeconomic crises, let alone deal withthem, this issue falls mainly in the domain of the epistemological question. In fact, the essence of planning is the(epistemological) relationship between knowledge and action, to use John Friedmann\u00E2\u0080\u0099s definition of planning (1987).In this context, I define \u00E2\u0080\u009Cscience\u00E2\u0080\u009D as systematic inquiry with transparent documentation. \u00E2\u0080\u009CTraditional science\u00E2\u0080\u009Drefers here, more narrowly, to the not necessarily sequential process of identifying a clearly defined and testable question,pursuing this question in a systematic and replicable manner using quantifiable measures and statistical significance, anddocumenting the research process and findings in a logical order. In contrast, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cscientific materialism\u00E2\u0080\u009D refers to theworldview which holds that eventually everything can be understood and mastered through scientific inquiry, and thatonly those things, which can be perceived by quantitative science, exist.28constraints. This belief in scientific materialism, industrial societies\u00E2\u0080\u0099 implicit mainstream\u00E2\u0080\u009Creligion\u00E2\u0080\u009D, can be inferred from society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 lack of alternative spiritual values or mythological beliefs (Berman 1989);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 emphasis on science which concentrates on \u00E2\u0080\u009Chow\u00E2\u0080\u009D rather than on \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhy\u00E2\u0080\u009D questions(Berman 1981, Henderson 1977:304);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 notion that nature can be dominated and managed by \u00E2\u0080\u009Chow\u00E2\u0080\u009D science (Berman 1981, Kung1990, Milbrath 1989:1-6,l735),fl and with this, a wide acceptance of hierarchicalandrocentrism;24\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 admiration or adoration of technological tools, and the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstraight line\u00E2\u0080\u009D approach asmanifest in current linear thinking, designing, managing and producing (Hundertwasserin N\u00C3\u00B8rretranders 1991:466, Steiner 1993);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 pride in science\u00E2\u0080\u0099s success stories, such as technological sophistication and progress,micro- and macro-space exploration, industrial mass-production and unprecedentedmilitary capabilities; and,\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 promotion of an exclusive culture of professionalism (Kettering Review 1994).23 Milbrath discusses four of the common arguments, namely \u00E2\u0080\u009Chumans are clever\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwe will develop unlimitedenergy\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmarkets will take care of it\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and \u00E2\u0080\u009C[we can] maximize productivity from renewable resources\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1989:17-35).The debates on the ethics of genetic or nuclear technology provide good examples of some of theses arguments (Rifkin1985). In fact, even the stewardship concept in environmental ethics is based on the principle that nature can becontrolled by humans (Beavis 1991:77-81). A further discussion of the philosophical undercurrent of exploitative andinstrumental relationship to nature is provided by Carolyn Merchant (1980, 1992).An example of the view that technology and human inventiveness can continue to expand global carryingcapacity is implied by the Vatican\u00E2\u0080\u0099s position for the 1994 UN conference on population in Cairo. On the question of howto provide decent lives for a growing human population, rather than arguing for a radical redistribution of wealth, BishopJames MeCue from the US stated in a radio program by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that similar to the pastone hundred years, human inventiveness could increase nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity (CBC 1994).24 section starts from the premise that the shift from the egocentric or androcentric (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cmale-oriented\u00E2\u0080\u009D) worldviewto a truly anthropocentric perspective would already significantly contribute toward achieving sustainability. However,it might be quite conceivable that a sustainable society will adopt a more eco-centric perspective. For further discussionsee also footnote 46 in this chapter.29At best, scientific inquiry is able to predict reproducible events. And this was the focusof classical science, such as Newtonian physics. For non-replicable events involving complexsystems such as social or ecological behaviour, scientific inquiry can only explore probableoutcomes, but never prove its predictive claims. Science\u00E2\u0080\u0099s technological success, however, hasfuelled the widespread public expectation that science can provide immutable answers to allchallenges, for replicable events (or simple, defined and controllable \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmicro-realities\u00E2\u0080\u009Dcharacterized by \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmechanical\u00E2\u0080\u009D reproducibility)25 as well as for less clearly defined and morecomplex issues concerning the human condition (or complex, open and undefined \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmacro-realities\u00E2\u0080\u009D characterized by uncertainty). In fact, many key issues about human survival, such asthe long-term effect of ozone depletion, climate change, deforestation or destructive humanbehaviour can only be formulated as concerns. These concerns cannot be conclusively answered,but only explored through probable scenarios and simplifying models. To wait for conclusivescientific evidence before making decisions will, by definition, exclude all long-term concernsfrom the political agenda as such empirical evidence can only be gathered when it is too late.In other words, while science is effective and valuable when exploring concerns, it would bemisleading or dangerous to wait for science to deliver definitive answers.However, the woridview attributed to scientific materialism ignores the fact that, formacro-realities, science can only raise concerns and not answer them. In contrast, scientificmaterialism reflects the widespread faith in human ingenuity to manipulate and control thehuman condition. Science, from this perspective, is no longer a method or a collection ofknowledge but, to use Lewis Mumford\u00E2\u0080\u0099s words, it has become a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmegamachine\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1967:199) farAnd indeed, the scientific approach has led to incredible technological successes. The Economist identified themicroprocessor, the birth control pill, the telephone network, the jumbo jet, the off-shore platform, the hydrogen bomband the moon program as the seven modern wonders (December 25, 1993:47-5 1).30removed from what science purports to be.As long as society believes that science, and particularly the more instrumental traditionalscience, is the only objective, systematic and comprehensive method of inquiry to generateuniversal knowledge, the utilized science becomes an instrument of power for those who controlit. Furthermore, by excluding other approaches to knowledge, it makes society blind to manyissues and impedes the debate about science\u00E2\u0080\u0099s validity or limits. (Some debate on this issue canbe found in the feminist critique such as Bordo 1987, Harding 1986, Keller 1985, and Merchant1980, 1992; other aspects are presented by the socioecological critique which includes Capra1982, Ellul 1990, Goldsmith 1992, Griffin 1988, Naess 1989, Reason & Rowan 1980, Roszak1986, 1992, Steiner 1992, and Steiner et al. 1988).When criticizing traditional science, Peter Reason and John Rowan identify 18characteristics of the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cscientific paradigm,\u00E2\u0080\u009D including positivism, reductionism, quantophrenia(or focus on quantification), detachment, conservatism, bigness, low utilization, inaccessiblelanguage, cause-effect determinism, and \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfairy tales\u00E2\u0080\u009D in textbooks on the characteristics ofscientific research (1981: xiv-xvi). Instrumental rationality, and misleading objectivity are othercharacteristics that should be added to the list, which is discussed in the following paragraphs.26Reductionism, or the belief that phenomena can be understood by dividing them intoclearly defined observable parts, and which is driving traditional science has attracted severe26 A comprehensive critique of mainstream science, and a discussion of alternative approaches to scientific inquiryis provided by Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Handbook of Qualitative Research (1994) which containscontributions from over 30 leading social scientists.31criticism.27 The strength of traditional scientific analysis lies in examining reproduciblespeqficities, trying to infer some fundamental universalities, such as the Maxwell equations, theNewton equations, and other fundamental laws of classical physics. Such inquiries boil down toa search for the abstract and the pure, which explains some of the bias against relevantquestions such as how to overcome the impediments to sustainability, or whether the current wayof gathering knowledge is adequate to face the sustainability challenges. Both questions lackscientific legitimacy.However, if society is to cope with the sustainability challenges, critical or socraticthinking is what is most needed -- not merely the accumulation of more bits of conventionalscientific information28 (Roszak 1986:2 16). Unfortunately, the traditional scientific approachesrooted in reductionism have a poor record of analyzing and recommending how to cope with asituation that cannot be completely understood. Evidence of the generation of specificinformation, which lacks a context, rather than of critical thinking on relevant issues, can befound in the vast majority of the many thousands of scientific journals to which the UBC Librarysubscribes. In essence, by focusing on unrelated, specific pieces that should eventually andhopefully add up to some fundamental universalities, traditional science cannot capture systemicgeneralities. For example, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cthe current development path is unsustainable\u00E2\u0080\u009D or \u00E2\u0080\u009Ceconomic growthcannot be sustained\u00E2\u0080\u009D are statements which are not specific enough. Neither are they falsifiableand refutable through the study of isolated special cases. Therefore, they are not viable researchTi Every inquiry involves the use of models or theories that simplify actual events or circumstances. Reductionism,however, is one particular way of simplifying through isolating particular aspects and systematically ignoring thesignificance of the linkages between the parts when analyzing an issue.28 Information, according to Claude Shannon et at., is a quantitative concept related to thermodynamic entropy andcan be measured in bits (1948 in Norretranders 1991:56-62). This quantitative approach to information represents muchof today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s scientific output which is prolific, but increasingly devoid of understanding or meaning (Roszak 1986:13-14,156-176).32questions for traditional scientific inquires -- even though the overall social and ecological trendsare evident, and even though pursuing such questions is fundamental for securing a healthyhuman condition.Science\u00E2\u0080\u0099s reductionism lends itself also to an incremental understanding, thereby losingthe reference points. Slicing broad concerns into separate issues makes people blind to largerimplications, and legitimizes piecemeal approaches. Those approaches quite possibly encouragedisaster by seemingly insignificant increments. For example, while scientific research issuccessful in preparing for, and developing, industrial advances, traditional science practice isimpotent to understand, or effectively to address worsening ecological and social trends. In fact,the technological knowledge, generated by traditional science, has made the social and economicworld so complex that it becomes increasingly difficult to understand its dynamics. Therefore,the knowledge gap between what we need to know in order to effectively counteract the trends,and the kind of knowledge that is offered by the scientific enterprise, is growing rapidly (Elgin1981:252-257). The International Society for Ecology and Culture states that [traditional]science gains its understanding of the world by isolating and studying small pieces of the interconnectedcontinuum of nature. ... Modern technology is indeed able to manipulate the world to an almost unimaginableextent. When it comes to infinite complexity and long term frame of social systems or ecosystems, thelimitations of science are particularly evident. Given these fundamental shortcomings, the status of science todayis profoundly disturbing (Goldsmith et a!. 1991:5-6).Robert Ornstein and Paul Ehrlich believe that this focus on incrementalism andreductionism is linked to the way our minds function: slow changes, long-term implications andconnections cannot easily be perceived by human brains (1990), a phenomenon called the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cboiledfrog syndrome.\u00E2\u0080\u009D \u00E2\u0080\u009C...Frogs placed in a pan of water that is slowly heated will be unable to detectthe gradual but deadly trend. ... Like the frogs, many people seem unable to detect the gradualbut lethal trend in which population and economic growth threaten to boil civilization...\u00E2\u0080\u009D(Ornstein & Ehrlich 1990:74-75).33Particularly since World War II, social science has been characterized by quantophreniawhere everything is reduced to numbers. Sociology research looks like a collection of linearregressions, and economics has become so mathematical that Elizabeth Corcoran and PaulWallich asked in the Scientjflc American \u00E2\u0080\u009C... [are] economic principles simply obscured behindthe mathematics -- or have they vanished?...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1992:142). Economist Clifford Cobb commentsthat thetyranny of quantification leads society to conclusions about well-being which are surely wrong if one takes anoverall reasonable view of the economic landscape. But such a view is precisely what is impossible because ofthe use of these statistical abstractions. This tyranny of quantification leads to another tyranny that shows in theepistemology that conventional economics uses. The tyranny of quantification leads to the tyranny of precision,objectivity and certainty, i.e., that of positivism. If you cannot measure it precisely in a numerical manner andwith certainty, then it cannot be true (The Human Economy Newsletter 1992:1).Also, traditional (and politically acceptable) scientific research and applications rely onclear cause-effect relationships, or linear causation. However, in macro-settings, which cannotbe conclusively defined by an initial condition, cause and effect are often not distinguishable andcan become meaningless concepts. In other words, by acknowledging only direct cause-effectrelationships, traditional science\u00E2\u0080\u0099s blindness to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cchicken-and-egg\u00E2\u0080\u009D or systemic relationshipsbecomes problematic as this blindness will conceal most critical social or ecological concerns.29In this context, examination of situations whose cause-effect mechanisms cannot be understoodmust be intensified. Clearly, philosophical debates on issues such as the precautionary principleseem to have contributed more useful guidance than traditional scientific inquiry.The ideological mainstream of the scientific community has promoted a narrow concept29A reaction to this fundamental shortcoming of traditional science is the systems thinking approach. Introductionsto this epistemological approach can be found in Ashby (1956), Beer (1974), Boothroyd (1992b), Checkland (1990),Greene (1989), Hawryszkiewycz (1988), Macy (1991), Meadows et al. (1972, 1992), Miller (1978), Rapoport (1986),Senge (1990), Van Gigch (1978), Vester (1983), von Bertalanffy (1968), von Neumann (1944/53), Wiener (1950), andWolstenholm (1990).34of rationality. For example, Graham Bannock et a!. in their Dictionary of Economics definerational as \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccontain[ing] no systematic error\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1987:346). This definition hinges on itsinterpretation of \u00E2\u0080\u009Csystematic.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In economic theory, \u00E2\u0080\u009Csystemic\u00E2\u0080\u009D typically refers to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cinternallyconsistent\u00E2\u0080\u009D, while the assumptions (such as maximizing individual self-interest or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmaximizingpersonal utility\u00E2\u0080\u009D) do not need to be tested on external consistency. In other contexts (such as inengineering or traditional urban planning3), the word \u00E2\u0080\u009Csystematic\u00E2\u0080\u009D seems to imply \u00E2\u0080\u009Capproachesconsistent with scientific materialism\u00E2\u0080\u009D, while never acknowledging that the choice of thereference system determines the meaning of rational. Borrowing from traditional science, aninterpretation of rationality based on self-centred scientific materialism has become a coreconcept of the industrialized countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 political discourse and a criterion for legitimizing goalsand objectives. This particular rationality concept has proven to be highly effective in theindustrial domain, but does lead to irrationalities and contradictions in the public domain froma social and ecological perspective. Such an instrumental approach to rationality (Kincheloe &McLaren 1994:140) facilitates the development of new devices, while being weak at addressingmacro-realities. For example, those developments in science which try to mitigate the negativeexternalities (or additional costs that are not accounted for in the price and market system) ofthe global economy are outpaced by the negative impacts of economic expansion. Ironically, thiseconomic expansion is stimulated by other scientific innovations, as evident with the newgigantic transport capacities and the powerful telecommunication networks.With Francis Bacon\u00E2\u0080\u0099s and Ren\u00C3\u00A9 Descartes\u00E2\u0080\u0099 proclamation that there was no contradictionbetween (instrumental) rationalism and empiricism (Berman 1981:14, Roszak 1986:212),30 For example, one of the Canadian Institute of Planner\u00E2\u0080\u0099s definitions states that \u00E2\u0080\u009C\u00E2\u0080\u0098planning\u00E2\u0080\u0099 means the planningof the scientific, aesthetic and orderly disposition of land, resources, facilities and services with a view of securing thephysical, economic and social efficiency, health and well-being of urban and rural communities\u00E2\u0080\u009D (CIP, Charter Bylaw,Final Proposal, September 23, 1986).35instrumental rationality became the new moral yardstick and the new \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdivine principle\u00E2\u0080\u009D to guidehuman beings (and, ever since, has been confused with reason). Philosopher Herbert Marcusecommented that theunion of growing productivity and growing destruction; the brinkmanship of annihilation; the surrender ofthought, hope and fear to the decision of the powers that be; the preservation of misery in the face ofunprecedented wealth constitute the most impartial indictment - even if they are not the raison d\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00C3\u00AAtre of thissociety but only its by-product: its sweeping [instrumental] rationality, which propels efficiency and growth,is itself [socially and ecologically] irrational (1964 p:xii).As noted, within the realm of traditional scientific inquiry, it is never acknowledged that\u00E2\u0080\u009Csystematic\u00E2\u0080\u009D refers to a particular worldview or ideology; rather, it is silently assumed thatscientific materialism (including individual self-interest) is objective or value-free. However, thisclaim to objectivity in science has been questioned by many scholars (Kassiola 1990, Milbrath1989:132-136, Poet 1992:146-147). They conclude that a researcher\u00E2\u0080\u0099s claim to be \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvalue-free\u00E2\u0080\u009Dis highly value laden and indicates that this researcher does not want to debate his or herassumptions (see also Mitroff in Reason & Rowan 198 1:37Jj).A further obstacle to holistic research on (irreproducible, complex and uncertain) macro-realities is the politics of science funding which favours established reductionist disciplines. Forexample, evidence seems to suggest that traditional scientific institutions such as universitieshave avoided integrative (or truly interdisciplinary) research on macro-realities. In fact, in thecase of sustainability, most of the literature, debate and studies seem to be generated by privateor semi-private institutes,31 or by dissident voices within mainstream organizations3231 Examples are the World Resources Institute, the Worldwatch Institute, Institute for Local Self-Reliance,Wuppertal Institute, Friends of the Earth, Elmwood Institute, Rocky Mountain Institute, Planet Drum Foundation, NewAlchemy Institute, Carrying Capacity Network, David Suzuki Foundation, Oko-Institutes in Germany, Greenpeace, SierraClub, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and many otherenvironmental organizations with research branches. In addition, there are many individual activists and writers such asHazel Henderson, Barry Commoner (?), Wendel Berry, and Murry Bookchin. Also in Switzerland, most leading edgeresearch on sustainability is conducted outside the universities. Examples are Ellipson, Oko-Zentren (Langenbruck andSchafweid), Infras, Arras und Bierter, Karthago, Verkehrs Club der Schweiz (VCS), Greenpeace, WWF Switzerland,36(Viederman 1994:7). The fact that scientific institutions primarily focus on micro-realities, ratherthan addressing the larger picture, would not be worrisome if society did not expect answers onmacro-problems from these institutions. Certainly, it is true that many of these micro-realitystudies which are embedded in a single academic discipline do not add up to an understandingof macro-realities, and are not even compatible with studies from other disciplines. In traditionalacademic institutions, there are few examples where natural science and social science areintegrated. Witnesses are the rift between economics and human ecology; or the diverseacademic fields which identify with an ecological approach, but where definitions of ecology arenot only different but incompatible.33In summary, rather than being just one tool for society to assist public debate and tocontribute to public decision making, instrumental or traditional scientific analysis has becomethe undebated but dominant woridview and apologist for modem society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s destructiveexpansionism. Thus, the weaknesses of the scientific process have become the weaknesses ofpublic decision-making. The \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmegamachinery\u00E2\u0080\u009D of traditional science has become a paralysingpolitical force which, by failing conclusively to prove complex issues, legitimizes inaction. TheCO2 debate provides a prominent example. As in so many other cases, the lack of completescientific certainty supports the politics of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness-as-usual\u00E2\u0080\u009D rather than promotingprecautionary action (Schneider in Reichert 1993:189).Daniel Wiener, Kulturprojekt Silvania, Duttweiler Institut, Institut de la Dure, etc.32 Prominent examples of such voices are Herman Daly and Robert Goodland at the World Bank. Academics whowork outside their job descriptions include Paul Ehrlich, Garrett Hardin, Franz Moser, John Peet, David Suzuki, andRobert Woollard; in Switzerland Jean Ziegler, Pierre Fornallaz, Hans ChristofBinswanger, Theo Ginsburg (t) and MaxThflrkauf (t).Many \u00E2\u0080\u009Cecological studies\u00E2\u0080\u009D from various disciplines either exclude human beings from the ecosphere (biologicalecologists), do not acknowledge the humansphere as embedded in, and dependent on, the ecosphere (economists), orunderstand the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenvironment\u00E2\u0080\u009D barely as a socio-cultural construct (social scientists).375. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CRISISThe psychologically rooted social behaviour is perhaps the most fundamental andinfluential barrier to sustainability.34 However, the low number of scholarly publicationsconcerning the psychological facet of the sustainability crisis suggests that it is a largelyneglected area.Two major psychological phenomena stand out. They can be summarized as the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cactivepromotion\u00E2\u0080\u009D and the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpassive tolerance\u00E2\u0080\u009D of the current condition. The active promotion includesthe positive portrayal of unsustainable lifestyles through, for example, advertising (Durning1992: 117-135). The passive tolerance is manifested in the social denial of the current crisis asevident in industrialized countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 perseverance in planning for more -- be it cars or economicgrowth -- rather than planning for sustainabilily.The active promotion of unsustainable lifestyles shows many faces. It is reflected in thevalues of the dominant worldview which have been summarized under names such as scientificmaterialism, economic expansionism, Pareto efficiency fixation, frontier ethics, industrialism,individualism, or globalism (Catton and Dunlop 1980:34, Chiras 1992b: 107, Colby 1991:193-213, Deveall & Sessions 1985:18,41-48, Kassiola 1990:205, Milbrath 1989:119, Peet 1992: 16-26, Sachs 1988:33-39, Sbert 1992). These beliefs and values are promoted not only within manyacademic disciplines -- as commerce and economics -- but even more so through \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfraudulent andincessant advertising\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Sale in Kassiola 1990:6, Ewen 1988). This becomes particularly evidentwhen analyzing society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s self-destructive \u00E2\u0080\u009Clove for the automobile\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Sachs 1992b, Freund &Martin 1993, Nadis and MacKenzie 1993).Also, it might be interesting to analyze whether the rise in incidence of mental illness, drug abuse, physical abuseand suicide is a symptom of this psychological crisis.38Western-style billboards with English slogans have penetrated to every corner of theworld. This consumer culture has been promoted particularly aggressively in Eastern Europe.As a result, waste production has increased by magnitudes rather than percentages. Thepromotion of cars has begun to undermine the energy efficient public transport systems. Also,the commercial success of heavily publicised Western packaged foods is destroying local foodproducers (Weller 1993).Another factor in active promotion is television, which portrays the unsustainable lifestyleas a desirable and achievable dream for everybody. Apart from consumption-promotingcommercials, of which the average North American has seen about 350,000 by age 20 (Wachtel1989:287), also regular television shows re-confirm the desirability of lavish lifestyles, justifydreams of material wealth and glamour, and foster misplaced \u00E2\u0080\u009CDisneyesque\u00E2\u0080\u009D images ofnature.35 Commercial television rarely conveys any sense of limits or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenoughness\u00E2\u0080\u009D, nor doesit establish intellectual connections between issues, people(s) and ecosystems (Durning 1992,Mander 1991:75-96, McKibben 1992, Wilson 1974).36On the other hand, abstraction of thought is hailed by intellectuals as a great achievementof Western civilization. This fascination with abstract thought and the contempt for the visual,35The magazine Adbusters Quarterly published by the Vancouver Media Foundation regularly features discussionson that subject. Also remarkable is their production of anti-television and anti-consumption spots for commercialtelevision stations.36 Another aspect of television was envisioned by George Orwell in his novel 1984. By separating people andproviding simplistic fast-paced and emotional messages, television can feed into the politics of mistrust and hate, whichundermines cooperative approaches. For example, in an article on television and fundamentalism, The Economistcommented that \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .print isolates individuals, sponsoring rational, dispassionate analysis, [whereas] spoken words [andtelevision in particular] encourage group thinking, sometimes mob-thmkm Scholars offer many learned explanations[as to why religious enthusiasts can challenge social order and political power]. One that they largely neglect is the impactof audio-visual technology. The magic potency of the oral word and the encapsulated message by the visual icon aredethroning the written word...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (August 21, 1993:36).39which characterizes the academic community, has helped to create the context where commercialtelevision is able to monopolize people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s audio-visual experience. By not generating alternative(visual) visions, academia has missed the opportunity to challenge the television vision ofconsumerism, stereotypes and hate.The active promotion of unsustainable lifestyles does not apply only to the industrializedworld. In fact, Helena Norberg-Hodge, former Director of the Ladakh Project, identifiespsychological pressure to modernize as the most important reason for the breakdown oftraditional societies, and points out that this psychological dimension is a much neglected aspectin the development debate (Goldsmith et al. 1991:8 1).The passive tolerance of ecological destruction and social malaise has been captured bydifferent names. Some call it social, societal or shared denial. Others call this behaviour self-censorship, learned helplessness, ignorance, reality avoidance, alexithymia,37 the mismatched\u00E2\u0080\u009Cold mind\u00E2\u0080\u009D, numbing,38 self-deception, or the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cunperceived realities of the consumer life\u00E2\u0080\u009D(Baron & Byrne 1987: 132-139, Baum & Aiello 1978, Catton 1980: 183-197, Chiras 1992b:95,Eclelstein et a!. 1989, Goleman 1986, Macy 1983, Ornstein & Ehrlich 1989, Wachtel 1989:48,Wolfe 1991).Alexithymia is a disorder which causes people to behave in a pre-programmed manner and take a cynical attitudetoward wanted information, explored by David Wolfe (as one example) when analyzing executives\u00E2\u0080\u0099 denial of unpleasantnews about market developments (1991:40-44).38 In his preface to Overshoot, William Catton writes that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...my own exposure to population pressure, a majorindicator of the common source of our mounting frustrations, has been sufficiently marginal and intermittent to permitme to see it in relief. Constant exposure to it would have prevented me (as it has prevented so many others) from seeingits real nature. Complete insulation from it would have precluded awareness and concern. Even with my advantageoussituation, it took me years to see what I was looking at...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1980:viii).is surprising that there is little literature available on that subject. The few publications that address social denial,analyze group behaviours in controlled experimental contexts; fewer discuss non-experimental social crises such as theHolocaust or the threat of nuclear annihilation (Edeistein eta!. 1989, Macy 1983, Suefeld eta!. 1992:96-100). In fact,40Societal denial is widespread. One example is our blind faith in redemption throughscientific progress. Another is \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the further development of entertainment industries based onreality-avoidance.. .\u00E2\u0080\u009C (Slaughter 1993). Also, it becomes evident in situations when the victimsare blamed, as was done by IMF Managing Director and Chairman of the Executive Board,Michel Camdessus. He claims that poverty [and not the high consumption of industrial societiesor the global economy], is the prime reason for environmental destruction (Camdessus 1992).A similar assertion can be found in the World Commission on Environment and Development\u00E2\u0080\u0099sreport which states that, \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the cumulative effect of [the poor\u00E2\u0080\u0099s impact on the ecosphere] is sofar-reaching as to make poverty itself a major global scourge...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (WCED 1987:28). Morewidespread is the addiction to the illusion of permanent economic and infrastructure growth(Chiras 1992b:95, Wachtel 1989:16-22,50, Sanders 1990, WCED 1987:213-215),\u00C2\u00B0 or thecommon response of not wanting to see the self-evident, as typified by flood victims all over theworld who rebuild their homes in the same old place (Salholz 1993). \u00E2\u0080\u009CAccusing the Cassandras\u00E2\u0080\u009Dis another variation on the theme (Ray 1993, Simon & Kahn 1984, and many critiques of theLimits to Growth report). Albert Hirschman writes that the\u00E2\u0080\u009C...denial of reality that is practised testifies to the power and vitality of the disappointment experience. Weengage in all kinds of ingenious ruses and delaying actions before admitting to ourselves that we aredisappointed, in part surely because we know that disappointment may compel us to a painful reassessment ofour preferences and priorities...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (in Kassiola 1990:34)the UBC library on-line catalogue shows 23 entries under the subject heading \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnuclear warfare -- psychological aspects.\u00E2\u0080\u009DHowever, social denial in the context of the ecological crisis lacks discussion in the literature, even though the crisis isso tightly linked with individual behaviour. The foreword to the Touchstone edition of Goleman\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Vital Lies, SimpleTruths is one of the few exceptions (1986:11-14); another one is Sandra Postel\u00E2\u0080\u0099s introductory chapter to the State oftheWorld 1992 called \u00E2\u0080\u009CDenial in the Decisive Decade\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Brown et al. 1992a). Clearly, research about the psychology ofsocietal denial in the context of the sustainability crisis needs to be conducted urgently. At this point, we can onlyspeculate whether such denial is rooted in ignorance, naive optimism, or suppressed knowledge, and whether it isindividually or culturally rooted, etc.40 The current debate on replacing Vancouver\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Lions Gate Bridge or the Greater Vancouver Regional District\u00E2\u0080\u0099sThe Livable Region Strategic Plan of 1993 typify such societal denial by not addressing sustainability implications of thepresented choices.41In summary, it is widely acknowledged in academic literature that the current ecologicaldecline is worrisome and the persistence of social misery in the world is distressing. Moreover,the dissenting voices are not able to dispel these concerns. However, it seems that mainstreamscience, our official sensory organ, is limited in its understanding and capacity to act upon thesechallenges. Further, there is much indication that a major stumbling block to action is theenormity of the issue which feeds in a sense of hopelessness, fear or denial. Effective actiontoward sustainability therefore requires, first, the establishment of the connections between thefacets of the sustainability crisis, and second, to explore the mechanisms that have perpetuatedunsustainable lifestyles.B. MAKING THE CONNECTIONS: THE COMMON JZHEME OF THESUSTAINABILITY CRISISIt is widely acknowledged that the above facets of the sustainability crisis are tightlylinked (Boothroyd 1992a, Brown et a!. 1984a-1994a, Burrows et al. 1991, Chiras 1992a, Clark& Munn 1986, Corson 1990, Durning 1992, Kumar et a!. 1993, The Ecologist 22(4)). Forexample, increased human demand can accelerate ecological deterioration, thereby exacerbatingpoverty. Poor people often economically depend on high reproduction rates which furtherentrenches poverty. Higher human demands and local ecological deterioration increase thedependence on carrying capacity of distant places thereby impacting the social and ecologicalfabric in other places of the world.In fact, the facets of the sustainability crisis are not only linked, but they suffer from asimilar dynamic, the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of the Commons\u00E2\u0080\u009D, or rather, to be more accurate, the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy42of Free Access.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Ecologist Garrett Hardin reiterated in 1968 the wisdom of Aristotle that,\u00E2\u0080\u009C. . .what is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care.. .\u00E2\u0080\u009C (1973/1993: 145).In contrast to Aristotle, he emphasized its tragic social implications. To illustrate how gains tothe individual can ultimately be outweighed by the aggregate losses to society, Hardin uses anagricultural example. He compares the individual shepherd\u00E2\u0080\u0099s benefits of increasing his or herherd size to the individual share of the resultant costs. Since the benefits will always seemgreater to the individual shepherd, each has an incentive to add animals to the pasture, therebyruining it by overuse (1973/1993:132). And, this tragedy is precisely the mechanism of theglobal ecological downward spiral.However, as mentioned, the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of the Commons\u00E2\u0080\u009D should rather be called the\u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Hardin misinterpreted the historic meaning of \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccommons\u00E2\u0080\u009D in hisclassic analysis (as Hardin himself later acknowledged). He was not, in fact, describing acommons regime in which rights and authority are vested in members of the community, butrather an open or free access regime in which ownership and authority are vested nowhere(Aguilera-Klink 1994:223-227, Berkes 1989a [particularly Berkes & Farvar 1989], Ophuls eta!.1992:193, The Ecologist 22(4): 127). Ironically, and as will be discussed later, Hardin advocatedresolving the tragedy through a social contract, or by \u00E2\u0080\u009C...mutual coercion, mutually agreedupon...,\u00E2\u0080\u009D to use his words, in itself a definition of a \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccommons\u00E2\u0080\u009D regime (Aguilera-Klink1994:222-223, Berkes 1989b:85).This \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access\u00E2\u0080\u009D is also widely discussed in various fields under differentnames. In 1950, researchers at the RAND Corporation described a similar phenomenon as the\u00E2\u0080\u009CPrisoner\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Dilemma\u00E2\u0080\u009D which is now commonly discussed in game theory (Poundstone 1992).Economists refer to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cexternalities\u00E2\u0080\u009D and study their impact on market failures. Daly and Cobb43also identify this tragedy as a key mechanism causing the sustainability crisis, but name it\u00E2\u0080\u009Cpervasive externalities.\u00E2\u0080\u009D However, as they point out themselves, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cexternalities\u00E2\u0080\u009D is a misleadingterm when describing vital issues such as the destruction of life-support services. They ridiculethe concept, if used in the sustainability context, by calling it an \u00E2\u0080\u009Cad hoc corrections introducedas needed to save appearances, like the epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Daly & Cobb1989:37,141-146). Some economists also call the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy\u00E2\u0080\u009D a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpublic good problem\u00E2\u0080\u009D, andMichael Jacobs labels it graphically \u00E2\u0080\u009CInvisible Elbow\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1993:22). Common property managementis studied by resource economists and scholars in resource management, and has got its ownliterature and conferences (Berkes 1989a).The \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access\u00E2\u0080\u009D characterizes the mechanisms of the key conificts in eachfacet of the sustainability crisis.From the ecological perspective, this tragedy is particularly obvious. Maximizing thepersonal use of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services (including resource supply and waste assimilation) is beneficialto the individual, but can lead to an over-exploitation of nature which negatively affects societyat large -- to say nothing of other species. Prominent examples of such negative impacts are theaccumulation of greenhouse gases, the depletion of atmospheric ozone, the generation of acidrain, the decimation of whale populations, the overharvesting of fisheries with consequentcollapses, and rapid deforestation. Natural capital stocks everywhere are drawn down and globalabsorptive sinks are filled to over-flowing (Rees & Wackernagel 1992). As humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s levelsof resource throughput are the product of population size and average per capita resource44consumption, these trends are exacerbated by growth in both consumption and population.41In effect, our global safety net is being shredded as the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access\u00E2\u0080\u009D isplayed out on a global scale. All counthes now face the same potentially limiting factorssimultaneously (e.g., ozone depletion, exhausted fisheries, potential climate change) in ageopolitically uncertain world. In fact, the micro-economic conditions reinforce suchunsustainable behaviour patterns as investment is directed into ventures that increase economicproductivity, thereby closing a positive feedback loop (Wackernagel & Rees 1992).From the socioeconomic perspective, the population crisis is a clear example of the\u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In this case, the tragedy is not only manifest in the contradictinginterests of individuals and society, but also in the conflict between various social groups andhumanity as a whole. The first conflict between individuals and society is obvious. Reproductivedecisions are taken by individuals, while the cumulative ecological and social effects of theaggregate population is carried by everybody, independent of their reproduction. Economicconditions might make it necessary for poor families to have a large number of offspring, eventhough this becomes a stumbling block for the wellbeing of their local society (Li 1992).42 Infact, fast growing populations with over 50 percent of their people under the age of 15 will41 This does not suggest that one percent growth in population has necessarily the same impact as one percentgrowth in consumption. One percent growth of an already high per capita consumption (or of an affluent population) hasobviously a larger impact than one percent growth of low per capita consumption (or of a less affluent population). Alsofrom an ethical perspective, growth of consumption for those with low consumption seems more necessary and defensiblethan growth in affluent consumption.42 In contrast, for affluent families, low reproduction rates might be economically beneficial: low numbers ofoffsprings help to maintain a high concentration of wealth and allow large investments into each offspring\u00E2\u0080\u0099s education.Also, with increasingly long education spans, the time horizon for potential economic pay-back to the parents becomesso long that its net present value at the time of conception might be negligible in comparison to the investment costs ofchild raising.45never be able to afford effective health care or adequate education (Catley-Carison 1994).The affluent parts of humanity might have the means to help slow down populationgrowth. They could provide funds for education, health care and social programs (particularlyfor women) (Burrows et a!. 1991:32 1), but they might see reducing population growth as beingin conffict with their economic short-term interests. This conflict between various social groupsand humanity manifests various dimensions. For instance, in industrialized countries, people andgovernments seem less worried about local overpopulation than about the aging of their societiesfor fear of reduced pensions once they retire. Indeed, to keep their population younger, someindustrialized countries even encourage local population growth. In addition, affluent sectors ofsociety might perceive growing poor populations as an opportunity, rather than as a threat: poorpeople are a cheap source of industhal and domestic labour, as for example evident in manySouth East Asian countries (Hadi 1993), in the sex trade in Thailand (The Vancouver Sun,August 6, 1994:B2), and in the manual workforce of (sometimes illegal) immigrants inindustrialized countries. At the same time, in the face of the unprecedented superiority ofWestern military power, these rising populations might not be seen as a serious security threatto high-income countries. This disincentive structure points toward another \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of FreeAccess\u00E2\u0080\u009D situation, in which those who have the means of making the changes are not willing to,thereby perpetuating or even exacerbating the human suffering of others.From the political perspective, the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedies of Free Access\u00E2\u0080\u009D phenomenon arises fromthe distancing between actions and their effects. The increased distance between action andeffects, which handicaps corrective feedback, characterizes not only the globalizing economy butalso the political decision-making within nation states.46In the political domain, most rights and responsibilities are separated. Not only inrepresentative democracies, but also in direct democracies such as Switzerland, where those whovote are not always those who will carry the burden of the decision. This becomes particularlyevident when local groups defend their own interests at the cost of other groups or parts ofsociety (sometimes identified as the NIMBY syndrome). A local example are the residents ofthe neighbourhoods around the Arbutus corridor in Vancouver who oppose higher density forfear of increasing local traffic, thereby augmenting transportation pressures in the entire FraserBasin. Another example are communities who oppose the treatment of hazardous waste, whilenot opposing the local production of such waste.Military build-ups constitute another dimension of this \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In fact,much of the writing about the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access\u00E2\u0080\u009D phenomenon was motivated by the ColdWar grid-lock situation (Axelrod 1984, Poundstone 1992). Nevertheless, since the end of theCold War, local arms races and trade in military equipment have continued to feed into thistragedy: those selling or operating this military equipment are hardly affected by the economicburden of arm races, or by the physical and psychological hardship of war, while the sufferingis inflicted on others.In the macro-economic domain, globalization has entrenched the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of FreeAccess\u00E2\u0080\u009D as economic activities and their social and ecological impacts are further and furtherseparated. The design, advertisement, production, distribution, consumption and disposal ofproducts gets spread over countries, if not continents. Food products are no exception: \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . Onefourth of the grapes eaten in the United States are grown 11,000 kilometres away, in Chile, andthe typical mouthful of American food travels 2,000 kilometres from farm field to dinnerplate...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Brown et al. 1991a: 159). The social and ecological externalities that are consequences47of the expanding global market -- such as rapid urbanization, pollution, or community breakdowns -- become pervasive. In other words, impacts are no longer locally confined but becomesystemic. This obscures the consequences and side-effects of most economic actions (Daly &Cobb 1989:141-146). The increased complexity of the global economy and the devolution ofnation states make remedial action an ever bigger challenge.From the epistemological perspective, the focus of generating knowledge which benefitsa particular group rather than society as a whole (because such knowledge pays back those whofinanced the research) is another example of the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access.\u00E2\u0080\u009D While market-drivenknowledge generation seems to be highly adaptive to individual economic needs and \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwants\u00E2\u0080\u009D,it also accelerates the expanding spiral of production and consumption. However, other concernsof humanity as a whole, such as ecological limits, social equity, community vitality or spiritualwell-being, lose out. Since today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s economic activities are dictated by those who introduce themfirst (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cprimacy of action\u00E2\u0080\u009D), society as a whole cannot decide on whether it wants these newtechnologies, but must bear the costs of its side effects (see also Steiner 1993:5 1). Examplesinclude the introduction of nuclear power, genetic engineering, telecommunication and television,automobiles, video-games, the \u00E2\u0080\u009CGreen Revolution\u00E2\u0080\u009D, air traffic, and military technology.At least since the end of the Second World War, under the leadership of the industrializedcountries, economic research and technological breakthroughs in communications andtransportation capacities have backed the globalization of a world economy. Economicagreements have consciously been put in place to accommodate economic and technologicalinnovations in support of the globalization evident today. In consequence, aggregate economicproduction has skyrocketed, thereby accelerating resource consumption to such an extent thatit has now exceeded nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s carrying capacity. In other words, the scientific model behind48conventional economic development can be identified as a root cause of the sustainabilitydilemma (Peat Marwick 1993b, Chiras 1992a). In those cases where individual and societalinterests are at odds, this instrumental approach will exacerbate the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access\u00E2\u0080\u009Dby amplifying selfish human traits such as greed and acquisitiveness.Our scientific machinery has not been successful in addressing this crisis. Science\u00E2\u0080\u0099sstrength is its \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmicro\u00E2\u0080\u009D approach (i.e., developing specific, sophisticated, technological gadgetsin a lab), while failing to address \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmacro\u00E2\u0080\u009D concerns (i.e., understanding the connected globalissues, thinking about the implications of the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cunknowability\u00E2\u0080\u009D of complex systems, or at leastacknowledging the impossibility of ecological or global \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmanagement\u00E2\u0080\u009D). The scientificreductionist approach, in both analysis and application constitutes the epistemological dimensionof the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access\u00E2\u0080\u009D phenomenon.From the psychological perspective, the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access\u00E2\u0080\u009D becomes particularlyapparent. On the one hand, individuals in today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Western society feel insignificant,overwhelmed and powerless when confronted with the global dimensions of the sustainabilitycrisis. As the benefit of individual or even national sustainability efforts accrue to humanity asa whole, such action feels like martyrdom. Also, the globalizing cash nexus alienates andcommodifies, thereby further separating the individual from a sense of community. On the otherhand, the social and ecological crises are denied partly because the implications are toointimidating and require profound change in the way people live. Such change might require thatthe rich give up some of their material wealth so that the suffering of the poor could bemitigated and long-term productivity of nature would not be further compromised.The emotion-laden environmental debates document the anxieties of people when faced49with such fundamental dilemmas and challenges. The consequent knee-jerk reactions often leadto further protection of the immediate self-interests of a particular group while hindering cooperative behaviour, thereby exacerbating the conflict. Realizing the implications of the globalissue can lead to despair and various forms of social denial. This translates into the low priorityof sustainabiity issues on political agendas.C. REACTING TO TIlE CRISIS: EXPLORING TIlE NECESSARYCONDITIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITYSo far, this chapter has discussed why humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s current way of living is notsustainable. Building on the last section, I discuss what the characteristics or necessaryconditions are for developing a sustainable way of life.Sustainability is a simple concept: living with each other within the means of nature. Thisis the essence of WCED\u00E2\u0080\u0099s widely accepted definition of this concept (1987:43). But it is astartling, even alarming, concept - and that explains why progress is so slow. Sustainabilityshocks because it reminds the wealthy part of humankind of some bleak realities: the needs ofthe poor are not being met today and the current demands on nature are undermining the futurecapacity of nature to meet the needs of future generations. It is also alarming because it impliesThis is also the underlying message of the 10 sustainable development definitions listed in Rees (1989) and theover 20 definitions listed in Pearce et al. (1989:Annex). And, there is much academic agreement on the symptoms ofthe crisis. However, interpretations of this message, or its implications for action, are contradictory (L\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9 1991).Sharachchandra Ldl\u00C3\u00A9 acknowledges that these various interpretations are not caused by a lack ofunderstanding the issues,but rather by the reluctance to acknowledge the implications of the underlying message (1991:618). In other words, andin contrast to the view that we are witnessing a \u00E2\u0080\u009C...clash of plural rationalities each using impeccable logic to derivedifferent conclusions...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Thompson in Redclift 1987:202), the deliberate vagueness of the concept is merely a reflectionof the distribution of power in the political bargaining. It is not a manifestation of sustainable development\u00E2\u0080\u0099sinsurmountable intellectual intricacy (see also Milbrath 1989:323). \u00E2\u0080\u009C...Unless we are prepared to interrogate ourassumptions about both development and the environment and give political effect to the conclusions we reach, the realityof unsustainable development will remain...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (emphasis added, Redclift 1987:204).50that the human race cannot continue on its current path: profound changes are required. Inparticular, high income earners in industrialized societies must significantly reduce their resourceconsumption and waste production if everybody is to be able to live decently.In spite of the simple message carried by \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D, the concept suffers fromsemantic ambiguity stemming from the fact that it refers to a state as well as to a process (seealso footnote 2 in Chapter I). On the one hand, it refers to a state in which human consumptiondoes not exceed nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity, and on the other hand, to the process of achieving thisstate. The first three facets of the sustainabiity crisis discussed above inform about the state ofsustainability, while the last three indicate conditions for the development of sustainability.As explained later in this section, the state of sustainability depends simultaneously onthe health of three spheres (Figure 1.1). These spheres are:Figure 1.1:..Healt[,Three spheres of healthPersonal health is embedded in community health, which is embedded in ecosystem health.(Source: UBC Task Force 1994).51a) Ecological health: Using of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity without damaging it (ecological conditionfor sustainability).b) Community health: Fostering social well-being through the promotion of fairness,cooperation, inclusion, equity, and connectedness (political condition for sustainability).c) Individual health: Strengthening individual well-being through the provision of food, clothing,shelter, education, health care, leisure and so forth (socioeconomic condition forsustainability) (Wackernagel 1993a).To develop sustainability, society needs tools to understand and communicate about thesustainability challenges (epistemological condition for sustainability). It must acknowledge andaccommodate the debilitating fear of change (psychological condition for sustainability) andfinally, devise decision-making processes that include people and re-establish the links betweenrights and responsibilities (political condition for sustainability).1. THE ECOLOGICAL BOTTOM-LINE FOR SUSTAINABILITY: ACASE FOR STRONG SUSTAINABILITYSustainability requires living within the productive capacity of nature. Therefore, we needto know how to identify and measure nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity. Human societies depend not onlyon labour and human-made capital, but also on nature, or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnatural capital\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Costanza & Daly1992). Even though the concept of natural capital has not yet been developed into an operationaldefinition, various interpretations of natural capital have been advanced. The narrowestdefinitions identify natural capital mainly as commercially available (industrial) renewable andnon-renewable resources (Barbier 1992). However, a more complete definition of natural capitalThis section draws from Wackernagel & Rees (1992).52must not only include all the biophysical resources and waste sinks that are needed to supportthe human economy, but also the relationship among those entities and processes that providelife support to the ecosphere.In short, natural capital is not just an inventory of resources; it includes those componentsof the ecosphere, and the structural relationships among them, whose organizational integrity isessential for the continuous self-production of the system itself.45 Indeed, it is this highlyevolved structural and functional integration that makes the ecosphere the uniquely liveable\u00E2\u0080\u009Cenvironment\u00E2\u0080\u009D it is. In effect the very organisms it comprises produce the ecosphere (Rees1990c, 1992a). Geoclimatic, hydrological, and ecological cycles do not simply transport anddistribute nutrients and energy but are among the self-regulatory, homeostatic mechanisms thatstabilize conditions on Earth for all contemporary life-forms, including humankind.When debating the ecological conditions for sustainability, the question arises whethernatural capital itself has to remain constant (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cstrong sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D), or whether a loss in naturalcapital is acceptable if compensated through an equivalent accumulation of human-made capital(\u00E2\u0080\u009Cweak sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D) (Costanza & Daly 1992, Daly 1989:250-252, Pearce et a!. 1989, Pearce& Turner 1990, Pezzey 1989, Rees 1992a). As natural capital cannot be substituted by human-made capital (Daly 1992:250), but rather remains a prerequisite for human-made capital, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstrongsustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D becomes the criteria for judging whether humanity lives within nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s means.Therefore, the ecological bottom-line of sustainability is met if each generation inherits\u00E2\u0080\u009COrganization\u00E2\u0080\u009D signifies those properties and relationships that must be present for a thing to exist. Maturana andVarela (1992:39-52) refer to the unique self-producing and self-regulating properties that define living systems as\u00E2\u0080\u009Cautopoietic organization\u00E2\u0080\u009D.53an adequate per capita stock of essential biophysical assets alone -- independent of the human-made capital stock. This biophysical stock, or natural capital, must be no less than the stock ofsuch assets inherited by the previous generation.However, some scholars do not subscribe to the strong sustainability criterion. A few,such as Pearce and Atkinson (1993), use the weak sustainability criterion as their analyticalapproach, but without providing convincing arguments for its ecological validity.47 The mostforceful contestants of the strong sustainability perspective can be divided into two camps. Thefirst interprets the ecological crisis only as an issue of pollution, and not of resource scarcity.This position is common in environmental economics (e.g., Dasgupta & Heal 1979), but can nolonger be maintained in the face of such widespread phenomena as the loss of biodiversity,deforestation, and the collapse of fisheries. The second camp consists of people who deny orignore the ecological crisis altogether, as discussed in the first section of this chapter (Gee 1994,Simon & Kahn 1984, McKibbin & Sachs 1991, Giersch 1993), a position that is barelydefensible (Homer-Dixon 1994). However, as pointed out later, the major debate is not aboutthe validity of the strong sustainability criterion but rather about how to organize humanactivities, still maintaining our natural capital stock. In fact, within the field of EcologicalEconomics there is wide support for the strong sustainability interpretation, from the ecologicalas well as the economic perspectives represented in the field (Jansson et a!. 1994, in particular46 However radical the constant stocks criterion might appear, it still reflects anthropocentric values. Emphasis ison the pragmatic minimum biophysical requirements for human survival. However, the preservation of biophysical assetsessential to humankind does imply the direct protection of whole ecosystems and thousands of keystone species, andthousands more will benefit indirectly from the maintenance of the same systems upon which humans are dependent. Inshort, the most promising hope for maintaining significant biodiversity under our prevailing value system may well beecologically enlightened human self-interest. Of course, should humankind shift to more ecocentric values, its ownsurvival might be assured even more effectively. Respect for, and the preservation of, other species and ecosystems fortheir intrinsic value, would automatically ensure human ecological security.For a brief discussion see footnote 7 in Chapter ifi.54Turner et al. 1994).2. THE SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITYAs a minimum, sustainability requires that everybody\u00E2\u0080\u0099s basic needs be satisfied.However, ecological limits and the poor record of wealth distribution through the \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctrickle-down\u00E2\u0080\u009Deffect of conventional economic development suggest that continued economic growth will notbe able to achieve this goal. And there is increasing evidence that economic success is actuallyundermining ecological integrity as, generally speaking, those who can access the largest amountof resources (and have the entrepreneurial spirit to transform them effectively into demandedgoods and services) perform best in the global economy.However, securing basic needs for everybody is not enough. It also requires animprovement in quality of life. In fact, people will be reluctant to plan for sustainability if thispath is not seen as an improvement to their lives. Many scholars believe that if society chooseswisely, such options still exist, particularly for industrialized societies (Roseland 1992). Forexample, carefully designed sefflement patterns which promote aesthetics, density, communityinteraction, greenspaces and non-motorized transportation have the potential massively to reduceindustrial societies\u00E2\u0080\u0099 resource consumption and waste generation while significantly improvingquality of life. Indeed, only those policies and projects that satisfy these two imperatives canmove us toward sustainability. In particular, municipalities could play an increasingly importantrole in planning for sustainability. And they could start today: through community economicdevelopment as well as transportation and land-use planning (Roseland 1992, Harrington 1993,Parker 1993, Beck 1993).553. THE POLITICAL CONDITIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITYAs long as competition remains a major organizing force of society, nobody will ever besatisfied with what they have got. In fact, as Fred Hirsch pointed out, once our basic needs aremet, people start to focus on relative and not absolute wealth (1976). Such systemic and constantdissatisfaction keeps people on a never ending spiral of wanting more (Wachtel 1989).Consequently, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenoughness\u00E2\u0080\u009D becomes an alien concept (Durning 1992).Therefore, to meet everybody\u00E2\u0080\u0099s basic needs and to improve people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s lives requires moreco-operative forms of interaction. Co-operation does not depend on altruism, but rather onreciprocity, as pointed out by Robert Axeirod\u00E2\u0080\u0099s simulation games with its winning \u00E2\u0080\u009CTit for Tat\u00E2\u0080\u009Dstrategy (1984). In fact, there might be an evolutionary advantage to co-operative behaviour(Berkes 1989b:72-76). Constructive reciprocity is only possible if the participants trust eachother. Without social justice and mutual respect such trust cannot be established, but might leadto devastating situations such as social collapses, conificts and civil war (Gurr 1985, Homer-Dixon 1993, Kaplan 1994, Ophuls et al. 1992). Failing to build trust between the members ofa society will encourage a competitive mode of interaction which will further erode mutual trust,and which will feed into the never-ending and ultimately self-destructive race to generate more.Increased cooperation depends on transparent and inclusive decision-making processes(WCED 1987:65). This requires forums for political debate, an acknowledgement of conflictswithin society, but also an awareness and understanding of the sustainability dilemma and of theimplications of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness-as-usual\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Reconnecting rights and responsibilities, therefore, becomes a key requirement fordealing with the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access\u00E2\u0080\u009D (The Ecologist 22(4): 195-204). In fact, this follows56Garrett Hardin\u00E2\u0080\u0099 s own proposition of instituting \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon...\u00E2\u0080\u009D(1968/1993:139) -- which means, as pointed out earlier, to establish a commons regime (Berkes1989b:85). Such an endeavour depends primarily on the wide and authentic participation ofpeople affected by the decisions. It requires the rebuilding of what Fikret Berkes and Carl Folkecall, \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccultural capital\u00E2\u0080\u009D, namely, guarding cultural diversity, recognizing traditional ecologicalknowledge, building institutions, organizing collective action, and supporting cooperation(1994:139-146). Building cultural capital and developing inclusive decision-making will cost alot of people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s time. For example, such decision-making requires time for developing andparticipating in the political processes as well as for improving literacy in scripture, numbers,and ecological understanding (Orr 1992) -- but there is no democratic alternative. Furthermore,to link actions and effects, to reduce the international pressures on local communities, tostrengthen local communities, and to allow a greater range of options might also require thegradual decoupling of local economies from the global economy rather than strengthening thelinks (Daly 1993).4. THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONDITIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITYPlanning for sustainability hinges on society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s broad understanding of the sustainabilitydilemmas. Promoting this understanding demands a profound change in the way people pictureknowledge, particularly as the popular belief that \u00E2\u0080\u009Creductionism and fragmentation can generateuniversal answers to all human challenges\u00E2\u0080\u009D is such a debilitating and paralysing illusion.It no longer suffices to merely acquire knowledge. Instead, people might need to learnto ask questions. Thinking about the present human condition and its implication for the futureshould include questions such as: whether current decisions open or close opportunities for futuregenerations; whether the models that guide our decision-making acknowledge or are compatible57with the fact that human activities depend on nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity; whether their view of qualityof life is compatible with ecological integrity, or whether there are ways to rethink priorities tomake personal \u00E2\u0080\u009Csuccess\u00E2\u0080\u009D compatible with sustainability; and finally, who loses and who winsfrom the status quo, and from particular sustainability initiatives. Also, knowing about how tocooperate with people holding other values, beliefs, and worldviews become skills on whichconstructive planning approaches depend. Furthermore, rather than understanding parts anddetails, the exploration of connections and systemic relationships must be emphasized (Vester1983). Capacity must be built for conducting interdisciplinary, collaborative, action-orientedresearch on relevant issues (Fnedmann 1987:389-4 12).Acknowledging the limits of scientific inquiry and the implications of an increasingknowledge deficit becomes a first step toward understanding the constraints for action. Similarly,recognizing the precautionary principle, rather than using uncertainty as a legitimization ofbusiness-as-usual, becomes a precondition for developing sustainability (Reichert 1993, Turneret al. 1994:270,276, Costanza 1994). In fact, this is consistent with the several thousand yearsold basic principle of the medical profession: primum non nocere (usually attributed toHippocrates [460-377 BC], but it might stem from Asclepiades [124-? BC], according to RobertWoollard [1994a1). To envision and to plan requires developing concrete and positive imagesthat can compete with the images from advertising and television (Steen-Jensen 1994, The MediaFoundation 1993). This will also improve and stimulate communication between people andmake the debates more accessible.5. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITYSocial denial must be overcome for society to move effectively toward a more sustainable58lifestyle.48 This means dealing with deep-rooted fears and taboos. Everybody must beencouraged, first, to reflect upon what matters to them, and second, to listen to what theyalready intuitively know -- rather than repressing it. This also means acknowledging andcelebrating that human beings are a part of nature (Rees 1990c), even though people have, incontrast to other living beings, the innate ability to reflect and to transform their environment.Overcoming social denial requires trust on various levels: decision-making processes mustbecome transparent enough to make them trustworthy, social trust must be built through socialjustice and mutual connectedness. Also, people must perceive choices and options, and mustlearn to trust themselves. At the same time, feeding into social denial must be stopped. Blamingthe messengers for the message about ecological limits, encouraging inaction due to lack of\u00E2\u0080\u009Cscientific evidence\u00E2\u0080\u009D about the causes of the sustainability crisis, or only providing selectedinformation about the sustainability crisis to children and high school students to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cprotect\u00E2\u0080\u009D them,detracts from moving toward sustainability.On the political level, developing sustainability should become an attractive choice ratherthan a moral obligation. Moral pressures will only produce resentments and will not be able tosustain long-lasting transformation. In fact, most likely they are counterproductive.48 For the lack of literature on overcoming social denial, insights from the psychology of individual denial mightbe used. For example, Esther K\u00C3\u00BCbler-Ross\u00E2\u0080\u0099 stages of coping, which are \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdenial, rage and anger, bargaining, depressionand finally acceptance,t as proposed in her widely respected book On Death and Dying (1969), might be helpful parallelsfor understanding social processes (1975:10). Of course, social denial is more complex: some parts of society profit fromthe denial while others pay for it. Also, in contrast to individual health or addiction-related denial, many socialtransformation processes do not take leaps and are far from homogeneous.59D. DEVELOPING SUSTAINABILITY:THE NEED FOR PLANNING TOOLS THAT CAN TRANSLATESUSTAINABILITY CONCERNS INTO EFFECTIVE ACTIONThese multiple facets of the sustainability crisis demonstrate the constraints andopportunities of the challenge. Understanding these facets and their connection becomes a firstplanning step toward sustainability. In other words, without prior \u00E2\u0080\u009C...recognition ofnecessities...\u00E2\u0080\u009D society will not be successful in establishing \u00E2\u0080\u009C...mutual coercion, mutually agreedupon...\u00E2\u0080\u009D, the social contract for achieving sustainability (Hardin 1968/93:139). To develop sucha new social contract, new planning tools are needed that capture these sustainability concernsand help translate them into public action. To be productive and successful, such planning toolshave to address all the facets of the sustainability crisis simultaneously. They have to:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 promote ways of living that can be supported within the ecological constraints;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ease the socioeconomic tension. As many scholars have pointed out, poverty alleviation is oneof the essential conditions for ecological sustainability, and vice versa (Goodland & Daly1993) -- even though it is quite conceivable that not everybody can reach the standardof living, presently characterizing industrialized societies;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 develop transparent, engaging and participatory decision-making processes which can copewith the pressures of the global economy and the hurdles of local institutions, and whichcan build and maintain mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 include and build on a wide scope of knowledge and stimulate critical thinking. These toolsmust sharpen the debate between conflicting assumptions and beliefs, and help cope withuncertainty, generality, and systemic relationships; and\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 provide mechanisms to overcome fear, social denial, inertia and other psychological stumblingblocks in the way of moving toward sustainability.60Clearly, the process of developing sustainability depends on a successful integration ofecological, economic and social policies in which economic success, social well-being andecological integrity become compatible (IJBC Task Force 1994, Folke & K\u00C3\u00A2berger 1991b). Incontrast, addressing only one facet of the sustainability crisis while disregarding the others couldbe counterproductive to the cause. For example, programs which aim at increasing nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099sproductivity, but do not take into account socioeconomic or political concerns have been failingpainfully as in the case of large damming projects, nuclear power programs or \u00E2\u0080\u009CGreenRevolution\u00E2\u0080\u009D policies.Developing a planning tool for sustainability is the challenge that this dissertation istaking on. A tool that can guide society from concern to action must help to understand theconstraints, frame the issues, allow transparent and authentic communication, and monitorprogress toward sustainability. As daunting as this task appears, there is already much literatureavailable that covers various aspects of such a planning tool. On the one hand, there isburgeoning literature on sustainabiity from a substantive perspective (for references see above).On the other hand, a growing amount of literature discusses processes of social learning, changeand transformation. These procedural aspects can be found in the areas of planning theory,organizational theory and social activism (Carnal 1989, Carson 1990, Christensen 1985, Cooveret al. 1977/85, Forester 1989, Friedmann 1987, Meadows et a!. 1992, Milbrath 1989, Theobald1987). The task now is to connect the parts.61ifi. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OR APPROPRIATED CARRYING CAPACITY:DEVELOPING A TOOL FOR PLANNING TOWARD SUSTAINABILITYPlanning tools assist society in translating concerns into public action (Boucher 1993).This chapter presents the Ecological Footprint or Appropriated Carrying Capacity concept(EF/ACC), a new tool for planning toward sustainability.A. THE CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION OF EF/ACCThe EF/ACC concept analyzes human activity from a biophysical perspective and startsfrom a recognition that human activities depend on the productivity of natural capital. It ismotivated by the concern that natural capital is limited and that this capital\u00E2\u0080\u0099s draw-down reducesits productive capacity (Folke et a!. 1994:5). The primary task of the EF/ACC tool becomes tomeasure natural capital and the flows that we draw from it. However, its use goes well beyondthe mere measurement of these constraints, as discussed below. Also, it draws on a rich historyof biophysical assessments and builds on parallel concepts that measure ecological constraints.1. ASSESSING NATURAL CAPITALAs noted, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstrong sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D requires that each generation must inherit an adequateper capita stock of essential biophysical assets no less than the stock of such assets inherited bythe previous generation (see Section II. C .2). Now, the question arises how this stock of essentialbiophysical assets can be measured.David Pearce et a!. identify three possible approaches to measuring natural capital --physical inventory, present valuation of stocks, and market prices (income flows). They fmallysettle for monetary measures on grounds that constant physical capital would l\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 .be appealing62for renewable resources, but, clearly, has little relevance to exhaustible resources since anypositive rate of use reduces the stock...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Pearce et al. 1990:10). This view needs to bechallenged. Using money values as a measure for natural capital depletion can be misleading,not only because money is confused with material and social wealth (Vogt 1948:64), but alsofor the six following reasons:\u00E2\u0080\u0099First, biophysical scarcity is hardly reflected in market prices (Hall 1992:109-110). Andeven if it was, it might not be useful to assess constancy of natural capital stocks. According toneoclassical theory, the marginal price of increasingly scarce resource commodities shouldincrease. If this neoclassical premise is correct, rising prices (which should indicate increasedscarcity) could hold the income from a particular natural capital stock constant, while the stockis actually in biophysical decline. Thus, constant money income may foster the illusion ofconstant stocks while physical inventories actually shrink. Or in contrast, prices might fall(suggesting resource abundance) while the stock is being reduced in biophysical terms asillustrated by timber or fossil fuel prices in the last twenty years (World Resources Institute1992:242). A prominent example of interpreting such declining prices with resource abundanceis Harold Barnett and Chandler Morse\u00E2\u0080\u0099s study (1963).However, market prices do not describe absolute biophysical scarcity, but rather thecommodity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s scarcity on the market.2 This market scarcity is only partially determined by theWhat follows is not an argument against monetary analysis per Se. Monetary analysis is crucial when developingbudgets, or when deciding whether to build a school, a hospital or a theatre. Cash-flow strategies and a number of otherbusiness decisions are unthinkable without sound monetary analysis. The point is, however, that monetary analysis isnot suitable for analyzing the ecological facet of sustainability.2 This confusion is also well illustrated by the well-publicized bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon in whichboth committed the error of confusing biophysical and market scarcity (flerny 1990).63biophysical resource scarcity. More influential factors are the state-of-technology, the demand,the level of competition, extraction, processing and transaction costs etc.3 In fact, the impactof biophysical scarcity on market prices is still small.4 Prices are therefore not a reliableyardstick for measuring sustainability.Second, monetary analyses are systematically biased against future values -- discountingmakes nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s assets of the future look less valuable the farther away in time they are(Hampicke 1991:127, Harvey 1993:5, Price 1993). For example, while land portrays futureproduction potentials, monetary wealth contains little information about long-term income andecological productivity.Third, another factor that diminishes the usefulness of monetary indicators for long-termassessments are the distortions from market fluctuations. Monetary wealth is subject toDavid Pearce et a!. show a partial agreement with the position presented. In spite of citing Ozdemiroglu\u00E2\u0080\u0099s paperon Measuring Natural Resources Scarcity: A Study ofthe Price Indicator (1993) and concluding that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...marketed naturalresources do not show evidence of any scarcity...\u00E2\u0080\u009D, they say earlier that \u00E2\u0080\u009Ceconomists like to use prices as indicators ofscarcity, although there are technical disputes about the suitability of the indicator\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1993:6). They also state that\u00E2\u0080\u009D...thosewho object to a preoccupation with sustainability also tend to be \u00E2\u0080\u0098resource optimists\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ... [who] tend to point to evidenceof expanding resource discoveries and to declining trends in resource prices. But this evidence relates to resources thatare marketed, and these are not the focus of concern. So, while it may be comforting (only may be, since the evidenceis not conclusive) to observe no scarcity in some resources, it is hardly reassuring...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1993:5). In addition, I wouldargue that not only the biophysical scarcity of non-market resources (such as air, climate, biodiversity) are of concernbut also the deterioration of market resources such as witnessed with the collapse of fish stocks, deforestation, declineof fossil fuel stocks etc.For example, of the 50 cents per litre payed for gasoline at the Vancouver gas station, less than four cents gotoward royalty payments (or payments for resource depletion). Assuming an oil prices of 15 dollars a barrel (159 litres),this can be calculated by detracting the exploration costs of about six to eight dollars per barrel, and extraction and theprocessing costs of approximately two to four dollars per barrel (typical Canadian figures according to Boriana Vitanow,financial analyst of a Calgary oil company [1994]). In fact, in Canada, the resource royalties charged by the governmentamount to about 15 to 30 percent of the gross production\u00E2\u0080\u0099s value, depending on the quantity of oil extracted and the ageof the operation -- or between two and five dollars per barrel (Vitanow 1994). Hence, the average Canadian motorist,driving 24,000 kilometres a year with a car which uses 12 litres per 100 kilometres, would contribute a mere $35 to $90a year to resource royalty payments -- very little compared to the total yearly operating costs of $7,400 (CanadianAutomobile Association, reported in The Vancouver Sun, August 3, 1994).64exogenous fluctuations of world market prices, while biophysical wealth such as ecologicallyproductive land in a region represents an endogenous factor of long-term food and resourcesecurity. Money reflects the economic strength of one region as compared to that of the worldeconomy, but does not reveal the ecological integrity of the natural capital underlying thiseconomy.Fourth, monetary analysis cannot distinguish between substitutable goods andcomplementary goods.5 In the monetary balance sheet, all prices are added or subtracted as ifgoods that are priced the same would be of equal importance to human life, or as if they weresubstitutable. However, many services from nature are essential and therefore not commensuratewith some human-made gadget of equal dollar value. In other words, once nature is over-exploited, a loss of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services cannot be compensated by a gain in manufactured goods(Daly & Cobb 1989:72).For example, to get fish on one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s dinner plate, a fish stock and fishing equipment areneeded. And, even though the fish stock might be worth the same amount of dollars as sevenRolls Royces, seven Rolls Royces and the best fishing equipment would not generate any fish.In fact, natural services and human-made goods are not fully complementary either, in contrastto what Herman Daly and John Cobb (1989) suggest, because human-made goods depend onnatural services, while the opposite is not the case.Fifth, the potential for growth of money seems unlimited which obscures the possibilitythat there might be biophysical limits such as a global carrying capacity. To use Herman Daly\u00E2\u0080\u0099sH. Goeller and Alvin Weinberg\u00E2\u0080\u0099s claim that resources are infinitely substitutable is discussed in Chapter II.65metaphor, monetary assessments do not recognize the boat\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Plimsoll line, an indication of themaximum loading capacity of the boat. Pareto efficiency6 -- the current measure of macroeconomic health -- ensures only that the ship sinks optimally and does not counteract the sinkingitself (Daly 1992).Sixth, an even more serious objection is that monetary measures say nothing at all aboutnature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s critical stocks and processes such as hydrological cycles, the ozone layer, CO2absorption, ecological thresholds, irreversibilities, or the health of whole ecosystems for whichthere are no markets (Harvey 1993:5, Rees 1992a, Stirling 1993:97-103, Vatn et a!. 1993,Wackernagel 1992:30-36).In summary, monetary approaches are blind to critical biophysical realities. The stockof essential biophysical assets can be assessed meaningfully only in biophysical terms.7 Theessential natural capital needs of an economy must, therefore, be understood as the biophysicalstocks required to produce the biophysical \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgoods and services\u00E2\u0080\u009D that this economy consumesfrom global flows to sustain itself without compromising future production. Building on SalahEl Serafy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s monetary argument (1988), this should also include the non-renewable energy6 Pareto efficiency assumes that the optimizing principle must be \u00E2\u0080\u009Cutility maximization\u00E2\u0080\u009D rather than minimizinghuman suffering or future regrets as proposed by Karl Popper (in Afrane 1991:6). Clearly, the adoption of Popper\u00E2\u0080\u0099s\u00E2\u0080\u009Cnegative utilitarianism\u00E2\u0080\u009D would lead to a radical shift in political priorities.In spite of these arguments, David Pearce and Giles Atkinson rank various nations\u00E2\u0080\u0099 sustainability from theneoclassical assumption that natural and human-made capital are substitutable (1993:104). They claim that \u00E2\u0080\u009C. . .an economyis sustainable if it saves more [in monetary terms] than the depreciation on its man-made and natural capital...\u00E2\u0080\u009D(1993:106). As a result, Japan, the Netherlands, and Costa Rica head the list of sustainable countries, while the poorestcountries in Africa lead the list of the unsustainable economies. Apart from the authors\u00E2\u0080\u0099 fallacious assumption ofsubstitutability, they also ignore that rich countries depreciate other countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 natural capital stock, thereby preservingtheir own as demonstrated in the case of Japan or the Netherlands. Clearly, this study becomes another illustration ofthe absurdity to assess sustainability from a monetary perspective. Nevertheless, the authors conclude obliviously that\u00E2\u0080\u009C...we argue strongly that efforts to monetise the values of those functions advances the development of an ecologicallybased economics...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1993:106).66resources which can be used sustainably only if, in compensation, an entropically equivalentamount of biophysical capital is being accumulated. In other words, the biophysical capital tosustain a given material standard of living can be defined as the minimum per capita stockrequired to provide all the resources and waste sinks necessary, while simultaneouslymaintaining the functional integrity and productivity of the stocks themselves. It follows that,rising material standards or increasing population levels necessarily require correspondingincreases in available aggregate natural capital stocks, something difficult to achieve in a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfull\u00E2\u0080\u009Dworld.2. DEFINING EF/ACCPutting the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstrong sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D principle to work hinges on finding a meaningfulbiophysical measurement unit for aggregating the various biophysical stocks or carrying capacityneeds of an economy. For this purpose, this thesis further advances an ecological accountingconcept that uses land area as its biophysical measurement unit8. This approach starts from theassumption that every major category of consumption or waste discharge requires the productiveor absorptive capacity of a finite area of land or water (ecosystems). Adding up the landrequirement of all these categories provides an aggregate or total area which we call the\u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footprint\u00E2\u0080\u009D of a defined economy on Earth.9 This area represents the carryingcapacity which is \u00E2\u0080\u009Cappropriated\u00E2\u0080\u009D (or occupied) by that economy for providing the total flow ofgoods and services. Another name for the Ecological Footprint is, therefore, the \u00E2\u0080\u009CAppropriatedCarrying Capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D of the economy. More formally, this concept is defined as:8 See also Rees (1992), Rees & Wackernagel (1992), and Wackernagel (1991, 1992).This metaphor, first suggested by William Rees, was chosen to capture and extend our conception of the humanimpact on the ecosphere, and to build upon related concepts in planning such as the urban or infrastructure footprints,meaning the land area directly occupied by a particular structure. Robert Cahn also used this metaphor for his 1978 bookFootprints on the Planet: A Search for an Environmental Ethic.67Definition: The Ecological Footprint or the Appropriated Carrying Capacity (EF/ACC)is defined as the aggregate land (and water) area in various categories required by the people ina defined regiona) to provide continuously all the resources and services they presently consume,\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00C2\u00B0 andb) to absorb continuously all the waste they presently dischargeusing prevailing technology.1\u00E2\u0080\u0099In other words, the EF/ACC of a population is the land whichis needed to exclusively produce the natural resources and services it consumes and to assimilatethe waste it generates indefinitely under present management schemes.\u00E2\u0080\u00992 It is the land thatwould be required now on this planet to support the current lifestyle forever.Conventionally, carrying capacity is defined as the \u00E2\u0080\u009C...maximal population size of a givenspecies that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the same species in thetu\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Daily & Ehrlich 1992:762). However, it is problematic to apply this definition tohuman beings living in a global economy, because regions are no longer isolated -- peopleconsume resources from all over the world. Indeed, economists regard trade flows as one wayto overcome the constraints on regional carrying capacity imposed by local resource shortages.10 Consumption refers to all the goods and services consumed by a household, as well as those goods and serviceswhich were consumed by government and businesses to provide that household\u00E2\u0080\u0099s goods and services.This definition can be expanded for other sustainabiity assessments. For example, EF/ACC, analyzed from theperspective of industrial production, can reveal how much carrying capacity a region gives up to produce the exportsthat are required to pay for the imports.encompasses the consumption of renewable resources and of fossil energy as well as the human impactswhich reduce biological productivity. A complete EF/ACC analysis would therefore include the additional land (andwater) area required to compensate for the loss of biological productivity due to pollution, contamination, radiation,erosion or salination. Also, it would incorporate non-renewable, non-consumed resources (such as aluminum or iron)insofar as it accounts for their processing energy and for the pollution effects that their use and production entail.However, as explained in Chapter IV, the current approach is still leaving out some of these functions of nature tosimplify the calculation procedure. This makes the results underestimate the land-area actually required -- withoutcompromising the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s heuristic value.68Furthermore, in contrast to animals, resource consumption by people is not fixed by theirbiology. While most animals do not consume much beyond their food, the bulk of people\u00E2\u0080\u0099smaterial consumption consists of non-food items such as energy or forestry products. This leadsto individual consumption levels that can vary by many orders of magnitude: the farm helpersin rural India might represent the lower extreme of the scale, board members of transnationalcompanies the upper echelon.For these reasons, the definition of EF/ACC is based on two modifications of theconventional conception of carrying capacity. The EF/ACC concept\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 does not just count people. Instead, it stands for the impact on nature of the aggregateconsumption by a population. After all, it is the total ecological impact (= population* per capita ecological impact) that counts, not population alone (Hoidren & Ehrlich1974); and,\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 is not based on \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmaximum yield\u00E2\u0080\u009D of a geographically fixed resource stock, but rather on thecurrent total consumption of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services by a given population.3. THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND ITS CONCEPTUALANCESTORSBiophysical assessments of human needs and human dependence on nature have a longhistory. Certainly, there must be several thousand year old oral tales about the relationshipbetween people and land. David Durham traces the concept of carrying capacity back to Plato\u00E2\u0080\u0099sLaws, Book V, where the latter stated that a:suitable total for the number of citizens cannot be fixed without considering the laud and the neighbouringstates. The land must be extensive enough to support a given number of people in modest comfort, and not afoot more is needed (in Durham 1994:4).69According to William Ophuls and Stephen Boyen, early Christian and Chinese scholarsalso worried about the destruction of habitat (1992:12-13). The first scholarly book onsustainable practice in the English language might be John Evelyn\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Sylva: A Discourse ofForestTrees and the Propagation of Timber from 1664 (Garbarino 1992:9). In North America however,George Perkin Marsh\u00E2\u0080\u0099s study Man and Nature, from 1864, was most influential in increasingthe awareness of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s limited capacity to provide for human demands.Ecological accounting can be traced back to at least as early as 1758. In that year,Francois Quesnay published his Tableau Economique in which the relationship between theproductivity of land and wealth creation is discussed. Since then, many scholars have developedconceptual approaches and accounting procedures to analyze the relationship between people andnature. Some have focused on an analysis of energy flows within the economy (e.g., Jevons1865, Podolinsky 1880, Sacher 1881, Boltzmann 1886 [the last three in Martinez-Alier 1987],Lotka 1925, Georgescu-Roegen 1971, 1980). Others have examined economies from theperspective of carrying capacity or land-use requirements (e.g., Malthus 1798, Jevons 1865,13Pfaundler 1902, Wahien 1945, Vogt 1948:18-45, Osborn 1953, Stamp 1958, Borgstrom 1965,1973, Urban & Rural Land Committee 1973, Bishop et al. 1974, Rees 1977, Schneider et al.1979, Catton 1980, Hare 1980, Ehrlich 1982, Higgins et al. 1983 (or FAO 1984), Hedge13 Apart from analyzing the role of energy in society, Jevons also described the concept underlying EF/ACC in his1865 classic The Coal Question:The plains of North America and Russia are our corn-fields; Chicago and Odessa our granaries; Canada andthe Baltic are our timber-forests; Australasia contains our sheep-farms, and in Argentina and on the westernprairies of North America are our herds of oxen; Peru sends her silver, and the gold of South Africa andAustralia flows to London; the Hindus and the Chinese grow tea for us, and our coffee, sugar and spiceplantations are all in the Indies. Spain and France are our vineyards and the Mediterranean our fruit garden,and our cotton grounds, which for long have occupied the Southern United States, are now being extendedeverywhere in the warm regions of the earth (1865/1965:411).70McCoid 1984, Mahar 1985, Overby 1985, Harwell & Hutchinson 1986).\u00E2\u0080\u0099With Rachel Carson\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Silent Spring (1962), Paul Ehrlich\u00E2\u0080\u0099s The Population Bomb (1968),and the MIT team\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Limits to Growth report to the Club of Rome (Meadows et a!. 1972), theseconcerns reentered the public debate and have not vanished since. 15 Today, the debate on howto make human activities sustainable is shaped by two camps: the \u00E2\u0080\u009CLimits to Growth\u00E2\u0080\u009D advocatesand the \u00E2\u0080\u009CGrowth of Limits\u00E2\u0080\u009D advocates. The latter position is probably best represented by JulianSimon and Herman Kahn who claim that:.because of increases in knowledge, the earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccarrying capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D has been increasing throughout the decadesand centuries and millennia to such an extent that the term \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccarrying capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D has by now no useful meaning(1984:45).Julian Simon and Herman Kahn are not alone. In fact, there is a large literature,including parts of the Brundtland report that translates sustainable development into the self-contradictory notion of \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainable growth\u00E2\u0080\u009D (WCED 1987:206-234, Block 1992, Reilly 1994).4. THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND ITS CONCEPTUAL SIBLINGSThere are a growing number of biophysical approaches that try to measure humanimpacts in order to understand the ecological constraints and to measure progress towardsustainability (Callenbach 1990, Herendeen 1994, Stead & Stead 1992). These assessments areincreasingly prominent in the political debate, but have not yet been able to successfullychallenge the decision-makers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 monetary focus. This section provides a brief overview of the14 Agro-economist Juan Martinez-Alier (1987) provides a fascinating history of this debate spanning from 1865(Jevons\u00E2\u0080\u0099 The Coal Question) to the 1940\u00E2\u0080\u0099s.15 For a discussion of the impact of this debate on social theory and political ideology see Redclift (1987:7-12,37-51) or Paehlke (1989).71nine major biophysical approaches and compares them to the EF/ACC concept.1) Human carrying capacity studies analyze the capacity of regions to support humanactivity. Examples are studies by Gretchen Daily and Paul Ehrlich (1992), David Pearce(1987:259, et a!. 1991:114-134), Gonzague Pillet (1991), David and Marcia Pimentel (1990,1994), Sandra Postel (1994) and Peter Vitousek et a!. (1986). Particularly interesting is PhilipFearnside\u00E2\u0080\u0099s probabilistic approach on ecosystem viability for supporting human activity in theAmazon forest (1986).These studies are useful to assess whether particular activities can be sustained by localecosystems. However, to understand the linkage between the global ecology and a regionaleconomy, this traditional carrying capacity concept can be misleading. An example is DavidPearce\u00E2\u0080\u0099s perspective, which attempts to analyze the relationship between economic performanceand the resource base by, similar to Daily and Ehrlich\u00E2\u0080\u0099s perspective (1992), measuring \u00E2\u0080\u009C...themaximum number of people or families that could be supported on the basis of the knownresource base...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1987:259). However, in general, explaining the urgency and scale of aresource problem from this perspective ignores the global context of present economic systems.Therefore, Pearce\u00E2\u0080\u0099s approach, which equates poverty and famine in the Sahel Zone withexceeded local carrying capacity, would be too simplistic to describe many economies.Hongkong, Singapore, Japan, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, to name only a few, exceed byfar their carrying capacity, while belonging to the economically most prosperous countries onEarth.ii) Resource accounting or environmental accounting was pioneered by the Norwegiangovernment in 1974, and followed by the French government in 1978 (Pearce 1989:95, Theys721989:40-53). Resource accounts require an annual inventory and statistical analysis of a vastarray of resources including minerals, biochemical stocks, fluxes (solar radiation, hydrologicalcycles, wind) and space (Friend 1993). However, these accounts do not suggest an interpretationof the data. Also, it is not evident which aspects of nature should be included in these accountsand which are, or can be left out. On the one hand, it is not feasible (nor possible) to accountfor everything, and on the other hand, not all life-supporting functions of nature are known orunderstood. Therefore, \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the use to which these [accounts] can be put, in terms of economicanalysis that has policy relevance, is unclear...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Pearce et at. 1989:99).lii) Energy analyses have been propagated through ecological (E. P Odum 1959/71, H.TOdum 1971, 1983, with the \u00E2\u0080\u009CeMergy\u00E2\u0080\u009D concept; Lieth & Whittaker 1975, Vitousek et a!. 1986,with net primary production) as well as through technical studies (Hannon 1975, Thomas 1977,Costanza 1980, Mitsch et at. 1981, Cleveland et a!. 1984, Hall et at. 1986, Pimentel 1974,1991, Giampietro et at. 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, O\u00E2\u0080\u0099Connor 1991:95-122, Pillet 1991, Smil1991, Ruth 1993). While today, the latter approach is referred to as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenergetics\u00E2\u0080\u009D, it was called\u00E2\u0080\u009Cnet energy analysis\u00E2\u0080\u009D in the 1970\u00E2\u0080\u0099s and 1980\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. Most of these studies are motivated by the factthat, as direct energy costs constitute only a minute percentage of industrialized countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 GNP,the crucial role of energy to society is underestimated by monetary analysis. Clarifying thedependence of human activities on energy inputs is the major strength of the energy analysis.Therefore, this approach has also regained some interest in the CO2 debate, particularly whenanalyzing potentials for CO2 emission reductions (Hofstetter 1991, Smith 1993).However, more general economic analysis based on energy might struggle with problemssimilar to those of monetary analysis. Herman Daly points out that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...just as the economists\u00E2\u0080\u0099assumption of infinite substitutability of capital, labour, etc., is unrealistic, the energy theorists\u00E2\u0080\u009973assumption that energy is the proper common denominator of all resource scarcity is likewiseunrealistic...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Daly & Umafia 1980:167). Moreover, those studies that trace all energy flowback to solar radiation (as for example done \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwith eMergy\u00E2\u0080\u009D) focus on a factor that is not itselflimiting. The key limiting factor for human life is the biochemical energy that can beaccumulated by the (living) ecosphere, not the sun-light that falls on Earth. For example, onelittle plant that might be the only organism growing on one hectare of the Sahara desert isprobably ecologically as well as economically less \u00E2\u0080\u009Csignificant\u00E2\u0080\u009D than one hectare of tropicalforest, even both receive the same solar input.iv) Environmental impact assessments (ETA) evaluate whether the ecological impact ofa new project is acceptable. Over the past 20 years, ETA has grown to become the majorproactive environmental policy instrument in North America, though, it has arguably had littlesuccess in stopping environmental deterioration. This failing can be attributed to weaknessessuch as ETA\u00E2\u0080\u0099s:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 one-shot, short-term structure at the end of the planning stage rather than one which monitorsor evaluates the projects on an ongoing basis;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 project by project approach which generally ignores cumulative effects in a regional or globalcontext; and\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 fragmented and often discretionary self-assessments (that at best have followed guidelines andare now being instituted by law) as opposed to having transparent assessments conductedaccording to ecologically informed procedures by third parties (Rees 1980, 1990d).6v) State-of-Environment indicators (or sustainability indicators, as they are sometimes16 For a more generous formulation of the same criticism, see David Lawrence (1994).74called) document the state and trend of various quantifiable environmental variables such as DDTaccumulation in egg yolk, amount of waste generated, or total land area protected. Indicatorsbased on scientific measurements enjoy widespread public credibility even though the pollutionstandards and benchmarks are often not scientifically determined and are set by political choice(Genoni 1993).Many environmental initiatives of international organizations such as the Group-of-Seven(G-7) or OECD encourage the development of state-of-environment indicators.17Both Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099sand British Columbia\u00E2\u0080\u0099s State of the Environment Report are fruits of these initiatives(Environment Canada 1991, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks 1993).\u00E2\u0080\u0099However, state-of-environmental indicators have serious limitations. First, they focus on\u00E2\u0080\u009Cthe dangers of the environment to human health\u00E2\u0080\u009D rather than \u00E2\u0080\u009Cthe threats of human activitiesto the integrity of the biosphere.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Second, by providing various sets of indicators on a multitudeof aspects, they fragment the issues related to sustainability. This could weaken a morecomprehensive and systemic understanding of the sustainability crisis.vi) Ecological efficiency refers to the ratio of services received to ecological impactcaused. This impact includes the service\u00E2\u0080\u0099s embodied resource input as well as the capacity for17 The G-7 initiative to develop such indicators was put forward by Brian Mulroney at the meeting in Paris in 1989.18 There are many more organizations working on sustainability indicators, including: Statistics Canada; theCanadian National Round Table; the Ontario Round Table; the World Resource Institute; the Woridwatch Institute; thefederal government of the Netherlands; the Oregan Progress Board;and various UN organizations (Peat Marwick 1993).Literature on sustainability indicators include Anderson (1991), Brown et a!. (1992b), Caracas Report 1990, Daly andCobb (1989), Davis (1993), Gosselin (1992), Henderson (1992), Lawson (1991), Onno eta!. (1991), Victor eta!. (1991).Beckerman (1980), Carley (1981), Innes (1990), MacRae (1985) and Miles (1985) discuss more generally the role ofsocial indicators.75absorbing the corresponding waste19 accumulated over the entire life cycle. Many studiesidentify improving ecological efficiency as a key strategy for achieving sustainability (WCED1987:215-2 16, Schmidheiny 1992:37-39, Koechlin & Muller 1992:36-39). To measure ecologicalefficiency, various approaches have been developed. One is the increasingly common \u00E2\u0080\u009Clife cycleanalysis\u00E2\u0080\u009D (e.g., Cole & Rousseau 1992, Fecker 1990, Frischknecht et al. 1991, Fritsche 1989,Hofstetter 1992, Ledergerber et al. 1991, Muller & Hanselmann 1993, Oko-Institut 1987, Stahel1991, Suter & Hofstetter 1989, T\u00C3\u00B6tsch & Polack 1992). Another approach is the \u00E2\u0080\u009CMaterialIntensity per Service Unit\u00E2\u0080\u009D (MIPS) developed by Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek at the WuppertalInstitute (Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 1993, Schmidt-Bleek 1993, Weizs\u00C3\u00A4cker 1994).Ecological efficiency is useful for comparing similar technologies on their ecologicalimpacts, but it is not sufficient for determining the sustainability of a technology per Se. Afterall, the total impact depends not only on the impact per unit but also on the number of unitsconsumed. Other wealcnesses of this method include the dependence on detailed data that becomeobsolete quickly due to fast changes in production technologies. Also, the comparison betweenthe results of such studies can be hampered by incompatible and poorly defined analyticalsystems boundaries (Bringezu 1993). However, these studies are helpful for informing EF/ACCanalyses.vii) Regional metabolism studies trace the stocks and flows of resources within a region.Studies include (Newcombe et al. 1978, Baccini & Brunner 1991, Wailner & Narodoslawsky1994). Ken Newcombe et al. trace the \u00E2\u0080\u009C...flow and end-use of energy and other materials in19 Typically, the capacity for waste absorption is measured in terms of \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccritical mass (or volume)\u00E2\u0080\u009D of air, water,and soil. This refers to the amounts of air, water and soil that would be polluted up to the legal standards by the releaseof that product\u00E2\u0080\u0099s or service\u00E2\u0080\u0099s waste.76Hong Kong...\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and conclude that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the extrapolation [of the study] to a global future, show[s]that rapid urbanization is a resource-expensive process...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1978:3). The purpose of PeterBaccini and Paul Brunner\u00E2\u0080\u0099s study is primarily to better understand heavy metal cycles and theirfuture pollution potentials, while Peter Waliner and Michael Narodoslawsky developed theirstudy to facilitate the closing of material cycles within regions, thereby creating \u00E2\u0080\u009CIslands ofSustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1994, 1994) Closing resource cycles would become a practical attempt to reducea region\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Ecological Footprint.vifi) Regional models, often computer aided, such as World3 (Meadows et al. 1972,1992) simulate the interaction between key variables such as resources, population, pollution andconsumption patterns, and calculate trends under different scenarios. Further studies includeMesarovic and Pestel (1974), ROBBERT Associates (1990/1992), Robinson et a!. (1990-1994)and Shaw (1993). Educational software packages such as SIM CITYTM or SIM EARTHTM fromMaxis Software use similar approaches to provide players with an opportunity to experimentwith complex systems. However, these computer models\u00E2\u0080\u0099 high level of sophistication dependson large quantities of data, on a precise understanding of the mechanisms and connections, andan explicit declaration of the working assumptions for the models to produce a meaningful output-- conditions which are seldom met. Furthermore, this level of sophistication can compromiseon the model\u00E2\u0080\u0099s transparency and flexibility which are both essential to engage people and to gainthe public\u00E2\u0080\u0099s political support.ix) Ecological space studies translate ecological impacts into a land-use area, Thisapproach is closest to that of the EF/ACC concept. Some studies only focus on agricultural landappropriation (Gerster 1987:159, Thiede in Redcliff 1987:93). Others are more comprehensive,including Wouter de Groot (1992:273-282), Giampietro and Pimentel (1991), and Overby77(1985). Jim MacNeill and his colleagues acknowledge that industrialized countries \u00E2\u0080\u009C...breath,drink, feed, and work on the ecological capital of their \u00E2\u0080\u0098hinterland,\u00E2\u0080\u0099 which also receives theiraccumulated waste...\u00E2\u0080\u009D and call it a country\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Cshadow ecology\u00E2\u0080\u009D (199 1:58).Closely related to the Ecological Footprint concepts are the Sustainable Process Index(SPI) by Anton Moser and Michael Narodoslawsky (Moser et a!. 1993, Narodoslawsky et a!.1994), or the concept of \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmental Space\u00E2\u0080\u009D developed by the Dutch Friends of the Earth(Buitenkamp et al. 1993). In contrast to EF/ACC, the Sustainable Process Index only looks atindustrial processes and not at entire economies. Environmental Space, however, is similar toEF/ACC in its scope, but does not aggregate all of the human demands on nature into an oneland use area, but provides separate indicators for various aspects such as agricultural land andforestry, fossil energy, and non-renewable ores. Also, it focuses on resource availability ratherthan on resource appropriation. And, by specifying the limits in resource flows, rather than inareas which are necessary to produce these flows, this Environmental Space approach might getexposed to criticism from technological optimists who claim a potential for increasing ecologicalproductivity.B. THE HVE RATIONALES FOR EF/ACC1. ECOLOGICAL RATIONALEA meaningful portrayal of natural capital must be the starting point of any tool forplanning toward sustainability. Such a tool must adequately represent key functions of thebiosphere and their role for human life. The EF/ACC tool uses land area as a proxy for manyimportant forms of natural capital. As discussed below, land is used as it represents theecosystems and their photosynthetic productivity, and thereby the essence of natural capital. In78particular, measuring natural capital in terms of land areas is appropriate as it captures Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099sfmite nature, and as its capacity to support photosynthesis reflects the two basic thermodynamiclaws and other ecological principles.i) Liebig\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Law and the competing uses of nature: In any system and process, thereare always some necessary factors in limited supply that prohibit further expansion orproduction. This fundamental ecological insight is called \u00E2\u0080\u009CLiebig\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Law\u00E2\u0080\u009D2\u00C2\u00B0 and led originallyto the use of industrial fertilizers in agriculture. For example, if plant growth is stunted by thelack of potash, fertilizing with potash alone will boost plant growth. The crop can now continueto grow and to access more of all its required nutritive substances until some other factorsbecome limiting; the next limiting factor for this crop might be water, so still higher productionwill need irrigation, etc.Similarly, if available supplies of one factor or service are committed to one thing, theycannot be used for something else. For example, a city that draws water from the adjacent ecosystems might compromise productivity in these ecosystems, as witnessed in the conflict betweenagricultural and residential water-use in California. Or, the effluent of a city might compromisethe fishing in that area. Air pollution can compromise the use of water for human consumption,as observed in Chilliwack BC. In essence, this shows that the various uses of nature are incompetition. One use of a source, or a sink, may prohibit another use of that source or sink.Particularly, pollution and contamination issues have demonstrated that the over-use of naturalcapital sinks may destroy their potential as sources.20 In the middle of the last century, the German agro-chemist Justus von Liebig postulated the \u00E2\u0080\u009CLaw (or Doctrine)of the Minimum\u00E2\u0080\u009D for plant growth. He observed that every field will contain a variety of concentrations of various plantnutrients ranging from superabundant to undersupplied. He found that \u00E2\u0080\u009Cit is by the minimum that the [growth of] cropsare governed\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Liebig 1863:207).79To establish an account of these competing and mutually exclusive uses of nature,EF/ACC converts individual uses into a land area equivalent. Having various kinds of differenthuman uses and activities converted into land areas makes the ecological impacts of these usescomparable and permits us to add them up. This cumulative impact approach illustrates how thevarious ecological concerns add further stress onto the ecosphere, and that these concerns arelinked. In other words, all the different human uses and functions of nature -- such as: providingwater, food and fibres; maintaining biodiversity (out-crowding of species and the reduction ofwild life habitat); absorbing waste; or, providing living space for human beings--are incompetition with each other; they are not fragmented independent activities.2\u00E2\u0080\u0099Accounting forthe land areas that are used exclusively for one purpose avoids double counting of land areas.This means that the total Ecological Footprint can be calculated by simply adding up the parts.Some of the competing uses of nature can be sustained by the present carrying capacityof the globe. Other uses draw down nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s assets. However, to the consumer of goods andservices, it is not clear whether these goods and services were produced from the interest ofnatural capital (or the natural income) or from depleting the principal. Examples are the harvestsfrom overexploited fisheries and forests, agricultural products from land that is being degradedby its use (erosion, salination, etc.), and the draw down on fossil fuels. Living on the principalcan be interpreted as living on illusionary or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cphantom\u00E2\u0080\u009D carrying capacity (Catton 1980:28-21 Of course, not all uses of nature are in absolute competition with each other. Many traditional agricultures havedeveloped growing systems that allowed various uses of the same space. And indeed, this is also the intention of newermanagement regimes. Clearly, the current linear approach of using land to feed people in the city, and then use anotherecosystem to absorb the corresponding human waste could be improved if the ecological cycles were closed and thehuman waste (in some sterilized form) would be brought back to the agricultural land. In fact, this would be one wayof reducing our Ecological Footprint. This shows how the EF/ACC concept also represents the difference between linearand circular ecological and material flows in the biosphere.8030,4278)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2fl Living on illusionary carrying capacity could make people assume that nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099sproductivity is higher than it actually is. An example is the buffalo hunting in the NorthAmerican prairies that drove a seemingly abundant resource into sudden and unexpected near-extinction (Ponting 1992:174-175), or, more timely, the recent collapse of the East Coast codfishery.Today, less land is actually used to provide all of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services than if they wereprovided on a sustainable basis because the current harvest of many resources exceeds thesustainable yields of the land and is based in part on natural capital liquidation. In other words,the Ecological Footprint is larger than the land that is currently in production. However, futuregenerations (starting from right now) will have to pay dearly for the temporary transgression oflocal and global long-term carrying capacity: not only will they have to satisfy the needs of anincreased population, but also they will be endowed with reduced ecological productivity of theEarth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s degraded carrying capacity.ii) The first and second law of thermodynamics, and the role of photosynthesis.Using land area as its measurement unit makes EF/ACC consistent with the first and second lawof thermodynamics. In fact, compared to energy flux (or even Odum\u00E2\u0080\u0099s solar income), land isa more appropriate indicator to reflect both energy constancy (first law), by accounting for thesolar energy income of a particular area, and energy quality (second law), by the qualitative andquantitative bioproductivity of that area. In contrast, energy accounting only encompasses energy22 Catton defines \u00E2\u0080\u009Cphantom carrying capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D as \u00E2\u0080\u009C...illusory or extremely precarious capacity of an environmentto support a life form or a way of life. [The phantom carrying capacity refers to] that proportion of a population thatcannot be permanently supported when temporarily available resources become unavailable...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Catton 1980:278).23 For a history of similar events see Ponting\u00E2\u0080\u0099s chapter on \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Rape of the World\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1992:161-193).81constancy.As the availability of biochemical energy has become the limiting factor for economicactivities, it must become the focus for accounting, not embodied solar energy. For example,Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain suggest that indicators for national wealth or income shouldmove from the GNP to the Gross Natural Product, because, \u00E2\u0080\u009C...for the human population,biomass production is the basis for sur\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00E2\u0080\u0099ival, main source of income and the protector of theenvironment...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (in Carley et a!. 1992:45, see also Agarwal & Narain 1992:72-74). In otherwords, what counts is the solar flux onto the land multiplied by the photosynthetic net efficiencyof land, which averages about 0.3 percent (Smil 1991:324).24 The attributes of land, however,go even beyond the two laws of thermodynamics. Land also represents life and can be seen asa proxy for certain life-support functions such as rain collection, exchanges of gases, wasteabsorption, biogeochemical cycling, self-production and renewal, or link between and nutritionalbasis for organisms. In short, land supports photosynthesis which is the basis of all food chainsof the fauna, and thereby suspends the ecosphere, which is \u00E2\u0080\u009C...a highly improbable, far-from-equilibrium, self-producing, dynamic, steady-state system,... [far] above thermodynamicdeath...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Rees 1994c: 10).For this reason, airsheds are not accounted for in this calculation model because air ismainly a carrier facilitating energy and matter flows, but not a source of primary ecologicalproduction. In fact, all life in the air feeds on food chains which originate in water or land basedphotosynthesis.24 Ecosystems\u00E2\u0080\u0099 photosynthetic efficiency can be anywhere between zero and 2 percent, while the peak fieldefficiency could reach as high as 5 percent (Smil 1991:324).82iii) The finiteness of the planet. In contrast to (solar) energy or money, land is finite,25and its total amount can easily be measured. Therefore, land is a good representation of planetEarth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s finite nature. Indeed, the surface of the Earth is 51 billion hectares, and cannot beexpanded.26 In total, 17 billion of them are terrestrial, only 8.9 of them being ecologicallyproductive (Wright 1991:293, World Resources Institute 1992:262). Actually, the total amountof ecologically productive land on the globe has been in steady decline, by approximately onehalf percent in area since the end of the 1970\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (World Resources 1992:262), and probably morein productive capacity.iv) Human dependence: \u00E2\u0080\u009Cno planet, no profit\u00E2\u0080\u009D. The finite character of land reflectsmore realistically the biophysical wealth (or capital) on which humanity has to live than energyor money can. Because the EF/ACC concept provides a measure to contrast current ecologicalproduction with current economic consumption, it indicates whether there is ecological room foreconomic expansion, and if not, how economic expansion might affect the natural capital stock.The concept also underscores the need for adequate stocks of renewable and replenishablenatural capital as a necessary condition for a humane existence; in other words, forsustainability.More particulary, EF/ACC helps to determine the ecological constraints within whichsociety operates, to set political benchmarks to avoid further ecological overshoot, and tomonitor progress towards becoming sustainable. EF/ACC provides a measure of current (or25 With the notable exception of the Dutch. However, they have abandoned the project. On Nevertheless, it wouldbe interesting to analyze how many years it takes for that re-claimed land with its new ecological productivity to pay backthe invested resources required to establish this land (the lost productivity of the sea should be deducted too).26 The Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s diameter is about 12,700 [1cm] (or 40,000 [km] I jr). Hence, its surface comes to ir * (diameter)2= 510 million [1cm2] or 51 billion hectares.83expected future) economic consumption against which to contrast current (or likely future)ecological production, thereby revealing a \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainability gap\u00E2\u0080\u009D or the overshoot of local (andglobal) carrying capacity by industrialized societies (Rees & Wackemagel 1994).2. SOCIOECONOMIC RATIONALEThe Ecological Footprint not only represents ecological constraints but can also informon socioeconomic conditions of, and conflicts within, a population. Three areas are explored;namely, EF/ACC as a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cyardstick,\u00E2\u0080\u009D as a tool to analyze and anticipate ecologically induced socialand economic conflicts, and as a concept to link ecological and economic understanding.i) An ecological yardstick. Similar to monetary currencies, EF/ACC permits us tocompare different activities on the same scale. In fact, it provides a yardstick for measuring thenatural capital requirement of various activities, processes or technologies. This yardstick canbe applied to any level of analysis, be it a single activity, an individual, a household, a city, aregion, a country or the entire globe. However, in contrast to monetary currencies, theecological yardstick only focuses on the ecological aspects and does not provide a comparisonof ecological impacts with social or economic ones. Focusing on the ecological constraintsseparately is consistent with the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstrong sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D interpretation which maintains that thenatural capital stock must be maintained independent of social or economic capital formation.The EF/ACC yardstick becomes a way to measure ecological efficiency (how much of naturalcapital\u00E2\u0080\u0099s income is necessary to provide a given service), and ecological dependence (how muchnatural capital is necessary to support an economy), but does not illuminate social preferences.Or, the EF/ACC could be interpreted as an ecological camera that takes (static) pictures ofcurrent practices and bio-chemical flows.84EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s yardstick can help to determine whether the decoupling of the economy frombiophysical resource throughput (or qualitative growth, how some call it) is taking place (seeChapter VII). It can also test whether economic and technological efficiency gains havedecreased or increased a particular economy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Ecological Footprint.ii) Social and economic conflicts. Analyzing the relationship between an economy andits resource requirements from the EF/ACC perspective enables people to understand not onlyecological but also socioeconomic impacts of current economic activities, and allows them toexplore the forces and mechanisms that are threatening to liquidate global resource assets. Bydemonstrating that natural capital has become the limiting factor for resource dependent humanactivities, it shows how certain economic activities by one group preempt other group\u00E2\u0080\u0099sactivities, now or in the future. EF/ACC reveals the extent to which wealthy people andcountries have already \u00E2\u0080\u009Cappropriated\u00E2\u0080\u009D the productive capacity of the ecosphere through bothcommercial trade and unaccounted demands on open access source and sink functions. Thispoints to potential conflicts between and within societies.By putting economic development in the context of ecological constraints, it alsochallenges the most basic assumptions of growth-oriented international development models asexemplified by the Hong Kong, Japanese or Swiss post-war development paths, which othercountries so desperately try to imitate. By showing that Pareto efficiency might not necessarilybe the limiting factor for future economic development, and that societies may already have runout of \u00E2\u0080\u009Celsewheres\u00E2\u0080\u009D that can compensate for their ecological deficits, EF/ACC analyses put lighton the need to shift policy priorities from economic growth to equity and quality of lifeconsiderations.85In a global economy, where exponentially increasing demands are competing fordwindling resources, it is in the self-interest of any economy to analyze its current and futureresource requirements and to compare them with the productivity of the resource stocks to whichit has jurisdiction or permanent access. In other words, the question is whether the people ofan economy will be able to continue to appropriate enough carrying capacity to satisfy theirresource needs in the future, a constraint with which any economy will have to cope in the longrun.iii) Ecological economics. The EF/ACC concept can inform efforts to link ecological andeconomic understanding. Most importantly, EF/ACC highlights the ecological andthermodynamic basis of economic processes. It does this not only within a theoreticalframework, but also in practical applications as is shown in Chapter V. EF/ACC recognizesproductive natural capital as the basis or pre-condition for human-made wealth. Morespecifically, by distinguishing between available and total appropriated productivity from nature,EF/ACC can distinguish between sustainable natural income and non-sustainable natural incomewhich is used as the economic input -- a distinction that conventional economic analysis does notprovide, but which is essential for maintaining natural capital.27 In other words, EF/ACC addsan understanding of the functioning and throughput requirements of society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s respiratory anddigestive system, while economic analyses of circular flows (such as System of National Accountapproaches) only inform about society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s cardio-vascular system (Daly 1993:56).27 Neoclassical economist John R. Hicks provided a useful definitions of sustainable income, saying that \u00E2\u0080\u009Cthepurpose of income calculation in practical affairs is to give people an indication of the amount which they can consumewithout impoverishing themselves\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1946:171). Economists have used this definition to determine the maximum levelof monetary income flows that can be maintained without diminishing the monetary capital stock. Similarly, to determinethe sustainable natural income from a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstrong sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D perspective, Hicks\u00E2\u0080\u0099 perspective must be applied to naturalcapital.86The EF/ACC concept is complementary to, and compatible with, many economicanalyses. EF/ACC analyses can provide an account of the embodied services from nature at anystage in the circular flow of money. In other words, they estimate how much of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099sbiophysical productivity (or carrying capacity) is necessary to provide all the consumed goods.Or, if the economy is analyzed from a production perspective rather than the consumptionperspective, it reveals how much of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity is necessary to generate the valueadded to pay for the consumed goods.28 EF/ACC can also cover blind spots of monetaryanalysis when effects of biophysical scarcity, long range discounting, unsustainable harvests, orresource dependence need to be interpreted. Thereby, EF/ACC analysis promotes the necessaryshift from unsustainable consumption of to investment in natural capital, a key requirement fordeveloping sustainability.Furthermore, EF/ACC gives economic stability a new ecological dimension: it helpspeople realize that uninterrupted access to the required \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccarrying capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D (the continuity ofresource flows and waste sinks) is a precondition for any stable economy. Also, EF/ACCencourages the extension of traditional economic cost/benefit and marginal analyses to the macrolevel. Recognition of the economy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s biophysical requirements and constraints forcesconsideration of the cumulative effects of growth, the notion of optimal scale, the ecologicalimpact of trade and particular technologies, and the implications of ecological inequities at theregional, national, and global levels.28 An example would be to analyze how much bioproductivity a staple economy gives up through exports to payfor their industrial imports (which in return represent embodied bioproductivity, but of course, much less per dollar thanstaple goods).873. POLITICAL RATIONALEThe Ecological Footprint assists political-decision making in two ways. It providesexplicit information about ecological constraints which highlight important ethical questions.Further, as explained in section ii, it assists in conceptualizing the dilemmas and conificts,fostering a common understanding of the issues, and providing a means to monitor progresstoward sustainabiity, thereby helping to build agreement on, and support for, action.i) Ethical questions. EF/ACC emphasizes the material and energy dependence of humanbeings on Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Cweb of life.\u00E2\u0080\u009D EF/ACC shows how the human economy is inseparable fromthose of other species and fundamentally depends on the continuity of various resource stocks,waste sinks and life support services from all over the world. Further, by communicating theexistence of biophysical limits and the realization that people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s uses of nature are competing, itraises pertinent social and economic questions. For example, it forces over-consumers to facethe otherwise hidden trade-off made between their own consumption levels and the poverty andhuman suffering that results somewhere else.By making these trade-offs visible, it questions whether the biophysical limits mean thatnot everybody in the world can have a decent life, or whether equity and redistribution shouldtake precedence over economic efficiency and expansion. By quantifying both intra- andinter-generational inequities and showing that not everyone can become as materially rich astoday\u00E2\u0080\u0099s average North Americans or Europeans without undermining global life support systems,this should impose greater accountability on the wealthy and give the poor greater leverage inbargaining for development rights, technology transfers, and other equity measures. EF/ACCassessments might therefore strengthen the case for international agreement on how to share theEarth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productive capacity more equitably and how to use it more carefully.88Apart from the socioeconomic dilemma, the EF/ACC perspective also challenges thepredominant extensionist perspective about humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s right to appropriate a large percentageof nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s bio-productivity29while being only one of several million species living on theplanet.The way that people perceive nature (i.e., their woridview or value system) influenceshow nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services are being used. For example, in the context of the global economy, people(and many jurisdictional systems) assume that land belongs to people. This was not always thecase. In fact, in Europe, it was not until about 1100 AD that land became a commodity (Ponting1992:154). In contrast, many hunting-gathering, and agricultural societies live \u00E2\u0080\u009Cin place,\u00E2\u0080\u009Dconsider a particular place as their home, or feel that they belong to the land, rather than thereverse. For example, in the case of the Quichua in Eastern Ecuador, the Maasai and theSamburu of Kenya, and the Tribal Filipinos, Davis Shelton summarizes the relationship of thesepeoples to the land as follows:Indigenous peoples -- in contrast to the Western economists and development planners-- do not view the landas a \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccommodity\u00E2\u0080\u009D which can be bought and sold in impersonal markets, nor do they view the trees, plants,animals and fish which cohabit the land as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnatural resources\u00E2\u0080\u009D which produce profits or rents. To the contrary,the indigenous view -- which was probably shared by our ancestors prior to the rise of the modern industrialmarket economy -- is that land is a substance endowed with sacred meanings, embedded in social relations andfundamental to the definition of a people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s existence and identity. Similarly, trees, plants, animals and fishwhich inhabit the land are highly personal beings (many times a \u00E2\u0080\u009Ckinship\u00E2\u0080\u009D idiom is used to describe thesebeings) which form part of their social and spiritual universe. This close attachment to the land and theenvironment is the defining characteristics of indigenous peoples; it is what links together, in a philosophicaland cosmological sense, numerous geographically disparate and culturally diverse peoples throughout the world(Shelton et al. 1993).Maintaining that they belong to the land and that this land is the origin of life reflects29 As a reminder: Peter Vitousek eta!. suggested in 1986 that human activities appropriated over 40 percent of theterrestrial Net Primary Productivity. As pointed out in Chapter V, this figure might actually be over 100 percent iffurther functions of nature are included.89these peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 respect for and commitment to living within local carrying capacity. However,when people think that land belongs to them, local carrying capacity constraints becomeirrelevant to their decision-malcing as they can expand their land base or can start to appropriateextraregional carrying capacity. For this task, economic purchasing power or military force isused. Many of the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgreat civilizations\u00E2\u0080\u009D such as Rome, the Ottoman Empire, the Europeancolonial empires, as well as today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s China (in Tibet), Morocco (West Sahara) and Indonesia (inEast Timor) -- to name a few -- are prominent examples of military based extraregionalappropriators of carrying capacity, while modem industrial countries (and past and modem citystates) rely mainly on appropriation through purchasing power.While revealing important relationships and dependences, EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ethical positionremains anthropocentric -- similar to the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cconstant natural capital\u00E2\u0080\u009D criterion (see footnote 45 inChapter II). It demonstrates that it is in humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s best self-interest not to over-exploit nature.Such an enlightened form of self-interest is in itself a significant step toward sustainability. Eventhough some people argue for other species\u00E2\u0080\u0099 intrinsic right to exist, using this anthropocentricperspective might be more effective because it reflects the common denominator of today\u00E2\u0080\u0099sindustrial societies, thereby facilitating communication. Nevertheless, it provides for otherspecies to the extent that their maintenance reduces risks to human(e) survival.ii) A transparent and simple framework for planning toward sustainabifity. TheEF/ACC concept provides a simple framework for understanding the ecological bottom-line ofsustainability. Putting sustainability in simple and concrete terms helps to build commonunderstanding, and sets a framework for action. For example, EF/ACC gives decision-makersa physical criterion for ranking policy, project, or technology options according to their impacton ecological sustainability.90Making the sustainability challenges more transparent by providing explicit objectives,spelling out the assumptions, and providing a reproducible method, stimulates the public debate.This shows EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s potential as an awareness and communication tool between people whichcould assist planning tasks and the willingness to support change toward sustainability. Withoutfeedback and monitoring, planning is doomed to fail. Until now, there were no clear yardsticksto measure progress in ecological terms when planning toward sustainability. However, theEF/ACC tool, and its procedure for assessing natural capital consumption, can be used as aproxy for measuring progress towards ecological integrity, a pre-condition for sustainability.Furthermore, EF/ACC underscores the global imperative for local action. It demonstratesan inter-regional ecological multiplier effect of industrial levels of consumption on the welfareof human populations and other species everywhere. By exploring the contribution of bothpopulation and material consumption to global ecological decline, EF/ACC emphasizes the needfor policies to control both, and provides a tool to assess the success of particular technologiesto alleviating this dilemma.4. EPISTEMOLOGICAL RATIONALEThe EF/ACC concept organizes and interprets information without getting lost ininsignificant details. As explained in the following sections, it does this by using land as anaccounting unit, by making links between issues rather than fragmenting them, and by providinginterpretations of the constraints rather than developing deterministic predictions.91i) Accounting. EF/ACC provides a simple accounting model for ecological services. Formost accounting purposes money is used because, being fully convertible, it is the limitingfactor3\u00C2\u00B0 for many of people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s activities.31 Also the constancy of monetary units (i.e., they donot change spontaneously over time) allows us to keep track of capital stocks and flows bysimply adding incomes and subtracting expenditures. However, because monetary approachesare not suitable for sustainability assessments, as discussed above, EF/ACC uses land areas asthe accounting unit. Fortunately, in this context, land has similar qualities as money. In a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfull\u00E2\u0080\u009Dworld, ecologically productive land is also a limiting factor, and land areas remain constant overtime (even though its productivity might decline or improve); and in fact, as mentioned above,for the last 45 years, approximately half a percent of the ecologically productive land area wasdegraded per year [Oldeman in Postel 1994:10]).In contrast to money, land accounts for only the ecological services on which human lifedepends, not for social and economic necessities. When planning for sustainability, thislimitation might actually be interpreted as an advantage over monetary convertibility, becausethe ecological condition for strong sustainability must be met independently of the othersustainability conditions. In fact, convertibility might tempt the human mind to see prospects fortrading off one objective for another one.30 This might be regarded as an application of Liebig\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Law of the Minimum to theory building. However completea theory or model purports to be, it cannot include everything about reality. By definition, every model is nothing buta simplification or interpretation of a more complex reality. However, to be effective at conveying the essence of reality,models must incorporate the limiting factor which determines the behaviour of that particular reality in that particularcontext. Good theory finds a balance between inclusiveness and effective simplification. Effective models are simple toapply, but are \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgood enough\u00E2\u0080\u009D to capture the essence. For example, the human body temperature is a good variable todescribe the health of the human body. The theory that \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctemperatures over 36.7 Celsius are bad\u00E2\u0080\u009D is an enormoussimplification, but a highly operational one \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i.e., the theory is for most cases \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgood enough.\u00E2\u0080\u009D31 While humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s activities as a whole are limited by natural capital, the individual\u00E2\u0080\u0099s apparent constraint is hisor her purchasing power.92ii) Connection of issues. Land connects most of the ecological issues that humanity isfacing. Land-use conflicts and out-crowding of other species is one obvious manifestation. Butalso, pollution and contamination have an impact on land. Milder forms of pollution andcontamination make the harvest from such land less desirable for human consumption, whileheavy contamination could significantly harm any kind of life on that and adjacent land. Watershortages might lead to salination of agricultural land, wind erosion or desertification. Also,increased UVB radiation due to ozone depletion might stunt photosynthetic productivity, whichthen would increase the EF/ACC if consumption remains constant (see Chapter IV). C02-induced climate change might lead to a flooding of productive land close to the shore anddestroy ecosystem productivity through desertification or through rapid changes in averagetemperatures and climatic patterns. This shows why EF/ACC comprehensively covers andconnects these various threats to ecosystem health -- even cumulative impacts.The EF/ACC approach is also conservative: it underestimates the amount of nature thatis required to sustain a given lifestyle with prevailing technology. First, it assumes an industrialmode of land-use,32 and assumes that this land-use is sustainable, which it is not (see ChapterV). Second, EF/ACC leaves out many of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s functions, due to conceptual difficulties andlack of data. This shows why EF/ACC underestimates the actual carrying capacity appropriation.iii) Interpreting data and trends. The EF/ACC concept does not extrapolate currenttrends or predict future paths of society. And it does not advocate determinism. In fact, EF/ACC32 The EF/ACC concept is useful to compare lifestyles between people in either agricultural or industrial societies.It is particularly apt to understand the ecological dependence of urban people. However, the concept becomes lessmeaningful when comparing, for example, a Vancouver citizen with a traditional Innuit, because their consumption stemsfrom incomparable land uses. The former receives most products from intensively and industrially-exploited ecosystems,while the latter lives extensively on fragile and low-yield ecosystems.93provides a coarse ecological picture of what is happening today in light of prevailing technologyand management regimes. This means that EF/ACC is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Adescriptive approach helps to acknowledge constraints and to stimulate development of realisticoptions and choices. The tool does not predetermine whether it is possible to decouple economicactivities from ecological throughput because of improved technology. But it provides a yardstickto test the claims and asks necessary questions. This simple yardstick makes EF/ACC a heuristictool for understanding issues and their connections to other concerns. By providing a frameworkfor comparisons, it assists practitioners and activists to judge sustainability strategies and toprepare for public action.In contrast to traditional research approaches, the EF/ACC concept does not require newdata but provides a new interpretation of old data. Rather than building an understanding of thewhole by adding up detailed specificities of distinctive issues, EF/ACC starts from the macroperspective, and becomes more detailed in the further steps. Key is to frame the issues andunderstand the magnitude or scale of the concerns. EFIACC does not focus primarily on preciseestimates, but on conceptual accuracy that is measured with sufficient precision. In the firstplace, the concept should help us to think about, and conceptualize the implications of, humanimpacts rather than provide us a technical tool to manage them. By focusing on accuracy ratherthan precision, EF/ACC depicts macroscopic and systemic relationships rather than singled-outcause-effect correlations. However, whether the EFIACC concept is either too simplistic to besufficiently accurate in visualizing the magnitude of the issue and to support the heuristic valueof the tool, or too complex to be effectively utilizable, can only be concluded after testingvarious applications.945. PSYCHOLOGICAL RATIONALETo make the EF/ACC concept useful for getting people interested in sustainability andmotivating them to actively participate, it must reach out and cater to the psychological needsof the audiences and actors. This means it must stimulate active and engaging education. It mustalso be in resonance with people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s experiences and encourage inter-active communication.i) Education. A major purpose of the EF/ACC concept is to provide an educational toolto enhance people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s understanding of their fundamental dependence on nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services,including resources, waste absorption and life-support services. Furthermore, it underscorestemporal and spatial interdependence of all living things, adding a practical plank to theextensionist platform for granting moral standing to non-human species.By using an heuristic approach for communicating the sustainability concept, it aggregatescomplex information into a single, easily understood ecological indicator: ecologically productiveland. With land as a measurement unit, the finite reality of the biosphere can be translated intoconcrete everyday experiences, such as sizes of city blocks, football fields and parks. It can alsolink the experiences of personal consumption to more abstract concepts such as global limits.ii) Communication. Also, EF/ACC tries to bring forward the sustainability dilemmasin a non-threatening way, and much effort has been put into effective communication for variousaudiences through the use of graphics and appropriate language. Also, it should help people torealize that sustainability is first of all about one-self, not about what others should do.Certainly, much more needs to be done to make the concept even more accessible. Possiblestrategies might be to use other modes of communication (including experiential learning),develop new angles and examples of the concept, simplify the images and concepts, or present95it in an uplifting tone.In conclusion, the EF/ACC concept addresses all five facets of the sustainability crisissimultaneously and points the way to positive choices. EF/ACC is not a doomsday concept inwhich society is condemned to collapse because of ecological overshoot. On the contrary, thistool attempts to help society to avoid collapse and to move towards sustainability. EF/ACC isa tool that allows people to compare and rank development options according to their ecologicalimpact. It assists in choosing those technologies or policies which can perform a certain task (orservice) with the smallest Ecological Footprint -- or better, within the available natural capitalbudget. By contrast, prevailing analyses ignore ecological constraints, and development policydecisions are informed (at best) by cost/benefit and other monetary considerations alone. In thesecircumstances, currently introduced technologies or policies might well increase resourceconsumption per capita, rather than decrease it.961V. DEVELOPING A CALCULATION PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING EF/ACC OFAN ECONOMYThis chapter introduces a calculation procedure for applied EF/ACC assessments. Thepurpose is to document the procedure, to ensure reproducibility and to show why the resultsunderestimate the actually required land areas.A. ESTABLISHING AN OPERATIONAL EF/ACC DEFINITIONAn economy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s EFIACC can be obtained by calculating how much of Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ecologicalservices (measured in land area) the people in that economy must appropriate to providecontinuously for their present consumption using prevailing technology. Clearly, if all the detailsof consumption items and ecosystem functions were included into the assessment, the volumeof information and the data processing required would make such venture impractical if notimpossible. Therefore, for applications, the concept is simplified:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The calculation starts from the conservative assumption that the current industrial harvestpractices (i.e., agricultural and forestry) are sustainable, which they are not. In otherwords, current EF/ACC assessments underestimate land requirements for humanactivities.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services that are included in the calculation encompass direct and indirectAssuming sustainable farming and forestry underestimates the required land area for nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s resource production.For example, agricultural soils in North America are depleted up to 20 times faster than they can reproduce (Giampietroet a!. 1990a: 171). In other words, in order to compensate for the soil loss, agricultural land farmed under currentpractices should be left fallow for up to 20 years for each year of cultivation. This would increase the appropriated areaof agricultural land by a factor of 20. Similarly, current forestry may not be sustainable: it is questionable if the planned70 year rotation periods can be kept up for more than two to three harvests (Diem 1992:263). Also, these assumedsustainable yield can be maintained only if the forest growth is not slowed down by pests or fires.The ratio of the land area, which would be required under sustainable land-use and harvest practices, to thatland area, which is required today according to current productivity estimates, is called \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainability factor.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Thesefactors suggest the extent to which we presently overestimate ecological long-term productivity.97appropriations of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services through human activities; such as, harvest ofrenewable resources, extraction of non-renewable resources, waste absorption, paving,fresh water consumption, contamination, pollution, and ozone depletion.2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Ecological productivity is classified into eight land (or ecosystem) categories five of whichare available for human use (see Section 3 below).For the time being, the appropriated marine areas are left out of EF/ACC calculations.Cynically, one could claim that the oceans are used primarily as a dumping ground for waste,a function which cannot be translated into a well-defined appropriated area.3 On the other hand,fresh-water and marine ecosystems presently produce only a small fraction of the resources usedby the human economy. Also, it is unlikely that under current practice, the resource yield fromoceans, lakes, and rivers can be much expanded; for example, wild fish stocks, the mainrenewable resource from fresh-water and marine ecosystems, provide less than two and a halfpercent of the human food requirements,4and most fisheries are already over-harvested. FAOestimates that the global harvest of marine food approaches 90 percent of the theoreticalmaximum yield, if it has not reached it already (Hibler 1992:34, Brown 1994:179). In fact,\u00E2\u0080\u009C...the per capita seafood supply, which peaked at 19 kilograms in 1989, will be back down to2 At this point, our research has focused on the ecological impact of the first four activities. We intend though toinclude the impact of the other activities in subsequent EF/ACC research. Nevertheless, leaving out some of thesefunctions underlines, once more, that this approach underestimates the human impact on nature.The currents of the oceans lead to a significant material and heat exchange between the various areas of theoceans. Therefore, it is next to impossible for most cases to determine the area that corresponds, for example, to a givenabsorptive capacity for degradable waste. Furthermore, EFIACC might not be a useful concept for illustrating theecological impact of non-degradable organic waste (such as DDT and PCBs) or non-organic waste (such as heavy metalsor radioactive substances) as this waste accumulates and is not being recycled or transformed by nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services. Suchnon-degradable waste might only be reflected in Ecological Footprint consideration to the extent that heavily contaminatedareas become unavailable for human consumption, thereby reducing the available carrying capacity to human beings (seealso Weber 1994:41-60).These 2.5 percent refer to the food\u00E2\u0080\u0099s nutritional energy content. This corresponds to about 16 percent of globallyconsumed animal proteins (Weber 1994:43, FAO 1990:tbllO6).9811 kilograms...\u00E2\u0080\u009D by 2030, comments Lester Brown (1994: 180).This simplified EF/ACC approach might be criticized for not considering a variety ofbiophysical life-support services, particularly those which are not directly associated with land-based renewable resource production. However, this omission does not weaken the EF/ACCanalysis. First of all, ecological models should not include all aspects of the ecospherefunctioning, but only the essential and critical ones. In other words, to be effective, they needto focus on the limiting factors of the modeled system.6For example, one insight of the morerecent sustainability debate is that, in contrast to the 1970\u00E2\u0080\u0099s focus on non-renewable resources,the more worrisome concern today is the depletion of renewable resource stocks (Robinson1993). Non-renewable resources are included to the extent that they impact the ecosphere,namely through their energy requirement for extraction and processing, and through theiroccupation of built-up areas.Indeed, even though the EF/ACC approach underestimates the actual land requirements,or is conservative, this simplified EF/ACC approach still provides a valid comparison betweennature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity and human consumption -- the crucial ecological issue for sustainability.Including in the calculations more of the other life-support services of nature which areperformed by aquatic systems and ecologically productive land (such as wilderness areas), wouldcomplicate the analysis as these services cannot be assigned as clearly to specific humanFish-farming would not necessarily overcome the ecological scarcity, but only shift the scarcity to agriculturewhich produces the feedstock for these farms.6 See footnote 30 in Chapter ifi.99activities without improving the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s heuristic value.7B. OUTLINING THE CALCULATION PROCEDURECentral to the EF/ACC concept is the notion that for every significant type of materialor energy consumption, a certain amount of land in various ecosystem categories is required toprovide the consumption-related resource flows and waste sinks. This section explains how tolink consumption categories and land areas, and shows how this information assists EF/ACCcalculations.1. THE LAND-USE OF CONSUMPTIONTo determine the total land area to support a particular pattern of consumption, the land-use implications of each significant category of consumption must be understood. Since it is notfeasible to assess land requirements for the provision, maintenance, and disposal of every singleconsumption good, the calculations are confmed to major categories. This helps to avoid thegigantic task of assessing the impact of each of the several hundred thousand purchaseableconsumption goods on the hundreds of land categories that can be distinguished.Estimating EF/ACC is an iterative process. Rather than starting with the analysis of aparticular household\u00E2\u0080\u0099s consumption, it is simpler and more effective to assess first the EF/ACCof a region\u00E2\u0080\u0099s or nation\u00E2\u0080\u0099s aggregate consumption flows, such as the national fossil fuel, food or\u00E2\u0080\u0098 If it was required to roughly assess humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s impact on the remaining life-support services, one could suspectthat the per capita impact would be proportional to the per capita land area appropriated for resource production.However, as explained later, in the present EF/ACC approach, some areas that provide life-support services (such asbiodiversity and carbon storage) are deducted from the total land that is available for direct human use, rather than addingindividual shares to the individual Footprints.100timber consumption. Most data for preliminary assessments of the aggregate quantities consumedcan be obtained from national statistics.8For more sophisticated, focused or detailed analysis,it is necessary to estimate the land-uses associated with the various consumption categories andsubcategories, as well as of smaller consumer units such as municipalities or households. Addingup the land-uses of these disaggregated consumption items then provides a means to check thisresult against the first assessment of aggregate consumption flows and their land-use. Going backand forth from the disaggregate consumption analysis to that of aggregate consumption helpseliminate data gaps, errors and apparent contradictions which are the inevitable hurdles of anyEFIACC assessment.2. CONSUMPTION CATEGORIESTo keep the EF/ACC quantification manageable, consumption are divided into maincategories only. To simplify data collection, it is advisable to adopt the classifications used byofficial statistics. On the most general level, it seems useful to separate consumption into fivemain categories (Table 4.1).Table 4.1: The five main consumption categories1. food2. housing3. transportation4. consumer goods5. services8 For many consumption categories, national statistics provide economic production and trade figures. From that,\u00E2\u0080\u009Capparent consumption\u00E2\u0080\u009D can be assessed: apparent consumption = production + imports - exports.101For more refined analysis, these categories can be subdivided. For example, food couldbe divided into vegetable and animal-based products. Transportation could be separated intopublic and private transportation. These sub-categories should be defined strategically in orderto answer effectively the policy questions of interest. Each category encompasses all theembodied resources9that go into the production, use and disposal of its functions and processes.For example, even though \u00E2\u0080\u009Cservices\u00E2\u0080\u009D are considered to be \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnon-material,\u00E2\u0080\u009D they require materialflows to make them happen. In the case of money transactions at a bank, such physical energyand resource requirements include the building and maintenance of bank infrastructure, thegeneration of bank statements, and the use of computers.Numerous sources can be used to quantify consumption and its embodied resources.Statistics on waste streams, household and national expenditure, metabolic rates, dietinformation, trade figures, and resource flows can be consulted -- and checked, one against theother.3. LAN]) AND LAND-USE CATEGORIESSimilarly, for the purpose of these calculations, land (including available and non-available land) is divided into categories. For the purpose of EF/ACC calculations, the followingeight main land categories have been identified (Table 4.2). They are similar to the classificationused by The World Conservation Union (IUCN 1991:34,126,186).The first category is called \u00E2\u0080\u009Cphantom land\u00E2\u0080\u009D in accordance with William Catton (1980:44-Embodied energy and resources of a commodity are the energy and resources that are used during the entire life-cycle of the commodity for manufacturing, transporting and disposing of the commodity, while \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenergy intensity\u00E2\u0080\u009D refersto the embodied energy per unit of a good or service. Similarly, embodied EF/ACC is the contribution to EF/ACC whichis needed to produce, and later absorb, the waste of this commodity.10246) who points out that humanity is using some of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity without nature beingable to replace or compensate for it. For example, by using fossil fuel today we put a burdenon future generations, as less fossil fuel will be available to them. In particular, they will haveto cope with elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere. In other words, this use of nature does notcorrespond to a natural income but leads to the depletion of natural capital stocks.Table 4.2: The eight main land and land-use categories1) phantom land: a. land equivalent (NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES)for fossil energy Note: in a sustainable economy, this would depend onland in category c, d, e or f.II) consumed land: b. built environment (DEGRADED LAND)ifi) currently c. gardens (REVERSIBLY BUILT ENVIRONMENT)used land: ----\u00E2\u0080\u0094d. crop land (CULTIVATED SYSTEMS)e. pasture (MODIFIED SYSTEMS)f. managed forestIV) land of limited g. untouched forests (PRODUCTiVE NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS)availabifity: -\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094h. non-productive areas (DESERTS)Only five of these land categories are available to human use in the long run, namelyland categories b-f As discussed below, the land associated with fossil fuel use (category a)would have to be accommodated by available productive land (in categories c-f). Furthermore,some of the Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ecologically productive land is not available either (category g). These arethe virgin ecosystems whose harvest would lead to a net CO2 release which the ecologicalproduction on this land would not be able to compensate before 200 years (Wellisch 1992:4,Harmon et a!. 1991, Marland & Marland 1992). Also, these areas are indispensable biodiversity103refuges that should not be disturbed. The only direct human use of such ecosystems would betheir sink function for sequestering C02, but of course, only in those cases where these virginsystems still accumulate carbon. The other category of land with limited availabifity or\u00E2\u0080\u009Cusefulness\u00E2\u0080\u009D is the land that is ecologically not highly productive (category h). This includeshigh and low-latitude deserts such as Antarctica or the Sahara.These land categories encompass a multitude of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services in support of humanactivities: namely, the provision of commercial energy, water and space for humaninfrastructure, the absorption of waste, and the preservation of biodiversity.i) \u00E2\u0080\u009CCarrying capacity requirements\u00E2\u0080\u009D for commercial energy:1\u00C2\u00B0Commercial energyconsumption can be translated into land areas. This section discusses the land use implicationsof consuming fossil fuel, hydroelecthcity and some other renewable energy sources. The energy-land equivalence ratio reports how much energy per year could be provided by one hectare ofecologically productive land. The units used are Gigajoules per hectare and year (or l0[joules/ha/yr] = 1 [Gj/ha/yr]).There are three approaches to convert the consumption of fossil energy into a land areaequivalent. Each of them follows a different rationale, but they come up with about the sameland area equivalent. All approaches conclude that the consumption of 80 to 100 [Gj] of fossilfuel per year corresponds to the service appropriation of approximately one hectare ofecologically productive land. Appendix 1 explains in more detail the rationales for, and10 Most energy on which human life depends comes from the sun. In fact, life on Earth is powered by a solar fluxof about 175,000 [TW] (or Terawatt), while the commercial energy of the human economy amounts to \u00E2\u0080\u009Conly\u00E2\u0080\u009D 10 [TWJ(or 310,000 [Pj/yr] according to the World Resources Institute 1992:314).104calculations of, these three approaches.The first method involves calculating the land required to grow the ethanol equivalent ofpresent fossil fuel consumption. The rationale for this approach is the notion that a sustainableeconomy must not tap into fossil capital, but produce continuously the energy it consumes.Ethanol is a potentially renewable energy carrier that is technically and qualitatively equivalentto fossil fuel as it is a homogeneous, concentrated fuel that can easily be stored and transported,and that can fuel many human-made processes.\u00E2\u0080\u009D From this perspective, the equivalence ratioof fossil energy into a land area can be calculated by estimating how much ecologicallyproductive land would be required to produce the biomass input and the processing energy forproducing the same amount of ethanol. As documented in Appendix 1.1, the most optimisticestimates for ethanol productivity suggest a net gain of 80 [Gj/yr] per hectare of ecologicallyproductive land.12The second method involves estimating the land area needed to sequester the CO2 fromfossil fuel burning. The rationale for this approach is the argument that, in a sustainable society,people who use fossil fuel should at least be responsible for sequestering the CO2 that theirInstead of ethanol, methanol could have been another fuel choice for this approach. Calculations by YoshihikoWada (1994a) based on Barnard (1984) and Smith (1982) suggest a methanol productivity of 10.5 to 13.5 [Mj] perkilogram of wood input. For New Zealand tree plantations (reaching one of the highest timber productivities in the worldwith about 23 [m\u00E2\u0080\u0099Ihalyr]), this would translate into an energy-land equivalence ratio of 120 to 150 [Gj/halyrj. However,for timber productivities typical for Canada, Russia, or Scandinavia, the figure would drop to 17 - 30 [Gjlhalyr], orapproximately 55 - 68 [Gj/haJyr] for the US (New Zealand Forest Owner Association 1994:1).12 On the one hand, there are more efficient ways of using biomass energy than converting it first into ethanol.However, burning ethanol reflects the current wasteful consumption of fossil fuel: for example, in many low-temperatureapplications such as domestic warm water or space heating, high-quality (or low-entropy) energy fuels are used wherelow-quality (or high-entropy) fuels would suffice. On the other hand, it seems likely that due to the ecological impactsof modern agriculture such as erosion, and due to the removal of crop residues (which is necessary to achieve the highethanol yields) the estimated output could not be sustained. In fact, the sustainable yield of ethanol could be about onemagnitude smaller than the estimated 80 [Gj/ha/yr] -- which underlines once more the conservative nature of the currentBF/ACC calculations (see Appendix 1.1).105activities release into the atmosphere. This assumes that humanity is worse off with everyadditional CO2 molecule added to the atmosphere. Forest ecosystems and peat bogs are amongthe natural systems that can absorb CO2 over longer time frames, such as the next 50 to 80 years-- forests having the highest accumulation rates. As documented in Appendix 1.2, averagefigures suggest that average forests13 can accumulate approximately 1.8 tonnes of carbon perhectare and year (Wada 1994a). This carbon absorption rate suggests that one hectare of averageforest can sequester annually the CO2 emission generated by the household consumption of 100[Gj] of fossil fuel (including the CO2 released for extraction and refinement).The third method involves assessing the land area required to rebuild a natural capitalstock at a rate that is equivalent to the consumed fossil fuel. The rationale for this approachbuilds on a biophysical interpretation of an argument put forward by economist Salah El Serafy(1988). In essence, he proposes that a sustainable society can use non-renewable resources if itreplenishes, at the same rate, an equivalent renewable resource asset. Replenishing what is usedwould address inter-generational equity, a precondition for sustainability. Calculations,documented in Appendix 1.3, show that one hectare of average forest could accumulate about80 [GjJ of chemical energy per year. In other words, the energy-land equivalence ratio, fromthe perspective of restocking renewable natural capital at the rate that fossil fuel stocks aredepleted, amounts to approximately 80 [Gj/ha/yr]. However, this ratio overestimates the forestproductivity for available energy, as the stock of forest biomass would be of considerably lowertechnical value for powering human-made processes than fossil fuel.Methodically, the CO2 approach is the most conservative one and, therefore, shows the13 Average forest productivity corresponds to an average calculated from the typical forest productivities oftemperate, boreal and tropical forests weighed according to their land area on the globe.106highest energy-land equivalence ratio. Reviews and discussions showed that this approachreceived the highest acceptance. Therefore, 100 [Gj/ha/yr] was chosen as the energy-landequivalence ratio for fossil fuel, and is used in all current EF/ACC assessments. Choosing asomewhat arbitrary figure for this fossil energy-land ratio does not compromise the usefulnessof EF/ACC assessments for three reasons. First, it still illustrates the appropriated carryingcapacity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s order of magnitude. Second, the EF/ACC assessment can easily be adjusted if amodified energy-land equivalence ratio or a more detailed energy analysis would be available.Third, as long as the same equivalence ratios are applied, EF/ACC remains a sufficiently precisecommon sustainability yardstick that can compare the relative merits of various options.For hydro-electricity, the land requirements can be estimated by adding up the land thatgets flooded by the damming, and dividing it by the annual electricity production. Furthermore,one could add the pasture claimed from forest land which is necessary to provide corridors forhigh voltage power lines. Vaclav Smil suggests productivities of 160-480 [Gj/haJyr] for lower-course dams (50-200 [MW] size), 1,500-5,000 [Gj/ha/yr] for middle and upper-course dams(including a 50% load factor), and 15,000 [Gjlhalyr] for alpine high-altitude dams (1991:193-194). In contrast, David Pimentel et a!. assess hydroelectric productivity at only 280 [Gj/halyr](Pimentel et a!. 1984 in Pimentel et a!. 1994:208). Michael Narodoslawsky et a!. estimate theproductivity of typical hydro power stations at about 1,500 [Gj/halyr] (1993:4.2) which stillexcludes the space requirements for power lines. Including the powerlines in the Canadian casewould reduce Narodoslawsky et a!. \u00E2\u0080\u0098s productivity for hydroelectricity to approximately 1,000[Gj/halyr].14This energy-land equivalence ratio of 1000 [Gj/ha/yr] which still leaves out other14 Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s electrical transmission lines measure about 153,000 kilometres (Energy, Mines and Resources, Canada1992:6 8). However, only 62 percent of the electricity production is hydro-electrical (Energy, Mines and Resources,Canada 1992:38). Assuming corridors of 50 metre widths and a total primary electricity production of 1,304 [Pj/yrj(Statistics Canada 1992:tbllb), the total land area appropriated would add up to (1,304E6 [OjIyrJ / 1,500 [Clj/halyr] +107impacts, such as impact on fisheries, could be used for EF/ACC calculations. The correspondingappropriated land areas would fall in the categories of built environment (flooded areas) andpasture (transmission corridors). However, at this point of the EF/ACC research, electricityconsumption is not yet included in the EF/ACC assessments.For fossil fuel produced electricity, the current EF/ACC approach uses the UnitedNations Statistical Office\u00E2\u0080\u0099s 30 percent efficiency assumption which translates the aboveequivalency ratio into a productivity of 30 [Gj/halyr] (World Resource Institute 1992:324).In comparison to fossil fuel, renewable energy sources promise high productivities.Preliminary analysis suggests for photovoltaic electricity a productivity of 100 to 500 [Gj/halyr](Winter et al. 1988 and calculations by Wada & Wackernagel, in Wada 1994), 430 [Gjlha/yr]according to Michael Narodoslawsky et al. (1993:4.2), or 1,300 [Gj/halyr] according to DavidPimentel et al. (Pimentel et a!. 1984 in Pimentel et a!. 1994:208). Other examples of renewableenergy production include sustainable selective stem cutting in moist areas which would produceabout 50 [Gjlhalyr} (Smil 1991:191), while wind generation in America\u00E2\u0080\u0099s windiest places mightscore up to 550 [Gjlhalyr] (Smil 1991:196-197). According to Vaclav Smil, well-designed low-temperature solar collectors (for domestic hot water applications) could achieve 10,000 to 30,000[Gj/halyr] (1991:198-199), while Michael Narodoslawsky and his colleagues estimate theirproductivity at 3,600 [Gj/halyr]62% * 153,000,000 * 50 /10,000 [ha] = 870,000 + 470,000 [ha] =) 1,340,000 [ha]. This reduces the productivityfor electricity to (1,304E6 [Gj/yr] I 1,340,000 [ha] =) 970 [Gj/halyr].15 Note that many of these applications such as photovoltaic cells, windmills or hot water solar collectors do notnecessarily require ecologically productive land.108Nuclear energy is not incorporated in current EF/ACC assessments. According to VaclavSmil, nuclear energy has low space requirements. In fact, including the complete fuel cycle(mining, processing of uranium ores, uranium enrichment, production of fuel elements,reprocessing of spent fuel, and storage of radioactive wastes), and assuming no accidents, itproduces an astonishing 500,000 to 750,000 [Gj/halyr] (Smil 1991:195-196), or 53,000[Gj/halyr] according to David Pimentel et a!. (Pimentel et a!. 1984 in Pimentel et a!.1994:208). 16 Whatever the right figure might be, the productivity of well-functioning nuclearpower plants seems. to exceed that of the most efficient ethanol production by two to threemagnitudes. However, the shattered popular trust in nuclear safety, the fact that peaceful use andmilitary applications are interwoven, and the seemingly unsolvable problem of radioactive waste-- which becomes an irresponsible burden for future generations-- suggest that nuclear poweris not a viable energy option today (Buitenkamp et a!. 1993:25).ii) Provision of built-up land. Paved-over, built upon, badly eroded or otherwisedegraded land is considered to have been \u00E2\u0080\u009Cconsumed\u00E2\u0080\u009D, as it is no longer biologically productive.This means that productivity is reduced for the future. To secure \u00E2\u0080\u009Cno net loss\u00E2\u0080\u009D, another areasomewhere on the planet that was degraded should be made productive again to compensate forthe lost ecologically productivity of the built-up land. Also, an additional debit could be chargedagainst such degraded lands by estimating the time, energy and material that would be required16 In the case of the Chernobyl plant, however, the productivity decreases to less than 20 [Gjlhalyr]. The \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbackof the envelope\u00E2\u0080\u009D calculation is as follows:Electrical production: with an assumed output of 1,000 [MW] electrical energy for the period of 20 years, thelife cycle production adds up to 631 million [Gj].Land occupation: the 1986 meltdown-induced contamination might have made unfit for human consumption 10percent of that year\u00E2\u0080\u0099s agricultural production in Europe. This would translate into 34 million hectares of agricultural land(or 10 percent of Europe\u00E2\u0080\u0099s and 2 percent of the Soviet Union\u00E2\u0080\u0099s agricultural land [one fifth of the Soviet Union was inEurope]) (World Resources Institute 1992:263).Result: the resulting productivity is 631E6 [Gj] I 34E6 [ha*yr] = 18 [Gjlhalyr], which does not yet includelong-term damages and damages to human beings.109to restore productivity. However, current EF/ACC assessments do not include this step.iii) Provision of water. In many regions of the world, the consumption of water for onehuman use compromises on another possible use of that water. Or it may be shipped in.Depending on where the water comes from, the EF/ACC analysis could either count theadditional land requirements to supplement productivity that dropped due to the lack of water;or calculate the energy requirements for transporting the water, and translate this energy intoan equivalent land area. Catchment areas for water should only be included in EF/ACCassessments if water collection is the only economic function this catchment area is used for;otherwise, it would lead to double counting.iv) Absorption of waste products. Nature has a limited capacity to absorb human-madewaste. What is not degraded and absorbed accumulates locally or is carried away by water orair, and might finally end up in the sea. Contaminated soil or polluted water and airsheds mayreduce nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity, or contaminate nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s products to an extent that they are not fitany more for human consumption. Or, the depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer might reducebioproductivity through increased UVB radiation levels (Rees 1990a, The UVB Impacts Reporter1994). For that loss of biological productivity, one could calculate a corresponding EF/ACCarea. However, at this point of the EF/ACC research (and with exception of CO2 sequestering)waste absorption and pollution are not included in the calculations. Even though there are somestudies available on the impact of pollution, they concentrate primarily on its associatedmonetary costs and can therefore not be generalized to biophysical damages (UPI 1991, GVRI)1994).v) Securing of biodiversity. As pointed out by conservation biologists, biodiversity is110threatened by the loss of wilderness area as well as by its fragmentation. There is an ongoingdebate on how much wilderness area must be set aside to secure ecological stability. EcologistEugene Odum suggests that a third of all eco-systems should be preserved to secure biodiversity.The Brundtland commission also proposed that at least 12 percent of the Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s land area shouldbe set aside with the explicit purpose of conserving ecosystems and species (WCED1987:147, 166).17Category h in the above land classification refers to the about 1.5 billion hectares ofuntouched forest ecosystems or forests that are close to their original state (Postel & Ryan1991:75). These ecosystems should not be harvested for the very reason that such harvests wouldlead to a net release of CO2. A second reason for preserving these ecosystems is their functionas biodiversity sanctuaries. In fact, these 1.5 billion hectares correspond to just 9 percent of theEarth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s terrestrial area-- about 17 percent of the ecologically productive land-- while providinghabitat to probably the bulk of the Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s biological diversity (Wright 199 1:293, WorldResources Institute 1992:262).4. THE MATRIXOnce the main consumption and land-use categories are defined, the connection betweeneach of the five (or more) consumption categories and each of the six land-use categories thatare available (categories a to fin Table 4.2) must be established. For this purpose, a matrix isused that links the human consumption (rows) with the land-uses (columns). Table 5.1 showsan example of this Land-Use - Consumption Matrix (Chapter V). Each of the 30 (=5*6) basiccells in the matrix converts a particular consumption item into its corresponding \u00E2\u0080\u009Cappropriated\u00E2\u0080\u009D17 This corresponds to about 2 billion hectares or 23 percent of the Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ecologically productive land.111land area.The rows are numbered from 10 to 60 -- of which the lOs are food, the 20s housing, the30s transportation, the 40s consumer goods, and the 50s, the services received. The 60scorrespond to the totals. The categories contain not only the immediate land-use of these goodsand services, but also the land needed to produce, maintain, and (where the data are available)absorb them. This amounts to (simplified) life cycle analyses of all major consumption items.For example, the housing category encompasses the land on which the house stands (includingthe necessary urban infrastructure), the land necessary to grow the house\u00E2\u0080\u0099s timber, and the landrequired for producing its heating energy.In correspondence with the classification in Table 4.2, the columns of the matrix areidentified with the letters \u00E2\u0080\u009CA\u00E2\u0080\u009D to \u00E2\u0080\u009CF\u00E2\u0080\u009D, each representing a type of land-use. More specifically,column A details the fossil energy consumed in the form of a land-equivalent. As discussedabove and in Appendix 1, an energy-land equivalence ratio of 100 [Gj/ha/yr] is used. ColumnB indicates the amount of degraded land or built environment that is occupied. Column Ccontains the garden area which is mainly used for vegetable and fruit production. Typically, thisland features the highest ecological productivity. Column D subsumes the crop land, and columnE the pastures for dairy, meat and wool production. Finally, column F includes the prime forestarea necessary to provide all the forestry products. The column TOTAL summarizes the landconsumption for each consumption category.For translating consumption into land-use, the global averages of ecological productivityper-hectare are used as standardized measurement units. This provides various advantages. First,it reflects realistically the link between local economic consumption and global ecological112production on which they draw. In fact, industrial urban communities only live to a small extentfrom local ecological productivity. Most of their goods and services are imported from otherregions on the globe. Second, having a globally-adjusted measurement unit makes internationalcomparisons possible and meaningful. Such comparisons are necessary as ecologicalsustainability in the context of the current global economy can no longer be achieved regionally,but has become a global concern. And third, it makes accounting easy while not distorting theaggregates. When comparing a population\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Ecological Footprint with locally available land, thislocal land area must be adjusted to represent the land area according to the global average inecological productivity. For example, if the local region contains land twice as productive as theworld average, then this land would count for double its area. If productive agricultural landwith double the average productivity is paved, then double the area (measured in average land)is lost for ecologically productive functions. Adding up all these regionally-adjusted availableland areas will add up to an area equal to the total available land on Earth.This calculation approach is static and does not depict the mechanism of accelerated landappropriation by industrial activities. As explained in the preceding chapter, EFIACC is merelyan ecological snapshot. However, when the task comes to analyzing changes over time, theEF/ACC of various points in history can be reconstructed which then will trace thisdevelopment. Also, in contrast to many other approaches, EF/ACC assessments do not startfrom detailed analyses that are dovetailed to a whole, but begins by analyzing aggregate data thatonly later are divided into more specific sub-components. This helps to get the magnitudes rightand to capture the indirect effects of consumption; factors which many of the more detailedapproaches have methodological difficulties incorporating.These calculations do not disregard the possibilities for technological improvements that113might substitute for some resource requirements. In fact, the Ecological Footprint of apopulation could be reduced by either decreasing the amount of their consumption (and therebydecreasing the embodied resource and services flow drawn from natural capital) or by using atechnology that allows the production of the same consumption with fewer of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s resourcesand services. The latter one is described as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdecoupling\u00E2\u0080\u009D economic activity from natural capitalrequirements. This emphasizes that EF/ACC does not extrapolate future dependences on naturalcapital flows of an economy, but rather becomes a yardstick for monitoring the progress of aneconomy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s dependences on nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s resource services, either through a reduction inconsumption, or through decoupling from these material flows.C. ADOPTING THE CALCULATION PROCEDURE TO SPECWICAPPLICATIONSAs EF/ACC can be applied to various scales (individual, household, region, nation,world), the first task is to define the population for which the carrying capacity appropriationshould be calculated. To make the results useful, they need to be compared to other EF/ACCresults. In some applications, an interesting comparison might be the difference between the sizeof a population\u00E2\u0080\u0099s EF/ACC and the land area that is available in the local region, or thedifference among Ecological Footprints associated with various lifestyles of that population.Estimating the Ecological Footprint of policies means to reveal the policy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s implicationson the resource consumption and waste generation practices of the affected population. Forexample, policy implications could be documented in terms of the additional (or reduced)Ecological Footprint that this policy makes necessary. To assess the EF/ACC increase due toa particular policy, the first step is to establish a list of all the policy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s possible direct and114indirect effects on resource consumption and waste generation. A useful question for thinkingabout these issues is how this policy might alter the lifestyles of the affected people. The nextstep is then to quantify each of these impacts. Adding up all the quantified impacts then givesthe increment in Ecological Footprint which is induced by this policy.This shows that EFIACC assessments procedures still need to be adjusted for every newapplication. In particular, new applications require the selection of systems boundaries and theidentification of indirect effects, both of which are subject to personal judgement and values.However, such assessments force the analysts to declare their judgements and values, and toreflect upon the magnitude of possible impacts.Also, the described calculation procedure has been left as simple as possible in order tocommunicate about magnitudes, rather than to obfuscate the analysis with percentage rangeconsiderations. On the other hand, there might be a concern that EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s focus on quantitativeanalysis might detract from qualitative issues. An EF/ACC analysis however, just provides aframework to point out the magnitude and connection between issues and does not substitute forfurther and more detailed qualitative analysis of these various issues.Alternatively, an input-output model could have been used to trace the embodied naturalcapital flows through various sectors of the economy. This might be a useful approach for morerefmed analysis and for gaining a better understanding of the intersectoral resource flows.However, such a detailed analysis is not necessary at this stage when the main purpose of theEF/ACC approach still is to visualize the impact of aggregate resource consumption and wastegeneration on the future availability of natural capital.115In summary, this EF/ACC framework and its calculation procedure are still coarse andgeneral, and have the potential to be methodologically refined, if deemed necessary.116ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF PEOPLE. THEIR CONSUMPTION AN]) THEIRTECHNOLOGY: EF/ACC APPLICATIONSThe purpose of this chapter is to show how the EF/ACC concept can be translated intoreproducible numbers, and how available official statistics and handbooks support suchcalculations. To achieve this, I document in this chapter one detailed EF/ACC calculation anddescribe other EF/ACC applications.A. THE APPROPRIATED CARRYING CAPACITY OF AN AVERAGECANADIAN11. THE PURPOSE OF THIS CALCULATIONThis application is to demonstrate the feasibility of EF/ACC calculations. The case ofcalculating the average Canadian\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Ecological Footprint is chosen because this application:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 can test the basic premises of the EF/ACC analysis. By comparing the Canadian\u00E2\u0080\u0099s EcologicalFootprint to globally available ecological productivity, it can expose whether, or to whatextent, natural capital is limiting the scale of human activities on the globe;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 can be executed with data that are available and can be found in sources such as internationaland national statistics, and agricultural, forestry and engineering handbooks; and,\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 is a stepping stone for further analyses as key relationships and baseline data are identified.This application provides a conservative approximation of how much of the Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099savailable land (in six exclusive land-use categories) is needed to produce the natural resourcesand services which the average Canadian presently consumes and to assimilate the waste which1 This application is based on my research for the TJBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities; inparticular, the work undertaken in conjunction with the Richmond Planning Department (Wackernagel et al. 1993).117he or she presently generates using prevailing technology.In other words, this EF/ACC application is calculated from the consumption perspective.This includes: direct household consumption, such as the items purchased by the consumer;indirect consumption, such as the goods and services received for free, or the consumption bybusinesses and government to provide the household\u00E2\u0080\u0099s direct consumption. These receivedservices include schooling, policing, governance or health care. Statistics on GNP and householdexpenditure patterns are used as data source for resource throughput.2. THE CALCULATION PROCEDUREEstablishing the land-use - consumption matrix builds on two tasks. First, the yearlyconsumption in all the five categories must be estimated, and second, the ecological productivityfor the six land-use categories must be determined. To keep the task manageable, this can bedone in an initial round of rough estimates of economic consumption and ecological productivity.To encourage other applications, to make the calculations transparent and transferable, and toallow comparisons with other areas in the world, World Resources Institute data are used whereever possible.The average Canadian\u00E2\u0080\u0099s consumption is impressive: his or her food consumption amountsto about 3,450 [kcal/cap/yr] of which 1,125 are animal products (FAO 1990b : tbllO6). Accordingto the World Resources Institute, Canadians occupy a total of about 55,000 km2 built-up land(World Resources Institute 1994:285). Also, the average Canadian drives a car 18,000 [kmj peryear, uses approximately 200 [kg] of packaging, spends around $2,700 on consumer goods andanother $2,000 on services (Statistics Canada 1989:36).118Every year, approximately 321 [Gj] of commercial energy2 are required per averageCanadian to provide all these goods and services (World Resources Institute 1992:3 14). Mostgovernment statistics provide a break-down of energy consumption by economic sector.However, using these statistics distorts the direct and embodied energy requirements ofhouseholds, because the industrial sectors do not produce for domestic consumption only, andsome of the consumption goods are not produced within the country. In the current EF/ACCapplications, import-export balances are only analyzed for the primary products of the forestry,agriculture, and commercial energy sector. For the other sectors, such as manufacturing andservice industries, an ecologically balanced trade is. assumed. In other words, it is assumed thatapart from these primary sectors, the embodied resources and energies exported are equal tothose imported, and that therefore the errors would cancel out.3To assess productivity, various sources are used. The trade and productivity figures ofthe UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are used to determine global averageproductivity for various crops. For ranching, the carrying capacities for pastures suggested byagricultural handbooks are used as productivity figures. The average forest productivity isassumed to be 2.3 [m/halyr] which corresponds to the average productivity of Canadian forests.This estimate is also close to the one used by the Dutch Friends of the Earth in their study onenvironmental space, which assumes a global average of 2 [m3/halyr] for timber productivity2 In current EF/ACC assessments, energy is accounted at the consumption level rather than at the level of primaryproduction.A more in depth EF/ACC study, however, will have to include an analysis of the trade balance in embodiedcarrying capacity. Such a study could build on Robert Smith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ecological-economic input-output analysis which showsthat the exported embodied CO2 corresponds to about 20 percent of the national CO2 emission (1993:85). Anotherexample is provided by Patrick Hofstetter who calculated a simplified energy trade balance for Switzerland (1992a).119(Buitenkamp et al. 1993:82) .\u00E2\u0080\u0098 As discussed above and in Appendix 1.1, CO2 sequestrationcorresponds to an energy productivity of 100 [Gj/halyr]. However, at this point, absorptivecapacities for waste and pollution (with the exception of C02) are not yet included in theEFIACC calculation. This underestimates the land-use requirements. Appendix 2 documents indetail the data sources and the calculations for each cell of the mathx.3. EXAMPLES OF TRANSLATING CONSUMPTION INTO LAND-USETo explain the mechanics of translating consumption into land-use this section providesthree examples.a) Example 1: fossil energy consumptionOuestion: How much ecologically productive land would be required per averageCanadian to sequester all the CO2 released by their consumption of fossil energy? Thiscorresponds to cell \u00E2\u0080\u009Ca60\u00E2\u0080\u009D in the consumption - land-use matrix (Table 5.1). \u00E2\u0080\u009Ca\u00E2\u0080\u009D stands for thematrix\u00E2\u0080\u0099s land-use column, \u00E2\u0080\u009C60\u00E2\u0080\u009D for its consumption row.on the one hand for Canada, the average mature forest contains 163 [m3/ha] of timber. Assuming a harvestrotation period of 70 years, this would result in a productivity of about 2.3 [m\u00E2\u0080\u0099Iha/yr]. This productivity correspondsalso to typical figures for the Annual Allowable Cut in Canadian public forests (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers1993:7-13). On the other hand, data compiled by Gregg Marland suggest that the world timber productivity wouldaverage 4.1 [m3/halyr] (1982:39). This is calculated from boreal productivities of 2.3 [mlha/yrl (corresponding to 33%of the global forest area), 3.3 [m\u00E2\u0080\u0099/halyr] for temperate forests (25 % of the area) and 6 [m\u00E2\u0080\u0099/halyr] for tropical forests(42 % of the area). However, these estimates are questionable, particularly those for the tropical forests. As of today,no reliable productivity data have been collected for these forests. hi fact, a study for the International Tropical TimberOrganization concluded that less than 0.1 percent of tropical logging was done on a sustained yield basis (Postel & Ryan1991:79). Another way to calculate average timber productivities is the use of carbon accumulation data. YoshihikoWada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s survey of the literature suggests a carbon absorption rate of 1.8 [t/halyr] (Wada 1994a). This corresponds toabout 4 [t/ha/yrj dry biomass of which a maximum of 25 percent might be merchantable timber. With an average densityof approximately 500 [kg/rn3]), this would correspond to about 4*0.25/0.5 = 2 [m3/halyr], which is precisely the figureof global average productivity of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cworking\u00E2\u0080\u009D forests used by the Dutch Friends of the Earth study (Buitenkamp et al.1993:82).120Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s commercial fossil fuel consumption amounted to approximately 7,269 [Pj] in l989.In 1989, 26.3 million people lived in Canada (World Resources Institute 1992:246). The energy-land equivalence ratio for fossil fuel is 100 [Gj/halyr] (Chapter IV and Appendix 1). Therefore,each Canadian would require...7,269 [Pj/yrl * 1,000,000 [GjIPj]\u00E2\u0080\u0094 = 2.76 [ha/capita]26,300,000 [Canadians] * 100 [Gjlhafyr]for sequestering the CO2 released by this fossil fuel.b) Example 2: forest area for paper consumptionQuestion: How much forest area is dedicated to providing fibres for paper that an averageCanadian consumes? This corresponds to the cells \u00E2\u0080\u009CflO\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cf40\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cf43\u00E2\u0080\u009D and some of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cf20\u00E2\u0080\u009D inthe matrix.Canadians consume about 244 kilogram of paper every year (Appendix 2.1: \u00E2\u0080\u009Cx43\u00E2\u0080\u009D). Currentlyin Canada, the production of each metric tonne of paper requires 1.8 [m3] of wood, in additionto all the recycled paper that reenters the processing input (Appendix 2.1: \u00E2\u0080\u009C172\u00E2\u0080\u009D). For EF/ACCanalyses an average productivity of 2.3 [m/ha/yr] is assumed. Therefore, the average Canadianrequires...244 [kg/cap/yr] * 1.8 [m\u00E2\u0080\u0099/t]= 0.19 [ha/capita]1,000 [kg/ti * 2.3 [m\u00E2\u0080\u0099/hafyr]of forests in continuous production to provide the fibres for his or her consumed paper.Here, it is assumed that the consumed commercial energy in Canada consist of fossil fuel (f) and electricity (e).The World Resources Institute claims a commercial energy consumption of 8,414 [Pj/yr] (= e+f in 1989. The samesource lists Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s energy requirements in \u00E2\u0080\u009CConventional Fuel Equivalent\u00E2\u0080\u009D as 11,087 [Pj/yr] (= 3.333e +(1992:3 16). This translates in an apparent electricity consumption of e= 1,145 [Pj/yrl and an apparent fossil fuelconsumption of f=7,269 [Pjlyr].121c) Example 3: urban environmentQuestion: On how much built-up land do Canadians live (including roads, residences,commercial and industrial areas, residential gardens and parks)? This should correspond to cell\u00E2\u0080\u009Cb60\u00E2\u0080\u009D.The World Resources Institute reports 5,500,000 hectares of build-up land in Canada(1994:285). Therefore, the average Canadian occupies...5,500,000 [ha]= 0.21 [halcapita]26,300,000 [Canadians]of built-up land for housing, roads, commercial and industrial areas, residential gardensand parks.4. RESULTS AND COMPARISONSThe figures in the consumption - land-use matrix (Table 5.1) report the land area (inhectares or [ha]) occupied to provide the current lifestyle of the average Canadian. The Canadianaverage per capita requirements add up to at least 4.28 [ha] of land, (2.34 [ha] of them for fossilenergy alone)6 -- which becomes the personal Ecological Footprint on which the averageCanadian citizen lives.6 As pointed out, hydro-electrical energy is not yet included in this calculation. A preliminary estimate for Canadacould be calculated as follows: Canada produced in 1991 1,111 [Pj] of hydro-electricity (World Resources Institute1994:333). At an equivalence ratio of 1,000 [Gj/ha/yr] (se Chapter IV) this would lead to an additional per capitaappropriation of (1,11 1E6 [Gj] / 1,000 [Gj/halyr] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] =) 0.04 [ha/cap/yr], which only includes floodedland and transmission lines, but no other environmental impact (such as on fisheries etc.).122Table 5.1: The consumption - land-use matrix for an average Canadian (1991)in [halcapita] a b c d e f TOTALecologically productive ENERGY DEGR. GARDEN CROP PASTURE FORESTland10 FOOD 0.33 0.02 0.60 0.33 0.02 1.3011 vegetarian 0.14 0.02 0.18 0.01? 0.3512 animal products 0.19 0.42 0.33 0.01? 0.9520 ROUSING 0.41 0.08 0.002? 0.40 0.8921 constrn.Imaint. 0.06 0.3522 operation 0.35 0.0530 TRANSPORTAT\u00E2\u0080\u0099N 0.79 0.11 0.9031 motorized private 0.6032 motorized public 0.0733 transp\u00E2\u0080\u0099n of goods 0.1240 CONSUMER 0.52 0.01 0.06 0.13 0.17 (1.89GOODS40\u00E2\u0080\u0099 packaging 0.10 0.0441 clothing 0.11 0.02 0.1342 furniture & appli. 0.06 0.03?43 books/magazines 0.06 0.1044 tobacco&alcohol 0.06 0.0445 personal care 0.0346 recreation equip. 0.1047 other goods 0.0050 SERVICES REC\u00E2\u0080\u0099D 0.29 0.01 0.3051 gov\u00E2\u0080\u0099t (+ military) 0.0652 education 0.0853 health care 0.0854 social services 0.0055 tourism 0.0156 entertainment 0.0157 bank/insurances 0.0058 other services 0.0560 TOTAL 2.34 0.21 0.02 0.66 0.46 0.59(0.00 = less than 0.005 thai or less than 50 [m2J, blank = probably insignificant;? = lacking data)ABBREVIATIONS (for calculations and data sources see Appendix 1 and 2)a) ENERGY = fossil energy consumed expressed in the land area necessary to sequester the corresponding CO2.b) DEGR. = degraded land or built-up environment.C) GARDEN = gardens for vegetable and fruit production.d) CROP = crop land.e) PASTURE = pastures for dairy, meat and wool production.t) FOREST prime forest. An average roundwood harvest of 163 [mVhaj { = Canadian average) every 70 years is assumed.123These land requirements also illustrate how much hinterland the dweller in industrializedregions appropriates to maintain his or her consumption. The Lower Fraser Valley, whichsurrounds Vancouver BC, can illustrate this insight. This region extends over 4,000 [km2] andhouses 1,700,000 people, which results in an average population density of 4.25 [people/ha].Assuming average Canadian consumption patterns and average ecological productivity, peoplein this region use over 18 times more land than there is within the region for food production(22,000 [km2]), forestry products (10,000 [km2]), and energy (40,000 [km2]).7The Netherlands offer an interesting comparison. The Lower Fraser Valley and theNetherlands share a similar population density. With an area of 34,000 [km2] and a populationof 15,000,000, the Dutch population density reaches 3.7 [people/ha]. The average Dutch personconsumes fewer resources than the average Canadian. But still, for food, forestry products andenergy alone, the Netherlands uses over 13 times more land than there is within the country,approximately 5,380 [km2]built-up area, 230,000 [1cm2] for food and forestry products, 210,000[km2Jfor energy (World Resources Institute 1994:269,285,333-335, Buitenkamp et a!. 1993, forcalculations see \u00E2\u0080\u009Ct60\u00E2\u0080\u009D in Appendix 2.1). These two examples demonstrate that industrial regionsextend much beyond the area of their immediate geography.As long as there is enough ecologically productive land available, local consumption thatexceeds local ecological production can be sustained by the productivity of other regions. Thisraises the question, however, whether there are other regions that can still accommodate thoseconsumption demands which are not covered locally. According to the World ResourcesInstitute, Earth provides 13.1 billion hectares of land uncovered by ice or water. Only 8.9 billion\u00E2\u0080\u009C Even if land in the Lower Fraser Valley was doubly as productive as that of the world average, the people in thisregion would still require nine times more land than there is locally available.124hectares of them are ecologically productive. They are composed of cropland, permanentpastures, forests and woodland. Of the remaining 4.2 billion hectares, 1.5 billion hectares areoccupied by large deserts (not including Antarctica) and 1.2 billion hectares by sparsely wooded,mostly semiarid areas (World Resources Institute 1992:262,286,292, Wright 1991:303). Theremaining 1.5 billion hectares include \u00E2\u0080\u009Cuncultivated land, grassland not used for pasture, built-onareas, wetlands, wastelands, and roads\u00E2\u0080\u009D (World Resources Institute 1992:268).8 However, aspointed out in Chapter IV, the 1.5 billion hectares of ecologically productive land that have beenleft untouched so far (various sources in Wada 1994a) should not be harvested because thisinterference would threaten biodiversity and would lead to a net release of CO2. This means thatonly 7.4 of the 8.9 billion hectares of ecologically productive land are actually available forhuman use.Since the beginning of this century, the ecologically productive land that is available ona per capita basis has decreased from close to 5 hectares to only 1.4 hectares in 1990, or 1.3today in 1994. In other words, the available per capita space is shrinking. At the same time, theEcological Footprint of people in many industrialized countries has expanded to over 4 hectares.This illustrates the fundamental conflict that humanity is facing: the ecological footprints ofaverage citizens in rich countries are exceeding the average available land by a factor of three(Table 5.1 and World Resources Institute 1992:262). In other words, if everybody on Earth livedlike today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Canadians, it would require three Earths to provide for that lifestyle. Consequently,due to biophysical constraints, not all of the 5.7 billion people on Earth today will ever be ableto live like today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Canadians-- let alone the 10 billion people expected by the year 2030.8 Assuming an average of 0.05 hectares of built environment (settlements and roads) per capita, this would add upto 0.3 billion hectares.125A rough assessment also shows that the current appropriation of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s resources andservices has exceeded Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s carrying capacity. The human requirements in four of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099sfunctions alone exceed nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s carrying capacity. Current agriculture occupies 1.5 billion [ha]of crop land and 3.3 billion [ha] of pasture. To continuously provide the current roundwoodharvest (including fire wood) would depend on a productive forest area of 1.7 billion [ha]. Tosequester the CO2 released by today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s fossil fuel combustion, an additional 3.0 billion [ha] ofecologically productive land would have to be set aside for this function alone (World ResourcesInstitute 1992:262,288,314-316, Wada 1994a). This adds up to a requirement of 9.5 billion [ha]as compared to 7.4 billion [ha] of available ecologically productive land. In other words, thesefour functions alone exceed nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s carrying capacity by close to 30 percent. This means thatthe current throughput associated with human activities depends on depleting the natural capitalstock.5. THE PRECISION OF EF/ACC ESTIMATESBecause the EF/ACC concept is a new approach, there are no data sets available whichalready contain all of the required information. Therefore, the data collection in Appendix 2relies on a wide variety of sources. When analyzing consumption items, often only monetarystatistics are readily available while biophysical information is lacking. Further, there is littleknown about the life cycles of consumer products; and when data on issues such as amountsconsumed or embodied energy and resource content are available, they are often not reliable asthey provide conflicting information. In fact, data in the literature can vary by orders ofmagnitudes rather than merely by a few percentages.There remain a few weak spots in the data provided in Appendix 2. For example, theenergy use of cars does not add up to the claimed energy consumption in the transportation126sector; energy intensities of consumer goods and services rely solely on estimates of one otherstudy (Hofstetter 1992a); the data on built-up environments in Canada are vague andcontradictory; and the crop areas listed in the FAO statistics (1990b), for producing the mainagricultural products in Canada, add up to only about half of the available Canadian crop land.Timber consumption for furniture relies on guesses. Clearly, the presented data set is only abeginning and needs to be improved. Every subsequent Ecological Footprint project willtherefore expand and improve these data.For every application, the necessary level of precision and disaggregation can be chosenby the user of the EF/ACC tool. It depends entirely on the effort put into developing thestatistical framework and gathering the data. A rough EF/ACC estimate can already be attainedwith existing data, and might be sufficiently sophisticated for preliminary analyses.As explained in Chapter IV and above, this approach is a simplified calculation of theaverage Canadian\u00E2\u0080\u0099s EF/ACC and provides conservative results, or a low estimate, of the totalarea necessary to sustain the current consumption patterns. We call this a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cconservativesimplification.\u00E2\u0080\u009D This means that however startling these results appear, they are actuallyconsistently conservative estimates of the resource flows and the productive land \u00E2\u0080\u009Cappropriated\u00E2\u0080\u009Dto sustain a given lifestyle.B. OTHER EF/ACC APPLICATIONSThe EF/ACC concept not only analyzes people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s average Ecological Footprint, but cananswer many other questions. This section introduces some other EF/ACC applications that arenow being undertaken, or that have already been completed. These applications include:127technology comparisons; issues pertaining to local, regional, national and international decision-making; social equity; and finally, public education and social behaviour. The purpose of thissection is to show how the EF/ACC has been adopted and applied by other scholars, whichindicates the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s versatility, growing acceptance, increasing popularity and efficiency as anheuristic tool for planning toward sustainability.1. TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTEF/ACC calculations can assess whether a new technology is more resource intensivethan the one it replaces. In other words, EF/ACC can compare the resource requirements of anew technology to the one being replaced for producing the same good or service.For example, EF/ACC can compare the total land requirements of two differentagricultural methods for producing a given quantity of food. The total area would include thedirectly farmed land as well as the land equivalent necessary to produce all the agriculturalinputs including heating. In fact, using the EF/ACC concept, Yoshihiko Wada compared twoagricultural technologies for tomato production -- namely, hydroponics and open-field growing.In contrast to the popular belief, hydroponic tomato growing does not increase ecologicalproductivity, but currently requires, in British Columbia, 10 to 20 times more EcologicalFootprint per kilogram harvested than does conventional open-field production (1993).Another example is the technology comparison of cars, buses and bicycles. An EF/ACCassessment documents that the land requirements of one person living five kilometres from workrequires 125 [m2] of ecologically productive land for bicycling, 300 [m21 for busing or 1520 [m2]for driving by car (Wackernagel et a!. 1993:48-49, adapted for CO2 approach). Most of theecologically productive land calculated for the cyclist is needed for growing extra food, while128most of the bus passenger\u00E2\u0080\u0099s and car driver\u00E2\u0080\u0099s land is required for CO2 sequestration.Currently, architecture student Hijran Shawkat at UBC uses the Ecological Footprintconcept for comparing housing options with different design, construction, operation and urbanlocation (1994).2. LOCAL AND REGIONAL DECISION-MAKINGSimilarly to technology assessments, EF/ACC analyses can evaluate the ecological impactof new projects and policies. For example, it can determine whether the introduction of newprojects, programmes, polices or budgets will reduce the population\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Ecological Footprint orincrease it.An obvious application is the calculation of municipal Ecological Footprints. In theCanadian context, multiplying the land-use of an average Canadian by the number of peopleliving in a particular municipality, is a crude method for understanding the magnitude of itsEcological Footprint. This assumes, however, that the average resident of that municipality livesthe same lifestyle as the average Canadian. A more accurate, but more time-consuming analysisof municipal EF/ACC requires understanding the differences between the lifestyle of the peoplein the particular municipality and the average Canadian. This difference is largely determinedby municipal income distribution and housing prices. Housing prices influence density, whichdirectly affects transportation requirements. For example, people in rural areas might earn lowerincomes than their urban peers. However, each dollar earned in a rural area representssubstantially higher purchasing power as far as housing is concerned. Also, geographicpeculiarities such as climate, remoteness, and settlement patterns influence people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s expendituresin the area of heating, food, and transportation.129While the above analysis is more focused on household choices, EF/ACC could also beused for assessing institutional choices. Economic development, transportation infrastructure, orzoning can have long-ranging impacts on the consumption of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services. For example, oneaspect of economic policies could be illuminated by looking at the resource intensity ofproduction: the EF/ACC tool could analyze the Ecological Footprint requirements per dollarincome that is locally generated as compared to a national average. On the infrastructure side,two EF/ACC assessments were conducted by students of the Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.They measured the EF/ACC impacts of proposed bridges. One study, conducted by GavinDavidson and Christina Robb, analyzed the implications of widening the Lions Gate bridge fromthree to five lanes (1994). This study, using conservative assumptions, concluded that due to achange in the settlement pattern induced by expanded transportation capacities, the appropriationof at least an additional 200 km2 of ecologically productive land would be prompted by the fivelane options. The second study, by David Maguire, Calvin Peters and Marcy Saprowich (1994),investigated the possible EF/ACC impacts of the proposed bridge to the Prince Edward Island.It concluded that such a bridge might lead to the additional appropriation of approximately16,000 ha or 160 km2 of ecologically productive land, an assessment which was based oneconomic projections from the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office in Ottawa.The question of how transportation, settlement and community economic developmentinitiatives impact on a municipality\u00E2\u0080\u0099s carrying capacity appropriation, and which municipalpolicies could be used to reduce this appropriation, has been explored by Graham Beck (1993),Tony Parker (1993), and Molly Harrington (1993) for the UBC Task Force on Healthy andSustainable Communities (1993). UBC student Susan Petersen analyzes the potential of urbangardening as a strategy for reducing Ecological Footprints (1994). In 1994, the Task Force isbuilding on that research, and is exploring the impact of urban density on the Ecological130Footprint by studying various municipalities in the lower Fraser Basin (Walker 1994).Even though the ratio between the Ecological Footprint area and directly occupied (urban)land is higher for densely inhabited settlement patterns, these dense settlements can lead toconsiderably lower per capita carrying capacity requirements. This is due not only to moreefficient land-use for housing and urban infrastructure, but also to the reduced need fortransportation and residential heat (Roseland 1992:111-115). For example, a recent study of theSan Francisco region found that the doubling of residential density cuts private transportationby 20 to 30 percent, while Newman reports differences in heating energy consumption betweengrouped and free-standing housing of up to 50 percent (Holtzclaw, and Newman in Roseland1992:122,113).In other ongoing research of the UBC Task Force on Healthy and SustainableCommunities with the City of Richmond, a framework for analyzing the social, economic, andecological sustainability implications of specific policies is being developed. The goal for thisresearch was to expand the often narrow impact assessments, and show the connections betweenthe issues, rather than fragmenting them, or only concentrating on a few aspects. Key questionswere established to capture the main social and economic issues, while the EF/ACC has beenproposed to address the ecological implications. This framework could become a framework inwhich sustainability impacts could be reported to City Council. Therefore, this generic reportstructure could be a useful tool for Council as it helps them link a variety of potential policyimplications. This framework builds on the potential key dilemma of sustainability: on the onehand, human(e) survival has to be secured (which requires ecological health and is measured byEF/ACC), while on the other hand, local livability needs to be enhanced (which requires socialhealth and economic health and might ultimately be conceptualized by the Social Caring Capacity131(SCC) tool). Using such a framework might stimulate ideas how both of these goals could beachieved simultaneously -- even though they are in conflict in most conventional policydecisions. The first test case dealt with the issue of large scale home improvement retail markets(UBC Task Force & City of Richmond 1994).Two groups in Europe are embarking on Ecological Footprint studies. One is housed atthe Institute for European Studies at the University of Trier, Germany. As an initial project,Ingo Neumann is developing an Ecological Footprint assessment of the Trier Region (1994).Others who have adapted the concept to their region include Dieter Steiner et al. at the SwissFederal Institute of Technology (1993), Dieter ZUrcher with Infras (1994), and Beat vonScarpatetti with Kulturprojekt Silvania (1994), all from Switzerland. Also, the CommonwealthHuman Ecology Council held a seminar on this topic in Manchester on July 23, 1994.3. NATIONAL AN]) INTERNATIONAL DECISION-MAKINGAn obvious application for the EF/ACC concept is its use as a sustainability indicator forecological health. For example, the Canadian State of the Environment Report (SOER) team isreconsidering a shift in its conceptual approach away from an environmental indicatorsframework (as prominently used in the 1991 report) towards a more integrated human ecologyperspective. For that purpose, they commissioned Cohn Duffield to develop and outline ideasfor incorporating the EF/ACC concept into the 1996 report (1993). Moreover, in separatereports for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and the Fraser BasinManagement Board in Vancouver, which were both prepared by Peat Marwick Stevenson andKellogg, the measurement of carrying capacity appropriation is proposed as a way to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cassesssustainability from an ecological worldview\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1993a: 13, 1993b:22).132EF/ACC assessments enable policy decision-makers to better understand long-termconstraints that national and international economies will have to face as the population and itsper capita consumption increases. For example, a comparison of a region\u00E2\u0080\u0099s size with thecarrying capacity demand of its population, illustrates the sustainability gap which is presentlybeing bridged by imports. This understanding raises questions about the role of trade, and theecological and political security of those places from which carrying capacity is beingappropriated.Rather than analyzing trade from a monetary perspective, EF/ACC provides a means tocompare the exported carrying capacity flows with the imported ones. This provides aframework for analyzing the long-term costs and benefits of trade and the potential sources ofconflict. Monetary analyses do not reveal anything about carrying capacity leakages, i.e.,countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 net losses in biological productivity. EF/ACC estimates, however, can disclose thebalance of traded carrying capacity and whether a country is running an ecological deficit. Afirst rough comparison of these biophysical trade balances is being assessed by a research projectof the UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities (Thomas 1994). Also, NickRobins at the International Institute for Environment and Development is developing a similarstudy for analyzing the impact of international trade and its implications for national policy(1994).Ecological deficits will become of increasing concern for those participants in the globaleconomy (typically low-income countries with resource industries) whose carrying capacity isbeing appropriated increasingly by other economies, i.e., whose carrying capacity leakages areencouraged by current terms of trade (Catton 1980:158, Rees & Wackernagel 1992, Rees1994a). However, trade in carrying capacity may also become a concern to those economies that133have become dependent on others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 carrying capacity and can shed light on the potentialintensification of local and global resource conflicts (see for example Arden-Clarke 1991,Homer-Dixon et al. 1993, Ophuls et al. 1992, Pimentel et al. 1992, and Ponting 1992).Such considerations challenge conventional economic development models (as promotedby the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund or the Harvard Institute for InternationalDevelopment9)on the ground that there might simply not be enough biophysical assets toprovide for such development; and that these models actually promote dangerous illusions andhide the conflict or competition between the consumption of the rich and that of the poor.4. SOCIAL EQUITYConventional economic development wisdom suggests that there is no material limit toeconomic expansion, and that poverty can be alleviated by increasing economic production.According to this perspective, people enjoying a high level of consumption would not have tocompromise their lifestyle in order that the poor improve their lives. In fact, some even claimthat the consumption of the rich could be beneficial to the poor as it would cause the economicgrowth to be accelerated.\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00C2\u00B0 However, the biophysical perspective challenges this view. Intoday\u00E2\u0080\u0099s context of a global carrying capacity that has already been exceeded, the use of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099sproductivity by one person preempts other people from using this same productivity. This meansthat the consumption by the rich can undermine the prospects for the poor.For example, in a letter to The Economist, Michael Roemer from this institute writes that \u00E2\u0080\u009Ceconomic growth isthe only mechanism through which the welfare of the poor can be improved in a sustainable way\u00E2\u0080\u009D (June 4, 1994:6), whilenot mentioning \u00E2\u0080\u0094 and probably ignoring -- that, in a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfull\u00E2\u0080\u009D world, such a strategy would require from rich countries togive up a large share of their resource consumption.10 For example, World Bank Vice President Lawrence Summers uses the phrase \u00E2\u0080\u009Crising tides do raise all boats\u00E2\u0080\u009D(in Goodland & Daly 1993:88). An early and influential advocate of this perspective was Walt Rostow with his book TheStages ofEconomic Growth (1960).134EF/ACC assessments demonstrate the competing uses of resources and their implicationsfor the future resource productivity of a given stock. With a given resource flows, one person\u00E2\u0080\u0099suse of the flow preempts the next person from using that same flow. In monetary terms, thisconstraint does not become apparent because monetary expansion does not seem to be bound byany biophysical limits. In the current global economy with increasingly interwoven internationalmonetary systems, those with strong financial assets gain easier and faster access to the limitedresource stocks of the world. The resulting conventional economic growth only leads to anaccumulation of human-made wealth, often in fewer and fewer hands, but does not replenish inany significant way the natural capital base on which this former wealth creation depends.Analyzing these economic inequities from the perspective of EF/ACC can provide usefulcomparisons of consumption internationally, as well as intra-nationally. It is useful because itcompares those aspects of consumption that are in direct competition with each other. It alsoreveals the ecological constraints and socioeconomic effects of any future social contractregarding the distribution of ecological services.For the purpose of illustrating the socioeconomic differentiation in carrying capacityappropriation, I analyzed the differences in Ecological Footprints of various Canadian incomegroups with the help of a simple spreadsheet-based calculation model. As a first cut, this modelassumes a) that there is no difference between net income and the expenditures, b) that a dollarspent in a given category would always appropriate the same amount of land, and c), that theincome is spent according to the average expenditure patterns of the corresponding incomecategory, or that Canadian consumption patterns are similar for a given income group.Therefore, this estimate reflects only the average Ecological Footprint of a particular incomecategory, while the Footprint of the individual household might vary according to that135household\u00E2\u0080\u0099s specific consumption pattern. Clearly, this is a coarse model, but it provides aninitial illustration of the differences in Ecological Footprints of various lifestyles within anindustrialized country.Preliminary results showed that in Canada the average person in the lower incomequintile uses about 3 hectares of ecologically productive land, while the average in the upperincome quintile consumes the ecological production of over 13 hectares per capita (Wackernagel1993a). These differences within Canada alone show how the carrying capacity appropriationby individual consumption levels can vary considerably. However, people at the higher incomelevel have more control over the size of their Ecological Footprint by choosing how to spendtheir money. People with the same income can either live on the suburban fringe, where theycan afford larger houses but need to commute long distances. Or, they can live in a densersituation closer to where they work themselves, thereby cutting down on heating andtransportation energy. Also, by buying locally produced and seasonal food, by shopping fororganic food, by investing in insulation rather than spending on heating for their accommodation,or by paying for music lessons rather than financing fast cars, the Ecological Footprint per dollarspent can be decreased. Some of these aspects are being analyzed by Lyle Walker (1994).5. SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND PUBLIC EDUCATIONThe simple and heuristic aspect of the EF/ACC tool makes the ecological requirementof sustainability accessible. This underlines the concept\u00E2\u0080\u0099s potential for public debate andeducation. In fact, the concept has been presented to a variety of audiences ranging from highschool children to environmental ministers. The Sea to Sky outdoor school in Gibsons BC hasintegrated the concept into its programs. Participatory outdoor activities include: experiencingone hectare of ecologically productive land and roughly assessing its productivity; visualizing136the relationship between human consumption and ecological production; tracing back the originof food and goods; facing the competing uses of nature and the socioeconomic determination ofEF/ACC sizes; and, experimenting with low-Footprint lifestyle choices. Another educationalinitiative was prepared by ESSA and the BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in theform of a teacher\u00E2\u0080\u0099s guide to the State of the Environment report (1994). An entire chapter isdevoted to the EF/ACC concept. Calculation examples focus on the food section of theEcological Footprint.The EF/ACC concept has been integrated into various professional and academiceducation efforts, including various planning and resource management courses (PLAN 504,PLAN 425 at The University of British Columbia, and REM 642 at the Simon FraserUniversity, Burnaby, BC). There has been a growing demand for a simple documentation of theconcept that caters to community activists and planners. This was addressed by the UBC TaskForce\u00E2\u0080\u0099s development and production of a visually supported, simply worded and action orientedbrochure explaining the concept (Wackemagel 1993a). Also, the New Society Publishers haveasked William Rees and me to write an upbeat, accessible and richly illustrated book on theEF/ACC concept (1994 forthcoming).Various events and institutions have used the concept as an integrative framework. Forexample, the New Catalyst newsletter, which was published for the Vancouver Greening ourCities conference, opened its discussion on sustainable communities with a lead article on theEcological Footprint concept (1994). The David Suzuki Foundation introduced in its newsletterthe Ecological Footprint as a framework for the institute\u00E2\u0080\u0099s activities (1992). Similarly, theEF/ACC concept was an integral part of the successful UBC application for Tri-Council GreenPlan Funding of which the UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities is a137member. On the more artistic side, the Precipice Theatre from Banff Alberta, is planning to usethe EF/ACC concept in their performances on Eco-Restoration and Exchange (Funk 1994).Many of the presented applications were initiated by the UBC Task Force on Healthy andSustainable Communities. However, more and more of them are being developed independentlyof the UBC Task Force, mainly in Europe and North America.138IL EXPLORING EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099S USEFULNESS FOR PLANNING TOWARDSUSTAINABILITYThe primary purpose of this chapter is to explore how various actors in the public domainperceive the usefulness of the EF/ACC tool. Usefulness of a planning tool means that peoplewant to use it. More specifically in the context of sustainability, it refers to the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s qualitiesof communicating sustainability challenges, assisting in framing the debate, inspiring people\u00E2\u0080\u0099sinterest (and participation) in the debate, and finally, allowing researchers to analyze people\u00E2\u0080\u0099sperception and understanding of sustainability issues. In short, the EF/ACC tool is useful if itmakes people more effective in their task to plan toward sustainability.Testing the usefulness of the EF/ACC tool is achieved by interviewing those in the publicdomain all of whom, by their daily decisions, influence society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s sustainability. The secondarypurpose of this chapter involves determining the utility of this questionnaire-based interviewseries as an heuristic device to raise people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s understanding of the sustainability crisis and itsdilemmas, to identify their blockages against required action, to encourage public and privateaction, and to challenge people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s behaviour. Thereby, this research becomes in itself yet anotherEF/ACC application.A. MEASURING \u00E2\u0080\u009CUSEFULNESS\u00E2\u0080\u009D1. CHOOSING INTERVIEWING AS THE RESEARCH METHODEvaluating a planning tool cannot be based entirely on theory but must be grounded inempirical testing. Even though sound theory may build on synthesized experience, it cannotlegitimize the utility or prove the effectiveness of practical applications. It merely provides aframework for organizing thoughts and for supporting design processes through the provision139of information about possible mechanisms and barriers -- and warnings about potentialdifficulties. Therefore -- and this is further explained in Section 3 -- this research used the theoryabout planning tools only to inform the development of the EF/ACC tool. In contrast, testinga planning tool requires not only applying it to examples as done in Chapter V, but alsoexposing it to potential users so they may examine the effectiveness of the tool. Ultimately, thetool is only useful if the public and practitioners perceive it as such.Such research requires tapping into people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s experiences and conceptions, and examiningthe meanings that they attach to these experiences. Methods to do this could include reviewingliterature, assessing institutional and personal documents, observing behaviour or surveyingpopulation samples. However, if the purpose is to explore how people interpret theirexperiences, how they come to their conclusions and how they translate these conclusions intoaction, interviews become a necessary avenue of such an inquiry (Seidman 1991:4). Not to askpeople directly would impoverish the research because people can talk and think. In fact, DanielBertaux points out that unlike a star, a molecule or a lever, \u00E2\u0080\u009C...if given a chance to talk freely,people appear to know a lot about what is going on...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (in Seidman 1991:2). Clearly, interviewsare much richer than observations, as the interview participants not only expose their ownbehaviour and thought, but can reflect and report on experiences of many other people thatinfluenced and shaped their own thinking.However, this interview research is not the first empirical test of the EF/ACC tool.Throughout the research, many aspects of the tool were adapted to accommodate suggestionswhich I gathered through evaluation questionnaires after lectures (UBC, Simon Fraser140University, Sustainable Communities Workshop #2 1993),\u00E2\u0080\u0099 and other comments received duringmy work with, inter alia, the UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities(background research, review of the draft handbook2), the City of Richmond (presentations,workshops, tool development), the Indonesian Ministry of Population and Environment(workshops and seminars), Sea to Sky outdoor education (curriculum design), and various publicpresentations. Now, the task is to examine the matured version of the EF/ACC tool moresystematically.2. ESTABLISHING TWO SCALESTo assess the usefulness of the EF/ACC tool for potential users the interview needs ameasurement procedure that can determine people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s understanding of, and commitment to, the1 The reactions that I received orally or those voiced in the various written workshop and presentation evaluationsthat I collected over the last four years include concerns about:the concept of nature and its role for supporting human activity (misconception due to too narrow interpretation of\u00E2\u0080\u009Cresources\u00E2\u0080\u009D referring mainly to commercial industrial inputs such as mercury, aluminum, or fossil fuel ratherthan including all material requirements that support human activity I ignoring the connections between nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s\u00E2\u0080\u009Cresource\u00E2\u0080\u009D production, waste absorption and maintenance of life-support services I confusion between use ofnature and degradation of nature I narrow interpretation of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenvironmental impact\u00E2\u0080\u009D as pollution or urban airquality I confusion between space and productivity);the ambivalence ofthe concept\u00E2\u0080\u0099r name (the term \u00E2\u0080\u009Cappropriated\u00E2\u0080\u009D is confused with \u00E2\u0080\u009Cappropriate\u00E2\u0080\u009D / the claim that \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccarryingcapacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D is an outdated concept / \u00E2\u0080\u009Cecological footprint\u00E2\u0080\u009D is interpreted as the land that is destroyed rather thanthe land that is used. In our presentations, William E. Rees and I have also experimented with other names suchas: human pasture; an economy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s pasture, land base or habitat; Hicksian capital; personal planetoid);weaknesses of the tool c method (level of aggregation / global applicability, e.g., comparability to other lifestyles suchas the traditional Innuit culture I inclusion of fossil energy I definition of a region / inadequate representationof mineral resources I exclusion of wilderness, the sea, fresh water resources, pollution and environmentaldestruction I promotion of anthropocentrism and \u00E2\u0080\u009Cresourcism\u00E2\u0080\u009D / approach static rather than dynamic);the choice of the measurement unit (using a biophysical unit is no different than using monetary units I land does notrepresent human preferences I why choosing land and not energy, eMergy or essergy as measurement units Iland can have double functions which will lead to double-counting I and the ecological productivity of landvaries a lot -- some not being productive at all);the disconnection between the EF/ACC tool and \u00E2\u0080\u009Creal world\u00E2\u0080\u009D planning (OCPs do not support global thinking / EFIACCconsideration are outside of the planning mandate / does not address the incentive to become sustainable -- or,reverse, how to overcome the \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Common Pools\u00E2\u0080\u009D I is a naive interpretation of economic constraints/ provides no direct link to local planning I is an ivory tower concept); and,the interpretation of the implications (EF/ACC represents a doomsday scenario I is normative / ignores technologicalpotentials and human ingenuity I supports parochialism).2 See Appendix 3.1.141tool -- in essence, their support for the tool. Determining people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s support for the tool alsorequires knowing where people stand in the sustainability debate as compared to thesustainability interpretation which I proposed in Chapter II of this thesis. To measure people\u00E2\u0080\u0099ssupport of the tool and perspective on sustainability, I established two simple, progressive scales.These scales map people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s perception of sustainability and support for the EF/ACC concept, andare summarized in Table 6.1. Both scales are organized along a list of statements each of whichis a more stringent subset of its preceding statement (the statement with lower ordinal value, i.e.,i is a subset of i-i). The scale measures at which point the participants disagree for the first timewith one of the increasingly narrow and specific statements. The participants are classified atthe scale point of the statement with which they agreed last.Table 6.1: Scales for measuring people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s perspectives on sustainability and support forthe EF/ACC conceptScale for measuring people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Cinterpretation of sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D1. I am interested in sustainability2. sustainability is important3. sustainability requires that natural capital not decrease4. some regions are not sustainable (e.g., the South, a particular local region, etc.)5. humanity as a whole is not sustainable (i.e., global carrying capacity is exceeded)6. industrial countries must significantly reduce their resource consumption7. sustainability is about me8. I try to \u00E2\u0080\u0098live\u00E2\u0080\u0099 sustainabilityScale for measuring people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Csupport for the EF/ACC concept\u00E2\u0080\u009D1. I understand the EF/ACC concept2. EF/ACC is a first step, but it is not comprehensive or accurate enough\u00E2\u0080\u00993. EF/ACC might be useful for some applications4. EF/ACC should be used by governments, agencies, scholars or others5. I intend to use the EFIACC concept as an argument in discussions6. I intend to promote, present or write about the EF/ACC concept7. I intend to apply the EF/ACC conceptThe negation of this statement could mean that the EF/ACC concept is perceived either to be neutral in its impactor misleading in its representation of reality. In fact, the key informant from my interview series classified in thiscategory felt that the EF/ACC concept was misleading.142One scale plots the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 concordance with the biophysical interpretation ofsustainability perspective as outlined in Chapter II. The scale starts from the most generalsustainability concerns (which corresponds to people showing interest in sustainability issues)and becomes gradually more specific by testing whether people accept the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstrong sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009Dcriterion, whether they acknowledge global overshoot and finally, whether they assume personalresponsibility. The higher the number, the better the participant\u00E2\u0080\u0099s concordance with thesustainability perspective presented in Chapter II. For example, a person would be at scale point\u00E2\u0080\u009C4\u00E2\u0080\u009D (\u00E2\u0080\u009Csome regions are not sustainable\u00E2\u0080\u009D) if he or she felt that sustainability is important, that itrequires preserving natural capital, and that indeed some regions are not sustainable as theyover-exploit their natural capital; however, he or she would not perceive the sustainability crisisas a global problem, but might identify it as a problem pertinent only to the overpopulatedSouth, or to a particular region they know.The second scale represents the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 level of support for the EF/ACC tool andbuilds on a simple classification of the learning process: encountering the concept, learning it,understanding it, accepting it, supporting it and, finally, committing to it. Table 6.1 documentsthe various levels of support for the EF/ACC tool, \u00E2\u0080\u009C1\u00E2\u0080\u009D indicating no and \u00E2\u0080\u009C7\u00E2\u0080\u009D the strongestsupport.3. IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BARRIERS TO THE EF/ACC TOOLOnce the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 perceptions of sustainability and support for the EF/ACC tool ismapped, the second task is to explore their reasoning for reaching these conclusions, so as tounderstand their motivation and to assess their effectiveness in translating this knowledge intoaction. Discovering how people arrive at their conclusions and how their thinking is influencedby the EF/ACC concept reveals shortcomings of the EF/ACC tool, which is valuable143information for making the tool more effective.Many of the potential shortfalls or necessary key characteristics of such a planning toolcould be similar to those of indicators whose potential weaknesses are identified by the indicatorliterature. These potential weaknesses and key characteristics include various procedural andsubstantive aspects:Substantive requirements of indicators mentioned in the literature include the necessityfor relevance and accuracy (Bregha et al. 1993, Gosselin eta!. 1993, Henderson 1991:146-190,Hodge & Taggart 1992: 19-21,Appendix 1, Peat Marwick 1993a:50-53). Applying these insightsto planning tools means: effective tools for sustainability should address key concerns andadequately represent ecological realities and economic structure. For example, in the case ofEF/ACC, the planning tool must show how the over-use of ecological productivity is a keyfactor in sustainability and how this relates to economic activities. Also, the tool must buildconfidence in its accuracy when representing the ecological constraints for human activities.Chapter III addresses these questions on a theoretical basis by discussing EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099scompatibility with thermodynamic and ecological principles (laws of thermodynamics, Liebig\u00E2\u0080\u0099slaw of the minimum, food chain efficiencies and energetic flows, photosynthetic conversion) andwith economic conditions (household, government and firm consumption, natural capitalrequirements, definition of economic and ecological efficiency).Process requirements of indicators addressed in the literature include the need forconsistent, simple and clear data gathering and processing methods, and for easy and accessiblepresentation, all of which are preconditions for building trust and encouraging participation(Anderson 1989, Bregha et a!. 1993, Carley 1981, Carr-Hill & Lintott 1986, Davis 1993,144Gosselin eta!. 1993, Henderson 1991:146-190, Hodge&Taggart 1992: 19-21,Appendix 1, Innes1990, Lawson 1991, Peat Marwick 1993a:50-53, Simonis 1990:77-95). Johan Galtung put theprocess requirements for indicators simply by stating provocatively that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...an indicator whichanyone with five years of schooling cannot understand within five minutes is not an indicator,but an instrument of control...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (in Simonis 1990:90). Similarly, to be effective and useful,planning tools must communicate well, and need to be clear and sufficiently simple. Also, to beeffective, such tools need to find acceptance from across different political camps and academicperspectives in order to facilitate the \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccross-paradigm\u00E2\u0080\u009D communication. By only speaking to oneworldview and excluding another one, it would become a counter-productive tool as it wouldentrench the differences.However, rather than testing the EF/ACC tool according to a pre-defined set ofevaluation criteria identified by the literature, the approach chosen here is to expose the conceptdirectly to potential users and let them decide. These people then can judge how useful the toolis for them, independent of predefined narrow categories that might constrain their thinking andmay not be relevant for this case. On the other hand, if the theory on substantive and proceduralrequirements covers the ground effectively, the interview participant might come up with thesame criteria. In fact, looking back, the participants addressed similar points as the literature,but also came up with concerns that more narrow criteria might have missed -- such as the needto provide more examples, to explicitly discuss the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s assumptions, and to be more carefulabout the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s psychological implications. In short, rather than measuring whether the toolfulfils pre-defined, specific, theoretically derived requirements (such as clarity, inclusiveness,Further literature that examines the usefulness of indicators for political decision-making include Beckerman(1980), and Daly and Cobb (1989) who analyze surveyed indicators in essay form, and the Caracas Report (1990), Choo(1980), Hardoy (1980), Innes (1980) who evaluate their usefulness by examining case studies.145data availability or compatibility), this approach for testing the planning tool is more open andcomprehensive by documenting key informants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 reaction and exploring the reasons that leadthem to their conclusions.4. SELECTING KEY INFORMANTSThe purpose of this qualitative interview research is to document EF/ACC usefulness asjudged by decision-makers and potential users. This approach provides a probabilistic explorationof dominant thinking about, and reactions, to the EF/ACC tool and the questions it raises. Toensure the documentation of a wide range of perspectives and experiences, key informants forthe interviews are selected in accordance with what Janice Morse or Michael Patton call criticalcase sampling (Morse 1994:229, Patton 1990:174). This means a deliberate selection of diversepeople in order to cover a broad spectrum of possible perspectives.To cover the dominant perspectives held by people who shape public decision-making andto capture their views and insights on the usefulness of the EF/ACC tool, I targeted seven keyinformants in three main groups for my interview research (or a total of 21 participants). Thesegroups who represent major actors in the public domain are:a) administrators and planners,b) business people and economists, anda) community activists and local politicians.\u00E2\u0080\u009CAdministrators andplanners\u00E2\u0080\u009D includes those who work for a government institution. Thisfirst group of administrators and planners is chosen because an important original intention whendeveloping the tool was to support municipal governance bodies in their planning towardsustainability. Interviewing this group reveals whether the EF/ACC concept could assist them146in their daily tasks and shows how they would use the tool. Interviews with this group alsoshould point out how the tool could be improved to make it more suitable for municipalplanning.\u00E2\u0080\u009CBusinesspeople\u00E2\u0080\u009D refer to those who make their living selling products or services; while\u00E2\u0080\u009Ceconomists\u00E2\u0080\u009D are those who teach economics or provide economics advice. Business people andeconomists are an important target group because they are one of the most influentialprofessional groups in the political decision-making process. Many business people seethemselves as proponents of sustainability. The Club of Rome, environmental initiatives by theWorld Bank (as reported by their Environment Bulletin), the UN based Business Council forSustainable Development (chaired by Swiss industrialist Stephan Schmidheiny, who summarizedthe Council\u00E2\u0080\u0099s findings in the 1992 report Changing Course) or the bi-annual Vancouver GLOBEconferences (initiated in 1990) are manifestations of this perspective. Also, many economistspoint proudly to the fields of resource and environmental economics, which claim to promotesustainability. In fact, many in this group identify the lack of economic mechanisms as a rootcause of environmental degradation (The Economist, Block 1990, Pearce et a!. 1989:153-172,Weder 1994).On the other hand, mainstream economists and business people are often attacked bythose outside their community for promoting a worldview which supports unsustainable lifestyles(Suzuki 1994, Jacobs 1993, Daly 1977/1991, Rees 1990b). This stark contrast makes the groupof \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people and economists\u00E2\u0080\u009D particularly interesting when analyzing sustainability. Thismay help explore whether the EF/ACC concept can actually bridge the paradigm \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmoat\u00E2\u0080\u009Dbetween the ecological (or biophysical) woridview and the economic (or monetary) worldview,i.e., between the \u00E2\u0080\u009Climits to growth\u00E2\u0080\u009D and the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgrowth of limits\u00E2\u0080\u009D paradigms (Rees & Wackernagel1471992). It may also help to identify where understanding of sustainability diverges and whetherthere is room for fruitful communication about possible sustainability objectives between thisgroup and other sectors of society.Furthermore -- and perhaps most importantly -- rather than preaching to the converted,the EF/ACC concept should be able to engage those with the expansionist \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgrowth of limits\u00E2\u0080\u009Dperspective in the biophysically oriented sustainability debate. This is possible if the concept cansuccessfully and constructively challenge these people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s assumptions about wealth creation anddevelopment strategies. Only if EF/ACC assists in constructively engaging this segment ofsociety will it be truly effective in building consensus and fostering the necessary wide supportfor developing sustainability.Finally, \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccommunity activists and local politicians\u00E2\u0080\u009D are interviewed, because they leadthe political debate at grass-roots level and often initiate social change. Therefore, this researchneeds to explore how the EF/ACC tool could assist them in conceptualizing the sustainabilitydilemmas and in explaining the necessity for change. Also, such research allows us to estimatetheir interest in applying the tool for monitoring progress toward sustainability or assessingdevelopment and policy options on their sustainability impact.However, the most important consideration is that testing the tool with these diversegroups provides an opportunity to identify common ground and could reveal whether the toolhas the potential to ease communication between these groups or whether each of these groups,by identifying a separate set of the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s weaknesses, would demonstrate a mutually exclusiveand irreconcilable perspective on sustainability.148In addition to interviewing well-informed and articulate people from three different butinfluential groups, further selection criteria for ensuring a broad variety of views consisted of:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 diversity in academic backgrounds, job positions and responsibilities;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 gender representation (at least two female key informants in each group);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 varying levels of previous exposure to the EF/ACC concept ranging from people who I hadworked with (or who had attended UBC Task Force on Healthy and SustainableCommunities workshops) to others we had not contacted before and, most likely, had notheard about the EF/ACC concept before the interview; and,\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ethnic representation.As geographic boundaries, I chose those of the UBC Lower Fraser Basin EcosystemStudy, since my research with the UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communitieswas a component of this Ecosystem Study. Further, to build bridges with other research in theEcosystem Study, and to use my interviews as a means of involving potential communityparticipants in the Ecosystem Study, I asked Michael Healy, Principal Investigator of the studyto provide me with contacts. In fact, over half of my interview contacts were suggested by him.I approached a total of 26 people for the interviews. Only five of them were not able tojoin, which left me with 21 participants, or seven for each group. Those five who could notparticipate were either too busy, out of the country, retired, or felt that somebody else in theirorganization would be better suited for the interview. However, three of these five peoplesuggested another person to approach. Recruiting women was difficult as they occupy fewersenior positions than men, and I was unable to achieve any significant ethnic representation. Infact, 19 of the 21 key informants were of European descent, and two-thirds were born inCanada. This lack in ethnic representation could be seen as a weakness of this interview process,149particularly when it is a widely held concern that ethnicity influences the way environmentalissues are perceived -- a concern which was also addressed by some of the key informants (seealso Pau 1994, Greening Our Cities conference 1994).To test whether the sample led to a certain saturation which would be indicated byrecurring themes, I interviewed seven (rather than five) in each of the three groups, with twowomen in each group. The 21 key informants interviewed are listed in Appendix 3.2.The key informants represented a large variety of backgrounds such as architecture,banking, biology, community development, economics, engineering, geography, law, planningand political science. They work for federal, provincial and municipal agencies andgovernments, private consulting firms, industries, developers, universities, foundations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), \u00E2\u0080\u009Cthink tanks\u00E2\u0080\u009D, or farms. Most of them hold senior orexecutive positions in their organizations. All of them were familiar with the sustainabilitydebate. Eight of them had never heard of the EF/ACC concept before, but only one of the eightwas from the community activist group. Five had already referred to the EF/ACC concept intheir work; four independently, that is, uninvolved with me or the UBC Task Force on Healthyand Sustainable Communities, before the interview.5. DEVELOPING AN INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRETo capture the key informants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 understanding of sustainability and support for theEF/ACC tool, and to identify how the EF/ACC tool could assist them in more effectivelytranslating their sustainability concerns into action, the interview process must be carefullydesigned. On the one hand, it needs structure to cover all the necessary issues in a reasonableamount of time, but on the other hand it should also provide enough flexibility for discussions150initiated by the key informants.To test the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 understanding of sustainability and the support for the EF/ACCconcept, a series of questions was developed that gradually moves from more general statementsand issues to more specific ones. Both understanding and support were explored from differentperspectives throughout the interview.The interview was simply structured. In the first part, I established a short personalprofile of the participant. This profile documented formal educational background, extent ofpolitical concerns, familiarity with the sustainability debate, job responsibility and social context.I explored the scope of political concern by asking them to rate the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cimportance\u00E2\u0080\u009D of 14 nationalpolitical issues (interview question 1.3, Appendix 3.3). Three of these 14 issues coveredecological concerns, while six were social and five economic. Furthermore, to test theparticipants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 level of altruism, the last two issues covered political concerns which could directlybenefit them.The questions about the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 personal profile led into the second part of theinterview which focused on their understanding of sustainability and their support for theEF/ACC tool. This included asking about direction for sustainability action and research steps,and how to overcome social barriers. To do this, the interview proceeded along the two scalesintroduced above and advanced on both simultaneously to maintain a logical flow. Table 6.2shows this parallel progression. Appendix 3.3 contains a copy of the questionnaire used for theinterviews. In the following, I will briefly explain the intent behind this series of questions.151Table 6.2: Structure of the interviewSupporting the EF/ACC concept: I Understanding sustainability:Testing whether the key informant...knows about sustainabilityhas participated in sustainability initiativesunderstands the EF/ACC conceptaccepts the ecological condition of sustainabilityaccepts the socioeconomic condition of sustainabilityaccepts the EF/ACC conceptsupports the EF/ACC concepthas identified strategies for achieving sustainabilityassumes responsibility for achieving sustainabilityshows commitment to apply the EF/ACC conceptDo they know about sustainability, and have they participated in sustainabilityinitiatives?I explored the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 familiarity with sustainability by asking about the books,articles or TV programs that influenced their thinking on sustainability issues, and aboutactivities towards achieving sustainability in which they have participated.Do they understand the concept?After giving the participants time to read a popular explanation of the EF/ACC conceptconsisting of the first four pages of the UBC Task Force\u00E2\u0080\u0099s brochure on \u00E2\u0080\u009CHow Big Is YourEcological Footprint?\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Wackernagel 1993a, copy in Appendix 3.3), I asked them to evaluatethe brochure, and to re-phrase the concept (question 2.1). Re-phrasing the concept allowed meto test the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 factual understanding of the concept. In case of misinterpretation, I152clarified the Ecological Footprint definition. This had two purposes. On the one hand, it madesure that the participant started the interview with a clear understanding of the concept. On theother hand, it documents possible misunderstandings and indicates how well the brochurecommunicates the EF/ACC concept.Do they accept the ecological and the socioeconomic condition of sustainabifity?I then tested in the interview, how participants interpreted sustainability and whether theyfelt that nature is being overused (question 2.2), whether they spontaneously recognized humandependence on nature (question 2.3), and whether they agreed with the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstrong sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009Dinterpretation (question 2.4a). In addition, I asked whether they perceived industrializedcountries to be massive overconsumers with an obligation to reduce their resource consumption(question 2.4b). As a cross-check, I later asked the question whether they believed that in spiteof the current debt load, Canada could afford \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainabillty\u00E2\u0080\u009D (question 2.6).Do they accept the concept?Next, I asked the participants to judge EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s effectiveness in representing theecological dimension of the sustainability dilemma (question 2.5 and 2.8). The first questionfocused on the concept\u00E2\u0080\u0099s method and its capability to communicate, while the second oneaddressed its conceptual accuracy. I used both questions to stimulate more open discussions inwhich a wide variety of concerns could be addressed, rather than focusing on the actual questionasked. To examine how the concept supports the conversation about sustainability and whetherit is a helpful learning tool, I asked the participants if the interview changed their perspectiveon sustainability (question 2.10).153Do they support the concept?I tested the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 passive support for the EF/ACC concept by exposing them tosix different applications (question 2.7). These EF/ACC applications included: communicatingsustainability to the general public, informing about sustainability impacts of individual lifestyleand business decisions, supporting sustainability oriented community activism, analyzingsustainability impacts within municipal planning, indicating national sustainability, and framingsustainability education. If required, I gave examples of such applications.Have they identified strategies for achieving sustainabifity?In section 2.9, I explored a series of issues. First, by asking about strategies for societyto achieve sustainabiity, I cross-checked the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 interpretations of sustainability andtested to what extent the participants have thought already about the sustainability crisis\u00E2\u0080\u0099implication for action. By exploring perspectives on how to achieve sustainability, I hoped toshed light on possible connections between personal commitment to promote sustainability andthe feeling that there are options and choices for this. I also hoped to generate insights abouthow the EF/ACC concept could assist in overcoming social and perceptual barriers tosustainability (as defined in this thesis), and would give participants another opportunity to bringup other issues about sustainability or the EF/ACC concept which were not covered elsewherein the interview.Do they assume responsibifity for achieving sustainabifity?In the second part of section 2.9, I turned the discussion to the personal level of thesustainability debate. I asked whether the participants thought that society can becomesustainable, and what they could do about it. This informed us about the respondent\u00E2\u0080\u0099s personalmotivation and commitment to sustainability.154Do they show commitment to apply the concept?To test the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 confidence in the EF/ACC tool, I asked in question 2.11 howthey would consider using the concept in the next year. In contrast to question 2.7, where Iexplored the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 passive support for the concept by making them choose from a list,I did not provide any ideas or options in this question. This allowed me to check theparticipants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ability to generate possible EF/ACC applications on their own, and to test theiractive understanding of the concept and interest in using the tool.I ended the interview with an open question soliciting other comments. After having beenexposed to the concept, this provided participants an opportunity to point out unresolved issuesor concerns not covered. Additionally, during the interview process, I provided otheropportunities to indirectly test the concept on potential shortcomings and key concerns identifiedin the indicator literature -- such as reaction time of the concept to real world changes, clarityof the method, flexibility, accuracy and relevance, simple communication, user-friendliness, orinclusiveness of the public (questions 2.1.1, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.10, and 2.11).6. THE PROCESS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE-BASED INTERVIEWRESEARCHThe interview followed the requirements established by the UBC Ethical ReviewCommittee:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the questionnaire was submitted to, and approved by, the Ethical Review Committee;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the key informants were initially approached by letter rather than by phone, and the letterexplicitly stated that participation is voluntary;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the key informants had a choice of where to meet to ensure a \u00E2\u0080\u009Csafe\u00E2\u0080\u009D environment; and\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 all participants signed a consent form prior to the interview that informed them about the155interview process and their rights, including the right to terminate the interview processat any time, the assurance of anonymity of their statements in the research text apartfrom their names being listed in the appendix of the research document (Appendix 3.2).For the interview, I provided a questionnaire form and an EF/ACC brochure (seeAppendix 3.3) to all participants so they could follow the process more easily. However, theparticipants did not have to fill in the questionnaire as I took notes for them. As a back-up, andwith permission of the participants, I taped the interviews. Using my notes and the tapes, Iproduced a written summary of each interview.I sent the summarized transcript of the conversation to each participant and invited themto review it. Quotes used in this research document draw solely from these revised statements.For this report, I generalized the specific geographical locations mentioned in the originalstatements of the participants to secure their anonymity. In other cases, where the statementsmight indirectly reveal the source, I asked the key informants for special permission to use theirquotes.While the collection of data followed this interactive process, I interpreted the interviewsand classified the key informants (as represented in Figure 6.1) without consulting them.7. LIMITATIONS OF THIS INTERVIEW RESEARCHThe purpose of these structured interviews was to learn about the usefulness of theEF/ACC tool by exploring which aspects of the concept are difficult to understand, how itmotivates people to act, and which applications are considered most useful. This requiredexposing psychological and social mechanisms which enable, and barriers which obstruct,156people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s efforts to plan toward sustainability, and to reveal how the EF/ACC tool could enhancethese mechanisms or remove these barriers.Although these interviews provide a probabilistic exploration of people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s perceivedusefulness of the EF/ACC concept, they do not reveal with statistical significance the level ofsupport for the EF/ACC tool within these three groups. However, they provide insights into howthe concept works for practitioners and how it could be strengthened. In other words, thisinterview series should rather be considered as a pilot for an in-depth study into EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099susefulness and public interpretation of sustainability. After all, documenting people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s support forthe EF/ACC tool with any statistical significance would require conducting over 380interviews.5However, the variety in perspectives and ideologies represented by the selected keyinformants and the depth of interviews (which expose the reasoning behind the answers) becomemore relevant than knowing the level of support within a population. After all, to convince ina debate and sharpen one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s argumentation, it is more significant to understand the variousperspectives and perceptions brought to the debate, rather than knowing how many peoplesupport one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s side.For example, the Gallup study on environmental perception interviewed 1000 people per country to documentpeople\u00E2\u0080\u0099s perspectives (Dunlap 1993).For binary answers and large sample sizes, the Central Limit Theorem suggests that these answers would benormally distributed with N(p, p*q/n). N stands for normal distribution; n would be the sample size, p the probabilityof an affirmative answer, q (= l-p) of a negative one. Hence, the minimal sample size (n..,.) for a confidence interval(i) of \u00C2\u00B1 5 % (i.e., the interval is 10%) reaching a significance level of 95 %, can be calculated by using the formulai12 = x(sign. =95%) * (p*q/n)l\u00E2\u0080\u00992,x being the parameter for the unit normal distribution (Rosner 1986:section 6.6.2).For a significance of 95 %, x = 1.690, which means that 95 % of the distribution is within \u00C2\u00B1 1.690 times thedistribution\u00E2\u0080\u0099s standard error. In the worst case, p*q reaches 0.25. Therefore, n., = p*q*x2*(i12) = 384.(According to Bernard Rosner, this sample satisfies the condition of size required for applying the Central LimitsTheorem as long as p 0.0132. This follows from Rosner\u00E2\u0080\u0099s assertion that the Theorem can be applied if p*q*n 5.For a sample size of n=384, one can calculate that p = 1.32 percent.)157The original plan was to interview five people in three groups (= 15 participants).However, as explained above, over the course of the interviews the sample was expanded to 21in order to ensure a large enough variety. The similarities in the emerging themes suggests thatthis sample covers sufficiently well the reasoning patterns typical within these three particulargroups; only small marginal gains could be expected from larger samples.6It is conceivable thatinterviewing a larger group of people might only reveal the limits of the interviewing processrather than furthering the understanding of the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 psychological incentives for, andbarriers to, planning toward sustainability.Limitations for testing the usefulness of the EF/ACC concept through this interviewresearch include:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the rigid structure of the interview. This focused interview approach could reduce the topicsthat can be explored by the participants. However, without structure and focus it wouldbe more difficult and more time consuming to recognise common themes.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the choice of questions. The set of questions used may not be the most effective one to betterunderstand emerging themes. Therefore, in a second step, rather than just increasing thesample size, the questionnaire would need to be fine-tuned from a substantive and aprocedural perspective to focus more effectively on the themes that emerged in this firststudy.6 For effective qualitative research, the selection of the participants, the context and the interview process is moresignificant than the number of participants (Patton 1990). The number of required participants for such research changeswith the purpose of the research. In psychological or special education studies, one participant might suffice, while somesociological studies might require over 100 participants (Morse 1994:225). J.Douglas suggests 25 participants, if he hadto pick a number (in Seidman 1991:45). In Janice Morse\u00E2\u0080\u0099s typology, the testing of the EF/ACC tool is probably closestto what she calls \u00E2\u0080\u009Cethnography\u00E2\u0080\u009D which refers to exploring \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccultures of understanding\u00E2\u0080\u009D and for which she suggestsapproximately 30-50 interviews, depending on saturation (1994:229).The similarity of the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 answers in my interview research to the ones collected over the last two yearsin evaluation forms from planning classes, workshops and seminars suggests that this sample of 21 captured a fairrepresentation of the key concerns. The apparent saturation within the collected set of answers indicates that the sampleof 21 participants was sufficiently large.158\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the vested interest of the interviewer in the concept. My vested interest in the EF/ACC toolmight deter criticism as participants may not articulate their full reservations about thetool in order not to offend me. Having me conduct the interviews, rather than a thirdperson, cannot be avoided at the initial stage of the research, essentially to interact moreeffectively and to discuss issues with the participants. It seems unlikely that somebodyless familiar with the EF/ACC concept could lead debates about the tool with participantsas effectively. However, for further research, an impartial researcher, supported by animproved questionnaire, might be more effective.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the focus on these three groups which might systematically omit mechanisms, barriers andconcerns prevalent in other influential groups such as engineers, teachers, lawyers, ormedia people.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the voluntary participation in the interview, which will lead to bias toward participants whoare already sympathetic to the sustainability cause.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the previous exposure of the participants to the sustainability debate which might make themjudge the EF/ACC concept more favourably. Therefore, further interview researchshould be conducted with those not yet engaged in the sustainability debate.B. DOCUMENTING TUE INTERVIEW RESULTSThis section summarizes the key informants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 interpretation of sustainability and theirsupport for the EF/ACC tool. To make the progression of the answers coherent and logical, thediscussion in this section does not follow the original order from the questionnaire (see Appendix3.3), but is arranged according to the two progressive scales in Table 6.1 An extensive selectionof the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 answers is provided in Appendix 3.4.1591. THE KEY INFORMANTS\u00E2\u0080\u0099 UNDERSTANDINGOF \u00E2\u0080\u009CSUSTAINABILITY\u00E2\u0080\u009DAll the key informants were familiar with the term \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainability.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Eighteen of the 21participants told me they had read or knew about the Brundtland report, while the remainingthree had heard about sustainability through the media and had read professional reports onsustainability issues. When asked about the sources that shaped their understanding ofsustainabiity, 11 showed a bias toward a biophysical interpretations by mentioning books andreports that focus on biophysical manifestations of the sustainability crisis (such as presented bythe Woridwatch Institute, World Resources Institute, or Limits to Growth [Meadows et al.1972]). Only three, all ftom the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people and economists\u00E2\u0080\u009D group, showed a bias towarda monetary sustainability interpretation. From this perspective, the sustainability crisis isperceived to be a symptom of a deregulated market; the environment is viewed as an externalfactor to the economy with a particular dollar value (such as represented by environmentaleconomics). There was only one participant (from the group of \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccommunity activist and localpoliticians\u00E2\u0080\u009D) who showed a good understanding of the monetary as well as the biophysicalsustainability interpretation.Ten participants felt their organizations were committed to promoting \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D (asinterpreted by the participant), while another eight saw themselves as promoters of sustainabilitywithin an organization which took sustainability challenges not very seriously. Two thirds of theparticipants said their personal view on sustainability did not conflict with ideas andresponsibilities at work -- in the group of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people and economists,\u00E2\u0080\u009D all felt that waywith exception of one of the two environmental consultants.In the following section, the summarized answers are organized according to the160progression of the sustainability scale introduced in Table 6.1. Figures in brackets \u00E2\u0080\u009C0\u00E2\u0080\u009D providethe frequency counts of the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 answers.Do you think nature is being overused? (question 2.2)(17) Yes (2) No (2) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowMost participants felt that nature is being overused, or that, as I often rephrased it, theworld\u00E2\u0080\u0099s biomass harvest exceeds regrowth. However, particularly in the group of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusinesspeople and economists,\u00E2\u0080\u009D not everybody was sure whether this was a local or a globalphenomenon. Reservations mentioned included \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .1 do not know whether [this is the case]However, some areas are certainly overused. When I fly, I can still see huge land-areas thatseem unused...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Or, \u00E2\u0080\u009C. . . it is mainly in poverty-stricken countries that biomass is beingharvested faster than it regrows...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Describe what would happen if nature is overharvested year after year?(question 2.3)(15) spontaneously pointed out human dependence on nature(3) acknowledged human dependence on nature once asked about the potential impact on society(3) avoided talking about human dependence on nature even when specifically askedOver two thirds of the participants pointed out spontaneously the dependence of humanbeings on nature. In fact, they provided graphic descriptions of how human life in an overusedecosystem would look. They said that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...we\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll be left with a barren wasteland...,\u00E2\u0080\u009D and \u00E2\u0080\u009C... eithernature will correct the situation through starvation, or man will correct the situation...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Oneparticipant explained that continuing over-harvesting nature \u00E2\u0080\u009C...would simply destroy the Earth.As a minimum scenario, this would lead to a decrease in livability -- as a maximum scenario,this could mean that humanity does not survive as a species. Reality would probably be in161between. Some small groups might survive and would have to dramatically restructure their wayof life...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Somebody else concluded that \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . if we take biomass to its most abused state, thenour survival is very much in doubt. If people understand that? No!...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Some of the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people and economists\u00E2\u0080\u009D persistently swayed the discussion towardpossible solutions such as developing solar technology or adjusting prices, but five explicitlymentioned that depleting nature would erode human welfare.Maintaining nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s capacity to regenerate and reproduce is a necessaryrequfrement for achieving sustainabifity. (question 2.4a)(20) I agree with the statement (1) I disagree with the statementAll but one participant, who was firmly entrenched in the monetary interpretation ofsustainabiity, agreed with this statement -- most participants did not even feel the need tocomment on it. However, one community activist added that \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . this does not mean thateverything has to be left untouched...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.To become sustainable, industrialized countries need to massively reduce thefrresource consumption. (question 2.4b)(14) I agree with the statement (3) I disagree with the statement(4) n/a as the question was not included in the first four questionnairesThis statement about industrialized countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 obligation to reduce resource consumptionwas the most contentious one and stimulated many comments. A key objection to the statementwas not necessarily its validity, but the psychological implications of the statement. For example,a planner/administrator said that the statement \u00E2\u0080\u009C... has to be qualified. If we tell it this way wescare people and they do not want to believe. So we should find examples about what will162happen if we do not act, and how good it could be if we act...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Somebody else from the samegroup said \u00E2\u0080\u009C. . .1 think that this is one of the scary sentiments or statements that get put out whichterrify people or which make people feel quite helpless. The reason is that the degree by whichwe have stepped over the line, is quite scary...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Also, another participant in the group of\u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people and economists\u00E2\u0080\u009D felt that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...as a goal now, the vision would be too narrow,too petty and would be counterproductive. It sounds too moralistic. And it is a negative goalrather than a positive goal...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Many participants provided suggestions on how thisoverwhelming task could be presented in a more manageable form. However, some alsosuggested that the shock value of this statement was necessary to get people to understand thedilemma that society is facing.The three participants who disagreed with the statement felt that humanity has thecapacity to overcome nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s limitations by inventing or further developing new sources ofenergy; in fact, two of them mentioned the yet untapped potential of nuclear energy. They didnot see the decline of natural capital per se as a barrier to sustainability, but identified the causewith social constraints such as irrational or uninformed decision-making, lack of property rights,and uncontrolled population growth.Qualifications by people who essentially agreed with the statement included questioningwhether the reduction has to be \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmassive\u00E2\u0080\u009D, the proposition that through recycling society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s highresource throughput could still be maintained; and the faith that human inventiveness will allowsociety to cope with these challenges. Only one participant felt that \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . biophysical scarcity doesnot have any meaning -- and by the way, food has been mushrooming. There is no question thatlocally, some areas have food problems, but globally, we have huge surpluses of food...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.163Considering the enormous public debt, implementing sustainability measures is aluxury that Canada cannot afford right now. (question 2.6)(0) Yes, I agree (0) Yes, I somewhat agree (3) No, I somewhat disagree (18) No, I disagree (0) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowAll the participants believed that developing sustainability and resolving the debt crisiswere not fundamentally at odds. In fact, some said that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...if we do not do anything aboutsustainability, public debt is not going to mean anything. Reducing public debt has to run handin hand with advancing sustainability. .\u00E2\u0080\u009C. Another participant said that \u00E2\u0080\u009C... if we want to knowwhat debt is and what poverty is, we should just keep going on our course...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.In your opinion, can society become sustainable? (question 2.9)(9) Yes (3) Maybe (2) No (4) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (3) Not answeredLess than half of the participants were confident that society can become sustainable.Most participants felt that the public has not acknowledged the sustainability dilemma andconcluded that education is most urgent. Some felt that crises or shocks might be needed todevelop a public consciousness while many saw the current materialistic value system to be amajor stumbling block to achieve sustainability. The perception of jobs and environment beingin competition was a recurring theme. For example, somebody mentioned that \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . the limitingfactor for change today is the bleak economic outlook, including the debt and the loss of jobs.Therefore, we might need economic growth to achieve sustainability. Economic growth couldwell be in conflict with sustainability, and requires careful management to avoid this. The moneygenerated by economic growth should consciously be redirected towards sustainability.. .\u00E2\u0080\u009C. Incontrast, others felt that the roots of the sustainability crisis need to be addressed and that.Western and other wealthy societies must reorient their understanding of needs and wantsaway from materialistic consumerism...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.164In these discussions about barriers to developing sustainability, we often touched the topicof social denial. Issues that came up included fragmentation of people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s perception, the lack ofoptions or positive role models, the difficulties to think about future needs, and the reluctanceto give up a lifestyle into which people have invested much of their lives. \u00E2\u0080\u009C...Children are moreflexible and are not yet entrenched in a path, but they have no status and no power. [Therefore,]the vulnerable point is the parent\u00E2\u0080\u0099s love for their children...\u00E2\u0080\u009D, said one participant. Also, manyparticipants felt that the general population does not understand the crisis. In fact, \u00E2\u0080\u009C...there wassome reverse learning we went through in the oil crisis. So people are left confused, and thecrisis seems not real...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. And many who realize the sustainabiity conundrum do not accept itas their personal challenge. \u00E2\u0080\u009C...We always mean other people but never us...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Television\u00E2\u0080\u0099s impact on human perception was brought forward by several participants.\u00E2\u0080\u009C...It fragments people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s experiences and understanding, discounts any sense of time anddisconnects them from their surrounding...\u00E2\u0080\u009D said one person, while another participant pointedout that \u00E2\u0080\u009C. . .by pretending that life can be lived like on TV is debilitating... Similarly, in humanrights violations or environmental abuse, the more disconnected (e.g., through TV) you are, theeasier it is to abuse...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.2. THE KEY INFORMANTS\u00E2\u0080\u0099 SUPPORT FOR THE EF/ACC CONCEPTThis part summarizes the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 answers regarding the usefulness of the EF/ACCtool. Again, for the discussion in this section, the order of the questions follow the progressivescale on public support for the EF/ACC concept (see Table 6.1), rather than the order by whichthey appeared in the questionnaire (see Appendix 3.3).165Does this brochure explain the concept well? (question 2.1.1)(18) Yes (0) Barely (0) No (3) Question not askedAll participants liked the style of the brochure and felt that it communicated the conceptwell. In fact, all but one (with whom the question was not discussed) were able to rephrase theEF/ACC concept. Most mentioned explicitly in some form that this concept is about nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099sresources and services necessary to provide household consumption; that it is attributed topopulation, rather than region; that it is not a projection but an analysis of the current situation;and that the measurement unit is land area. When rephrasing the concept, five of the six women,and two of the 15 men used the pronouns \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwe\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cour\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009CI\u00E2\u0080\u009D, or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cme.\u00E2\u0080\u009D This may indicate thatthese seven participants acknowledged the concept\u00E2\u0080\u0099s relevance to their own consumption -- notonly to that of other people.As far as the brochure was concerned, the use of graphics was particularly appreciated.The participants provided many helpful suggestions on how the brochure could be improved suchas including more white space, use the front and the back of the document more effectively (likea newspaper), use bullet lists, adapt it to various audiences and link it to their experiences. Manypointed out that producing brochures does not suffice as many people do not read, and suggestedother modes of communication.Community activists liked the brochure\u00E2\u0080\u0099s action orientation. However, some of the\u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people and economists\u00E2\u0080\u009D did not agree with the recommendations. They particularlyobjected to the brochure\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Clocalism\u00E2\u0080\u009D and said \u00E2\u0080\u009C...I have indicated that some of your theoriessuch as \u00E2\u0080\u0098buy items made or grown locally rather than far away\u00E2\u0080\u0099 represents the kind of thinking- that moves us away from finding a solution. This disintegrates rather than integratescommunities. If you want the Mexicans to clean up their environment, trade with them, and then166use that trade as a leverage point to make them clean up their environment...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Somebody elsecommented that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...maybe local needs should not be secured. Maybe local communities shouldbe wound up and absorbed in a larger and more sophisticated urban community... It does notwork that we put unproductive regions on welfare programs as done in Eastern Quebec and mostof the Maritimes. ..\u00E2\u0080\u009C. However, another participant in this group was less concerned about therecommendations and said that \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . one way we can achieve [sustainabiity] is by putting thisquantifiable stuff out for people to see. This [brochure] shows me right away in a quantifiableform what I intuitively know. That is the bridge and that\u00E2\u0080\u0099s exciting...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Does the Ecological Footprint concept describe the ecological bottom-line accurately?(question 2.5)(15) Yes, it is simple, but sufficiently accurate.(2) Yes, but it is rather complex.(0) No, it is too simplistic.(0) No, it is too complex.(2) Other comment: the concept seems simple, but the application might be complex; the concept is misleading.(2) Not answered.The themes that emerged in the discussion about EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to represent theecological bottom line of sustainability addressed the role of models and the difficulty to applythe concept. Many made the point that although models can never be completely precise, theydo not need to be completely precise because they are approximations of reality. For example,one participant said that \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . the concept is an interesting first cut. It quantifies a lot of issues thatwere kind of vague in my mind. Any research or statement about knowledge [you need to]simplify when you communicate. So, somebody can always say that it is too simplified. We arealways in search of truth. But that is elusive. We are just seeing one slice of reality and say thisis one possible vision of it. As long as that is made clear, I do not have a problem with it...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.167Similarly, one participant mentioned that the brochure \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . should emphasize the state ofignorance, and that we cannot fully know how ecosystems work...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Participants also indicated how crucial it is to declare the assumptions behind the modelupfront. One commented, \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .it is always the assumptions that make people doubt the model.Therefore, it is important to accompany such studies with a clear discussion of the assumptions,and a sensitivity analysis with alternate assumptions...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Some assumptions behind the conceptwere contested. One planner stated \u00E2\u0080\u009C... I feel that the Footprint concept is quite intuitive, in thesense that if I would do something I think I would know what its sustainability impact is andprobably also in which direction the Footprint would go...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. A business person said that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...thereis potential for misunderstanding. Also, as some of the issues mentioned in the brochure arecounter-intuitive, this suggests to me that there is a bias behind the model...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.One participant also cautioned about the methodological difficulties that any resourceaccounting faces. \u00E2\u0080\u009C...There is a long history of resource accounting (e.g., the technocracymovement), but by translating everything into land-use the level of abstraction in [theEF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s] accounting procedure is even one level higher than in energy accounting. Also, thequality of such accounting has not a very good track record...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. The participant continued that\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the concept is OK, but measurements would be rather unreliable. It does not include labour,and it ignores the role of water. It should demonstrate that land and water can be competitors.But how would we compare California (which lacks water) with Bangladesh (where water is insurplus with all the floods)?...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.The participants understood the concept\u00E2\u0080\u0099s validity for framing the challenges. One saidthat \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .it assists common-sense logic and is necessary to stimulate discussion and understanding168of complex issues. Complete accuracy is not necessary...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. However, many found the difficultyin applying the EF/ACC concept was the weakest point of the tool.Evaluate how reliable the Ecological Footprint concept is [for illustrating theecological crisis]. (question 2.8)Does the Ecological Footprint concept demonstrate humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s competing demands onnature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity?(8) Absolutely (6) To a large extent (1) Barely (1) Not at all (5) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowMany participants appreciated the ability of the concept to show systemic effects andconnections between human uses of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services. \u00E2\u0080\u009C. . . It is one method to show that we arenot here alone...\u00E2\u0080\u009D a community activist said. \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .Yes I agree, if something comes fromIndonesia, it is used by us and cannot be used by them...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Some pointed out that since theconcept was more spatially oriented, issues of pollution, biodiversity or ozone depletion werenot well covered by the concept. For example, one remarked that \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . the model is static ratherthan dynamic. It does not explicitly address issues of water and air, or ozone depletion...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Oneof those two participants who felt that the EF/ACC tool did \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbarely\u00E2\u0080\u009D or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnot at all\u00E2\u0080\u009D representhumanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s competing demands told me that the tool was not yet developed far enough; the otherthat the tool was fundamentally misleading. Both were from the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people andeconomists\u00E2\u0080\u009D group.A common concern was the scale of the application. Most participants acknowledged theconcept\u00E2\u0080\u0099s usefulness for illustrating global resource conflicts, but many did not see its relevanceto the local scale (see also below). For example, one participant remarked that the concept \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .isprobably not enough for decision-making regarding development. It is very much a globalapproach and you also have to look at the local social, environmental and economic situation...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.169In fact, many participants felt that the EF/ACC concept did not adequately address the socialaspects of society such as society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s capacity to accept new ideas or social and spiritual conditionsfor sustainability -- and, in fact, these are the aspects that we on the UBC Task Force onHealthy and Sustainable Communities try to capture with the \u00E2\u0080\u009CSocial Caring Capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D tool(UBC Task Force 1994). However, one community activist concluded that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the enormity ofthe [EF/ACC concept\u00E2\u0080\u0099s] implications cannot be grasped by many people. In fact, the toolillustrates how everything is connected. This concept is extremely important but breathtaking andscary. It also allows [people] to start at any point, but to grasp its entirety might be hard...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.How useful do you think the Ecological Footprint concept is for:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the general public to understand the sustainability dilemmas? (question 2.7a)(14.5) Very useful (4.5) Useful (0) Marginally useful (0) Not useful (1) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (1) positively harmfulThere was almost unanimous consensus between the participants that the EF/ACCconcept would be useful for the public to understand the sustainability dilemmas. Onecommunity activist put it this way: \u00E2\u0080\u009C... It is essential. If the general public does not understandit, they will not buy it... And even if it meant tightening their belts, and they really understood,they would absolutely insist on [becoming sustainable]...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. However, one business person whoclassified the concept for this purpose as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvery useful,\u00E2\u0080\u009D warned that the concept also has thepotential to \u00E2\u0080\u009C. . .be very misleading when used by propagandists who do not explain theirassumptions...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.\u00E2\u0080\u0098 Fractions indicate that some participants chose in between the marks of the original scale.170\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 individuals to reconsider lifestyle or business decisions? (question 2.7b)(5) Very useful (10) Useful (4) Marginally useful (0) Not useful (1) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (1) positively harmfulThe suggestions to use the EF/ACC concept for reconsidering lifestyle and businessdecisions generated the least enthusiasm of all six propositions. \u00E2\u0080\u009C...It is very difficult toinfluence individuals to do anything without some economic coercion...\u00E2\u0080\u009D said one participant.Essentially, the participants pointed out that the EF/ACC tool is only useful for evaluating theirlifestyle if they have \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbought into\u00E2\u0080\u009D the concept in the first place.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 community activists in their sustainability campaigns to make their point moreeffectively? (question 2.7c)(13) Very useful (5) Useful (1) Marginally useful (0) Not useful (1) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (1) positively harmfulEven though many participants perceived the tool to be useful for community activists,some business people were concerned about potential misuse of the concept. One said thatcommunity activists \u00E2\u0080\u009C...are the ones who can most abuse this concept by oversimplifying theissues, or not declaring their assumptions...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Another business person felt that \u00E2\u0080\u009C... to assumethat everybody here in Canada should only consume on the world average level does not work.There is no absolute standard. Population growth becomes a vicious circle. We in Canada shouldnot change our lifestyles just because other populations are growing at a fast pace. Otherwisethey will just outgrow our sustainability gains...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 planning departments and municipalities as a planning tool? (question 2.7d)(10.5) Very useful (4) Useful (2.5) Marginally useful (2) Not useful (1) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (1) positively harmfulThe opinions about the usefulness of the EF/ACC tool for municipal planning wereclearly divided between the various groups. Particularly, the group of administrators andplanners rated the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s usefulness for municipal planning low. In fact, the typical answer of171the administrators and planners was between \u00E2\u0080\u009Cuseful\u00E2\u0080\u009D and \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmarginally useful\u00E2\u0080\u009D (or at 2.3 points,with very useful = 1, useful = 2, marginally useful = 3), while that of the other two groupscombined scored between \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvery useful\u00E2\u0080\u009D and \u00E2\u0080\u009Cuseful\u00E2\u0080\u009D (or at 1.7 points). A planner said that.probably on the national or provincial level, it is quite a useful thing. But for municipalitiesit could be difficult to apply...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. However, another planner felt that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...we are on a slipperyslope, and today there seems to be no interest in planning for sustainability. If [municipalplanners] were concerned about our future and our children\u00E2\u0080\u0099s future it would be very useful, butin the current conditions, it is marginally useful...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Most of the community activists identified municipalities as major actors for movingsociety toward sustainability. In fact, \u00E2\u0080\u0098.. . we have to appreciate the effect of municipal decisionsand all the cumulative effects of all the small things that come with it. I suspect that municipalthings are far more important than an awful lot of people give credit for...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. However, manysaid that although this depends on appropriate planning tools, public support from within themunicipality is essential. One community activist added that \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . a main thing for localgovernment is to make [the decision process] simpler so people can understand it. This toolmight be helpful to get information out to the public and increase their understanding of theconstraints. Municipalities have a duty to lead toward sustainability. ..\u00E2\u0080\u009C. However, anotherparticipant maintained that quality of life issues might actually be a more compelling motivationfor people to move toward sustainability than facts about the Ecological Footprint.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 political decision-making as a sustainability indicator (similar to the GDP)? (question2 .7e)(10) Very useful (9) Useful (0) Marginally useful (1) Not useful (1) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (0) positively harmfulIn general, the participants liked the idea of a national Ecological Footprint indicator.172However they cautioned about the national scale of analysis, which seems to be too large forindividuals to identify with. Another warning they gave was that an EF/ACC indicator might notchange much as political decision making is not a rational process driven by careful analysis.I students and scholars to generate positive choices for sustainability? (question 2.71)(12.5) Very useful (5) Useful (0.5) Marginally useful (0) Not useful (2) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (1) positively harmfulSome of the participants were not clear about how the concept could assist students andscholars to generate positive choices for sustainability. However, after I explained the concept\u00E2\u0080\u0099spotential to provide a framework for sustainability and a criterion for evaluating policy anddesign ideas, many expressed support.Has this interview changed your perspective on sustainabifity? (question 2.10)Many indicated that the interview was useful to rethink the sustainability impacts ofeveryday issues, or as one community activist put it \u00E2\u0080\u009C... it is always good to be reminded of thelarger policy context...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. What the participants seemed to appreciate most was the concept\u00E2\u0080\u0099sability to communicate ecological constraints to the public. One participant said the interviewdiscussion \u00E2\u0080\u009C... has been complementary to my understanding. I learned that you came up witha tool that can show our impact on nature in a graphical format, and ways to demonstratefiguratively fairly complicated concepts to people whose minds don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t perceive those conceptsparticularly easily. . ..\u00E2\u0080\u009C. Another one said that \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .1 think, finally, I have a clearer definition ofsustainability, and one that I like to use myself. I think it is a better one than the one of theBrundtland report, even though the Footprint does not say it is about \u00E2\u0080\u0098sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u0099. .173Would you consider using the Ecological Footprint concept during the next year?(question 2.11)(14) Yes (2) No (5) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowTwo thirds of the participants felt they would use the EF/ACC concept as an argumentin discussions with friends, colleagues or clients. Eight expressed active support to promote theconcept by using it in public presentations, in their writing or by distribution brochures to peoplethey know. One participant indicated interest in applying the concept.Any other comments? (question 2.12)Implications of perceptual differences between the Euro-Canadian and the Chinese-Canadian culture in the Vancouver area came also up in the discussions. The concern was raisedthat \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .because of demographic shifts through the immigration of people from Hong Kong(where sustainability is not much of a consideration as they import all their resources andnature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services), the interest in these issues is diminishing as they do not mean much to thenew immigrants...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Another participant felt that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the Asians understand much more theirplace in nature [than Western culture], because of Buddhism, Zen, Taoism and the philosophyof Asian history. What happened with the new immigrants coming here is that you are dealingwith a very small sector of nouveau riche which in the case of Hong Kong consists mainly ofurban people without rural history or context... [However], I do not think that Canadiansociety\u00E2\u0080\u0099s view on sustainabiity is turning around one way or the other because of the Asianpopulation\u00E2\u0080\u0099s view on this matter...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.In their final remarks, participants from all three groups showed appreciation for theconcept and felt that it has potential to link \u00E2\u0080\u009C...these broad goals with the specific decisions, asit addresses global issues and then links them to the decisions in an individual\u00E2\u0080\u0099s life...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.174However, one participant warned about the danger of promising too much and said the conceptseemed \u00E2\u0080\u009C... a bit over-sold as a planning tool. I think it is good as an advocate tool, but it isdifficult in the links to everyday planning tasks such as approvals, policy recommendations,etc...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Finally, many expressed interest to see more applications of the concept, and saw thecurrent shortage in EF/ACC examples as the main stumbling block for receiving a larger supportfor the tool.C. ANALYZING THE INTERVIEW RESULTSInterviewing key informants most of whom are practitioners in a variety of fields was afruitful process for pinpointing weaknesses of the tool and for better understanding ofsustainability issues with which these people are struggling. The interviews allowed me toidentify the areas on which further tool development should focus, in order to make the EF/ACCconcept more useful and relevant for them. In the first part of this section, I will interpret theparticipants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 comments and infer from these how participants felt about the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability tosupport their work. In the second part, I will draw lessons from this interview process: howfuture processes should be designed to test more effectively people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s sustainability understanding,and to identify the limiting factors for public action promoting sustainability.To analyze the interviews, I categorized the answers of the participants in a matrix,which made common patterns and themes visible. The rows of the matrix represented theparticipants (aggregated in their respective groups), while the columns represented the codedquestions. For example, I listed which of the following elements they mentioned whenrephrasing the EF/ACC concept, namely using the first person singular, mentioning resourceallocation, expressing it in terms of per capita consumption, referring to the present situation175(rather than to future prediction), identifying land as a measurement unit, and using the word\u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainable\u00E2\u0080\u009D in their definition. Or, I classified their main objections to the tool which theparticipants put forward in question 2.5 and 2.8, which included the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s neglect ofbiodiversity, water resources, pollution, social factors, hidden assumptions, ignorance of marketforces, and technological pessimism. For other questions with multiple choice answers, I codedthe answers with an ordinal number according to the checked box. However, to keep thestatements anonymous, the matrix is not reproduced here, and the results are directly reportedin the text.Classifying the participants according to the developed scales was simple andstraightforward. Because answers from three participants seemed contradictory, I had to go backto the transcript before making a decision in their scale point with respect to perspective onsustainability. Two of these were classified in between two scale points as they wavered on thatquestion during the interview.1. EVALUATING EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099S USEFULNESSFigure 6.1 plots the key informants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 agreement with the sustainability perspective outlinedin Chapter I, and their level of enthusiasm for applying the EF/ACC concept themselves. Thedistribution in this graph shows the interviewed \u00E2\u0080\u009Cadministrators and planners\u00E2\u0080\u009D (A), \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusinesspeople and economists\u00E2\u0080\u009D (B), and \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccommunity activists and local politicians\u00E2\u0080\u009D (C), according totheir perspective on sustainability (x-axis) and their support for the EF/ACC concept (y-axis).The distribution of these perspectives suggests two lessons: first, there is no tight correlationbetween people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s sustainability interpretation and their judgement about the usefulness of theEF/ACC tool. For example, participants who said that they intend to use the EF/ACC conceptas an argument in discussion (five on y-axis) vary from people who understand the sustainability176Support for the EF/ACC conceptI intend to apply 7.the EF/ACC conceptI intend to promote, present or 6.write about the EF/ACC conceptI intend to use the EF/ACC concept 5.as an argument in discussionsEF/ACC should be used 4.by public bodiesEF/ACC znght be useful 3.for some applicationsEF/ACC is a first step, but 2.it is not comprehensive enoughI understand the EF/ACC conceptFigure 6.1: The participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 perspective on sustainability and support for the EFIACC conceptThis graph shows the participant\u00E2\u0080\u0099s agreement with the sustainability perspective outlined in ChapterI, and their level of enthusiasm for applying the EF/ACC concept themselves. The scale on the x-axisindicates where they disagreed with my interpretation for the first time. The scale on the y-axis showshow far their support for the EF/ACC tool goes.A: administrators and plannersB: business people and economistsC: community activistsA ABC CCCCCABABAB.BAAGBB1.SI,177crisis only as a local phenomenon (four on x-axis) to people who live the \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainabilityprinciples\u00E2\u0080\u009D in their lives (eight on x-axis). In fact, out of the nine key informants who do notadvocate a major responsibility for industrialized countries to reduce their resource consumption(below point six on the x-axis), three showed interest all the same in applying the EF/ACCconcept in the future when discussing sustainability.On the other hand, people who have become advocates for sustainability and who activelyexplore possibilities to reduce Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s resource consumption massively all liked the EF/ACCconcept. However, they did not necessarily identify EF/ACC as a tool that they intend tointroduce to their work. The reason might be that these people are already overcommitted intheir current sustainability activities and may see the use of this tool as an additional task ratherthan as a relief.A second conclusion could be drawn from this graph. The fact that there is no clear-cutsegregation in perspectives between these three interviewed groups suggests a significant overlapamong their sustainability interpretations. In fact, the cluster of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cadministrators and planners\u00E2\u0080\u009Din graph 6.2 intersects significantly with the cluster of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people and economists\u00E2\u0080\u009D as wellas with that of \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccommunity activists and local politicians\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Even the group of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people\u00E2\u0080\u009Dand \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccommunity activists\u00E2\u0080\u009D overlap. This indicates that there might be more potential forcooperation between these groups than the members of these groups may think. Also, thisimplies that, since the EF/ACC tool communicates with various people of different perspectives,it might be a useful tool for bridging communication gaps between disparate groups.Quite possibly, the EF/ACC concept might be more useful to support constructivecommunication than the conventional sustainability model with the three intersecting circles of178\u00E2\u0080\u009Ceconomy, society and environment\u00E2\u0080\u009D (see for example Sadler & Jacobs 1990:9). Through itsambiguity, the three circle model feeds into a vague initial consensus. This obscurity hides thevarious perspectives\u00E2\u0080\u0099 conflicting interpretations of what those three concepts mean and how theyare linked. In contrast, the EF/ACC tool proposes a concrete and measurable condition forsustainability and might thereby facilitate a more constructive and concise communicationbetween these various perspectives. Such communication could disclose these differentinterpretations and check them against each other. This was confirmed by the revealingdiscussions triggered by the concept during the interviews -- what sustainability means, what thebarriers are and how they could be overcome. Even though the concept questions commonassumptions and places the challenges of overconsumption in industrialized countries quiteopenly on the table, it still received support from people in all three groups (see Figure 6.1).The substantive grasp of the EF/ACC concept by the participants was remarkable. Inthe past, many informal conversations with those previously exposed to the EF/ACC conceptinitiated significant re-interpretation according to what appeared to be their main concept of\u00E2\u0080\u009Cenvironmental concerns\u00E2\u0080\u009D -- re: pollution, waste recycling or fossil fuel consumption. However,the interview participants could easily rephrase it, and many had no difficulty in pointing outimplications for the human economy. Also, the overwhelming majority had a clear recognitionof human dependence on nature, once asked about the consequences of continued degradationof nature. They acknowledged that maintaining nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s capacity to regenerate and reproduceis a necessary requirement for achieving sustainability. However, fewer of them supported thestatement that industrialized countries need to reduce their resource consumption massively asto become sustainable. This statement helped to identify those who accepted the sustainabilitychallenge and its associated responsibilities, and those who were reluctant to acknowledge it --or did not feel that these challenges would translate into responsibilities for public action beyond179traditional environmental policy interventions. An example of the second category was a businessperson who maintained that \u00E2\u0080\u009C. . . a relatively wealthy society is doing a relatively good job...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.It was surprising that none of the key informants agreed with the statement aboutsustainability not being affordable now when Canada faces an enormous public debt. This wasintended to test the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 bias toward a monetary interpretation of sustainability, andrepresents an opinion often voiced in business oriented media such as The Globe and Mail fromToronto or The Economist from London. From my experience with earlier EF/ACC evaluationsthat I collected in various workshops where many with monetary sustainability interpretationsseemed to agree with the statement, I expected that at least some in the group of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusinesspeople and economists\u00E2\u0080\u009D would agree with the statement. But none did. However, somementioned in other contexts that more affluent societies become environmentally conscious, orthat, as one person from the group of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people and economists\u00E2\u0080\u009D put it \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . the only likelysolution to pollution is growth...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.A reason why those business people with a more monetary oriented perspective disagreedwith the statement (or agreed that reducing debt and developing sustainability are not at odds)reflected a reaction to the statement\u00E2\u0080\u0099s government focus. They felt that governments had muchshorter time horizons than businesses which made them less effective agents for sustainability.In other words, by spending money, government would not promote sustainability; to put itanother way, by not spending money, they would not detract from sustainability.However, it might also be that the question needs to be improved. It is quite conceivablethat people with a monetary sustainability interpretation perceive debt as the central sustainabilityproblem. \u00E2\u0080\u009CConsidering the hardship of economic recession, can we afford to invest in the180development of sustainability?\u00E2\u0080\u009D might be a more illuminating question for this task.The interviews showed that most participants acknowledged that the various human usesof nature are in competition, and that therefore the various ecological issues are linked.Everybody but one from the group of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people and economists\u00E2\u0080\u009D and who displayedconsistently a monetary bias, accepted that availability of bioproductivity is a core sustainabilityrequirement. Seventeen also explicitly acknowledged that, given the way we live now, thiscondition is not satisfied. The two who negated it were both in the group of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness peopleand economists.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Nobody disputed the size of the Ecological Footprint, or argued that, incontrast to the claims of the brochure, everybody on the planet could eventually live asCanadians do today. This is remarkable, and would probably not be a shared perspective allacross the Canadian society. On the other hand, this interview did not explore whether theparticipants would have brought forward this perspective on their own, or if they were guidedby interview questions and chose the answers out of convenience. In either case, this could beinterpreted in favour of the EF/ACC tool: if they had not proposed these perspectives on theirown, the tool was able to make the argument in a non-threatening and convincing way; or, ifthey already believed in this perspective, the tool is fully compatible with how these groupsunderstand sustainabiity and could therefore be adopted as a sustainability measure.However, where the EF/ACC concept became more personal, it encountered moreresistance in the interviews. For example, some participants did not appreciate the graph thatdepicts the Ecological Footprint of various income groups. One business person said that \u00E2\u0080\u009C... thisincredible large Footprint of the professional couple bothered me. My wife and I happen to besuch a couple. But this relationship makes no sense and the assumptions are not obvious. Thiscould be very misleading, because for example, we put mostly energy efficient appliances in our181house etc...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Also when testing the passive support for various applications, those that showedpotential for applications in the participant\u00E2\u0080\u0099s sphere scored lower. For example, the propositionto use the EFIACC for reconsidering lifestyle or business decisions did not receive muchsupport. Rather than talking about their own experience, those participants who felt lesssupportive of that option avoided the issue and argued that people were not yet ready for suchecological self assessment (even though that was not the interview question). Also, when askedabout the usefulness for municipal planning, administrators and planners were the leastenthusiastic (with the exception of those who had worked previously with the UBC Task Forceon Healthy and Sustainable Communities). For example, one person of the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cadministrators andplanners\u00E2\u0080\u009D group who was well versed in the sustainability literature and had followed it overthree decades rejected the idea that municipalities should and could actively plan towardsustainability. In fact, this person felt that responsibilities should be removed from municipalitiesrather than added. However, such reactions might illustrate a general reluctance to acknowledgepersonal responsibilities while continuing to delegate these to others.EF/ACC received the highest rating for being able to link global constraints withindividual or local decision-making in a simple, comprehensible way. However, many found ithard to imagine concrete applications of the concept in a municipal context. This underlined theneed for more tangible local examples relevant to the practitioner\u00E2\u0080\u0099s everyday work, and whichcould easily be replicated in similar contexts. Providing more small scale applications might alsoaddress the commonly expressed concern that the EF/ACC concept would only apply to largerscales but would be less relevant to household or municipal concerns.When discussing how to achieve sustainability (or how to reduce industrialized countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099Ecological Footprints), many identified the lacking public understanding as the limiting factor182to more effective public action. Participants pointed out that people know about issues, but thateveryday life -- including professional responsibilities, commuting, TV or shopping-- stimulatesa fragmented woridview and invites people not to make the mental connections between thevarious issues and their effect on the future. This might feed into society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s further denial of thesustainability crisis which in itself becomes a major barrier to developing sustainability.Also, it was pointed out that people are caught in a lifestyle that is painful to abandon.The psychological and financial investment in lifestyles reduces willingness to change and manyare puzzled about how they could change without having to carry the whole burden themselves.For example, one participant pointed out a \u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access\u00E2\u0080\u009D phenomenon saying that\u00E2\u0080\u009C...everybody can see that cars are a problem. But people do not know how to give them up.We need alternative transportation policies such as tolls or inconveniences for personal cars. Butthe problem is that not even the advocates for this change have changed...\u00E2\u0080\u009D.To make the interviews more personal and interactive, I should have invited theparticipants to analyze their strategies according to their impact on carrying capacityappropriation. For example, a planner remarked that \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. . we could not completely shut down ourresource industry. ... [However,] government\u00E2\u0080\u0099s pull-out from supporting high-tech research isa sign of moving in the wrong direction. ..\u00E2\u0080\u009C. When this idea that the restructuring of theeconomy from a resource to a service industry would make Canada more sustainable was putforward, it would have been interesting to observe whether the EF/ACC concept could havebeen effective for allowing the participant to evaluate the strategy. If the concept is effective,it should have enabled the participant to realize that this strategy of economic restructuring mightnot necessarily reduce Canadians\u00E2\u0080\u0099 resource consumption, but only increase Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099scompetitiveness in the global economy.183Some scholars claim that the sustainability debate ignores the social dimensions of theissue and is led from an assumption of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cuniversal affluence\u00E2\u0080\u009D within Canada (Schrecker 1994:36).However, this concern seemed not to be confirmed in these interviews. In fact, the sustainabilityadvocates showed a much stronger concern for social issues when asked about their politicalperspectives or when talking about how society can become sustainable, than those participantsless committed to promoting sustainability. Many of the committed community activists explicitlymentioned the need for social sensitivity. For example, one community activist said that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...anyrighteousness that rubs people out of the picture is counter-productive...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Also, a businessperson said that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the brochure does not give people the feeling that you understand theirproblem. For example, by saying that people should live closer to where they work might notfeel like a possible choice to them...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Some participants pointed out that affluent groups canhave a strong voice in protecting their unsustainable lifestyles. One example mentioned aregroups in Vancouver\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Arbutus Corridor, all \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .intelligent and well-informed people...,\u00E2\u0080\u009D whofight densification for fear of local traffic congestion, and voice their objections throughcommunity organized protest drives and simulated traffic congestions.In fact, many participants put forward the concern that the EF/ACC concept lacks thesocial and spiritual dimension of sustainability. This supports the strategy pursued by us on theUBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities to complement the EF/ACC tool witha social equivalent, the \u00E2\u0080\u009CSocial Caring Capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D tool.The EF/ACC concept received also much support for its procedural strength whenexploring the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s methodological strengths and weaknesses in question 2.5 and 2.8. Mostparticipants expressed the view that the concept was sufficiently simple, even though they feltthat applications might be more demanding and the method not yet obvious. Surprisingly, the184need for reliability and accuracy did not cause much concern to the participants. In contrast,some explained that models should be concise and to the point rather than obfuscating throughsophistication, thereby supporting my intent of visualizing generalities rather than specificities(see Chapter I). They acknowledged that models are approximations of reality, should epitomizeour experiences and must facilitate communication.Much discussion focused on how the communication of the concept could be improved.On the one hand, the discussion focused on the mechanics of effective communication includingan accessible writing style, the use of multi media modes, jingles, or strategic brochuredistribution. On the other hand, ideas were generated on how to make the communication of theconcept empowering rather than frightening or intimidating. Suggestions included ignoringnegative goals (such as \u00E2\u0080\u0098reduce consumption\u00E2\u0080\u0099) and focusing on positive ones (such as \u00E2\u0080\u0098liberateyourself from the yoke of consumption,\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00E2\u0080\u0098have fun with bicycling or walking\u00E2\u0080\u0099 or \u00E2\u0080\u0098build a funkycompost heap\u00E2\u0080\u0099), to acknowledge people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s constraints and living situations, to avoid moralizingand guilt-tripping or to use attractive and uplifting communication modes such as music andjingles.Many participants appreciated the EF/ACC tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s action orientation and the focus onclear and accessible communication. However, some participants felt that the assumptions behindthe EF/ACC calculations need to be spelled out in more detail to increase the confidence in thetool. But nobody suggested that the analysis should be more detailed or more sophisticated. Thiscontrasts with views of academics gathered informally, many of whom have suggested translatingthe EF/ACC concept into a computer model or developing it into a more detailed input-outputanalysis. The academics suggested that such a detailed model could illustrate the resource flowswithin the anthroposphere, could show dynamic effects and might allow researchers and185practitioners the instantaneous testing of scenarios. However, none of the participants (who weremainly practitioners) proposed the idea of translating the concept into such a computerapplication. Rather than questioning the calculation procedure, they suggested including morecomponents of the biosphere such as water or air. This suggests that those issues which theEF/ACC concept includes indirectly (such as biodiversity, water use, ozone depletion) shouldbe addressed more explicitly. In short, the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s generality and effectiveness to communicatewas perceived to be more crucial than the structure of the calculation procedure and itsconceptual sophistication.Finally, the reasoning of participants in two particular clusters requires special attention.The first cluster encompasses those three participants who did not accept the need forindustrialized countries to reduce their resource consumption massively (No.4 on thesustainability scale, or lower). In fact, they presented the view that free markets and humaninventiveness would automatically take care of the ecological crisis. They felt that deregulatingthe market and privatizing public goods would lead to full-cost pricing. Ecological destructionwould then be reflected in higher prices, which would later stimulate adequate technicalresponses. Also, they were optimistic that human inventions could overcome ecological scarcity.For example, as mentioned above, two pointed out that nuclear power could substitute fossilfuel. One said that we need to \u00E2\u0080\u009C...find new resources such as atomic energy. . .\u00E2\u0080\u009C. Two othersmentioned the increase in agricultural productivity, and one told me that.since I grew up, the productivity of a farmer has increased fivefold. This is due to higher yield varieties andbetter farming techniques (e.g., 2.5 inch tillage rather than 6 inches which allows the soil to retain moremoisture, slows down erosion and leaching, and conserves tractor energy). Now they produce on a sustainablebasis \u00E2\u0080\u0094 when I was young they were mining the soil and did not know how to take care of the land.186The second cluster includes four participants who did not actively support the use of theEF/ACC tool in its current form (No.4 on the \u00E2\u0080\u009Csupport for EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u009D scale, or lower).Participants in this cluster exhibited much more diverse reasoning. The planner in this clusterdid not recognize the profound implications of the ecological crisis and argued that EF/ACC.is not very helpful for local planning. Perhaps, I might use it internally to win an argument. But it cannotbe incorporated in OCPs (Official Community Plans)... The Ecological Footprint is helpful for global education,but the GVRD (Greater Vancouver Regional District) concepts of environmental management and regionalmanagement are more helpful when planning at the at the local level. It might be that the Ecological Footprintcan get further developed for municipal applications. But at this point, I cannot see its specific relevance formunicipalities. Municipal planning is related to land-use or to management of the land. Therefore, theEcological Footprint is not specially useful as it also includes other land than that immediately within themunicipal boundaries (e.g the fossil fuel use as a land component of the Ecological Footprint). But, it helps asa background orientation.The community activist\u00E2\u0080\u0099s had similar technical concerns about the tool, even though herecognized the challenge set by the ecological crisis. He felt the.Ecological Footprint concept to be an elegant means of represent consumption of resources, aggregated ata municipal or regional level. I do not, however, consider the Ecological Footprint to be more than marginallyuseful as a planning tool. By planning tool, I mean anything that I would use for analysis, plan and policyformulation, or plan implementation. [The Ecological Footprint] is appropriate to get the issue of over-consumption on the political agenda. But beyond that it is not useful because it does not link with the rest ofthe daily planning activities. There is no municipal act saying \u00E2\u0080\u009CThou shall pay attention to the global context.\u00E2\u0080\u009DThe Footprint does not describe the human system but only why we should change the way we operate todayand helps us set very broad objectives. Personally, I suspect it is equally compelling to work with localizedissues such as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdo you like living here?\u00E2\u0080\u009D and make people think about their quality of life. Basic principles ofquality in design and quality of life are as compelling and as a legitimate motivation to do what we wouldconsider planning for sustainability.One of two people in the cluster from the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbusiness people and economists\u00E2\u0080\u009D groupbelieved that the EF/ACC tool was fundamentally misleading as it ignored economic principles;the other still wanted to see further development of the tool before judging its utility, as he wassceptical about the methods of any economic tool that tried to measure non-monetarizedquantities. He said that.if the Footprint is used in the public domain, it will suffer from the same problems as cost-benefit analysis.If a politician does not like the conclusion, then some assumptions will be attacked thereby killing the wholeanalysis.187The portraits of the seven people in these two clusters (one participant in both) showshow people with perspectives not congruent with the sustainability interpretation of Chapter IIor with less support for the EF/ACC concept could be engaged in the debate. People in the firstcluster need to understand that even though their technological optimism might be correct, theEF/ACC tool could be used as a yardstick to verify these claims. For people in the secondcluster, more pertinent EF/ACC applications need to be developed in order to convince them.It appears that people do not feel comfortable translating an abstract concept into realapplications on their own but need examples to gain confidence about specific approaches.2. EVALUATING THE INTERVIEW PROCESS AS AN EF/ACCAPPLICATIONInterviewing the participants was not only a research project for validating the EF/ACCtool, but also a test of an application of EF/ACC in itself. In this application, I used the conceptas a conversation piece to explore people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s understanding of sustainability and their commitmentto action. The purpose of such explorations is to identify the limiting factors hampering thetranslation of sustainability concerns into action.This test application showed that the EF/ACC concept can stimulate lively discussionsabout the barriers to developing sustainability, reveal to participants and others their attitudestoward possible strategies for overcoming them. The support that the concept received from alarge variety of people with, at times, opposing sustainability perspectives suggests that the toolcould contribute to consensus building, make the sustainability concept more concrete, and bringit closer to people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s experiences.The interview process with a systematic progression of questions focused the discussion188and helped make the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 answers comparable with those of other participants. Thiseased the analysis. The two progressive scales provided a simple but useful categorization ofparticipants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 understanding. A similar one could be developed for social denial, once its keymechanisms are identified. These scales assisted in quickly assessing the participantssustainability perspectives, not in absolute terms, but certainly in relative or comparative terms.During the interview process, the questionnaire was slightly changed to incorporate someof my acquired knowledge and experiences during the interviews. Rather than merely askingwhether maintaining nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s capacity to regenerate and reproduce is a necessary condition forachieving sustainability (in question 2.4a), I added a second question about industrializedcountries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 need to reduce their resource consumption massively (question 2.4b). This questionpointed at a sensitive area of the sustainability debate and was therefore effective in fathomingparticipants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 sustainability perspective. Particularly, the word \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmassively\u00E2\u0080\u009D prompted muchinteresting discussion. On the one hand, people acknowledged that current consumption levelsin Canada have much exceeded what can be sustained by Earth. However, on the other hand,the word \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmassively\u00E2\u0080\u009D seemed to remind them of the necessity to reduce resource consumption,an unpleasant thought about which they would rather not be reminded of. Another changesuggested to me by a participant was to improve the wording in the scale of question 2.7. Ratherthan having people pick from the scale \u00E2\u0080\u009CVery useful - Quite useful - Marginally useful - Notuseful - Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know,\u00E2\u0080\u009D I dropped the ambiguous word \u00E2\u0080\u009Cquite\u00E2\u0080\u009D and changed the scale to \u00E2\u0080\u009CVeryuseful - Useful - Marginally useful - Not useful - Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know.\u00E2\u0080\u009DConsidering the social taboos around age, sex and race, asking about the social situationof the participants always felt awkward. Nevertheless, these questions were necessary becausethere is much evidence that gender, age and ethnicity influence how sustainability is perceived.189To be honest about the information gathered, I decided to include the questions rather than\u00E2\u0080\u009Csecretly\u00E2\u0080\u009D categorize the participants myself according to age, sex and ethnicity. In furtherinterviews, this section might be improved by explaining first to the participant what theinformation is used for and also by re-stating their right to skip questions.In addition to the limitations described at the outset, the interview process has led toinsights on how further research on the usefulness of the EF/ACC tool and people\u00E2\u0080\u0099sinterpretation of sustainability may be improved. Two aspects of the interview process wouldneed particular attention: first, the interview needs to test whether the participant\u00E2\u0080\u0099s understandingof sustainability has changed because of their exposure to the EF/ACC concept. Second, furtherinterview research on the role the tool has in helping researchers comprehend the phenomenonof societal denial (or disjunction between concern and action) could be undertaken.To explore the EF/ACC tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s impact on the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 sustainability interpretation,question 2.10 asked whether the interview had changed their perspective on sustainability.However, it turned out that this question was ineffective, and merely reflected the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099consciousness about their continuous learning. Also, the question could be perceived as eitherpsychologically degrading since an affirmative answer might be interpreted as previous ignoranceor successful manipulation of the participant. A more useful question might be \u00E2\u0080\u009Chow has theEF/ACC tool affected your understanding of sustainability?\u00E2\u0080\u009D Even better might be to begin andend the interview with a quick assessment of the participant\u00E2\u0080\u0099s sustainability interpretation inorder to detect changes. For example, one of the questions in the beginning could be \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhat arethe key ingredients of sustainability?\u00E2\u0080\u009D with a similar one at the end such as \u00E2\u0080\u009Chow would yousummarize the main conditions for sustainability?\u00E2\u0080\u009D190To make further applications more productive, some questions need to be added,rephrased, or dropped. The questions in section 2.7 on possible applications were too abstractfor many participants and would gain from an explanatory sentence illustrating a concreteapplication. Further, questions would be particularly useful that explore the sustainabilityimplications on a more personal and engaging level. For example, question 1.4.4 on \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdoes yourpersonal view on sustainability conifict with ideas and responsibilities at work?\u00E2\u0080\u009D should bechanged to \u00E2\u0080\u009Chow does your personal view on sustainability conflict with ideas and responsibilitiesat work?\u00E2\u0080\u009DTo streamline the process, the scope of questions can be reduced, and some could bedropped entirely. For example, question 2.1.1 on \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdoes this brochure explain the concept well?\u00E2\u0080\u009Dis not necessary. Question 2.3 could be rephrased to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdescribe in a few words what wouldhappen if nature is harvested faster than it can regrow, year after year.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The discussion on themethod of the EF/ACC concept (question 2.5) could be merged with question 2.8, as question2.5 seemed to be too technical and specific anyhow. However, the comment line \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhichessential component(s) are left out by the concept? Please list?\u00E2\u0080\u009D in question 2.8 should bechanged to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhat is useful about the Ecological Footprint, what should be improved, or whatis misleading?\u00E2\u0080\u009DAnother addition to future interview series would be to expand the variety of participants,maybe even by interviewing a random sample of the local population. This could show whetherthe gathered answers and the pattern in which this group reacted was particular to well informedprofessionals in executive positions all of which had participated in activities toward achievingsustainability before or whether a random sample would generate similar results. Clearly, asecond generation interview should also test the general public\u00E2\u0080\u0099s understanding of sustainability191and identifying their particular barriers to developing action toward sustainability. Nevertheless,these first 21 interviews have contributed to a significant step in that direction.In essence, this EF/ACC application in the form of an interview process has shown thepotential of the EF/ACC concept as a tool for stimulating thinking about sustainability on manylevels, analyzing people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s understanding of sustainability, and documenting their commitmentto action. This might be a particularly useful application as a tool for planning towardsustainability. Today, much action toward sustainability is condemned to failure by beingperceived as unnecessary, nuisance, or worse, oppression. However, by helping to improveunderstanding of the constituency\u00E2\u0080\u0099s thinking, and to develop strategies for action towardsustainability that are supported -- or at least accepted -- by the public, EF/ACC can make acontribution to developing effective action toward sustainability.192ilL CONCLUSIONThe purpose of this thesis was to report on research undertaken to further develop andtest the EF/ACC concept as a tool for planning toward sustainability. In this last chapter, I drawthe research conclusions from three perspective: conclusions with respect to the researchfindings; suggested areas for further research; and, implications for planning.A. CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVESTo test EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s usefulness as a tool for planning toward sustainability, I performedfour research tasks:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 First, I provided an introduction to the EF/ACC concept by defining the concept, comparingit to other sustainability assessment methods and discussing its relevance to ecological,socioeconomic, political, epistemological and psychological considerations related to thesustainability crisis (Chapter III).\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Second, I described how the various competing uses of nature can be translated into acalculated area of land-use and how this allows to assess the Ecological Footprint of ahuman activity (Chapter IV).\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Third, to make this calculation procedure more applicable, I illustrated it with the exampleof the average Canadian Footprint, and gave additional examples of a variety of otherEF/ACC applications from many other places (Chapter V).\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Finally, I explored how administrators and planners, business people and economists, andcommunity activists and local politicians perceive the usefulness of the EF/ACC tool forplanning toward sustainability (Chapter VI). I achieved this through an interview processwhich in itself was a test of the usefulness of the EF/ACC concept.193I started this research with the assumption that sustainability can be achieved only ifhuman consumption does not exceed nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s surplus production (the natural income). In otherwords, the scale of the economy must not overshoot global carrying capacity if nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s long-term productivity should not be compromised. This condition I called the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cecological bottom-linefor sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Respecting the ecological bottom-line means that the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s social andeconomic problems must be addressed within nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s self-productive capacity. Traditionally,these problems have been addressed by facilitating economic expansion. Therefore, the firstquestion becomes how much the human activities can still be expanded until global carryingcapacity is exceeded.Peter Vitousek et a!. calculated in 1986 that by then, humankind was appropriating overforty percent of the globe\u00E2\u0080\u0099s terrestrial net primary productivity. However, if other services ofnature are included, such as waste absorption (e.g., biodegrading effluents or sequestering CO2from fossil fuel burning) and life support services (e.g., preserving biodiversity, protecting fromUVB radiation or providing climate stability), there is increasing evidence that the world mayalready be effectively \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfull\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Goodland 1991, Daly 1991). In fact, as Chapter V pointed out,current agriculture, roundwood harvest and fossil fuel burning together have an EcologicalFootprint that exceeds the available ecologically productive land by close to 30 percent. In otherwords, we would need at least a 30 percent larger (or more ecological productive) Earth toaccommodate sustainably present material flows through the human economy. In fact, theovershoot might be much larger if other competing services of nature were included --particularly the effect of soil erosion which, since World War II, has reduced the productivityof about 11 percent of the globe\u00E2\u0080\u0099s vegetated area (World Resources Institute 1992:111-119). Thisindicates that the ecological crisis is caused by the quantity consumed -- not only by the qualityof human consumption. If we assume that the 20 percent of the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s population which lives194in industrialized countries consumes about 80 percent of the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s resources, that wouldtranslate into the industrialized world alone occupying an Ecological Footprint larger than globalcarrying capacity:80% [of the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s resource consumptioni of130% [humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Footprint as compared to the global carrying capacity]= 0.8*1.3 = 104% [industrial countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Footprint I global carrying capacity].Ecological overshoot is also indicated by the global degradation of forests, soil, waterand ecological and genetic diversity. Such trends and data demonstrate the ecological constraintshumanity is facing, the responsibilities of industrialized countries, and the challenges for futuregenerations whose well-being depends first of all on adequate, functional natural assets. Thesenatural assets are essential because most lost life-support systems cannot be substituted byhuman-made systems.By showing the link between the various competing uses of nature and availableecological space, the EF/ACC concept provides a framework to visualize and communicate thephenomenon of overshoot as applied to human activity. In contrast to what such concepts as\u00E2\u0080\u009CLimits to Growth\u00E2\u0080\u009D might suggest, expanded human activities do not crash into the limits ofnature as a car would crash into a wall. In fact, the natural limits are \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfuzzy\u00E2\u0080\u009D and can betemporarily exceeded at the cost of drawing down nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s assets. As the limits are crossed, noexplicit warning signs light up -- we have only the depletion of natural capital to indicate thathuman impact has exceeded carrying capacity. Moreover, this degradation can be difficult todetect because the visible differences between ecosystems that have been altered by human use(such as through agriculture) and those that are being degraded are subtle. By convertingresource and waste flows to their land equivalents, EFIACC graphically underscores global195ecological constraints and provides such a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwarning light\u00E2\u0080\u009D. In fact, EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099 s conceptualizationof the global ecological challenges and linking them to local decision-making was an aspect ofthe tool which was particularly appreciated by the interview participants.The EF/ACC concept can be taken a step further by linking these global constraints tolocal action. Its various applications to technology assessment, local and regional decision-making, national and international decision-making, inter- and intra-national social equity, andeducation and behavioral analysis provide venues for pertinent policy responses. Even thoughthere remains much scope to improve the technical aspects of the EF/ACC tool and there is aneed for more concrete examples and applications to encourage wider use of the tool, the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099spotential to translate global ecological constraints down to the individual and institutionaldecisions, and the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s various applications, have been clearly appreciated by the participantsof the interview research and the reviewers of the handbook. It has attracted much interest bypractitioners and academics, and was received favourably by the majority of the interviewed keyinformants. Also, the international interest which the tool has received, and the manyapplications it has found, confirm the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s heuristic value for addressing sustainability issues.The interviews seemed to suggest that EF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to translate the ecological aspect ofsustainability into a concrete common yardstick could bridge communication between peoplewith conflicting political perspectives and dissimilar sustainability interpretations.Moreover, the EF/ACC addresses not only the ecological side of the sustainability crisis,but also integrates the other four facets. EFIACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s full potential to address simultaneously allthese facets is best realized in combination with the parallel concept on livability, the \u00E2\u0080\u009CSocialCaring Capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D concept being developed by the UBC Task Force on Healthy and SustainableCommunities (UBC Task Force 1994). Most importantly, EF/ACC facilitates the \u00E2\u0080\u009C...recognition196of necessities...\u00E2\u0080\u009D, which, according to Garrett Hardin, is the precondition for overcoming the\u00E2\u0080\u009CTragedy of Free Access\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1968/93:139). By acknowledging concrete ecological constraints andillustrating the meaning of natural income within which humanity has to live, EF/ACC helps usto think more effectively about the social, economic and political adjustments needed to livewithin them. At present, we exacerbate our problems by ignorant action.As the interviews confirmed, the EF/ACC tool provides various features that make itattractive and assert its potential as a tool for planning toward sustainability. Clearly, someaspects of the tool still need to be further developed, as pointed out by the interview participants.Their main concern was that: EF/ACC is not yet applicable to practitioners\u00E2\u0080\u0099 everyday decision-making; in particular, potential users still lack sufficient examples and calculation procedures -- also for establishing more confidence into the model; further, more effective communicationis necessary to make EF/ACC considerations and implications more accessible to the public.Only one participant felt that the tool was misleading, mainly because of the briefing brochure\u00E2\u0080\u0099ssuggestions for action (Wackernagel 1993a, or Appendix 3.3). This participant\u00E2\u0080\u0099s main criticismof EF/ACC as a concept was the tool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s neglect of market prices.However, in spite of these concerns, most participants appreciated the tool, particularlyas it addresses a wide variety of sustainability issues identified in Chapter II, frames them, anddirects according action as:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 it translates global ecological constraints down to the local scale and demonstrates the needfor appropriate local socioeconomic adjustment. Today, when global carrying capacityis being overused, ecological productivity has become a limiting factor for aggregatehuman activity. EF/ACC analysis shows that the carrying capacity appropriated by oneperson or group diminishes the carrying capacity that can be appropriated by other197people; in short, human uses of nature compete against each other. This has fundamentalimplications for global development strategies (see later);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 it links social and ecological concerns raised in the sustainability debate as it illustrates howcompeting uses of nature can translate into social conflicts, and how conventionaleconomic development strategies are at odds with preserving ecological integrity, therebycompromising future well-being. In fact, EF/ACC applications show that ecologicalefficiency is not congruent with ecological efficiency (Wada 1993). EF/ACC becomesa tool to visualize these conflicts and provides a framework for alternative approachesto economic development which contributes to the goal of living within global carryingcapacity;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 it facilitates political decision-making as it offers a relatively simple, transparent approach forcomparing sustainability impacts of human activities. This can be done on the municipallevel (as pursued by the UBC Task Force together with the City of Richmond [1994])or on larger scales (as proposed in the 1993 Environmental Scan [Peat Marwick1993b:24]). By raising ethical question and translating them into concrete terms,EF/ACC could make the trade-offs of decisions more visible -- from the local scale whenmaking consumer choices at the household level, up to the global scale when it mightassist Southern countries in their negotiation for more ecological space;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 it presents an heuristic tool that builds on present knowledge, stimulates future orientedthinking, and is action-oriented. Even though EF/ACC is a scientifically based tool, itcan deal with generalities rather than getting lost in specificities. By starting from explicitassumptions (such as \u00E2\u0080\u009Chuman beings depend on nature\u00E2\u0080\u009D), the EF/ACC concept translatesthese assumptions into concrete implications. Thereby, it helps to sharpen the debatebetween conflicting assumptions and beliefs around such issues as decoupling, ecologicalefficiency, growth management and impact assessment; and,198\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 it respects the psychological reluctance and anxiety of people to accept sustainabilitychallenges by providing a non-threatening communication tool. At the same time itenables people to visualize the cumulative effect of incrementalism and illustrates itspotential destructiveness, a precondition for overcoming the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cboiled frog syndrome\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Forthis reason, the example of the Lions Gate bridge (Davidson & Robb 1994) alwayscaught the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 interest when I told them about it. In other words, EF/ACCprovides the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbigger picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D about the impacts of people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s individual decisions withoutalienating the individual -- rather than pointing fingers, it shows the connections of lifeand the human dependence on nature. Also, as. noted, the conducted interview researchseems to indicate that EF/ACC has the potential to improve the cross-paradigmcommunication.The research met its objectives outlined in Chapter I by developing and testing a planningtool for translating sustainability concerns into action. By addressing all these aspects, theEF/ACC concept ties together multiple facets of the sustainability crisis rather than fragmentingit into seemingly separate issues. This inherent holism most likely enhances the effectiveness ofthe tool for planning toward sustainabiity.B. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCHTo make EF/ACC more applicable and useful to the practitioners and community groups(NGOs), more examples of its use are needed. The results from applications will help illustratingthe concept and its relevance to sustainabiity, while the documentation of these examples willprovide guidance for other researchers and practitioners who would like to apply the EF/ACCconcept to a new context. Developing more concrete examples was the most common suggestionthat I received from the EF/ACC handbook reviewers and the participants in the interview199research. Further research ideas that could make the EF/ACC tool more widely applicable anduser-friendly are categorized into five topic areas.1. TOOL IMPROVEMENTS:INCLUDING ALL COMPETING USES OF NATUREThe existing EF/ACC assessment would gain from a more comprehensive treatment ofconsumer goods and from an inclusion of competing uses of nature which are still left out. Suchresearch would involve the development of more reliable data sets and would require:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 calculating EF/ACC assessments for renewable energy options that could substitute for fossilfuel use such as ethanol, methanol, photovoltaic generated hydrogen, oil-seeds, hydrogen,and wood. EF/ACC research on energy options could build on studies conducted byMario Giampietro, Michael Narodoslawsky, David Pimentel, Vaclav Smil, YoshihikoWada and me;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 including hydroelectricity into EF/ACC calculations. This requires more detailed biophysicaldata about the land requirements for production (such as area for power lines, area forhydro reservoirs, impact on river [and ocean] fisheries) as well as data about the directand indirect consumption of electricity;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 clarifying forest productivities as the reported yields are still scattered over a wide range;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 reviewing literature on estimates for the minimum area of wilderness necessary to protectecological stability. After determining the land area that should remain untouched, onecan calculate how much of Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s area would be available to accommodate humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099sEcological Footprint. At this point, as discussed above, we assume the existence of 1.5billion [ha] of untouched ecosystems and believe that the ecosystems should be left intheir present state for reasons of rising atmospheric CO2 levels and threatened200biodiversity -- and believe this to be a defensible minimum requirement;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 assessing the land and water area requirements for providing a given assimilative capacity (forsewerage, solid waste, air pollution and soil contamination);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 providing an account of degraded areas due to soil erosion, salination, urbanization andtransportation, including estimates of energy, time and resources that would be necessaryto restore them;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 comparing the EF/ACC tool to other ecological assessment methods such as life cycleanalysis, environmental space, SPI, and MIPS (see Chapter III), to clarify thecompatibility between these approaches, identify data transferability, and resolvedifferences between these approaches;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 developing a calculation procedure (and rationale) to translate the use of fresh water into aland area. This could start from assessing the potential losses in agricultural productivitydue to lacking fresh water supply, or the energy requirements to transport or desalinatethe necessary water for agricultural production; and,\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 improving the existing data collection. Much of the data on embodied energy and resources,national consumption and ecosystem productivity should be checked against other studies,and need updating. Also, consumption by government and business needs betterdocumentation.2. LOCAL APPLICATIONS: ANALYZING THE IMPACT OFSETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND CONSUMPTIONTo develop more concrete illustrations of the EF/ACC concept, additional local, smallscale examples need to be developed. These could include the:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 documentation of the Ecological Footprint sizes for households in various income classes. Themain parameters would include settlement patterns, housing types (with their implications201for construction and maintenance requirements), transportation patterns, shoppingfacilities and consumer choices. Preliminary research on this topic, with a particularfocus on housing density, is being pursued by Lyle Walker (1994);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 analysis of transportation strategies such as new roads, bicycle strategies, bridges or publictransportation options on their EF/ACC (including their impact on settlement patterns andlifestyles). Such research could build on the preliminary work by Gavin Davidson andChristine Robb (1994), Anthony Parker (1993), and Graham Beck (1993);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 estimations of EF/ACC impacts of concrete development proposals such as golf courses,shopping centres, pedestrian zones, highways, public transportation, and zoning. Thiscould also be applied to technologies or budgets. Assessing large scale retail developmentis one application that is being analyzed from this perspective by the UBC Task Forceon Healthy and Sustainable Communities and the staff of the City of Richmond (1994);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 comparison of the Ecological Footprints of a dollar spent on different goods in the sameconsumption category. Examples could include cheap versus expensive clothing, cheapversus luxury cars, organically grown versus conventionally grown food, vegetarianversus omnivore diet, or processed and packaged food versus unprocessed bulk food;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 account of the Canadian EF/ACC availability thorough developing a land inventory(agriculture, forests) with their respective ecological productivities. This could build onYoshihiko Wada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s assessment of the available carrying capacity of the Lower FraserBasin (1994b). Further, the sustainability gap between available and actually occupiedEF/ACC could be documented, and various scenarios could be tested on how to close thegap;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 link and integration of the EF/ACC tool with the Social Caring Capacity concept to developways how they can mutually support the planning toward sustainability;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 development of more business oriented applications such as product labelling (Stead & Stead2021992:145-152. More meaningful eco-labelling could go beyond eco-efficiency reportingby conceptually linking the consumption at the individual micro-level with the ecologicalmacro-constraints. The EF/ACC model could improve traditional ecological productlabelling by indicating how many days of ecological production a particular good orservice would occupy on the globe\u00E2\u0080\u0099s average carrying capacity (which amounts today toabout 1.3 hectares per capita). For example, 0.2 hectares could be set aside forproducing a healthy (close to vegetarian) diet, which would leave the remaining hectarefor providing housing, transportation, goods, and services. A compact disk or shampoocould then be labelled with the statement: \u00E2\u0080\u009CIt took (..) hours ecological production oftheaverage person\u00E2\u0080\u0099s available 1.1 hectares to provide this product\u00E2\u0080\u009D, thereby suggesting thatthe purchaser should wait for (..) hours until engaging in the next resource consumptiveactivity if he or she wants to live within global carrying capacity. This would enableindividuals to budget their share of natural income; and,\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 documentation of the calculation procedures for various EF/ACC applications (technicalprocesses, policy assessments, national statistics, etc.) to improve the concept\u00E2\u0080\u0099sreplicability and assist other researchers in their EF/ACC applications.3. LARGER SCALE APPLICATIONS: ANALYZING THE IMPACT OFREGIONAL AND NATIONAL POLICIESThe EF/ACC tool lends itself to analyzing potential sustainability impacts of policies,trade issues, natural capital depletion, public budgets, or technological innovations. Possibleapplications include:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 a study of traded carrying capacity. Building on existing EF/ACC applications, thisapplication would entail a more detailed tracing of a region\u00E2\u0080\u0099s or nation\u00E2\u0080\u0099s carrying203capacity leakages into global trade relations (Rees &Wackernagel 1992, Rees 1994a,Thomas 1994). The carrying capacity leakages which leave one region arid getappropriated by a second region illuminate the ecological imbalance of trade thatmonetary balances cannot reveal. Such studies could also document the dependence ofurban regions and the leakages in rural (or resource extracting) areas. These studiesbecome particularly relevant as in the current context of globalization and export driveneconomies, industrialized countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Ecological Footprints have become footloose andeconomies all over the world are forced to expand their appropriation of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099sproductivity in order to compete successfully in the global market;As a complementary task to the EF/ACC analysis that only points out some of thesocial implications of trade relationships, appropriated labour could be analyzed. Theappropriated labour of a person would be that share of the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s available labournecessary to provide this person\u00E2\u0080\u0099s consumed goods and services (per year), while theavailable labour would correspond to all the hours of work (including domestic work)performed all over the world during the same time span. This could indicate whether aparticular, more \u00E2\u0080\u009Cecologically friendly\u00E2\u0080\u009D lifestyle was only made possible by theappropriation of more cheap labour, or whether this lifestyle is also socially more just(see also Giampietro et al. 1993). For example, cheap labour might be substituted for theuse of commercial energy (as apparent in feudal systems or when exploiting slavelabour), which might reduce EF/ACC at the cost of an unacceptable social burden. Suchan analysis would not only reveal social inequities but also physical policy constraints interms of people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s time: clearly, not everybody can depend on cheap labour, as theaverage per capita appropriated labour is always equal to the average per capita labourcontributed;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 an evaluation of national policies regarding their impact on EF/ACC. This could include204transportation, employment, international development, or resource development policies;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 a documentation of the distribution of the available EF/ACC all over the world which includesdeveloping an account of the areas of ecologically productive land as well as collectingestimates of their ecological productivity. As a frame of reference, this would alsorequire an assessment of the average global ecological productivities;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 a comparison of the relationship between \u00E2\u0080\u009Cquality of life\u00E2\u0080\u009D indicators and the EFIACC ofvarious lifestyles all over the world. The results will give an indication about how, andto what degree, quality of life can be improved while EF/ACC is decreased; and,OumptionFigure 7.1: David Pearce\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpolicy wedge\u00E2\u0080\u009D to decouple consumption from resource throughputDavid Pearce believes that policy wedges can be found that allow consumption of goods andservices to rise while resources consumption would fall at the same time. In other words, hebelieves in decoupling \u00E2\u0080\u009Cconsumption\u00E2\u0080\u009D from \u00E2\u0080\u009Cresource consumption.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The EF/ACC tool couldbe used in further research to measure whether decoupling is happening. (Source: Pearce1994)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 a study of historical paths and potential trends in the EF/ACC of various countries. Such anConsumption IonThe WedgeTime--205analysis could test many scholars\u00E2\u0080\u0099 claim about the human economy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to\u00E2\u0080\u009Cdecouple\u00E2\u0080\u009D from its material dependence on the ecosphere, and about the possibility ofeconomic growth without increasing EF/ACC (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cqualitative growth\u00E2\u0080\u009D) (Isenman 1991).\u00E2\u0080\u0099For example, David Pearce claims that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...consumption can rise while the ratio ofresources to consumption can fall at the same time. The extent to which total resourceuse rises then depends on whether the ratio falls faster than the level of consumptionrises...\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1994:1). He then calls for the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpolicy wedges\u00E2\u0080\u009D that can help to decouple\u00E2\u0080\u009Cconsumption\u00E2\u0080\u009D from \u00E2\u0080\u009Cresource consumption\u00E2\u0080\u009D (1994:3, Figure 7.1). Tracing the per capitaEF/ACC over time could reveal whether household consumption in particular regions hasindeed \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdecoupled\u00E2\u0080\u009D from its dependence on nature. Cases that show decreasing EF/ACCwhile they were actually increasing their consumption might inform about how\u00E2\u0080\u009Cdecoupling\u00E2\u0080\u009D could be achieved (if such cases exist). A better understanding of\u00E2\u0080\u009Cdecoupling\u00E2\u0080\u009D (or the lack of it) will indicate the potential for economic growth withinEarth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s carrying capacity.4. COMMUNICATION:MAKING THE TOOL AND ITS IDEAS MORE ACCESSIBLEEF/ACC\u00E2\u0080\u0099s strength is not its sophistication for \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenvironmental management\u00E2\u0080\u009D, but itsability to communicate the ecological constraints and its implication for policy choices in asimple and illustrative way. To make the tool more effective further research could:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 adapt the EF/ACC information to various professional or public audiences by using theirlanguage, including examples (and data) relevant to their experience, and developinggraphics and tables that illustrate these effectively. Potential audiences could include1 Indeed, the main caption in an advertising brochure for William Reilly\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Environment Strategy America 1994/95reads \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .effective environmental strategies are vital to sustainable growth as economic recovery gathers pace...\u00E2\u0080\u009D206community activists, municipal politicians, municipal planners, artists, teachers, publicengineers, architects, business people, lawyers, and journalists.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 develop data-base or spread-sheet supported calculations that make the use of the gathereddata more flexible and allow easier updating.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 devise educational software applications that show graphically and in a playful way thesensitivity of EF/ACC estimates to lifestyle choices.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 produce board games, role playing and outdoor exercises for schools, workshops, or otherentertainment that illustrate the sustainability dilemma, using EF/ACC and the SocialCaring Capacity concepts as tools.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 design curriculums, simple case studies, and other preparatory material for workshops andcourses, which could build on existing educational applications (FSSA 1994, Griggs eta!. 1993, Kool 1994).5. BEHAVIORAL ANALYSES: EXPLORING THE SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY OF THE SUSTAINABILITY CRISISAn interesting application of the EF/ACC tool that still needs further refinement is its usein exploring and analyzing public perception of sustainability, and identifying limiting factorsfor action toward sustainability. This could build on the research documented in Chapter VI.Such research could be highly valuable for designing more effective strategies toward developingsustainability.Key to such research is the study of societal denial, particularly on how and where itoccurs. The purpose would be to document the mechanics that lead to the disjunction betweenpeople\u00E2\u0080\u0099s stated goals and values about the necessity to become sustainable which are revealedin many opinion polls and government documents (Dunlap 1993) and, on the other hand, the207lack of corrective public action.Therefore, as a first step, further research on the social psychology of sustainability couldfocus on societal denial by pointing out potential inconsistencies between values, interpretationof biophysical measurements and actions, and the collection of people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s reactions to thesecontradictions. In fact, such studies could be instrumental in identifying leverages for change,as pointing out such inconsistencies could be used to feed into people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s cognitive dissonance.After all, according to social psychology, it is cognitive dissonance that leads to attitudinalchange (Baron & Byrne 1987:132-146).C. IMPLICATIONS OF TUE EF/ACC TOOL FOR PLANNING ACTIONThis research about the EF/ACC concept has shown how the global ecological constraintsto human activities can be documented and how these constraints can direct decision-makingtoward sustainability on the institutional and individual level. Accepting the global ecologicalconstraints has fundamental implications for the way we should organize human activities, andprovides some insight into the planning tools needed for assisting such a transformation.The EF/ACC tool demonstrates that we no longer live in a world with abundant, unusedecological capacity (or with ecosystems whose production has not yet been modified accordingto human demands). As noted, there is evidence that human carrying capacity has already beenexceeded. This puts forward fundamental challenges for public policy: how can the ecologicalimpact of human activity be decreased while at the same time providing for everybody\u00E2\u0080\u0099s needs?Who should reduce their Ecological Footprints, and who should be allowed to still increasetheirs to meet their needs? How can people be convinced to reduce their Ecological Footprint?How can a social contract be devised that makes sure the weakest will not carry the greatest208burden of the sustainability crisis -- but that humanity can live with these challenges in the mosthumane way?The EF/ACC tool not only points out the limits at the macro scale, but also can translatethese global constraints to smaller scales such as the level of individual decision-malcing. In spiteof the many attempts which conventional planning has used to address \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenvironmental\u00E2\u0080\u009Dconstraints, the results have, arguably, been poor. Zoning, growth management or impactassessment all lack the link to the macro-scale of global ecological constraints. Thereby, theyaccommodate rather than prevent, the destructive incrementalism of conventional economicdevelopment. Indeed, the EF/ACC tool could assist society (and planners) in developingsustainability, if society wanted this. This indicates implications for three public policy domains:1) creating public awareness, 2) planning for sustainable national and international policies, and3) planning sustainable communities.In the face of the ecological and socioeconomic constraints that become more and moreapparent, sustainability must become the new organizing principle for planning. And indeed,there are encouraging signs that this is happening as evident by: the Canadian Institute ofPlanners\u00E2\u0080\u0099 renewed interest in sustainability (Canadian Institute of Planners 1990, 1993, 1994);planning schools\u00E2\u0080\u0099 various activities in that area (SCARP 1994:1, Wackernagel 1993b); Nationaland Provincial Round Tables with strong focus on planning issues; provincial initiatives such asthe CORE (Commission on Resources and Environment) process in British Columbia; and, thehiring of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenvironmental planners\u00E2\u0080\u009D by various municipalities here in the Fraser Basin.1, CREATING PUBLIC AWARENESSEffective action requires public support. However, there is little evidence that a large209enough segment of the public acknowledges the profound nature of the sustainability crisis. Frompublic opinion polls, it becomes clear that most people know about the challenges (Dunlap1993), but few understand the implications of, and connections between, these challenges.Therefore, informing people about these implications is the first step toward a more sustainablesociety.It might well be that economic constraints force all levels of decision-making to chooseunsustainable options. However, this unhealthy situation should not be silently accepted, butshould be used as an opportunity to explain the trade-offs between the short-term gains and thelong-term costs which the current socioeconomic context forces us to make. The EF/ACCconcept is a helpful tool to illustrate this conifict. Rather than privately sighing about the\u00E2\u0080\u009Cconstraints of real-life decision-making\u00E2\u0080\u009D that impose slow but incremental ecologicaldestruction, planners must point out this conflict publicly and show why the current negative-sumgame will be detrimental for everybody in the long run. It is a negative-sum game, rather thana zero-sum game, because in a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfull\u00E2\u0080\u009D world, overconsumption by one person compromises futureoptions for everybody -- the losses outweigh the gains. Often, the argument is put forward thateconomic growth and the subsequent expansion in aggregate consumption is inevitable, or thatevery development option has to be seized because \u00E2\u0080\u009Cotherwise somebody else will do it.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Thesearguments are no longer defensible, but are an indication of society accommodating thedestruction of its future. By using the EF/ACC tool, policy analysts could more persuasivelypoint out the disastrous cumulative impact of perpetuating conventional economic development.Even though economic constraints might force communities to accommodate such economicdevelopment today, decision-makers should be informed that accepting such development nowmight be financially attractive today, but devastating in the long run. Decision makers mustrealize how profound and serious the sustainabiity crisis is if destructive development is210supposedly \u00E2\u0080\u009Cinevitable\u00E2\u0080\u009D. In fact, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cinevitable destruction\u00E2\u0080\u009D should be recognized as a warning bellindicating the urgent need for forceful public action.The EF/ACC concept provides planners with a tool that can communicate thesechallenges. This concept underscores the fact that human life is dependent on, and embeddedin, nature and that consumption is indeed limited by nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s reproductive capacity. Realizingthe resource constraints raises questions about how humankind is to consume resources in thefuture. If human consumption continues to exceed nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s capacity to regenerate, futuregenerations will have even less \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnatural capital\u00E2\u0080\u009D (or reproductive capacity) available and willtherefore be even more likely to erode the remaining stock as they meet their consumptionneeds. Therefore, life on Earth (including that of human beings) can only be sustained withinthe limits of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s dividends which can be measured by EF/ACC. In other words, EF/ACCdemonstrates that excessive consumption today means reduced life-support services for futuregenerations.Clearly, palliative policy responses to the sustainability crisis are unhealthy in thiscontext, because they detract from reacting to the crisis and feed into societal denial. Rather thancontinuing with palliative policies, the question becomes how the culture of societal denial canbe dismantled. Perhaps, it requires a spear group with enough self-confidence to accept thesustainability challenges and to resist the attraction of consumption and the seductive messagesabout economic (or financial) success with which people are bombarded by the media (and theirpeers). Or, as an interview participant said, \u00E2\u0080\u009C. . .now there is a certain sexiness about anexpensive lifestyle that going without just does not have...\u00E2\u0080\u009D. In response, the EF/ACC tool mightbe a helpful interactive research tool for visualizing the sustainability conflicts, exposingpalliative approaches and challenging the assumptions of the palliative denial culture. Probing211the palliative denial culture could clarify whether the barriers are lack of information, inadequateworidviews (or paradigms), fragmented and inconsistent value systems, or external socialconstraints (such as social demands, physical structures and misleading economic incentiveswhich would limit individual choice). In other words, this should shed light on the questionwhether the limiting factor in motivating people for sustainability is ignorance about the issues,disbelief, fear, carelessness or desperation.The need to avoid palliative responses also has implications for planning education.Planners must be prepared for the present challenges with effective substantive knowledge andprocedural approaches. The EF/ACC tool could assist the learning about the cumulative impactsof incremental decisions (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cboiled frog syndrome\u00E2\u0080\u009D), and about how this can be communicated tothe public and to government. The tool could help planners in realizing that the world is \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfull\u00E2\u0080\u009D,which has profound implications on how people and institutions must reorganize themselves tolive a good life with a shrinking resource base. Therefore, EF/ACC also becomes a tool thatassists planners in the most important task, building broad public support rather than developingsophisticated policies, which may be planners\u00E2\u0080\u0099 greatest contribution to a more sustainable future.The message that needs to be disseminated is simple: developing sustainability requiresthat human activities must remain within global carrying capacity. Because currently globalcarrying capacity is already overshot, and industrialized countries use significantly more thantheir share, these industrialized countries need to significantly reduce their resourceconsumption.2Here, the EF/ACC tool can be of considerable help analyzing which policies are2 Of course, also within many industrialized countries, consumption is inequitably distributed too. Therefore, areduction in resource consumption cannot be universal, but must also respect the needs of those groups lacking alreadyan adequate supply of consumption goods.212effective in achieving sustainability. For example, it could monitor whether efficiency measuresalone would reduce the EF/ACC of an economy, or whether, in addition, this economy wouldneed to modify its tax system to divert the economy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s efficiency gains into natural capitalinvestments (Wackernagel & Rees 1992, Rees 1994b).However, a reduction in resource consumption can only be achieved if people feel thatsuch a reduction will improve their lives including aspects of health, survival, autonomy andidentity (Miles 1992:293). Clearly, the judgement about how such a reduction will affectpeople\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quality of life has to be left to the affected people as quality of life is subjective anddepends on their woridviews. If a reduction in resource consumption is not seen as a desirablestep, it will most likely encounter unsurmountable resistance rather than the necessary supportand good-will.To successfully develop sustainability we must demonstrate to the public that reducingour Ecological Footprint while improving our quality of life is still possible. And, as mentionedabove, this becomes the criterion for sustainability. When testing a technology, project, programor policy on its sustainability impact, two questions must be asked:(1) Will this decision or activity reduce people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Ecological Footprint?; and(2) Will this decision or activity improve our quality of life?Only those decisions or activities that satisfy these two imperatives can move us towardsustainability; all others are conscious choices against sustainability.2. PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE NATIONAL ANDINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTThe fmdings that the EF/ACC concept has generated, fundamentally challenge the213assumptions which drive economic globalization, international development and populationpolicies. Industrialized countries still do not encourage a reduction in their population size (asone factor of the impact equation [Hoidren & Ehrlich 1974]), but are more worried about agingof society. Recognizing that humanity must live within ecological limits means that aggregateconsumption must not increase beyond present levels. Excessive consumption of natural capitalby one group will compromise the opportunities for consumption by others; present or future.However, a large part of humankind needs to increase consumption in order to live decently --but the conventional approach of raising the standard of living of poorer segments of society byincreasing economic production no longer works. Any increase in economic production thatdepends on more of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s services will exacerbate the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnatural capital deficit\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Such a deficitin wealth-generating resources, however, is even more difficult to overcome than a financialdeficit (such as those which our governments are currently running up at the expense of futuregenerations) because these natural processes cannot be replaced.While we must continue to pursue environmentally-sound technologies, we cannot usethis as an excuse to avoid questions of distribution and overconsumption. The process which willmove humankind towards sustainability could use, as a first step, the two sustainabilityimperatives outlined above. On the one hand, this evolutionary plan towards sustainability mustprotect those assets which all future generations of humanity will need for their survival. On theother hand, for ethical and practical reasons this plan of action should not deprive members ofthe present generation from meeting their basic needs. Otherwise, increasing social conflictscould significantly decrease quality of life for everybody. Although this process will constrainsome economic choices today by limiting total consumption of the affluent, it will keep moreoptions open for people in the future -- including the option of not suffering from deprivationand ecological deterioration.214As shown by EF/ACC analyses, in most cases (and Canada might be a lucky exceptionwith its extensive land base), the way industrialized countries operate cannot be supported bylocal carrying capacity alone. Maintaining present industrial lifestyles leads not only to a draw-down of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s biological renewable and non-renewable assets such as soils, forests, fisheries,fossil fresh water and fossil fuel, but also relies on the continuous exploitation and appropriationof ecological carrying capacity of other places - especially Third World countries. This raisesmajor ethical and moral issues about our lifestyles.Under existing economic exchange rules, our resource hunger threatens to liquidate theglobe\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ecological assets -- the very basis of life. The establishment of global markets hasfacilitated the appropriation of carrying capacity from all over the globe and has accelerated itsdestruction. For example, Malaysia is cutting down its forests to satisfy Japanese timber hunger;Russia has opened its fisheries, forests and fossil fuel stocks to Western markets; and BritishColumbia is exploiting its forests to furnish the worldwide lumber and paper demand. More andmore people start living on ecological carrying capacity from somewhere else. How long willit take before we run out of somewhere else?If the industrialized countries continue to promote a lifestyle that requires two moreplanets (as EF/ACC analyses point out), they are, in effect, blindly planning for their owncollapse. If the industrialized world wants to make a true contribution to sustainability it shouldmassively reduce its resource consumption. It should promote living simply -- so others cansimply live.But industrial countries are still proceeding the other way. By removing trade barriers,the global economy opens access to new resource stocks and feeds into exponentially rising215consumer expectations while drawing down the global resource stocks at an accelerated pace.At the same time the incentive vanishes to conserve local resources. The global economyprovides us temporarily with some glorious and seemingly resource rich years at the cost ofaggravating the dilemma between increasing human demands and a declining productivity ofnature.There are already some initiatives in place that try to deal with these conflicts, the BritishColumbia CORE (Commission on Resources and Environment) process being one of these. Theircomprehensive approach in Goal setting is impressive (Chess 1994), even if this process has notyet been effective in making people understand their dependence on healthy natural capital andin inspiring compassionate approaches to address the sustainability dilemmas. For thoseprocesses, the EF/ACC tool may be of assistance in the future.The EF/ACC tool could provide direction for an ecologically more sensitive and thereforemore humane and future oriented development path. As pointed out earlier, planners do not lackin sustainability strategies. Rather, society lacks the intellectual and emotional acceptance of thefacts that humanity is materially dependent on nature, and that nature is limited in its biologicalproductivity. The EF/ACC tool might be useful to help explore the implications that theserealities entail.3. PLANNING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIESLocal planning offers significant leverages for action toward sustainabiity. In themunicipal context, innovative changes in transportation and land-use patterns can significantlyreduce resource consumption and, at the same time, improve local quality of life. Furthermore,as these more sustainable land-use and transportation policies mainly influence the way people216are housed, how they commute, and how they spend their recreational time (but not the structureof the local economic production), these changes will not threaten the economic competitivenessof the municipality. EFIACC could assist in analyzing policies on their global ecological impact,in assessing progress toward sustainability -- and, if used in a more refined form -- in identifyingthose actions which would result in the greatest sustainability impact per dollar spent.Of course, the positive effect of well designed urban form can be greatly enhanced bypeople\u00E2\u0080\u0099s lifestyle changes. The challenge is clear: people should focus on living locally, ratherthan on consuming globally. Also, they must re-discover that meeting some friends whilebicycling home is more fun and less ecologically damaging than spending lonely hours inhighway congestions on the way to the suburb.The calculations in Chapter V show that it would take about 4.3 hectares of ecologicallyproductive land to support the average Canadian\u00E2\u0080\u0099s current lifestyle. This is by one to twomagnitudes more land than there is typically available within urban Canadian municipalities. Onthe one hand, this local overshoot shows the challenge of being truly sustainable. However, italso demonstrates the multiplier effect of municipal action: if the Ecological Footprint exceedsthe regional carrying capacity 20 times (as in the case of the Lower Fraser Basin in BC), a 5percent cutback in resource input and waste generation will reduce the Ecological Footprint bythe size of the entire region.Municipalities are under a lot of pressure to deliver more services with fewer resources.A fierce tax competition reduces revenues, thereby malcing conventional economic developmentopportunities look even more attractive to local governments. However, as the EF/ACC tool canillustrate, this negative-sum game will be destructive for everybody in the long run. And this217must be emphasized -- in fact, the first step toward sustainability might be to become moreconscious about the negative-sum game in which humanity is caught. Explaining this to citizensin their communities might be the most effective action for courageous municipal planners andcommunity activists. Hopefully, the EF/ACC tool can help them to communicate the cumulativeeffects of the destructive power of seemingly benign incremental development. In the case ofsingle resource towns, EF/ACC might assist in framing the debate on options of thecommunity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s future, thereby making a positive contribution to more careful planning for theinevitable transition of these communities. Without such careful planning, they will otherwiserepeat the painful experiences of other busting resource towns.In summary: In the context of a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfull\u00E2\u0080\u009D world and growing populations with risingmaterial expectations, the question of how to provide everybody with essential resourcesbecomes a major challenge. EF/ACC is a tool that can facilitate the comparison of policychoices society inevitably must face (or nature will react first with a less attractive response).EF/ACC analysis becomes an essential planning tool to secure the ecological stability uponwhich social and individual health depends, by raising questions about long-term sustainability,by enabling assessment of choices, and by monitoring progress towards closing the dangerousand widening gap between human consumption and nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s production.In essence, the Ecological Footprint or Appropriated Carrying Capacity (EF/ACC) toolmakes it clear that every future decision that results in the appropriation of more resources bythose who consume more than their fair share (economically viable as this may seem) is aconscious choice against ecological, social and economic sustainability.218BIBLIOGRAPHY(Note: the references to the data collection in Appendix 2.1 are listed in Appendix 2.3)In addition to the books and articles listed bellow, the following periodicals are referred to in the text:Environment Bulletin: A Newsletter of the World Bank Environment CommunityThe EconomistThe EcologistThe Globe and MailThe New InternationalistThe Vancouver SunAdler-Karlsson, Gunnar, 1974. Harrying and Carrying Capacity: A Swedish Contribution to the United Nations WorldPopulation Conference. The Royal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.Afrane, Sam, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAltruism, Planning Theory and Human Settlement Development in the Third World.\u00E2\u0080\u009D UBCPlanning Papers. Centre for Human Settlements, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Agarwal, Anil and Sunita Narain, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Greening of India.\u00E2\u0080\u009D EcoDecision, June 1992. p72-4 (See also AnilAgarwal and Sunita Narain, 1990. Towards Green Villages: A Strategy for Environmentally Sound and ParticipatoryRural Development. Centre for Science and Environment, New Dehli).Aguilera-Klink, Frederico, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSome Notes on the Misuse of the Classic Writings in Economics on the Subject ofCommon Property.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Ecological Economics. Vol.9 No.3.p221-8Ahmed, Irshad and Davis Morris, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CClearing the Air about Ethanol.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Focus. Vol.2 No.3.p37-49Anderson, Victor, 1991. Alternative Economic Indicators. Routledge, London, New York.Apps, M.J. et a!., 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CBoreal Forests and Tundra.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Water, Air and Soil Pollution. Vol.70.p39-53Arden-Clarke, Charles, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: Environmental Protection and SustainableDevelopment.\u00E2\u0080\u009D A WWF Discussion Paper. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.Aronson, Lesly and Melanie Charles, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSocial Caring Capacity of a Community: A Literature Review.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Reportto the UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver.Ashby, Ross W., 1956. Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman and Hall, London.Axeirod, Robert, 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York, NY.Baccini, Paul and Peter H. Brunner, 1991. Metabolism of the Anthroposphere. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Balling, Robert, Jr., 1992. The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions versus Climate Realities. Pacific ResearchInstitute for Public Policy, San Francisco.Bannock, Graham, R.E. Baxter and Evan Davis, 1987. Dictionary of Economics. Penguin Books, London.Barbier, Edward, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CNatural Capital and the Economics of Environment and Development.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Plenary paper preparedfor the 2nd ISEE conference. Stockholm. August 3-6, 1992.219Barnard, Geoffrey W., 1984. \u00E2\u0080\u009CLiquid Fuel Production from Biomass in the Developing Countries -- An Agricultural andEconomic Perspective.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Donald L. Wise, (editor), 1984. Bioconversion Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Barnett, Harold and Chandler Morse, 1963. Scarcity and Growth: The Economics of Nalural Resource Availability.Published for Resources of the Future. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.Barney, Gerald, (study director), 1980. The Global 2000 Report to the President. US Government Printing Office,Washington DC.Baron, Robert A. and Donn Byrne, 1987. Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction. (5th edition). Allynand Bacon, Newton MA.Baum, Andrew and John Aiello, 1978. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCrowding and Personal Control: Social Density and the Development of LearnedHelplessness.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol.3 6 No.9.Beavis, Mary Ann, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CStewardship, Planning and Public Policy.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Plan Canada. Vol.36 No.6. p75-82Beck, Graham, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Freedom to Stay: Transportation and the Appropriated Carrying Capacity in the Context ofRichmond\u00E2\u0080\u0099s City Centre.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Report to the UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver.Beckerman, Wilfred, 1980. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Role of Social Indicators in Development Planning.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (UNESCO 1984).Beer, Stafford, 1974. Designing Freedom. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto.Beer, Stafford, 1981. \u00E2\u0080\u009CI Said, You Are Gods.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Teilhard Review. Vol.15 No.3. p1-33Bello, Walden and Stephanie Rosenfeld, 1990. Dragons in Distress: Crisis and Conflicts in Asia\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Miracle Economies.Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland CA.Bello, Walden and Shea Cunningham, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CDark Victory: The Global Impact of Structural Adjustment.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The Ecologist.Vol.23 No.3. p87-93Benton, William and Helen Hemingway Benton, (publishers), 1979. Encyclopaedia Britannica. (15th edition).Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., Chicago.Berkes, Fikret, (editor), 1989a. Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community Based Sustainable Development.Beihaven Press, London & New York.Berkes, Fikret, 1989b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCooperation from the Perspective of Human Ecology.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Berkes 1989a).Berkes, Fikret and Carl Folke, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CInvesting in Cultural Capital for Sustainable Use of Natural Capital.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Jannsonet al. 1994).Berkes, Fikret and M. Taghi Farvar, 1989. \u00E2\u0080\u009CIntroduction and Overview.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Berkes 1989a).Berman, Morris, 1989. Coming to Our Senses. Bantam, New York.Berman, Morris, 1981. The Reenchananent of the World. Bantam, New York.Birdsay, A. Richard, Andrew J. Plantinga and Linda S. Heath, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPast and Prospective Carbon Storage in UnitedStates Forests.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Forest Ecology and Management. Vol.5 8.p33-40220Bishop, A.B., H.H. Fullerton et al., 1974. Cariying Capacity in Regional Environmental Management. Office ofResearch and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.Bl\u00C3\u00B6chliger, Hansj\u00C3\u00B6rg and Elke Staehelin-Witt, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009COffentliche G\u00C3\u00BCter, Externalit\u00C3\u00A4ten and Eigentumsrechte.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (PublicGoods, Externalities and Property Rights). In (Frey et al. 1991).Block, Walter, (editor), 1990. Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation. Fraser Institute, Vancouver.Bongaarts, John, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCan the Growing Human Population Feed itself\u00E2\u0080\u0099?\u00E2\u0080\u009D Scientific American. March 1994. p36-42.Boothroyd, Peter, (editor), 1992a. Population - Environment Linkages. Conscribe Report to the Indonesian Ministry ofPopulation and Environment and EMDI, Jakarta.Boothroyd, Peter, 1992b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CManaging Population-Environment Linkages: A General Systems Perspective.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Boothroyd1992a).Bordo, Susan R., 1987. The Flight to Objectivity. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.Borgstrom, Georg, 1973. Harvesting the Earth. First published under the title World Food Resources. Abelard-Schuman,New York.Borgstrom, Georg, 1969. Too Many: A Study ofEarth Biological Limitations. MacMillan, New York.Borgstrom, Georg, 1965. The Hungty Planet: The Modern World at the Edge ofFamine. Collier, New York.Boucher, Priscilla, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CFrom Concern to Action: Women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Environmental Activism.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Substantive comprehensivepaper. School of Community and Regional Planning. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Boucher, Priscilla, with Frances Lynn Kirson, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPopulation-Environment Linkages: A Gendered Analysis.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In(Boothroyd 1992a).Bregha, Francois, John Moffet and Vie Nishi, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CReporting on Sustainable Development in Support of NationalDecision-Makers.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Working Paper No.15. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Ottawa.Bringezu, Stefan, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhere Does the Cradle Really Stand?\u00E2\u0080\u009D Fresenius Environmental Bulletin. Vol.2. No.8. p419-424.Brornley, Daniel, 1991. Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy. B.Blaekwell, Cambridge MA.Brown, Lester R., 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CFacing Food Insecurity.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Brown at al. 1994a).Brown, Lester R., et al. 1984a-1994a. State of the World. Worldwatch Institute. W.W.Norton, New York.Brown, Lester R., Christopher Flavin and Hal Kane, 1992b, 1994b. Vital Signs: The Trend.r that Are Shaping OurFuture. WorldWatch Institute, Washington DC.Buitenkamp, Maria, Henic Venner and Theo Warns, (editors), 1993. Action Plan Sustainable Netherlands. Dutch Friendsof the Earth. Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Burrows, Brian, Alan Mayne and Paul Newbury, 1991. Into the 21st Century: A Handbook for a Sustainable Future.Adamantine Press, Twickenham, England.Calm, Robert, 1978. Footprints on the Planet: A Search for an Environmental Ethic. Universe Books, New York.221Callenbach, Ernest, Fritjof Capra and Sandra Marburg, 1990. Eco-Auditing and Ecologically Conscious Management.Global File Report 5. Elmwood Institute, Berkeley.Camdessus, Michel, 1992 Presentation at the Fraser Institute Luncheon. March 6, 1992.Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Green Plan, 1991. The State ofCanada s Forests 1991: Environmentaj, Social and Economic Indicators. SecondReport to Parliament.Canadian Institute of Planners, 1990. \u00E2\u0080\u009CReflections on Sustainable Planning.\u00E2\u0080\u009D A discussion paper based on a workshopheld in Montreal. September 7-9, 1990. Ottawa.Canadian Institute of Planners, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CStatement of Values.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Ottawa.Canadian Institute of Planners, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSustainability and Planning.\u00E2\u0080\u009D A CIP discussion paper. Draft. Prepared by MadhavBadami, Mike Carr, John Curry, Steve Patrinick, William E. Rees, Mozaffar Sarrafi and Mathis Wackernagel. Ottawa.Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 1993. Compendium of Canadian Forestry Statistics 1992: National ForestryDatabase. Forestry Canada, Ottawa.Capra, Fritjof, 1982. The Turning Point. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.Caracas Report, The, 1990. Redefining Wealth and Progress: New Ways to Measure Economic, Social and EnvironmentalChange. Knowledge Systems, Indianapolis IN.Carley, Michael, 1981. Social Measurement and Social Indicators: Issues of Policy and Theory. Allen and Unwin,London.Carley, Michael and Ian Christie, 1993. Managing Sustainable Development. University of Minnesota Press,Minneapolis.Carnall, Cohn A., 1989. \u00E2\u0080\u009CManaging Strategic Change: An Integrated Approach.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Basil Denning, 1989. MakingStrategic Planning Work in Practice. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Carr-Hill, Roy and John Lintott, 1986. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSocial Indicators for Popular Planning.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Ekins 1986).Carson, Rachel, 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Catley-Carlson, Margaret, 1994. Notes from her UBC International Forum lecture \u00E2\u0080\u009CMegatrends for the Millennium\u00E2\u0080\u009D onJanuary 27, 1994. Population Council, New York.Catton, William R., Jr., 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCarrying Capacity and the Death of a Culture: A Tale of Two Autopsies.\u00E2\u0080\u009D SociologicalInquiry. Vol.63 No.2. May 1993.p202-23Catton, William R., Jr., 1987. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe World\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Most Polymorphic Species.\u00E2\u0080\u009D BioScience. Vol.37 No.6. p413-419Catton, William R., Jr., 1980. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis ofRevolutionary Change. University of illinois Press,Urbana.Catton, William R., Jr., and Riley Dunlap, 1980. \u00E2\u0080\u009CA New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology.\u00E2\u0080\u009D AmericanBehavioral Scientist. Vol.24 No.1. Sept/Oct. 1980.CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1994. Quirks and Quarks. Directed and written by Anita Gordon. June 18,1994.222Checkland, Peter and Jim Scholes, 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, Chichester.Chess, Joan, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CFinding Common Ground: A Shared Vision for Land Use in BC.\u00E2\u0080\u009D PIBC News. July 1994. plO-li.Chiras, Daniel D., 1992a. Lessonsfrom Nature: Learning to Live Sustainably on the Earth. Island Press, WashingtonDC.Chiras, Daniel D., 1992b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAn Inquiry into the Rootcauses of the Environmental Crisis.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Environmental Carcinologyand Toxicology Review. Vol.10 No.1.p73-119Choo, Hakchung, 1980. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Use of Social Indicators for Development Planning.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (UNESCO 1984).Christensen, E.W., 1985. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCommunity Change: Community Change Groups \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Helping Groups Help the Community.\u00E2\u0080\u009DIn Robert K. Conye, (editor), 1985. The Group Workers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Handbook: Varieties ofGroup Experience. Charles C. ThomasPublisher, Springfield, Illinois.Clark, W.C. and R.E. Mann, (editors), 1987. Sustainable Development and the Biosphere. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge MA.Cleveland, Cutler J., Robert Costanza, Charles A.S. Hall and Robert Kaufmann, 1984. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnergy and the US Economy:A Biophysical Perspective.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Science. Vol.225.p880-9Colby, Michael E., 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmental Management in Development: The Evolution of Paradigms.\u00E2\u0080\u009D EcologicalEconomics. Vol.3. p193-213.Cole, Raymond J. and David Rousseau, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmental Auditing for Building Construction.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Building andEnvironment. Vol.27 No.1.p23-30Commonwealth Global Forum Meeting, 1994. Cities and Sustainable Rural Development: Coping with the ExternalFootprint of Cities. Brief for a meeting held at the University of Manchester on June 23, 1994.Coover, Virginia, Ellen Deacon, Charles Esser and Christopher Moore, 1977/1985. Resource Manual for a LivingRevolution: A Handbook of Skills and Tools for Social Change Activists. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, PA.Corcoran, Elizabeth and Paul Wallich, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCoping With Mathematics Anxiety.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Scientific American. January 1992.Corson, Walter, (editor), 1990. The Global Ecology Handbook. Produced by the Global Tomorrow Coalition. BeaconPress, Boston.Costanza, Robert, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThree General Policies to Achieve Sustainability.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Jausson et a!. 1994).Costanza, Robert, (editor), 1991. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York.Costanza, Robert, 1980. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEmbodied Energy and Economic Valuation.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Science. Vol.210.p1219-24Costanza, Robert and Herman E. Daly, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CNatural Capital and Sustainable Development.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Conservation Biology.Vol.6.p37-46Cousins, Kathryn and Mathis Wackernagel, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CExploring the Carrying Capacity of the Pacific Fraser Region:Developing an Awareness Tool.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Term project for course BIOL 408. Department ofBotany and Zoology. The Universityof British Columbia.223Daily, Gretchen and Paul Ehrlich, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPopulation, Sustainability and the Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Carrying Capacity.\u00E2\u0080\u009D BioScience.Vol.42 No.10.p761-7Daly, Herman E. and John Cobb, 1989. For the Common Good. Beacon Press, Boston.Daly, Herman E., 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Perils of Free Trade.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Scientific A,nerican. November 1993.p50-7Daly, Herman B., 1991a. \u00E2\u0080\u009CFrom Empty-World Economics to Full-World Economics: Recognizing an Historical TurningPoint in Economic Development.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Goodland et al. 1991).Daly, Herman E., 1991b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CElements of Environmental Macroeconomics.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Costanza 1991).Daly, Herman E., 1989. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSustainable Development: from Concept and Theory towards Operational Principles.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Daly1977/1991).Daly, Herman E., 1977/1991. Steady-State Economics. Second Edition with New Essays. Island Press, Washington DC.Daly, Herman E., 1968. \u00E2\u0080\u009COn Economics as a Life Science.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Reprinted in (Daly & Kenneth 1993).Daly, Herman E. and Robert Goodland, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAn Ecological-Economic Assessment of Deregulation of InternationalCommerce under GATT.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Ecological Economics. Vol.9 No.1. p73-92Daly, Herman E. and Kenneth N. Townsend, (editors), 1993. Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics. The MITPress, Cambridge, MA.Daly, Herman E. and Alvaro Uma\u00C3\u00B1a, 1980. Energy, Economics and the Environment: Conflicting Views on an EssentialRelationship. Westview Press, Boulder CO.Dasgupta, Partha and G.M. Heal, 1979. Economic Theory and Exhaustible Resources. James Nisbit, Welwyn.David, M.L., G.S. Hammaker, R.J. Buzenberg and J.P. Wagner, 1978. Gasohol - Economic Feasibility Study. FinalReport No.26 1. University of Nebraska. Quoted in (McKetta 1984:V20:8).David Suzuki Foundation, 1992. The David Suzuki Foundation Report. Vancouver. December 1992.Davidson, Gavin and Christina Robb, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Ecological Footprint of the Lions Gate Bridge.\u00E2\u0080\u009D MRM 642 term paper.School of Resource and Environmental Management. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.Davis, Craig, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CTowards a System of Regional Socioeconomic Accounting in BC.\u00E2\u0080\u009D School of Community andRegional Planning. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.de Groot, Rudolf S., 1992. Functions ofNature. Wolters-Noordhoff, the Netherlands.de Groot, Woulter T., 1992. Environmental Science Theory: Concepts and Methods in a One-World, Problem-OrientedParadigm. Elsevier, Amsterdam.de Looy, Ann et al., 1987. Foodfor Action. Pelham Books, London.Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln, (editors), 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publication,Thousand Oaks.Devall, Bill and George Sessions, 1985. Deep Ecology: Living as fNature Mattered. Peregrine Smith Books, Salt LakeCity.224Diem, Aubrey, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CClearcutting British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The Ecologist. Vol.22 No.6.p261-6Dixon, R.K. et al., 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCarbon Pools and Flux of Global Forest Ecosystems.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Science. Vol.263. p185-190.Dube, Shyama Charan, 1988. Modernization and Development: The Search ofAlternative Paradigms. Zed Books Ltd.,London and New Jersey.Duffield, Cohn, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPutting the Ecological Footprint in Print: Applications of the Appropriated Carrying CapacityConcept to SOE Reporting.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Report to Strategic Planning and Analysis of SOE Reporting, Ottawa.Dunlap, Riley E., Georg H. Gallup, Jr., and Alec M. Gallup, 1993. Health ofthe Planet:A Georg H. Gallup MemorialSurvey. Gallup International Institute, Princeton, NJ.Durham, David F., 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCarrying Capacity Philosophy.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Focus. Vol.4 No.1. p5-7.Durning, Alan B., 1992. How Much Is Enough? The Conswner Society and the Future of the Earth. The WoridwatchEnvironmental Alert Series. W.W.Norton & Co., New York.Darning, Alan B., 1989. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPoverty and the Environment: Reversing the Downward Spiral.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Worldwatch Paper 92,Washington DC.Edelstein, E.L., Donald L. Nathanson and Andrew M. Stone, (editors), 1989. Denial: A aanfication of Concepts andResearch. Plenum Press, New York and London.Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ann H. Ehrlich, 1972. Population, Resources, Environment: Issues in Human Ecology. W.H.Freeman, San Francisco.Ehrhich, Paul R., 1982. \u00E2\u0080\u009CHuman Carrying Capacity, Extinctions and Nature Reserves.\u00E2\u0080\u009D BioScience. Vol.32. p33 1-333.Ehrlich, Paul R., 1968. The Population Bomb. Sierra Club. Ballantine Books, New York.Ekins, Paul and Manfred Max-Neef, (editors), 1992. Real-Life Economics: Understanding Wealth Creation. Routledge,London and New York.Ekins, Paul, (editor), 1992. A New World Order: Grassroots Movementsfor Global Change. Routledge, London & NewYork.Ekins, Paul, (editor), 1986. The Living Economy. Routledge, New York.El Serafy, Salah, 1988. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Proper Calculation of Income from Depletable Natural Resources.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Ernst Lutz and SalahSerafy, 1988. Environmental Resource Accounting and Their Relevance to the Management ofSustainable Income. TheWorld Bank, Washington DC.Elgin, Duane, 1981. Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life that is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich. WilliamMorrow and Company, New York.Ellul, Jacques, 1990. The Technological Bluff W.B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan.Energy, Mines and Resources, Canada, 1992. Electric Power in Canada 1991. Minister of Supply and Services, CanadaEnvironment Canada, 1993. A Primer on Ozone Depletion. The Environmental Citizenship Series. Office ofEnvironmental Citizenship, Ottawa.225ESSA Technologies Ltd., 1994. Teacher\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Guide to the State of the Environment Reportfor British Columbia. Ministryof Environment, Lands and Parks. Province of British Columbia.Ewen, Stuart, 1977. Captains ofConsciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots ofthe Consumer Culture. McGraw-Hill,New York.FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1990. FAQ Yearbook: Production, Vol 43. FAO, Rome.Fearnside, Philip M., 1986. Human Carrying Capacity of the Brazilian Rainforest. Columbia University Press, NewYork.Fecker, Ivo, 1990. Was ist eine Okobilanz? (What is a Life Cycle Analysis?). Eidgen\u00C3\u00B6ssische Materialprufungs- undForschungsanstalt, St.Gallen, Switzerland.Fenchel, Tom, 1987. Ecology: Potentials and Limitations. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf, Germany.Foilce, Carl and Tomas K\u00C3\u00A2berger, (editors), 199 la. Linking the Natural Environment and the Economy. Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht.Foilce, Carl and Tomas K\u00C3\u00A2berger, 1991b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CRecent Trends in Linking the Natural Environment and the Economy.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In(Folke & K\u00C3\u00A2berger 1991a).Folke, Carl, Monica Hammer, Robert Costanza and AnnMari Jansson, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CInvesting in Natural Capital: Why, What,and How?\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Jansson et al. 1994).Folke, Carl, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSocio-Economic Dependence on the Life-Supporting Environment.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Folke & K\u00C3\u00A2berger 1992a).Forester, John, 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 1993. Vol.2 No.8. Special edition on the \u00E2\u0080\u009CMaterial Intensity per Unit Service\u00E2\u0080\u009D (MIPS)project of the Wuppertal Institute fur Klima, Umwelt, und Energie. Wuppertal, Germany.Freund, Peter and George Martin, 1993. Ecology of the Automobile. Black Rose Books, London.Frey, Rena L., Elke Staehelin-Witt and Hansj\u00C3\u00B6rg Bl\u00C3\u00B6chliger, (editors), 1991. Mit Okonomie zur Okologie. (WithEconomics toward Ecology). Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel.Friedmanu, John, 1992. Empowerment: The Politics ofAlternative Development. B.Blackwell, Cambridge MA.Friedmann, John, 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton University Press,Princeton NJ.Friedmann, John and Clyde Weavers, 1979. Territory and Function: The Evolution ofRegional Planning. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.Friend, Anthony M., 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmental and Natural Resource Accounting in Canada: A Historical Review andCritique.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Discussion paper for the Conference on Ecological Economics in Ottawa, October 1-3, 1993.Frischknecht, Rolf et al., 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CFunktionsorientierte Systemanalyse -- em Beitrag zur Okobilanzdiskussion.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (FunctionOriented Systems Analysis -- A Contribution to the Life Cycle Analysis Debate). Laboratorium fUr Energiesysteme.Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.226Fritsch, Bruno, 1991. Mensch - Umwelt - Wissen. (Human Being - Environment - Knowledge). Verlag der Fachvereine,Zurich.Fritsche, Uwe, L. Rausch and K.-H. Simon, 1989. Umweltwirkungsanalyse von Energiesystemen: Gesanu-EmissionsModel! Integrierter Systeme (GEMIS). (Analyzing Ecological Impacts of Energy: Total Emissions Model for IntegratedSystems [TEMIS]). Oko Institut, Darmstadt.Funk, Cohn, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CFootprints: Partnership.and Performance \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Eco-Restoration and Preservation through InternationalExchange.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Draft outline. Precipice Theatre, Banif.Garbarino, James, 1992. Toward a Sustainable Society: An Economic, Social, and Environmental Agenda for ourChildren\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Future. Originally published in 1988 as: The Future as ifIt Really Mattered. The Noble Press Inc., Chicago.Gee, Marcus, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CApocalypse Deferred: The End Isn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t Nigh.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Globe and Mail. Sunday, April 9, 1994. D1-3.Genoni, Giulio, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSchadstoffe in der Umwelt: System\u00C3\u00B6kologische Betrachtungen.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (I\u00E2\u0080\u0099oxics in the Environment:Systems Ecological Aspects). EAWAG. Paper for a Human Ecology Seminar at the Swiss Institute of Technology.December 15, 1993.George, Susan, 1992. The Debt Boomerang: How the Third World Debt Harms Us All. Pluto Press, London.George, Susan, 1984. Ill Fares the Land: Essays on Food Hunger, and Power. Institute for Policy Studies, WashingtonDC.Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, 1980. Entropy and the Economic Process. Science Council of Canada, Ottawa.Georgescu-Roegen, Nicolas, 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Progress. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,MA.Gerster, Richard, 1987. Aus Fehiern lernen? Die Schweiz und die Dritte Welt. (Learning from Mistakes? Switzerlandand the Third World). ExLibris Verlag, Zurich, Switzerland.Giampietro, Mario, Sandra G.F. Bukkens and David Pimentel, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CLabor Productivity: The Link between PopulationStructure, Standard of Living, Natural Resources, and Technology.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Department of Entomology, Cornell University,Ithaca.Giampietro, Mario and David Pimentel, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Energetics of an Ecological Revolution in the World Economy.\u00E2\u0080\u009DPaper for the Second Meeting of the International Association of Ecological Economics. Stockholm. August 3-6, 1992.Giampietro, Mario, Giovanni Cerretelhi and David Pimentel, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Energetics of Agricultural EcosystemManagement: Human Return and Sustainability.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Vol.38.p219-44Giampietro, Mario and David Pimentel, 1990a. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnergy Analysis Models to Study the Biophysical Limits For HumanExploitation of Natural Processes.\u00E2\u0080\u009D p139-184. In C. Rossi and E. Tiezzi, (editors), 1990. Ecological Physical Chemistry.Proceedings of an International Workshop. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Giampietro, Mario and David Pimentel, 1990b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAlcohol and Biogas Production from Biomass.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Critical Reviews inPlant Science. Vol.9 No.3.p213-3Giampietro, Mario, 1992. Private communications: September 28, 1992; September 21, 1993. Department ofEntomology, Cornell University, Ithaca.227Giersch, Herbert, 1993. Openness for Prosperity: Essays in World Economics. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Goeller, H.E. and Alvin M. Weinberg, 1976. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Age of Substitutability.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Science. Vol.191. p683-689.Goldsmith, Edward, Martin Khor, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Vandana Shiva et al., 1991. The Future of Progress:Reflections on Environment and Development. The International Society for Ecology and Culture, Clifton and Berkeley.Goldsmith, Edward, 1992. The Way: An Ecological Worldview. Rider, London.Goleman, Daniel, 1985. Vital Lies, Simple Truth: The Psychology ofS4tDeception. Simon & Schuster, New York.Gordon, Anita and David Suzulci, 1990. It a Matter of Survival. Based on a CBC radio series. Stoddart PublishingCompany, Toronto.Goodland, Robert, Herman E. Daly and Salali El Serafy, (editors), 1991. Environmentally Sustainable Development:Building on Brundtland. The World Bank, Washington DC. Also published as Population, Technology, and Lfestyle:The Transition to Sustainabiliry. 1992. Island Press, New York, NY.Goodland, Robert, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Case that the World Has Reached Limits: More Precisely that Current ThroughputGrowth in the Global Economy Cannot Be Sustained.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Goodland et al. 1991).Goodland, Robert and Herman E. Daly, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhy Northern Income Growth Is Not the Solution to Southern Poverty.\u00E2\u0080\u009DEcological Economics. Vol.8 No.2. p85-lOt.Gosselin, Pierre et al., 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CIndicators for a Sustainable Society.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Canadian Journal of Public Health. Vol.84 No.3.p197-200.Government of Canada, 1991. The State of Canada \u00E2\u0080\u0098c Environment. Ministry of the Environment, Ottawa.Greene, Gordon, (editor), 1989. Decision-Making and Environment. Produced by the United Nations EnvironmentalProgramme. Foundation for International Training, Ontario, and Open Learning Agency, British Columbia.Greening Our Cities conference. Plenary discussion. May 7-8, 1994.Griffin, David Ray, (editor), 1988. The Reenchantment ofScience: Postnzodern Proposals. State University of New YorkPress, Syracuse NY.Griggs, Julian, Tim Turner and Mathis Wackernagel, 1993. Connections: Towards a Sustainable Future (A Four-DayProgram on Sustainability). Draft Program Guide. Sea to Sky Outdoor School for Environmental Education, Gibsons,BC.Guba, Egon and Yvonna Lincoln, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCompeting Paradigms in Qualitative Research.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Denzin & Lincoln 1994).Gurr, Ted Robert, 1985. \u00E2\u0080\u009COn the Political Consequences of Scarcity and Economic Decline.\u00E2\u0080\u009D International Studies.Vol.29. p51-75.GVRD, Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1994. aean Air: Benefits and Costs in the GVRD. Prepared by the ARAConsulting Group and BOVAR-CONCORI) Environmental. GVRD, Burnaby, BC.GVRD, Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1993. The Livable Region Strategic Plan, GVRD, Burnaby, BC.228Hadi, Sudharto Prawata, 1993. Planningfor Industrialization in Central Java, Indonesia: The Process, the Impacts andthe Alternatives. Unpublished PhD thesis. School of Community and Regional Planning. The University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver.Hall, Charles A.S., 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEconomic Development or Developing Economics: What Are Our Priorities.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Mohan K.Wali, 1992. Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Volume 1: Policy Issues. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, the Netherlands.Hall, Charles A.S., 1990. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSanctioning Resource Depletion: Economic Development and Neo-Classical Economics.\u00E2\u0080\u009DThe Ecologist. Vol.20 No.3. p99-104. (Excerpted version of Hall 1992).Hall, Charles A.S., Cutler J. Cleveland and Robert Kaufmann, 1986. Energy and Resource Quality. John Wiley & Sons,New York.Hampicke, Ulrich, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CNeoklassik und Zeitpr\u00C3\u00A4ferenz -- Der Diskontierungsnebel.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Neoclassics and Time Preference:The Fog of Discounting). In Frank Beckenbach, (editor), 1991. Die Okologische Herausforderung der OkonomischenTheorie. (Ihe Ecological Challenge to Economic Theory). Metropolis Verlag, Marburg.Hannon, Bruce, 1975. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnergy Conservation and the Consumer.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Science. Vol.189.p95-102Hardin, Garrett, 1973. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSecond Thoughts on the \u00E2\u0080\u0098Tragedy of the Commons\u00E2\u0080\u0099.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Daly & Townsend 1993).Hardin, Garrett, 1968. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Tragedy of the Commons.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Science. Vol.162. December 13, 1968. p1243-1248. Reprintedin (Daly & Townsend 1993).Harding, Sandra, 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.Hardoy, Jorge E. and D. Satterthwaite, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmental Problems of Third World Cities: A Global Issue Ignored?\u00E2\u0080\u009DPublic Administration and Development. Vol.11.p341-6Hardoy, Jorge E., 1980. \u00E2\u0080\u009CIndicators for the Design of Human Settlement Policies in Developing Countries.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In(UNESCO 1984).Hare, F.K., 1980. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Planetary Environment: Fragile or Sturdy.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Geographical Journal. Vol.146.p379-95Harf, James E. and B. Thomas Turf, 1986. The Politics of Global Resources: Population, Food, Energy, and theEnvironment. Duke University Press, Durham.Harmon, E. Mark, William K. Ferrell and Jerry F. Franklin, 1990. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEffects on the Carbon Storage of Conversion ofOld Growth Forests to Young Forests.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Science. Vol.247.p699-702Harrington, Molly, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCommunity Based Economies: Planning for Healthy and Sustainable Communities.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Reportto the UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver.Harvey, David, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Nature of Environment: The Dialectics of Social and Environmental Change.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Forthcomingin The Socialist Register.Harwell, M.A. and T.C. Hutchinson, 1986. Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War, Vol.11, SCOPE 28. JohnWiley, Chichester, UK.Hawryszkiewycz, I.T., 1988. Introduction to Systems Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, New York.Hayter, Teresa and Catharine Watson, 1985. Aid: Rhetoric and Reality. Pluto Press, London.229Henderson, Hazel, 1991. Paradigms in Progress: Lfe beyond Economics. Knowledge Systems, Indianapolis.Henderson, Hazel, 1977. Creating Alternative Futures: The End ofEconomics. Berkeley Publishing Corporation, NewYork.Herendeen, Robert, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CNeeded: Examples of Applying Ecological Economics.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Ecological Economics. Vol.9 No.2.p99-105.Hibler, Michelle, 1992. Our Common Bowl: Global Food lnterdependencies. International Development Research Centre(IDRC), Ottawa.Hicks, John R., 1946. Value and Capital. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Higgins, G., A.H. Kassam, L. Naiken, G. Fischer and M. Shah, 1983. Potential Population Supporting Capacities ofLands in the Developing World. Technical Report ofProject 1nt175/P13. \u00E2\u0080\u009CLand Resources for Populations of the Future.\u00E2\u0080\u009DFAO, 11ASA and IJNFPA. FAO, Rome.Hirsch, Fred, 1976. The Social Limits to Growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Hodge, R.A. (Iony) and Jngrid E. Taggart, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CReporting on Sustainability: Human Well-Being within EcosystemWell-Being.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Research Paper for the Policy Committee of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy,Toronto.Hodge-McCoid, Catherine, 1984. Cariying Capacities ofNation-States. Human Relations Area File Inc., New Haven.Hofstetter, Patrick, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CWeshalb Oko-K\u00C3\u00BChlschrank? FCKW-, Energie und Entsorgungsproblematik.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Why EcoFridges: CFC, Energy and Waste Considerations). GAL4. Vol.1 No.6.p350-6Hofstetter, Patrick, 1991. PersOnliche Energie - undC02-Bilanz. (Personal Energy and CO2 Balance). Second draft. B\u00C3\u00BCrofur Analyse und Okologie, Zurich.Holdren, John and Paul Ehrlich, 1974. \u00E2\u0080\u009CHuman Population and the Global Environment.\u00E2\u0080\u009D American Scientist. Vol.62.p282-292.Homer-Dixon, Thomas, Jeffrey H. Boutwell and George W. Rathjens, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmental Change and ViolentConflicts.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Scientific American. February 1993. p3845.Homer-Dixon, Thomas, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CIs Anarchy Coming? A Response to the Optimists.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The Globe and Mail. May 10, 1994.A19.Hunter, F., 1966. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAscertaining Population Carrying Capacity under Traditional Systems of Agriculture in DevelopingCountries.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Professional Geographer. Vol.18. p15 1-154.hines, Judith Eleanor, 1990. Knowledge and Public Policy: The Search for Meaningfid Indicators. (2nd expandededition). Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, USA.hines, Judith Eleanor, 1980. \u00E2\u0080\u009CApplicability of Social Indicators in the United States of America: A Century of SocialPolicy and Social Indicators.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (UNESCO 1984).Isenmann, Thomas, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CWachstum und Lebensqualitat.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Growth and Quality of Life). In (Frey et al. 1991)IUCN, The World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Wide Fund for Nature,1991. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Living Sustainably. IUCN, UNEP, and WWF, Gland, Switzerland.230Jacobs, Michael, 1993. The Green Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development and the Politics ofthe Future. UBCPress, Vancouver. (Originally published in 1991).Jansson, AnnMari, Monica Hammer, Carl Folke and Robert Costanza, (editors), 1994. Investing in Natural Capital:The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Island Press, Washington DC.Jevons, W. Stanley, 1865/1906/1965. The Coal Question. Reprint of the Third Edition. Augustus M. Kelley, New York.Kaplan, Robert D., 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Coming Anarchy.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The Atlantic Monthly. February 1994.Kassiola, Joel Jay, 1990. The Death of Industrial Civilization: The Limits to Economic Growth and the Repolitication ofAdvanced Industrial Society. State University of New York Press, Albany NY.Keller, Evelyn Fox, 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.Kendrick, J.G. and P.J. Murray, 1978. \u00E2\u0080\u009CGrain Alcohol in Motor Fuels: An Evaluation.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Report No.81. Department ofAgricultural Economics, University of Nebraska, April 1978. Quoted in QvlcKetta 1984: V20:8).Kennedy, Paul, 1993. Preparing for the Twenty-First Century. HarperCollins, Toronto.Kennedy, Peter W., 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CRethinking Sustainability.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Preliminary draft. Department of Economics, University ofVictoria. Victoria, BC.Kettering Review, Winter 1994. Charles F. Kettering Foundation, Dayton, Ohio.Keya, S.O. et al., (editors), 1989. Guidelinesfor the Fornudation ofResearch Project Proposals. National Council forScience and Technology, Nairobi, and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.Kincheloe, Joe and Peter L. McLarren, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CRethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Denzin &Lincoln 1994).Koechlin, Kaspar and Dominik Muller, 1992. Green Buisness Opportunities: The Profit Potential. Financial Times,Pitman Publishing.Kohn, Alfie, 1986. No Contest: The Case against Competition. Houghton, Mifflin, Boston.Kool, Rick, 1994. Private communications. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Province of British Columbia.June, July 1994.Kormondy, Edward, 1969. Concepts ofEcology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Krebs, Charles, 1985. Ecology: The Experimental Analytis ofDistribution and Abundance. Third edition. Harper andRow, Publishers, New York.K\u00C3\u00BCbler-Ross, Elisabeth, (editor), 1975. Death: Final Stage of Growing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.K\u00C3\u00BCbler-Ross, Elisabeth, 1969. On Death and Dying. McMillan, New York.Kumar, Ranjit, Edward W. Manning and Barbara Murek, 1993. The Challenge of Sustainability. Foundation forInternational Training for Third World Countries. Centre for a Sustainable Future. Don Mills, Oat.Kung, Hans, 1991. Global Responsibility: In Search ofNew World Ethics. Crossroad Publication, New York.231Laquian, Aprodicio A., 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CUrbanization in the 90s: The Need for Human Settlements Strategies.\u00E2\u0080\u009D UBC Centre forHuman Settlements, Vancouver.Lawrence, David P., 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Characteristics and Aims of Environmental Impact Assessment.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Plan Canada. March1994.Lawson, Joel, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Use of Livability Indexes in Achieving Healthy and Sustainable Communities.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Report to theTask Force on Planning Healthy and Sustainable Communities. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Leaf, Michael, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPopulation-Environment Linkages in the Urban Context.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Boothroyd 1992a).Ledergerber, Elmar and Mathias Muller, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnergie aus Heiz\u00C3\u00B6l oder Holz?\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Energy from Fossil Fuel or Wood?).Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt. Nr. 24. June 13, 1991.L\u00C3\u00A9l, Sharachchandra M., 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSustainable Development: A Critical Review.\u00E2\u0080\u009D World Development. Vol.19 No.6.p607-621.Leonard, H. Jeffrey and Patti Petesch, 1990. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Ecology of Urban Poverty.\u00E2\u0080\u009D CITIES. February 1990.Li, Tania, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPopulation-Environment Linkages: Implications for Rural Livelihoods.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Boothroyd 1992a).Libiszewski, Stephan, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CKonfliktstoff Wasser: Eine \u00C3\u00B6kologische Ressource wird zum politischen Streitobjekt.\u00E2\u0080\u0099(Water, a Source of Conflict: An Ecological Resource Becomes a Political Object for Conflict). Neue Zurcher Zeitung.January 8/9, 1994. p6.Liebig, Justus von, 1863. Natural Laws ofHusbandry. Translated by John Blyth. D.Appleton and Company, New York.Lieth, Helmut and Robert H. Whittaker, (editors), 1975. Primary Productivity of the Biosphere. Springer Verlag, NewYork.Lightfoot, H. Douglas and Christopher Green, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Dominance of Fossil Fuels: Technical and ResourceLimitations to Alternative Energy Sources.\u00E2\u0080\u009D CGCR Report. McGill University Montreal.Lohmann, Larry, 1990. \u00E2\u0080\u009CRemaking the Mekong. The Ecologist. Vol.20 No.2. p61-66.Lotka, Alfred James, 1925. Elements of Physical Biology. Williams & Wilkins company, Baltimore.MacNeill, Jim, Pieter Winsemius and Taizo Yakushiji, 1991. Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World\u00E2\u0080\u0099sEconomy and the Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Ecology. Oxford University Press, London and New York.MacRae, Duncan, 1985. Policy Indicators: Links between Social Science and Public Debate. The University of NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill.Macy, Joanna, 1991. Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma ofNatural Systems. StateUniversity of New York Press, Albany.Macy, Joanna, 1983. Despair and Personal Power in the Nuclear Age. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia.Maguire, David, Calvin Peters and Marcy Saprowich, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAn Evaluation of the Sustainability Impacts of a Fixed Linkto Prince Edward Island.\u00E2\u0080\u009D MRM 642 term paper. School of Resource and Environmental Management. Simon FraserUniversity, Burnaby.232Mahar, Dennis J., (editor), 1985. \u00E2\u0080\u009CRapid Population Growth and Human Carrying Capacity: Two Perspectives.\u00E2\u0080\u009D WorldBank Staff Working Paper No.690. Population and Development Series 15. The World Bank, Washington DC.Malthus, Thomas R., 1798. An Essay on the Principles of Population as it affects the Future Improvement of Society.London. (Edited by Philip Appleman, 1976. Norton, New York).Mander, Jerry, 1991. In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations.Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.Marcuse, Herbert, 1964. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology ofAdvanced Industrial Societies. Beacon Press,Boston.Mark, Herman, Donald Othmer, Charles Overberg and Glenn Seaborg, chief-editors, 1980. Kirk-Othmer: Encyclopediaof Chemical Technology. Third Edition. Volume 9. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Marland, Gregg and Scott Marland, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CShould We Store Carbon Trees?\u00E2\u0080\u009D Water, Air and Soil Pollution. Vol.64.p181-195.Marsh, George Perkin, 1864. Man and Nature. (Edited by David Lowenthal. 1965. Belknap Press of Harvard UniversityPress. Cambridge).Martinez-Alier, Juan, 1987. Ecological Economics: Energy, Environment, and Society. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Maturana, Humberto R. and Francisco J. Varela, 1992. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of HumanUnderstanding. Revised Edition. (Originally published in 1987). Shambala, Boston & London.McIntosh, Janette, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CA UBC Task Force and the City of Richmond Plan for Healthy and Sustainable Communities.\u00E2\u0080\u009DPIBC News. August 1993.McKetta, John J., 1984. Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design. Volume 20. Marcel Dekker, New York andBasel.MeKibbens, Bill, 1992. The Age ofMissing Information. Random House, New York.McKibbin, Warwick I. and Jeffrey D. Sachs, 1991. Global Linkages: Macroeconomic Interdependence and Cooperationin the World Economy. The Brookings Institution, Washington DC.Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows and J\u00C3\u00B8rgen Randers, 1992. Beyond the Limits. McClelland & Stewart Inc.,Toronto.Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, J\u00C3\u00B8rgen Randers and William Behrens ifi 1972. The Limits To Growth.Universe Books, New York.Merchant, Carolyn, 1992. Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World. Routledge, New York.Merchant, Carolyn, 1980. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and Scientific Revolution. Harper and Row, SanFrancisco.Mesarovic, Mihajlo and Eduard Pestel, 1974. Mankind at the Turning Point. E.P. Dutton & Cie, New York.Michaels, Patrick J., 1992. The Sound and the Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming. CATO Institute,Washington DC.233Milbrath, Lester W., 1989. Envisioning a Sustainable Society: Learning Our Way Out. State University of New YorkPress, Albany NY.Miles, Ian, 1985. Social Indicatorsfor Human Development. Frances Pinter Publishers, London.Miles, Ian, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSocial Indicators for Real Life Economics.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Ekins & Max-Neef 1992).Miller, James (3rier, 1978. Living Systems. McGraw-Hill, New York.Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (British Columbia) and Environment Canada, 1993. State ofthe EnvironmentReportfor British Columbia. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia, and the Minister of State(Environment), Ottawa.Mitchell, Bruce, 1989. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCarrying Capacity.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Chapter 7. Geography and Resource Analysis. Longman, Harlow, Essex.Mitsch, William, Rammohan K. Ragade, Robert W. Bosserman and John A. Dillon, Jr., (editors), 1981. Energetics andSystems. Butterworths Ltd, Kent.Morse, Janice, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CDesigning Funded Qualitative Research.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Denzin & Lincoln 1994).Moser, Anton and Michael Narodoslawsky, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Sustainable Process Index: An Instrument for Quantification ofEcological Appropriateness of Technology.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Chapter 4. End Report. Task Group of the European Federation ofBiotechnology. March 1993.Moses, Rafael, 1989. \u00E2\u0080\u009CDenial in the Political Process.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Edeistein et al. 1989).Muller, Bernhard and Markus Hanselmann, 1993. Produktlinienanalyse der Tomate. (Life Cycle Analysis of the Tomato).Diplomarbeit Sommersemester 1993. Abteilung Umweltwissenschaften. Institut fir Energietechnik. Swiss Institute ofTechnology, Zurich.Mumford, Lewis, 1967. The Myth ofthe Machine: Technology and Human Development. Harcourt, Brace & World, NewYork.Munn, R.E., 1989. \u00E2\u0080\u009CTowards Sustainable Development: an Environmental Perspective.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In F. Archibugi and P.Nijkamp, 1989. Economy and Ecology: Towards Sustainable Development. Kiuwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,The Netherlands.Myers, Norman, (editor), 1984. GAlA: An Atlas ofPlanet Management. Anchor Press, Garden City, NY.Nadis, Steven and James 3. MacKenzie, 1993. Car Trouble. Beacon Press, Boston.Naess, Arne, 1989. Ecology, Community, and Lfestyle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MA.Narodoslawsky, Michael and Christian Krotscheck, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Sustainable Process Index Case Study: The Synthesisof Ethanol from Sugar Beet.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Institut fir Verfalirenstechnik. Technische Universit\u00C3\u00A4t Graz, Austria.Narodoslawsky, Michael, Christian Krotscheck and Jan Sage, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Sustainable Process Index (SP1): A Measurefor Process Industries.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Institut fir Verfahrenstechnilc. Technische Universit\u00C3\u00A4t Graz, Austria.Neumann, Ingo, 1994. Der okologische Fussabdruck der Region Trier: Em Mass zur Bewertung einer nachhaltigenEniwicklung. (The Ecological Footprint of the Trier Region: A Measure to Assess Sustainable Development). DiplomaThesis. Angewandte Geographie. University of Trier, Germany.234New Zealand Forest Owner Association Inc., 1994. Forestry Facts and Figures 1994. New Zealand Forest OwnerAssociation Inc. in co-operation with the Ministry of Forestry, Wellington, New Zealand.New Catalyst, 1994. Toward Eco-Cities. Co-sponsored by the Vancouver Greening our Cities conference. No. 27, Spring1994.Newcombe, Ken, Jetse D. Kalma and Alan R. Aston, 1978. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Metabolism of a City: The Case of Hong Kong.\u00E2\u0080\u009DAmbio. Vol.7 No.1. p3-15.N\u00C3\u00B8rretranders, Tor, 1991. Mark Verden: En Beretning om Bevisthed. (Feel the World: An Account on Consciousness).Gyldendal, Copenhagen.NREL, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1991. NREL internal data sheets. From Barbara Goodman, privatecommunication, March 23, 1992. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.O\u00E2\u0080\u0099Connor, Martin, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEntropy, Structure and Organizational Change.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Ecological Economics. Vol.3 No.2.p95-122Odum, Eugene P., 1959/1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia.Odum, Howard T., 1983. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. Wiley, New York.Odum, Howard T., 1971. Environment, Power, and Society. Wiley, New York.Ohmae, Kenichi, 1990. The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the InterlinhedEconomy. HarperCollins Publishers,USA.Oko-Institut, Proj ektgruppe Okologische Wirtschaft, 1987. Produktlinienanalyse: Bedurfnisse, Produkte und ihre Folgen.(Life Cycle Analysis: Needs, Products and Their Impacts). K\u00C3\u00B6lner Volksblatt Verlag, K\u00C3\u00B6ln, Germany.Onno, Kuik et al., 1991. In Search ofIndicatorsfor Sustainable Development. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Ophuls, William and A. Stephen Boyan, Jr., 1992. Ecology and the Politics ofScarcity Revisited. (Original edition 1977).W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.Ornstein, Robert and Paul Ehrlich, 1989. New World, New Mind: Moving Toward Conscious Evolution. Doubleday, NewYork.Orr, David, 1992. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. State University of NewYork Press, Albany NY.Orwell, George, 1948. Nineteen Eighty-Four. New American Library, New York. (Reprint 1971).Osborn, Fairfield, 1953. The Limits of the Earth. Little, Brown and Company, Boston.Overby, Ragnar, 1985. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Urban Economic Environmental Challenge: Improvement of Human Welfare by Buildingand Managing Urban Ecosystems.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Presented at POLMET 85, Urban Environmental Conference. Hong Kong.Paddock, William, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009COur Last Chance to Win the War on Hunger.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Focus. Vol.4 No.1. Originally published inPopulation and Environment. March 1, 1990.Paehlke, Robert C., 1989. Environmentalism and the Future ofProgressive Politics. Yale University Press, New Haven.235Parker, Anthony, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CUrban Form and ACC: An Examination of the \u00E2\u0080\u0098City Centre\u00E2\u0080\u0099 in Richmond, BC.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Report to theUBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver.Patton, Michael Quinn, 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. (2nd edition). Sage, Newbury Park CA.Pau, Andrew, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CA Chinese Canadian Perspective on the Environment.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The New Catalyst. No.27. Spring 1994.p5.Pearce, David, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSustainable Consumption through Economic Instruments.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Oslo Symposium on SustainableConsumption. January 19-20, 1994.Pearce, David, 1988. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSustainable Use of Resources in Developing Countries.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Kerry Turner, (editor), 1988.Sustainable Environmental Management: Principles and Practice. Westview Press, Boulder.Pearce, David, 1987. \u00E2\u0080\u009CValuing Natural Resources and the Implications for Land and Water Management.\u00E2\u0080\u009D ResourcesPolicy. Vol.13. December 1987.p255-64Pearce, David and Giles Atkinson, 1993, \u00E2\u0080\u009CCapital Theory and the Measurement of Sustainable Development: AnIndicator of \u00E2\u0080\u0098Weak\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Sustainability.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Ecological Economics. Vol.8 No.2. p103-108.Pearce, David, Kerry Turner et al., 1993. Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London.Pearce, David, Edward Barbier et al., 1991. Blueprint 2: Greening the World Economy. Earthscan, London.Pearce, David and Kerry Turner, 1990. Economics ofNatural Resources and the Environment. New York: HarvesterWheatsheaf.Pearce, David, Anil Markandya and Edward Barbier, 1989. Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan Publications,London.Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg, 1993a. Sustainabiliry Indicators Methodology. Report prepared for the Fraser BasinManagement Board, Vancouver.Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg, 1993b. 1993 Environmental SCAM Evaluating Our Progress toward Sustainability.Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Ottawa (?).Peet, John, 1992. Energy and the Ecological Economics of Sustainability. Island Press, Washington DC.Petersen, Susan, 1994. Deck Gardening: Reducing Appropriated Carrying Capacity through Greening in Richmond BC,Master Thesis in progress. Resource Management Science, UBC.Pezzey, John, 1989. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEconomic Analysis ofSustainable Growth and Sustainable Development.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Environment DepartmentWorking Paper No.15. The World Bank, Washington.Pfaundler, Leopold, 1902. \u00E2\u0080\u009CDie Weltwirtschaft im Lichte der Physik.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (The Global Economy from the Point of Viewof Physics). Deutsche Revue. Edited by Richard Fleischer. Vol.27 No.2. April-June 1902. p29-138, 171-182.Pillet, Gonzague, 1991. Towards an Inquiry into the Carrying Capacity of Nations. Report to the Coordinator forInternational Refugee Policy. Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Bern.Pimentel, David, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEthanol Fuels: Energy Security, Economics, and the Environment.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Journal ofAgricultural andEnvironmental Ethics. Vol.4 No.1. p1-3236Pimentel, David, 1974. Energy Use in World Food Production. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Pimentel, David et a!., 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAchieving a Secure Energy Future: Environmental and Economic Consequences.\u00E2\u0080\u009DEcological Economics. Vol.9 No.3.p201-19Pimentel, David et al., 1987. \u00E2\u0080\u009CWorld Agriculture and Soil Erosion.\u00E2\u0080\u009D BioScience. Vol.36 No.6.p277-83Pimentel, David and Marcia Pimentel, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Demographic and Environmental Consequences of the GreenRevolution.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Focus. Vol.4 No.1. Carrying Capacity Network, Washington DC.Pimentel, David and Marcia Pimentel, 1990. \u00E2\u0080\u009CLand Energy and Water: The Constraints Governing Ideal US PopulationSize.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The NPG Forum. Negative Population Growth Inc., Teaneck, N.J.Pimentel, David and Marcia Piinentel, 1979. Food, Energy and Society. Arnold, London.Polunin, Nicholas, 1977. Growth without Ecodisosters? MacMillan Press, London.Ponting, Clive, 1992. A Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations. St.Martin\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Press, New York.Postel, Sandra and John Ryan, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CReforming Forestry.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Brown et al. 199 la).Postel, Sandra, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCarrying Capacity: Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Bottom Line.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Brown et a!. 1994a).Postel, Sandra, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CDenial in the Decisive Decade.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Brown et al. 1992a)Poundstone, William, 1992. Prisoner Dilemma. Doubleday, New York.Price, Cohn, 1993. lime, Discounting and Value. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.Quesnay, Francois, 1758. Tableau Economique. Translation and notes by Marguerite Kuczynski and Ronald L. Meck.1972. MacMillan, New York.Rapoport, Anatol, 1986. General System Theory: Essential Concepts & Applications. Abacus Press, Cambridge, Mass.Ray, Dixy Lee, with Lou Guzzo, 1993. Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense. RegneryGateway, Washington DC.Reason, Peter and John Rowan, (editors), 1981. Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook ofNew Paradi,m Research. John Wiley& Sons, Chichester.Redclift, Michael, 1987. Sustainable Development: Exploring its Contradictions. Methuen & Co., London.Rees, William E., 1994a. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPressing Global Limits: Trade as the Appropriation of Carrying Capacity.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Ted Schreckerand I. Dalgeish, (editors), 1994. Growth, Trade and Environmental Values. Westminster, London, Ontario.Rees, William E., 1994b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSustainability, Growth, and Employment: Toward an Ecologically Stable, EconomicallySecure, and Socially Satisfying Future.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Employment and Sustainable Development Project. International Institute forSustainable Development, Winnipeg.Rees, William E., 1994c. \u00E2\u0080\u009CRevisiting the Land Ethics: Towards Sustainable Land Use.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Background paper to theStewardship \u00E2\u0080\u009894 conference. Vancouver, March 3-5, 1994.237Rees, William E., 1992a. \u00E2\u0080\u009CUnderstanding Sustainable Development: Natural Capital and the New World Order.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Schoolof Community and Regional Planning. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Rees, William E., 1992b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban Economics LeavesOut.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Environment and Urbanization. Vol.4 No.2.p121-30Rees, William E., 1992c. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban Economics LeavesOut.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Presentation to the Globe \u00E2\u0080\u009892 conference. March 1992. Vancouver.Rees, William E., 1990a. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAtmospheric Change: Human Ecology in Disequilibrium.\u00E2\u0080\u009D International Journal ofEnvironmental Studies. Vol.36. p103-124.Rees, William E., 1990b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhy Economics Won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t Save the World.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Presented to the First Conference of theInternational Society for Ecological Economics, Washington DC.Rees, William E., 1990c. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Ecology of Sustainable Development.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The Ecologist. Vol.20 No.1. p18-23Rees, William E., 1990d. Environmental Impact Assess,nent. Course PLAN 514. School of Community and RegionalPlanning, The University of British Columbia. Spring 1990.Rees, William E., 1988. \u00E2\u0080\u009CIntegrating Economy/Ecology: Toward a Role for Environmental Assessment in SustainableDevelopment.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Julia Gardner, William E. Rees and Peter Boothroyd, 1988. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Role of Environmental Assessmentin Promoting Sustainable Development: Three Views.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Discussion Paper No.13. SCARP, Vancouver.Rees, William E., 1986. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Regional Capsule Concept: An Heuristic Model for Thinking about Regional Developmentand Environmental Policy.\u00E2\u0080\u009D SCARP, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Rees, William E., 1980. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEARP at the Crossroads: Environmental Assessment in Canada.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Environmental ImpactAssess,nent Review. Vol.1 No.4.p355-77Rees, William E., 1977. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAn Ecological Framework for Regional and Resource Planning.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Lecture Hand-out. SCARP,University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Rees, William E. and Mathis Wackernagel, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: Measuringthe Natural Capital Requirements of the Human Economy.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Presented to the Conference of the International Society ofEcological Economics, Stockholm 1992. In (Jansson et a!. 1994).Reichert, Dagmar and Wolfgang Zierhof, 1993. Umwelt zur Sprache bringen. (Giving People a Voice about theEnvironment). Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.Reilly, William K., (editor), 1994. Environment Strategy America 1994/95. (Forthcoming). Campden Publishing,London.Ricci, P.F., 1978. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPolicy Analysis Through Carrying Capacity.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Journal ofEnvironmental Management. Vol.6 No.1.January 1978.p85-97Richards, Stewart, 1983. Philosophy and Sociology of Science: An Introduction. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Rifkin, Jeremy, 1985. Declarations of a Heretic. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston.ROBBERT Associates, 1990. Sustainable Development Demonstration Framework- SDDF. (Manual for \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhat If?\u00E2\u0080\u009D).Revised 1992. Robbert Associates, Ottawa.238Robins, Nick, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CTracking the Ecological Footprint: A Discussion Paper and Research Agenda.\u00E2\u0080\u009D InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development. Oslo Symposium on Sustainable Consumption, January 19-20, 1994.Robinson, John, 1993. Private communication. November 16, 1994.Robinson, John, et al., 1990-1994. Sustainable Society Project. Various working papers. Sustainable DevelopmentResearch Institute, IJBC, Vancouver.Roseland, Mark, 1992. Toward Sustainable Communities. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy,Ottawa.Rosner, Bernard, 1986. Fundamentals of Biostatistics. (2nd edition). Duxbury Press, Boston MA.Rostow, Walt, 1960. The Stages ofEconomic Growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Roszak, Theodore, 1992. The Voice of the Earth. Simon & Schuster, New York.Roszak, Theodore, 1986. The Cult of Information. Pantheon Books, New York.Ruth, Matthias, 1993. Integrating Economics, Ecology and Thermodynamics. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht and Boston.Sachs, Jeffrey D., 1993. Poland\u00E2\u0080\u0099r Jump in the Market Economy. The MiT Press, Cambridge MA.Sachs, Wolfgang, (editor), 1993. Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict. Zed Books, London.Sachs, Wolfgang, (editor), 1992a. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Zed Books, London.Sachs, Wolfgang, 1992b. For the Love of the Automobile. (Translated from the German by Don Reneau). University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford.Sachs, Wolfgang, 1988. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Gospel of Global Efficiency.\u00E2\u0080\u009D IFDA Dossier. No.68.p33-9Sadler, Barry and Peter Jacobs, 1990. \u00E2\u0080\u009CA Key to Tomorrow: On the Relationship of Environmental Assessment andSustainable Development.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Peter Jacobs and Barry Sadler, (editors), 1990. Sustainable Development andEnvironmental Assessment: Perspectives on Planning for a Common Future. Canadian Environmental AssessmentResearch Council, Ottawa.Salholz, Eloise, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CDisaster and Denial: Why Do Victims Rebuild in the Same Old Place.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Newsweek. Cover story.July 26, 1993. Vol.122 No.4. p27.Samuelson, Paul and William Nordhaus, 1985. Economics. Twelfth edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.Sanders, Jerry W., 1990. \u00E2\u0080\u009CGlobal Ecology and World Economy: Collision Course or Sustainable Future?\u00E2\u0080\u009D Bulletin ofPeace Proposals. Vol.21 No.4. p395401. SAGE Publications, London.Sarangi, Satinath and Carol Sherman, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPiparwar: White Industries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Black Hole.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The Ecologist. Vol.23 No.2. p52-56.Sbert, Joni Maria, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CProgress.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Sachs 1992a).SCARP, School of Community and Regional Planning, 1994. Planning for Change: An Iiuegral Approach. SchoolProfile. SCARP. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.239Schmidheiny, Stefan et al., 1992. Changing Course \u00E2\u0080\u0094A Global Perspective on Development and the Environment. MiTPress, Boston.Schmidt-Bleek, Friedrich, 1993. Wieviel Umwelt braucht der Mensch: MIPS - das Massfur okologisches Wirtschaften.(How Much Environment Do People Need? MIPS: The Measure for Managing Ecological Economies). Birkhauser,Basel, Boston.Schneider, Stephan, 1989. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Greenhouse Effect: Science and Policy.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Science. Vol.243 No.4892. February 1989.p771-780.Schneider, Devon M., David R. Godschalk and Norman Aider, 1979. The Carrying Capacity Concept as a PlanningTool. American Planning Association, Chicago.Schrecker, Ted, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmentalism and the Politics of Invisibility.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Alternatives. Vol.20 No.2. p32-7Schumacher, Sally and James McMillan, 1993. Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction. 3rd edition.HarperCollins Publisher, New York.Scientific American, 1989. Managing Planet Earth. Special Issue. September 1989.Seidman, I.E., 1991. Interviewing as Qualitative Research. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New Yorkand London.Senge, Peter M., 1990. The Ffth Discipline: The Art and Practice ofthe Learning Organization. Doubleday, New York.Shaw, Roderick W., 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe POLSTAR Project: Can We Plan a More Sustainable Future?\u00E2\u0080\u009D Stockholm EnvironmentInstitute. Stockholm, Sweden.Shawkat, Hijran, 1994. As a Step toward Sustainabiliry in the Canadian Housing Sector: Minimizing the EcologicalFootprint ofNew Single-Family Detached Houses. Master Thesis in progress. Department of Architecture. The Universityof British Columbia.Shelton, H. Davis, (editor), 1993. Indigenous Views ofLand and the Environment. World Bank Discussion Papers No.188. The World Bank, Washington DC.Shiva, Vandana, 1991. The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology, and Politics. AtlanticHighlands, London.Siegenthaler, U. and J.L. Sarmiento, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAtmospheric Carbon Dioxide and the Ocean.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Nature. Vol.365. p1 19-125.Simon, Julian L., 1981. The Ultimate Resource. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Simon, Julian L. and Herman Kahn, (editors), 1984. The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000. B.Blackwell,New York.Simonis, Udo Ernst, 1990. Beyond Growth: Elements of Sustainable Development. Edition Sigma, Berlin.Sinclair, John, (editor-in-chiel), 1987. Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. Collins, London & Glasgow.Slaughter, Richard A., 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CFutures Concepts.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Futures. April 1993.Smil, Vaclav, 1991. General Energetics: Energy in the Biosphere and Civilization. Wiley, New York.240Smith, Murray, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAfter NAFTA - Where Do We Go from Here?\u00E2\u0080\u009D Vancouver Institute Lecture. February 1994.Reported by Steve Bereic in The Ubyssey. February 22, 1994.Smith, Ramsay W., (editor), 1982. Energy from Forest Biomass. Academic Press, New York.Smith, Robert B., 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEconomy-Environment Linkages: An Input-Output Approach.\u00E2\u0080\u009D A major paper submitted tothe Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master in EnvironmentalStudies, York University, North York, Ontario. (See also summary in Statistics Canada, 1993. EnvironmentalPerspectives. Catalogue No. 1 1-528E).Stahel, Walter R., 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CFrom \u00E2\u0080\u0098End-of-Pipe Technologies\u00E2\u0080\u0099 to \u00E2\u0080\u0098Cradle-to Cradle\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Product Liability: New Challengesfor Risk Management in the 1990s.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The Silver Jubilee Conference of the University of Bradford. September 10-12,1991.Stamp, L. Dudley, 1958. \u00E2\u0080\u009CMeasurement of Land Resources.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Geographical Review. Vol.48. p1-5Statistics Canada, 1989. Family Expenditure 1986. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Cat. No. 62-555.Statistics Canada, 1992. Quarterly Report on Energy Supply-Demand in Canada \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1991-N. Cat. No. 57-003, quarterly.Statistics Canada, Ottawa.Stead, W. Edward and Jean Garner Stead, 1992. Management for a Small Planet: Strategic Decision Making and theEnvironment. Sage Publications, Newbury Park CA, London, New Delhi.Steen-Jensen, Ingebrigt, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAdvertising to Sell Less??!\u00E2\u0080\u009D Presentation to the Oslo Symposium on SustainableConsumption. January 19-20, 1994.Steiner, Dieter, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CHuman Ecology as Transdisciplinary Science and Science as Part of Human Ecology.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In DieterSteiner and Markus Nauser, (editors), 1993. Human Ecology: Fragments of Anti-Fragmentaiy Views of the World.Routledge, London.Steiner, Dieter, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Human Ecological Significance of Different Types of Knowledge.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Andr\u00C3\u00A9 Kirchmann andChristine Schwarz, (editors), 1992. Perspektiven der Humanokologie. (Human Ecology Perspectives). Springer Verlag,Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany.Steiner, Dieter and Joachim Sch\u00C3\u00BCtz, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CWieviel Erde braucht der Mensch?\u00E2\u0080\u009D (How Much of Earth Do PeopleRequire?). GAlA. Vol.2 No.4.p235-6Steiner, Dieter, Franco Furger and Joachim SchUtz, 1988. \u00E2\u0080\u009CMechanisms, Forms and Systems in Human Ecology.\u00E2\u0080\u009DContribution to Third International Conference of the Society for Human Ecology. San Francisco. October 7-9, 1988.Stirling, Andrew, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmental Valuation: How Much is the Emperor Wearing?\u00E2\u0080\u009D The Ecologist. Vol.23 No.3.p97-103.Stott, D.H., 1962. \u00E2\u0080\u009CFive Cultural and Natural Checks on Population Growth.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Reprinted in Focus. Vol.4 No.1.p66-77Stout, B.A., 1984. Energy Use and Management in Agriculture. Breton Publishers, North Scituate MA.Suefeld, Peter et al., 1992. Psychology and Social Policy. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York.Suter, Peter and Patrick Hofstetter, 1989. \u00E2\u0080\u009CDie \u00C3\u00B6kologische R\u00C3\u00BCckzahldauer.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (The Ecological Payback Ratio). Schweizerlngenieur und Architekt. Vol.107 No.49. December 7, 1989. p1342-1346.241Suzuki, David, 1994. Opening address to the Greening our Cities conference. Vancouver May 7-8, 1994. Proceedings.The Social Planning and Research Council of BC, Vancouver.Taylor, Ann, 1992. Choosing Our Future: A Practical Politics of the Environment. Routledge, London and New York.The Human Economy Newsletter. \u00E2\u0080\u009CTechnology: Enhancement or Enslavement.\u00E2\u0080\u009D 13(1), March 1992.The Ecologist, 1992. Whose Common Future? A special issue of The Ecologist. Vol.22 No.4.The Ecologist, 1972. Blueprintfor Action. A special issue of The Ecologist. Vol.2 No.1.The Media Foundation, 1993. Anti-commercials including \u00E2\u0080\u009CVoodoo Economics.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Video tape. The Media Foundation,Vancouver. (also, see Adbusters, a Media Foundation publication).The UVB Impacts Reporter. Vol.1 No.0. February 1994.Theobald, Robert, 1987. The Rapids of Change. Knowledge Systems, Indianapolis.Theys, Jacques, 1989. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmental Accounting In Development Policy: The French Example.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Yusuf Alimad,Salah El Serafy and Ernst Lutz, (editors), 1989. Environmental Accountingfor Sustainable Development. A UNEP-WorldBank Symposium. The World Bank, Washington DC.Thomas, Karen, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CComparative Analysis of Global Consumption to that in the Lower Fraser Basin.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Report to theUBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver. (In progress).Thomas, John, (editor), 1977. Energy Analysis. Westview Press, Guildford, Surrey, UK.Tierny, John, 1990. \u00E2\u0080\u009CBetting the Planet.\u00E2\u0080\u009D New York Times Magazine. December 2, 1990.T\u00C3\u00B6tsch, W. and H. Polack, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPVC und Okobilanz.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (PVC and Life Cycle Analysis). Zeitschriftfl4r Umweltchemieund Okotoxicologie. Vol.4 No.2.Trainer, Ted, 1989. Developed to Death: Rethinking Third World Development. Green Point, London.Turner, R.K., P. Doktor and N. Adger, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSea-Level Rise and Coastal Wetlands in the UK: Mitigation Strategiesfor Sustainable Management.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Jannson et al. 1994).UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities and the City of Richmond, 1994. Sustainability Report. Draft(in progress). Richmond BC.UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CTools for Sustainability: Iteration andImplementation.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Cordia Chu and Rod Simpson, (editors), 1994. The Ecological Public Health: From Vision toPractice. Centre for Health Promotion, University of Toronto, and Institute of Applied Environmental Research, GriffithUniversity, Australia.UNCED, (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). Agenda 21: Programme of Action forSustainable Development / Rio Declaration on Environment and Development / Statement ofForest Principles. The finaltext of agreements negotiated by Governments at UNCED. United Nations, Rio de Janeiro. June 3-14, 1992.IJNCHE, United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 1973. Report of the United Nations Conference onthe Human Environment. (Stockholm, June 5-16, 1972). United Nations, New York.242UNCTC, United Nation Centre on Trausnational Corporations, 1993, World Investment Report: TransnationalCorporations and Integrated International Production. United Nations, New York.UNDP, United Nations Development Programme, 1993, Human Development Report. Oxford University Press, NewYork.UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1984. Applicability of Indicators ofSocioeconomic C7iange for Development Planning. Socio-economic Studies 7. UNESCO, Paris.UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1981. Soda-economic Indicators forPlanning: Methodological Aspects and Selected Examples. Socio-economic Studies 2. UNESCO, Paris.Union of Concerned Scientists, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Warning.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Drafted by UCS\u00E2\u0080\u0099s chairperson Henry Kendall, and signed by 1500scientists. In ISEE Newsletter. Vol.3 No.6. p5-6. December 1992.United Nations, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CDepartment of International Economic and Social Affairs.\u00E2\u0080\u009D World Population Projections 1990.Population Studies No.120.United Nations, General Secretary, 1970. Participation of Women in the Economic and Social Development of TheirCountries. United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, New York.UPI, Umwelt- und Prognose-Institute, 1991. Okologische und soziale Kosten der Umwel:belastung in der BundesrepublikDeutschland im Jahre 1989. (Ecological and Social Costs of Environmental Impacts in the Federal Republic of Germanyin 1989). UPI-Report No.20. Umwelt- und Prognose-Institute, Heidelberg, Germany.Urban & Rural Land Committee, 1973. Ecology and the Economy. Prepared for the Pacific Northwest River BasinCommission, Vancouver, Washington 98660.Van Gigch, John P., 1978. Applied General Systems Theo,y. Harper and Row, New York.Vain, Arild and Daniel W. Bromley, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CChoices without Prices without Apologies.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Journal of EnvironmentalEconomics and Management. (Forthcoming).Vester, Frederic, 1983. Unsere Welt \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Em vernetztes System. (Our World -- An Interwoven System). DTV Sachbuch,Munich.Victor, Peter A., James J. Kay and H. Jack Ruitenbeek, 1991. Economic, Ecological, and Decision Theories: IndicatorsofEcologically Sustainable Development. Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, Ottawa.Viederman, Stephen, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Economics and Economy of Sustainability: Five Capitals and Three Pillars.\u00E2\u0080\u009D JessieSmith Noyes Foundation, New York.Viederman, Stephen, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Literacy: Can Colleges Save the World?\u00E2\u0080\u009D Revised Draft for keynote address tothe Associated Colleges of the Midwest Conference on Ecological Education. March 11, 1994.Vitanow, Boriana, 1994. Private communication. Vancouver. August 4, 1994.Vitousek, Peter M., Paul R. Ehrlich, Ann H. Ehrlich and Pamela A. Mateson, 1986. \u00E2\u0080\u009CHuman Appropriation of theProducts of Photosynthesis.\u00E2\u0080\u009D BioScience. Vol.34 No.6.p368-73Vogt, William, 1948. Road to Survival. William Sloane Associates, New York.243von Scarpatetti, Beat, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCommunication \u00E2\u0080\u0098Autarcie et Ecologie\u00E2\u0080\u0099.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Communicating about Autarchy and Ecology).XXVe Congr\u00C3\u00A8s des Soci\u00C3\u00A9tds de Philosophie de Langue Francaise, Lausanne. August 25-28, 1994.von Neumann, Johann, 1944/1953. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton.von Bertalanffy, Ludwig, 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. George Braziller, NewYork.von Weizs\u00C3\u00A4cker, Ernst U., 1989. Erdpolitik: Okologische Realpolitik an der Schwelle zum Jahrhundert der Umwelt. (Nowavailable in English as Earth Politics. 1994. Zed Books, Atlantic Highlands NY). Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,Darmstadt.Wachtel, Paul, 1989. The Poverty of Affluence: A Psychological Portrait of the American Way of Lfr. New SocietyPublishers, Philadelphia.Wackernagel, Mathis, Janette Mcintosh, William B. Rees and Bob Woollard, 1993. How Big Is Our EcologicalFootprint? A Handbookfor Estimating a Community\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Appropriated Car,ying Capacity. Draft. The UBC Task Force onHealthy and Sustainable Communities, UBC, Vancouver.Wackernagel, Mathis and William B. Rees, 1994. The Ecological Footprint: Our Impact on Earth. (In progress). NewSociety Publishers, Philadelphia.Wackernagel, Mathis and William E. Rees, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPerceptual and Structural Barriers to investing in Natural Capital.\u00E2\u0080\u009DPresented to the 2nd Meeting of The international Society for Ecological Economics. Stockholm, August 3-6, 1992.Wackernagel, Mathis, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPlanning For Sustainability: Securing Human Survival While Improving Our Quality ofLife.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Draft toward a brochure. UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver.Wackernagel, Mathis, 1993a. \u00E2\u0080\u009CHow Big Is Our Ecological Footprint: Using Appropriated Carrying Capacity forMeasuring Sustainability.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Brochure. UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver.Wackernagel, Mathis, 1993b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CProfiles of Canadian Planning Schools.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Canadian Institute of Planners, Ottawa.Wackernagel, Mathis, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CComparing Three Thinking Tools for Policy Analysis.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Boothroyd 1992a).Wackernagel, Mathis, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CLand Use: Measuring a Community\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Appropriated Carrying Capacity as an indicator forSustainability;\u00E2\u0080\u009D and \u00E2\u0080\u009CUsing Appropriated Carrying Capacity as an Indicator, Measuring the Sustainability of aCommunity.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Report I & II to the UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver.Wada, Yoshihiko, 1994a. \u00E2\u0080\u009CBiophysical Productivity Data for Ecological Footprint Analysis.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Report to UBC Task Forceon Healthy and Sustainable Communities. May 1994. Vancouver.Wada, Yoshuuiko, 1994b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEstimating the Present Carrying Capacity of the Lower Fraser Valley.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Report to IJBC TaskForce on Healthy and Sustainable Communities. June 1994. Vancouver.Wada, Yoshiliiko, 1993. The Appropriated Carrying Capacity of Tomato Production: The Ecological Footprint ofHydroponic Greenhouse versus Mechanized Open Field Operations. M.A. Thesis. SCARP, UBC, Vancouver.Walilen, F.T., 1945. Pflanze and Mensch. (I\u00E2\u0080\u0099he Plant and the Human Being). ETH Kultur und StaatswissenschaftlicheSchriften No.45. Poligraphischer Verlag, Zurich, Switzerland.Walker, Lyle, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEstimating the Ecological Footprint of Various Municipalities in the Lower Fraser Basin.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Reportto the UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver. (In progress).244Waliner, Heinz Peter and Michael Narodoslawsky, 1994. OKOFIT Em Projek zur Eniwicklung einer Insel derNachhoitigkeit auf Bezirksebene. (ECOF1T: A Project to Develop a Regional Island of Sustainability). Institut firVerfahrenstechnik. Technische Universit\u00C3\u00A3t Graz, Austria.WCED, World Commission on Environment and Development, (Gro Harlem Brundtland, chair), 1987. Our CommonFuture. Oxford University Press, New York.Weber, Peter, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSafeguarding Oceans.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Brown et al. 1994a).Weder, RoIf, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CWirtschaft in der Umweltkrise: Globalisierung als Chance zur L\u00C3\u00B6sung von Umweltproblemen.\u00E2\u0080\u009D(Economy in the Environmental Crisis: Globalization as an Opportunity to Alleviate Environmental Problems). Institutfir Volkswirtschaft. Universit\u00C3\u00A4t Basel, Switzerland.Weller, Phil, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CSelling Dreams.\u00E2\u0080\u009D New Internationalist. No 246. August 1993.Wellisch, Maria, 1992. MB Carbon Budget for the Alberni Region. Final report. The Research and DevelopmentDepartment of MacMillan Bloedel Limited, Vancouver.Westing, A.H., 1981. \u00E2\u0080\u009CA World in Balance.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Environmental Conservation. Vol.8. p177-183.Wiener, Norbert, 1950. Cybernetics and Society: The Human Use ofHuman Beings. Doubleday Anchor Books, NewYork.Wilson, Bryan Key, 1974. Subliminal Seduction: Media\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Manipulation of a Not so Innocent America. New AmericanLibrary, New York.Winter, Carl-Jochen and Joachim Nitsch, (editors), 1988. Hydrogen as an Energy Carrier: Technologies, Systems,Economy. Springer Verlag, Berlin and New York.Wolfe, David, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CKilling the Messenger: Executives\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Resistance to Unwanted Information.\u00E2\u0080\u009D AmericanDemographics. Vol.13 No.7. p40-43.Wolstenholm, Eric F., 1990. System Enquiry: A System Dynamics Approach. Wiley, Chichester NY.Woollard, Robert, 1994a. Private communication. Department of Family Practice. UBC, Vancouver. July 1994.Woollard, Robert, 1994b. \u00E2\u0080\u009CChoices for a Sustainable Future.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Health Care Forum Journal. May June 1994. p30-4World Resources Institute, 1992. World Resources: Data Base Diskette. World Resources Institute, Washington DC.World Resources Institute, 1986-1994. World Resources. World Resources Institute, UNEP, UNDP, Washington DC.World Bank, 1978-1994. World Development Report. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (The WorldBank). Oxford University Press.Wright, John W., (general editor), 1991. The Universal Almanac 1992. Andrews and McMeel, New York.Zaborsky, Oskar R., (editor in chief), 1980. CRC Handbook of Biosolar Resources. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Z\u00C3\u00BCrcher, Dieter, 1994. Private communications: May 31, 1994; June 21, 1994. Infras, Zurich, Switzerland.245APPENDICES246APPENDIX 1LAN]) AREA EQUiVALENT FOR FOSSIL FUEL:TEIREE CALCULATION APPROACHES\u00E2\u0080\u0099This appendix provides three independent approaches for estimating an energy-landequivalence ratio for fossil fuel. The first approach calculates the energy-land equivalence ratiofor fossil fuel by assessing how much ecologically productive land would have to be set asideto produce the same amount of ethanol. The second approach estimates the ratio by calculatinghow much land would be required to absorb the CO2 which is released by fossil fuel combustion.Finally, the third approach calculates the ratio from the perspective of how much land wouldhave to be reserved to increase the biochemical energy stock by an amount that is equivalent tothe biochemical energy of the burnt fossil fuel.The CO2 approach proves to be the most conservative one, that is, the approach thatsuggests the lowest land requirement. Its energy-land equivalence ratio is 100 [Gjlhalyr]. Thecurrent EF/ACC calculation use this ratio for translating fossil fuel consumption into a land area.1 The references for Appendix 1 are listed in the bibliography.247APPENDIX 1.1: ENERGY-LAND EQUIVALENCE RATIO BASED ON ETHANOLPRODUCTION1. Why Ethanol?When estimating the EF/ACC of a given population, one must know how much land isnecessary to sustain its current level of consumption. This is a simple task for consumptiongoods that are produced from renewable resources. In the case of fossil energy, however, itbecomes more complex because it is not being reproduced, but mined from limited stocks.Therefore, fossil energy consumption could be translated into appropriated land area bycalculating how much land is necessary to produce an equivalent renewable substitute.Ethanol is the most obvious renewable2 substitute for liquid hydrocarbons. It exhibitssimilar physical properties, such as heating value or homogeneity, and can as easily betransported or stored as fossil fuel. Ethanol could also be considered as an equivalent substitutefor natural gas as this energy carrier is also a high quality fuel (low entropic value), butprobably it is superior to coal (see Appendix 1.3). However, in the first approximation, solidfossil fuels such as coal can be neglected in EF/ACC assessments as they account for only 2.6percent of the fossil fuels consumed in Canada in 1990. Natural gas, on the other hand,constitutes 45.3 percent of the consumed fossil fuels (Statistics Canada l990:tbllb).2. Comparing Ethanol StudiesThe purpose of this appendix is to clarify how much ethanol can be produced per hectareof arable land. At first glance, this question appears simple and straightforward, but theliterature offers a wide array of answers. Some scholars claim that current ethanol productionresults in a massive net loss in available energy (Pimentel 1991, David et a!. 1978, Kendricket al. 1978, Stout 1990:36 1), while one source implies net yields as high as 101 [Gj/ha/yr](Kirk-Othmer l980:V9:356,358). Most of this divergence can be explained by the variousassumptions. For example, all of the studies which assume that the processing of biomass intoethanol would be powered by fossil fuel come to the conclusion that ethanol production amountsto a net loss. Other studies assume that this process energy would be supplied by agriculturalwaste -- and these are the studies that document the highest net yields.Ethanol productivity depends on two factors: the biological productivity of biomass ongiven land, and the technological efficiency for converting biomass energy into ethanol. TableAl. 1 summarizes these factors and the resulting ethanol productivity for various studies. Theresults of the quoted studies are standardized to make them comparable as they all use differentmeasurement units and propose incompatible definitions of efficiency or net gains. In the2 Or at least it is potentially renewable. For a discussion see section 4 of this appendix.248standardized format which reports the results from all of these studies in [Gj/ha/yr], theprocessing is assumed to be powered by agricultural waste.The conversion efficiency listed in Table Al.1 compares the biological productivity (i.e.,the Net Primary Productivity of the crop) to the net gain in ethanol. In all cases it is assumedthat the farming and harvesting energy is powered by high quality (low entropy) energy inputssuch as ethanol, while, as mentioned above, the heat energy for the ethanol processing isprovided by agricultural waste. This means that only the energy for agricultural production issubtracted from the gross ethanol gain. Therefore, many studies that assumed fossil fuel-poweredethanol processing, and consequently reported a net loss, now show a net gain in low-entropyenergy. Formally, the conversion efficiency is defined as:net low entropy energy produced [per hectare & year]Conversion Efficiency =Net Primary Productivity [per hectare & year]net ethanol output [in Gjlhalyr] - commercial energy input [in Gj/ha/yr]Net Primary Productivity [in Gj/ha/yr]Table Al. 1 relates biological productivity (column 1), conversion efficiency (column 2)and net gain in ethanol (column 3) as follows:Biological Productivity * Conversion Efficiency = Ethanol Productivity3. Choosing an Energy-Land Equivalence Ratio for Fossil FuelEach of the cited studies were prepared for different purposes and are, therefore, eithercautious or more optimistic in their assessments. For example, while Pimentel tries todemonstrate bio-energy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s limited potential for securing current energy consumption levels, theNational Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL 1992) in Golden, Colorado, provides moreoptimistic estimates in its endeavour to lobby for the expansion of bio-energy programmes.To keep EF/ACC assessments conservative, the most optimistic scenario for ethanolproduction is chosen for the energy-land equivalence ratio. The study from the NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory proposes the highest yields. This prediction for a state-of-the-artprocess that depends on fast growing poplar trees as its biomass input claims a net ethanol249productivity of 80 [Gj/ha/yr] .4. Sustainabffitv and the Environmental ImDact of Ethanol ProductionEven though an ethanol economy could reduce atmospheric CO2 accumulation and (withthe appropriate technology) lower NO and HC emissions in comparison to the equivalentconsumption of fossil fuels, ethanol production is not inherently sustainable or ecologicallybenign. An ethanol economy could be sustainable or ecologically benign only if the agriculturalinput was produced without soil loss and soil contamination, and if the by-products were reusedas fertilizers for the fields (and the workers were paid fairly). In this case, the ethanoltechnology would be CO2 neutral and could be sustained over a long period of time. More likelyhowever, the agricultural production per hectare would drop, decreasing the net ethanolproductivity (even in the most optimistic scenarios) to less than 50 [Gj/halyr] (Giampietro 1992).However, the current rate of topsoil erosion, and loss of farmland due to waterloggingor salination suggests that current agricultural production is unsustainable (Pimentel 1987:277).Machine and resource-intensive farming techniques produce high yields in the short-run, but leadto massive soil loss and soil contamination. Particularly in the case of crop production forethanol rather than for food markets, a higher dosage of pesticides might applied. In addition,removing all the biomass from the fields, as in the use of farm waste for fuelling the ethanolprocessing, can deplete the soil structure. This process causes more run-offs, allows the leachingof nutrients and leads to a fast loss of organic matter. Further, to keep the crop yields up, moreaggressive and energy-intensive farming techniques which could damage the soil might be used.Also, when an ethanol economy relies on a biomass input whose agricultural productionhas caused a substantive soil loss, such ethanol production could become a net CO2 source. Thereason is that some of the eroded soil decomposes and thereby releases CO2 into the atmosphere.The only study reporting net gains beyond these 80 [Gj/ha/yr] is the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopaedia (Mark et al.1980) which implies a net production of 101 [Gjlhaiyr]. At one point they state that it takes 202 square kilometres offarm land to produce a [gross] output of 265,000,000 litres of ethanol (1980:V9:356). Later they show that 65 percentwould be necessary to power the agricultural production which results in a net productivity of 101 [Gjlhaiyr](1980:V9:358). However, this study does not provide a reliable documentation of these results.250TABLE A1.1: Comparing Results of Various Ethanol Productivity Studiesauthors of study biological conversion net ethanoltype of biomass productivity efficiency production[Gj/ha/yrj [%J [Gjlhalyr]A) Abmed and Morris (1992)corn 320 9 29cellulosic crop 242 22 53B) David et al. (1978)corn 214\u00E2\u0080\u0099 12 261C) Giampietro (1992)sustainable sugar cane 103 31 32D) Giampietro and Pimentel (1990)sugar cane 436\u00E2\u0080\u0099 15\u00E2\u0080\u0099 65sugar cane (U.S.A.) 436\u00E2\u0080\u0099 12\u00E2\u0080\u0099 52sugar cane (Brazil) 436\u00E2\u0080\u0099 13\u00E2\u0080\u0099 57E) Kendrick et al. (1978)corn 214\u00E2\u0080\u0099 1.4 3\u00E2\u0080\u0099F) Kirk-Otluner (Mark et al. 1980)sugar cane 436\u00E2\u0080\u0099 23\u00E2\u0080\u0099 100corn 300\u00E2\u0080\u0099 19 57\u00E2\u0080\u0099G) Lightfoot (& Kirk-Othmar) (1992)corn 229 8 18H) Narodoslawsky et al. (1993)sugar beet (today) 868 4 39sugar beet (best technology) 868 9 811) NREL, Golden (1992)fast growing wood 395 20 79J) Pimentel (1991)corn 297 5 15K) Stoue (1984)sugar beet 34-66Other ScenariosL) corn, commercial 326 22 73energy input = 0\u00E2\u0080\u0098Includes estimates from other sources. For example, Zaborsky reports a typical sugar cane yield (total biomass) of 436[Gj/halyr], while its sucrose content adds up to only 90 [Gjlhalyr] chemical energy (1981:V2:216).2 Includes total energy inputs to produce and process crops. Sugar beet is the only plant for which this study shows anet gain. However, this result seems overly optimistic. Zaborsky reports for sugar beet a gross gain of sucrosewhich is equivalent to 60 [Gjlha/yr] chemical energy (1981:V2: 143).251APPENDIX 1.2: ENERGY-LAND EQUIVALENCE RATIO BASED ON CO2ABSORPTION41. Why COThe purpose of this appendix is to estimate the land area necessary to sequester the CO2released by fossil fuel burning. From this perspective, the energy-land equivalence ratio wouldindicate the level of fossil fuel consumption in [Gjlyr] whose corresponding CO2 can besequestered by one hectare of global average forest.Appendix 1.1 described various estimates of the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenergy land\u00E2\u0080\u009D associated with currentconsumption that would be required to produce ethanol from biomass as a substitute for fossilhydrocarbons. This approach assumes CO2 emission and not the size of fossil fuel reserves asthe limiting factor for fossil fuel consumption. Therefore, estimating the energy-landrequirements of fossil fuel burning involves calculating the area of growing forest necessary toabsorb and store the released CO2.5 Since the mining and burning of fossil fuels results in thecontinuous and rapid injection of carbon from an historically inactive pool into the atmosphere,potentially hazardous accumulations of CO2 are inevitable unless some form of semi-permanentcarbon sink can be found.2. Forests as Carbon SinksThe most obvious and direct solution is to use contemporary photosynthesis to capturethe newly emitted fossil CO2. Indeed, tree planting and the maintenance of \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccarbon sink\u00E2\u0080\u009D forestsis the only currently practical means of soaking up excess atmospheric carbon. With thisapproach, the risk of atmospheric and climate change is reduced by continuously sequesteringthe excess carbon in growing forests and long-lived wood products. Such semi-permanent storagekeeps the accumulating fossil carbon out of active circulation. In effect, we would be shuntingthe carbon through the economy from an ancient inactive pool to a modern one.While the deliberate use of forests as a carbon sink is a relatively new idea, the fact isthat enormous quantities of carbon are already held in the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s biomass and soils. Theremaining vegetation and soils contain in excess of 2000 billion metric tonnes of carbon -- threetimes the amount in the atmosphere (Brown et at. 1988:93, CE 1991:Ch22). Indeed, landmismanagement and deforestation have been major contributors to greenhouse gas accumulationin the recent past. Since 1860, forest clearing and burning alone has contributed 90-180 billion\u00E2\u0080\u0098 This Appendix builds on Yoshihiko Wada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s literature review on CO2 absorption of forest ecosystems (1994a) andWilliam E. Rees\u00E2\u0080\u0099 summary statement on CO2 sequestration (Wackernagel et al. 1993).This assumes that nonrenewable hydrocarbons will remain the main energy source for industrial societies in theforeseeable future.252[t] of carbon to the atmosphere (as compared to 150-190 billion [t] from fossil fuels) (Brown etal. 1988:94). The current contribution from deforestation is 1.0-2.6 billion [t] annually (20-50%as much as from burning fossil fuels).3. Land Use ImplicationsThe CO2 sequestration of forests are based on the estimates reported in Table A 1.2TABLE A1.2: CO2 Sequestering by Forest EcosystemsForest type [ CO2 absorption6 Percentage of global forest area7Average boreal forest 0.5 [t carbon/ha/yr] 33 %Average temperate forest 1.5 [t carbonlhalyr] 25 %Average tropical forest 3.0 [t carbon/ha/yr] 42 %Average global forest [ 1.8 [t carbon/ha/yr] 100 %Forest ecosystems are by one magnitude more effective in the long-term absorption of CO2.According to a literature review by Yoshihiko Wada (1994a:8-10), the global average ofgrassland adds up to about 0.12 [t carbon/halyrj, most of it in the soil.Knowing the global average of CO2 absorption allows a straightforward calculation of theenergy-land equivalence ratio. Siegenthaler et a!. report that every year about 5.4E9 [t] ofcarbon are released by fossil fuel combustion. This corresponds to a fossil fuel consumption of300,000 [Pj].8 In other words, including all the CO2 releases of mining and refining, one [Gj]6 This table is based on an extensive literature review by Yoshihiko Wada that he conducted for the UBC TaskForce on Healthy and Sustainable Communities (1994a). The chosen figures stem mainly from Apps et al. (1993), Dixonet a!. (1994), Birdsay et a!. (1992), and Marland (1988).\u00E2\u0080\u0098 Dixon et a!. (1994) in Wada (1994a).8 The global commercial fossil fuel in 1989 which was consumed directly or through the use of electricity can beestimated from the World Resources Institute figures (1992:316). It reports 298,258 [Pj] of commercial energy consumed,while 346,931 [Pj] in Conventional Fuel Equivalent. Hence, one can calculate the fossil fuel component as follows:(1) directly consumedf(ossil) + e(!ectrical) = 298E18 bJ and(2) f + 3.333e = 347E18 If].This results in f= 277E18 [ii and e= 21E18 jj]. Of the consumed electricity, 14E18 [j] were generated by nuclear orhydro power (1992:314). This means that the remaining electricity (6.5E18 [j]) was generated by fossil fuel. Therefore,the global commercial fossil fuel in 1989 that was consumed directly (277E18 Fj]) or through the use of electricity(3.333*6.5E18 [j]) adds up 299E18 [1].253of fossil fuel emits about 18 [kg] of carbon into the atmosphere. According to the averagesequestering capacity of forests, this shows that one hectare of average forest could annuallysequester the CO2 of 100 [Gj] of fossil fuel (100 [Gj/yr] * 18 [kg/Gil = 1.8 [t/yr], or onehectare\u00E2\u0080\u0099s capacity). In the current EF/ACC assessments, this fossil energy-land equivalence ratioof 100 [Gj/ha/yrj is being applied.In summary, while dedicated carbon sink forests could make a major contribution toslowing atmospheric change, it would require dramatically improved land management generallyand a massive international commitment of forest land and other resources for the full benefitto be realized. One should also keep in mind that since wood is impermanent (eventuallydecaying or burning and returning its carbon to the atmosphere), and since there is twice asmuch carbon stored in fossil fuel reserves (mainly coal) as is held in contemporary biota andsoils, a large reduction in fossil fuel consumption is also necessary.9 In short, as potentiallyuseful as they might seem, carbon sink forests are at best a partial, stop-gap solution toatmospheric and possible climatic change. They would, however, provide a few decades ofbreathing space while we search for more permanent solutions.Neither condition is likely to be met in the foreseeable future. Indeed, deforestation continues apace and muchof the developing world is only entering the fossil fuel age.254APPENDIX 1.3: ENERGY-LAND EQUIVALENCE RATIO BASED ON CREATIONOF RENEWABLE SUBSTITUTES1. Why Renewable Substitutes?World Bank Economist Salah El Serafy proposes that a sustainable society can consumenon-renewable resources only if it replenishes an equivalent (monetary) stock (1988). Abiophysical interpretation of this assertion would require replenishing an equivalent renewableresource asset at the same rate as fossil fuel is being consumed. Such creation of an equivalentrenewable substitute would address the principle of constant natural capital,\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00C2\u00B0 thereby ensuringinter-generational equity, a precondition for sustainabiity. Estimating the land necessary tocreate renewable substitutes for the depleted non-renewable resources becomes the third rationalefor translating current fossil fuel consumption into land areas. In other words, fossil fuelconsumption could be translated into the land area which must be set aside to accumulate aresource stock equivalent in biochemical energy to the depleted amount of fossil fuel.2. Forests as Substitutes of Denleted Fossil Fuel StocksForests are the only renewable resource that can accumulate large quantities of biomassover a long period of time such as one to several human generations.1\u00E2\u0080\u0099Therefore, this approachis based on growing forest biomass as the renewable resource substitutes for the drawn downfossil fuel stocks. To develop an equivalent between forest biomass and fossil fuel, their possibleuse must be compared first. To power human-made processes, high quality energy carriers arenecessary. Therefore, one could argue that only the timber biomass of the forest should becounted. However to enable life, the soil biomass of the forest is much more valuable.Therefore, two approaches for measuring forest biomass are proposed. The first approachassesses the timber productivity of forests in terms of their exergetic (or essergetic) value; thesecond, the entire forest productivity in terms of their biochemical value. These two estimates -- the first one cautious, and the second one more optimistic-- provide a range of defendablemeasurements for average forest productivity.3. The First Anproach: The Exergetic Forest Productivity for TimberAs a first approximation, one could postulate that one [kjj of timber is equivalent to one [kj] ofcoal. On the one hand, coal is, in exergetic terms, more effective than wood, i.e., thecombustion of coal can generate higher temperatures than that of timber. On the other hand,10 This corresponds to the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstrong sustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D interpretation which is elaborated in Chapter I.Peat bogs also accumulate carbon over even longer time spans, but at a substantially lower rate (Wada 1994a).255timber is more versatile than coal, because it can be used for heating as well as for constructionpurposes. From an exergetic perspective, some engineers suggest that one [kj] of oil (or gas) isas valuable as two [kj] of coal (McKetta 1984:7). In other words, they consider it to be a gainif 2 [kj] of coal are converted into 1 [kj] of liquid fuel. For many purposes, gas can be countedas if it was of the same quality as liquid fuel, even though it is slightly less versatility (howeverfor many stationary applications, such as domestic heating or gas turbines, it is superior to liquidfuel). Therefore, the exergetic conversion ratio between timber, coal, oil and gas can be crudelypostulated as:2 [kj timber] = 2 [kj coal] = 1 [kj liquid fuel] = 1 [kj gas]Assuming an average timber productivity of 2.3 [m/ha/yr] (Chapter IV), an averagetimber density of 520 [kg/rn3 dry wood] with an energy content of 20 [Mi/kg dry wood] (seeAppendix 2.2), one hectare of Earth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s average forest would be able to accumulate:2.3 [m\u00E2\u0080\u0099/halyr] * 520 [kg/rn3] * 20 [Mj/kg]= 24 [Gjlhaiyr].1000 [Mj/Gj]Furthermore in exergetic terms, these 24 [Gj/ha/yr] of timber are worth only 12[Gj/ha/yr] of liquid fuel. This energy productivity or energy-land equivalence ratio is much lessthan the assumed net energy productivity of 80 [Gj/ha/yr] for ethanol, or 100 [Gj/ha/yr]calculated through the CO2 approach.4. The Second Annroach: The Biochemical Energy Productivity of Forest EcosystemsOnce the carbon accumulation of forest ecosystems is known, this can be translated intoequivalent biochemical energy. Appendix 1.2 showed a carbon accumulation rate of 1.8[tlhalyear] for average forests. For most forests, one [kg] of carbon corresponds to about 44[Mj] of biochemical energy (Appendix 2.2). Hence, the biochemical energy accumulation ofaverage forests adds up to (1.8 [t/ha/year] * 44 [Gj/t] =) 79 [Gj/halyr], which is quite similarto the ethanol productivity calculated in Appendix 1.1.5. DiscussionThis calculation illustrates that for a sustainable economy it might be ecologically moreefficient to produce the energy requirements on a renewable basis (such as direct solar, hydro,wind or biomass energy) rather than to take El Serafy\u00E2\u0080\u0099s route: compensating for the consumednon-renewable resource stocks by accumulating equivalent renewable substitutes.256APPENDIX 2BACKGROUND DATA FOR THE CONSUMPTION - LAND USEMATRIX OF AN AVERAGE CANADIANThis appendix contains the data material and supporting tables for calculating the averageCanadian Ecological Footprint the result of which are presented in the consumption - land-usematrix (Table 5.1). Appendix 2.1 documents the calculations for every relevant cell of thematrix. Appendix 2.2 includes supporting tables on food consumption and embodied energy.Appendix 2.3 gives the references for all these data, and Appendix 2.4 summarizes abbreviationsand units used in this section.TablesTable A2. 1Table A2.2Table A2.3Table A2.4Table A2.5Table A2.6Table A2.7Table A2.8General dataCanadian crop production and consumptionCanadian animal products and their consumptionFood supply and caloric value for an average CanadianEmbodied energy in various materialsConsumption energy conversionSpecific energy contentApproximate conversion ratios for biomass productivity257APPENDIX 2.1: DATA FOR CALCULATING THE AVERAGE CANADIANECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTX - CONSUMPTIONxlO FOODREFERENCES:The food expenditure per capita in Canada, 1986 was (FE 1989:34):5,013 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 1843 [$/cap/yr].(75 % of the purchases are from stores, 25 % from restaurants).The food supply per capita in Canada, 1986-88 was (FAOb 1990:tbllO6):2325 [kcal/cap/day] vegetable products {i.e., 67% }, and1125 [kcal/cap/day] animal products (i.e., 33% }.(The food supply per capita in the world, 1986-88 was (FAOb 1990:tbllO6):2253 [kcal/cap/day] vegetable products (i.e., 84%), and419 [kcal/cap/day] animal products (i.e., 16%)).Milk consumption: 8,229,000 [tJ of milk was produced in Canada in 1989 (FAOb 1990:tb199) which amounts to 313[1/cap/yr], while consumption {?} in 1989 was 278 [1/cap/yr] (CY 1992:367). The 278 [1] corresponds to 89% of the total production of 313 [1], i.e., the remaining 35 [1] would be net trade and/or statistical discrepancies.Meat consumption: 2,423,453 [t/year] was consumed in Canada in 1989. This corresponds to 2,423,453 [t/year] * 1000[kg/ti / 26.3E6 [Canadians] = 92 [kg/cap/year].1.26 times more meat is produced (i.e., 3,055,521 [t]) (Table 8).The consumption of grain by human beings and livestock:In Canada, 79 % of the consumed grain is fed to livestock (WR 1992:276).The food waste: (Corson 1990:75)pre harvest agricultural loss: 5-40 percent (worldwide),losses from harvest to retailing: 15 percent (in US),purchased food discarded by restaurants and households: 15 percent (in US).Meadows et at. report a 40 % food products loss from farm to consumer (Meadows et at. 1992:48).x20 HOUSINGx21 housing construction and maintenanceREFERENCES:The construction and maintenance expenditure in Canada, 1986 was (FE 1989:34):rented living quarters: 1720 [$] / 2.72 [cap/household] = 632 [$/cap/yr], andowned living quarters: 2510 [$] / 2.72 [cap/household] = 923 [$/cap/yr].TOTAL = 1,555 [$/cap/yr]258x22 operation of housingREFERENCES:The operational expenditure in Canada, 1986 was (FE 1989:34):water, fuel and electricity: 1092 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 401 [$Icap/yr], andhousehold cleaning and paper and plastic household supplies:230+231 Es] / 2.72 [cap/household] = 169 [5/caplyr].TOTAL = 570 [$/cap/yr]x30 TRANSPORTATIONx31 motorized private transportationREFERENCES:The private transport expenditure in Canada, 1986 (FE 1989:36):4235 [5] I 2.72 [cap/household] = 1557 [$Icap/yr].x32 motorized public transportationREFERENCES:The public transport expenditure in Canada, 1986 (FE 1989:36):421 [5] / 2.72 [cap/household] = 155 [$/caplyr].x40 CONSUMER GOODSx40\u00E2\u0080\u0099 packagingREFERENCES:The packaging in the US, 1984 (Selke 1990:4) amounted to:(US tons converted into metric tonnes, assuming 249E6 [Americans])29.5 million tons = 26.8E6 [t] paper packaging = 108 [kg/cap/yr]5.4 million tons = 4.9E6 [t] steel packaging = 20 [kg/cap/yr]2.0 million tons = 1.8E6 [t] aluminum packaging = 7 [kg/cap/yr]6.3 million tons = 5.7E6 [t] plastic packaging (1987),increased from 5.0E6 [t] in 1984 = 23 [kg/cap/yr]12.8 million tons = 11.6E6 [t] glass packaging = 47 [kglcap/yr]2.0 million tons = 1.8E6 [ti wood packaging = 7 Fka/catilvrl58 million tons = 52.7E6 [t] TOTAL PACKAGING = 212 [kg/cap/yr]x41 clothingREFERENCES:The clothing expenditure in Canada, 1986 was (FE 1989:36):2215 [5] I 2.72 [cap/household] = 814 [5/cap/yr].259x42 furniture and appliancesREFERENCES:The furniture and equipment expenditure in Canada, 1986 was (FE 1989:36):1278 [$1 / 2.72 [caplhousehold] = 470 [$Icaplyrj.x43 books and magazinesREFERENCES:The reading material and other printed matter expenditures in Canada, 1986 were (FE 1989:3 8):205 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 75 [$/caplyr].The paper consumption in the US is:317 [kglcap/yr] which is the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s highest consumption rate according to (Meadows et a!. 1992:63).317 [kg/caplyr] in 1988 according to (Kroesa 1990:41).The paper consumption in Canada is:6,201,000 [t] paper products consumed in 1990, which amounts to 242 [kg/caplyr]. Of these 6,201,000 [t],1,089,000 [tj are newsprint, and 5,112,000 [t] are other paper and paperboard (FED 1992:73) {seealso f43}. (In 1990, Canada produced 2.7 times more paper than it consumed, i.e., 16,465,000 [t/yr](FED 1992:52), i.e., approximately 63 % for export).247 [kg/cap/yr] paper consumed in Canada, 1988 (Kroesa 1990:41).The Canadian paper consumption inferred from world consumption:World\u00E2\u0080\u0099s yearly paper production between 1987-89 adds up to 223,012,000 [t/yr] (WR,1992: 288).Rule of thumb: people living in OECD countries (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development){i.e., people in highly industrialized countries) use typically 4-5 times that of the World\u00E2\u0080\u0099s per capitaaverage (various, e.g., Barry Commoner in Ekins 1992:108).223,012,000 [t/yr] / 5.5E9 [people] * 5 [OECD factor] = 203 [kg/cap/yr]Paper waste:In Ontario (CE 1992:25-6):1,474,000 [t/yr] private paper waste (55 % of total),1,221,000 [t/yr] commercial paper waste (45 % of total).Therefore, the per capita waste adds up to(1,474,000 + 1,221,000) [t/yr] I 9. 1E6 [Ontarians] = 296 [kg/cap/yr].priv.(55%) commerc.(45%) total (100%) in absolutes62%(=34%) 64%(=29%) 63% for reading = 186 [kglcap/yr]11 %(= 6%) 36% (= 16%) 22% for packaging = 65 [kglcap/yr]14%(= 8%) 8% for food pack = 24 [kglcap/yr]13%(= 7%) -- 7% for household = 21 [ka/cap/yrl100%(=55%) 100%(=45%) 100% 296 [kg/caplyr]Municipal Waste in Canada in 1989 contained (WR 1992:3 19):228 [kg/cap/yr] cardboard,29 [kg/cap/yr] plastic,41 [kglcaplyr] glass,41 [kglcaplyr] metals, and266 Fkn/can/vrl organic.625 [kglcaplyr] TOTAL.260RESULT:The per capita paper consumption:317 [kg/cap/yr] per US-American,296 [kg/cap/yrj paper waste per Ontarian,242-247 [kg/cap/yr] per Canadian, in this EF/ACC calculation, 244 [kg!caplyrJ of paper is used228 [kglcaplyr] cardboard and paper in Canadian municipal waste, or203 [kg/cap/yr] per Canadian (inferred from world production).x44 tobacco and alcoholREFERENCES:The tobacco and alcohol expenditure in Canada in 1986 was (FE 1989:38):518 + 610 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] 415 [$/cap/yr].x45 personal careREFERENCES:The personal care expenditure in Canada in 1986 was (FE 1989:36):679 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 250 [$/caplyrj.x46 recreationREFERENCES:The recreation expenditure in Canada in 1986 was (FE 1989:36):equipment, vehicles, home entertainment: 1,771 - 630 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 503 [$/cap/yr], andother accommodation - traveller accommodation (from \u00E2\u0080\u0098Shelter\u00E2\u0080\u0099, i.e., in Statistics Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s statistic this itemis classified under \u00E2\u0080\u0098Shelter\u00E2\u0080\u0099): 358 - 180 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 65 [$/cap/yr].TOTAL = 568 [$/cap/yrj.x47 other goodsREFERENCES:The dollars spent on gifts in Canada in 1986 were (FE 1989:38):381 [$1 I 2.72 [cap/household] = 140 [$/caplyr].x50 RESOURCES NEEDED FOR SERVICES PROVIDEDx52 educationREFERENCES:The education expenditure in Canada in 1986 was (FE 1989:38):296 [$] I 2.72 [cap/household] = 109 [$/cap/yr].261x53 health careREFERENCES:The health care expenditure in Canada in 1986 was (FE 1989:36):648 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 238 [$/cap/yr](of the 648 [$1, 430 [$1 are direct costs and 218 [$1 are health insurance premiums).x54 social servicesREFERENCES:The unemployment and government pension contributions in Canada in 1986 were (FE 1989:36):468+372 [$] / 2.72 [cap/household] = 309 [$/cap/yr](Benefits received (in dollar terms) are approximately the same amount in all income groups).x55 tourism (without transportation)REFERENCES:The tourism expenditure in Canada in 1986 was (FE 1989:36):traveller accommodation (from \u00E2\u0080\u0098Shelter,\u00E2\u0080\u0099 i.e., in Statistics Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s statistic it is classified under \u00E2\u0080\u0098Shelter\u00E2\u0080\u0099)180 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 66 [$/cap/yr], andpackage travel tour (\u00E2\u0080\u0098Recreation\u00E2\u0080\u0099 in Statistics Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s statistic)180 [$] / 2.72 [cap/household] = 66 [$Icaplyr].TOTAL = 132 [$/cap/yr].x56 entertainmentREFERENCES:The recreational services expenditure in Canada in 1986 was (FE 1989:36):(\u00E2\u0080\u0098Recreation\u00E2\u0080\u0099 category in Statistics Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s statistic)630-180 [$] / 2.72 [cap/household] = 165 [$/cap/yr].x57 banks and insurancesREFERENCES:The interest on personal loans in Canada in 1986 was (FE 1989:38):315 [$] I 2.72 [cap/household] = 116 [$Icaplyr].The life insurance premiums (in \u00E2\u0080\u0098Security\u00E2\u0080\u0099) were: 270 [$] / 2.72 [cap/household] = 99 [$Icaplyr].The retirement and pension fund payments (without government pension plan (in \u00E2\u0080\u0098Security\u00E2\u0080\u0099 in Statistics Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s statistic)were: 791-372 [$] / 2.72 [cap/household] = 154 [$Icaplyr].TOTAL = 369 [$Icaplyr].262x58 other servicesREFERENCES:The communication expenditure in Canada in 1986 was (FE 1989:36):486 [$] I 2.72 [cap/household] = 179 [$Icap/yr].The child care and pet expenditure cost: (\u00E2\u0080\u0098Household Operation\u00E2\u0080\u0099 in Statistics Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s statistic)198 + 147 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 127 [$Icap/yr].The dues to union and professional organizations (\u00E2\u0080\u0098Miscellaneous\u00E2\u0080\u0099 in Statistics Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s statistic)135 [$1 I 2.72 [cap/household] = 50 [$Icap/yr].On the government run lotteries, the average household spends (\u00E2\u0080\u0098Miscellaneous\u00E2\u0080\u0099 in Statistics Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s statistic)146 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 54 [$/caplyr].Other expenditures were: (\u00E2\u0080\u0098Miscellaneous\u00E2\u0080\u0099 in Statistics Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s statistic)899-315-135-146 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 111 [$/caplyr].Contributions for religious and other charitable organizations were: (\u00E2\u0080\u0098Gifts and Contributions\u00E2\u0080\u0099 in Statistics Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099sstatistic)227+83 [$1 / 2.72 [cap/household] = 114 [$/cap/yr].TOTAL = 635 [$Icap/yr].263A - FOSSIL ENERGY: LAND FROM THE PASTalO FOODREFERENCES:Energy in the food system:According to a study by the US Federal Energy Administration in 1976, the food system uses 16.5 percent ofthe national energy:(In percent of total energy consumption):3.4% in the residential sector (residential sector uses 19% of US energy)3.2% in the commercial sector (commercial sector uses 14% of US energy)5.5% in the industrial sector (industrial sector uses 43% of US energy)4.4% in the transportation sector (transport. sector uses of US energy)16.5% of the U.S. energy consumption for food 100% (Stout 1984: 14).In other words, 16.5 % of the total US energy consumption is for food production and preparation.Based on 1963 data, each person, from food production to consumption, uses 34.5 [Gj] of food energy per year.Eric Hirst estimates that18 % goes into agricultural production33 % goes into food processing3 % goes into transportation {low compared to statistics above)16 % goes into whole salegoes into home preparation100 % (Stout 1984:15).According to Corson, 6 % of commercial energy consumption in the US is used by food processing andpackaging. This would add up to 295 [Gj/cap/yr] * 6% = 18 [Gj/cap/yr] (WR 1992:316).Typically, 10-15 % of the total national energy goes into the food system (Spedding 1989:3-table 3). Stout(1984:15) states that some studies report values from 12-20 % of the total energy consumption depending onthe boundaries given, the food system, and the extent to which indirect energy usage (machinery, buildings,etc.) is charged to the food system. For example, in Switzerland, 14 % of the total commercial energy goesinto the food system (Hofstetter 1992a: 12). In Switzerland, this corresponds to 7971 [kWh/cap/yr].The Canadian agricultural sector in 1989 used 2 % of all of the commercial energy consumed in Canada (WR1992:318). The energy intensity in the Canadian agricultural sector amounted to 9 [Mj] per [US$1 agriculturalincome generated, i.e., per 1 [US$1 agricultural GDP in Canada (WR 1992:318).Fuel composition: In 1970, 50 % of the energy used in the US food system was liquid petroleum, 30 % was natural gas,14 % was electricity, and the remainder was coal and residual fuel oil (USDA in Stout 1984:15).CALCULATIONS:Energy in average Canadian food chain:if we assume 14 % of national energy consumption to be used for the foodsystem this would add up to 234 [Gjlcaplyrj * 14% = 33 [Gj/cap/yr] (see a60).According to USFEA (1976 in Stout 1984:14), these 33 [Gj/cap/yr] can be attributed to7 [Gj/cap/yr] from home production {=> a22} (= 3.4%116.5% * 33 [Gj/cap/yr]),9 [Gj/cap/yr] from transportation {=> a30) (= 4.4%116.5% * 33 [Gj/cap/yr]),11 [Gj/cap/yrj from industrial processing (= 5.5 %116.5 % * 33 [Gj/cap/yr]),of which 2% * 234 = 5 [Gj/caplyr] are from agriculture, and the remaining 6 [Gj/caplyr] arededucted from consumer goods, and { => a40}6 [Gi/can/vrl from commercial {=> a50) (= 3.2%/16.5% * 33 [Gjlcaplyr]),33 [Gj/cap/yr].264234 [Gjlcap/yr] * 14% I 100 [Gj/halyr] = 0.33 [ha/cap](for the 100 [Gj/halyr] energy-land conversion ratio, see Appendix 1.2).RESULT:0.33 [ha/cap]all vegetarian productsREFERENCES:Assumptions:For the agricultural production of 1 [ii of animal products, 8 times more energy is needed per 1 Ii] of animalbased food products than for vegetarian food products (see d12). Agricultural fossil energy adds up to 5[Gj/cap/yr] / 33 [Gj/cap/yr] = 15 % of the energy embodied in food.Processing animal products might be twice as energy intensive as processing vegetarian food.Processing food requires approximately (100 %-15% =) 85 % of the energy used in the food system.Therefore, animal based food requires approximately 8*15% + 2*85% = 2.9 times more energy per 1 U] offood than does a vegetarian food product.CALCULATIONS:Every average Canadian eats approximately 2325 [kilocalories] vegetarian food products and 1125 [kcal] animal productsper day (see xlO). Assuming a ratio between energy intensity of vegetarian food and animal based food of 2.9(see above), one can calculate the ratio between the total energy spent on vegetarian food as compared to thatspent on animal based food by using the equation: 2325x + 2.9*1125x = 33 [Gj/cap/yr].From this equation follows x = 33 / (2325 + 2.9*1125) = 0.0059, and therefore, 13.7 [Gjlcap/yr]would be required for the vegetarian products and 19 [Gj/cap/yr] for the animal products.This leads to 13.7 [Gj/cap/yr] / 100 [Gjlhalyr] = 0.14 [ha/cap] of land.RESULT:0.14 [ha/cap]a12 animal productsREFERENCES AND CALCULATIONS:(see all): 19 [Gj/cap/yr] I 100 [Gj/halyr] = 0.19 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.19 [ha/cap]a20 HOUSINGREFERENCES:The total life cycle energy of a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstandard house\u00E2\u0080\u009D is 10,469 [Gj]. The operating energy over a 40-year life span of thebuilding was 86 % of the total, the embodied energy comprised approximately 14 % (Sheltair 1991:31).Furthermore, we assume that 79 % of this energy is fossil fuel (see a60).CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:79% * 10,469 [Gj] / 2.72 [cap/house] I 40 years I 100 [Gjlha/yr] = 0.76 [ha/cap] {However, this is a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstandard house,\u00E2\u0080\u009D265which is probably bigger than the average dwelling). Construction and operation would come to 0.76 * 14%= 0.11 [halcap], and 0.95 * 86% = 0.65 [ha/cap] respectively.2nd calculation:0.06 [ha/cap] (from a21) + 0.35 [ha/cap] (from a22) = 0.41 [ha/cap].RESULT:0.41 [ha/cap] range: 0.41...0.76 [ha/cap]a21 housing construction and maintenanceREFERENCES:The material requirement to build an average Canadian house includes 23.6 [m3] ofwood (CE 1991:10-11). In this study,we assume that other residences require the same amount of wood per household.The building sector requires 18 % of Canadian energy demand (Sheltair 1991:1). (This percentage figure seems high,because it is unlikely that building houses requires as much energy as operating them).The life span of an average Canadian house is assumed to be 40 years (same assumption in Sheltair 1991).The embodied production energy in lumber is 10 LMj/kg] (Brown 1985:61 and Table 10).The construction energy per house corresponds to approximately 10 % of the energy embodied in the building materials(Cole 1992).The estimated total embodied energy for an average Canadian home is 844 [Gj] (Sheltair 1991:29), or including theentire life cycle of all components, it rises to 1,310 [Gj].CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:The energy requirement for wood processing and construction is:(100 % (embodied energy) + 10 % (construction energy)) * 23.6 [m3] * 600 [kg/rn3] * 10 [Mj/kg] / 40 [yr]/ 2.72 [cap/household] = 1.43 [Gj/cap/yr]; corresponds to 1.43 / 100 [Gj/halyr] = 0.014 [ha/cap] (close toSheltair\u00E2\u0080\u0099s estimate (1991)).2nd calculation:The total energy requirement is:844 [Gj/house] / 2.72 [cap/house] / 40 years / 100 [Gj/ha/yr] 0.08 [ha/cap].Or: 1,310 [Gj] / 2.72 [cap/house] I 40 years I 100 [Gj/ha/yr] = 0.12 [ha/cap].3rd calculation:Assuming a 86% / 14% split between operation and construction energy (Sheltair 1991), energy for construction wouldadd up to 0.35 (from a22) * 0.14 / 0.86 = 0.06 [ha/cap]. This corresponds to 0.07 [ha/cap] * 80 [Gj/halyr]= 5.6 [Gj/cap/yr] (to be deducted from a40).RESULT:0.06 [ha/cap] range: 0.06...0.12 [ha/cap]266a22 housing operationREFERENCES:The energy consumption in the residential sector in Canada in 1989 was 18 % of the total commercial energy consumed(WR 1992:3 18).CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:(18% * 234 [Gjlcaplyr] - 7 [Gj/caplyr] {cooking energy, already accounted for in food category, see alO)) I 100[C3j/haJyr] = 0.35 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.35 [ha/cap]a30 TRANSPORTATIONREFERENCES:The direct energy consumption in the transportation sector in Canada, 1989: 26 % of commercial energy (WR1992:318).The indirect energy consumption of cars:Estimates range between 20 % (Matsumoto 1984 in (Environment Canada 1993:4)) (for car production only)and 50 % (Pimentel in (Giampietro and Pimentel 1990:223)) {for car production pius maintenance} in additionto direct gas consumption.If we assume 2E6 [cars/yr] are sold in Canada, at 1050 [kg] each (middle-size car, Hofstetter 1992:19)with an embodied energy of 100 [Mj/kg], this would add up to 8 [Gj/cap/yr]. If a car lasts for 6-7 years, thiswould correspond to 16 [Gjlyr] for construction related embodied energy, while the average consumption rateof fuel per car is 73 [Gjlyr], i.e., an additional 22 % of a car\u00E2\u0080\u0099s direct petroleum consumption would be requiredfor its construction. For car maintenance and road construction, Hofstetter adds another 8 % and 15 %,respectively (1992:2 1). In comparison, Spreng estimates that apart from the direct energy consumption of cars,an additional 9 % is needed for road construction, another 9 % for car repair and 13 % for car production(Pillet 1992:100).In this study, we assume that 8 additional percent stems from the service sector for car maintenanceand 37 % from the industrial sector (i.e., 22 % for car construction plus 15 % for road construction). Theseresults are applied to all motorized modes of road transportation.As a comparison: 25 [1] of gas {or 875 [Mj] of chemical energy equivalent) are needed to produce one singletire (Sch\u00C3\u00A4ublin 1992:7.14).CALCULATIONS:(26% * (100% + 8% + 37%) * 234 [Gjlcaplyr] - 9 [Gj/caplyr] (already in food category, see alO)) /100 [Gjlhalyr]= 79 [Gjlcap/yr] I 100 [Gjlhalyr] = 0.79 [ha/cap]37% * 26% * 234 [Gj/caplyr] 23 [Gj/caplyr] deducted from industrial sector (see a40},8% * 26% * 234 [Gj/caplyr] = 5 [Gjlcaplyr] deducted from commercial sector {see aSO).RESULT:0.79 [ha/cap]267a31 motorized private transportationREFERENCES:Number of cars and trucks in Canada:13,300,000 cars, i.e., 2 Canadians per car (WR 1992:266).8,157,000 cars in Canada, i.e. 3.2 Canadians per car (CE 1991:12-13) {difference might be explained by theassumption that the lower number corresponds to the private cars only, while the higher one includespublic + private + commercial cars).12,086,000 cars and taxies in Canada, 1988, i.e. 2.2 Canadians per car (IRTU 1990:132).3,700,000 trucks in 1988 (IRTU 1990:132).Kilometres driven:441 1E9 [cap*km/yr] in the US in 1988 (IRTU 1990:181) = 18,000 [km/cap/yr].Energy consumption of cars:2,087 [1/yr] gasoline consumed per car (CE 1991:12-13).35 LMj/l] energy content of gasoline (Beitz et a!. 1983:1359).21.4 [Mj/l] energy content of ethanol {Lower Heating Value applies to comb. engines) (Beitz eta!. 1983:1359).4.2 [l\u00E2\u0080\u0099i1j/car/km] typical energy use by car {corresponds to 12 [1] /100 [1cm]) (CE 1991:13-21).100 [Mj/kg] embodied energy in car/machinery (Hofstetter 1992b:Anhang-4).Pimentel estimates that it requires 3667 [1/yr] ethanol to fuel a car, 5556 [l/yr] including construction andmaintenance, i.e., 50 % more (Pimentel in (Giampietro and Pimentel 1990:222)).20.92 [miles per gallon] was the average fuel rate of cars sold in the US in 1990 (EIA 1992:53). Thiscorresponds to 11.25 [1/100km]. With an average gas consumption per car of 2,087 [1/yr], thisamounts to an average distance driven per car of 18,500 [lcm/yr].{To be more accurate, the embodied energy in cars should be calculated as the difference between embodied energy ingross car production minus embodied energy in net imports. The embodied energy in the gross car productionshould be deducted from the industrial sector\u00E2\u0080\u0099s energy consumption). For the materials used for car constructionsee (CE 1991:14-22, Greenpeace 1992:42, or Environment Canada 1993:3).In Canada, 63 % of the petroleum consumed was used for transportation (1986), 80 % of which was for car fuel.Therefore, (63%*80%) = 50.4 % of all petroleum is used by cars (CE 1991:14-20).CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:Direct energy consumption for car use in Canada:12E6 [cars] / 26.5E6 [cap] * 2087 [1/car/yr] * 35 [Mj/l] * 0.001 [Gj/Mj] / 100 [Gj/ha/yr] = 0.33 [ha/cap]In comparison, Pimentel\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ethanol estimate:12E6 [cars] / 26.5E6 [cap] * 3667 [l/car/yr] * 21 [Mj/l] * 0.001 [GjJMj] I 100 [Gj/ha/yr] = 0.35 [ha/cap]TOTAL (including indirect consumption): 0.33 [ha/cap] * (100% + 8% + 37%) = 0.48 [ha/cap]This corresponds to 0.48 [ha/cap] * 100 [Oj/ha/yr] = 48 [Gj/cap/yr].2nd calculation:79 [Gj/cap/yr] direct plus indirect (fossil) energy is consumed for transportation (see a30). Transportation ofgoods uses approximately 13 [Gj/cap/yr] (see a33). Hence, private transportation would consume (79-13 =)66 [Gj/cap/yr]. In Canada, 10 % of passenger transport costs are spent on public transport, 90 % on privatetransport. Assuming the same energy intensities, 59.5 [Gj/cap/yr] would be required for private transportation{rather than the estimated 48 [Gj/cap/yr] (see above in 1st calculation)), and 6.5 [Gj/cap/yr] for publictransportation. 59.5 [Gj/cap/yr] / 100 [Gj/ha/yr] = 0.60 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.60 [ha/cap] range: 0.48.. .60 [ha/cap]268a32 motorized public transportationREFERENCES:Specific energy consumption for public transportation (Hofstetter 1992:19-28, if not mentioned otherwise):long distance flights: 2 - 2.5 [Mjlcaplkm]long distance flights: 2.7 [Mj/caplkm] (SW 1993:121)medium distance flights: 2.5 - 3.5 [Mj/cap/km]long distance buses: 0.5 [Mj/cap/km]short distance buses: 0.9 [Mj/cap/km]bus: 0.5 -1.0 [Mj/caplkm] (CE 1991:13-21)intercity train: 0.948 [Mjlcap/km] (SW 1993:121)commuter train: 1.3 [Mj/cap/km] (SW 1993:121)urban rail: 1.2 [Mjlcap/km] (SW 1993:121)Other public transport figures:512 public airports in Canada (WR 1992:266),20 [km2] land is occupied by Mirabelle airport alone,60,000 buses and coaches in Canada, 1988 (IRTU 1990:132).Kilometres flown per Canadian:50,400E6 [pass*km/yr] by air in Canada (WR 1992:266) = 1970 [km/cap/yr]48.7E9 [pass*km/yr] air traffic in Canada, 1988 (IRTU 1990:133), corresponds to 48.7E9 [pass*km/yr] I26.5E6 [Canadians] = 1837.74 [km/cap/yr].433E9 [pass*km/yr] air traffic in the US, 1989 (IRTU 1990:183), corresponds to 433E9 [pass*km/yr] / 247E6[US Americans] = 1753.04 [km/cap/yr].CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:Energy requirements for air travels:1837.74 [km/cap/yr] * 2.5 [Mj/km] * 0.001 [Gj/Mj] = 4.59 [Gj/caplyr]Energy requirements for bus travels:60,000 [buses] * 40 [seats] * 200 [km/day] * 200 [operating days/yr] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] * 0.7 [Mi/kin]* 0.001 [Gj/Mj] = 2.54 [Gj/cap/yr]TOTAL: (4.59 + 2.54) [Gj/cap/yr] / 100 [Gj/halyr] = 7.13 [Gj/cap/yr] / 100 [Gj/ha/yr] = 0.07 [ha/cap]2nd calculation:(see a31, 2nd calculation) => 6.5 [Gj/cap/yr] I 100 [Gj/ha/yr] = 0.07 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.07 [ha/cap]269a33 transportation of goodsREFERENCES:Energy requirements for transportation (Fritsehe 1989:151) and (Pimentel, 1980:55):truck: 2.5 [Mj/t/km] 0.83 [kcallkglkm]= 3.5 [Mjltlkm]train: 0.1 [Mjltlkm] 0.12 [kcal/kgfkm]= 0.5 [Mjltlkm]inland navigation: 0.5 [Mj/t/km] 0.08 [kcal/kg/km] = 0.3 Mj/t/km]maritime navigation: 0.05 [Mj/t/km]pipelines: 0.07 [Mj/t/km]air fright: 6.63 [kcal/kg/km] = 27.8 [Mj/t/km](SW 1993:121):intercity freight by truck: 2.3 [MjIt/km] (which is over 8 times more than trains need)older trucks: 1.5-2.5 [Mj/t/km].Goods transported:0.26 1807E12 [t*km] transported by train in Canada, 1987 (IRTU 1990:132).1.028E12 [t*km] transported by trucks in USA, 1988 (IRTU 1990:181).78.9E6 [t] goods unloaded in Canadian ports, 1988 (IRTU 1990:133) {here we assume that these goods travelan average distance of 10,000 [1cm]).CALCULATIONS:1st calculation (using Fritsche\u00E2\u0080\u0099s figures):Energy requirements for Canadian goods transported by train: 0.26 1807E12 [t*km/yr] * 0.1 [MjIt/km] * 0.00 1 [Gj/Mj]I 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.99 [Gj/cap/yr].Energy requirements for Canadian goods transported by sea: 78.9E6 [t/yr] * 10,000 [1cm] * 0.05 [Mj/t/km] * 0.001[GjfMj] I 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 1.49 [Gj/cap/yr].Energy requirements for US goods transported by trucks: 1.028E12 [t*km/yr] * 2.5 [Mj/t/km] * 0.001 [Gj/Mj] I 243E6[US Americans] = 10.58 [Gj/cap/yr] (here we assume that this figure is the same for Canada).TOTAL: (0.99 + 1.49 + 10.58) [Gj/cap/yr] = 13.06 [Oj/cap/yr]13.06 [Gj/cap/yr] I 100 [Gj/ha/yr] = 0.13 [ha/cap]2nd calculation (using Pimentel\u00E2\u0080\u0099s figures):Energy requirements for Canadian goods transported by train: 0.26 1807E12 [t*km/yr] * 0.5 IMjIt/km] * 0.00 1 [Gj/Mj]/ 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 4.94 [Gj/cap/yr].Energy requirements for Canadian goods transported by sea: 78.9E6 [t/yr] * 10,000 [1cm] * 0.05 [Mj/t/kmj * 0.00 1[Gj/Mj] I 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 1.49 [Gj/caplyr].Energy requirements for US goods transported by trucks in: 1.028E12 [t*km/yr] * 33 LMj/t/km] * 0.001 [GjIMj] I243E6 [US Americans] = 14.81 [Gj/cap/yr].TOTAL: (4.94 + 1.49 + 14.81) [Gj/cap/yr] = 21.24 [Gj/cap/yr]21.24 [Gj/cap/yr] / 100 [Gj/ha/yr] = 0.21 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.13 [ha/cap] range: 0.13...0.21 [ha/cap](Due to rounding errors and to make it add up, it is reported as 0.12 [ha/cap] in Table 5.1)a40 CONSUMER GOODSREFERENCES:37 % of the total commercial energy is used by industry in Canada, 1989 (WR 1992:3 18). (Embodied energy of netimported consumer goods should be added (an indirect contribution to Canadian energy consumption) and 23[Gj] for car production subtracted (is already included in section on private transportation)).270Energy intensity per dollar in industrial sector is 15 LMjIUS$ in industrial GDP] (WR 1992:3 18). This figure can alsobe calculated (for 1989):total GDP: GDP = 123,198E6 [US$1 I 0.222 = 555E9 [US$1 (WR 1992:240),industrial GDP is 34.8 % of total = 193E9 [US$] (WR 1992:236),industrial energy consumption is 37 % (WR 1992:318) of 8,414 [Pj] (WR 1992:316) = 3113 [Pj], henceindustrial energy intensity is 3113 [PjJI 193E9 [US$1 = 16 [MjIUS$] (rather than the recorded 15[Mi 1US$]).CALCULATIONS:(0.37 * 234 [C3j/cap/yr] - 6 [Gj/caplyr] (already in food category (see alO))- 5.6 [Gj/cap/yr] (from residentialconstruction (see a21)) - 23 [Gjlcap/yr] (already in transportation (see a30)} ) I 100 [Gj/halyr]= 0.52 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.52 [ha/cap] (Table 5.1 lists 0.52 [ha/cap] due to rounding???).a40\u00E2\u0080\u0099 packagingREFERENCES:For the embodied energy in various materials see Table A2.5.CALCULATIONS:(from x40 packaging)paper packaging: 108 [kg/cap/yr] * 50 [Mjlkg] * 0.001 [Gj/Mj] = 5.4 [Gj/caplyr]steel packaging: 20 [kg/cap/yr] * 30 [Mi/kg] * 0.001 [GjfMj] = 0.6 [Gj/cap/yr]aluminum packaging: 7 [kglcap/yr] * 240 [Mj/kg] * 0.001 [GjIMj] = 1.7 [Gj/cap/yr]plastic packaging: 23 [kg/cap/yr] * 65 [Mj/kg] * 0.001 [GjIMj] = 1.5 [Gjlcaplyr]glass packaging: 47 [kglcaplyr] * 20 [Mj/kg] * 0.001 [GjfMj] = 0.9 [Gj/cap/yr]wood packaging: 7 [kg/cap/yr] * 10 [Mjlkg] * 0.001 [GjfMj] = 0.1 FGi/cap/vrlTOTAL = 10.2 [Gjlcap/yr]10.2 [Gj/caplyr] / 100 [Gj/halyr] = 0.10 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.10 [ha/cap]a41 clothingREFERENCES:Energy intensity of clothes and shoes refers to the energy embodied in (or total energy needed for) one dollar worth ofclothes and shoes. All energy intensities in the a4Os and aSOs are taken from a study by Hofstetter (1992b:35).They are only first approximations and used in relative terms rather than absolute ones. From Canadian energystatistics we know that the energy spent on consumption goods (not including cars) is approximately 52[Gj/cap/yr]. In Table 11, Hofstetter\u00E2\u0080\u0099s figures are used to examine whether the expenditure pattern multipliedwith Hofstetter\u00E2\u0080\u0099s energy intensities adds up to the 52 [Gj/cap/yr] from the energy statistics. As shown, this isnot the case. It overshoots by approximately 9 [Gj/cap/yr]. The figures in Table 11 are then proportionallyadjusted so that the total adds up to 52 [Gj/cap/yr] or 0.66 [ha/cap] (last column).For clothes and shoes the energy intensity is assumed to be 7.2 [Mj/Fr] (Hofstetter 1992b:35). As thesefigures are only best guesses, and as the Swiss Franc is approximately at parity with the Canadian dollar, 7.2[Mj/Fr] corresponds to 7.2 [Mj/$].271CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6RESULT:0.11 [ha/cap]a42 furniture and appliancesREFERENCES:The energy intensity of furniture, carpets, household equipment, and electric and electronic appliances is assumed to be7.2 [MjI$] (Hofstetter 1992b:35). {For explanation, see a41}.CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6.RESULT:0.06 [ha/cap]a43 books and magazinesREFERENCES:The energy intensity of books and magazines is assumed to be 10.8 [MjI$] (Hofstetter 1992b:35).The embodied energy for paper is:61 [Gj/t] or 0.061 [Gj/kg] for producing paper (SEF 1991:223);23.6 [GjIt] or 0.0236 [Oj/kg] for producing paper in an integrated paper mill (Brown 1985:78).CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:240 [kg/cap/yr] * 0.0236 [Gj/kg] I 100 [Gj/ha/yr] = 0.06 [ha/cap]2nd calculation:240 [kglcap/yr] * 0.06 1 [Gjlkg] / 100 [Gj/halyr] = 0.15 [ha/cap]3rd calculation: {With population and consumption figures from Ontario (see x43 and Table A2. 1 :General Data))(1.474+1.221) * 1E6 [t] / 9.1E6 [cap] * 61 [GjIt] / 100 [Gjlha/yr] = 0.18 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.06 [ha/cap] range: 0.06...0.18 [ha/cap]a44 tobacco, alcohol, coffee and cocoaREFERENCES:The energy mt. of alcohol and tobacco is assumed to be 5.4 LMj/$] (Hofstetter 1992b:35). {For explanation, see a41).CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6.RESULT:0.06 [ha/cap]272a45 personal careREFERENCES:The energy intensity of washing and toilet articles is assumed to be 7.2 [MjI$] (Hofstetter 1992b:35). (For explanation,see a41}.CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6.RESULT:0.03 [ha/cap]a46 recreational equipmentREFERENCES:The energy intensity of recreational equipment is assumed to be 7.2 [Mj/$] (Hofstetter 1992b:35). {For explanation, seea41).CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6.RESULT:0.10 [ha/cap]a47 other goodsREFERENCES:The energy intensity of watches and jewellery is assumed to be 1.8 [MjI$] (Hofstetter 1992b:35). (For explanation, seea41}.CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6.RESULT:0.00 [ha/cap]a50 RESOURCES REOUTRED FOR SERVICES RECEIVEDREFERENCES:14 % of the total consumed commercial energy was used by the commercial sector, 1989 (WR 1992:318).3 % of the total consumed commercial energy was used by the remaining sectors (neither agricultural, commercial,industrial, residence, or transport), 1989 (WR 1992:318).12 % of Swiss commercial energy is consumed by public institutions (Hofstetter 1992a: 12).The energy intensity of services sold in Canada was 2.9 [Mj] per 1 [US$] (WR 1992:318). This figure can also becalculated (for 1989):GDP = 650E9 [$1 (Statistics Canada 1991a:3), services in GDP = 61.8 % => (0.618*650 =) 402E9 [$](WR 1992:236), commercial energy consumption is 14 % (WR 1992:318) of 8,414 [Pj] (WR 1992:316) =2731,178 [Pj], hence industrial energy intensity is:1,178 [Pj]/ 402E9 [$1 = 3.4 [Mj/Cdn$] (as opposed to the listed 2.9 LMj/US$]). This does not include thematerials which are used for/by the services.CALCULATIONS:((14%+3%) * 234 [Gj/cap/yr] - 6 [Gj/cap/yr] (already in food category (see alO)} - 5 [Gj/cap/yr] (for car services,already in transportation category (see a30)) ) / 80 [Gj/ha/yr] = 0.29 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.29 [ha/cap]a52 educationREFERENCES:The energy intensity of education is assumed to be 0.45 [MjI$] (Hofstetter 1992b:35). (For explanation, see a41).CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6RESULT:0.08 [ha/cap]a53 health careREFERENCES:The energy intensity of health insurances, dentists, medicines, hair dresser assumed to be 1.8 [MjI$] (Hofstetter1992b:35). (For explanation, see a41). (Multiply private expenses by 3 to include health care expenditures ofthe government).CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6RESULT:0.08 [ha/cap]a54 social servicesREFERENCES:The energy intensity of social services (including old age pensions) is assumed to be 0.45 [MjI$] (Hofstetter 1992b:35).(For explanation, see a41).CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6RESULT:0.00 [ha/cap]274a55 tourismREFERENCES:The energy intensity of hotels and camping is assumed to be 5.4 [Mj/$] (Hofstetter 1992b:35). (For explanation, seea41}.CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6RESULT:0.01 [ha/cap]a56 entertainmentREFERENCES:The energy intensity of movies, concerts etc. is assumed to be 7.2 [Mj/$] (Hofstetter 1992b:35). (For explanation, seea41}.CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6RESULT:0.01 [ha/cap]a57 banks and insurancesREFERENCES:The energy intensity savings, life insurance, private pension plans is assumed to be 0.45 [Mj/$J (Hofstetter 1992b:35).(For explanation, see a41}.CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6RESULT:0.00 [ha/cap]a58 other servicesREFERENCES:The energy intensity of mail, phone, repairs is assumed to be 7.2 [Mj/$] (Hofstetter 1992b:35). (For explanation, seea41}.CALCULATIONS:See Table A2.6: 0.058 [ha/cap].RESULT:0.05 [ha/cap]275a60 TOTAL (estimated)REFERENCES:10,000 [km2] would be required for the James Bay hydroelectric dam project alone (CE 1991:5-7).80 [Gj/halyr] is the maximum net ethanol productivity for ecologically productive land (see Appendix 1).321 [GjIcapIyr is the Canadian commercial energy consumption per capita (WR 1992:3 16). If expressed in conventionalfossil fuel equivalent, the Canadian energy requirement expands to 426 [Gj/cap/yr] {with 1 [W in fossil fuel]= 0.3 [W electric]) (WR 1992:316).234 [Gj/cap/yr] is the Canadian commercial fossil energy consumption per capita (see below). In this study, only fossilenergy consumption is considered. However, it is assumed that the sectoral distribution of fossil energyconsumption is the same as the sectoral distribution of the total commercial energy consumed.Apparent energy consumption in Canada (net supply)(Statistics Canada 1992b:tbllb) (in petajoules = 1,000,000 [Oil).a) commercially, available primary energycoal 57natural gas 2,583gas plant NGL\u00E2\u0080\u0099s 173primary electricity 1,304steamSUBTOTAL a) (Stat. Canada) 4,134(added up) 4,138b) secondary energycoke 107coke oven gas 33petroleum 3,184secondary electricitySUBTOTAL b) 3,701TOTAL a+b (Stat. Canada) 7,840FOSSIL FUEL ONLY 6,159per capita (1990: 26.3 million Canadians)total consumption: 298 [Gj/cap/yr] (100 %) {as opposed to 321 claimed by (WR 1992:316)).fossil fuel consumption: 234 [Gj/cap/yr] (79 %). Of these 234 [Gj/ca[/yr] (100%), 2.6% are solid53.1% liquid, and 45.3% gas.CALCULAUONS:Personal extrasomatic (or non-food) power requirement in fossil fuel equivalent in Canada:426E9 [j/yr] / 365.25 [days/yr] / 24 [h/day] I 3600 [s/h] = 13.5 [kW/cap]If only fossil fuel is counted: 7.5 [kWlcap].Total land requirement for replacing all the fossil fuel consumed by the average Canadian by ethanol:234 [Gj/cap/yr] / 100 [Gjlhalyr] = 2.34 [ha/cap]If all energy was counted in fossil fuel equivalent:426 [Gj/cap/yr] / 100 [Gjlhalyr] = 4.26 [ha/cap].As a reminder: James Bay hydroelectric dam alone (without all other dams, and the land used to transport electricity)would require 1,000,000 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.04 [ha/cap], 4 times the size of an average singlefamily house.RESULT: 2.34 [ha/cap] range: 2.34.. .4.26 [ha/cap]276B - DEGRADED LAND: BUILT ENVIRONMENTb20 HOUSINGREFERENCES:In Canada, there is 2,650,000 [ha] of settlements (calculations in b30), or (2,650,000 [ha] 126.5E6 [Canadians] =) 0.10[ha] per capita. Here, it is assumed that 0.08 [ha/cap] is used for housing, 0.01 [ha/cap] for industrial purposes,and 0.01 [ha/cap] for commercial and service activities.RESULT:0.06 [ha/cap]b30 TRANSPORTATIONREFERENCES:Length of roads:27 [1cm] paved road per 1,000 [km2], in Canada, 1988 (WR 1992:266); with Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s total land area being a9,970,000 [1cm2] (CE 1991:5-8), this adds up to 27[km]I1000[km]* 9,970,000 [km9 = 270,000 [1cm]road.280,251 [1cm] roads in Canada, 1986 (excluding municipal roads) and of which 160,864 [km] are paved (IRTU1990:132).841,411 [1cm] road in Canada (CE 1991:14-20/21).879,530 [1cm] highway in Canada (CE 1991:12-13).6,230,000 [km] of public roads in the USA, 1988, of which 654,000 are principal roads (IRTU 1990:180).34 [m] is the typical width of Canadian highways (CE 1991:14-20/22).The US contains 21.5 million [acres] {=8.7E6 [ha]) of highways and 7 million [acres] {=2.8E6 [ha]) of rail roads(Corson 1990:181). Renner estimates 60,00 [square miles] {or 38 million [acres] = 15.5 million [ha]) of roadspace in the US (Greenpeace 1992:48).CALCULATIONS:1st calculation: (Canadian figures)road area: (270,000 [1cm] * 34[m] + (879,530 - 270,000) [1cm] * 10 [m]) / 26.5E6 [Canadians]1,527,330 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.06 [ha/cap] of roadsTypically, 1/3 of the settlement space in North America is devoted to streets. The settlement space in Canadawould be (see above and b60) (5,500,000 [ha built-up area] - 1,527,330 [ha roads] =) 4,000,000 [ha]settlements, 1/3 of which (or 1,350,000 [ha]) are streets, 2,650,000 [ha] are settlements. Therefore, the totalroad and street space is (1,527,330 [ha roads] + 1,350,000 [ha streets] =) 2,850,000 [ha] space fortransportation. Per Canadian:2,850,000 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.11 [ha/cap] of roads2nd calculation: (road area, a comparison with the US)(654,000 [1cm] * 34 [m] + (6,230,000 - 654,000) [1cm] * 10 [m]) / 245E6 [US Americans] = 0.03 [ha/cap]in the US, or:(38E6 +7E6) [acres]/ 2.47 [acres/ha] / 245E6 [US Americans] = 0.074 [ha/cap] in the USRESULT:0.11 [ha/cap]277b40 CONSUMER GOODSREFERENCES:Less than 0.03 % of total land is used directly for mining; \u00E2\u0080\u009Can oil or gas drill site typically occupies only about 0.015[kin2], excluding storage area\u00E2\u0080\u009D (CE 1991:5-7). However, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdespite these seemingly insignificant figures, miningand energy industries can have considerable impacts upon the land resource. Arctic landscapes are particularlysusceptible to damage and slow to recover from even minor disturbances related to oil and gas exploration ordevelopment\u00E2\u0080\u009D (CE 1992:5-7).These 0.03 % correspond to 300,000 [ha]. However, about 5,000,000 [ha] mineral exploration claims were recorded(exclusive of claims for coal) (CE 1991:11-5). In addition to mining, consumer goods need built environmentfor storage, manufacturing, selling, transportation and waste deposition.Only approximately 20 percent of the mining is for domestic consumption (CE 1991:11-6).CALCULATIONS:0.03% * 997 1E6 [ha] * 20 % / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.002 [ha/cap]. Furthermore, other industrial activities areassumed to occupy 0.01 [ha/cap] built environment (see b20). 0.01 [ha/cap] + 0.002 [ha/cap] = 0.01 [ha/cap].RESULT:0.02 [ha/cap]b50 RESOURCES NEEDED FOR SERVICES PROVIDEDREFERENCES:(see b20): 0.01 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.01 [ha/cap]b60 TOTAL (estimated)REFERENCES:72,000 [1cm2] = 7,200,000 [ha] built environment in the 25 major metropolitan areas of Canada; 7,900,000 [ha] urbanand industrial land in Canada (CE 1991:5-8).55,000 [1cm2] = 5,500,000 [ha] built-up environment in Canada (WR 1994:285).0.2 % of Canada is urban (CE 1991:13-4) = 0.002 * 997. 1E6 [ha] {Total Land Area in Canada} = 20,000 [2]0.6 % of Canada is built environment (HA 1986:174) = 0.006 * 997 1E6 [ha] = 60,000 [2]Typical urban densities: For example, Vancouver with approximately 36 people per hectare uses about 0.03 [ha/cap]locally. In lower density settings, such as rural towns and villages, or suburban areas of metropolitan areas havetypically population densities below 10 [people/ha]. This density corresponds to 0.1 [ha/cap]. Some of the builtenvironment is not located within the municipal boundaries; for example, people in a municipality use land fromelsewhere for transporting resources, mining, and providing other services.CALCULATIONS:5,500,000 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.21 [ha/cap]6,000,000 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.23 [ha/cap]7,900,000 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.30 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.21 [ha/cap] range: 0.21.. .0.30 [ha/cap]278C - GARDEN: REVERSIBLY BUILT ENVIRONMENTcli vegetarian food (includes dO FOOD)REFERENCES:Assumption: area for growing vegetables and fruits is considered to be garden area.Aggregated production and trade figures for vegetables:1,924,000 [t] vegetables are produced in Canada.145,000 [t] of tomatoes are imported for 102,623,000 $ (FAOa 1990:tb5l).2,290,850,000 $ - 478,920,000 $ = 1.8 billion $ is the value of Canadian vegetable and Fruit net import, 1989(FAOa 1990:tbl4).For this simplified rough estimation of garden space, the assumed average yield for vegetables (and fruits) is 15 [t] perhectare (l\u00E2\u0080\u0099able A2.2). (Van Bers et al. (1992) predict organic crop yields for Canada: 18,339 [kg/ha] forvegetables, 8,131 [kg/ha] for fruits).The average Canadian consumes approximately 70 kg of vegetables per year (Table A2.4).The appropriated garden area by Canadian consumers:added up from FAO statistics (underestimates area because FAO misses out on some produces): 354,000 [ha]of garden area appropriated (FAOa, FAOb 1990) (see Table A2.2).added up and adjusted by a fruit factor (for missing fruit that do not add up in the FAO statistics) and vegetablefactor (for missing vegetables that do not add up in the FAO statistics) 417,000 [hal of garden areaappropriated (Table A2.2).CALCULATIONS:An estimate of the imported quantities are: (assuming tomato being an average vegetable). 1. 8E9 [$] * 145,000 [ttomatoes] I 102,623,000 [$] (using data for tomatoes) = 2,540,000 [t] vegetables imported per year.Per capita consumption of vegetables:2,540,000 [t/yri imported + 1,924,000 [tlyr] homegrown = 4,470,000 [t/yr]; 4,470,000 [t/yr] * 1000 [kg/ti/ 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 169 [kg/cap/yri (which is much higher than the reported 70 kg. However, this figureincludes processing waste).Three calculations for the per capita appropriated gardening area for fruit and vegetables:4,470,000 [t/yr]/ 15 [t/halyr] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 297,600 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.011 [ha/cap].354,000 [hal I 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.013 [ha/cap] (see Table A2.2) (underestimate).417,000 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.016 [ha/cap] (see Table A2.2).RESULT:0.02 [ha/cap] range: 0.01-0.02 [ha/cap]c20 hOUSINGIt is assumed that the garden area per capita is approximately 200 [in2] = 0.002 [ha/cap] (i.e., it is much smaller than0.01 [ha/cap]).279D - CROP LAND: CULTiVATED SYSTEMSdlO FOODREFERENCES:Crop land in Canada and its agricultural production:45,900,000 [hal cropland is available in Canada. This corresponds to 1.73 [ha] cropland per Canadian, 1990(WR 1992:274).2,200 [kg/ha] is the average cereal yields in Canada (1988-90) (WR 1992:272).47,355,000 [t] cereals produced on average in Canada (WR 1992:272).Cereal production equivalent: 45,900,000 [ha] * 2,200 [kg/ha] * 0.001 [t/kg] = 100,980,600 [t] = 1.01E8 [t].Therefore, the percentage of crop land used for cereal production 47,355,000 It] / 100,980,600 It] = 47 %.Some data characterizing Canadian agricultural practice (not used in these calculations}:47 [kg/ha/yr] of fertilizer used on average in Canada (WR 1992:274).54,767 [t/yr] of pesticide active ingredients used in Canada (WR 1992:274).725,000,000 [Cdn$] are the cost for the annual Canadian pesticides (CE 1992:9-22).756,300 tractors are used in Canada (WR 1992:274).156,700 harvesters in Canada (WR 1992:274).For soil degradation see (WR 1992:290).Trade figures for cereals:22,469,000 [(I net annual cereal export 1987-89 (WR 1992:278);341,699 [t] net annual vegetable oils export 1987-89 (WR 1992:278);392,909 [t] net annual pulses export 1987-89 (WR 1992:278).CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:see FAO-data in Table A2.2dll+d12 = 0.60 [ha/cap]2nd calculation:percentage of cereals for domestic consumption:1 - (22,469,000 [t/yr] I 47,355,000 [t/yr]) = 53 %If this percentage is also assumed to be the percentage for all other Canadian agricultural production,then the crop land for domestic consumption would add up to: 1.73 [ha/cap] * 53 % = 0.92 [ha/cap].RESULT:0.60 [ha/capl range: 0.60.. .0.92 [ha/capldli vegetarian productsREFERENCES:12,254,000 [ha] cropland is used for cereal production (Table A2.2).21 % of crop for direct human food consumption, i.e., for the vegetarian portion of the human diet (WR 1992:276).19,090,000 [ha] is the total appropriated farm land for providing all the food consumed in Canada (Table A2.2).17,150,000 [ha] is the appropriated land for food that is shared by animals and people (Table A2.2).1 [bushel] of corn = 25.45 [kg] of corn (Zaborsky 1980:40).280CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:see FAO-data Table A2.20.183 [ha/cap]2nd calculation:(19,090,000 [ha] - 79%*17,150,000 [ha]) / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.21 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.18 [ha/cap] range: 0.18...0.21 [ha/cap]d12 animal productsREFERENCES:20.7 % of meat produced in Canada is exported (rable A2.3).79 % of the grain consumed in Canada is fed to livestock (WR 1992:276).The food supply in Canada in 1986-88 per capita is (FAOb 1990:289) (see also xlO):2325 [kcal/cap/day] of vegetable products;1125 [kcal/cap/day] of animal products.17,150,000 [ha] is the appropriated land area for food that is shared by animals and people (Table A2.3).13,068,000 [ha] is the appropriated area for feed stock (Table A2.2).2.65 [t/ha/yr] is the average cereals yield in Canada (Table A2.2, row #15).13,020 [kj/kg] is nutritional energy content of cereal or flour (de Looy 1987:132-136).CALCULATIONS:Comparison of the energy content of the feed and the energy content of the produced meat:ACC for feedstock = 13,068,000 [ha] which corresponds to about 13,068,000 [ha] * 2.65 [t/ha/yr] =34,577,928 [t/yr] of cereals. The cereals contain (34,577,928,000 [kg/yr] * 13,020 [kj/kg]) = 4.5E17 U]nutritional energy.Energy in animal products corresponds to 5.5899E16 U], i.e., on average it requires 8 U] feedstock to produce1 U] of animal products. In fact, for beef this ratio is 16; for pork, turkey, chicken and eggs it is 6; for milkit is 5 (Corson 1990:74, de Looy 1987:132-136).1st calculation:see FAO-data Table A2.20.42 [ha/cap]2nd calculation:79% * 0.60 [ha/cap] = 0.47 [ha/cap]3rd calculation:0.18 [ha] provides 2325 [kcal/day]. Therefore, 1125 [kcal/day] of animal products consumed per averageCanadian {which needs 8 times more input per [kcal]} would require 0.18 * 8 * 1125 / 2325 = 0.70 [ha/cap].4th calculation:The percentage of crop consumed in Canada which is exported through meat trade:79 % of crop consumed in Canada is fed to cattle. 20.7 % of the meat is exported.Hence: 79% *20.7% = 16 % of crop consumed in Canada is exported through the meat trade.13,068,000 [ha] * (100% - 16%) I 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.41 [ha/cap]. However, FAO statistics explains281only 26,000,000 [ha] out of the total of 45,977,000 [ha] crop producing land = 56 %. Therefore,extrapolating the 0.41 [ha/cap] {presumably = 56%) to 100% would amount to approximately0.41 [ha/cap] * 100% / 56% = 0.73 [ha/cap].5th calculation:Extrapolating from the individual\u00E2\u0080\u0099s consumption:92 [kg/cap/yr] meat, plus 12 [kg/cap/yr] of eggs, plus 313 [1/cap/yr] of milk correspond to 2. 12E9 [j/cap/yr](see Table A2.3).This would require 8 * 2.12E9 Ij/cap/yr] / 13,020 [kj/kg] = 1.70E10 [j/cap/yr] / 13,020 [kj/kg] = 1305[kg/cap/yr] of cereals. To produce this amount of cereals would require 1305 [kg/cap/yr] / 2646 [kg/halyr] =0.49 [ha/cap].RESULT:0.42 [ha/cap] range: 0.42.. .0.73 [ha/cap]d41 CLOTHINGREFERENCES:Cotton production:236 [kg/halyr] was the average US harvest, 1977 (Zaborsky 1980: Vo12: 117).The harvest of cotton ranges from 255 - 560 [kg/ha/yr] for dry land to 560 - 1685 [kg/halyr] for irrigated land.700 [kg/acre/yr] = 1730 [kg/ha/yr] is reported by Coote as a good field harvest in Tanzania. This isconsiderably more than typical US or Australian harvests (Coote 1992:4 1).431 [kg/ha/yr] world average yield of cotton (Rechcigl 1982:Vo12:289).593 [kg/ha/yr] US average yield of cotton (Rechcigl 1982:Vol2:289).The apparent cotton consumption in the US in 1977 was 2,559,000 [t/yr] (Rechcigl 1982:Vo12:289). With a USpopulation of 223E6 [Americans in 1977], the per capita consumption becomes 2,559,000,000 [kglyr] I 223E6[Americans] = 11.5 [kglyr].CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:11.5 [kg/cap/yr] / 236 [kg/ha/yr] = 0.05 [ha/cap]2nd calculation:11.5 [kg/cap/yr] / 431 [kg/ha/yr] = 0.026 [ha/cap]3rd calculation:11.5 [kglcap/yr] / 593 [kg/ha/yr] = 0.019 [ha/cap]4th calculation:0.008 [ha/cap] (Table A2.2)RESULT:0.02 [ha/cap] range: 0.01...0.05 [ha/cap]282d44 tobacco, alcohol, cocoa and coffeeREFERENCES:Land uses:16,000 [t/yr] out of 74,000 [t/yr] tobacco harvest exported from Canada (FAOb 1990:tb82 and FAOa1990:tb98).151,930 [t/yr] of wine is imported to Canada (FAOa 1990:tb96), and 57,000 [tlyr] produced in Canada (FAOb1990:tb66).7 [t/halyr] are typical wine yields (FAOb 1990:tb66).280,000 [hal of agricultural land are required for hops production in Canada (FAOb 1990:tbSl).CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:see FAO-data Table0.04 [ha/cap]2nd calculation:land for tobacco: 40,000 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians]land for wine: (151,930 + 57,000) [t/yr] / 7 [t/ha/yr] / 26.5E6 [Canad.]land for beer: 280,000 [ha] I 26.5E6 [Canadians]land for tea: 5,050 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians]land for cocoa: 437,284 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians]land for coffee: 200,389 [ha] I 26.5E6 [Canadians]______________RESULT:0.04 [ha/cap]REFERENCES: see Table A2.2 and d41.CALCULATION:0.02 [ha/cap] (see d41) + (0.652-0.008) [ha/cap] (see Table A2.2) = 0.66 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.66 [ha/cap]= 0.001 [ha/cap]= 0.001 [ha/cap]= 0.011 [ha/cap]= 0.0002 [ha/cap]= 0.0 16 [ha/cap]= 0.008 FhaicaplTOTAL = 0.0372 [ha/cap]d60 TOTAL (estimated)283E - PASTURE: MODIFIED SYSTEMS Ie12 animal productsREFERENCES:Of the cattle in Canada:12,195,000 are meat cattle, and1,421,000 are milk cattle (FAOb 1990:tb89,tb199).Milk and meat consumption in Canada:89 % of milk is consumed locally (see xlO).The net consumption of meat corresponds to 79.3 % of total meat production in Canada, 1989 (Table A2.3).The area required for cattle:average carrying capacity is approximately 1 animal unit for half a year per acre = 2.47 [cattle/ha] * 0.5 [yr]= 1.24 [cattle/ha] (Ensminger 1978:593-637).CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:Milk production: 1,421,000 [milk cattle] /(1,421,000 + 12,195,000) [cattle] = 10.4 %, i.e., 10.4 % of theCanadian cattle is milk cattle. Hence: 89% * 10.4% * 32,500,000 [ha] {Canadian pasture) / 26.5E6[Canadians] = 0.11 [ha/cap] for locally consumed milk.Meat production: 79.3% of meat is consumed locally; 79.3% * (100% - 89%*10.4%) * 32,500,000 [ha]{Canadian pasture) / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.88 [ha/cap] for meat.TOTAL = 0.99 [ha/cap]2nd calculation:Area needed for cattle {multiplied by percentage locally consumed):(1,421,000 * 89% + 12,195,000 * 79.3%) [cattle] / 1.24 [cattle/ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.33[ha/cap]3rd calculation: (for calculating the average productivity of land for meat)Land needed to produce 1 [kglyr] of meat:pasture:(79.3% * 12,195,000 [cattle] /1.24 [cattle/ha]) / 2,423,435,000 [kg meat consumed/yr] 0.00322 [ha*yr/kg]crop land:92 [kg meat/cap/yr] I 0.42 [ha crop land for feed stock/cap] (see d12) = 0.00457 Fha*yr/kalTOTAL: 0.00779 [ha*yr/kg]or 129 [kg/yr/ha] of meat.RESULT:0.33 [ha/cap] range: 0.33.. .0.99 [ha/cap]e41 clothing {wool}REFERENCES:The world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s average wool production:1,940,989,000 [kg/yr] of wool, produced by 1,175,524,000 [sheep] (Table A2.3);1,940,989,000 [kg/yr] / 1,175,524,000 [sheep] = 1.7 [kg/sheep/yr];US average: 1.9 [kg/sheeplyr], French average: 1.1 [kg/sheep/yr] (Rechcigl 1982:Vol2:297).The average meat production of sheep: 5.5 [kg/yr] (Table A2.3).5 sheep correspond to 1 animal unit, i.e., pasture requirement for 5 sheep is 1.24 [ha] (Ensminger 1978:593-637, or seee12).284CALCULATIONS:Wool production:1.7 [kg/sheep/yr] * 5 [sheep/animal unit] * 1.24 [animal units/hal = 10.5 [kg/halyr] of woolMeat production:5.5 [kglsheep/yr] * 5 [sheep/animal unit] * 1.24 [animal units/ha] = 34 [kg/halyr] of meatNet wool production:34 [kg/halyr] corresponds to (34 [kg/ha/yr] /129 [kg/ha/yr] {see e12 3rd calculation} =) 26 % of average meatproduction. This means that 26 % of a sheep\u00E2\u0080\u0099s pasture requirement is used for meat production, the rest is forgrowing wool. Therefore, the net wool production after deducting the meat production us 10.5 [kg/halyr] 1(1-0.26) [ha] = 14.2 [kg/halyr] net wool production.World average and Canadian average wool consumption:1,940,989,000 [kg/yr] I 5.2E9 [people in 1989] = 0.373 [kglcap/yr]However, Table A2.3 suggests that Canadian consume only 0.080 [kg/cap/yr]. This low figure seems to be anunlikely estimate, because typically people in OECD countries consume 5 times the amount of the worldaverage (see x43). This adds up to5 [OECD factor] * 0.37[kg/cap/yr] = 1.8 [kg/cap/yr].Land requirement:1.8 [kg/cap/yr] / 14.2 [kg/halyr] net wool production = 0.13 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.13 [ha/cap]e60 TOTAL (estimated)REFERENCES:32,500,000 Lha] of permanent pasture are available in Canada (WR 1992:262).CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:79\u00E2\u0080\u00A23% * 32,500,000 [ha] / 26.5E6 [Canadians] = 0.97 [ha/cap]2nd calculation:e12 + e41 = 0.4 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.46 [ha/cap] range: 0.46.. .0.97 [ha/cap]285F - FOREST: MODIFIED SYSTEMS IIForest productivity estimates:The quantity of wood fibres in various forest types in Canada is estimated at (CE 1991: 10-6:tbllO. 1):350 [m3/haj overmature forests in B.C. (only 0.18 % of B.C. forest area).255 [m3fha] mature forests in B.C. (B.C. average).163 [mlha] mature forest (Canadian average). For this handbook, 163 [m/ha] is used as the typical amountof average harvests.107 [m3lha] average forest in Canada.Average forest productivity:70 years rotation assumed (personal communications Faculty of Forestry, UBC). The State of Canada \u00E2\u0080\u0098.sEnvironment states cutting cycles of 50-80 years (CE 1991:10-15).Therefore, we assume in this study a sustainable yield on forest land of 163 [m/ha] I 70 [yr] = 2.33 tmfhalyr]roundwood.CALCULATION AND RESULT:The average productivity of Canadian forests would be 163 [m/ha]/70 [yr] = 2.3 [mlha/yr]. (This is more than 2[m3lhalyr] that Maria Buitenkamp et al. \u00E2\u0080\u0098s study Action Plan Sustainable Netherlands uses as world average(1993:82, see also Chapter V). However, for international comparisons, the Dutch figure should be used. Itmight also be advisable to confirm this figure with a literature review because often much higher forestproductivity are cited (which mostly turn out to be optimistic productivity estimates of forest plantations). }flO FOODREFERENCES:For all paper related land use calculations, we assumed that the Canadian paper consumption average is 244 [kg/yr/cap](see x43). The break-up for the various paper uses such as printing (63%), packaging (22%), food wrapping(8%), and household operation (7%) is taken from the Ontario statistic in x43. For this entire section a woodto paper conversion ratio of 1.8 [m3 woodft paper] is assumed (see (60, in calculations).CALCULATIONS:244 [kg/cap/yr] * 8% * 1.8 [m3 wood/t paper] / 1000 [kg/tI * 70 [yr] / 163 [m3 harvest/ha] = 0.015 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.02 [halcap]121 housing construction and maintenanceREFERENCES:Material requirement per house: 23.6 [m3] of wood required to build an average Canadian house (CE 1991:10-11),family residencies are assumed to be the same.40,000 [acre] of prime forest contain wood enough to build 100,000 homes (US Forestry Service in Mt.Helen exhibit,Washington State).Canadian household size: 2.72 people per household (see Table A2.1:General Data, FE 1989:32).286The average home contains (Sheltair 199 la:28)15,035 [kg] lumber and timber,7,443 [kg] veneer and plywood,2,870 [kg] woodwork, and2,524 [kg] building paper.The assumed life span of average Canadian house is 40 years (consistent with Sheltair 1991).CALCULATIONS:1st calculation:1.5 (see Brown in f60) * 23.6 [m3] / 163 [m/ha] * 70 [yr] / 40 [yr] / 2.72 [cap/house] = 0.14 [ha/cap](only residential)Or, with US figures on wood requirements for residential homes: 40,000 [acres] / 2.47 [acres/ha] / 100,000homes * 70 [yr] / 40 [yr] / 2.72 [cap/house] = 0.11 [ha/cap] (only residential).2nd calculation:Lumber consumption 16,204,000 [m3] corresponds to 1.29 (see f60) * 16,204,000 [m3] = 21,000,000 [m3] oflogs.Shingles and shakes consumption corresponds to 5,000,000 [m3] of logs.26,000,000 [m3] I 26.5E6 [Canadians] * 70 [yr] I 163 [m3 harvest/ha] = 0.42 [ha/cap] {includes operation andconstruction).3rd calculation:One House contains15.035 [t] / 0.6 [t/m3] * 1.5 (see Brown in f60) = 38 [m3] wood for lumber and timber{might be an over-estimate (see Sheltair 1991))7.443 [t] / 0.6 [tIm3] * 1.5 = 19 Em3] wood for veneer and plywood2.870 [t] / 0.6 [tIm3] * 1.5 = 7 [m3] wood for woodwork2.524 [t] * 1.83 [tIm3] = 5 1m3 wood for building paperTOTAL 69 [m3] of roundwood equivalent.69 [m3] / 163 [mlha] * 70 [yr] / 40 [yr] / 2.72 [cap/house] = 0.27 [ha/cap] (only residential). If the ratiobetween residential construction and commercial construction is the same as in the GDP distribution,then the commercial construction adds up to another 18 %/60 % = 30 % of the residential construction.Therefore, we assume that the total construction requires 130% * 0.27 [ha/cap] = 0.35 [ha/cap].The remaining 0.42-0.35 [ha/cap] = 0.07 [ha cap] (see 2nd calculation) could be composed of 0.04 [ha/cap]for maintenance and 0.03 [ha/cap] for furniture. 0.04 [ha/cap] for maintenance would mean that(0.04/0.35 =) 11 % of the wood of a house would be replaced over its entire life span.RESULT:0.35 [ha/cap] range: 0.11...0.42 [ha/cap]122 housing operationREFERENCES:(see flO)CALCULATIONS:244 [kg/cap/yr] * 7% * 0.0001 [t/kg] * 1.8 [m3It] * 70 [yr] I 163 [m3 harvest/ha] = 0.013 [ha/cap]TOTAL: 0.01 [ha/cap] + 0.04 [ha/cap] (for maintenance (see 121)) = 0.02 [ha/cap]287RESULT:0.05 [ha/cap]f40\u00E2\u0080\u0099 packagingREFERENCES:Note: there is a contradiction in the data on paper packaging. On the one hand, 113 [kg/cap] (in US) {see x40packaging) versus 244 [kg/cap/yr] * 22 % = 53.6 [kg/cap] for Ontario figures (see flO) (discrepancy of factor2!).CALCULATIONS:Consumption of non writing/reading paper, paperboard, and other paper, minus export: 2,695,000 + 1,027,000 -616,000 - 944,000 + import [t/yr] (FF 1990:46,47) = 6,197,000 [t/yr] (PED 1992:220).6,197,000 - (1,493,000 + 2,656,000 - 761,000) [t/yr] = 2,809,000 [t/yr] of packaging material2,809,000 [t/yr] * 1.8 [m3/t] I 26.5E6 [Canadians] * 70 [yr] / 163 [m3 harvest/ha] = 0.082 [ha/cap].244 [kg/cap/yr] * 22% * 0.001 [kg/t] * 1.8 [in3 wood/ t paper] * 70 [yr] / 163 [m3 harvest/ha] = 0.041 [ha/cap].RESULT:0.04 [ha/cap] range: 0.04.. .0.08 [ha/cap]f42 furniture and appliancesREFERENCES:It is assumed that every Canadian buys on average 40 [kg/cap/yr] of wooden furniture per year.CALCULATIONS:40 [kglcaplyr] * 0.001 [t/kg] / 0.6 [tIm3] * 70 [yr] I 163 [m/ha] = 0.03 [ha/cap].(see also 121)RESULT:0.03 [ha/cap]f43 books and magazinesREFERENCES:17-30 trees are saved per 1 [t] of recycled paper (CE 1991:10-22).2 [t] of wood are required per one [t] of paper produced (SEF 1991:223).1.8 [in3] of wood are required per [t] of paper produced in Canada (see f60).1,474,000 + 1,221,000 [t] of paper waste are generated in Ontario per year (CE 1991:25-6).Paper consumption: 1,493,000 [t] newsprint, 1989 (PED 1992:220), 2,656,000 - 761,000 [t] of book and writing paper,1986 (FF 1990:46,47).(see also flO)CALCULATIONS:244 [kg/cap/yr] * 63% * 0.001 [kg/t] * 1.8 [m3 wood/ t paper] * 70 [yr] / 163 [m3 harvest/ha] = 0.12 [ha/cap].Newsprint consumption: (1,493,000 + 2,656,000 - 761,000) [t/yr] * 1.8 [m3/t] = 6,098,400 [m3/yr]6,098,400 [m3/yrl / 26.5E6 [Canadians] * 70 [yr] / 163 [m3 harvest/ha] = 0.099 [ha/cap].288RESULT:0.10 [ha/capl range: 0.10...0.12 [ha/cap]f60 TOTAL (estimatediREFERENCES:The Canadian roundwood industry, 1986:177,097,000 [m3] of roundwood was harvested (on 930,000 [ha] (FF 1990:30)), of which 124,953,000 [in3]wasprocessed into logs and bolts, and 42,527,000 Em3] into pulp (FF 1990:30). This produces 21,512,000 [t] ofwood-pulp (PED 1992:221). 14,157,000 [t] of pulp (PED 1992:220) produces 15,259,00 [t] of paper products.(Note: it would be double counting to include pulpwood as well as paper products in the aggregate statistics,because both are merely a stage in the process of producing paper).Consumption estimates:In 1986, the Canadian forest industry produced 53,059,000 [in3] of lumber out 68,701,000 [m3] roundwood (thiscorresponds to a loss of (68,701,000 - 53,059,000) Em3] I 68,701,000 [m3] = 22.8 %; or, 1 Em3] of lumberrequires (68,701,000 / 53,059,000 =) 1.29 [m3] of roundwood). 16,204,000 [m3] of the lumber was forCanadian (domestic) consumption; 38,274,000 [m3] was for export {1,400,000 Em3] imported) (FF 1990:35).48,000,000 Em3] shingles and shakes were produced, of which 43,000,000 [m3] were exported.The 1986 domestic consumption of plywood (1,936,000 Em3]), particle board (1,008,000 [Em3]), and wafer board(741,000 Em3]) adds up to a total of 3,685,000 Em3] (FF 1990:37-39), while all domestically processed lumberwas recorded to be 5,700,000 [in3], 1987 (FF 1990:7).Newsprint consumption in Canada, 1989: 1,493,000 [t] (PED 1992:220).Other paper board and paper production in Canada, 1987: 6,378,000 [t] of which 4,506,000 [t] (or 70.6 %) wereconsumed in Canada.FOREST PRODUCTS, in Canada, the US, and the World(in 1987, FF 1990:5,7) CANADA U.S.A. WORLDHARVESTindustrial softwood roundwood 174,789,000 Em3] 319,408,000 [m3] 1,133,953,000 [m3]softwood, lumber 61,045,000 [m3] 88,320,000 [m3] 377,272,000 [m3]woodbased panels 6,776,000 [m3] 33,991,000 [m3] 121,995,000 Em3]woodpulp 23,035,000 [t] 54,058,000 Et] 145,732,000 [t]newsprint 9,673,000 [t] 5,300,000 [t] 30,672,000 [t]other paper and paperboard 6,384,000 [t] 62,232,000 Et] 182,165,000 [t]CONSUMPTIONsoftwood, lumber 20,370,000 Em3] 116,201,000 Em3] 374,370,000 [m3]woodbased panels 5,700,000 Em3] 36,808,000 [m3] 122,962,000 [m3]woodpulp 14,602,000 [t] 54,068,000 [t] 145,126,000 [t]newsprint 901,000 [t] 13,135,000 [t] 31,172,000 [t]other paper and paperboard 4,524,000 [t] 61,639,000 [t] 80,888,000 [t]Canadian consumption in 1990 (PED 1990:219,73)softwood, lumber: 19,895,000 Em3]woodbased panels: 5,541,000 [m3]woodpulp: 15,524,000 Et]newsprint: 1,183,000 Et]other paper and paperboard: 5,075,000 Et]289Statistics on the aggregate Canadian forest:216E6 [ha] stocked productive forest in Canada (CE 1991:10-4).23. 1E9 [m3] standing biomass in Canada (CE 1991:10-6).243.7E6 [ha] inventoried timber-productive land in Canada (PED 1992:xx) with a standing biomass of20,700E6 [t] (PED 1992:2). 20.7E9 [t] I 0.6 [tIm3] I 243.7E6 [ha] = 142 [m3/ha] standing biomass,40 % to 50 % of which is presumably wood (Ajtay et al. 1979:165).191 .4E6 [m3] of roundwood was harvested in Canada in 1989, 9 % hardwood and 91 % softwood (PED1992:xx).Wood loss in value adding processes (Brown 1985):1.2 [t] trees per 1 [t] logs (p60).1.5 [t] logs per 1 [t] lumber (p62) {Canadian average is 1.29, see above).2.5 [t] wood chips per 1 [t] fiberboard (p65).2.3-5 [t] logs per 1 [t] market pulp (p66-73).1.1 [t] market pulp per 1 [t] paper (p76, 83).4.6-4.9 [t] logs per 1 [t] paper (p78, 86).CALCULATIONS:Wood loss in Canadian pulp and paper industry:42,527,000 [m3] of roundwood for pulp (FF 1990:30) produces 21,512,000 [t] woodpulp => loss factor =1.98 [m3/t]; 14,157,000 [t] of pulp produces 15,259,00 [t] of paper products => loss factor = 0.93 [t/t];combined factor: 1.98 * 0.93 = 1.83 [m3/t]. In other words, to produce one [I] of paper, 1.83 [ml of woodare required.The total Canadian consumption of forest products per year in [m3] roundwood:lumber consumption: 16,204,000 [m3] * 1.29 for roundwood equivalent = 21,000,000 [m3] of roundwoodshingles and shakes consumption: = 5,000,000 [m3] of roundwoodnewsprint consumption: 1,493,000 [t] * 1.83 [m3/t] = 2,732,000 [m3] of roundwoodother paper consumption: 4,506,000 [t] * 1.83 [m3Jt] = 8.245.000 1m3 of roundwoodTOTAL: 36,977,000 [m3] of roundwood36,977,000 [m3/yr] I 26.5E6 [Canadians] * 70 [yr] I 163 [m3 harvest/ha] = 0.62 [ha/cap]RESULT:0.62 [ha/cap]290T - TOTALt60 TOTALREFERENCES:In 1991, there were 15,050,000 people living in the Netherlands which has an area of 33,920 [2] (vi121994:269,285).The build-up land in the Netherlands amounts to 538,000 [ha] (WR 1994:285).The commercial energy consumption in the Netherlands in 1991 was 3,197 [Pj] or 212 [Gjlcap/yr] (WR1992:317). In this calculation, 212 [Gjlcaplyr] is used to represent the fossil fuel consumption. However, a\u00E2\u0080\u009Cback-of-the-envelope\u00E2\u0080\u009D calculation shows that this might underestimate the true fossil fuel consumption.Assuming that 17 percent of commercial energy consumption consisted of electricity (OECD average, Flavin& Lenssen 1994:5), and 36 [Pu of electricity were produced by nuclear plants (WR 1994:333), it follows thatthe remaining (3,197*0.17 - 36 =) 507 [Pj] were thermically produced within the Netherlands (or imported).Assuming that all the remaining electricity was thermicafly produced at an average efficiency of 33 %, the totalfossil fuel consumption would add up to (3,197*0.83 + 3*507 =) 4,174 [Pj]. With a population of 15 million,the per capita consumption of fossil fuel would then add up to 277 [Gj/cap/yr].CALCULAUONS:forest: assuming a consumption of 1.1 [m3/cap/yrl and a forest productivity of 163 [m/ha] every70 years, this consumption corresponds to (1.1 * 70 I 163 =) 0.47 [ha/cap] of forest land.fossil fuel: 212 [Gj/cap/yr] corresponds to (212 [Gj/cap/yr] / 100 [Gj/ha/yr] =) 277 [ha/cap].RESULT:food: cropland 0.45 [ha/cap]rangeland 0.61 [ha/cap]forest: 1.1 [m3/cap/yr]* corresponds to 0.47 [ha/cap]fossil fuel: 212 [Gj/cap/yr] corresponds to 2.12 [ha/cap]forgone natural productivity (settlements and roads):(538,000 [ha] / 15E6 [Dutch people]) 0.04 [ha/cap]footprint: 3.69 [ha/cap]from Buitenkainp et a!. (1993:60,83).For the entire country, this adds up to an Ecological Footprint of (15E6 [Dutch people] * 3.69 [ha/cap] * 0.01[ha/kin2]=) 550,000 [km2]. Assuming average ecological productivity in the Netherlands, this is 16 times morethan the 33,920 [km2] of land that are locally available.291APPENDIX 2.2: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES ON FOOD CONSUMPTION ANDENERGY CONTENTSTABLE A2.1 General Data: Population, Land Area, and Finances1. Population Statistics {for Canadian demographic statistics see report 91-209)CanadaThe Canadian population in 1990: 26,520,000 + 228,000 [per yr] (WR 1992:246).There were:26,452,000 Canadians, 1990 (HA 1991:14);27,296,859 people living in Canada on Thursday, April 15, 1993 (from Statistics Canada, tel: (604) 666-3691);8,849,370 families in Canada, 1986 (HA 1991:99);8,991,670 total occupied private dwellings in Canada, 1986 (1-IA 1991:76).Canadian household size: 2.72 people per household (FE 1989:32).British Columbia3,282,061 people living in British Columbia on Thursday, April 15, 1993 (from Statistics Canada, tel: (604) 666-3691).OntarioThere were:9,100,000 people in Ontario, 1986 (HA 1991:19);10,084,885 people living in Ontario on Thursday, April 15, 1993 (from Statistics Canada, tel: (604) 666-3691).United StatesUS population, 1990: 249,220,000 + 1,988,000 [per yrl (WR 1992:246).EarthWorld population, 1990: 5,292,200,000 + 90,000,000 [per yr] (WR 1992:246).2. Land Area StatisticsEarth(FAOb 1990:tbl) for 198813,382,469,000 [ha] total terrestrial area {including fresh water bodies)13,069,253,000 [ha] land area1,475,426,000 [ha] arable and permanent crop landthereof 1,373,404,000 [ha] arable land, and 102,022,000 [ha] permanent crop3,211,959,000 [ha] permanent pasture4,049,041,000 [hal forest and woodland4,332,825,000 [ha] other land.Canada (PED:3) Canada (FAOb 1990:tbl)997. 1E6 [ha] 991.6E6 [ha] Total Area in Canada75.5E6 [ha] 75.5E6 [ha] water453.3E6 [ha] 356E6 [hal forest67.8E6 [ha] 46E6 [ha] arable + 32.5E6 [ha] pasture (agricultural land)400.4E6 [ha] 481E6 [ha] other.292United States (FAOb 1990:tbl) for 1988937,261,000 [ha] Total Area916,660,000 [ha] laud area189,915,000 [ha] arable and permanent crop landthereof 187,881,000 [ha] arable laud, and thereof 2,034,000 [ha] permanent crop241,467,000 [ha] permanent pasture265,188,000 [ha] forest and woodland220,090,000 [ha] other laud.Major Ecosystems of the World and thefr Surface Covering (for the period 1970-1990) (in 1,000,000 ha)TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS 14,400-14,796Evergreen forests 2,704Deciduous forest 1,213Evergreen forests 687Deciduous woodlands 624Shrubland/thicket 1,207(chaparral, maquis, brush)Grassland 2,691Arctic/alpine tundra 743Desert 1,555Ice/glaciers 1,640Cultivated area (agriculture/pasture) 1,400Human occupied area (built environment) 332AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 530Wetlands 330Lakes and streams 200MARINE ECOSYSTEMS 36,100-36,236Close to shore 4,000Open ocean 33,200(de Groot 1992:305)3. Financial StatisticsCanadian national statistics500,337E6 [US$] Canadian GNP in 1989 (WR 1992:236).451,839E6 [$1 Canadian GDP in 1986 (1{A 1991:84).123,198E6 [US$] Canadian Government expenditures 1988 (WR 1992:240).26,000 [$1 direct expenditures of average Canadian household in 1986 (HA 1991:99).46,659 [$1 average family income in Canada in 1991, resulting in a 42,612 [$] after-tax and transfer income. Averagefamily received 6,372 [$] in cash transfer and paid 10,519 [$1 in income tax (Globe and Mail, May 4,1993:A1).16,316 [$1 is the average income of families in the lowest 20 percent income group in 1991 (after tax and transfers).9,692 [$1 or 57.1 % of their income is received through cash transfer (Globe and Mail, May 4, 1993 :A1).79,381 [$1 is the average income of families in the top 20 percent income group in 1991 (after tax and transfers). Theirpre-tax income was 102,999 [$1 (Globe and Mail, May 4, 1993:A1).293Canadian consumer price index (from Statistics Canada, tel: (604) 666-3691, see also catalogue 62-001).1986 1001987 104.41988 108.61989 114.01990 119.51991 126.21992 128.11993 (February) 130.01994 (May) 129.9294TABLE A2.2: CANADIAN CROP PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTIONsource: FAO production and trade statistics (FAOa, FAOb 1990)FAO# nameWORLD WORLD WORLD CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADAyield prodri ACC area prodn import export consum ACC FAO#kg/ha bOOt l000ha l000ha l000t l000t l000t l000t 1000ha15 CEREALS16 wheat17 rice18 Coarse Grain, and others19 barLey20 corn21 rye22 oats23 miLLet + other cereaLs24 sorghum2646 1864852 7047822381 538056 2259793350 506291 1511323000 15645 52152348 168964 719613627 470318 1296712095 34893 166551821 42197 23172814 30512 374841305 57976 4442621935 4795513638 243834701 116721014 6400364 8351705 354912254 155417 1644 17183312 192004 20327 211430 22-98 232425 ROOT CROPS26 potatoes27 sweet potatoes28 cassava29 yams30 taro12606 59017615315 27674014408 1332349842 1475009239 234595379 581446817180709247149872539108128929480104418169513327234075868804321057212549045177861519316318423128 491076 505128 524 53546 55564 5714 58597 609 6112 626306452 6516597 3242511487 1289814710672147898601238973115794592777672676842604-8031 PULSES 32-36,39 C?)32 beans, dry33 broad beans34 peas, dry35 chick-peas36 LentiLs37 soybeans + soya cake38 ground nuts39 castor beans40 sunf tower seeds41 rapeseed + oitseed trade42 sesame seed43 Linseed44 saff Lower seeds45 seed cotton46 cottonseedoLivesoLive oiL47 coconuts + copra48 paLm kerneLspalm oil828 57985588 158721270 40581631 16447747 7429737 22421841 1073501124 22594759 11551405 218671239 22302336 2352497 2121720 9081525 490851000 307031000 91341000 17261000 380911000 30141000 10165700302699331951008499453042583112010115221556418000700042681261321873070391341726380913014101652754 218 25203 390 2567 168 262728293D26 357 151 182 3177 131 3225 20 33274 168 3435105 142 36785 225 1779 966 3766 66 59 383926 15 80 57 40590 442 3206 2588 413 3 1042531 1068 4344451 1 14632 32 4748112 2754112 2754382 48249 7740 25178 274115 105540 121956 692908 3058640 53119247485 13515 5483 484 852 264 1319 5118 547 2760 27 63321924748135145 3 69148856 3270 4 1975154276236349 VEGETABLES A1D IELOWS 15000 433940FRUITS WITHOUT HELOWS 7000 336073TREENUTS, TOTAL 1000 441850 cabbages 21620 3664051 artichokes 9694 128952 tomatoes 25096 6832853 cauLifLower 13642 554854 piikins, squash, gourds 11207 656855 cucujd,ers + gherkins 14512 1277456 eggpLants 13287 574657 chiLi peppers, green 8292 876658 onions, dry 13796 2931959 garLic 6143 301260 beans, green 6883 310461 peas, green 6083 473462 carrots 22235 1368463 watermeLons 14716 2842364 cantaLoupes + oth. meLons 14108 890765 grapes + dried raisins 7023 59158 300(wine 29,055,000 It], whereof in Cda 57,000 [t]. raisins 988,000 It])66 dates 7000 3113 445 6 1 5 1 6667 sugar cane + sugar trade 60229 1007184 16723 701 4 697 12 67(Less Developed Countries\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (LDC) average: 13 [kg] of sugar canes produce 1 1kg] of sugar)68 sugar beets 35573 305882 8599 23 805 805 23 68(6 [kg] beets produce 1 [kg] sugar)295CROSS CHECICING AND DATA ANALYSIS OF CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL ACCsun of cereaL area in Canadasun of crop area in Canada (###)!21,422,000 [ha] rather than 21,935,000 [ha]26,469,000 [ha] rather than 45,980,000 [ha] arabLe and permanent cropLand (FAOb 1990:tbl)[ha] rather than 12,254,000 [ha][ha][ha][ha) or 5,075,000 [ha] (prop. to veg/animal product intake)[ha] or 12,803,000 [ha][ha) or 417,000 [ha) if adjusted by fruit and veg. factor[t]Ct] of produces require 128,000 [ha] ACCCt] of produces require 90,000 [ha) ACC[t] of produces require 107,000 [ha] ACCCt] of produces require 276,000 [ha] ACC[ha)[ha)[ha)[ha] or 17,189,000 [ha] assuning that 20.7 % of producedmeat was exported (see TabLe 8)ACC PER AVERAGE CANADIAN FOR CROPS IN [ha] (based on worLd average yields, and 26.3 milLion Canadians (in 1989))cli vegetarian products 0.016 [ha]dli vegetarian products 0.183 [hald12 aniL products 0.423 [ha]d41 clothing 0.008 [ha]d44 tobacco and alcohoL 0.038 [ha] (wine not incLuded)d60 TOTAL 0.652 [ha]World\u00E2\u0080\u0099s total crop areaCEREALSROOT CROPSPULSESVEGETABLES AND MELONSin weightFRUITS WITHOUT MELONSTREENUTSrather thanrather thanrather thanrather thanrather thanrather thanrather thanrather than(FAOb 1990:tbl)1,475,426,000 [ha)704,782,000 [ha]46,817,000 [ha]70,030,000 [ha]28,929,000 [ha]433,940,000 [t)48,010,000 [ha]4,418,000 [ha]WORLD WORLD WORLD CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADAFAO# name yield prodn ACC area prodn import export consum ACC FAO#kg/ha bOOt l000ha l000ha bOOt l000t l000t l000t l000ha69 appLes 7000 40226 5747 495 90 75 510 73 6970 pears, peaches, pLums 7000 24779 3540 78 97 175 25 7071 oranges, mandarins, Lemon 7000 65593 9370 376 376 54 7172 grapefruit, citrus fruits 7000 6300 900 72apricots 7000 2162 309 3 3 073 avocados, mangos, pineap. 7000 26313 3759 52 52 7 7374 bananas, papayas, pLanta 7000 72523 10360 322 322 46 7475 strawb., raspb., currants 7000 3319 474 44 44 6 7576 aLmonds, pista., hazeLnuts 1000 2053 2053 7677 cashew, chestnuts, walnuts 1000 1933 1933 7778 COFFEE 514 5775 11235 108 5 103 200 7879 COCOA beans, exct. import 464 2467 5317 203 0 203 437 7980 TEA 2673 2475 926 15 2 14 5 8081 hops + maLt trade 1408 112038 79572 280 450 1 0 451 320 8182 TOBACCO 1469 7293 4965 32 74 1 16 58 40 8283 f lax fibre + tow 575 769 1337 8384 hemp fibre + tow 658 217 330 8485 jute and alike fibres 1551 3331 2148 0 0 0 8586 sisaL 884 430 486 8687 cotton lint 1000 18106 18106 47 47 47 87other fibre crops 1000 449 449 70 70 70natural rubber 1000 4777 4777 92 92 92ACC cereaL areaACC for potentiaL animal foodACC for aLL crop, excl coffee etc.ACC for vegetarian cropACC for feedstockACC FOR GARDENS, totaLweight of garden producesweight of VEGETABLES AND MELONSweight of vegetabLes producedweight of FRUITS producedweight of fruits producedACC for coffee, cocoa, tea and tobACC for fibres and rubberTOTAL CROP LAND OF CANADIAN ACCTOTAL CROP LAND ACC adjusted12,821 ,00016,542,00017,878,0004,810,00013,068,000354,0002,039,0001,924,0001,354,000748,000683,0001,003,000209,00019,090,00017,150,000IN COMPARISON: THE WORLD\u00E2\u0080\u0099S AGRICULTURAL ACC (WITHOUT PASTURES)(added up)1,273,144,000 [ha]705,696,000 [ha)45,924,000 [ha)74,883,000 [ha]14,936,000 [ha]236,842,000 [t)45,380,000 [ha]3,986,000 [ha]296TABLE A2.3: CANADIAN ANIMAL PRODUCTS A?\u00E2\u0080\u0099D THEIR CONSUMPTIONsource: FAO production and trade statistics (FAOa, FAOb 1990)FAO# WORLD CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADAalive slaut./yr import exportLIVESTOCK [heads] [heads] [heads] [heads) [heads]88 horse 60,461,000 33,800muLe and asses 57,925,000 4,00089 cattLe 1,281,472,000 12,195,000 3,775,000 54,598 434,679(average sLaughtered cattLe weighs 261 [kg))90 pigs 846,174,000 10,635,000 15,550,000 630 1,204,400(average sLaughtered pig weighs 76 [kg))sheep 1,175,524,000 728,000 381,000goats 526,440,000 27,00091 chickens 10,574,000,000 108,000,000ducks 527,000,000 1,000,000turkey 234,000,000 6,000,000WORLD CANADA CANADA CANADAprodn prodn import exportHEAT Ct) [ti [t) [t)92 beef and veal meat 49,436,000 985,00093 buffaLo meat + fresh meat trade 1,487,000 0 177,100 402,45094 mutton & Lamb + salted meat trade 6,473,000 8,000 1,271 14,86795 goat meat + canned meat trade 2,365,000 0 21,318 8,85496 pig meat + exported meat (alive) 67,460,000 1,180,000 14,294 204,81597 horse meat 482,000 25,000 24,545pouLtry meat 37,817,000 667,000TOTAL MEAT 168,860,000 2,871,000x-check, sLan of 92-96 165,520,000 2,865,00098 indigenous beef, sheep and pig meat 125,935,000 2,304,000x-check, sun of 92-96 + Live export 125,734,000 2,377,815WORLD CANADA CANADA CANADA CONSUMPTIONprodn prodn import export PER CANADIANOTHER AIIINAL PRODUCTS [t] [t) [t) It) [kg/yr]99 miLk animaLs IN HEADS 222,846,000 1,421,000milk production 474,020,000 8,250,000 466 91 313100 mi(k,other 57,319,000 0101 cheese 14,475,276 291,000 20,618 10,739 12butter 7,611,826 110,000 108 2,327 4evaporated or condensed milk 4,624,429 107,450 2,474 16,375 4102 miLk,dry 2,224,407 10,000 4,563 42,903skim and butter miLk 3,928,039 108,400 4dry whey 1,601,697 61,350 2103 hen eggs + egg trade 34,714,112 310,650 10,503 1,818 12honey 1,108,776 28,100 636 21,016 1104 wooL, scoured 1,940,989 728 1,347 16105 Leather 8,645,054 95,709DATA ANALYSIS OF CANADIAN AIIINAI. PRODUCTSTOTAL HEAT PRCIXJCED in Canada in [t] 3,055,521 in % 100.0TOTAL MEAT CONSLMED in Canada in Ct) 2,423,453 in % 79.3(per capita consumption 92 tkglyri, assuming 26.3 miLLion Canadians in 1989)NET MEAT EXPORT from Canada in Ct) 632,068 in % 20.7FOOD ENERGY IN AIIIKAL PRODUCTS IN CANADAmeat .11k eggsnutritionaL energy in meat, milk, eggs in [Nut) 13,000 2,720 6,120nutritional energy in animaL products consumed per capita: 5,823 [kj/cap/day) {= 1,391 [kcat/cap/day))297TABLE A2.4: FOOD SUPPLY AND CALORIC VALUES FOR AN AVERAGECANADIANFOOD SWPLIES MOVING INTO COWSUP\u00E2\u0080\u0099TIOW PER AVERAGE CMDIA IN 1988foodenergy content aIflo4R1t totaL percent[kj/kg] [kg] [kj] [X]cereaLs 13,020 77 1,001,238 20sugar 16,800 41 685,440 14puLses 11,590 4 45,201 0nuts 23,000 3 73,600 1oils and fats 32,000 21 656,000 13fruit (uncanned) 2,000 110 220,200 4fruit canned 4,000 8 31,200 1vegetabLes 300 70 21,030 0mushrooms 300 3 ,750 0potatoes 3,200 68 218,560 4meat 11,000 71 781,000 16eggs 6,000 11 68,400 1pouLtry 8,000 28 226,800 5fish 5,000 7 34,000 1miLk prod. 2,720 288 783,360 16aLcohoL beverages 2,000 60 ? 120,000 2TOTAL 4,954,678 100sources (food energy content: de Lcoy 1987, apparent food consumption: CY 1992:364-366).AIALYSIS:daiLy vegetarian products: 1,782 EkcaL/cap/day] as opposed to 2,325 [kcat/cap/day] (FAOb 1990:tbLlO6)daiLy animaL products: Ekcat/cap/day] as opposed to jj. [kcat/cap/day] (FAOb 1990:tbLlO\u00C3\u00B3)3,247 [kcaL/cap/dayl as opposed to 3,450 [kcal/cap/day] (FAOb 1990:tbLlO6)298TABLE A2.5: EMBODIED ENERGY IN VARIOUS MATERIALS AN]) PRODUCTSpaper: embodied production energy61 [Gj/t] of paper produced (SEF:223) {a43}30 [Mi/kg] (Hofstetter 1992:Anhang-3)23.6 [Mj/kg] for paper produced in an integrated paper mill (Brown 1985:78)steel: embodied production energy.25 [Mi/kg] (Hofstetter 1992:Anhang-3) and (WR 1992:149/150)31.1 [Mj/kg] (Cole and Rousseau (1992: average of four figures)30 [Mj/kg] (Fritsche 1989:238)27.7 [Mi/kg] steel from Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills (Brown 1985:268)aluminum: embodied production energy.100 [Mj/kg] (Hofstetter 1992:Anhang-3)145.0 - 261.7 [Mj/kg] (Cole and Rousseau 1992)260 [Mj/kg] { =72,000 [Kwh therm./t]} (Thomas 1977:11)250 [Mj/kg] (Fritsche 1989:238).\u00E2\u0080\u009Cplastic:\u00E2\u0080\u009D embodied production energy.50 [Mi/kg] (Hofstetter 1992:Anhang-3)49.3 - 122.8 [Mj/kg] (Cole and Rousseau 1992)62 [G/t] PE plastic production (SEF 1991:223) {a40}65 [Mj/kg] (Fritsehe 1989:238)12 [Mj/kg] Plastic Materials and Resins (LDPE) (Brown 1985:148)20.4 [Mj/kg] Miscellaneous Plastic Products (Brown 1985:243)44 - 171 [Mj/kg] (Baird and Aun 1983)glass: embodied production energy.10.2 - 21.6 [Mj/kg] (Cole and Rousseau 1992)20 [Mj/kgj (Fritsehe 1989:238)14.2 [Mj/kg] Flat Glass (Brown 1985:246)17.6 [Mi/kg] Glass Containers (Brown 1985:249)8.4 - 29.3 [Mi/kg] (Baird and Aun 1983)wood: embodied production energy.2 [Mj/kg] (Hofstetter 1992: Anhang-3)34 [Mi/kg] for fibreboards requiring 2.5 [kg] chips and sawmill waste(Brown 1985:64)10 [Mj/kg] lumber requiring 1.5 [kg/kg] roundwood (Brown 1985:6 1)cement: embodied production energy.4 [Mj/kg] (Fritsche 1989:238)8.2 [Mj/kg] Cement, Hydraulic (Brown 1985:255)4.2 [Mi/kg] Brick and Structural Clay Tile (Brown 1985:258)28.2 [Mi/kg] Mineral Wool (Brown 1985:266).299TABLE A2.6: CONSUMPTION ENERGY CONVERSIONFOR CONSUMER GOODS AM) SERVICESconsunption expenditure energy embodied land appropriationcategory per category intensity energy (adjusted)[S 1993/capi [Nj/Si [Gj/cap/yr] [ha/cap]40 GOODS 6,677 45.0576 5240\u00E2\u0080\u0099packaging 10 (see a40\u00E2\u0080\u0099)41 cLothing 1,887 7.2 13.5864 1142 furniture 1,089 7.2 7.8408 643 books and magazines 173 6 (see a43}44 tobacco & aLcohoL 962 7.2 6.9264 645 personaL care 579 7.2 4.1688 346 recreationaL equipment 1,660 7.2 11.952 1047 other goods 324 1.8 0.5832 050 SERVICES 6,934 21 .6189 2951 government (& miLitary) 1,162 3.6 4.1832 652 education 1,593 3.6 5.7348 853 heaLth care 1,669 3.6 6.0084 854 sociaL services 482 0.45 0.2169 055 tourism 206 3.6 0.7416 156 entertainment 252 3.6 0.9072 157 bank/insurances 576 0.45 0.2592 058 other services 991 3.6 3.5676 5Comment:This table shows a best estimate for the embodied energy in the various consumption categories. Only category40\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (packaging) and 43 (books and magazines) are assessed separately. For all other categories, dollars spentin those categories (average per capita expenditure over a year) are multiplied by their respective energyintensities. The applied energy intensities were suggested by Hofstetter (1992b:35). To make the assessedembodied energy compatible with the macro data for consumer goods (52 [Gj/cap/yr] for 40) and services (29[Gj/cap/yr] for 50), these results are adjusted by a multiplication factor. This adjustment factor was 0.8 for theconsumer goods and 1.35 for the services.300TABLE A2.7: SPECIFIC ENERGY CONTENT\u00E2\u0080\u0099Energy Content2 Density Sourcefossil fuelscrude oil 38.5 [Mj/1] (HA 1991:ii)motor gasoline 34.7 [MjIl] (HA 1991:ii)680 [kg/rn3] (20 degree C) (Iuma 1983)coal anthracite 28.0 [Mj/l] (Francis & Peters 1980:33 I{HV)diesel 38.8 [Mj/l] (Francis & Peters 1980:249 HHV)850 [kg/rn3] (Barnard 1984:176)plant and solar based fuelshydrogen 120 LMjIkg] (Enc. of Chem. Tech. 1978:337 LHV)8.99E(-2)[kg/m3] (ruma 1983:379)(0 degree C = 1 atm)methanol 17.8 [Mj/l] (Frances & Peters 1980:287 HHV)800 [kg/rn3] (Barnard 1984:176)ethanol 23.5 [Mj/I] (Francis & Peters 1980:287)790 [kg/rn3] (Barnard 1984:176)veget. oils (average) 34.6 [Mj/l] 900 [kg/rn3] (Barnard 1984:176)Soybean oil 35.8 [Mj/l] 910 [kg/m3] (Barnard 1984: 176)Coconut oil 32.2 LMj/l] 880 [kg/m3] (Barnard 1984:176)primary forest products (measured in dry mass)wood 19.8 [Mj/kg] (Risbrudt & Ellis in Zaborsky 1981:529)680 [kg/rn3] (Turna 1983:394-395)bark 20.9 [Mjlkg] (Risbrudt & Ellis in Zaborsky 1981:529)solid wood waste 18 [Mj/kg] (HA 1991:ii)dry biomass 21 LMj/kg] = 5 [kcal/g] (Vitousek et a!. 1986)primary agricultural products (measured in dry mass)corn ?sugar cane ?sugar cane bagasse 19.1 [Mjlkg] (Larson eta!. 1989:702 in Johanson?)sugar beet 17.6 [Mj/kg] (Spedding eta!. 198 1:109)carrot 17.4 LMj/kg] (Spedding eta!. 198 1:109)wheat 18.4 [Mj/kg] (Spedding et a!. 198 1:78)rice 18.0 LMjIkg] (Spedding et a!. 198 1:78)cereal straws 17.8 IMj/kg] (Spedding et a!. 1981:189)The data for this table was compiled by Yoshihiko Wada.2 In most cases, the source did not reveal whether the energy content referred to the Lower Heating Value (LHV)or the Higher Heating Value (HHV).301TABLE A2.8: APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS RATIOS FOR BIOMASSPRODUCTIVITY3Typical timber density: timber volume [m3] to timber weight [tonne] * 0.52(Marland 1988:39)Oven dry wood [kg] to heat [MI] * 20(Barnard 1984:247)Oven dry biomass [kg] to carbon [kg] * 0.45(calculated from Table 2 in Schroeder 1992:35)Carbon [kg] to heat [Mj] * 44\u00E2\u0080\u00A24(calculated from above)Maximum mean annual growth of forest to maximum net primary productivity (NPP) * 2.5(Farnum et al. 1993)The data for this table was compiled by Yoshiliilco Wada.302APPENDIX 2.3: DATA REFERENCES (FOR DATA IN APPENDIX 2)(Note: []indicates call number at the University of British Columbia libraries)Ajtay, G.L., P. Ketner, and P. Duvigneaud, 1977. \u00E2\u0080\u009CTerrestrial Primary Production and Phytomass,\u00E2\u0080\u009D in Bolin, B., 1977.The Global Carbon Cycle. John Wiley and Sons, New York. [QH344 W67 1977 Wood].Ahmed, Irshad and Davis Morris, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CClearing the Air about Ethanol.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Focus. Vol.2 No.3. p37-49.Barnard, Geoffrey W., 1984. \u00E2\u0080\u009CLiquid Fuel Production from Biomass in the Developing Countries -- An Agricultural andEconomic Perspective.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Donald L. Wise, (editor), 1984. Bioconversion Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Beitz, W. and K.-H. K\u00C3\u00BCttner, (editors), 1983. Dubbel: Taschenbuchflir den Maschinenbau. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Boustead, I. and G.F. Hancock, 1981. Energy and Packaging. Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, England. [TS 195.2 B681981 MacMi.Boustead, I. and G.F. Hancock, 1979. Handbook of Industrial Energy Analysis. Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester,England. [TJ163.2 B67 1979 Main].Brown, Harry L., Bernhard B. Harnel and Bruce A. Hedman, 1985. Energy Analysis of 108 Industrial Processes.Fairmont Press, Philadelphia (?). [TJ163.2 B78 1985 Main].Buitenkamp, Maria, Henk Venner and Theo Warns, (editors), 1993. Action Plan Sustainable Netherlands. Dutch Friendsof the Earth. Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Byerly, Theodore, 1982. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAgricultural Productivity: Potential and Constraints.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Rechcigl 1982:V2:263-304).Carrying Capacity Network, 1993. aeannghouse Bulletin. Vol.3 No.4, May 1993.(CE), Government of Canada, 1991. The State of Canada\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Environment. Minister of the Environment, Ottawa. [TD26S77 1991 Law, MacM, Sedg].Cole, Raymond J., 1992. University of British Columbia, private communication, November 1992.Cole, Raymond 3. and David Rousseau, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmental Auditing for Building Construction.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Building andEnvironment. Vol.27 No.1.p23-30Coote, Belinda, 1992. The Trade Trap. Oxfam, Oxford.Corson, Walter H., 1990. The Global Ecological Handbook. Beacon Press, Boston. [TD171 .7 G56 1990 Sedg].(CY), Statistics Canada, 1992. Canada Year Book 1992: 125th Anniversaty. Publications Division, Statistics Canada,Ottawa.David, M.L., Hammaker, G.S., Buzenberg, R.J. and Wagner, J.P., 1978. Gasohol - Economic Feasibility Study. FinalReport No. 261, University of Nebraska. In (McKetta, 1980:V20:8).de Groot, Rudolf S., 1992. Functions ofNature. Wolters-Noordhoff, The Netherlands. [TD194.6 G76 1992 Wood].de Looy, Ann, et al, 1987. Foodfor Action. Peiham Books, London.303Eagles, C.F. and D. Wilson, 1982. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPhotosynthetic Efficiency and Plant Productivity.\u00E2\u0080\u009D In (Rechcigl 1982:Vi :213-247).(EIA), Energy Information Administration, 1992. Annual Energy Review 1991. US Government Printing Office,Washington D.C. [UBC-microcatalogue].Ekins, Paul, et a!. 1992. Green Economics. Doubleday, New York.Ensminger, M.E., 1978. The Stockman\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Handbook. The Interstate, Danville, fihinois. [SF61 E53 1978 MacMi.Environment Canada, 1993. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEnvironmental Implications of the Automobile: A State of the Environment Fact Sheet.\u00E2\u0080\u009DSOE Fact Sheet No.93-i.(FAOa), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1990. FAQ Yearbook: Trade, Vol 43. FAO, Rome.[HD 1421 F586 1989 V.43 MacMi.(FAOb), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1990. FAQ Yearbook: Production, Vol 43. FAO,Rome. [HD 1421 F585 1989 V.43 MacMi.Farnum, Peter, Roger Timmis and J. Laurence Kulp, 1983. \u00E2\u0080\u009CBiotechnology of Forest Yield.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Science. Vol.219. p694-702.(FE), Statistics Canada, 1989. Family Expenditure 1986. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Cat. No. 62-555.(FF), Canadian Department of Forestry, 1990. Forestiy Facts. Canadian Department of Forestry, Economics andStatistics Directorate, Ottawa. [111)9764 C22 F67 1990 MacM, Main].Flavin, Christopher, and Nicholas Lenssen, 1994. \u00E2\u0080\u009CPowering the Future: Blueprint for a Sustainable Electricity Industry.\u00E2\u0080\u009DWorldwatch Paper 119. Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC.Francis, W. and M.C. Peters, 1980. Fuels and Fuel Technology: A Summarized Manual. (Second edition). PergamonPress, Oxford.Friends of the Earth Canada, 1983. Volume X: A Soft Energy Path for Alberta. Prepared as a part of the Friends of theEarth Soft Energy Study for Canada.Fritsche Uwe, L. Rausch and K.-H. Simon, 1989. Umweltwirkungsanalyse von Energiesystemen: Gesamt-EmissionsModel! Integrierter Systeme (GEMIS). Oko Institut, Darmstadt.Gerster, Richard, 1987. Aus Fehiern lernen?. Ex Libris Verlag, Zurich.Giampietro, Mario. Private communication, October 1992.Giampietro, Mario and David Pimentel, 1990. \u00E2\u0080\u009CAlcohol and Biogas Production from Biomass.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Critical Reviews in PlantScience. Vol.9 No.3.p213-3Greenpeace, 1992. Environmental Impact of the Car. A Greenpeace Report, Seattle, Wa.(HA), Statistics Canada, 1991. Human Activity and the Environment 1991. 1 1-509E. Minister of Industry, Science andTechnology, Ottawa.Hofstetter, Patrick, 1992a!b. PersOnliche Energie- und CQ2-Bilanz, Aktion Klimaschutz, Greenpeace Switzerland.International Road Transport Union (IRTU), 1990. World Transport Data. Department of Economic Affairs, Geneva.304[HE191.5 157 1990 HuSS].Kendrick, J.G., Murray and P.J. Murray, 1978. \u00E2\u0080\u009CGrain Alcohol in Motor Fuels: An Evaluation.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Report No. 81,Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska, April 1978. In (McKetta, 1980:V20:8).Kroesa, Renate, 1990. The Greenpeace Guide to Paper. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.Lide, David R., editor-in-chief, 1992. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 73rd edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton,Florida. [QD65 H3 Sci&Eng Div].Lightfoot, H. Douglas. Private communication, January 24, 1993.Lightfoot, H. Douglas and Christopher Green, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Dominance of Fossil Fuels: Technical and ResourceLimitations to Alternative Energy Sources,\u00E2\u0080\u009D (YGCR Report, McGill University Montreal.Mark, Herman, Donald Othmer, Charles Overberg and Glenn Seaborg, (chief-editors), 1980. Kirk-Othmer: Encyclopediaof Chemical Technology. Third Edition. Volume 9. John Wiley and Sons, New York. [TP9 E685 Sci&Eng Div].Marland, Gregg, 1988. The Prospect of Solving the CO2 Problem Trough Global Reforestation. Oak Ridge AssociatedUniversities, Institute for Energy Analysis and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Oak Ridge. [Microfiche].McKetta, John J., 1980. Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design. Volume 20. Marcel Dekker, New York andBase!. [TP9 E66 1976 Sci&Eng Div].Meadows, Donella, Dennis Meadows, and Jorgen Randers, 1992. Beyond the Limits, McClelland & Stewart Inc.,Toronto. [HD75.6 M43 1992 Main, Sedg].Marlin, John Tepper, Immanuel Ness and Stephen T. Collins, 1986. Book ofWorld City Rankings. The Free Press, NewYork. [F1T153 M37 1986 FAD, Sedg, Hum&Soc Div].National Academy of Sciences, 1975. Productivity of World Ecosystems. Proceedings of a Symposium. August, 31 -September 1, 1972. National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C. [QHS41 P76 1992 Wood, MacMi.NREL, (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), 1991. NREL internal data sheets. From Barbara Goodman, privatecommunication, March 23, 1992. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.Pillet, Gonzague, 1992. Okonomische Umweltkonten: Em Modell zur Integration von Umwelt und Wirtschaft in derNationalen Buchhaltung. Bundesamt f\u00C3\u00BCr Statistik and SPE, Bern.(PED), Policy and Economics Directorate, 1991. Selected Forestry Statistics Canada, 1991. Information Report E-X-46,Forestry Canada, Ottawa.Pimentel, David and Marcia, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CLand, Energy and Water: The Constraints Governing Optimum US PopulationSize.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Third in the series of NPG FORUM papers. Focus. Vol.! No.1. p9-14Pimentel, David, 1991. \u00E2\u0080\u009CEthanol Fuels: Energy Security, Economics, and the Environment,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Journal ofAgricultural andEnvironmental Ethics. Vol.4 No.1. p1-3Pimentel, David, editor, 1980. CRC Handbook ofEnergy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.[S494.5 ES 1136 1980 MacMi.Rechcigl, Miloslav, Jr., editor-in-chief, 1982. CRC Handbook ofAgricultural Productivity. CRC Press, Boca Raton,Florida. [S494.5 P75 C16 1982 MacMi.305Sch\u00C3\u00A4ublin, Clemens, 1992. Umweltkompendium. Lenos Verlag, Basel, Switzerland.Schroeder, Paul, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CCarbon Storage Potential of Short Rotation Tropical Tree Plantations.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Forest Ecology andManagement. Vol.50. p3 1-41.(SEF), Humm, Othmar, editor, 1991. Schweizerisches Energiefachbuch. Kflnzler-Bachmann, St. Gallen, Switzerland.Selke, Susan E. M., 1990. Packaging and the Environment. Technomic Publishing, Lancaster and Basel.Sheltair Scientific Ltd, 1991. Optimize: A Methodfor Estimating Lfecycle Energy and Environmental Impact ofA House.Report and Appendices. CMHC, Ottawa.Spedding, C.R.W., 1989. The Human Food Chain. Elsevier Applied Sciences, London. [HD9000.5 H8 1988 Main].Spreng, Daniel, 1989. Wieviel Energie braucht die Energie?. Verlag der Fachvereine, Zurich.Stout, B.A., 1990. Handbook of Energy For World Agriculture. Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York.[S494.5 E5 S77 1990 MacMi.Stout, B.A., 1984. Energy Use and Management in Agriculture. Breton Publishers, North Scituate, Mass. [S494.5 E5S763 1984 MacMi.Statistics Canada, 1992a. National Income and Expenditure Accounts, Annual Estimates 1980-1991. Cat. No. 13-201,annual. Statistics Canada, Ottawa.Statistics Canada, 1992b. Quarterly Report on Energy Supply-Demand in Canada -- 1991-IV. Cat. No. 57-003, quarterly.Statistics Canada, Ottawa.(SW), Brown, Lester R. et al., 1984-93. The State ofthe World, Worldwatch Institute. W.W. Norton and Company, NewYork. [HC59 B67 Main, Sedg].Tuma, Jan 3., 1983. Handbook ofPhysical Calculations. McGraw-Hill, New York.Van Bers, Caroline, and John B. Robinson, 1992. \u00E2\u0080\u009CFarming in 2031: A Scenario of Sustainable Agriculture in Canada.\u00E2\u0080\u009DSustainable Society Project. Working Paper #7.(WR), World Resources Institute, 1992, 1994. World Resources: A Guide to the Global Environment. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford and New York. [HC59 W674 Educ, Sedgj.Zaborsky, Oskar R., editor in chief, 1980. CRC Handbook of Biosolar Resources. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.[TP360 C73 MacMi.306APPENDIX 2.4: ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITSTABLE A2.9 Abbreviations and Unitsk kilo (1000 or 1E3)M mega (1E6)G giga (1E9)T tera (1E12)P peta (1E15)E exponent of 10, e.g., 2.36E4 = 2.36 * 10*10*10*10 = 23,600* multiplied by/ divided byO references[] units of measurement{ } commentsrange refers to the range of results calculated in that section. The figures chosen for theland-use - consumption matrix (in bold) are the most realistic estimates,or where the results remain ambiguous, the most conservative ones.The measurement units follow the metric system, where possible.1 [cap] capita, one person1 [t] = 1 [metric tonne] = 1,000 [kg]{1 [pound] =0.454 [kg])1 [Mj] = 1E6 [j or joules]= 1E6 [17* or Watt seconds]= 1/3.6 [kWh]= 1,000/1.05506 [btu] = 947.8 [btu]= 1,000/4.187 [kcal] or [kilocalones] = 238.8 [kcal]{4187 [j] = 1 [kcal], 1.05506 [lcj] = 1 [btuj, 1 [quad] = 1E15 [btu],1 [W/m2] = 315.6 [Gj/halyr]}1 [ha] = 1 [hectare] = 10,000 [m2] = 2.472 [acres]1 [m3] = 35.314 [ft3] = 28.4 [bushels] = 6.292 [barrels]= 0.4 15 [cord] = 0.22 1 MBF (or thousand board feet)]{1 [barrel] = 42 [gallons] = 0.15893 [m3],1 [gallon] = 3.785 [1 or litres]}1 [yr] = 1 [year] = 365.24 [d or days] = 8,766.8 [h or hours]= 31.558E6 [s or seconds]307APPENDIX 3INTERVIEW RESEARCHAppendix 3.1 summarizes comments from reviewers of the EF/ACC Handbook(Wackernagel et a!. 1993). Appendix 3.2 provides the names of the key informants that wereinterviewed. Appendix 3.3 contains a copy of the questionnaire and of the brochure \u00E2\u0080\u009CHow BigIs Our Ecological Footprint\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Wackernagel 1993a) which I used for briefing the participants.Finally, Appendix 3.4 lists answers that the key informants gave during the interviews.308APPENDIX 3.1: SUMMARY OF DRAFT HANDBOOK REVIEWSOver 100 draft handbooks titled How Big Is Our Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel etal. 1993) were sent out to academics in related fields. The names of these reviewers areidentified below. The close to 20 reviews that we received were encouraging. Suggestions weremade that more practical examples relevant to municipal planning be included, that it be moreaction oriented, that the writing style and wording be more accessible rather than academic, thatthe structure of the document be more inviting, and that electrical energy and the use of freshwater also be included. One reviewer felt that considering only flows in chemical energy mightbe misleading, as photosynthesis amounts to only about 100 TW while the powering of theEarth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s hydrological cycles requires 44,000 TW of solar energy. (However, the counterargument is that the hydrological cycles are a precondition for photosynthesis. Therefore,photosynthetic production is a good indicator for ecosystem health, including hydrologicalcycles, temperature distributions, soil condition, solar radiation, UV etc.).More general comments about the concept included: \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe concept is very lucid. It is ableto provide a very drastic picture of the consequences of our lifestyle that can hardly fail toimpress those willing to work with it or at least to be informed by it.\u00E2\u0080\u009D\u00E2\u0080\u009D Your research has beenambitious and breathtaking in scope. You have moved the central notion of carrying capacity toa whole new level of discussion. Even with all of the qualifications to your conclusions, we canput now some of our numbers up against their (classical economists) numbers!\u00E2\u0080\u009D \u00E2\u0080\u009CThis is one ofthe most interesting and important pieces of work that I have seen in quite a while.\u00E2\u0080\u009DSuggestions of these reviewers were used to improve various aspects of the tool. Themajor change that resulted from the review was to choose another approach for converting fossilfuel use into land. Rather than using an ethanol equivalent, now the tool approaches thisconversion ratio from the perspective of CO2 absorption.Reviewers of the Draft HandbookLester Brown, Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC, USAMaria Buitenkamp, Friends of the Earth, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsWilliam Catton, Graham, WA, USAJohn Cobb, Jr., Claremont, CA, USARudolf de Groot, Center for Environment and Climate Studies, Wageningen, The NetherlandsRonald Doering, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Ottawa, ONMario Giampietro, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USARagnar Overby, Eco-niatic, Arlington, VA, USASandra Postel, Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC, USAJohn Robinson, Sustainable Development Institute, University of British Columbia, VancouverMark Roseland, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, VancouverMatthias Ruth, University of Boston, Boston, MA, USADieter Steiner, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, SwitzerlandTim Turner, Sea to Sky, Gibsons, BCStephen Viederman, Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, New York, NY, USAAndrew Whittaker, Northern Forest Forum, Groveton, NH, USAWalter Zingg, Stevensville, ON309APPENDIX 3.2: LIST OF INTERVIEWED KEY INFORMANTS(a) administrators and municipal plannersPat Anderson, Head of Engineering, Township of LangleySuzanne Carter, Senior Planner, City of RichmondPeter Cave, Director of Planning, Fraser Cheam Regional DistrictGeorge Colquhoun, Chief Executive Officer, North Fraser Harbour CommissionJulie Glover, Commissioner and Vice Chair, BC Land CommissionOtto Langer, Head of Habitat Planning, Fraser River Action Plan, DFOPeter Scales, Environmental Manager, Township of Langley(b) business people and economistsRobin Allen, Vice President Finance, Parklane HomesJulia Gardner, Principal, Dovetail ConsultingJohn Howard, Vice-President, McMillan BloedelBill Hyslop, President, NovaTec Consultants Inc.Tony Scott, Resource Economist, UBCBing Thom, Principal, Bing Thom ArchitectsMichael Walker, Executive Director, Fraser Institute(c) community activistsHerb Barbolet, Board Member, Farm Folk City FolkStephen Connolly, Coordinator, BC Naturalists, Land for Nature InitiativeAl Grant, Member, Langley Environmental OrganizationJoy Leach, Chair, BC Round Table on Environment and EconomyMoura Quayle, Landscape Architect, UBC, Member of Vancouver\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Urban Landscape Task ForceDavid Suzuki, Biologist, David Suzuki FoundationBill Woodall, Council Member, Fraser Cheam Regional District310APPENDIX 3.3: TUE QUESTIONNAIREThis appendix contains the questionnaire as I used it for my last 15 interviews. Asexplained in Chapter VI, I improved it slightly over the course of the first interviews by add inquestion 2.4b, and by adjusting the wording of the scales.Also attached is a copy of the brochure which I used for briefing the participants aboutthe EF/ACC concept.311INTERVIEW - QUESTIONNAIRESustainability and Ecological FootprintsThursday, April 7, 1994Mathis Wackernagel, PhD CandidateUBC Centre for Human Settlements2206 East MallVancouver, B.C. CanadaV6T 1Z3tel: (604) 228-9363fax: (604) 822-6164The purpose of this 30 to 45 minutes interview is to explore people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s perception ofthe \u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footprint\u00E2\u0080\u009D as a planning tool for sustainability (see brochure). Thisis part of my PhD research.These interviews should answer two questions:a) is the \u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footprint\u00E2\u0080\u009D concept helpful in understanding the sustainabifitydilemma? And,b) is this concept useful for planning toward sustainability?Participation in these interviews is voluntary. The interviewed persons are free toask questions, withdraw, and/or refuse to answer questions at any time. All theinformation gathered through this interview will remain anonymous: neither namesnor job positions will be mentioned in the research report, apart from listing theinterviewed people in the appendix.If the interviewed person permits, the conversation will be taped. I will provide allparticipants with a summarized transcription of their interview. This will give theman opportunity to eliminate, change, or add comments and statements.312.1. INTERVIEWED PERSON\u00E2\u0080\u0099S PROFILE (10 minutes)1.1 IdentificationName:..Contact address:(for reviewinginterview summary)1.2 Educational BackgroundYour educational background is:()Adn1nctration()Agriculture()Architecture()Arts and Humanities()Biology()Chemistry()Commerce and Business admin.()Computer sciences()Economics()Education()Engineering()Forestry()Healthcare(medicine, dentistry, nursing...)()Human geography()International relations()Landscape architecture()Law()Physical geography()Physical planning()Political science()Religious studies()Services (office, tourism, food...)()Social planning()Social work()Sociology()Technical craftsQOther:(Please expand, if necessary):1.3 Political PerspectiveFor national politics, which of these issues do you think need attention?(3 = very important, 2 = important, 1 = marginally important, 0 = not important at all)( ) Abating pollution( ) Reducing the public debt( ) Supporting art and culture( ) Alleviating poverty( ) Providing daycare( ) Counteracting the economic recession( ) Reducing unemployment( ) Controffing health care costs(Please explain, if necessary):( ) Slowing down resource depletion( ) Reducing income disparity( ) Preserving wilderness( ) Eradicating illiteracy( ) Reducing income taxation( ) Stopping crime( ) Other:_______________________Phone number: (home) (work) \u00E2\u0080\u0094,3L1.4 Familiarity with \u00E2\u0080\u009CSustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D1.4.1 Are you familiar with the term \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainability\u00E2\u0080\u009D? ()Yes ()Barely QNoIf yes:1.42 Have you read books or articles about sustainability? (or have your heard lectures/TVprogrammes etc?) .() Yes ONo(Please name some, if you can):1.4.3 Have you participated in activities towards achieving sustainability? ()Yes ()NoWhich?....1.4.4 Does your personal view on sustainability conflict with ideas and responsibilities atwork? () Yes () Sometimes ()Rarely 0 No(Please explain, if necessary):1.4.5 Have you heard about the \u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footprint\u00E2\u0080\u009D concept before? QYes 0 NoIf yes, where:1.5 Social Situation1.5.1 Sex: ()male ()female1.5.2 Age:1.5.3 Ethnic background or country of origin:1.5.4 Job responsibility and position (Please describe):..1.5.5 Community involvement:_____________________314(2.1.3 if the concept is misunderstood, clarifications by Mathis:).(2) Barely (3) No(2.1.4 Second attempt after oral clarifications:)..2.22.3Do you think nature is being overused? (1) Yes (2) No (X) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know(Please explain., if necessary):Describe what would happen if nature is overharvested year after year?2.4 Maintaining nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s capacity to regenerate and reproduce is a necessary requirement forachieving sustainability.(1) I agree with the statement (2) I disagree with the statementPlease explain your answer:__________________________________________________To become sustainable, industrialized countries need to massively reduce their resourceconsumption.(1) I agree with the statement (2) I disagree with the statementPlease explain your answer:____________________________________________________2.5 Does the Ecological Footprint concept describe the ecological bottom-line accurately?(1) Yes, it is simple, but sufficiently accurate.(2) Yes, but it is rather complex.(3) No, it is too simplistic.(4) No, it is too complex.(5) Other comment:____________________________________________Please explain your answer:____________________________________________________2. QUESTIONS ON THE USEFULNESS OF THE \u00E2\u0080\u009CECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINV CONCEPT(30 minutes)Please read page 1-4 of the \u00E2\u0080\u009CHow Big Is Our Ecological Footprint\u00E2\u0080\u009D brochure.2.1 2.1.1 Does this brochure explain the concept well? (1) Yes2.1.2 Could you explain the concept in one or two sentences?2.6 Considering the enormous public debt, implementing sustainability measures is a luxury thatCanada cannot afford right now.(1) Yes, I agree (2) Yes, I somewhat agree (3) No, I somewhat disagree (4) No, I disagree (X) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowPlease explain your answer:____________________________________________________(4) Not useful\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 planning departments and municipalities as a planning tool?(1) Very useful (2) Useful (3) Marginally useful (4) Not useful\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 political decision-making as a sustainability indicator (similar to the GDP)?(1) Very useful (2) Useful (3) Marginplly useful (4) Not useful\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 students and scholars to generate positive choices for sustainability?(1) Very useful (2) Useful (3) Marginally useful (4) Not useful(X) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know(X) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know(X) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know(X) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know(Please explain, if necessary):2.11 Would you consider using the Ecological Footprint concept during the next year?(1) Yes (2) No (3) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowif you answered \u00E2\u0080\u009Cyes,\u00E2\u0080\u009D what would you use it for?___________________________________2.12 Any other comments?..2.82.92.102.7 How useful do you think the Ecological Footprint concept is for:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the general public to understand the sustainability dilemmas?(1) Very useful (2) Useful (3) Marginally useful\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 individuals to reconsider lifestyle or business decisions?(1) Very useful (2) Useful (3) Marginally useful (4) Not useful (X) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 community activists in their sustainabffity campaigns to make their point more effectively?(1) Very useful (2) Useful (3) Marginally useful (4) Not useful (X) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowEvaluate how reliable the Ecological Footprint concept is.Does the Ecological Footprint concept demonstrate humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s competing demands onnature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity? (1) Absolutely (2) To a large extent (3) Barely (4) Not at all (X) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowWhich essential component(s) are left out by the concept? Please list:____________________In your opinion, can society become sustainable? (1) Yes (2) Maybe (3) No (X) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowif yes, what can society do:_____________________________________________________What can you do?Has this interview changed your perspective on sustainabifity?What have you learnt?316HOW B 16. is ou. fCOtOO.I.Cfl1 fOOTPEIOT?USIAB THE COACEPT DI HPPROPDIBTED CBIIIIIIID8 GflPflC1i 18111llf11suRurt SIISTII[IIBBIUT!i :by \u00E2\u0080\u00A2..1I1.HINIS UJCK[BAHORwith The Task Force on Planning Healthy & Sustainable Communities,The University. of British ColumbiaP. eople depend on nature, which\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 provides a stcady supply of. thebasic requirements for life.Energy is needed for heat and\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 mobility, wood for housing andpaper products, and we need qualityfood and clean water for healthyliving. Through a process called\u00E2\u0080\u009Cphotosynthesis\u00E2\u0080\u009D green plants convert\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 sunlight, carbon dioxide, nutrientsand water intO plaiit matter, and allthe food chainswhichsupport animallife \u00E2\u0080\u0094 including our own \u00E2\u0080\u0094 are based.\u00C3\u00B4n this plant matter. Nature als6absorbs our waste products, and\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 provides life-support services such sclimate stability and protection fromul&a-violet.radiation. Further, natureis a source of joy\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 and. inspiiation.Figure 1 shows how v\u00C3\u00A9y tightlyhuman life is interwoven with. nature,a connection we often forget orignore. Since most of us spend ourlives in cities and\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 consume goodsfrom all over the world, we tend to\u00E2\u0080\u00A2view nature as a :collection ofcommodities or a place \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 forrecreation, rather than the verysource, of our existence;Figure 1: Human life is interwoven with nature/31110111 B 16 IS 01111 fC006IC11L IOOTPRIAT?\u00E2\u0080\u009CTheEcologicalFootprint isthe land thatwould berequired onthis planetIf we\u00E2\u0080\u0099re to continue to havegood living conditions, we mustensure that nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity isn\u00E2\u0080\u0099tused more quickly than it can berenewed, and that waste isn\u00E2\u0080\u0099tdischarged more quickly than naturecan absorb it. \u00E2\u0080\u0098We \u00E2\u0080\u00A2know from theincreasing loss of forests, soil.erosion and contamination, fisherydepletion, loss of species and theaccumulation, of greenhouse gasesthat our current \u00C3\u00A0veruse of nature is\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 compromising our future wellbeing:To find out whether nature\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 provides enough \u00E2\u0080\u009Cresources\u00E2\u0080\u009D to.secure good living conditions foreveryone in a community, the TaskForce on Planning Healthy andSustainable Communities at theUniversity of British Columbia hasdeveloped an ecological accountingtool that uses land area as itsmeasurement unit. Various categoriesof human consumption are translatedinto the areas of productive land?1\u00E2\u0080\u009DE t\u00E2\u0080\u00992Z-required to provide those items.From that, the area of land requiredby a given grpup of people(household, city or country) toprovide its resources and assimilateits waste products can be calculated.This land area is known as theAppropriated Carrying Capacity or,more simply .a.nd graphically, thegroup\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ecological footprint (figure.2). It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s the land that . would berequired on this planet to support ourcurrent lifestyle forever.Our current economy has givenrise to increasing demands whichcompete for dwindling supplies oflife\u00E2\u0080\u0099s basic necessities such as food,clean water,. etc. A group\u00E2\u0080\u0099secological footprint can .be used tomeasure its current consumptionagainst projected requirements andpoint out likely shortfalls. In thisway society as a whole can comparethe choices we need to make in thenear future about our demands onnature \u00E2\u0080\u0094 or else nature will make ourchoices for us. We\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll have to look atissues like long term ecologicalsustainability as they relate to futureoonomic health..Table 1 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2shows the . ecologicalfootprint of an average Canadian,i.e. the amount of land required fromnature to support, each individual\u00E2\u0080\u0099spresent consumption.:This adds up toover\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 4.8 hectares, or area 220metres long .by 220 thetres: wide \u00E2\u0080\u0094:roughly comparable to three cityblocks. The column on the left showsvarious, consumptiOn :categories, andthe, headings across the top showland use categories. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 .\u00E2\u0080\u009CEnergy\u00E2\u0080\u009D as Used in the tablemeans how much land would benecessary for the long term provisionto support.our currentifestyleforevei\u00E2\u0080\u009D\u00E2\u0080\u00991\u00E2\u0080\u0094Figure 2: The Ecological Footprint318.110111 816 IS OUR (GOU6IGR 10.OTPRIBT?of a biological substitute for fossilfuels (coal, oil and natural gas)... \u00E2\u0080\u009CBuilt Environment\u00E2\u0080\u009D means landthat\u00E2\u0080\u0099s no longer avai1b1e fornaturezs production becauseit\u00E2\u0080\u0099s beerpaved over or used for buiIdiig.Examples of what\u00E2\u0080\u0099s included in\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u009CResources in Services\u00E2\u0080\u009D are the fuel\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2needed to heat a hospital, \u00E2\u0080\u0098or theIn figure 3 there\u00E2\u0080\u0099s a comparisonof the ecological footprintsdf various Canadianhouseholds. Vpaper and electricity used to producea bank statement. V\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 To use the table 10 find out howmuch agricultural land is required to Vproduce the average Canadian\u00E2\u0080\u0099s foodfor irstance, you\u00E2\u0080\u0099d read across the\u00E2\u0080\u009CFood\u00E2\u0080\u009D. row to the \u00E2\u0080\u009CAgriculturalLand\u00E2\u0080\u009D column, and find that. 0.9hectares of land jV needed. VTable 1: The ecological footprint of the average Canadian, in bectares per capita.BuiltEnergy Environment\u00E2\u0080\u009CThis addspto 4.8hectares...roughlyV comparableto threecity blocks.\u00E2\u0080\u009DAgriculturalLandForestVTOTAL\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ood . 0.4V\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 0.9\u00E2\u0080\u00A21.3V Housing . 0.5 . 0.1 V VV0.4 1.0Transpoil 1.0 . 0.1VConsumer 0.6 V 0.2 0.2 1.0Goods V VV V VResources VV0.4 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2V0.4in Services V VTOTAL II. 2.9 0.2 1 VII .. 0.6 4.8A B C . 0.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 :. A SINGLE PARENT 1,14TH CHILD - ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE $16,000\u00E2\u0080\u00A2. B: STUDENT LIWNG ALONE - ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPNDITURE $10 \u00E2\u0080\u0098i V VC: AVERAGE CANADIAN FAMILY, 2.72 PEOPLE - ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE $37,000VD PROFESSIONAL COUPLZ NO - ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE $79,000Figure 3 Examples of ecological footprints of various Canadian households in hectares per capita3lIIDIJJ BIG. IS DUB fCO[061C111 IDOTPflIAT?\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ECO-Fouaw .LANV AvAtA(IN t.i&.mn) :Vit.. fL.\u00E2\u0080\u009411 ..Air) ico t5O IoThis means that if everyone onEarth lived like the . averageCanadian, we\u00E2\u0080\u0099d need at least threeEarths to provide all the material andenergy essentials we currently use(figure 5)..-.: ... ...c-LJ-- 4(\\u00E2\u0080\u0094-\u00E2\u0080\u0094 I\u00E2\u0080\u00A2.- -a-. ;--< . VV The ecologically productive landV available to each person on Earth hasdecreased over the last century(figure 4). At the moment there is,on average; 1.6 hectares (about. onecity block), or one-third of the area\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 which each Canadian is currentlyV using .according to table 1: in.contrast, the land appropriated byricher countries, has increased..5. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 %3.E.V. .. a;_- ..IANV VA?Rp?4 V ? C?fl (ic cc\u00C3\u00B4trr.cz)Figure 4: A historical look at the ecologically productive land available to each person and ourV ecological footprints V V.w&dV.need at leastthree VVEarths..\u00E2\u0080\u009D V\u00E2\u0080\u00A214 Figure 5: Wanted - two phantom planets!VV V\u00E2\u0080\u00A2,,V 32011011] 8113 IS OUR fC8LO6ICIIL \u00E2\u0080\u0098fODIPRIAT?If the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s populationcontinUes to grow as anticipated, by:the year. 2030 there will be 10 billion\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 people, .eath of .vhom wil\u00E2\u0080\u00A2l have anaverage \u00E2\u0080\u0098\u00C3\u00B8f only. 0.9 \u00E2\u0080\u0098hectares of.productive land available, assUmingthere\u00E2\u0080\u0099s no further .soil degradation..This\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 shows \u00E2\u0080\u0098the pressure ofpopulation size on natur&s\u00E2\u0080\u0098productivity. .:The numbers become really\u00E2\u0080\u0099 :intr\u00C3\u00A9sti\u00C3\u00B1 when you look at the \u00E2\u0080\u0098land\u00E2\u0080\u0099.area, that people in . North Americaactually us. Figure 6 . shows\u00E2\u0080\u0099 theecological footprint fpr the Lower\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Fraser. Valley, the area east\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ofVancouver; which contains 1.7million people or 4.25 people perhectare. The far smaller thanthat. needed to supply the resourcesfor its\u00E2\u0080\u0099 , population. If the averageCanadian needs 4.8 hectaes asshown in table 1, then the LowerFraser Valley needs an area 20 timeslarger than, what\u00E2\u0080\u0099s actually availablefor \u00E2\u0080\u0098 food, forestry pr\u00C3\u00A0ducts andenergy.Holland has a population of.15million people, or 4.40 people perhectare,. and although Dutch peopleconsume 1ss than Canadians \u00E2\u0080\u0098onaverage, they, still require more \u00E2\u0080\u0098than.15 times the available land for food,\u00E2\u0080\u0099forest .products. and energy; In\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 otherwords, human settlements don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t.-\u00E2\u0080\u0098 affect oniy the area where they\u00E2\u0080\u0099re.built. \u00E2\u0080\u0098. \u00E2\u0080\u0098 .. . \u00E2\u0080\u0098Incrasing density in cities\u00E2\u0080\u0099 canlead to lower .land use \u00E2\u0080\u0098requirements,.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 not only b\u00C3\u00A7cause, of ,a reduotioi in\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2the built envirpnment, \u00E2\u0080\u0098but. \u00E2\u0080\u0098also\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 : because of lifestyles which are less,energy-intensive. For example, .arecent study :of the San Francisco\u00E2\u0080\u009Carea. found that when residential________USA.-PrE 3Figure 6: The ecological footprint for the Lower Fraser Valleydensity was doubled, privatetransportation was reduced by 20 to30 percent. It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s also been shown thatresidential heating requirements anbe reduced significantly if housing isgrouped rather than free-standing.Our challenge is to find a wayto balance human consumption andnature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s limited productivity, ,in order\u00E2\u0080\u009Cto ensure that our communities aresustaixiable locally, regionally andglobally. We don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t \u00E2\u0080\u0098haveS a choice..\u00E2\u0080\u0098aboUt whether to \u00E2\u0080\u0098do\u00E2\u0080\u0099 this, but we can\u00E2\u0080\u00A2choose how we do it. In fact, manypeople concerned with\u00E2\u0080\u0099 these issuesbelieve \u00E2\u0080\u0098that if we. choose \u00E2\u0080\u0098wiselynow, there\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u0098still time for us to makeour communities. more sustainable,IIwI\u00E2\u0080\u009D .I11we\u00E2\u0080\u0098:choosewisely\u00E2\u0080\u0099 no\u00E2\u0080\u0098there \u00E2\u0080\u0098s stilltime...\u00E2\u0080\u009DF.321iiiiiii BIG IS flUB fCO[OfiICff[ IOOTPIIIIIT?\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 and at the same tim improve ourquality of life.requirementssust.ainab le(a) Ecological health. Use nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099sproductivity without damaging it.(b) Community health. Foster socialwellbeing through the promotion offairness, equity and cooperation.(c) Individual health.; Secure food,shelter, health care, education etc.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2for everyone.This means working to integrate\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 environmental, economic and socialpolicies so that economic success,ecological integrity and social health\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 become compatible.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 In order to make .ourcommunities more livable andsustainable we can work towardschange at the personal, urban andcommercial levels.ATHOME WE CAN:start composting. use more energy-efficient light bulbs, shower heads etc:. switch to forms of recreation and tourism which hae a low impacton the environmentgrow.somc of out o\u00E2\u0080\u0099n foodlive closer to work (or the other way around)use bicycles and public transport rather than cars .buy items made or grown locally rather than far awayHouseholds can start byreducing their resource consumption.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 At the urban level we must develop: an infrastructure that leaves options\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 open, rather than one which dictatesV V resource-intensive lifestyles for ourV own and future generations. Alongwith these lifestyle changes, theremust be changes in our economiesCITIES AND TOWNS CAN: Vb plan attractive increased population-Vdensity areas such as town centresand urban villages instead ofaccommodating further sprawl Voffer. living, working and shoppingV spaces in integrated neighbouthoodsV\u00E2\u0080\u0098 reallocate urban space toencourage decreased use of carsV (e.g. reduce road and parking space). VV and increased use of publicV transport, bicycles and walking (e.g.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 build bicycle speedways andattractive pedestrian areas)encourage the planting of trees and\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 V greenspacesestablish urban land-trusts to give.the community more control over\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 land USC Vpromote various kinds of affordablehigh-density housing such assecondary suites and cooperativesintroduce housing constructionguidelines which minimize theconsumption of resources. develop comprehensive wastereduction systems which includemunicipal resource reuse andreduction schemesThis approach differs fromtoday\u00E2\u0080\u0099s global economy whichfavoursurban industrial centres, andrequires the support and involvementof people in each sector of society..We can all make a difference.Influential groups are:Politicians (MPs, MLAs, CityCouncillors, etc), who can initiateV or stipport sustainability programsand projects, particularly Vat theinfrastructure level. They can setup screening processes which willtake V ecological impact intoaccount when assessing a budgetThere are three keyfor developing acommunity:\u00E2\u0080\u009CBuy itemsmade Or.:grownlocallyVrather thanfar away.\u00E2\u0080\u009D322NOW B lOis OUR [COO6IGll1 IOOTPR1IIT?IN DOiNG BUS1IyESS WE CML*. rely on usng locally avaziableresources mthertlian nnported onesand distnbutioi of1ose iesouteessecuxe local ne\u00C3\u00A8ds so ti1ng\u00E2\u0080\u0098termlwclthood of a zegion ca bepntectedthtconpromishelzve1iboods ofother people m otherlegions.diatge the tnze costs for pnvtetransportation, pollution andsuppoit community-based non-casb,volunteer and mhtual aid netwoiksencouzage ecologically .- soundbusmesse.soffertaxbreaks and other incentivesfor encouraging sustainablelifestyles, and tax and agu1ateunsustainable behava\u00C3\u00B8uror project, and they canencourage the use of the \u00C3\u00B6onceptof sustainability by .thegovernment. They can persuadetheir parties to devclop\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 sustainability -strategies, involvethe .. public, and discuss- . the\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 dilemmas being f\u00C3\u00A4\u00C3\u00A0ed. They cansupport community groupsworking towards sustainablesocieties.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Administrators and planners,\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 who., can help politicians write\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 .. appropriate legisl\u00C3\u00A4tio\u00C3\u00B1 and ensure\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 that existing policies -. arefollowe4. They too can involve\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the public, present them with thedilemmas and invite input. Theycan encourage. people to participate in shaping the -future of theircommunity, \u00E2\u0080\u0098and support-and assist\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 community groups- makingpositive contributions to society. -The general public, which is allof us \u00E2\u0080\u0094 possibly the mostimportant group! We can look atour life styles, think about what\u00E2\u0080\u0099simportant to us, and start familyand friends thinking too. Let\u00E2\u0080\u0099s getinvolved and participate in\u00E2\u0080\u00A2community and municipal groups.Write and talk to politicians, at alocal, regional or national level,and let them know we want towork with them to develop ourcommunities sustainably.All of us \u00E2\u0080\u0094 including, politiciansand planners - are consumers ofnature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. productivity. We must worktogether to . achieve\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 a moresustainable way of living now\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 inorder to ensure \u00E2\u0080\u00A2that resourcescontinue to be available not only forourselves, but also -for futuregenerations.\u00E2\u0080\u00A21\u00E2\u0080\u009CWe mustwOrkEogether:..toensure thatresourcescOntinue tobe available...for futuregenerations.\u00E2\u0080\u009D323llOll.[BI 6 IS OUR fCOLll6IGfl IOOTPBIDT?If you\u00E2\u0080\u0099re interested in finding out more about the issues raised in thispamphlet, we suggest the following reading material:General\u00E2\u0080\u009CFor the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy towards Communit\u00C3\u00A7 the Enyironmentand a Sustainable Future\u00E2\u0080\u009D by Herman E Daly and John B Cobb, 1989. BeacOn Press,Boston. .. .\u00E2\u0080\u009CToward Sustainable Communities A Resource Book for Municipal and LocalGovernments\u00E2\u0080\u009D lyV.Mallc Roseland,, 1992. Available free of charge from the NationlRound. Table on the Environment and the Economy, Ottawa -phone (613) 99.2-7189.Ecological FootprinL V V\u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footpnnts and Appropnated Carrying Capacity What Urban Economics\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 . . Leaves. Out\u00E2\u0080\u009D by Bill Rees, 1992. Environment and Urbanization Vol 4, No 2, pages121-130. . . . . . . V*\u00E2\u0080\u009CEcological Footprints and .Appr6priated Canying Capacity: Measuring the Natural\u00E2\u0080\u00A2. Capital R\u00C3\u00A0quirements of the Human Economy\u00E2\u0080\u009D by Bill Rees and Mathis Wackemagel,\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 . V 1993. Forthcoming in Investing in Natural Capital, edited by C Folke, M Hammer, A-M\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 V Jansson and R Constanza. . . .\u00E2\u0080\u009CHow Big is \u00C3\u00A0ur Ecological Footprint? A: Handbook for Estimating a .Communitys\u00E2\u0080\u00A2. Appropriated Carrying Capacity\u00E2\u0080\u009D by MathisWackernagel et al, l993.A discussion draft\u00E2\u0080\u00A2V prepared for the Task Force on Planning Healthy. and Sustainable Communities,\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Vancouver. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 . \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 . . For further information, please contact:V Janette McintOsh, Coordinator . / . .. V\u00E2\u0080\u00A2.. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2. The Task Force Ofl Planning Healthy and Sustainable Communities\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 VVThe University of British Colwnbla V V\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 VV.Department of Family Practice V \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 .5804 Farview Avenue V V\u00E2\u0080\u00A2Vancouver, BC canada V6T 1Z3V\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 phone: (604) 822-436& fax: (604) 822-6950 . VThis pamphlet may be reproduce4 If excerpts are quoted, the source should be creditei\u00E2\u0080\u0099Lt8 Graphics Phil Testemale printed on recycled paper\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 VEditing. & Desktop Publishing: Tim WR1T STUFF V \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 V November 1993.324APPENDIX 3.4: ANSWERS OF THE KEY INFORMANTSThe answers of the participants are organized according to the progression of questionsoutlined in Table 6.1. The first part focuses on the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 interpretation of sustainabilityand the second part addresses the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 acceptance of the EF/ACC tool. The roundbrackets 0 provide the frequency counts of the participants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 answers.1. THE KEY INFORMANTS\u00E2\u0080\u0099 UNDERSTANDING OF \u00E2\u0080\u009CSUSTAINABILITY\u00E2\u0080\u009DDo you think nature is being overused? (question 2.2)(17) Yes (2) No (2) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowadministrators and planners said:Ifind it d/ficult to judge whether nature is being overused on the global level as I have only access to 2nd or3rd hand information. In fact, it is hardfor anybody to know. There are many examples of non-sustainable activities.However, we do not know how to account them.business people and economists said:In some cases we are harvesting faster than what nature can reproduce (and these are the cases where we donot have any property rights, i.e., common properties as witnessed in some fisheries, and in some pollution examples).In other cases we don \u00E2\u0080\u0098t (privatizedfisheries, or where pollution is not common property any more like in some cases inthe US), but of course, there is a great debate about what the impact ofpollution really is.I do not know whether the biomass of the world is harvestedfaster than it regrows. However, some areas arecertainly overused. When Ifly, I can still see huge land-areas that seem unused.Oil and gas is not used sustainably, and we tend to overuse it. France is a great exception. Realizing that theyhave no fossil fuel, they got into producing their electricity through modern nuclear power plants.It is mainly in poverty stricken countries, that biomass is being harvestedfaster than it regrows. Particularly,forests are overused there. I believe that worldwide close to 60 percent of the wood consumed isfirewood. And this hasdevastating effects (e.g., China, Nepal, Brazil, many African countries). Of course, the problem is overpopulation. Inthese countries the population is out of control, and fwe do not deal with that, then all other possible solutions are putinto question.We are \u00E2\u0080\u009Cresource pigs\u00E2\u0080\u009D here in North America as you rightly point out. In industrialized countries we use a largepart of the world\u00E2\u0080\u0099s resources. But that because we are very productive; we can afford to buy and use them.I am not sure that nature needs to be overused. We could use nature a lot more fwe did it differently.community activists said:Knocking down Brazilian jungles and burning offAfrican savannafar exceeds the rate at which these ecosystemsget reestablished. We see what has been done to the codfish on the East coast, and we know what is happening to theforest in many places in BC. It is no longer sustainable at present levels and how to best address this is the d/ficultquestion.325Describe what would happen if nature is overharvested year after year? (question2.3)(15) spontaneously point out human dependence on nature(3) acknowledge human dependence on nature once asked about the potential impact on society(3) avoid talking about human dependence on nature even once askedadministrators and planners said:We \u00E2\u0080\u0098Il be left with a barren wasteland. The Earth surprises me with its resilience, but I do not know how longit can go on to (positively) surprise us. [what is the implication for society?] Diseases and death rates will increase.Earth r carrying capacity will decline, and we will not win this one.To live on the principal rather than on the interest will lead to collapse.It would simply destroy the Earth. As a minimum scenario, this would lead to a decrease in livability \u00E2\u0080\u0094 as amaximum scenario, this could mean that humanity does not survive as a species. Reality would probably be in between.Some small groups might survive and would have to dramatically restructure their way of life.Either nature will correct the situation through starvation, or man will correct the situation.business people and economists said:The price of nature will change. This will change behaviour and lead to a new stable equilibrium.We have barely harnessed wind or solar energy. Ever since the oil crises have tapered off all that research hasdied. And yet, there are enormous potentials. I still have confidence that through a political will and a harnessing ofourcollective wisdom we should be able to do it. ... Maybe nature is able to sustain us and give us a lot more than we givenature credit for. ... The fanning of seaweeds or fish is just one of many, many things that we can do better before wecan claim that nature cannot sustain us any more. I am still an optimist \u00E2\u0080\u0094 maybe naively. But I have not given up onthe human potential to organize themselves.Ifeel that a lot about the ecological issues is wrongly defined. The big question is rather: what will happen withtechnology. I guess I have some faith and am an optimist. We have seen technology more as a threat than as a tool. Inother words, we are mare worried about the damage of new technologies than seeing its potential benefits.The standard of living would fall eventually.Ultimately, this leads to a decrease in the standard of living.You \u00E2\u0080\u009811 have exactly what is happening in the Sahel and other areas. They get overpopulated, they overuse nature,which then leads to social chaos and social destruction. See Kaplan r article (1994). Everybody should read that. That\u00E2\u0080\u0099swhat the world is coming to.Nature will lose its capacity to regenerate itsef And, the 4fe-support systems are compromised. We all wouldbe impoverished.Without any invention or creation, and everything else constant, we arefinished. There is no question about that.The good news is that nothing is ever constant. So we might befinished as a species, but the planet (that is GAlA) willcontinue to live and wilifigure a way to get rid ofus. We human beings are really visitors here. But now we are behavingas we were not integrated. The whole notion ofproperty rights shows this.326community activists said:The codfisherman can no longer earn a living. Few mature trees are left to cut there] and a lot ofpeople aregoing to go hungry if things do not change. People could have to go somewhere else, but it will get harder to find asomewhere else.The quality of life of human beings will diminish in direct proportion to how other organisms are affected.What is happening now: But the public does not clearly understand because of the vastness of this country. ifwe fly over Canada, there is so much land down there, and scarcity can hardly be perceived. But eventually we wouldwitness a social systems break-down, because of lacking food, shelter etc.We are going to suffer degradation and depletion. ifwe take bionwss to its most abused state, then our survivalis very much in doubt. ifpeople understand that? No!We would lose options and abilities necessary for our survival and well-being.We are depleting the system. This might cause a lower level of complexity and the ecosystems will degrade orbust. In other words, the systems that we depend on will fail.It depends for how long and how badly nature is overused. However, in the long-run, this would mean thedestruction of life on Earth (apart from some insects...)Maintaining nature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s capacity to regenerate and reproduce is a necessaryrequfrement for achieving sustainabifity. (question 2.4a)(20) I agree with the statement (1) I disagree with the statementbusiness people and economists said:Whether ecologicalfactors are limitingfactors is questionable: they arejust a reflection ofthe prices. As JulianSimon\u00E2\u0080\u0099s bet with Paul Ehrlich showed quite clearly, the amount of energy we have got and how we produce it, theamount offood we have got and how we produce it are not independent ofhowfar we arefrom ecological sustainability.The finiteness of the resources is dependent on the given prices.The main issue ofsustainability is not so much maintaining nature s capacity, but rather have the appropriatepricing to insure that all costs are internalized.This is a s4fevident truth. However, I also consider nuclear power to be a part of nature, and part of thebalance. Of course, there is always some entropy, but essentially you do need to maintain nature capacity in the longrun.community activists said:As a kid I had an aquarium, and when things got out ofbalance all fish died. The same is true for us. Withoutthe ecology in all forms being roughly intact, human survival is in jeopardy. Of course, we can modfy ecosystems, andthey do not automatically collapse, but essentially, we cannot pave the whole world and not expect to sufferfor it.But this does not mean that everything has to be left untouched.327To become sustainable, industrialized countries need to massively reduce theirresource consumption. (question 2.4b)(14) I agree with the statement (3) I disagree with the statement(4) ala as the question was not included in the first four questionnairesadministrators and planners said:But it has to be qua4fled. If we tell it this way we scare people and they do not want to believe. So we shouldfind examples about what will happen fwe do not act, and how good it could be if we act. At this point, they do notrealize the conundrum.The way we live right now cannot workfor the global ecology. Even fwe in industrialized countries would cutour consumption in haif and the third world would double its consumption, we would still have a problem. Even thougheverybody agrees with Brundtland, I have not seen any consumption in industrialized countries going down. We are allon a treadmill, from which we do not know how to get offYes, in the long run it requires a signflcant change in the way we use resources. Sustainability requires areduction in the amount of resources which we take from nature, but through recycling and reusing we could keep theresource flows within society still on a high level.I think that this is one ofthe scary sentiments or statements that get put out which terrify people or make peoplefeel quite helpless. The reason is that the degree by which we have stepped over the line is quite scary. If we can makechanges that help, asfor example such things as reduce our resource consumption or pollution that would be great. Butwe are just hying to change our thinking about it. So it will take 10 to 20 years until we get to make any truly effectivechanges regarding the amount of resources we use and the extent we deteriorate them. It is similar to smoking. We onlystop once we realize how disgusting it is. Also with smoking, it took a lot of time and people did not anticipate it. [Whenyou say youfeel helpless, do you mean that you do not see choices?] No, a statement like this about the need to massivelyreduce resource consumption sounds like such an overwhelming task that it seems impossible. But when it starts to berephrased in smaller actions and things, such as that we have to reframe our values, seems so much mare manageable.And these are steps that you can startfrom and go somewhere. But otherwise, I think that the statement is good, becauseyou need to open your eyes.We in rich countries are taking more than our share. ... We probably need to reallocate resources andfind newresources such as atomic energy. We have arguably unlimited energy even though I agree that it has some potentialdangers.business people and economists said:The amount offossil fuel is not decreasing but increasing. There is more energy supply available today thanthere was in 1979 when the Federal Government declared a major energy crisis. We have more oil in Canada today thanwe had in 1979. We have mare natural gas by a large amount. Mankind will only find the resources it needs. There isno point in finding oil that we are going to burn in 40 years time. In 200 years, there will still be oil for 40 years, butthe uses will be different. At some point oil will only be used to be put in eye drops because oil will be so expensive. Andenergy will be generated with something we have not even thought of And there is no reason for us to developalternatives or even think about it because this is too far ahead. Higher fossil fuel prices will be an incentive to findalternatives. That is why [Julian] Simon made the bet [with Paul Ehrlich about the future price of resources, and whichEhrlich lost], and he would bet again, and so would I. if we go back 4000 years, the real price of resources have beenfalling. Biophysical scarcity does not have any meaning -- and by the way, food has been mushrooming. There is noquestion that locally, some areas have food problems, but globally, we have huge surpluses offood. And we will evenhave more so, for example, once Ukraine privatises agriculture.The only energy crisis we have is a human energy crisis. If the human beings would do a little but more ratherthan being lazy, this would go a long way [toward sustainability]. ... We fin industrialized countries]just give lip-services328[to sustainability].Of course, some substitution between human-made capital and natural capital would be possible, but completesubstitution is not possible.To be sustainable, consumption ofresources in industrialized countries would have to be reduced. I do not knowwhether the reduction should be massive. However, because we in Canada have been living in a bountifully environment,much is squandered.I do not think that we should conserve justfor the sake of conserving. For example, why should areas of oldgrowth forest be preserved f the trees are going to fall down and rot eventually anyway? Rather, we should use theseareas effectively, efficiently and environmentally responsibly and not wait until the trees decompose on their own. Thesame is true for coal that happens to be located in a park. This coal should not be preserved: it adds nothing to thefunctional ecological integrity of that park and it would not be rational to preserve it jutfor the sake ofpreserving it.Of course, as you rightly pointed out in the brochure, nature is also a source ofjoy and inspiration. Therefore, we shouldkeep virgin parks and intact old growth forests.We in industrialized countries might be doing the rational thing such as control population and higher education.As long as overpopulation is not controlled, there is little hope for sustainabilily. Therefore, developing countries neededucation. Industrialized countries can help to pay for this education and we do it already in a massive way. However,it is extremely tough to change values and basic social conflicts (such as religious conflicts).Yes, but it is a bit more complex. For example, in 2024 fwe are sustainable we will have witnessed a massivereduction in resource consumption. But, as a goal now, the vision would be too narrow, too petty and would becounterproductive. It sounds too moralistic. And it is a negative goal rather than a positive goal. In my experience itworks better to set visions that go beyond a singled out task, so evetybody s energy is on board. So the smaller goal getsachieved without [anybody] even noticing it. [Moral issues and small goals] only end up in pettiness and negative sumgames.Also, we might figure out ways that we can still have the consumption but we could reduce our resourcethroughput. ... The world is not static and there will always be new inventions. The bottom-line is, that reducingconsumption just for a goal in itsdf is not good enough. It also has to be fun. Otherwise it does not lead to health.Sustainability is a qualitative question, not a quantitative one in the first instance. We measure success and can set goalsby using quantitative targets. But I do not believe that sustainability is a quantitative issue.community activists said:if industrialized countries get resources from other places they might be able to cariy on for a while. I do notequate sustainability with drastic reduction in quality of4fe. But quality of4fe is not necessarily connected to resourceconsumption. I believe we have most things too cheaply. And people complain about their tax burden, but they do notrealize how much they use and how cheaply they get eve,ything compared to other areas.I suspect that we do have to. But lam not sure that a reduction in the use of all resources is necessaty. Thereare prioritiesfor some resources. But we should not artificially intrude on reducing resources of which alternatives exist(e.g., copper being replaced by glass).329Considering the enormous public debt, implementing sustainabifity measures is aluxury that Canada cannot afford right now. (question 2.6)(0) Yes, I agree (0) Yes, I somewhat agree (3) No, I somewhat disagree (18) No, I disagree (0) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowadministrators and planners said:If we do not do anything about sustainability, public debt is not going to mean anything. Reducing public debthas to run hand in hand with advancing sustainability (which includes economic, social, and environmental issues). Andfany nation can do it, it is Canada.Prevention is much less expensive and more effective than restoration. But we are reluctant to prevent becauseit costs money now. But preventing is what stewardship is all about.Sustainability is not a luxury.At this point, we cannot afford to give up everything. For example, we could not completely shut down ourresource industry. We have to redirect government toward sustainability. However, this is not done. Government\u00E2\u0080\u0099s pulloutfrom supporting high-tech research is a sign of moving in the wrong direction.The public debt resultsfrom huge unfunded liabilities. The reason is that we never had sustainable programmes:examples are UIC [unemployment benefits] or our infrastructure (water systems). Solving the debtproblem means workingtoward sustainability. They are not opposites. Public debt is the most obvious manifestation of social unsustainability.I do not think it is a luxury. It is a necessity.business people and economists said:The very question contains the answer. The enormous debt is infact thefiscoJ pollution that we are leavingforthe next generation. Why do we expect that the government apparatus that is responsiblefor thatfiscal pollution is goingto solve the problem of other kinds ofpollution? The political process does not care aboutfuture generations; f it didit would not have accumulated this enormous debt. And, as sustainability is about intergenerational equity, themanifestation of deficit and debt accumulation is a positive proof that we should not rely on the government sectorforpromoting sustainability.We cannot not afford it. On the other hand, I think that there is a reality to how much corporations can affordto become more sustainable on their own. Society in general has an obligation, unless we say that we do not care whethercorporate Canada survives.Whether the national debt is in direct competition with sustainability measures is doub(/isl.To continue the rape andpillage ofour resources in order to get rid ofthe public debt will not work. The realityis that ifgovernment decided to deplete our resources only to payfor the debt, ultimately this money would not usedforpaying the debt, but ratherfor other things such as for the padding of our safety net.Since I grew up, the productivity of a farmer has increasedfivefold. This is due to higher yield varieties andbetterfarming techniques (e.g., 2.5 inch tillage rather than 6 inches which allows the soil to retain more moisture, slowsdown erosion and leaching, and conserves tractor energy). Now they produce on a sustainable basis \u00E2\u0080\u0094 when I was youngthey were mining the soil and did not know how to take care of the land. In short, sustainability is not a luxury. ft issomething that we have to try to achieve.community activists said:Inaction is drawing down on the assets that do not even belong to us. So fwe want to know what debt is and330what poverty is we should just keep going on our course.If we cannot afford it right now, when can we? Putting sustainability off is misleading.Sustainabiliry is not a luxury. The public debt is a problem too. Those two issues are not necessarily at odds.In your opinion, can society become sustainable? (question 2.9)(9) Yes (3) Maybe (2) No (4) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (3) Not answeredadministrators and planners said:It seems that there has to be a big crisis beforepeople react. And, the decline ofthe codfishery in Newfoundlandpresents itsdf already as a looming example. Key is education, for adults andfor children. I am glad to see that kidstoday in primary school learn much more about ecology than I did. Also prices have to include the true pollution andresource costs. But how to creole the critical political mass to move society toward sustainability, 1 do not know.We have to talk more about sustainability. Then we have to set goals and objectives with which to guidegovermnent. ... Indeed, there are conflicts between government institutions, as their mandate tells them to achieveopposite ends. ... The limiting factorfor change today is the bleak economic outlook, including the debt and the loss ofjobs. Therefore, we might need economic growth to achieve sustainabiliry. Economic growth could well be in conflict withsustainability, and requires carefid management to avoid this. The money generated liy economic growth shouldconsciously be redirected towards sustainability.Full cost accounting would solve a lot. Unfortunately, there is no commitment to market economy. Maybe, themarket economy does not provide the best ethics, but it is good for allocating resources. Also, it produces predictableand reasonable outcomes.Education is the biggest priority. Also, we need to empower people that they frel that they have a part in it.We have to use more science in our environmental decisions and less emotions.business people and economists said:The task is to getfidl-cost pricing. The struggle for mankind is to recognize where internalization ofcost is notoccurring and cause that to happen. Government could be one instrument for this, but there are lots of other andprobably superior ways of achieving it.The only likely solution to pollution is growth. And anybody who has been to China realizes that they are notgoing to be satisfied with where they are. And, according to Summers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 work, once they get rich enough (and we are notveryfar from that point), they will start to worry about the environment too. ... Trade builds mutual interests. And thisis exactly the instrument that environmentalists want to do away with. This is why environmentalists should befor NAFTA,because it gives a leverage point to make others comply with environmental standards. An example is how Germany hasreacted with boycott threats to the BCforest practices. A lot of what Greenpeace does is regrettable, but they are likethe custodians ofcommon property. Butfirst, you need an affluent society that becomes interested infinancing institutionslike Greenpeace. This will effect an internalization of costs associated with economic growth.The issue is that the individual must take more responsibilityfor his own action and rely less on what governmentcan do for us. I think that is where schooling is required. This schooling must start at early ages and also includelearning about responsible behaviour (such as not to throw waste in the streets that other people then have to pick up).Education is key, and key to education is to realize that individual rights have got to such an extreme that we have331forgotten the fact that there is an individual responsibility too.We need afew more crises. People only react to Chernobyls. The nature ofour society is to respond to crises.1 think people are aware, they just do not know what to do.I grew up in a generation where we believed that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.But now in my older age, I see that the richer are getting richer, but that the poor are getting richer, too. It is not sosimplistic as when I was younger and thought that the poor of the world are going to rise up and create a new socialorder.Vote for the right party. But of course, sustainability does not begin at home. One should do something therewhere each dollar has the highest impact. For example, Greenpian money might be better spent in Brazil than in Canada,not because I worry for the Brazilians, but because that might be the most effective thing I can do to preserve nature(thereby securing thefuture ofmy children). The numbers ofhours needed to save the world are a hell ofa lot more thanwe are going to get by voluntary efforts. Ifyou rely only on voluntary efforts you are not serious about sustainability.Moving towards sustainability will require a lot ofsuffering. And therefore, the best way to reduce the suffering is to getthe biggest effectfor each dollar invested into sustainability.A relatively wealthy society is doing a relatively goadjob already. The poor societies struggle with populationgrowth. Canada is doingfairly well. Most importantfeatures are population control, education and economic incentives.Ifpeople are not charged true costs, they do not react. And it works: you see already some people making some dollarspicking up empty beer cans.Permanently redistribute income, live in an ecologically sustainable way, and try to convince people thatsustainability matters.Western and other wealthy societies must reorient their understanding of needs and wants away frommaterialistic consumerism.Ifthe way we present sustainabiliry intimidates people, looks like a reduced quality oflfe or makes themfrarfid,nobody will want to work towards it. It is like war time that is motivated byfrar. I believe that the human spiritfunctionsalmost naturally from a sustainable basis, and the way we have set up our politics, economics and religion, we havestripped that natural harmony. The accumulation ofgoods and services has almost become a substitute ofwhat is inherentin the human spirit. So, how do we shift back to a psyche of sustainability that is much more joyful, empowering,cooperative which is also more natural.Through havingfun and showing that there are positive choices, and treating sustainability as a process. Andwe have to acknowledge that it is not going to be smooth.community activists said:Key is public understanding. But fyou do not want to wait for a generation, you got to find a way to train theadults. And, they need d[ferent approaches than children. Adults need to be treated as individuals, otherwise they tuneyou out.The challenge is to massively reduce resource consumption in industrialized countries. In terms ofper capitaconsumption we are far beyond what is sustainable. We cannot afford any more to use our resources so wastefully. Wehave to be much more careful.If we oil start to deal with it, it will be possible. We have to talk a lot about it. We have also to include themedia, even though they are reluctant.332I have changed my tramp oflfe, which needs time. The current pace of life really makes it more dfflcult. Butsince I bicycle [to work] Ifeel much more connected and come here relaxed and in tune. Before with the car, I alwaysfit disconnected. These changes improved my quality of i!fe.The constant challenge is tofigure out how to cause people to understand that this is something important. Andin what other ways can you do it thanface to face. I actually call this the \u00E2\u0080\u009CBack Fence Revolution,\u00E2\u0080\u009D one person tellinganother person, telling another person etc. Schools are particularly key.Any righteousness that rubs people out ofthe picture is counter-productive. Time and money have to be allocatedfor this profound change. People cannot be rushed. They have to understandfirst why. The logical consequences haveto be explained. People have to realize how much it will cost and how it will affect their lives if we stay on today\u00E2\u0080\u0099scourse. We do not have to look at Africa: California is a good case study. ... But we cannot do it by saying it is too late.Ifyou want action you have to inspire people to take it because it matters, otherwise they \u00E2\u0080\u009Cenjoy the party but dance nearthe door...\u00E2\u0080\u009D We have to gain focus and develop timetables. Otherwise we feed into knee-jerk reactions.Local governments need to think about the sustainabilily priorities. They need to beprepared to legislate change.For example preventing sprawl through urban containment boundaries. Remove subsidies for cars, and transfer roadsubsidy to mass transit. Urban containment would force new design.Live the exampleThere are thousands of thing that society could do (if it wanted).Hopefully we can improve society a bit that the muddling can continue for a while. However, fundamentally,I believe that deep ecologists are right. Needed change is so radical in the extreme (or revolutionary) that it is not goingto happen. There is no sufficient public willingness to change. We cannot make sufficient changes without enonnousupheavals.on social denial:I do not think that right now the public understands the challenges in any meaningful way. When they came outwith these concepts such as The Population Bomb 20 years ago, I think that this idea got enough exposure that peoplestarted to realize that a huge number ofpeople could suddenly be around. And that concept needs to be used (or someof its marketing methods) to bring these other ideas into real focus. There was some reverse learning we went throughin the oil crisis. So people are left confused, and the crisis seems not real.I have thought about [social denial] for the last 30 years. Once we realize that we are in trouble there areessentially 3 possible reactions:a) tuning out and denying the crisis;b) believing that nothing can be done, withdraw from society and live one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s own 4fe; orc) saying I do not know whether we can turn it around, but there is no choice. So, let\u00E2\u0080\u0099s at least try.\u00E2\u0080\u009DI know that sustainability is not going to be achieved in my lifetime. But it has always been the case that people whoacted upon a long-term vision have been able to get things going.The worst thing about social denial is TV Itfragments people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s experiences and understanding, discounts anysense of time and disconnects them from their surrounding.If there was one thing that would do most for sustainabiliry, it is to turn off the TV ... TV gives an illusion ofconnection, but alienates. ... By pretending that ljfe can be lived like on TV is debilitating. ... Similarly, in human rightsviolations or environmental abuse, the more disconnected (e.g., through TV) you are, the easier it is to abuse.333In particular, it is dflIcult to change adults, because they have invested so much in what they are (physically,and emotionally). Children are more flexible and are not yet entrenched in a path, but they have no status and no power.The vulnerable point is the parent r lovefor their children. And if they do not love their children, then it is pretty dismal.They need to understand that by living the way we live right now they deny their children aflaure.We need good tools to make points clearly. For example, ... in the Arbutus land, I see how intelligent and wellinformed people interpret the GYRD livability report to promote unsustainable lifestyles. I think that this GYRD reportis therefore even counterproductive.There is only an uneasiness in the population, but not a clear understanding that we need to change. We alwaysmean other people but never us. Often people only want to see the population crisis and point their fingers atimmigration. And this is just a cheap and dirty trick.Everybody can see that cars are a problem. But people do not know how to give them up. We need alternativetransportation policies such as tolls or inconveniencesfor personal cars. But the problem is that not even the advocatesfor this change have changed. For example many advocates live on the Gs4f Islands and want theirferries subsidized.There are lots of barriers to change, and they would be simple enough like living in a denser area close to work.Withstanding thefact that I work towards [sustainability], lam not convinced that we can [achieve it]. However,I am not yet ready to abandon thefield. So, why do I \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwaste\u00E2\u0080\u009D so much time and energy on these issues? Perhaps I mightjokingly say that I have a religious, missionary drive. Or, it is the hope and expectations when you come to certainconclusions that you can pass those on, for which missionaries get in trouble too, I suppose. Or, sheer orneriness. And,this shows the acceptance that not a whole lot ofpeople are going to agree with you. ... I guessfor the most part, peopleare motivated by fear and immediate necessities. What ever it is, long-tenn considerations make a lot of peopleuncomfortable. ... [Seifconfidence] is absolutely afactor ffor overcoming social denial]. You can impose some pressureon yours4f and are not that exposed to the pressure to consume. It is important to get a public acceptance of thechallenges.2. THE KEY INFORMANTS\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ACCEPTANCE OF THE EF/ACC CONCEPTDoes this brochure explain the concept well? (question 2.1.1)(18) Yes (0) Barely (0) No (3) Question not askedadministrators and planners said:It is well presented, and I like the graphics which I have usedfor overheads myseif The brochure gives moresubstance to the concept and gives some scientific basis to it.I like the brochure because the language is simple, the diagrams are good, it includes a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhat to do\u00E2\u0080\u009D section,and is not academic in its style. It is goodfor a community or a political audience. Planners might prefer more detail.The brochure is good andfairly accessible to people. But my mother would not pick it up because it is too much.Perhaps reshaping it to a similarformat as the GVRD brochures might help where every page would be complete in itsdf(because people frel that they can stop somewhere or they can read backwards as many people do). Or, adopt anewspaper style where the most important stuff is on the front page and some juicy things (like the horoscope) on theback. To popularize it more, you would need to market it, and have songs etc.Ifrel that the brochure is about the right length. Any longer, and nobody would read it. But if it was only onepage you could not get your point across.334business people and economists said:I have indicated that some ofyour theories such as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbuy items made or grown locally rather than far away\u00E2\u0080\u009Drepresents the kind of thinking that moves us away from finding a solution. This disintegrates rather than integratescommunities. ifyou want the Mexicans to clean up their environment, trade with them, and then use that trade as aleverage point to make them clean up their environment.Let me comment on some points in the brochure s section on In doing business we can...:Gain local control sounds good, but can be silly. This usually means control certainjobs in the local community,even though this might be the most irrational way to produce [resources].Secure local needs: this has a local planning bias, which is understandable with your academic background.But this can become quite silly again. Maybe local needs should not be secured. Maybe local communities should bewound up and absorbed in a larger and more sophisticated urban community. ... It does not work that we putunproductive regions on w4fare programmes as done in Eastern Quebec and most of the Maritimes.CharEe the true costs: but you should make clear that this does not only refrr to business but also to householdswho cause the largest part of the air pollution problems through car use, for example.In figure 3, this incredible large Footprint ofthe professional couple bothered me. My wife and I happen to besuch a couple. But this relationship makes no sense and the assumptions are not obvious. This could be very misleading,becausefor example, we put mostly energy efficient appliances in our house etc. ifyou assume thai they are yuppies withbig houses and big cars, and drive to Whistler every weekend etc., I guess you are right, but I guess you wouldfind alsothat yuppies are very ecology conscious. Therefore, this aggregation in figure 3 illustrates what I call the abuse of amodel. By simp4fying so much, you also exaggerate and perhaps ultimately misrepresent the case.Apart from the map, that shows the coast as an edge (as f we had c4[fs..), I like the graphics, also for theircharacter. They are not too childish, I like their humour. The bar graph does not need to be three dimensional. For ananalytical mind, it makes the cross comparisons more d[ftcult. The language is, as I can remember, at the right pitch.One way we can achieve [sustainability] is by putting this quantifiable stuffoutfor people to see. This [brochure]shows me right away in a quantifiable form what I intuitively know. That is the bridge and that \u00E2\u0080\u0098.s exciting.The brochure might improve fyou start with a sustainability definition. It isfundamental to keep rememberingthat moving toward sustainabiliry does not have to be hard or painful, or that it necessarily has to be a trade-off It isnot about denial of somebody\u00E2\u0080\u0099s needs. Somewhere, fpossible you should show in the brochure that it is challenging,exciting, and laudable. Now there is a certain sexiness about an expensive 4festyle that going without just does not have.In our culture (with our idols), we seem to link an expensive ljfestyle with being \u00E2\u0080\u009Creally cool.\u00E2\u0080\u009DThe brochure does not give people the fueling that you understand their problem. For example, by saying thatpeople should live closer to where they work might notfeel like a possible choice to them. The brochure should say: \u00E2\u0080\u009Cweknow that housing is expensive and that you have to drive sometimes\u00E2\u0080\u009D in order not to alienate these people. One thingthat could move us more toward sustainability would be through changes in the workplace. So for example people couldstart to work more from their home. We have to integrate what we do at home, at work and in the community. But, thesebridges have not been built yet. ... People need a positive vision ofwhere to go, but they do not have to get there today.We must take one step a time to move towards sustainabiliry.community activists said:The abstractfigures have to be translated into some visual statistics. The map onfigure 6 might be too abstract.It should illustrate energy, food andforestiy. It should speak to an 8 year old. Figure 4 (the historical trends) andfigure5 (wanted: two other planets) are attractive enough to make my eye look at them. It is important to have some varietyin the brochure, because different people like different things.To make it mare attractive use more pictures and less words. The style of the pictures is good; computer335graphics would rather put me off ... Many people who are on boards and councils might be in awe of computers, butmany are not particularly impressed. It is like advertising: advertising with names like Ca4fornia or New York puts meoff entirely. So I think your line drawings are fine. Tables are too academic. Figure 3 is better for me than table 1.Perhaps you should show how many Canadian Footprints couldfit into Stanley Park. Also, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cembodied\u00E2\u0080\u009D energy might betoo complex and needs more explaining. But it is an essential concept. Uncovering real costs and connections is veryvaluable.The problem is that people do not read. Putting out a brochure such as this one is all based on the assumptionthat people act rationally. But this is not the case.ft is in plain English and uses a minimum ofjargon. Also, the comparisons are helpful (like for examplecomparing 4.8 hectares to three city blocks). Furthermore, explaining the categories of consumption and land-uses isimportant to understand on what parts of the ecology we depend. I also like figure 3, that starts to look at the dfferentimpact of different kinds ofpeople.Perhaps it is good to leave a high density city on the Footprint picture in order not to alienate people who ownsub-urban sprawl houses. Perhaps the best would be to add highways and skyscrapers (like in Metropolis).The brochure is not confusing at all. The only problem with written material is that people are not reading anymore. So it does visually not inform as quickly as it ought to. On the technical level, some of the words are still toocomplex. It should be at about grade 8 level. The paragraphs are too long. Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t use blockform because people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s eyesget tired and just run down the margins. More white space is necessary. Graphics are not used well enough toconcentrate the central message. Graphics need to be very clear. The three planetsfor example, are not clear at all: itleads the mind to fantasy.Some people are too busy to read, so they just read the marginal notes. And they need to be more visible. Agood example ofsuch communication is the anti-Greenpeace add ofMacMillan Bloedel. With bullets and lots of blankspace, they list facts and draw a simple conclusion. And this is very effective and powerful. Use bullets as much as youcan.At this point, the brochure looks like more stuff or literature. It does not help to get people anywhere. Forcatching people y attention, focus on the central thought. Perhaps two pages would be good enough, fthe \u00E2\u0080\u009CMacMillan\u00E2\u0080\u009Dstyle is adopted.ft might also be a good idea to develop such papers for d!fferent sectors and adapt them to their language.Municipal council members, for example, want sophisticated publications to please their ego (they should be called\u00E2\u0080\u009Cexecutive reports\u00E2\u0080\u009D). And the graphics which are used right now are too unsophisticated (perhaps you might want toconsider computer graphics). And the only thing they would read would be margin notes. For council members, it hasto look executive like and must avoid looking childish. On the back page, there should be actions that could be takenimmediately. The actions described in the current brochure are on the right level ofsophistication. And then refer to otheravailable documents for the dfferent audiences (planning departments, neighbourhood groups, etc.)The Naturalists might think that this isfar too simplistic. But because they use complex terms, they have neverbeen able to effectively connect with the local politicians.For me it seems simple, probably because of my education and background. Graphics help to make it simpleand accurate. Even without reading the text, the brochure would be helpful.It covers the issues really well, is action oriented (which is rather rare in academics), and examples makeconcept useful and vice versa.336Does the Ecological Footprint concept describe the ecological bottom-line accurately?(question 2.5)(15) Yes, it is simple, but sufficiently accurate.(2) Yes, but it is rather complex.(0) No, it is too simplistic.(0) No, it is too complex.(2) Other comment: the concept seems simple, but the application might be complex; the concept is misleading.(2) Not answered.administrators and planners said:The presentation of the concept seems simple, but I guess the derivation is not as simple and there are alwayserrorfactors. And this has to be made known in the Footprint presentation. It is a good concept, but there might be anumber of other ways to present the dilemma.More or less. I would have to see a much more involved analysis. But I would say that you are going in the rightdirection. I would not say that it is too complex, because you could go on ad infinitum, with all these computer models.Concentrating on individual organisms or details always leads to an rationalization of incremental habitat destruction.1 think it does. My concern is more about how to use it. And the current applications (or the table/matrix in thebrochure) do not tell how accurate it is.Even f the gathered information is not completely accurate, exploring these issues is meaningful. ... It assistscommon sense logic and is necessaiy to stimulate discussion and understanding of complex issues. Complete accuracyis not necessary.It works really well. It is a really good concept. For me, where I have always lost it is when I have to applythat concept mysdfand I am responsible for acting on it. ... Reading about it and understanding it reinforced my beliefand helped me to fill it out and make it more manageable for me. But I think you have to believe in it to use it. Ifyoudo not you would just be left with it and would not know where to go from here. [In which way do you not know howto apply the concept?] I think the concept tries to deal with the whole giant issue of sustainabiliry. When I think of theEcological Footprint, I think about me taking up so much space. So the jump is: how do I make my Footprint smaller.The brochure has other pieces of information in it that help to bring the concept home. But generally the situation getsso co,fusing for people because they do not know which actions are useful for the environment: for example the medianow reports only on how all the collected recycled materials from the blue-box programme are not being recycled andthat the municipalities do not know where to put all that stuff So people thought that they would do good, but now theythink it was in vain, and they are confused.Ifrel that the Footprint concept is quite intuitive, in the sense that fI would do something I think I would knowwhat its sustainabiliry impact is and probably also in which direction the Footprint would go, but not in a numericalsense. The concept is good because it helps structure the problem (even without knowing or applying all the details). And,the more speqftc Footprint tools that are lacking are those by definition which will have to be identified by the users,so you cannot come up with a definitive set of tools.I thought the Footprint was interesting and a novel approach to resource allocation.business people and economists said:The tool is very badly flawed. The brochure communicates very well, but is very misleading: it conveys a senseof relationship between people and ecology which is highly misleading and, I think, is dangerous. First it does not takeinto account new prices and new technology. How much nature is used is not relevant. Ifpeople see this Footprintconcept, they might think that we need this land right here in the Fraser Valley to growfood on. Thefact of the matteris that we do not need any land to growfood on. In fact, we should grow zerofood in the Fraser Valley because the land337is too valuable, and should be used for housing \u00E2\u0080\u0094 and I know that from looking at the prices: housing prices haveincreased, and food prices have decreased. [Second], we have got a surplus offood. Therefore, the whole Footprintconcept is misleading fpeople start to follow the Footprint rather than the prices. And the supply of all these things isnotfinite. it is countably infinite and responsive to pricing. The Ecological Footprint is the shadow ofPaul Ehrlich. Theworld is not physically finite: the mathematical theory offractal analysis has shown that \u00E2\u0080\u0098finite\u00E2\u0080\u009D has no conceptualmeaning any more, particularly as resources are concerned.It is a good beginning. The concept is an interestingfirst cut. it quantifies a lot ofissues that were kind of vaguein my mind. Any research or statement about knowledge [you need to] simplify when you communicate. So, somebodycan always say that it is too simp4fied. We are always in search oftruth. But that is elusive. We are just seeing one sliceof reality and say this is one possible vision of it. As long as thai is made clear, I do not have a problem with it.Judging impacts is always djfflcult due to indirect effects. Ifwe can apply a systems approach towards analysisofproblems, sometimes we make an a priori judgement on where the boundaries ofthat system are and then we analyze.But maybe, the a priori assumptions on the boundaries of our system were not accurate.The concept is ok, but measurements would be rather unreliable. It does not include labour, and it ignores the role ofwater. It should demonstrate that land and water can be competitors. But how would we compare Calfornia (which lackswater) with Bangladesh (where water is in surplus with all the floods)?The sheer number of the Ecological Footprint is only of shock value, but to become meaningfid it has to becompared to something. And this comparison could run into dfflcult measurement problems. Statistical difficulties formeasuring the concept are overwhelming. It is not obvious what should be measured. This is similar to the problem thatpeople face in economics when measuring the value of women \u00E2\u0080\u0098s\u00E2\u0080\u0099 work in the house, or biological diversity. There is along history ofresource accounting (e.g., the technocracy movement), but by translating everything into land-use the levelofabstraction in this accounting procedure is even one level higher than in energy accounting. Also, the quality ofsuchaccounting has not a very goad track record. For example, the poor assessment of agricultural land is frightening.The Footprint is only one way of assessing ecological sustainability.It is a useful concept. But there is potentialfor misunderstanding. Also, as some of the issues mentioned in thebrochure are counter-intuitive, this suggests to me that there is a bias behind the model. However, overall it seems tobe useful. Imagery is always helpful.One assumption that should be stated is that these 4.8 hectares per capita are industrially used, productiveareas. And please remember, only 40 percent of the land area in BC is productive, 30 percentage points of this 40percent are productive forest areas. Only 10 percent of BC land can be used for agriculture (and is also usedforhousing and infrastructure). Another asswnption which is not clearly stated concerns the calculation ofthe land areaforenergy. It seems counter-intuitive to me that you seem to advocate biomo.ss energy. This would increase the pressure onforests. To keep the forests healthy, a goad percentage of the forest biomass should be left on the forest floor todecompose and build the humus for the next generation of trees.It is always the assumptions that make people doubt the model. Therefore, it is important to accompany suchstudies with a clear discussion of the assumptions, and a sensitivity analysis with alternate assumptions.Other people argue against the Ecological Footprint concept by saying that:\u00E2\u0080\u009Cof course we are going to use resources from outside our political boundaries. This might also beecologically more sensitive, because otherwise we would manage our resources too intensively andhave a negative ecological impact.\u00E2\u0080\u009DWhat they miss is that in total, there is not enough available, given the size ofour current Footprints. Probably, to makethe brochure more effective, you should address this issue to preempt this critique that seems to come up all the time.338community activists said:This is something I am not totally clear on. Whether you can make these inductive leaps as illustrated by yourtable, 1 do not know and I cannotfollow. There is a direct relationship between the use of the land and what the landwill produce. And to people who live on the 42ndfloor ofa high-rise building, that directness can be lost. Jam soundlyin favour of any way top real values onto concepts so that they become understandable to people. Similarly, to makethings more real, we should ask ourselves: how many hours do we have to work to get this, rather than getting stuck withnominal dollar values. This Footprint concept graphically represents the impacts in a way that the average person canunderstand. That\u00E2\u0080\u0099s where the value of this concept lies and I think it is of considerable value. Also the term \u00E2\u0080\u009CFootprint\u00E2\u0080\u009Disfainiliar because it is used in many other contexts such as buildingfootprints. So, when I read through your brochure,I thought that this is a public education tool. And this is apparently quite usefid. And what I would emphasize is thatcolumns and graphs have not nearly the impact with the general public and the tax payers who are notfamiliar with theissue. Making difficult concepts understandable to the average guy in the street is very important.I do not feel that hwnan knowledge is adequate to understand ecology, and it probably never will be. Forexample, f you just take one teaspoon of soil, 1000 scientists could spend all their lives trying to figure out thiscommunity of living beings, and they would never understand it. ... The Ecological Footprint concept is great, but youshould emphasize the state of ignorance, and that we cannot filly know how ecosystems work. I have problems withpeople who want to computer-model these interactions, and simulate or backcast ecological behaviour. We have to behumble and acknowledge our ignorance.Sustainability is a complex issue. But if it is not explained simply enough, the audience will be lost. Thebrochure startsfrom the constraints and then explores what to do. So, it becomes not gloomy, but empowering. It is animportant start.The concept is good. Maybe you do not even want to use the term carrying capacity because it is too academic.The chambers of commerce are afraid if a cut down in resource consumption is advocated (essentially, thiswould be identified as a convnunist plot). But the Ecological Footprint putsforward this imperative in a non-frighteningway.The accuracy depends on the application. I found it an excellent metaphor. When you talk about carryingcapacity you have a lot of trouble describing that. The Footprint gets through the concept ofcarrying capacity and doesit in an unambiguous and effective manner. I quite like it from that point of view. It is not particularly simple, butaccurate for the context it is used for.Evaluate how reliable the Ecological Footprint concept is. (question 2.8)Does the Ecological Footprint concept demonstrate humanity\u00E2\u0080\u0099s competing demands onnature\u00E2\u0080\u0099s productivity?(8) Absolutely (6) To a large extent (1) Barely (1) Not at all (5) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowadministrators and planners said:I think it demonstrates the competing demands, however, it does not address the ability ofsociety to accept anew idea.The concept seems quite general, so probably a lot of things are left out. At this point, it includes more ofthesespacial things that are more measurable.It does not address how to motivate people. Also, the problem of loss of biodiversity is not well represented.339The Ecological Footprint is a common currency: not dollars but acreage. It is inevitable that certain aspectscannot be quantzfied. But this does not matter, because it is an educational and analytical tool, not a regulatory one.Similarly, not everything can be reduced to money either.The d/ficulty is that when you start to change the variables then it has an impact somewhere else. So itdemonstrates the systemic effects. It demonstrates very clearly these competing demands. ... To make the tool effectiveit should notfocus so much on the global scale but also translate it to the small scale of everyday life. Anyhow, the bigscale is only usefidfor decision-making oflarge-scale government bodies. But sustainability has to come from the bottomup, otherwise people will resist it rather than support it.It depends on the application. It is probably not enough for decision-making regarding development. It is verymuch a global approach and you also have to look at the local social, environmental and economic situation.business people and economists said:Environmentalists are a product of affluence. There are no environmentalists springing up in the Amazon.Environmentalists declare that Canada should not grow any more and even China should not grow any more (while weshould share what we have with them). If this came true, this would reduce the yearly income of Canadians to about$800. And at that income level nobody would have the slightest interest in preserving environmental amenities.Well, I do not understand the concept yet. I understand the global context, but I am not sure how exactly it isapplied and what it includes, or how you get to these 4.8 hectares per capita. You show a correlation between incomeand Footprint. Have you found any reversible trends?It is only a base number. As a concept it is ok, but not in the way it is translated into numbers. For example,water use is not incorporated effectively. Historical comparisons are difficult. Also comparison ofindustrial 4festyles withsubsistence 4festyles might not be possible in a meaningful way. For example, what is the Footprint of innuit people inthe North West Territories as compared to South Canadians.If the Footprint is used in the public domain, it will suffer from the same problems as cost-benefit analysis. Ifa politician does not like the conclusion, then some assumptions will be attacked thereby killing the whole analysis.I have the freling that the concept (as any other one) could be misused to legitimize some wrong decisions. But I cannotthink ofany right now. But I would love to hear your thesis defrnce, and I am sure that some examiners would come upwith challenging questions I did not think of before.I would have to read the concept more carefully to understand how consumption is translated into a land-use.Also pollution aspect is not yet incorporated. Perhaps you might want to expand your concept into the 3rd dimension (byincluding the entire biosphere) rather than restrict yoursef to land.Tools like this [Ecological Footprint concept] might be needed to catalyze this process where people couldactually see the impact, but notfrom the perspective that they are doing something wrong or bad. It should show thatthis is how the system is set up, and we are born into it. And we were told that we could consume like this. In fact, itwas desirable [for the economy]. So [people] are not wrong, it isjust not working they way we thought it should workin the 1940 and 195O.The graph on the professional couple without children isfascinating. But to work towards sustainability requiresthat we work toward a greater standard of living for everyone. I do not believe that sustainability is about taking thislimited pie and just dividing it up more evenly. When you get the cognitive motivation from a joyful point towardsustainability, the creativity that arises from that is phenomenal. So you can in fact expand the material productivepotential of this planet without necessarily depleting resources in the process. The psychological mind-set of a culturefrom a positive and not-fear based perspective is that the wealth (and not only the material one but also well-being,340psychological and spiritual and physical) generatedfrom that is so significant that it will transform what we produce,how we produce and who gets it. I really do see sustainabilily about alleviatingpoverty and expanding the level ofwealthand well-being.The model is static rather than dynamic. ft does not explicitly address issues of water and air, or ozonedepletion.ft all depends on the assumptions stated and whether alternate assumptions are tested.community activists said:It is one method to show that we are not here alone. Yes 1 agree, fsomething comesfrom Indonesia, it is usedby us and cannot be used by them.Such a tool is so crude, and we know so little. So we should not take models too seriously. There might beseveral other ways to approach this, too. Two major things that are left out are the social conditions, and mostimportantly the .spiritual part.I have a bias towards wanting to make connections between the people and their land. Therefore, I welcomeany tool that can help doing that. This is necessary that people realize that they should be stewards of the land. I wouldlike to see more debate about the rights and duties of citizenship towards land.The essential thing that is left out by the Footprint concept are not the present capabilities of the land but itsactual uses, such as the existingflora andfauna, and the benefits that accrue from that biological diversity.Reliability is not necessarily an issue for the Footprint concept. And 1 am always sceptical of largecomprehensive models, because the world is much more complex. Humility with ones tools is always important. And ofcourse, there are very large generalizations there. By definition, demonstrating competing demands on nature is at bestan estimate. IThe Ecological Footprint] sets the global imperative very well, but for regional planning it just sets theimperative, but does not tell how to do it. The Footprint only works to evaluate, or show people why certain solutionsmight not be that good after all from a global perspective. But it is a very elegant tool to demonstrate excessiveconsumption. However, I had dfficulties using this tool at a regional scale, except to lay out the imperative to change.On the dry level [ecological thinking? becomes very basic: does it protect biodiversiry?, does it protect the capacityof ecosystems to continue to be sdf.organized and complex? Those two principles I use a lot in these situation, and theFootprint does not address these issues effectively. ... It is to help the acceptance ofan approach, but once it is acceptedthere are other tools that are more effective.My concern is that the enormity of the implications cannot be grasped by many people. In fact, the toolillustrates how everything is connected. This concept is extremely important but breathtaking and scary. It also allowspeople to start at any point, but to grasp its entirety might be hard.How useful do you think the Ecological Footprint concept is for:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 the general public to understand the sustainability dilemmas? (question 2.7a)(14.5) Very useful (4.5 ) Useful (0) Marginally useful (0) Not useful (1) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (1) positively harmfuladministrators and planners said:Does not deal with the motivation of the individual. Money is a big motivator. If resources were priced marefairly and included externalities such as pollution costs and the true value of resources, then the behaviour ofpeoplewould become more sustainable.341business people and economists said:It is a difficult concept and has to be explained all the time. But this might be good: it becomes a good conversation pieceto talk about sustainabilily measures. Many measurements are quite shaky, but they open opportunities for publicdiscussion on that particular topic.It is very useful, but it can be very misleading when used by propagandists who do not explain their assumptions.We develop measurements when we find that it is a nice way to provide a shorthand. An example is the use ofmathematics, or any measurement units such as yards and inches. And I think that this [Ecological Footprint] is ameasurement tool to very effectively accomplish something that we are trying to show.community activists said:It is essential. If the general public does not understand it, they will not buy it. If the general public had a realgrasp ofwhat the public debt means and what it is costing them, they would be beating on the doors ofevery governmentoffice in the country. And even ifit meant tightening their belts, and they really understood, they would absolutely insiston it. And that is equally true for the ecological debt, forestry and other issues.If the audience is interested in hying to understand these issues, this tool is the best that has come along so far.But I despair about how many people are interested. It is a particularly helpful tool because it reaches out to people,particularly through the use of graphics. It is more accessible than anything that I have seen. The format is great; thecartoons (such as the foot with the city on top) or the tables really help.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 individuals to reconsider lifestyle or business decisions? (question 2.7b)(5) Very useful (10) Useful (4) Marginally useful (0) Not useful (1) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (1) positively harmfulBut it is very difficult to influence individuals to do anything without some economic coercion. However, fyouare raised with a certain mentality, you do continue with it (i.e., composting).Businesses have a lot of ability to discount the need to move toward sustainability, and therefore I see theEcological Footprint at this point for this task only moderately useful. That is the highest you can hopefor at this stage.All the same it is a good tool.The greater the body using this, the greater ability these bodies have to capture the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cspill over effects\u00E2\u0080\u009D orexternalities, and therefore the more useful the tool. For example, private business still thinks that it only has to worryabout its bottom line and cannot do anything to affect something else out there. So they cannot understand the benefitof such a tool.It depends on how much people buy into the Footprint concept.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 community activists in their sustainability campaigns to make their point moreeffectively? (question 2.7c)(13) Very useful (5) Useful (1) Marginally useful (0) Not useful (1) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (1) positively harmfulThis Ecological Footprint is nothing but a doomsday scenario. If Greenpeace uses this and gets people reallyupset and was really effective in getting people to cut their consumption to $800 a year, as David Suzuki seems to think,the end result would be total calamity. People need to read what it was like when the average income in the world was$800.342IfI had a particular ae to grind, I would show how my issues would impact other people at otherplaces. Thisgoes towards real cost accounting, and that is what the Footprint is all about. It has to come back to publicunderstanding, and that is key.This concept can also be misused. It is not the only answer. Particularly, to assume that everybody here inCanada should only consume on the world average level does not work. There is no absolute standard. Population growthbecomes a vicious circle. We in Canada should not change our lfeslyles just because other populations are growing atafost pace. Otherwise they wilijust outgrow our sustainability gains. However, it would be a positive step, if we couldreduce our Footprint by being more knowledgeable about what we do.Probably, this tool is very usefulfor community activists. However, they are the ones who can most abuse thisconcept by oversimp4fying the issues, or not declaring their assumptions.It depends on the message being presented. For example for me, it only gives me marginally more leverage inmy work, even though it is complementary to what I do. [In my work], we start already from the assumption that theFootprint addresses. In my particular work, it does not add any new emphasis to it. It is a nice to have it in the backpocket to pull out useful metaphors to make the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cglobal over-consumption\u00E2\u0080\u009D argument.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 planning departments and municipalities as a planning tool? (question 2.7d)(10.5) Very useful (4) Useful (2.5) Marginally useful (2) Not useful (1) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (1) positively harmfuladministrators and planners said:We are on a slippery slope, and today there seems to be no interest in planningfor sustainability. If they wereconcerned about our future and our children\u00E2\u0080\u0099s future it would be very useful, but in the current conditions, it ismarginally useful.It has potential to be useful, but I would like to see first some more applications.This tool is not very helpful for local planning. Perhaps, I might use it internally to win an argument. But itcannot be incorporated in OCPs. ... The Ecological Footprint is helpful for global education, but the GVRD conceptsofenvironmental management and regional management are more helpful when planning at the at the local level. It mightbe that the Ecological Footprint can get further developedfor municipal applications. But at this point, I cannot see itsspecific relevance for municipalities.Municipal planning is related to land-use or to management of the land. Therefore, the Ecological Footprintis not specially useful as it also includes other land than that immediately within the municipal boundaries (e.g the fossilfuel use as a land component of the Ecological Footprint). But, it helps as a background orientation.The concept seems to be ok on an issue to issue basis, but for general applications it becomes more difficult.The tool still needs to be adapted to every new situation (e.g., how is the council going to apply it to sewers?). Educationis a big part of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cinching\u00E2\u0080\u009D with people along and getting them involved. ... We have to get people on board. So it is notonly people at city hail that have to figure out how to apply the concept in our daily work, but it is all the institutions(like the GVRD) and the public. The level at which people do not understand and have fragmented perspectives isamazing. The fragmentation in our understanding and in organizing our lives is similar to an alcohol problem: let \u00E2\u0080\u0098sjusthave one little drink.., but we cannot stop. Ifwe can take the Ecological Footprint and turn it into the tools with numbersattached to it that planning departments or engineers are using, that would help. Perhaps this would depend on havinga handbook with the necessary statistics, so when engineers have to calculate whether their project reaches a certainpercentage ofefficiency so they would also have to account the amount of land and pollution and all these kind ofthingsrather than the much more narrow way we do it now. But that needs still a lot ofground work to turn it into something.343Probably on the national or provincial level, it is quite a useful thing. Butfor municipalities it could be dfflcultto apply.business people and economists said:the concept could be misused. I think that academics are often respected too much, even though they have notdone much \u00E2\u0080\u009Creal-life\u00E2\u0080\u009D work. ... Perhaps, on this same \u00E2\u0080\u009Cadvisoiy research team\u00E2\u0080\u009D on municipal sustainability, there shouldbe a development consultant to include a broaderpicture rather than onlyfocudng on the narrow sustainabiliry concerns.We should ,wtpave over thefertile fanniandfor urban sprawl (as it has happened in Richmond), and we shouldsupport higher urban density, because transport capacities for more and more cars are not frasible. Also, rather thanupgrading Lions Gate Bridge, we should build a subway system to link the nodes in the region. But nobody wants to facethe enormous initial costs. Five lanes on the Lions Gate Bridge only will increase car use and will have a drastic negativeimpact on the environment. Not talking about it is just assuming away the real issues. If we continue like this we willbecome like the typical American city. The Ecological Footprint could be useful for supporting this task but you have tobe veiy honest about the asswnptions.community activists said:There could be good applications. ... A main thing for local government is to make [the decision process]simpler so people can understand it. This tool might be helpfid to get infonnation out to the public and increase theirunderstanding of the constraints. Municipalities have a duty to lead toward sustainability.Exercises like this one are good. We have to appreciate the effect ofmunicipal decisions and all the cumulativeeffects ofall the small things that come with it. I suspect that municipal things are far more important than an awful lotofpeople give creditfor. And consequently they do not get involved in the municipal affairs. Therefore, we have to worktowards the public acceptance ofthis sort ofan approach and embrace it on the municipal level. Only then will the localpopulation adopt it as a municipal strategy.Perhaps [the municipal planners] do not see how exactly to apply it to evety day planning rather than not wanting toapply it. Some argue that there should be some larger planning bodies, but until such time, if there ever is, themunicipalities have to make these judgements.I wish they would introduce it in [our municipality].I consider the Ecological Footprint concept to be an elegant means of representing consumption of resources,aggregated at a municipal or regional level. I do not, however, consider the Ecological Footprint to be more thanmarginally useful as a planning tool. By planninR tool, I mean anything that I would use for analysis, plan and policyformulation, or plan implementation.IThe Ecological Footprint] is appropriate to get the issue of over-consumption on the political agenda. Butbeyond that it is not useful because it does not link with the rest of the daily planning activities. There is no municipalact saying \u00E2\u0080\u009CThou shall pay attention to the global context.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The Footprint does not describe the human system but onlywhy we should change the way we operate today and helps us set veiy broad objectives. Personally, I suspect it is equallycompelling to work with localized issues such as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdo you like living here\u00E2\u0080\u009D and make people think about their quality oflife. Basic principles ofquality in design and quality of life are as compelling and as a legitimate motivation to do whatwe would consider planningfor sustainabiliry. In local communities, quality of life arguments are as effective a meansof getting into action toward sustainability. There are situations where this direct experience might not point towardssustainability. But with emphasis on quality, in 9 out of 10 cases it will point toward sustainability.344\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 political decision-malcing as a sustainability indicator (similar to the GDP)? (question2. 7e)(10) Very useful (9) Useful (0) Marginally useful (1) Not useful (1) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowThe nation is a too large unit for analysis. It might be useful. But people in their day to day life think of theirown communities. They look at the local situation and compare it with some other places. So, the areafor the Footprintanalysis should be smaller.Political decision making is so irrational and there are so many variables involved that I cannot see how theEcological Footprint is going to assist political decisions, because they will not be honest about their assumptions. Aspoliticians they do not want to go out to talk about the alternatives but rather preach one solution.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 students and scholars to generate positive choices for sustainability? (question 2.71)(12.5) Very useful (5) Useful (0.5) Marginally useful (0) Not useful (2) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know (1) positively harmfulI do not trust government to generate information. That is why universities are important for thinking aboutalternatives orfor presenting various perspectives and kinds ofirifonnation. ... But I also believe that above anythingelse, academics have to divorce themselyesfrom single issue interest groups and act like scholars who look at alternativesacross the spectrum. That is why we give scholars tenure.Has this interview changed your perspective on sustainabifity? (question 2.10)administrators and planners said:No, but it has added something. I think, finally, I have a clearer definition ofsustainabilily, and one that I liketo use myseif I think it is a better one than the one of the Brundtland report, even though the Footprint does not say itis about \u00E2\u0080\u009Csustainability.\u00E2\u0080\u009DI do now better understand how the Ecological Footprint could be applied, and I am interested in seeing moreexamples and applications.No, but I am supportive of this research work. Also, our conversation has again pointed out the sustainabilitydilemma.The most interesting thing I had not thought ofbefore was to use the Ecological Footprint as a complement toGDP. This could be vely useful.Yes, you have put forward a concept that I can understand. It is not the only way of doing it, but it has somenice facts in it such as \u00E2\u0080\u009Ca Canadian is using up so many hectares\u00E2\u0080\u009D whereas \u00E2\u0080\u009Csomebody in the Indian subcontinent usesthat much.\u00E2\u0080\u009Dbusiness people and economists said:IfMichael Healy had sent me the brochure, Iprobably would have filed it without reading it. So talking aboutit has made me think about it. ... I certainly have thought a little further on some issues.It has added to my understanding and, in our discussion, I have learnt a lot too.345community activists said:It has been complementaiy to my understanding. I learned that you came up with a tool that can show ourimpact on nature in a graphicalformat, and ways to demonstratefigurativelyfairly complicated concepts to people whoseminds don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t perceive those concepts particularly easily.It is always good to be reminded of the larger policy context.Would you consider using the Ecological Footprint concept during the next year?(question 2.11)(14) Yes (2) No (5) Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t knowI believe in test cases. It would be nice tofind a community that can embrace this idea and run with it. And thento study this community and see how it did would be insightful.Any other comments? (question 2.12)administrators and planners said:The Ecological Footprint is really important work. Through my involvement in the CORE process I have realizedthat it is quite easy to get general agreements on broad goals. But as soon as you work your way down to specific goals-> objectives -> policies -> on the ground decisions (such as drawing lines on maps, or agreeing on annual allowablecuts), it becomes really difficult. Perhaps, the Ecological Footprint is helpful in linking these broad goals with the specificdecisions, as it addresses global issues and then links them to the decisions in an individual\u00E2\u0080\u0099s life.I would like to see more examples ofFootprint applications.business people and economists said:It is an interesting concept and I will certainly think about it.The concept has come a long way. I am glad you are doing this and ask all these questions. But the conceptstill needs a lot of work.community activists said:I think that the Ecological Footprint is a tool that we need: a simple communications tool that causes peopleto say \u00E2\u0080\u009CI see.\u00E2\u0080\u009DMy concern at the Richmond meeting was that the Ecological Footprint was a bit over-sold as a planning tool.I think it is good as an advocate tool, but it is i.4[ficult to see the links to evemyday planning tasks such as approvals,policy recommendations, etc.I would like to see an ongoing public report and evaluation on the progress of the footprint tool. This shoulddiscuss attempts to use it and recent developments of the tool. It could be in a bulletin form and should help to build aconstituency. Also, I would like to see the concept in audiovisual fashion (e.g. video) and why not in a song of a rockgroup. It would be nice f there were other methods to get the concept into popular culture.346two comments about the impact of ethnicity:I think that, from a pure ethnic Asian culture point of view, the Asians understand much more their place innature [than Western culture], because ofBuddhism, Zen, Taoism and the philosophy ofAsian history. What happenedwith the new immigrants coming here is that you are dealing with a very small sector of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnouveau riche\u00E2\u0080\u009D which in thecase ofHong Kong consists mainly ofurban people without rural history or context. But fyou looked at the entire Asiansociety you would have a much easier time communicating the concept ofsustainability, because 90 percent ofAsia isstill agrarian. For now, looking at what Canada has to tackle, the opinion of the Asian community is insignificant. Asmany are new immigrants, they do not have a strong political voice anyhow. And, they have many otherproblems beforethis one. I do not think that Canadian society\u00E2\u0080\u0099s view on sustainabiliry is turning around one way or the other becauseof the Asian population view on this matter.Also because ofdemographic shifts through the immigration ofpeople from Hong-Kong (where sustainabiliryis not much of a consideration as they import all their resources and nature \u00E2\u0080\u0098c services), the interest in these issues isdiminishing as they do not mean much to the new immigrants.347"@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "1994-11"@en . "10.14288/1.0088048"@en . "eng"@en . "Planning"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity : a tool for planning toward sustainability"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/7132"@en .