Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Local Environment
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713394137
To cite this Article Wackernagel, Mathis(1998)'The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile',Local Environment,3:1,7 25
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13549839808725541
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839808725541
ARTICLE
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
ABSTRACT
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
M. Wackernagel
of resources, environmental health threats, social violence or injustice will cause
conflict and erode our social fabric.
To plan effectively for sustainability we need to measure our current
condition. On the one hand, we need to know whether people's quality of life
is being maintained. On the other, we need to start monitoring whether we are
living within our ecological means or at what rate humanity, or a nation, is
depleting the biosphere's natural capital. After all, people are a part of nature
and depend on its steady supply of the basic requirements for life: energy for
heat and mobility, wood for housing, furniture and paper products, fibres for
clothes, quality food and water for healthy living, ecological sinks for waste
absorption and many life-support services for securing living conditions on our
planet.
Rapid human expansion as witnessed since the Second World War has
reached a point where humanity's ecological load has exceeded what nature can
regenerate (Wackernagel et ah, 1997; Worldwatch Institute, 1997b).1 In other
words, humanity is now the main occupant of the world's ecological capacity.
The conventional strategy to maximise society's resource throughput and thereby
lift people's standard of living has outlasted its usefulness; in an ecologically
overloaded world, further increase of resource use leaves us and future generations poorer once we include the loss of natural capital in the equation. The new
challenge is to provide high-quality living for everybody without eroding our
ultimate wealth: the natural capital of the world.
This battle for sustainability will be won or lost in the cities for four main
reasons:
people power, in population numbers alone, cities will soon dominate on the
world scale. Today, they already house 45% of humanityand by 2025 there
will be 61% of us living in cities. Chile today already comprises 84% of
city-dwellers, and its cities are growing annually at 1.8% (World Resources
Institute, 1996);
political power: most economic and political decisions are made in cities. As
well, cities contain the business headquarters, the main educational centres
and the bulk of the middle class, all politically active sectors. With the
growing disparities, cities are also increasingly the scene of contradictions and
conflict;
economic power, cities are the largest contributors to Gross World Product.
For example, the Santiago de Chile metropolitan area, with 36% of the
national population, generates at least 41% of Chile's national income {Plan
Regulador Metropolitano de Santiago, 1994; Compendio estadistico 1996);
ecological impact: with all their economic success, cities inevitably become
the major modes of resource consumption and waste production, depending on
increasing amounts of hinterland to secure their needs (Folke et ah, 1997).
Furthermore, the concentration of waste products is directly endangering
people's health, particularly where cities have not been able to install adequate
; waste infrastructure and contaminant reduction.
To make cities win the battle for sustainability, we must first understand some
basic urban resource economicsnot primarily its monetary dimensions
8
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
FIGURE 1. The ecological footprint. Note: Any human economy, city or household is an ecological
organism much like the cow in the pasture. To maintain itself, the economy needs to "eat" resources
and eventually all this intake becomes waste and has to leave the organism again. To address the
ecological bottom-line of sustainability we need to consider how much nature our cities use to secure
their intake of resources, the absorption of their waste and the maintenance of other essential
life-support functions which they require and only nature can supply. Each of these services occupies
land and water areas, and we can therefore calculate how much ecologically productive space is
necessary to exclusively support these human activities. (Illustration by Phil Testemale.)
but rather its biophysical scope (Rees, 1992). More precisely, to plan for a future
consistent with the ecological bottom-line condition for sustainability we need to
consider how much nature our cities use to secure their intake of resources, the
absorption of waste and the maintenance of other essential life-support functions
they require and only nature can supply. Each of these services occupies land
and water areas, and we can therefore calculate how much ecologically productive space is necessary to exclusively support these human activities. This area
is called the ecological footprint of that human activity (Wackernagel & Rees,
1996).
What Footprints Measure
Ecological footprint calculations are based on two simple facts: first, one can
keep track of most of the resources people consume and many of the wastes
people generate; second, most of these resource and waste flows can be
converted to a biologically productive area necessary to provide these functions.
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
M. Wackernagel
Hence, footprint analyses offer a measure for ecological sustainability. These
measurements of energy and resource throughput can help policy planners assess
a population's ecological impact and compare this impact with nature's capacity
to regenerate. In other words, footprints contrast human load with nature's
carrying capacity. By comparing a city's footprint with the biological capacity
available in the world, within the national territory or in the region surrounding
the city, this assessment offers a benchmark for today's ecological performance,
i identifies the challenges for lightening a city's ecological load and allows
i planners to document gains as a city moves toward sustainability. By documenting the city's current ecological dependence, we have a base-line on which to
build scenarios for our future.
i Obviously, cities occupy more area than the physical space on which they
jare built. This in itself is a trivial insight. The good news is that if cities
are well organised, their per capita footprint may become quite small while
i still providing a high quality of life. In other words, having footprintsor
| having footprints larger than the city surfaceis not the actual sustainability challenge; humans must consume products and services of nature, and
j therefore human impact on the earth is inevitable. The challenge is another
lone: how to reduce humanity's total ecological load as it is starting to exceed
Iglobal carrying capacity. This points to cities' strategic intervention point:
! rather than accommodating the continuous expansion of resource-hungry cities,
I we must start planning for resource thrifty and liveable citiesand the
I footprint can provide a yardstick to monitor whether we move in the right
direction.
\ We acknowledge and emphasise that the strength of ecological footprint
lassessments is not their precision. Their main task is to visualise human impact
ion the earth. Our basic philosophy, rather than to maximise precision, has been
to neither exaggerate the ecological footprints of a population, nor to underestimate the biological productivity of an area. Therefore, more advanced and more
complete studies may lead to larger footprints. These larger footprints do not
necessarily mean that consumption has gone up or that older assessments were
wrong. Rather new results point to improvements in the assessment. In consequence, one must be careful when comparing the results of various footprint
studies unless the same methodologies are used.
| Ecological footprints are essentially 'big picture' tools that summarise a
variety of human impacts, provide an understanding of its magnitude and allow
for a comparison with the available biological capacity. Various ecological
aspects are still left out in current assessments which include: persistent contaminants such as DDT or lead, biodegradable contaminants such as human
excrement or nitrates, lasting ecological degradation, fresh water use and ozone
depletion. The energy footprint of fossil fuel is calculated via the land necessary
for CO2 absorption. Nuclear energy is considered to occupy the same footprint
per energy unit as fossil fuel for two reasons: first, rough estimates of already
lost bioproductivity caused by accidents (mainly associated with the Chernobyl
reactor) compared with the total produced nuclear energy show similarly large
footprints. Second, as a parallel argument, non-subsidised nuclear power is not
economically competitive and will most likely be replaced by (non-sustainable)
10
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
Y i e l d potatoes
- ExpOltpotatoes
. .
= Footprint componentpotatoes
11
population of Chile:
3
4 LAND AND SEA AREA ACCOUNTING
(biotic resources)
Import
5 CATEGORIES
Yield
Production
6 units if not specified
[kg/ha]
[t]
M
1
(global average)1
8 FOODS
. meat. Yield for animal products from pasture
(expressed in average units)
74
642 000
38 640
10 . . bovine, goat, mutton and
buffalo meat
33
241000
35 017
11 . . non-bovine, non-goat, non-mutton.
3 623
non-buffalo
401000
12 .dairy
1650000
60 900
13 . . m i l k
502
1650 000
14 ..cheese
50
2 891
15 . . butter
50
3 199
16 . marine fish
29
17 . cereals
2 744
2 643 000
956 821
525 600
18 ..wheat
19 . . cereal preparations
20 . animal feed
2 744
142 864
18 (KM
21 , v e g & fruit
216061
5446 000
22 . . veg etc
23 . . fresh fruit
145 157
24 . roots and tubers
12 607
933 000
25 .pulses
852
94 000
5 497
26 . coffee & tea
566
23 238
27 .cocoa
454
28 .sugar
4 893
451000
1853
29 .oil seed (Incl. soya)
1856
36 000
5 170
30 TIMBER [in roundwood
27 680 842
equivalent, mVha/yr, m 3 ]
1.99
352 916
31 . roundwood [mVha, m3]
waste factors 32 241 000
4000
32 . fire wood [ m \ calculated from
its weight]
0.53
9 627 000
1000
3.00
3113 000
6000
33 . sawnwood [m3]
34 . wood-based panels [m 3 ]
4.50
613 000
19O00
1.9S
35 . wood pulp [tl
1867 000
3000
36 . paper and paperboard [t]
1.35
572 000
177 000
39 OTHER CROPS
40 .tobacco
1548
20 000
828
41 . cotton
1000
42 .jute
1500
43 .rubber
1000
44 .wool
15
45 .hide
74
Export
Consumption
14410
666 230
3 497
272 520
10913
19 694
16 854
393 710
1 691 206
(alread)' in cereals)
0.244
pasture
31
3 403 074
1.067
0.090
sea
arable land
- 6 1 9 238
3 972 921
-0.016
0.016
arable land
arable land
932 722
51914
23 020
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.000
0.007
0.002
arable
arable
arable
arable
arable
arable
0.585
forest
Footprint component
[ha/cap]
0.601
pasture
269
15
consumption in [kg/cap]
196 747
1300
88 454
762 102
1 689 139
183 351
1210146
278
47 583
218
10
978
452 843
40192
11936 000
5 435 000
16 097 758
26810000
820 000
200 000
1480 000
156 000
9628 000
2 229 000
432 000
390000
593 000
3 109
17719
27 977
271
10184
15 029
30 533
33%
45%
13%
4%
land
land
land
land
land
land
5%
of
of
of
of
of
cons,
cons,
cons,
cons,
cons,
fire wood
sawn wood
panels
mines
paper
0.O01
0.002
O.OOO
0.001
0.072
0.030
arable land
arable land
arable land
arable land
pasture
pasture
8-
TABLE 1. Continued
B
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
56
57
59
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
ENERGY BALANCE:
glob. aver.
[Gj/ha/yr] Energy type
55 coal consumption:
71 liquid fossil fuel consumption:
93 fossil gas consumption:
71 nuclear energy consumption (thermal):
71 energy embodied in net imported goods:
1000 hydro-electricity consumption:
[Gj/yr/cap]
9
18
8
0
3
5
SUMMARY
DEMAND
FOOTPRINT (per capita)
Category
total
fossil energy
built-up area
arable land
pasture
forest
sea
[ha/cap/
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.9
0.6
1.1
TOTAL used
3.3
equivalency equivalent
factor
total
[ha/cap]
[-]
1.1
0.6
0.1
2.8
0J
2.8
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.2
0.2
2.4
SUPPLY
EXISTING BIO-CAPACITY WITHIN CHILE (per capita)
ON THE PLANET (per capita)
Category
yield
national yield adjusted global area yield adjusted area
factor
area
equiv. area
(for 1993)
(for 1993)
[ha/cap]
[ha/cap]
[ha/cap]
[ha/cap]
CO2 absorption land
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
built-up area
1.5
0.0
0.1
0.06
0.17
arable land
1.5
0.3
U
0.26
0.74
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.61
0.33
pasture
0.5
1.2
0.7
0.92
1.05
forest
1.0
5.4
1.2
0.56
0.12
sea
TOTAL existing
7.9
3.6
2.4
2.4
TOTAL available (minus 12% for biodiversity)
3.2
2.1
8
9
a.
3
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
M. Wackernagel
The energy component for potatoes needed for agriculture (tractors, fertilisers,
pesticides, etc.) and processing (transportation, packaging, distribution and
cooking) would already be included in the energy balance of the country and
does not need to be calculated separately.
The following part, from line 48 to 131, analyses the energy requirements
of Chile. First, it lists the fossil and hydroelectric energy consumption
of Chile's main sectors (up to line 74). This energy account needs to
be corrected for trade: on the one hand, some of the energy is consumed
to produce export goods while on the other hand, Chile imports goods
whose production energy has already been invested elsewhere. The spreadsheet provides an energy balance of these traded goods between lines 75 and
131. This balance adjusts the amount of directly consumed energy within
Chile by the embodied energy that enters and leaves the country through
the import and export of finished products. In Chile's case, net trade leads to
the export of embodied energy at the rate of 3 Gigajoules per year and per
person.
In the second to last part, Chile's footprint and its ecological capacity are
summarised in a box with two sections (lines 134 to 147). The left section
itemises the ecological footprint in six ecological categories and gives the
total. Comparison between these ecological categories is not appropriate since
they are of unequal productive capacity. For example, land categorised as
arable has a much higher potential for biological production than land only
suitable for pasture. Therefore, to allow for a more meaningful comparison
between footprints and bio-capacity within as well as among nations, 'equivalence factors' are introduced. These equivalence factors scale these land
categories proportional to their productivity. More precisely, they provide
information about the land category's relative productivity as compared with
world average land (such average land would represent the factor 1). For
example, the arable land factor of 3.2 says that arable land can produce 3.2
times more biomass than world average land. Through this scaling, the total
bio-capacity of the world is not distorted: the scaled global total adds up to the
same amount as the global total expressed in true physical spaces. This
comparison is shown in the left subsection of the box entitled 'global biocapacity'.
; All figures represent all results in per capita figures. This makes people from
different places more directly comparable. Still, national aggregates are easy to
calculate from the per capita footprints. Multiply the per capita data by 14
million people (Chile's population) and you will receive the total ecological
footprint of Chile.
i The right section of the result box shows how much biologically productive
capacity exists within the country, and for comparison in the world. As the
productivity of Chile's land areas is higher than world average, its physical land
area is multiplied by the factor by which the local productivity exceeds the world
average (second column in the right box). We call this factor the 'yield factor'.7
A yield factor of 1.5, for example, means that the local productivity of this
ecosystem category is 50% higher than world averageabsorbing 50% more
CO2 or producing 50% more potatoes per hectare. Now the footprint and the
14
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
M. Wackernagel
summarised in the matrix. For instance, to use the matrix to find out how much
arable land is used to produce the average Chilean's cotton for his or her
(non-synthetic) clothes, you would read across the 'clothes' line to the 'arable
land' column, and find that 0.014 ha (or 140 m2 ) of world average land is
needed (in Table 2 the figures are rounded to two digits after the decimal point,
therefore the table shows '0.01').
Calculating the Footprint of Santiago de Chile with the Help of the Consumption
Land-use Matrix
The estimate of the national figures becomes the starting point for assessing the
city's footprint. These national estimates are quite reliable as official data on
national production and the import and export of all major resources and goods
are readily available. For sub-national assessments, however, local trade and
consumption statistics do not exist. Still, the footprints of a regional or municipal
population can be extracted from the national footprint by comparing to what
extent the consumption pattern in the region or municipality differs from the
national average and adjusting the national footprint accordingly. This indirect
16
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
M. Wackernagel
TABLE 2. The footprint of the average inhabitant of Santiago in hectares per person is presented
here in the consumption land-use: matrix.
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
Factor
Food
.vegetarian
.animal products
.water
Housing and Furniture
Transport
.road
.rail
.air
.coastal and waterways
Goods
.paper production
.clothes (non-synthetic
.tobacco
.other
Total
Fossil
energy
Built-up
area
0.11
Arable
land
0.35
0.32
9
9
Pasture
Forest
0.75
0.75
0.24
Sea
Total
0.24
1.45
0.32
0.99
0.03
0.04
0.25
0.18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.43
0.18
0.00
0.11
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.07
0.02
0.13
0.07
0.49
0.82
0.16
0.29
0.18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.74
0.27
0.08
0.13
0.25
0.09
0.09
0.25
0.83
0.02
0.24
0.24
2.64
; Note: The population of the Santiago Metropolitan Area was 4 756 663 in 1992.
;
;
!
i
;
\
The daily waste generation per person in Santiago is about 1 kg. This
kilogram contains 550 g of organic waste, 140 g of paper and cardboard,
100 g plastic (which adds up to 37 kg plastic per year or 1.8 Gj per year per
person), 40 g of textiles (or 15 kg per person per year, cotton?), and 170 g of
other materials {Plan Regulador Metropolitano de Santiago, 1994).
According to Monica Baeza, the yearly heating energy used per person
amounts to about 2 Gj.
According to Monica Baeza, most houses in Santiago de Chile are built of
bricks and concrete, with only about 1 m3 of wood components.
Clearly, more detailed comparative data could provide a better resolution when
analysing the ecological impact of Santiago de Chile. For example, figures on
actual energy consumption in transportation (or kilometres driven per car) or
more precise data on the quantity and quality of the Santiago housing stock
Jwould improve the assessment in these categories. Still, these data provide some
indication on how to adjust the national consumption land-use matrix specifically
to Santiago's, as shown in Table 2. Each cell of the matrix is recalculated with
the Santiago specific data. For example, the transportation footprint is calculated
assuming that Santiago's share of the national car fleet is the same as Santiago's
share of consumed transportation energy. Or, the housing line takes into account
the heating needs and the prevailing construction type of Santiago. Please note
that the figures refer to the year 1993. For more details on the calculation,
consult the matrix in the spreadsheet file as it contains the figures and formulae.
18
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
There, the most important assumptions and calculations are described in notes
attached to the spreadsheet cells.
Assuming that the applied local data are correctand there is good reason to
believe that the consumption share of Santiago as shown by the statistics is an
underestimatethe footprint of the average Santiagan extends 2.6 ha. This is
higher than the 2.4 ha average footprint of Chile. This is in spite of the capital
city's significantly lower wood consumption. In all other categories, however
(such as energy or food), consumption in the capital city is higher. Still, the total
footprint of the city is 16 times larger than the metropolitan area (including the
ecological reserves), or even 300 times larger than the actually occupied space
of the city.
Ecological Footprint Distribution in Santiago de Chile
Of course, not everybody in Santiago de Chile has the same size of footprint.
Using consumption/income distribution statistics published by the World Bank
(World Bank, 1996), we estimated the size of footprint by income classes. One
crude assumption is that the distribution for Santiago is the same as for all of
Chile (see Table 3). In addition, these monetary statistics of income distribution are only coarse proxies of the varying standard of living within a
societybut the only ones available internationally. Even though money flows
are rarely correlated with quality of life, as pointed out extensively by the
literature criticising Gross National Product (Daly & Cobb, 1989) they are
closely linked to resource flows (Hall et al., 1986; Kaufmann, 1992). Still,
these income distribution measures underestimate the gap between rich and
poor as various income benefits of the rich are hidden and escape most
statistical measurement attempts. These hidden benefits include capital gains,
savings abroad or informal activities of the wealthy. On the other hand,
monetary spending may exaggerate differences in footprint size: typically,
additional income may lead to a shift from quantity (or resource-intensive)
products to more quality (or labour-intensive) goods and services. In the best
case, these two effects may cancel each other out. Therefore, we assume that
in this comparison (in a simplistic way), income is proportional to the
footprint. For follow-up studies, it would be particularly interesting to analyse
the range of footprints within a given income level. For instance, purchasing
by more affluent people could lead towards a more global consumption of
resources (large footprint) or to the use of more local labour. Such refinements
in the assessment would move the footprint analysis closer from its more
pedagogic use today towards being a relevant management tool.
Interpreting the Results
The footprint of Santiago tells us the amount of ecological capacity appropriated
by the city to sustain its functioning. In other words, it shows the share of the
global capacity of the biosphere to keep Santiago running. It also enables us to
compare to what extent this urban consumption can be covered by the ecological
capacity of its region or the nation. In a world with growing ecological
19
M. Wackernagel
TABLE 3. Footprint distribution in Santiago according to economic levels (in hectares per person)
, Factor
Consumption compared to
national average (in %)
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
Ecological footprint
(hectares per person)
Lowest Lowest
10%
20%
14
0.4
18
0.5
33
0.9
55
1.4
91
2.4
Highest
10%
305
461
12
Note: For example, this table shows that the average person in the fourth quintile (60% of the
population are poorer, 20% of the population are richer) would earn (or spend) 91 % of the average
income, resulting in a footprint of 2.4 ha per person.
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
to
to
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
1997
Total population
(in 000s)
6 747
7 595
8 566
9 494
10 334
11143
12 076
13 154
14 262
14 691
Total urban
population
(in 000s)
4 268
5 152
6 142
7 142
101
9 053
9 978
10 954
11966
Automobile
registrations
(in 000s)
1 030a
1 632"
Gross domestic
product per capita
(in US$)
887
699
Commercial energy
consumption
(in Petajoules)
316
286
316
300
513
539 C
47
51
55
62
76
84a
Traditional fuel
consumption
(in Petajoules)
8OQ
Notes: Tor the year 1991, "from the Compendio estadi'stico 1996, cfor the year 1993.
3 302
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
23
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
M. Wackernagel
4. All the main sources used in these calculations stem from United Nations documents. The codes in the
spreadsheets' reference columns (E, H and K) point to the publication used. The first number of the
reference code indicates the data source, the second the page and the third the classification number
within the data source. The data sources are (1) United Nations (1995) 1993 International Trade
Statistics Yearbook, Vol. 1 (New York, Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy
Analysis, Statistical Division), (2) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
(1994) UNCTAD Commodity Yearbook 1994 (New York and Geneva, United Nations); (3) Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1995) FAO Yearbook: Production 1994, Vol.
48 (Rome, FAO); (4) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1994) FAO
Yearbook: Trade 1993, Vol. 47 (Rome, FAO); (5) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) (1995) FAO Yearbook: Forest Production 1993 (Rome, FAO); (6) (WRI) World
Resources Institute (1996) World Resources 1996-1997 (Washington DC, World Resources Institute,
UNEP, UNDP, World Bank); (7) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
(1995) State of the World's Forests (Rome, FAO); (8) United Nations (1994) 1992 Energy Statistics
Yearbook (New York, Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, Statistical
Division), '-est' means that the number is estimated, either by extrapolating from subcategories, or by
using price/weight ratios from other countries.
5. Most world average productivities are taken from: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) (1995) FAO Yearbook: Production 1994 Vol. 48 (Rome, FAO). Productivity of animal products is
calculated from FAO world production figures, and weighed according to their conversion efficiencies. The
world average productivity of forests we estimated from the International Panel on Climate Change (1997)
Greenhouse Gas Inventory: Workbook. Revised 1996 1PCC Guidelines, Volume 2 (IPCC, OECD and IEA),
which are based mainly on various FAO publications and studies. For rubber and jute we extrapolated
Vietnamese data (Government of Vietnam, http://www.batin.com.vn/10years/indplant/) Cotton productivity is
taken from Nick Robins et al, (1995) Citizen Action to Lighten Britain's Ecological Footprints (London,
International Institute for Environment and Development), p. 64. Cocoa productivity is taken from Mexican
yields. Similar to Wackernagel & Rees (1996), fossil fuel is translated into land areas for CO2 absorption at the
rate of 55 to 93 Gj/ha/year, depending on the fuel's carbon intensity. FOr hydroelectricity the rate is assumed
to be 1000 Gj/ha/year (land occupied by dams and power lines).
6. In the line description, capitalised names stand for main categories. Line description with a dot ('.') in front
indicates subcategories. Two dots ('..') means sub-subcategory. Wherever possible, the most general
categories were used. These categories and subcategories are identified in bold print.
7. The calculation of each yield factor is explained in the notes of the Excel file. Please note that the yield
factors probably overestimate the biological productivity of industrialised agriculture with heavy fertiliser
use. The yield factor for the sea is assumed to be 1. For built-up land, the yield factor is equal to that of
arable land, as settlements are typically located on such land.
8. Many ecologists believe that a much larger percentage of the world's ecosystems needs to be preserved in
order to secure biodiversity. For example, in 1970 ecologist Eugen Odum recommended in the case of the
state of Georgia that 40% of the territory remain as natural area (Eugene P. Odum (1970) Optimum
population and environment: a Georgia microcosm, Current History, 58, pp. 355-359). Wildlife ecologist
and scientific director of the Wildlands Project, Reed Noss, hypothesised that about 50% of an average
region needs to be protected as wilderness (or equivalent core reserves and lightly used buffer zones) to
restore populations of large carnivores and meet other well-recognised conservation goals (Reed F. Noss
(1991) Sustainability and wilderness, Conservation Biology, pp. 120-121).
9. With 3.2 ha of ecologically productive space available in Chile (expressed in world average productivity),
its available capacity is 32% larger than its national footprint of 2.6 ha per person.With the formula
ekk<t = FPcap/FPioday, we can calculate how long it takes for the Chilean footprint to reach the total available
capacity if it expands at the rate of 1.6% a year (k is the growth rate = 0.016, t the time, FPtOday the footprint
area of today of 36 million hectares and FPcap of a completely filled Chile). In other words, the per capita
footprint would remain constant. Therefore t = In (FPCap/FPtoday)/k = 17 years. If at the same time the per
] capita footprint were to increase by 1% a year, this state would be reached within 10 years.
10. See the analysis by Kaspar Mller, Andreas Sturm & Mathis Wackernagel, Competition and sustainability,
i draft Ellipson, Basel.
11. All the data from this table stem from the World Resources Institute's World Resources 1996-1997
\ Database Diskette (1996, World Resources Institute). A more complete version of this table with trends
for Chile is compiled in file 'wri-chle.xls'.
24
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile] At: 23:04 8 June 2009
References
Compendio estadistico (1996) (Chile, INE).
Daly, H. & Cobb, J. (1989) For the Common Good (Boston, Beacon Press).
Folke, C , Jansson, A., Larsson, J. & Constanza, R. (1997) Ecosystem appropriation by cities, Ambio, 26(3).
Hall, C , Cleveland, C. & Kaufman, R. (1986) Energy and Resource Quality (New York, Wiley).
Kaufmann, R. (1992) A biophysical analysis of the energy/real GDP ratio: implications for substitution and
technical change, Ecological Economics, 6(1), pp. 35-56.
Plan Regulador Metropolitana de Santiago (1994) (Chile, MINVU).
Rees, W. (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out,
Environment and Urbanization, 4(2).
Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth
(Gabriola Island, BC, New Society Publishers).
Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Linares, A. C , Lopez Falfn, I. S., Garcia, J. M., Suarz Guerrero, A. I. & Suarz
Guerrero, M. G. (1997) Ecological Footprints of Nations: How Much Nature Do They Use? How Much
Nature Do They Have?, commissioned by the Earth Council for the Rio+ 5 Forum (Toronto, ICLEI,
revised version).
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future (Oxford, Oxford
University Press).
World Bank (1996) World Development Report (New York, Oxford University Press).
World Resources Institute (1996) World Resources: A Guide to the Global Environment 1996-1997 (New
York, Oxford University Press).
WorldWatch Institute (1997a) Vital Signs (New York, W.W. Norton).
WorldWatch Institute (1997b) State of the World (New York, W.W. Norton).
25