PROJECT 08014

THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT – IMPLICATIONS AND

IMPERATIVES FOR CAPE TOWN

PREPARED FOR: The Sustainability Institute

ATTENTION: Lisa Thompson-Smeddle

PREPARED BY: THE GREEN HOUSE

Contact: Dr Yvonne Hansen

c 074 243 7408

f 021 797 1383

e yvonne@tgh.co.za

18 Kemms Rd, Wynberg 7800, Cape Town, South Africa

www.tgh.co.za

18 August 2008

FINAL DRAFT
Disclaimer: The views of The Green House expressed in this report were prepared for the exclusive use of the
addressee and for the purposes specified in the report. The report is supplied in good faith and reflects the
knowledge, expertise and experience of the consultants involved. The report must not be published, quoted or
disseminated to any other party without The Green House’s prior written consent. The Green House accepts no
responsibility for any loss occasioned by any person acting or refraining from action as a result of reliance on the
report, other than the addressee.

In conducting the analysis in the report The Green House has endeavoured to use the best information available
at the date of publication, including information supplied by the client. The Green House’s approach is to develop
analyses from first principles, on the basis of logic and available knowledge. Unless stated otherwise, The Green
House does not warrant the accuracy of any forecast or prediction in the report. Although The Green House
exercises reasonable care when making forecasts and predictions, factors such as future market behaviour are
uncertain and cannot be forecast or predicted reliably.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 The Ecological Footprint Explained ....................................................................................... 4

1.1.1 Strengths of the EF................................................................................................................. 5

1.1.2 Weaknesses of the EF methodology...................................................................................... 5

2. Cape Town’s Ecological Footprint ................................................................................................... 5

2.1 An Alternative Calculation ...................................................................................................... 7

3. Implications and Imperatives – What Could The Ecological Footprint Show us? ........................... 8

3.1 Energy .................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Transport ................................................................................................................................ 8

3.3 Food ....................................................................................................................................... 9

3.4 Consumption and Waste ...................................................................................................... 10

3.5 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................ 11

3.6 Biodiversity ........................................................................................................................... 11

4. Closure .......................................................................................................................................... 11

5. References .................................................................................................................................... 11
1. INTRODUCTION

Ecological Footprints are an attempt to measure global ecological impact as a result of our demand for resources and
generation of waste. Using the common unit of land area, Ecological Footprints represent a partial measure of the extent
to which the planet, individual countries or cities are moving towards sustainable development (Eaton et al., 2007), by
comparing the demand for natural capital with the (finite) amount of natural capital available.

This paper considers the Ecological Footprint (EF) for the City of Cape Town. It attempts to unpack the indicator into
policy-relevant themes and, where possible, identify “hotspots” of unsustainable consumption and possible policy
measures to address these. While the Ecological Footprint is not quantified beyond the first estimates provided by
Gasson (2002), the observations put forward in this paper come from both more detailed investigations into the City of
Cape Town EF and analysis of EFs from other cities around the world.

The paper also serves to highlight the strengths, but also the deficiencies, of the Ecological Footprint methodology and
thereby caution against putting too much emphasis on the indicator in directing policy. It is only a partial measure of
ecological sustainability and is not sophisticated enough to show trade-offs or the wider social, economic and even
environmental implications of a particular decision, action or development.

1.1 THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT EXPLAINED

Ecological Footprints calculate the area of land required to support the consumption of goods and services for a
particular country or city’s population. For ease of data collection and analysis, Wackernagel and Rees (1996) separate
consumption into five categories, namely: food, housing, transportation, consumer goods, and services. Other authors
select categories that are more in line with broad policy categories: built land, direct energy, food and drink, materials
and waste, transport and water (Simmons et al., 2000; Eaton et al., 2007). The City of Cardiff (Collins et al., 2005) has
even added a category for tourism and development to account for the large impact that tourists have on that city.

Regardless of the categorisation used, the demand for a particular product or service is translated into land area by
dividing the total amount of that product or service consumed by the average yield of the corresponding land type giving
rise to that particular product or service. The major land use types that are identified in the methodology are:

> Arable land: Land used for growing crops for food, animal feed, fibre and oils

> Pasture: Land used for grazing livestock

> Sea: Includes freshwater and marine fishing grounds (limited to the continental shelf)

> Forests: Land used for growing timber and fuelwood

> Built-up land: Land appropriated for urban development and transport infrastructure

> “Carbon land” or Energy land: The theoretical land (and ocean) area required to sequester the carbon dioxide
produced from anthropogenic activities

These land areas are then normalised to account for differences in bioproductivity between different types of land and
sea. Equivalence factors translate the different land types into the universal unit of biologically productive area, being the
“global hectare” (Kitzes et al., 2007). Yield factors are also applied to account for differences in bioproductivity due to
climate, soils and management practices between nations.

The value of the Ecological Footprint becomes evident when it is compared to the biocapacity available to the population
whose EF has been calculated. Biocapacity is simply the available land area (converted as above into global hectares)
and so would be the sum of arable land, pasture, sea, forests and built-up area, less the fraction of land set aside to
protect biodiversity. This last land area, biodiversity land, is often set at 12% of the total, if considered at all. However, it
has been argued that up to 50% of bioproductive land should be set aside for this purpose.

The shortfall between the Ecological Footprint (a measure of human demand) and biocapacity (a measure of ecosystem
supply) is termed overshoot and is depicted below for the global situation in 2003. The figure shows that in 2003 the
world average overshoot was 0.4 gha per capita (i.e. 2.2 gha – 1.8 gha). Note that in the figure no allowance has been
made for the protection of biodiversity.
FIGURE 1 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY FACTORS THAT DETERMINE OVERSHOOT (WWF, 2006)

1.1.1 Strengths of the EF

The primary aim of Ecological Footprint studies to date has been for the promotion of public awareness and education,
although its use to support policy making is increasing. Its appeal in policy making is that calculation of a City’s
Ecological Footprint requires the collection and collation of data on resource availability and consumption, and thus
provides an established and consistent framework for gathering and organising data, setting targets and monitoring
progress.

Other strengths of the EF are that it is a good visualisation tool and can help to highlight the problem areas if calculated
in sufficient detail.

1.1.2 Weaknesses of the EF methodology

The Ecological Footprint methodology has come under strong criticism, especially in its use as a policy tool. These
shortcomings are summarised well in van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999) together with various commentaries
provided in the special issue of Ecological Economics in 2000.

In brief, the EF is criticised for being only a partial indicator of ecological sustainability as pointed out previously.
Because it is an aggregated single value indicator, its calculation lacks transparency and contains a number of inherent
weights. Ecological footprint calculations are data intensive and the requisite data is also less likely to be available at the
local and regional scale, requiring the use of proxy data and introducing further uncertainty. The EF is also a static
indicator and calculation methods and yield and equivalency factors are revisited, which makes backcasting and
forecasting problematic.

Furthermore, the approach has been criticised for its exclusive focus on carbon dioxide and also the manner in which
“carbon land” or “energy land” is assessed. This does not allow for the possibility of technological advances and carbon
sequestration by other methods. Further shortcomings are that land may only have a single function, which therefore
tends to overestimate the EF; no distinction is made between sustainable and unsustainable land use and there is no
accounting for freshwater use and availability.

2. CAPE TOWN’S ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

The first Ecological Footprint calculations for Cape Town were undertaken by Gasson in the late 1990’s (Gasson, 2002).
His approach was to convert the metabolic inputs and outputs for the City of Cape Town into their respective productive
and absorptive land areas. His results, converted to units of global hectares per capita and grouped according to land
use type (columns) and consumption categories (rows) to facilitate discussion and comparison with other city EF
calculations, are reproduced in the table below.
TABLE 1 CAPE TOWN’S ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT (FIRST APPROXIMATION) DERIVED FROM GASSON (2002)

Arable Pasture Sea Forest Built Energy Total

Built land 0.03 0.03

Energy 0.007 0.047 0.05

Food 3.74 3.74

Materials and waste 0.0004 0.001 0.083 0.085

Transport 0.21 0.21

Water 0.0004 0.048*

TOTAL 3.74 0.007 0.031 0.35 4.15

* Total water footprint calculated by Gasson (2002) included reservoir catchment areas – see text.
Based on these preliminary results, Gasson (2002) concludes that the EF of Cape Town (estimated here to have a
2 2
footprint area 124 300 km ) is approximately equal to the entire area of the Western Province at 129 000 km .
Furthermore, the calculated EF is 50 times larger than the jurisdictional area and 160 times larger than the built footprint
of Cape Town.

Before taking the analysis further, it should be noted that the EF presented in Table 1 was not calculated using the
standard methodology outlined by Wackernagel and Rees (1996), nor does it include all contributions to the EF as a
result of consumption. These omissions can largely be attributed to a lack of available data for resource production and
consumption in the City. Particular limitations are as follows:

Electricity: In this study, electricity generated by Koeberg was assumed to meet the electricity demands of the
city. As nuclear energy is not associated with significant CO2 emissions, the EF contribution is
negligible. However, from a life cycle perspective, it is more appropriate to use the average South
African electricity generation mix, which is over 90% coal based. Thus, energy land from electricity
consumption, which is directly proportional to CO2 emissions, is underestimated.

Food: Transport and energy use in the manufacture and processing of food consumed in Cape Town has not
been determined. Therefore, food-related energy land is underestimated.

Materials and Waste: Under the materials category, only building materials, timber and paper are included.
Transport and energy contributions for timber products and paper are not determined, while the EF of
building materials is limited to the local mining area (recorded as built footprint in the above table) and
does not include the embodied energy of the products. Energy land related to materials and waste is
thus underestimated.

Other materials not included in the study, but potentially significant in terms of the EF calculation,
include clothing, electronics, plastic products and chemicals. Arable, pasture and energy land areas
would all be required to meet the consumption demands.

Waste is not strictly a “consumption” category, but is often included in assessments and treated as a
satellite account as it relates more directly to policy. If included, care must be taken to avoid double
counting. This is often achieved by considering more durable products under “materials” and
disposable products such as packaging, nappies, etc. under “waste”. For solid waste, Gasson (2002)
only considers landfill area as opposed to the land area required for manufacture and transport of
these “products”.

Transport: In generating this table, transport fuels were assumed to be equivalent to the metabolic input category
of oil under energy in the original table. Thus, diesel and petrol based transport is covered. Air and
rail travel modes are not explicitly accounted for, therefore leading to an underestimate of the EF.

Water: Because of the importance of water resources in the Cape Town context, and the recognised
shortcoming of the Ecological Footprint methodology with respect to this resource, Gasson included an
indication of freshwater in his assessment. The reservoir catchment area required to supply Cape
Town with freshwater was taken as an indicative land area. This is not unreasonable if you consider
that in other water scarce areas, e.g. Australia, aquifer recharge zones are “protected” or set aside to
ensure supply and quality of water reserves. However, the EF from water is overestimated compared
 to the standard methodology as catchment areas have more than one land use function and may
already have been partially or wholly included.

Equivalency Factors: Global yield factors have been used in the EF calculation (due to the unavailability of both South
African specific yield factors and appropriate annual conversion factors). Further, equivalency factors
have not been applied in order to sum correctly across the different land types (again, due to the fact
that these are not readily available). Together, these may have over- or under-estimated the EF as
calculated.

Even with these shortcomings, the EF as calculated by Gasson (2002) fulfils its main objective – to raise awareness and
stimulate debate about the unsustainability of our urban system. However, if we wish to use the EF to compare to other
cities and regions, or as an indicator to set targets, and measure progress towards ecological sustainability, the
methodology must be reproducible and, more importantly, the data available to support these calculations. As a
minimum we require the relative size of the various consumption categories to identify hotspots and be able to set policy
priorities.

2.1 AN ALTERNATIVE CALCULATION

If we wish to make comparisons with other cities on the basis of the Ecological Footprint, it is perhaps useful to default to
the available estimates for a South African EF from available literature (National Footprint Accounts: WWF, 2002 and
2006) and extrapolate these to the City of Cape Town.

TABLE 2 SOUTH AFRICA’S ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT EXTRAPOLATED TO CAPE TOWN - FROM WWF (2002,
2006)

Crop Pasture Sea Forest Built Energy Total EF Biocapacity

EF South Africa 2002 0.66 0.27 0.22 0.30 0.11 2.45 4.02 2.42
(1999 data)
(pop: 42.8 Million)

EF Cape Town 2002 0.93 0.58 0.47 0.64 0.23 2.45 5.3

17.5% 11% 9% 12% 4% 46%

EF South Africa 2006 0.38 0.23 0.05 0.17 0.05 1.35 2.30 2.0
(2003 data)
(pop: 45 Million)

EF Cape Town 2006 0.73 0.44 0.10 0.32 0.10 1.35 3.04

24% 14% 3% 11% 3% 44%

Extrapolation is based on the heuristic that Cape Town consumes approximately 15% of the country’s resources even
though it only accounts for less than 10% of the population (Haskins, 2008). This is due to our relatively affluent urban
lifestyles. This scaling factor is applied to all land type categories with the exception of energy land, where this “rule of
thumb” is less applicable as Cape Town has a much less energy intensive economy on average (State of Energy, 2003).

From this analysis it can be seen that Cape Town’s per capita demand (Ecological Footprint) exceeds available supply
(Biocapacity). Energy land is the main contributor to the Ecological footprint as a result of our dependence on coal for
electricity generation and fossil fuels for transport. Food, the dominant component in Gasson’s calculations, is also a
significant contributor in terms of crop and pasture land to the overall EF.

While more accurate, this approach lacks the resolution with respect to consumption categories, which is useful when
trying to relate Ecological Footprinting to policy and targets for sustainable consumption as is the aim here. These
results are too aggregated and the calculations and supporting data only available under licence. This reinforces the
recommendation, that if the City wishes to use the EF indicator to inform policy, data collection is required.

Moreover, in the absence of a good disaggregated estimate of Cape Town’s ecological footprint, the discussion that
follows is necessarily more general. However an attempt is made to unpack the EF into relevant policy themes, which
can be prioritised when an updated estimate of the EF is available.
3. IMPLICATIONS AND IMPERATIVES – WHAT COULD THE ECOLOGICAL
FOOTPRINT SHOW US?

3.1 ENERGY

Direct Energy use for households, industry and commerce would contribute significantly to the Energy land component of
the Ecological Footprint for Cape Town, particularly as South Africa’s electricity generation is dominated by coal-based
power generation. The State of Energy report (2003) suggests that 85% of domestic energy demand and 69% of
industrial and commercial energy demand is met by electricity.

TABLE 3 CAPE TOWN’S ENERGY DEMAND BY FUEL TYPE FOR HOUSEHOLDS AND INDUSTRY/COMMERCE
(STATE OF ENERGY REPORT, 2003)

Electricity Diesel Paraffin LPG Wood Coal HFO Total

Households 14 000 TJ - 1 700 TJ 340 TJ 360 TJ 40 TJ - 16640 TJ

85% - 10% 2% 2% <1% -

Industry and commerce 22 700 TJ 230 TJ 720 TJ 350 TJ 560 TJ 3790 TJ 4700 TJ 33050 TJ

69% 1% 2% 1% 2% 11% 14%

Current sources of energy, with the exception of wood, all attract a high ecological footprint. LPG has a relatively smaller
EF contribution than other non-renewable energy sources, although gains from increasing LPG use would be small.
Policy measures should rather focus on reducing the reliance on non-renewable energy sources through the uptake of
renewable energy options. Another policy focus could be energy efficiency both for domestic and industrial users.

Specific options to improve energy efficiency and increase renewable energy sources, and so reduce the EF associated
with direct energy use, include:

> Retrofitting existing buildings with renewable technologies (e.g. solar water heating)

> Increasing the efficiency of domestic electricity use by encouraging, for example, the use of compact fluorescent
lights lamps (CFLs) to replace ordinary bulbs. The Eskom demand side management website provides a guide for
domestic, commercial and industrial users to improve their energy efficiency.

> Setting higher standards for new developments to minimise energy usage and encourage the use of alternative
technologies and renewable energy sources.

> Setting targets for renewable energy reinforced with strategies (and budgets) to achieve these targets. As a
minimum, the electricity used by local government should come from renewable energy sources.

3.2 TRANSPORT

The Ecological Footprint methodology allows comparisons to be made between different modes of transport (Table 5).
This information can be used to investigate the impact of scenarios to reduce the transport EF. Policy strategies should
focus on encouraging travellers to drive less and shift to other modes of transport and could include (Litman, 2003):

> Infrastructure investment and design that improves footpaths and cycle paths together with an integrated bus-rail-
taxi system. An effective public transport system would also have significant social and economic benefits.

> Programs that encourage use of alternative modes of transport: car sharing and lift clubs; reducing commuting
related car travel by encouraging work from home and use of public transport; campus transportation management
programs.

> Financial incentives such as road and parking pricing and pay-as-you-drive vehicle insurance.

> “Smart growth” policies for new developments that encourage more compact, mixed, multi-modal land use patterns
resulting in communities that are more accessible and walkable.
TABLE 4 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT PER PASSENGER KM FOR DIFFERENT TRANSPORT MODES (FROM COLLINS
ET AL., 2005)

Ecological Footprint [gha/pkm]

Air International 0.000038

Air domestic 0.000061

Walking -

Bicycle 0.000002

Car 0.000056

Bus 0.000043

Rail* 0.000022

Taxi 0.000059

* Note: Rail in SA might have a larger ecological footprint per passenger km due to differences between the UK and SA electricity mix

3.3 FOOD

Food is the consumption category that translates most easily into global hectares due to the direct link between food
production and land area. As such, clear distinctions can be made between food types on the basis of their contribution
to an overall EF. Typically, animal based products (requiring both pasture and crop land) correspond to a high EF
contribution. High yield agricultural crops on the other hand have a low EF contribution per kg consumed. Similarly,
highly processed foods would have a larger EF per kg than raw foods due to energy used in manufacture. Imported
foods would also perform poorly due to the transport related EF contribution in contrast to locally grown foods, although
the transport element of the food footprint is typically small. Interestingly, it has been shown that food eaten out at
restaurants typically has a higher EF than food eaten at home ( Collins et al., 2005).

The table below contrasts some typical global yields in kg per hectare per annum for different foodstuffs. Note a higher
yield translates into a lower EF per kg consumed. Therefore a kg of beef would result in an EF contribution of 0.03, while
the contribution of a kg of potatoes would only be 0.00008 – three orders of magnitude smaller.

TABLE 5 REPRESENTATIVE GLOBAL YIELDS FOR DIFFERENT FOOD TYPES (RAND, 2002)

Global yield Global yield

[kg/ha/yr] [kg/ha/yr]

Animal products Eggs 573 Cereals Average 2752

Fish 35 Vegetables Fruit 8136

Beef 32 Oil 626

Chicken 376 Pulses 802

Pork 376 Roots 12814

Sheep 72 Sugars 4997

Milk 458 Vegetables 8136

This is an uncommon policy category for local government to engage with as it requires both an understanding of how
food consumption varies with income level and the relationship between food consumption, nutrition, other health and
social benefits as well as ecological sustainability. A low EF diet is not necessarily nutritious. However, some options to
reduce the food related EF, while maintaining or improving nutrition levels, are suggested below:

> Encourage the consumption of organic foods, with the assumption that organic food is less processed (i.e. energy
intensive) than conventionally grown food. Herenden (2000), however, argues that it is likely that sustainable (or
organic) agriculture would require more land per unit of food.

> Promote the consumption of fresh, unprocessed foods. Although, this may lead to an increase in domestic energy
use for food preparation and cooking.
> Encourage the shift to production and consumption of locally grown, seasonal foods. Urban agriculture, where food
is cultivated within the city in private gardens and on patches of marginal land, would reduce the food-related EF.
This strategy may also lead to other social gains, including reduced food bills for low income households and
increased urban food security.

> Discourage food wastage

These options may be realised through various awareness raising and educational campaigns and programs.

3.4 CONSUMPTION AND WASTE

Waste generation in Cape Town is increasing rapidly, at a faster rate than population is increasing. Current estimates
put per capita waste generation at 750 kg per year (City of Cape Town, 2007). This is one of the most pressing
problems facing City policy makers given the rate at which landfill space is being consumed.

The Ecological Footprint reinforces just how “unsustainable” our consumption is. By focusing on waste in the EF
calculations it is possible to identify those waste items with the largest EF and thereby evaluate scenarios for recycling,
composting and waste reduction. Table 4 compares waste streams on the basis of impact per tonne.

TABLE 6 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT PER TONNE FOR DIFFERENT WASTE STREAMS (FROM COLLINS ET AL., 2005)

Ecological Footprint [gha/tonne]

Paper and Card 0.0000080

Glass 0.0000006

Ferrous metal 0.0000018

Plastic 0.0000042

Kitchen waste 0.0000055

Batteries 0.0000203

Textiles 0.0000247

Nappies 0.0000132

When the above contributions are interpreted in conjunction with amounts of waste generated, the potential for reducing
the waste-related ecological footprint can be quantified. According to the City of Cape Town’s sustainability report, 65%
of the domestic waste stream consists of organic matter, with the remaining 35% containing a large proportion of
recyclables (i.e. glass, metal, paper and plastics).

As recycling rates in the City are not significant, a first policy recommendation would be to set targets for waste
reduction, household recycling and composting. By comparing the different waste streams it may be possible to identify
materials to target in any recycling strategies and initiatives. The benefits in terms of EF reduction could be weighed
against economic considerations (i.e. availability of markets). Furthermore, it may be possible to set more specific
targets for recycling linked to different material types.

More radical measures to reduce the waste ecological footprint that could be considered include:

> Linking waste collection tariffs to household waste generation to encourage waste minimisation and recycling.

> Reducing the number of waste collections.

> Engaging local communities in waste collection through buy-back centres for recyclables.

> Encouraging organisations and event organisers (e.g. FIFA World Cup 2010) to commit to a zero waste system,
where all waste produced is reused or recycled. This requires an investment in supporting infrastructure as well as
the development of waste minimisation and recycling strategies.
3.5 INFRASTRUCTURE

While little can be done to reduce the built footprint of Cape Town, steps can be taken to minimise unsustainable urban
sprawl. Measures here include (Swilling et al.,-):

> Densifying new settlements and integrating public transport with new developments to reduce the energy required to
provide transport and other services

> Preventing further urban sprawl through densification policies. This will serve to conserve biocapacity.

> Encouraging a return to the “high street” where shops are situated within residential areas, thereby minimising travel
to more remote and energy inefficient shopping malls.

3.6 BIODIVERSITY

The City of Cape Town is situated in an area of high and unique biodiversity and has been described as “a global urban
biodiversity hot spot without parallel” (City of Cape Town, 2007). While not standard, the Ecological Footprint approach
could be used to quantify the land area set aside by Capetonians to protect biodiversity. This would also provide a
mechanism to set targets and measure progress of conservation initiatives. This would have the effect of increasing the
“overshoot” of our consumption, and possibly resulting in more challenging targets for footprint reduction in other areas.
However, if the concept of “trade” in ecological services were taken further, this set-aside biodiversity land could be seen
as a valuable asset.

4. CLOSURE

The preliminary Ecological Footprint calculations for the City of Cape Town show that we are living unsustainably (i.e. our
Ecological Footprint exceeds available biocapacity). The main culprits are our reliance on fossil-based fuels for
electricity and transportation and food production. Growing consumption and waste generation, combined with limited
recycling and reuse initiatives, exacerbates the situation.

While some possible policy measures have been recommended in this paper, these are derived more from general
sustainability principles than an in-depth analysis of the Ecological Footprint calculations. van den Bergh and
Verbruggen (1999) sum this up well by stating that: “one cannot infer much on the basis of the EF alone, neither what is
the main problem nor what might be adequate policy solutions to the problem.” They further recommend that “a
decomposition type of approach is needed, which distinguishes between population density, consumption and production
of goods and services (per capita) and unsustainable land use associated with each type of good or service. This
implies a logical and complete system of multiple, complementary indicators, based on a systems perspective of
interconnected environmental problems.”

Nevertheless, the Ecological Footprint methodology provides a framework for collecting some of the data necessary to
develop such a set of indicators, while also providing a vehicle to both measure and communicate environmental
sustainability.

5. REFERENCES

City of Cape Town (2007) City of Cape Town Sustainability Report 2006.

Collins, A., Flynn, A. and Netherwood, A. (2005) Reducing Cardiff’s Ecological Footprint: A resource accounting tool for
sustainable consumption, WWF Cymru (WWF Wales), Cardiff, Wales, UK.

Eaton, R., Hammond, G.P. and Laurie, J. (2007) Footprints on the landscape: An environmental appraisal of urban and
rural living in the developed world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 13-28.
Gasson, B. (2002) The Ecological Footprint of Cape Town: Unsustainable Resource Use and Planning Implications. In:
Proceedings of Planning Africa 2002 – Regenerating Africa through Planning, 18-20 September 2002, Durban,
South Africa.

Haskins, C. (2008) Personal communication.

Herenden, R.A. (2000) Ecological footprint is a vivid indicator of indirect effects. Ecological Economics. 32, 357-358.

Rand, A. (2002) A preliminary quantification of the Ecological Footprint of the City of Cape Town, South Africa.
Unpublished Natural Systems coursework paper, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Cape
Town.

Simmons, C., Lewis, K. and Barrett, J. (2000) Two feet – two approaches: a component-based model of ecological
footprinting. Ecological Economics 32, 375-380.

Swilling, M., de Wit, M. and Thompson-Smeddle, L. (-) You the Urban Planner.

Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint – Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society
Publishers.

WWF (2006) Living Planet Report 2006. WWF International, Switzerland.

WWF (2002) Living Planet Report 2002. WWF International, Switzerland.