V. GENERAL STRATEGIES FOR PLANNING AND ORGANIZING [F-10, F-11, & F-12]
This section begins with ways to assess the larger resource dimensions of your region and your local
food system. This is followed by two short pieces that lay out basic planning and strategic sequences
and elements. How to involve community groups in local food system visioning and discussion is
outlined next. Finally, three detailed assessments of the Chicago foodshed are included.
A. The larger context [F-10]
1. Sustainability and urban impacts: . "How Big is Our Ecological Footprint?" Mathis
Wackernagel with The Task Force on Planning Healthy & Sustainable Communities,
University of British Columbia, November 1993.
B. "Assessing Your Local Food System." Tom Hemingway, 1995. [F-11]
C. Preliminary Planning and Strategizing: [F-11]
1. “Developing and implementing your own local plans.” Ken Dahlberg and Tom Hemingway ,
1995
2. Kate Clancy, "Eight Elements Critical to the Success of Food System Councils" June 1988.
D. Engaging other people and groups through visioning processes: [F-12]
1. Trevor Hancock, "How to Facilitate a Vision Workshop," Healthcare Forum Journal
(May/June 1993), pp. 33-34.
E. Examples of detailed community food system assessments: The "Food Files" series. [F-12]
1. Paige Chapel, "Complex Forces Shape Our Urban Breadbasket," The Neighborhood Works,
Vol. 5, No. 7 (Summer 1982), pp. 9-13.
2. Paige Chapel, "Metro Agriculture: Meeting Local Needs?" The Neighborhood Works,
Vol. 5, No. 8 (September 1892), pp, 9-13.
3. Paige Chapel, "Let Them Eat What They Can Get", The Neighborhood Works, Vol. 5,
No. 9 (Fall 1982), pp. 9 - 11.
HOW BIG IS OUR ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT?
USING THE CONCEPT Of APPROPRIATED
CARRYING CAPACITY FOR MEASURING
SUSTAINABILITY
by
MATHIS
WACKERNAGEL
with The Task Force on Planning Healthy & Sustainable Communities, The University of
British Columbia
People depend on
nature, which provides a steady supply of the
basic requirements for -life Energy is needed
for heat and mobility, wood for housing and
paper products, and we need quality food and
clean water for healthy. living. Through a
process called "photosynthesis" green plants
convert sunlight, carbon dioxide, nutrients and
water into plant matter, and all the food chains
which support animal life - including our own are based on this plant matter. Nature also
absorbs our waste products, and
Figure 1: Human life is interwoven with nature
provides life-support services such as climate
stability and protection from ultra-violet
radiation. Further, nature is a source of joy and
inspiration. Figure I shows how very tightly
human life is interwoven with nature, a
connection we often forget or ignore. Since
most of us spend our lives in cities and
consume goods from all over the world, we
tend to view nature as a collection of
commodities or a place for recreation, rather
than the very source of our existence.
"The Ecological
Footprint is the
land that would
be required on
this planet to
support our
current lifestyle
forever.”
Figure 2: The Ecological Footprint
If we're to continue to have good living
conditions, we must ensure that nature's
productivity Isn't used more quickly than it can
be renewed, and that waste isn't discharged
more quickly than nature can absorb it. We
know from the increasing loss of forests, soil
erosion and contamination, fishery depletion,
loss of species and the accumulation of
greenhouse gases that our current overuse of
nature is compromising our future wellbeing.
To find out whether nature provides enough
"resources" to secure good living conditions
for, everyone in a community, the Task Force
on Planning Healthy and Sustainable
Communities at the University of British
Columbia has developed an ecological
accounting tool that uses land area as its
measurement unit. Various categories of human
consumption are translated into the areas of
productive land required to provide those items.
From that, the area of land required by a given
group of people (household, city or country)
provide its resources and assimilate its waste
products can be calculated. This land area is
known as the Appropriated Carrying Capacity
or, more simply and graphically, the group's
ecological footprint (figure 2). It's the land that
would be required on this planet to support our
current lifestyle forever.
Our current economy has given rise to
increasing demands which compete for
dwindling supplies of life's basic necessities
such as food, clean water, etc. A group’s
ecological footprint can be used to measure its
current consumption against projected
requirements and point out likely shortfalls. In
this way society as a whole can compare the
choices we need to make in the near future
about our demands on nature - or else nature
will make our choices for us. We'll have to look
at issues like long term ecological sustainability
as they relate to future economic health.
Table I shows the ecological footprint
of an average Canadian, i.e. the amount of land
required from nature to support each
individual's present consumption. This adds up
to over 4.8 hectares, or an area 220 metres long
by 220 metres wide roughly comparable to
three city blocks. The column on the left shows
various consumption categories, and the
(coal, oil and natural gas). "Built Environment"
means land that's no longer available for
nature's production because it's been paved
over or used for building. Examples of what's
included in "Resources in Services" are the fuel
needed to heat a hospital, or the paper and
electricity used to produce a bank statement.
To use the table to find out how much
agricultural land is required to produce the
average Canadian's food for instance, you'd
read across the "Food" row to the "Agricultural
Land"' column, and find that 0.9 hectares of
land is needed.
headings across the top show land use
categories.
This adds up to
4.8 hectares...
roughly
comparable
to three
city blocks.
"Energy" as used in the talk means how much
land would be necessary for the long term
provision of a biological substitute for fossil
fuels
Table 1: The ecological footprint of the average Canadian, in hectares per capita.
Energy
Built
Environment
Food
0.4
Housing
0.5
0.1
Transport
1.0
0.1
Consumer
Goods
0.6
Resources
in Services
0.4
TOTAL
2.9
Agricultural
Land
Forest
0.9
TOTAL
1.3
0.4
1.0
1.1
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.4
0.2
1.1
0.6
4.8
In figure 3 there’s a comparison of the ecological footprints of various Canadian households.
Figure 3
15
13.5
10
5
3.1
3.9
4.8
0
A
B
C
D
A. SINGLE PARENT WITH CHILD – ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE $16,000
B. STUDENT LIVING ALONE – ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE $10,000
C. AVERAGE CANADIAN FAMILY, 2.72 PEOPLE – ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE $37,000
D. PROFESSIONAL COUPLE, NO CHILDREN – ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE $79,000
The ecologically productive land available to
each person on Earth has decreased over the
last century (figure 4). At the moment there is,
on average, 1.6 hectares (about one City block),
or one-third of the area which each Canadian is
currently using according to Table 1.
.
In contrast, the land appropriated by richer
countries has increased. This means that if
everyone on Earth lived like the average
Canadian, we'd need at least three Earths to
provide all the material and energy essentials
we currently use (figure 5).
If the world's population continues to grow as
anticipated, by the year 2030 there will be 10
billion people, each of whom will have an
average of only 0.9 hectares of productive
land available, assuming there's no further
soil degradation. This shows the pressure of
population size on nature's productivity.
The numbers become really interesting
when you look at the land area that people
in North America actually use. Figure 6
shows the ecological footprint for the
Lower Fraser Valley, the area east of
Vancouver, which contains 1.7 million
people or 4.25 people per hectare. The area
is far smaller than that needed to supply the
resources for its population. If the average
Canadian needs 4.8 hectares as shown in
table 1, then the Lower Fraser Valley needs
an area 20 times larger than what's actually
available for food, forestry products and
energy.
Holland has a population of 15 million
people, or 4.40 people per hectare, and
although Dutch people consume less than
Canadians on average, they still require
more than 15 times the available land for
food, forest products and energy. In other
words, human settlements don't affect only
the area where they're built.
Increasing density in cities can lead to lower
land use requirements, not only because of a
reduction in the built environment, but also
because of lifestyles which are less energy intensive. For example, a recent study of the
San Francisco area found that when residential
density was doubled, private transportation was
reduced use by 20 to 30 percent. It's also been
shown that residential heating requirements can
be reduced significantly if housing is grouped
rather than free-standing.
Our challenge is to find a way to balance
human consumption and nature's limited
productivity in order to ensure that our
communities are sustainable locally, regionally
and globally. We don't have a choice about
whether to do this, but we can choose how we
do it. In fact, many people concerned with
these issues believe that if we choose wisely
now, there's still time for us to make our
communities more sustainable, and at the same
time improve our quality of life "Buy items
made orgrown locally rather than far away."
There are three key requirements for
developing a sustainable community
(a) Ecological health. Use nature's
productivity without damaging it.
(b) Community health. Foster social
wellbeing through the promotion of fairness,
equity and cooperation.
(c) Individual health. Secure food, shelter,
health care, education etc. .for everyone.
This means working to integrate
environmental, economic and social policies so
that economic success, ecological integrity and
social health .become compatible.
In order to make our communities more
livable and sustainable we can work towards
change at the personal, urban and commercial
levels.
AT HOME WE CAN.
1. start composting
2. use more energy-efficient light bulbs,
shower heads etc
3. switch to forms of recreation and
tourism which have a low impact on the
environment
4. grow some of our own food
5. live closer to work (or the other
way around)
6. use bicycles and public transport
rather than cars
7. buy items made or grown locally
rather than far away
Households can start by reducing their
resource consumption. At the urban level we
must develop an infrastructure that leaves
options open, rather than one which dictates
resource-intensive lifestyles for our own and
future generations. Along with these lifestyle
changes, there must be changes in our
economies.
This approach differs from today's global
economy which favors Urban Industrial
centres, and requires the support and
involvement of people in each sector of society.
We can all make a difference.
Influential groups are:
Politicians (MPs, MLAs, City Councillors,
etc), who can initiate OF support sustainability
Programs and projects, particularly at the
infrastructure level They can set up screening
processes which will take ecological impact
into account when assessing a budget or
project, and they can encourage the use of the
concept of sustainability by the government.
They can persuade their parties to develop
sustainability strategies, Involve the public, and
discuss the dilemmas being faced. They can
support community groups working towards
sustainable societies.
Administrators and planners, who can
help politicians write appropriate legislation
and ensure that existing policies are followed.
They too can involve the public, present them
with the dilemmas and invite input. They can
encourage people to participate in shaping the
future of their community, and support and
assist community groups making positive
contributions to society
CITIES AND TOWNS CAN:
1. plan attractive increased population density
areas such as town centres and urban
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
villages instead of accommodating further
sprawl
offer living, working and shopping spaces
in integrated neighbourhoods
reallocate urban space to encourage
decreased use of cars (e.g. reduce road and
parking space) and increased use of public
transport, bicycles mid walking (e.g. build
bicycle 'speedways and attractive pedestrian
areas)
encourage the planting of trees and
greenspaces
establish urban land-trusts to give the
community more control over land use
promote various kinds of affordable
high-density housing such as secondary
suites and cooperatives
introduce housing construction guidelines
which minimize the consumption of
resources
develop comprehensive waste reduction.
systems which include municipal resource
reuse and reduction schemes
The general public, which is all of us
-possibly the most important group! We can
look at our lifestyles, think about what's
important to us, and start family and friends
thinking too. Let's get involved and participate
in community and municipal groups. Write and
talk to politicians at a local, regional or national
level, and let them know we want to work with
them to develop our communities sustainably.
IN DOING BUSINESS WE CAN:
1. rely on using locally available
resources rather than imported ones
2. regain local control over production
and distribution of those resources
3. secure local needs so that the long term
livelihood of a region can be protected
without compromising the livelihoods
of other people in other regions
4. charge the true costs for private
transportation, pollution and resource
use
5. support community-based non-cash,
volunteer and mutual aid networks
6. encourage
ecologically
sound
businesses lifestyles, and tax and
regulate unsustainable behaviour,
7. offer tax breaks and other incentives for
encouraging sustainable
All of us - including politicians and planners
- are consumers of ,nature's productivity. We
must work together to achieve a more
sustainable way of living now in order to
ensure that resources continue to be available
not only for ourselves, but also for future
generations.
"We must work together to ensure that
resources continue to be available for
future generations.
If you're interested in finding out more about the issues raised in this pamphlet, we suggest the following
reading material.
General
"For the Common Good Redirecting the Economy towards Community, the Environment and a Sustainable
Future" by, Herman E Daly and John B Cobb., 1989. Beacon Press, Boston.
"Toward Sustainable Communities: A Resource Book for Municipal and Local Governments" by Mark
Roseland, 1992. Available free of charge from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
Ottawa - phone (613) 992-7189.
Ecological Footprint:
"Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban Economics Leaves Out" by Bill Rees.
1992. Environment and Urbanization Vol 4. No 2. pages 121-130.
"Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity Measuring the Natural Capital Requirements of the
Human Economy" by Bill Rees and Mathis Wackernagel 1993. Forthcoming in Investing in Natural Capital.
edited by C Folke, M Hammer, A-M Jansson and R Constanza.
"How Big is our Ecological Footprint? A Handbook for Estimating a Community"s Appropriated Carrying
Capacity" by Mathis Wackernagel et al, 1993. A discussion draft prepared for the Task Force on Planning
Healthy and Sustainable Communities Vancouver.
For further information, please contact:
Janette McIntosh, Coordinator
The Task Force on Planning Healthy and Sustainable Communities
The University of British Columbia
Department of Family Practice
5804 Fairview Avenue
Vancouver, BC Canada V6T IZ3
phone: (604) 822-4366, fax: (604) 822-6950
This pamphlet may he reproduced. If excerpts are quoted, the source should be credited
Graphis: Phil Testemale
Editing C Desktop Publishing: The Write Stuff
printed on recycled paper
November 1993