Assessing the ecological footprint of a large metropolitan water supplier

– lessons for water management and planning towards sustainability –

Sven Lundie University of New South Wales

Manfred Lenzen University of SydneyBransgrove, Charet and Sack Sydney Water Corporation

ContentsContents

Motivation for applying the Ecological Motivation for applying the Ecological Footprint ConceptFootprint Concept

Ecological Footprint methodEcological Footprint method Calculation procedure of SWCs’ Calculation procedure of SWCs’

Ecological FootprintEcological Footprint ResultsResults Structural Path AnalysisStructural Path Analysis Conclusion Conclusion

Motivation For Applying the Motivation For Applying the Ecological Footprint ConceptEcological Footprint Concept

Sydney Water is Sydney Water is Australia's largest water and wastewater service Australia's largest water and wastewater service

provider provider committed to ecologically sustainable development committed to ecologically sustainable development

(ESD)(ESD) to implement the principles of ESD by developing to implement the principles of ESD by developing

long-term strategies and plans that are informed by long-term strategies and plans that are informed by community consultationcommunity consultation

Sydney Water has developed 32 ESD indicatorsSydney Water has developed 32 ESD indicators Need for one aggregated indicator Need for one aggregated indicator

Ecological Footprint DefinitionEcological Footprint Definition

The ecological footprint is:The ecological footprint is:

‘‘the area of productive land, wherever the area of productive land, wherever located on Earth, that is needed to sustain located on Earth, that is needed to sustain

the consumption of a population the consumption of a population indefinitely’.indefinitely’.

Consumption-Land-Use MatrixConsumption-Land-Use Matrix

Five consumption Five consumption categoriescategories FoodFood HousingHousing TransportationTransportation Consumer goodsConsumer goods ServicesServices

Four land categoriesFour land categories

Energy landEnergy land Consumed landConsumed land Currently used land Currently used land Land of limited Land of limited

availabilityavailability

Different Ecological Footprint Different Ecological Footprint MethodsMethods

Process Analysis Input-Output Analysis

Land use

Land distur-bance

Rees, 1992; Wackernagel (et al) (1993–2000); Barrett, 2001; Chambers and Lewis, 2001

Simpson et al (1998 and 2000)

Bicknell et al (1998)

Lenzen & Murray (2001)

Bio-pro-duc-tivity

Land Use versus Land Land Use versus Land DisturbanceDisturbance

Land use type

Built

Degraded pasture or crop land

Mined land

Cleared pasture and crop land

Non-native plantations

Thinned pasture

Parks and gardens

Native plantations

Partially disturbed pasture (mostly arid)

Weighting factor

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Calculation procedure of SWCs’ Calculation procedure of SWCs’ Ecological FootprintEcological Footprint

Hybrid Ecological Footprint calculation Hybrid Ecological Footprint calculation combiningcombining

• direct (on-site) land and emissions requirements of Sydney direct (on-site) land and emissions requirements of Sydney Water based on a detailed company auditWater based on a detailed company audit

with with • all remaining higher-order requirements (for materials all remaining higher-order requirements (for materials

extraction, manufacturing, and services) based on input-extraction, manufacturing, and services) based on input-output analysisoutput analysis

= d + F (I-A)-1 × y

ResultsResults ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT Bicknell et al -

Land use

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Lenzen &

Murray - Land disturbance

Conversion Factor 0.01 ha/GJ 68.5 ha/kt

On-site 6.8 9.5

All industry 124.3 63.6

Total 131.2 73.1

Land 49.5 19.1

Greenhouse gas emissions 81.7 54.0

Structural Path Analysis

M = F (I-A)-1 = F + FA + FA2 + FA3 + … .

24.0424.04 E El1 (1; 46.2%)E El1 (1; 46.2%) (34.0%)(34.0%) 5.015.01 E Wa1 (0; 9.6%)E Wa1 (0; 9.6%) (7.1%)(7.1%) 2.102.10 C Wa1 (0; 55.8%)C Wa1 (0; 55.8%) (3.0%)(3.0%) 1.731.73 E Ch1 (1; 3.3%)E Ch1 (1; 3.3%) (2.4%)(2.4%) 0.930.93 E Nb1 (1; 1.8%)E Nb1 (1; 1.8%) (1.3%)(1.3%) 0.840.84 E Ap1 (0; 1.6%)E Ap1 (0; 1.6%) (1.2%)(1.2%) 0.580.58 E Bl1 El1 (2; 1.1%)E Bl1 El1 (2; 1.1%) (0.8%)(0.8%) 0.570.57 C El1 (1; 15.2%)C El1 (1; 15.2%) (0.8%)(0.8%) 0.490.49 E Is1 Fm1 (2; 0.9%)E Is1 Fm1 (2; 0.9%) (0.7%)(0.7%) 0.380.38 E Is1 Nb1 (2; 0.7%)E Is1 Nb1 (2; 0.7%) (0.5%)(0.5%) 0.330.33 S Bc1 Mp1 Ch1 (3; 5.4%)S Bc1 Mp1 Ch1 (3; 5.4%) (0.5%)(0.5%) 0.280.28 E At1 (1; 0.5%)E At1 (1; 0.5%) (0.4%)(0.4%)

Breakdown into Commodities Supplied to Sydney Water

Electricity: 26.9 khaElectricity: 26.9 kha Construction: 12.3 khaConstruction: 12.3 kha Methane and premises: 7.4 khaMethane and premises: 7.4 kha Chemicals: 4.3 khaChemicals: 4.3 kha

Decomposition of Production Layers

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10

Order of production layer

Em

issi

on

s ('0

00 t

)

On-site methane emissions

CO2 from power plants

Coal mine seams, steel making

Summary of ResultsSummary of Results

Sydney Waters’ Ecological Footprint equals Sydney Waters’ Ecological Footprint equals 78.1kha/a, i.e78.1kha/a, i.e Land disturbance (26%) and GHG (74%) orLand disturbance (26%) and GHG (74%) or Land commodity components (electricity 34%, Land commodity components (electricity 34%,

construction 16%, methane and premises 9% and construction 16%, methane and premises 9% and chemicals 6%)chemicals 6%)

First seven path contribute more than 50% to SWC’s First seven path contribute more than 50% to SWC’s EFEF

Major contributions to SWC’s EF are on-site Major contributions to SWC’s EF are on-site or first or first order processesorder processes

ConclusionsConclusions

Ecological Footprint calculation is improved by Ecological Footprint calculation is improved by applying applying Input-output technique (system completeness)Input-output technique (system completeness) Land weighting factorsLand weighting factors

Remaining uncertainties are inRemaining uncertainties are in GeneralGeneral

• TradeTrade• Land disturbance caused by climate changeLand disturbance caused by climate change

This case studyThis case study• Inability to incorporate ‘downstream’ impacts from effluent Inability to incorporate ‘downstream’ impacts from effluent

and biosolidsand biosolids

Conclusions – contd.Conclusions – contd.

Management and planning relevanceManagement and planning relevance Greater insight in companies direct and Greater insight in companies direct and

supply chain impactssupply chain impacts The ability to aggregate a number of different The ability to aggregate a number of different

environmental aspects into a single, easily environmental aspects into a single, easily understood indicatorunderstood indicator

Useful as a communications tool Useful as a communications tool EEngenders a sense of personal responsibility ngenders a sense of personal responsibility

amongst its customers in their use of wateramongst its customers in their use of water

Thank you!