A

csSad5uSdab©

K

1

1

uactt((Wt

s

0d

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

Footprints on the landscape: An environmental appraisal of urbanand rural living in the developed world

Rebecca L. Eaton a, Geoffrey P. Hammond a,b,c,∗, Jane Laurie c

a Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UKb International Centre for the Environment (ICE), University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UKc Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, Elm Tree Court, Long Street, Devizes, Wiltshire SN10 1NJ, UK

Available online 12 July 2007

bstract

Environmental or ‘ecological’ footprints have been widely used in recent years as partial indicators of sustainability; specifically of resourceonsumption and waste absorption transformed on the basis of the biologically productive land area required by a defined population. In the presenttudy, the environmental footprints of the Borough of Swindon and the County of Wiltshire in Southern England have been evaluated and contrasted.windon is largely an urban area, whereas the adjacent landscape of Wiltshire is predominantly rural in nature. A mixed compound/componentpproach to footprint accounting was adopted. The data utilised was based on ‘proxy’ data extracted from national statistics, as well as localata. These calculations show that, on a per capita basis, the footprints of the two neighbouring communities studied are roughly the same:.65–5.94 global hectares (gha), with an estimated uncertainty of about ±11%. Consumption and pollutant emission patterns in both rural andrban communities are shown to be unsustainable, and well above the ‘Earthshare’ of 1.80 gha. However, the corresponding overshoot ratios forwindon and Wiltshire were found to be 10.35:1 and only 2.01:1, respectively. The environmental burdens caused by urban and rural living in

eveloped countries feedback onto each other. Cities and towns require resources from beyond their geographic boundaries, but rural communitieslso take advantage of the modern infrastructure and services typically provided in an urban setting. The notion of sustainability can only realisticallye applied in a broad geophysical context, and consequently the land use planning effort might more appropriately be focussed on a regional scale.

2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

unitie

pvbo(

ao‘cD

eywords: Cities; Environmental footprints; Landscape planning; Rural comm

. Introduction

.1. Background

Environmental or ‘ecological’ footprints have been widelysed in recent years as indicators of resource consumptionnd waste absorption transformed on the basis of biologi-ally productive land area required per capita with prevailingechnology. They represent a partial measure of the extento which the planet (Loh and Goldfinger, 2006), its nationsHammond, 2006; Loh and Goldfinger, 2006), or communities

Doughty and Hammond, 1997, 2004; Girardet, 1999; Rees and

ackernagel, 1996; Wackernagel, 1998) are moving along a sus-ainable development pathway. Such footprints vary between

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Univer-ity of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK. Tel.: +44 1225 386168; fax: +44 1225 386928.

E-mail address: ensgph@bath.ac.uk (G.P. Hammond).

roTstssn

169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.009

s; Sustainability; Urban development

opulations at different stages of economic development andarying geographic characteristics. Cities have been shown toe unsustainable in the sense that their footprints greatly exceed,r overshoot, their biocapacities by typically 15–150 timesDoughty and Hammond, 2004).

Sustainable development is desirable and, hopefully, attain-ble on a global scale. However, it is less obviously applicablen a city scale (Doughty and Hammond, 2004), where the termsustainable cities’ is sometimes used synonymously with con-epts such as urban autonomy, self-reliance or self-sufficiency.oughty and Hammond (1997, 2004) used the technique of envi-

onmental footprint analysis (EFA) to study the sustainabilityf cities by placing them in their broader geographic context.hey examined the 18th Century (Georgian) city of Bath as austainability case study. It was found to exhibit an environmen-

al footprint that is greater than its surrounding bioregion, andome twenty times larger than its own land area. Thus, cities onlyurvive because they are linked by human, material and commu-ications networks to their hinterlands or bioregions (Doughty

1 d Ur

aotrmsTea

1

p(dphpcbRirgft1dvatswb

Ft

fa

BEadapaufbcaoti

2

2

nt“dmBtw

4 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape an

nd Hammond, 1997, 2004). The notion of sustainability cannly be realistically applied in this wider geophysical perspec-ive, where the urban–rural interface might play an importantole in land use planning. Doughty and Hammond (2004) recom-ended that sustainability assessment, planning and monitoring

hould therefore be undertaken at the regional scale or beyond.his would be aimed at reducing environmental footprints byncouraging greater self-reliance and low-impact developmentcross regions, whilst protecting indigenous ecosystems.

.2. The issues considered

‘Ecological’ or environmental footprints (and relatedarameters) represent, albeit partial, sustainability indicatorsHammond, 2006). Resources used and wastes produced by aefined population are converted to a common basis: the area ofroductive land and aquatic ecosystems sequestered (in globalectares) from whatever source in worldwide terms. This foot-rint is illustrated schematically in Fig. 1, where the variousonstituent elements are depicted. Previous research conductedy Friends of the Earth Europe (1995) and Wackernagel andees (1996) found that most western lifestyles, such as those

n Europe and North America, have consumption patterns thatesult in footprints which are far greater than the amount of geo-raphically available land. In the case of cities, this ‘overshootactor’ (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996) amounts to some 20 timeshe urban area for Bath (Doughty and Hammond, 1997, 2004),25 times for London (Girardet, 1999), 16 times for Santiagoe Chile (Wackernagel, 1998), and more than 200 for Vancou-er (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996). These factors, which Reesnd Wackernagel (1996) suggest are representative of a ‘sus-

ainability gap’, do not correlate directly with urban populationize or geographic land area, but depend largely on economicealth per capita and building density. Much clearly needs toe done in terms of significantly reducing the environmental

ig. 1. Schematic representation of the environmental footprint, and its landypes. Source: adapted from Chambers et al. (1999).

sdiofraapssPi[bitneeetet(

ban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

ootprints of communities as part of the overall sustainabilitygenda.

In the present study, the environmental footprints for theorough of Swindon and the County of Wiltshire in Southernngland have been evaluated and contrasted. Swindon is largelyn urban area, whereas the adjacent landscape of Wiltshire is pre-ominantly rural in nature. A mixed ‘compound’/‘component’pproach to footprint accounting was adopted, where the foot-rint components (energy, transport, food, materials and waste,nd water) represented broad policy-making categories. The datatilised was based on both proxy, or ‘top-down’, data extractedrom national statistics and local, or ‘bottom-up’, data providedy local organisations. Thus, the uncertainties and deficien-ies of using environmental footprints (and related parameters)s sustainability indicators are examined, including problemsf urban and rural boundary definitions, data gathering, andhe basis for weighing the various consumption and associatedmpacts.

. Cities and sustainability

.1. Sustainable development versus sustainability

The concept of sustainability has become a key idea inational and international discussions following publication ofhe Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) published under the titleOur Common Future”; the outcome of 4 years of study andebate by the World Commission on Environment and Develop-ent led by the former Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlemrundtland. This Commission argued that the time had come

o couple economy and ecology, so that the wider communityould take responsibility for both the causes and the con-

equences of environmental damage. It envisaged sustainableevelopment as a means by which the global system would sat-sfy “the needs of the present without compromising the abilityf future generations to meet their own needs”. The notion there-ore involves a strong element of intergenerational ethics. Moreecently, sustainability has been the subject of renewed interestnd debate in the context of the 2002 World Summit on Sustain-ble Development in Johannesburg. Here the strapline “people,lanet, prosperity” was adopted to reflect the requirement thatustainable development implies the balancing of economic andocial development with environmental protection: the ‘Threeillars’ model. The interconnections between these pillars are

llustrated by the sustainability Venn diagram shown in Fig. 2Hammond (2004); adapted from a version originally developedy Clift (1995) and extended by Parkin (2000)]. Sustainabilitys reflected in the central portion of the diagram, where the threeypes of constraints are met. The originators themselves recog-ised that this is a simplified model (see, for example, Azapagict al., 2004). An alternative concept still involving these threelements is the so-called ‘Russian Dolls’ model in which theconomy is viewed as being surrounded by first human society,

hat is in turn enclosed by the natural environment (Chamberst al., 2000). Recently the UK Government has added two addi-ional principles of sustainable development to the three pillarsDEFRA, 2005): (i) promoting good governance, and (ii) using

R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Ur

FS

sbitowpcmcb2fbot

tdi(sfceeasbtttt

aaiijupsfeaoabiohrrta(tsgpLon(is

2

tfHtoTtHFTEaGteshbut did not really answer it. Instead he identified the many dis-

ig. 2. Venn diagram representation of ‘The Three Pillars’ of sustainability.ource: Hammond (2004); adapted from Clift (1995) and Parkin (2000).

ound science responsibly. But science and technology cannote deployed without regard to their environmental and socialmplications, or ‘side-effects’ (Hammond, 2000). In the long-erm, Planet Earth will impose its own constraints on the usef its physical resources and on the absorption of contaminants,hilst the ‘laws’ of the natural sciences (including, for exam-le, those of thermodynamics (Hammond, 2004)) and humanreativity will limit the potential for new technological develop-ents. Many writers and researchers have acknowledged that the

oncept of ‘sustainable development’ is not one that can readilye grasped by the wider public (see, for example, Hammond,000). However, no satisfactory alternative has thus far beenound. Further confusion about this modern paradigm is addedy the large number of formal definitions for sustainable devel-pment that can be found in the literature. Parkin (2000) referso more than 200.

Parkin (2000) and Porritt (2000) have stressed that sus-ainable development is only a process or journey towards aestination, which is ‘sustainability’. The end game cannot eas-ly be defined from a scientific perspective, although Porritt2000) argues that the attainment of sustainability can be mea-ured against a set of four ‘system conditions’. He draws theserom ‘The Natural Step’ (TNS); an initiative by the Swedish can-er specialist, Karl-Henrick Robert (see, for example, Bromant al., 2000). Its system conditions put severe constraints onconomic development, and may be viewed (Hammond, 2004)s being impractical or ‘utopian’. One of them, for example,uggests that finite materials (including fossil fuels) should note extracted at a faster rate than they can be re-deposited inhe Earth’s crust on geological timescales. This may be con-

rasted with the present rapid rate of fossil fuel depletion onhe global scale: leading to estimates for resource to produc-ion ratios of 20–40 years for oil, 40–70 years for natural gas,

bta

ban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28 15

nd 80–240 years for coal (Hammond, 2000). Upham (2000)rgues that TNS moves beyond (scientific and other) knowledgen signposting action for the business sector. He contends thatt represents a political and ethical statement rather than anyustifiable scientific consensus. TNS certainly implies that theltimate goal of sustainability is rather a long way off when com-ared with the present conditions on the planet. Parkin (2000)uggests 2050–2100 or beyond. More recently, a significant steporward has been taken by Graedel and Klee (2002) in trying tostablish a quantifiable, long-term target for sustainability fromn ‘industrial ecology’ perspective. They suggest a framework,r series of steps, to permit the establishment of the sustain-ble (or limiting) rate of natural resource use, which can thene contrasted with the current rate of consumption. The processs illustrated for the case of three common materials employedr emitted by industrial societies: zinc, germanium, and green-ouse gases. Unfortunately, the Graedel and Klee procedureequires the establishment of equal planetary shares of mate-ials/emissions on a 50-year timescale. They acknowledge thathe idea of an ‘Earthshare’ or quota of this sort is controversial,nd that the chosen timescale is somewhat arbitrary. Hammond2006) has suggested that an alternative quantitative indicatorhat may be able to better track humanity’s pathway towardsustainability is the environmental footprint utilised here. On alobal scale, Loh and Goldfinger (2006) have utilised it for thisurpose in the World Wide Fund for Nature’s (WWF) biannualiving Planet Report. This is in keeping with an interpretationf sustainable development devised by several leading inter-ational nature conservation and environmental organisationsthe IUCN, UNEP and WWF (1991)) as “improving the qual-ty of human life while living within the carrying capacity ofupporting ecosystems”.

.2. Sustainable cities

Three-quarters of the world’s population may live in cities byhe year 2025 (according to Rogers, 1997). They consequentlyorm a very important element of the human condition. Indeedall (1998) observed that the Latin root of the word ‘civiliza-

ion’ is cives – citizen – and so cities are clearly at the heartf human development (Doughty and Hammond, 2003, 2004).he notion of ‘sustainable cities’ became fashionable in litera-

ure during the 1990s (see, for example, Girardet, 1992, 1999;aughton and Hunter, 1994; Rogers, 1997; the UK Urban Taskorce, 1999). Indeed, part of the UK Research Councils’ Cleanechnology Managed Programme was devoted to this topic (seekins and Cooper, 1993). One of the leading thinkers on ‘sustain-ble cities’ has been the so-called ‘cultural ecologist’, Herbertirardet (1992 and 1999). Although he did not initially employ

he term, The Gaia Atlas of Cities (Girardet, 1992) was one of thearliest texts to stimulate an interest in the role of cities as a majorource of environmental damage: “the city as parasite”. Theree posed the question as to whether or not cities are sustainable,

enefits of modern cities, and argued for a change in the way thathey are planned and organised. Girardet noted that the inputsnd outputs of urban living are unsustainable; finite energy

1 d Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

rentebautofanauCbumabGcsaeEtHbt2r

at(GtirtwtmtCletsmtaaha

Fig. 3. The ‘metabolism’ of cities: towards sustainability. Source: Doughty andH‘m

tbtibp

nsgttgtliSa2a1

2

co

6 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape an

esources and other material inputs with waste outputs. How-ver, it has been argued by Day and Hammond (1996) that theotion of ‘sustainable cities’ is quite misleading. It looks backo the 1970s’ idea of autonomy or self-sufficiency in the builtnvironment, when it became popular to strive for “autarkic”uildings or settlements (Day and Hammond, 1996; Doughtynd Hammond, 1997, 2003, 2004). Such utopian visions ofrban habitats stretching from the level of individual buildings tohat of whole settlements have developed over recent decades (asutlined by Doughty and Hammond, 2003), and were precursorsor the notion of sustainable cities as popularised in the modernrchitectural and urban studies literature. Satterswaite (1997)otes that (nearly interchangeable) expressions like ‘sustain-ble cities’, ‘sustainable human settlements’ and ‘sustainablerban development’ were much in evidence at the second UNonference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) held in Istan-ul, June 1996. But even here, they were poorly defined ornderstood (Satterswaite, 1997). Similar criticisms have beenade by Antrop (2006) of the analogous concept of ‘sustain-

ble landscapes’. He interpreted the latter concept in terms of aroad perspective that embraced countryside, towns, and cities.iven that landscapes continuously change “in a more or less

haotic way”, Antrop argued that the goal of sustainable land-capes was also ‘utopian’. Nevertheless, clusters of buildingsnd an integrated human-scale transport infrastructure couldnhance energy conservation and reduce environmental impact.ven what have often been termed ‘compact cities’ are not in

hemselves sustainable (Day and Hammond, 1996; Doughty andammond, 1997). They survive only because they are inextrica-ly linked by human, material and communications networks toheir hinterlands or ‘bioregions’ (Doughty and Hammond, 1997,003, 2004). This outlying support structure extends from theegional to national and even global scale.

Lord (Richard) Rogers of Riverside, the eminent modernistrchitect, has been influenced by Girardet’s ideas about sus-ainable cities. In the book based on his 1995 Reith LecturesRogers, 1997) he uses the notion of ‘sustainable cities’ as well asirardet’s concept of ‘circular metabolism’ (see Fig. 3(b)). But

he general idea of the ‘metabolism of cities’ was first proposedn the USA by Wolman (1965), who noted that communitiesequired inputs, such as food, materials and other commodi-ies, in order to sustain them. In turn they emit pollutants andastes that despoil the natural environment. But the term ‘sus-

ainable cities’ was given a broad definition by Rogers (whichight better be denoted by the expression ‘convivial cities’)

hat could encompass the views of many, disparate protagonists.onurbations that are beautiful (from both an architectural and

andscape perspective), compact, creative, diverse, promote anquitable and just distribution of amenities and resources, andhat facilitates ease of contact and mobility. A key element inuch an urban design is the need to ensure resource efficiency,inimise environmental impact, and provide a safe infrastruc-

ure, where the built form and landscape are balanced (Jones

nd Flint, 2005). Girardet’s support for the notion of ‘sustain-ble cities’ solidified over time (Girardet, 1999), although heas more recently used Rogers’ broad and inclusive definitionnalogous to that of the ‘convivial cities’ formulation. This con-

idtr

ammond (2004); adapted from Girardet (1992, 1999) and Rogers (1997). (a)Linear metabolism’ cities (consume and pollute at a high rate). (b) ‘Circularetabolism’ cities (minimize new inputs and maximize recycling).

ains many desirable elements of a modern urban community,ut they do not amount to a verification of the concept. In ordero secure sustainability in the wider context, the greater hurdles arguably the urban–rural divide. It is this interface or systemoundary over which most of the input resources for cities mustass.

Doughty and Hammond (1997, 2003, 2004) used the tech-ique of environmental footprint analysis (EFA) to examine theustainability of cities by placing them in their broader geo-raphic context. They studied the ‘Georgian’ city of Bath usinghis approach. Its per capita footprint was found to be greaterhan that of the surrounding bioregion, and indeed of the widereographic area. The environmental footprint of the city is nearlywenty times larger than that of the corresponding land area. Thisends support to Doughty and Hammond’s (2004) critique of thedea of sustainable cities popularised in contemporary literature.uch views were novel at the time they were first made (by Daynd Hammond, 1996, and then Doughty and Hammond, 1997,004), but the criticisms have subsequently been echoed by otheruthors (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996; Rees, 1997; Renn et al.,998; Satterswaite, 1997).

.3. The planning context

Notwithstanding the above critique of the idea of ‘sustainableities’, urban design of compact and convivial cities can obvi-usly contribute to a more sustainable way of life, particularly

n industrialised societies. This can be done by encouraging theevelopment over time of integrated mixed-use urban communi-ies in much the same way that has been advocated by a diverseange of architectural critics and urban planners. Such cohe-

d Ur

ssTttarogomTt‘

pdcoproarn

erdhW(rtvTeui1acanwfpbrlt

lrmso

iuacparpsmcaaltctpr

3

hNsosiBRn1ttpiopati‘ta

cs

a

IW

R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape an

ive and convivial human settlements could provide diverse, yetocially balanced, communities in an attractive setting (Urbanask Force, 1999). This requires a conscious effort to reverse the

rends in urban planning evident during most of the 20th Cen-ury. Sustainability assessment techniques need to be employedcross the urban–rural interface in an extended process. Envi-onmental footprint analysis could form an important elementf that assessment as an integral part of ‘systems thinking’ moreenerally. A key element in this type of development is to focusn greatly improving the efficiency of resource use within com-unities, and thereby reducing their environmental footprint.his will clearly enhance ‘sustainability’, although it is imprac-

ical to achieve the very strict system conditions laid down underThe Natural Step’ (Hammond, 2004).

Richard Rogers (1997) advocates ‘sustainable urbanlanning’, which he contends should involve citizens inecision-making at every level. However, by the time that hehaired the UK Government’s Urban Task Force (1999) the ideaf sustainable cities had formally disappeared, although com-onent parts of the broader concept of sustainable developmentemained ‘centre stage’. The Task Force was given the remitf determining an appropriate strategy for providing 4 milliondditional homes in England over the following 25 years. Theyecommended greater re-use of ‘brown field’ sites to developew compact, cohesive settlements.

Doughty and Hammond (2004) argued that EFA should bemployed for sustainability assessment and planning out at theegional level (although perhaps ‘regions’ that differ from thoseesignated for local government purposes) or beyond. This caseas also been argued from a Canadian perspective by Rees andackernagel (1996) and from a European one by Renn et al.

1998). The latter suggest, taking the German industrialisedegion or ‘Lander’ of Baden-Wurttemberg as their example,hat cities have too many input resources (products and ser-ices) crossing their boundaries to be considered sustainable.his applied even to the regional capital of Stuttgart. [It is inter-sting to note that Renn et al. (1998) reached this conclusionsing a set of sustainability principles that were similar to thosencorporated into the Natural Step system conditions (Everard,999; Porritt, 2000).] Likewise Rees and Wackernagel (1996)dvocate regional self-reliance by way of ‘rehabilitating’ naturalapital stocks, including the promotion of local fisheries, forests,nd agricultural land. Although Doughty and Hammond (2004)oted that this approach to reducing environmental deficitsith the rest of the globalised World might appear rather more

easible in a Canadian setting than that of the UK. Land-uselanning and sustainability assessment could therefore usefullye employed on a regional scale with the aim of reducing envi-onmental footprints by encouraging greater self-reliance andow-impact development, whilst protecting indigenous ecosys-ems (much along the lines suggested by Rees, 1997).

Wolman (1965) noted that the inputs and outputs of urbaniving are unsustainable; finite energy resources and other mate-

ial inputs with waste outputs. This has been termed the ‘linearetabolism’ of cities by Girardet (1992), which is depicted

chematically in Fig. 3(a). A more desirable system would bene that he called ‘circular metabolism’ (Girardet, 1992, 1999)

wafg

ban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28 17

n which the inputs are efficiently harnessed and the waste prod-cts are reduced, reused or recycled. Such an arrangement islso illustrated in Fig. 2(b). The notion of cyclic resource usageomes from the study of natural ecosystems (see, for exam-le, Everard, 1999), but complete recycling is not feasible inn urban context. Waste streams could be minimised and theesource productivity of the city optimised. Communities canlay a useful role as potential exemplars of the type of holistic (orystems) thinking that is a prerequisite for sustainability assess-ent and planning. The Wiltshire Wildlife Trust (WWT), which

ollaborates closely with the local authorities in both Swindonnd Wiltshire, has advocated the use of footprint analysis astool for guiding progress towards securing more sustainable

ifestyles. They have established a Climate Friendly Communi-ies programme across the two local authority areas to stimulateollective action in suburbs, towns and villages on waste, energy,ransport, and local food. Local authority planners, and relatedrofessionals, are ideally placed to account for the impacts ofesource and waste flows across the urban/rural boundary.

. Environmental footprinting: back to basics

The use of ‘ecological’ or environmental footprint analysisas grown in popularity over recent years, both in Europe andorth America. They provide a simple, but often graphic, mea-

ure of the environmental impact of human activity: whetherr not in the foreseeable future humanity will be able to “treadoftly on the Earth” (Hammond, 2000). Its roots lie in earlierdeas, such as ‘Ghost Acres’ and similar concepts developed byorgstrom (1972) and Ehrlich (1968) in the late 1960s. Williamees used footprint analysis in its basic form to teach plan-ing students for some 20 years (see Wackernagel and Rees,996). He decided to adopt the term ‘ecological footprint’ inhe early 1990s, rather than ‘appropriated carrying capacity’hat he had previously used, after buying a new desk top com-uter (Chambers et al., 2000). The deliveryman told him thatt had a smaller footprint (that is, took up less space) than hisld model. The terms ‘environmental’ and ‘ecological’ foot-rints are used interchangeably here (as they were by Doughtynd Hammond (1997, 2004) and Hammond (2006)), althoughhe former is preferred. Ecology is that branch of biology deal-ng with the introduction of organisms and their surroundings.Human ecology’, sometimes used for the study of humans andheir environment, is closer to the usage implied by footprintnalysis.

Footprint calculations involve several steps. Initially the perapita land area appropriated for each major category of con-umption (aai) is determined:

ai = ci

pi

∼ annual consumption of an item (kg/capita)

average annual yield (kg/ha)

n the original version of footprint analysis employed byackernagel and Rees (1996), four consumption categories

ere identified: energy use, the built environment (the land

rea covered by a settlement and its connection infrastructure),ood, and forestry products. This is a restricted subset of alloods and services consumed, which was determined by the

1 d Ur

pdutostsrnscwpat

e

Opotp

cafc(

E

Hpd2

wribIditwnttah‘a

gI

saoectptf(netau

4

4

aSitaAbrsiwdiawas necessary to utilise financial data for some purposes and, inthose cases, information for the financial year 2002–2003 wasadopted.

8 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape an

ractical requirements of data gathering and influenced by theevelopment of the technique in a Canadian setting. However,nconnected work by Friends of the Earth Europe (1995) usinghe related ‘Environmental Space’ concept, adopted a similar setf categories. In the present study, five land types (as depictedchematically in Fig. 1 above) are been employed: bioproduc-ive land and sea, energy land, built land, and the land needed toecure biodiversity (Chambers et al., 2000). The ‘energy land’eflects that required for new forests (anywhere in the world)eeded to absorb carbon dioxide, and thereby stabilise the atmo-phere. Alternatively, it has been suggested that it could bealculated from the land required to replace fossil fuels withood biomass (Chambers et al., 2000). In order to calculate theer capita footprint (ef) in global hectares (gha), the appropri-ted land area for each consumption category is then summedo yield:

f =i=n∑i=1

aai

ne global hectare represents a hectare (ha) of biologicallyroductive land at the average global productivity. Footprintsf different communities or areas need to be standardised inhis way, so that global hectares account for disparities in landroductivities.

The above computation then leads to a matrix of consumptionategories and land use requirements, which is ideally suited tospreadsheet implementation. In order to determine the total

ootprint for a given country, region or community (EF), the perapita figure is simply multiplied by the relevant population sizeN), viz:

F = ef(N)

owever, this is generally a less useful parameter for com-arative purposes between countries or communities withifferent sized populations (Doughty and Hammond, 1997,004; Hammond, 2006; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996).

Footprint analysis implies judgements about the relativeeighting of the various consumption categories, and their envi-

onmental impact. It reduces all such impacts to a common basisn terms of global hectares per capita, which may not prove toe a unit that can be readily assimilated by ordinary people. Thenternational Institute for Environment and Development (1996)escribed the process of analysis whereby all environmentalmpacts are aggregated into a simple index as “resource reduc-ionism”. They likened it to traditional measures of economicelfare, such as the gross domestic product (GDP) or grossational income (GNI); see Hammond (2000, 2006), respec-ively. Nevertheless, it provides a useful basis for contrastinghe footprint of human activity with the available productiverea, biocapacity, or ‘carrying capacity’. The consequences ofuman consumption can then be graphically viewed against thenatural capital’ of a community, nation, region, or the planet as

whole.

EFA is a ‘static’ process that provides a measure of aggre-ate environmental burdens at some specified date (or year).t is nevertheless a valuable technique in a toolkit of mea-

Fs

ban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

ures that can aid the assessment of sustainable development,lthough it is arguably weak in terms of social inequalitiesr poverty within and between different countries and soci-ties. Satterswaite (1997), for example, has devised a set ofriteria for urban sustainability, including health and sanita-ion, recreational facilities, and numerous other aspects of socialrovision. Clearly environmental footprint analysis would needo be supplemented by the use of other measures to accountor these broader elements of human welfare. In Costanza2000), contributors noted that this aggregate indicator has aumber of advantages and disadvantages. It can be used as anffective pedagogic device (or awareness raising tool) for illus-rating human resource use and waste generation, employing

simple measure (land area) that advocates view as readilynderstandable.

. The study areas and their boundaries

.1. The general context

This study focuses on two neighbouring local authorityreas—the County Council of Wiltshire and the Borough ofwindon, a so-called ‘unitary authority’. The use of local author-

ty areas as the study boundaries was selected on the basishat they provide a clearly defined boundary that is widelycknowledged, and therefore aided the collection of local data.

schematic map illustrating the boundaries of the two neigh-ouring areas is presented in Fig. 4 in the context of the wideregion of the South West of England. The so-called ‘respon-ibility principle’ was presumed to apply to each study area,n order to attribute the resource consumption to those livingithin the boundary. Evaluation was undertaken using 2003ata, as local and UK national statistical sources were read-ly available for that year at the time that the present footprintnalysis was actually undertaken (in the first half of 2005). It

ig. 4. Schematic map of the South West of England: depicting the regionaletting of the neighbouring local authority areas of Swindon and Wiltshire.

d Ur

4

CaeaTrtiGcgaoadUat

nbwwmSe(otCaahfnlcutS

4

btWp3pduSc

ai1tPaLsscA‘NlHnsCGEiop

tntLFowbStpiWnadgrTUdeIr

5

5

R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape an

.2. The Borough of Swindon

Swindon is located in South Central England where theotswold Hills meet the West Country. It is a bustling urbanrea surrounded by countryside. The Borough of Swindon cov-rs an area of approximately 23,000 ha, and has a population ofbout 181,000; yielding a population density of 7.89 persons/ha.he bulk of this is developed land, and is occupied by buildings,

oads and other developments. Swindon offers all of the ameni-ies of modern urbanised living, as well as the contrast of greatndustrial heritage at the heart of Isambard Kingdom Brunel’sreat Western Railway, built in the 1830s. The rest of the land

over is mainly pasture, with only a small proportion used forrowing crops. Swindon residents have an average income ofpproximately £21,000 (ONS, 2004). That is equivalent to 106%f the average in the South West of England, or 97% of the UKverage. The ‘Gross Value Added’ (GVA) attributed to Swin-on represents around 6% of the total in the South West region.nemployment in the Borough is below the England and Wales

verage at 2.5% of the workforce. It has been identified withinhe regional planning framework as a specific focus for growth.

Swindon Borough Council (SBC) aspires to be the best busi-ess location in the UK, and to secure an international reputationy 2025 as a centre of innovation, science, and technology, asell as being an exemplar of ‘sustainable living’. Its relationsith central government are governed by a ‘Local Area Agree-ent’ (LAA) to deliver agreed services. In this endeavour, theBC works in partnership with a range of community stakehold-rs under the umbrella of the Swindon Strategic PartnershipSSP). The SSP has provided the focus for the developmentf a Community Strategy (currently being refreshed as a ‘Sus-ainable Community Strategy’) of which the Swindon Climatehange Action Plan, launched in the autumn of 2006, has beenmajor deliverable. It recognised climate change as not just

n environmental problem, but as a crosscutting issue that willave wide economic and social impacts. The Action Plan callsor urgent precautionary action; believing that is vital to actow to begin addressing this global problem at a communityevel. It recognises the interconnectedness of many activities onlimate change: energy use, transport, biodiversity and the nat-ral environment, food, health, water, and waste. Almost all ofhese components are reflected in the environmental footprint ofwindon reported here.

.3. The County of Wiltshire

The study of Wiltshire included all of the area coveredy Wiltshire County Council. This incorporates the four Dis-rict Councils of Kennet, North Wiltshire, Salisbury, and West

iltshire. The area encompassed by the County includes aopulation of approximately 436,000 that stretches over some25,000 ha; giving a population density 1.34 persons/ha. It isredominantly a rural County, with over 75% of the land area

edicated to agricultural use, but having nearly half the pop-lation living in towns or villages of less than 5000 people.ignificant concentrations of population can be found in theathedral city of Salisbury, the County town of Trowbridge,

apa

ban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28 19

nd Wiltshire’s many market towns. The unemployment raten Wiltshire is well below the national average of 3.5% at about.2%. The British armed forces have a significant presence, par-icularly in the south of the County—on or around Salisburylain. Military restructuring is resulting in the relocation, reusend disposal of assets in the north of the County, such as RAFyneham, whilst expansion is simultaneously occurring in theouth. Wiltshire is an important area for biodiversity and land-cape. Three ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ (AONB)over 43% of the County’s landscape, there are 10 ‘Specialreas of Conservation’, two ‘special Protection Areas’, 136

Sites of Special Scientific Interest’ (SSSI), and seven ‘Nationalature Reserves’. It also contains an abundance of archaeo-

ogical and architectural sites, including the UNESCO Worlderitage sites of Stonehenge and Avebury, Salisbury Cathedral,early 20,000 prehistoric, Roman and medieval architecturalites, and the industrial monuments like the Kennet and Avonanal and Brunel’s classic railway tunnel at Box. Wiltshire’sVA represents almost 9% of the total for the South West ofngland. The average income for a person living in Wiltshire

s £22,900 (ONS, 2004) per year. This is equivalent to 116%f the average for the South West, or 106 % of the UK averageersonal income.

The development of Swindon will have a knock-on affect onhe location of business and residential accommodation in theorthern half of Wiltshire. The County is generally attractiveo inward migration for both work and retirement from Greaterondon and the neighbouring cities of Bath and Bristol (seeig. 4), as well as from the adjoining region of the South Eastf England. In addition, there is a significant amount of out-ard commuting to surrounding cities and towns, which enjoyetter rates of job creation and higher salaries. The Wiltshiretrategic Board (WiSB) plays an analogous partnerships role in

he County to that of the SSP in Swindon. This Board is in therocess of agreeing an LAA with central government, enshrinedn a community strategy document: ‘A Sustainable Strategy for

iltshire’. It seeks to “create strong and sustainable commu-ities” across the County, thereby enhancing economic, socialnd environmental wellbeing: the ‘three pillars’ of sustainableevelopment referred to above. On the environmental front, itives priority to waste minimisation, particularly in terms ofeducing household arisings (via composting and recycling).he WiSB desires to be the most waste-efficient County in theK by 2014. Other initiatives focus on securing greater bio-iversity, and on climate change mitigation through improvingnergy efficiency and greater use of renewable energy systems.t explicitly recognises that these various actions will lead to aeduction in Wiltshire’s environmental footprint.

. Resource flow and footprint accounting

.1. The method of footprint analysis and data collation

A mixed ‘compound’/‘component’ approach to footprintccounting was adopted for the present study, where the foot-rint components (energy, transport, food, materials and waste,nd water) represented broad policy-making categories. These

2 d Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

ctTe‘t‘eePbrIanGa2ttG

aftanTea

5

oettstpdaauihh

5

aramc

Fm

•

•

••••

etbs

C

Tpas(

g

land area (ha) = resource consumption (unit)

average resource yield (unit/ha)

0 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape an

ould be converted into the five basic land types; taking careo avoid double accounting (particularly for embodied energy).he data utilised was based on both proxy, or ‘top-down’, dataxtracted from national or international statistics and local, orbottom-up’, data. Wackernagel and Rees (1996), the origina-ors of footprinting, developed the technique employing thecompound’ approach. They utilised aggregate data sources fornergy and trade flows. It has subsequently been adopted forvaluating national footprints for the WWF’s biannual Livinglanet Report (the latest version of which has been reportedy Loh and Goldfinger (2006), and which Hammond (2006)ecently analysed in order to ascertain their determinants).n contrast, Simmons et al. (2000) devised a ‘component’pproach, extending it to the estimation of footprints for sub-ational communities (for example, the Channel Island ofuernsey), as well as those for organisations, households,

nd products. In reality, Best Foot Forward (Chambers et al.,005) also employed a ‘mixed’ approach for their study ofhe footprint of the South West of England, and for whichhe second author of the present paper sat on the Advisoryroup.Like Wackernagel’s study of Santiago de Chile (1998), the

im here has been to make a rough estimate of the per capitaootprint for instructional purposes in a relatively short period ofime and at moderate cost. The duration of the present study waslittle longer than that for Santiago de Chile, but this does notecessarily imply any greater accuracy in the data or analysis.he use of a mixed approach to study Swindon and Wiltshirenabled the uncertainties and limitations inherent in footprintnalysis to be illustrated.

.2. Resource flow analysis data

The initial phase of footprint analysis involves the collectionf consumption data covering the various components, such asnergy, materials and waste, food, and transport. This yieldshe flow of resources into and out of the area under review:he Borough of Swindon and neighbouring County of Wilt-hire in this case. The data collected needed to be specifico these local authority areas. In the spirit of a mixed ‘com-ound’/‘component’ approach to EFA, proxy (or secondary)ata adapted from national statistics was employed in thebsence of locally obtained (or primary) data. This collation andnalysis of data is highly disaggregated with very many individ-al items of information (for example, food and raw materialnputs alone involved 14 separate categories). Limits of spaceave meant that only the aggregate results could to be presentedere.

.3. Environmental footprint calculations

In addition to the consumption data needed for footprintnalysis, yield and conversion (or ‘equivalence’) factors were

equired. The EFA resource components had to be identifiednd categorised. They reflected broad and identifiable policyaking categories, which match the consumption of ‘natural

apital’. These components (see again Fig. 5) were:

Tf

f

ig. 5. Schematic representation of the component-based approach to environ-ental footprint analysis devised by Simmons et al., 2000.

Built land: land appropriated through urban development andtransport infrastructure.Direct energy: electricity, natural gas, solid fuel, andpetroleum consumption.Food and drink: consumption of food materials and products.Materials and waste: consumption of products and materials.Transport: passenger-km travelled in each mode.Water: domestic water use.

In order to calculate the footprint of each component, it is nec-ssary to apply a conversion factor. Thus, in the case of transport,he number of car passenger-km travelled in each study area muste converted to the footprint equivalent of the energy and roadpace required (see, for example, Simmons et al., 2000):

ar travel footprint = number of passenger−kilometer travelled

× conversion factor

he conversion factor here is the footprint equivalent of one carassenger-km, and can be found using fuel use data, materialsnd energy required for manufacture and maintenance, and thehare of UK road space appropriated by each of the study areasSimmons et al., 2000).

The area required to support each component (see Fig. 5) isiven by:

hen the footprint is found in global hectares using ‘equivalenceactors’ (Chambers et al., 2000):

ootprint (gha) = land area (ha) × equivalence factor.

R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28 21

Table 1Footprints and their components on a local, regional and UK national scale

Component The Borough of Swindon2003 (gha/cap)

The County of Wiltshire2003 (gha/cap)

South West of England region2001 (gha/cap)

United Kingdom 2001(gha/cap)

Built land 0.42 0.66 0.26 0.32Direct energy 1.23 1.02 1.00 0.92Food 1.26 1.26 1.63 1.55Materials and waste 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.09Transport 0.61 0.78 0.53 0.57Water 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

T

S et al.

Efws

doTnnbtWFccprEf(

m±

5

cgtsfaamb

s

otal 5.65 5.94

ources: Swindon and Wiltshire, present study; South West Region, Chambers

ach land and sea type is normalised using different equivalenceactors (gha/ha), representing its bioproductivity relative to theorld average. Cropland is the most productive; bioproductive

ea is the least (Simmons et al., 2000).Footprint calculations involve assembling the consumption

ata taken from the resource flow analysis into a sequencef tables, along with the corresponding conversion factors.hese footprints are then found for each resource. The additiveature of the EFA means that the footprints for each compo-ent can be summed in order to find an overall footprint foroth Swindon and Wiltshire: see Table 1. ‘Pie charts’ illus-rating the environmental footprint balances for Swindon and

iltshire by land type and by components are displayed inigs. 6 and 7, respectively for the year 2003. The overall resultsan be normalised in terms of land space, or footprints, perapita (ef) simply by dividing the total footprints (EF) by theopulation size of each study area. These are depicted sepa-

ately in Figs. 8 and 9 for Swindon and Wiltshire, respectively.stimates have been made of the uncertainties inherent in the

ootprint calculations using the method of Kline and McClintock1953): see Appendix A below. This process led to an esti-

ToS0

Fig. 6. Environmental footprint balances for Sw

5.56 5.45

(2005); UK, Loh and Goldfinger (2006).

ate of the uncertainty for each study area of approximately11%.

.4. Biocapacity calculations for Swindon and Wiltshire

Biocapacity is the total bioproductive area of the planet, aountry, or a subregion, and is again measured in terms oflobal hectares (gha). It can be found using land use statis-ics, which can then be compared with the footprints of thetudy area, or with global ‘Earthshares’. Ideally, biocapacity isound using local yield factors for the different land areas, butn estimate of UK yields was used here for both local authorityreas studied. These calculations also enable an estimate to beade of the ecological deficit of each study area (see Section 5.5

elow).The per capita biocapacity of Swindon by land type is

hown in Fig. 8, together with its environmental footprint (ef).

his indicates that there are potentially just over 99,000 ghaf bioproductive land available to support the population ofwindon. That equates to about 0.55 ha/person. However, some.42 gha/person of built land had already been included in

indon and Wiltshire by land type: 2003.

22 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

Fig. 7. Environmental footprint balances for Sw

F

tWtlal

F

5

wpad

e

Stfi5tFs

ig. 8. Environmental footprint vs. biocapacity for the Borough of Swindon.

he estimate of biocapacity. The corresponding biocapacity ofiltshire by land type is presented in Fig. 9. This shows that

here are around 1.29 million global hectares of bioproductiveand available to support that population. This amounts tolmost 3 ha/person. But this includes 0.66 gha/person of builtand previously incorporated into the estimate of biocapacity.

ig. 9. Environmental footprint vs. biocapacity for the County of Wiltshire.

oaoilinhsv2

tir2

o

indon and Wiltshire by component: 2003.

.5. The ‘ecological deficit’ and biocapacity overshoot

A comparison of the footprint and biocapacity revealshether or not existing ‘natural capital’ is sufficient to sup-ort consumption and production patterns. If the footprint ofregion exceeds its biocapacity, then there is an ‘ecological

eficit’ (measured in gha):

cological deficit = biocapacity − footprint

uch a deficit suggests (according to Chambers et al., 2000)hat the study area may be deemed ‘unsustainable’. The dif-erence between the environmental footprint of Swindon andts biocapacity is around 925,000 gha, which is equivalent to.10 gha/person. The deficit in ‘Energy Land’ principally con-ributes towards the overall ‘ecological deficit’ of the town (seeig. 8). However, the difference between the footprint of Wilt-hire and its corresponding biocapacity is about 1,302,000 gha,r equivalent to 2.98 gha/person. The deficit in Energy Land isgain the primary contributor to the overall ecological deficitf the County from amongst the various land types (Fig. 1), ass shown in Fig. 9. It is only bioproductive crop and pastureand that exceeds their footprint counterparts. These ecolog-cal deficits for Swindon and Wiltshire (Figs. 8 and 9) doot take into account the need to conserve biodiversity. Itas been argued by some that 12% of the global biocapacityhould be set aside in order to secure the world’s biodi-ersity (for a discussion of this issue, see Chambers et al.,000).

The ratio of the environmental footprint of each study areao their corresponding biocapacity provides another means ofllustrating how much these communities overshoot their ‘car-ying capacity’. Here the overshoot ratio is defined (Hammond,

006) as:

vershoot ratio = environmental footprint

available productive area

d Ur

Tfi

6l

6

poppdtmtrafrspasplestmbTal

Swhwaesrf

TB

TTSUW

Se

rnp‘(prmpstpt2iftste

W(ctfpogqomtabtadosso

R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape an

hese were found to be 10.35:1 and only 2.01:1, respectivelyor Swindon and Wiltshire. Obviously, ecological deficits alsomply that footprints have overshot biocapacity.

. Looking at sustainability: thinking globally, actingocally

.1. Thinking globally: towards ‘one planet living’?

The environmental footprint methodology is designed to helput local sustainability concerns within a larger context, whethern a national or global scale. On a national scale, the foot-rint can be used to examine the effect that different tradingatterns could have on the footprint. In this way sustainableevelopment strategies can be created and implemented in a wayhat reflects their importance on the global and local environ-

ent. The footprints of Swindon and Wiltshire can be comparedo those already determined for the UK and its South Westegion. Table 2 compares the per capita footprints of Wiltshirend Swindon with those of the UK and South West (extractedrom Loh and Goldfinger (2006) and Chambers et al. (2005),espectively). Here the footprints of Wiltshire and Swindon arehown to be slightly higher than the regional and national foot-rints, i.e., local residents consume more natural capital than theverage British or South West resident. Both Swindon and Wilt-hire are relatively affluent areas in terms of average incomeer resident, resulting in greater purchasing power. Thus, theocal populations can afford to expend more of their income onnergy-intensive activities and products. However, these figureshould be viewed in the context of the uncertainties estimated inhe local footprints of ±11% (see Appendix A). The contribution

ade to the footprint by each component is roughly compara-le across both study areas: Swindon and Wiltshire (see Fig. 7).his emphasises the significance of particular components, suchs the ‘material and waste’ and ‘food’, which have a relativelyarge impacts on each footprint.

The global implications of the environmental footprints forwindon and Wiltshire can be assessed by placing them in aider context. A comparison with the ‘Earthshare’ indicatesow close humanity is to achieving ‘One Planet Living’. Thatould require a rate of consumption of natural resources equiv-

lent to 1.8 gha/person (see Table 2). Consequently, the global

nvironmental footprint exceeded the planet’s biocapacity byome 0.4 gha/person in about 2001. This was achieved by usingesources laid down on a geological timescale; principally fossiluels. If the rest of the world consumed as much as is cur-

able 2iocapacities of the study areas

Biocapacity (gha/cap)

he Borough of Swindon 0.55he County of Wiltshire 2.96outh West of England region 1.91nited Kingdom 1.64orld 1.80

ources: Swindon and Wiltshire, present study; South West Region, Chamberst al. (2005); UK, Loh and Goldfinger (2006).

aaptatFit

6

c(

ban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28 23

ently done in Wiltshire and Swindon, then humanity wouldeed access to a biocapacity of at least an extra two Earth-sizedlanets to achieve sustainable living. In the same vein, the UKstandard of living’ would require the resources of three planetsJones and Flint, 2005; Loh and Goldfinger, 2006), the USA sixlanets (Loh and Goldfinger, 2006), and the United Arab Emi-ates (UAE) 10 planets (Loh and Goldfinger, 2006). However, itust be borne in mind that the notion of an ‘Earthshare’ is sim-

ly an ethical construct—a value judgement about fair nationalhares in environmental impacts. In practice, it is unlikely, givenhe disparity in global wealth and resources between the pros-erous ‘North’ and ‘Majority South’, that the different nations ofhe world will converge towards ‘One Planet Living’ during the1st Century. This would need, for example, a major reductionn energy demand, along with a shift from a dependence on fossiluel and uranium resources (so-called ‘capital’ energy sources)o renewable energy technologies (mainly solar-driven, ‘income’ources) in both the industrialised and developing nations. Onlyhen would humanity be able to secure a low carbon globalconomy.

National and global footprint data published by the ‘Worldide Fund for Nature’ (WWF) in their Living Planet Report

Loh and Goldfinger, 2006) highlight the global inequity asso-iated with the acquisition of the world’s resources. It illustrateshat the richer, more developed countries are the primary causeor the current global ecological deficit. It is inevitable that, as theoorer countries aspire to become more industrialised, the visionf a ‘better’ way of life will result in a larger global footprint, arowing ecological deficit, and a rising overshoot ratio. A conse-uence of the rapidly growing world population is the continuingvershoot of available natural resources. The biocapacity esti-ates for Swindon and Wiltshire illustrate that, at a local level,

he demand for these natural resources is greater than either localuthority area can supply. Table 2 provides a comparison of theiocapacity estimates for Swindon and Wiltshire with that forhe UK and its South West region. The UK is seen to have quitelarge biocapacity, bearing in mind its relative high populationensity. This reflects the higher than global average productivityf UK land area. The world’s per capita biocapacity, or Earth-hare, is smaller than that of the South West and Wiltshire. Thisuggests that both areas have potential to be sustainable in termsf ‘one planet’ lifestyles. However, Swindon is rather fartherway from a sustainable living, given its relatively small landrea, in common with many cities and urban areas that have highopulation densities. Its main practical contribution towards sus-ainability might therefore be to reorganise itself, over time, fromcommunity exhibiting linear metabolism to something closer

o the spirit of the Girardet’s circular metabolism for cities (seeig. 3(b) above). That is, one having greater resource efficiency

n terms of the reduction in demand, the reuse of goods, andheir recycling.

.2. Acting locally: the role of environmental footprinting

Once a footprint is calculated for a defined population itan be used as a planning, monitoring and educational toolWackernagel and Rees, 1996; Chambers et al., 2000; Bond,

24 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

Table 3The possible prioritisation of strategies aimed at reducing the environmental footprint of Swindon and Wiltshire

Component Typical contribution (%) Possible strategies

Built land 9.0 Adoption of sustainable construction principlesRedevelopment of unused land that could be made bioproductive

Direct energy 19.5 Adoption of energy efficiency measuresInvestment in renewable energy technologies, where cost-effective

Food 21.5 Encourage use of more locally produced products, thereby reducing ‘food miles’Support the use of allotments and private vegetable gardens

Materials and waste 37.9 Focus on recycling and composting, as well as the reuse of materialsEncourage use of materials derived from sustainable sourcesMinimise embodied energy in construction and other materialsResource-efficient manufacture and transportation of goods

Transport 12.0 Encourage more sustainable transport methods and better public transport—‘green’ transport planningReduce private car travel to work—car pooling, cycling, walking, and home working

W cienc

2nhescB

•

••

•

•

sumampdwpoifgWIar2f

IaetisclmWvtfc

7

7t

nBtbdahjlo((r

ater 0.1 Improve water effi

002). Footprint datasets can be employed to help model sce-arios, and to investigate the environmental impact of differentuman activities. It has certainly proved to be a valuable andffective tool for educators: presenting complicated and detailedtatistics as a simple and visual concept. The footprint indicatoran then be used for the following purposes (see, for example,ond, 2002):

as an indicator of environmental impact for lobbying decisionmakers;to promote behaviour change at an individual level;to illustrate how shifting consumption to less resource inten-sive items reduces environmental impact;to illustrate that global footprints can be affected by the sumof local activities; andto link products to their global footprint and promote marketsfor sustainably produced goods and services.

Once the impacts on the footprint have been defined, localtrategies and initiatives can be developed and prioritised. Bypdating data sources, the footprint might then be used as aonitoring tool. Changes in the footprint can be re-examined

nnually or biannually. However, the role of proxy data in deter-ining the footprint must be kept in mind. If a significant

roportion of the data employed is extracted from aggregateata sources for energy and trade flows, then the local footprintill be relatively insensitive to variations ‘on the ground’. Thelanning function of the footprint relies on detailed analysisf the collated results. The simplest means of prioritising thempacting activities is to use the component breakdown of theootprint. This is illustrated in Table 3, where possible strate-ies for reducing the environmental footprint of Swindon andiltshire are listed against the weighting of each component.

n both Swindon and Wiltshire activities of this sort are actu-

lly being given a higher priority (SSP, 2006; WWT, 2005). Theecently launched Swindon Climate Change Action Plan (SSP,006) drew attention to the use of carbon and environmentalootprints in pulling together a range of climate change impacts.

srib

y

t advocates their utilisation to monitor the take-up of recyclednd/or traditional materials in construction, as well as improvednergy efficiency in building design and layout. This reflectshe largest of the footprint components: ‘materials and waste’,ncluding embodied energy. In the County of Wiltshire, the Wilt-hire Wildlife Trust (WWT, 2004) has taken up the footprintoncept as a means of assessing environmental impacts “at allevels from individuals to countries”. They have instigated a ‘Cli-

ate Friendly Communities’ programme in both Swindon andiltshire in which communities (ranging from whole streets or

illages to towns) act together to address the issues that underpinhe environmental footprint: waste, energy, transport, and localood. A certification scheme has been devised for successfulommunities.

. Concluding remarks

.1. The environmental impact of urban and rural living inhe developed world

An environmental appraisal has been undertaken of twoeighbouring local authority areas in Southern England: theorough of Swindon and the County of Wiltshire (see the loca-

ion map presented as Fig. 4). This enabled a comparison toe made of a largely urban area (Swindon) with that of a pre-ominantly rural one (Wiltshire). Wiltshire was shown to haven environmental footprint (EF) of some 2.6 million globalectares, whereas Swindon was found to have a footprint ofust over 1.0 million global hectares. Thus, the present calcu-ations have shown that, on a per capita basis, the footprintsf the two adjoining communities studied are roughly the same5.65–5.94 gha)–well above the ‘Earthshare’ of 1.80 gha in 2003Loh and Goldfinger, 2006). Associated biocapacity calculationseveal large ‘ecological deficits’ in both communities; demon-

trating the unsustainable consumption and emissions pattern inural, as well as urban, communities. However, the correspond-ng overshoot ratios for Swindon and Wiltshire were found toe 10.35:1 and only 2.01:1, respectively. This suggests that the

d Ur

ll

ma(amscafcrvoeTcsitt

ntpeTsoi(6rticen

7a

tIh“tclrIutb

ogscTtm

oFap(iSbctthwTk

lnslaaourabvtttae6mtrr

c(tgaI

R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape an

argely rural community of Wiltshire has the greater potential toive within its own biocapacity.

A mixed ‘compound’/‘component’ approach to the EFAethodology has been adopted for Wiltshire and Swindon. This

pproach presents the footprint in identifiable impact categoriessee Fig. 5): the built environment, direct energy, food, materialsnd waste, transport, and water. They represent broad policy-aking categories. Resource flow analysis was carried out, and

ignificant data gaps were identified in some of the footprintomponents. This included the most impacting components suchs ‘food’ and ‘materials and waste’. In order to estimate theootprints of the two study areas, a significant proportion of theonsumption data were estimated using UK proxy figures. Theesource consumption figures were then converted into footprintalues for Swindon and Wiltshire, respectively. An uncertaintyf approximately ±11% was estimated for each footprint. Thisstimation reflects the availability and reliability of data sources.he ‘materials and waste’ component was shown to be a largeontributor to the overall uncertainty (∼±16%), which is a con-equence of the rather wide uncertainty band attributed to itsnput consumption data. Thus, the data reported here, includinghe use of proxy data where necessary, illustrates the uncertain-ies and limitations inherent in footprint analysis.

The ‘materials and waste’ component was shown to domi-ate both study area footprints, and was significantly larger thanhe other components. It represented about 38% of each foot-rint (see Fig. 7), and was primarily a result of the embodiednergy requirements of the consumed materials and products.his footprint component included the impact of recycling, andignificant savings had been made in terms of the goods recycledr composted in each local authority area. ‘Energy Land’ wasdentified as the major land type requirement for each footprintsee Fig. 6). It accounted for 62% of the Wiltshire footprint, and5% of the Swindon footprint. The breakdown of the footprintesults illustrated the impact not only of direct energy consump-ion through fossil fuels, but also of the embodied energy thats required for all the materials and food that are produced, pro-essed and transported. It is because of the generation of thismbodied energy that large amounts of equivalent forest areeeded to act as a carbon sink.

.2. Reflections on environmental footprinting at the localuthority level

The results of the present study provide baseline footprintshat could be used as planning, monitoring, or educational tools.t may assist the communities of Swindon and Wiltshire to assessow they are reducing environmental burdens of different sortson their patch”. The mixed ‘compound’/‘component’ approacho EFA provides a footprint that is based around activities thatan be directly related to the material inputs and waste outputsinked to specific communities. Each footprint component rep-esents a broad policy category that can be analysed separately.

t is important, however, to take into account the associatedncertainties of each footprint when putting the results in prac-ice. Improved local footprint calculations could be achievedy obtaining comprehensive local statistics. The accessibility

naoG

ban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28 25

f local data is, on the whole, improving and local and centralovernment authorities are beginning to recognise the need foruch information. Typical actions needed to be taken by localommunities to reduce environmental footprints are indicated inable 3. In an ideal world, the aim would be to move consump-

ion and pollution patterns from those associated with linearetabolism (see Fig. 3) to a circular one.‘Biodiversity Land’ was found to account for only some 14%

f the environmental footprint of Swindon and Wiltshire (seeig. 5). The Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987) argued thatt least 12% of global biocapacity should be preserved for thisurpose. However, this may be insufficient to secure biodiversityChambers et al., 2000), and some believe that as much as 50%s needed to maintain a sustainable future for wildlife. In bothwindon and Wiltshire local efforts have been made to protectiodiversity via partnerships between local authorities, natureonservation organisations, and the business community, led byhe Wiltshire Wildlife Trust. Wildlife priorities differ betweenhe two communities, but ‘Biodiversity Action Plans’ (BAPs)ave been put in place with the aim of setting out a vision of theay in which local species can be protected in the long-term.hey provide information on particular habitats, and identifyey issues that need to be addressed.

Experience in trying to use the environmental footprint at aocal level by the staff of the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, in con-ection with their ‘Climate Friendly Communities’ Programme,uggested that it was quite a complex idea for the general pub-ic to grasp. There has been a recent tendency in the UK todopt what is sometimes called the ‘carbon footprint’ as anlternative indicator of sustainability. But the property that isften used is actually a ‘carbon weight’ not a footprint: it hasnits of kilograms or tonnes of carbon per person or activity,ather than spatial ones. Giving this parameter an inappropri-te name and units will only cause greater confusion amongstoth professionals and the general public. It could be con-erted to spatial units (hectares or metres squared) in muchhe same way as is done for the ‘Energy Land’ element ofhe environmental footprint analysed here; thereby reflectinghe amount of new forests (anywhere in the world) needed tobsorb carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. However,ven a ‘true’ carbon footprint is only likely to embrace around0% of the environmental burdens attributable to a given com-unity. Hammond (2006) noted that fossil fuel consumption

ypically accounts for between 33% and 60% of national envi-onmental footprints for low-income and high-income countries,espectively.

The role of environmental footprinting has not gone withouthallenge. The uncertainties and deficiencies of using footprintsand related parameters) as, albeit partial, sustainability indica-ors include problems associated with boundary definitions, dataathering, and the basis for weighing the various consumptionnd associated impacts (Doughty and Hammond, 1997, 2004).ts adoption as a tool for decision-making in a policy or plan-

ing context depends on an understanding of these assumptionsnd uncertainties. The global and national footprint results peri-dically reported in the WWF Living Planet Report (Loh andoldfinger, 2006) have been viewed by some (see the discussion

2 d Ur

idpsdmt2nlawppoaBgeetHbetacTips

A

c(pEEvobRtSaTnaWpGwsa

Af

tfapaaodsdeoTf

R

Ipib

W

Irueo

e

To simplify the calculations, the uncertainty for each componentwas initially estimated by considering them separately. Theseuncertainties were then used to determine to total uncertaintyin the footprint. Tables A1 and A2 illustrate the uncertainties

Table A1Uncertainty in the environmental footprint (EF) of Swindon

Components Footprint (gha) Uncertainty (%) Uncertainty (gha)

Direct energy 223,100 4.3 9,580Transport 110,400 10.6 11,670Food 229,300 9.4 21,560Materials and waste 383,700 16.3 62,650Water 1,300 10.5 140Built land 76,500 10.0 7,650

6 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape an

n Hammond, 2006) as amounting to something of a ‘dooms-ay’ scenario in the tradition of Thomas Malthus’ populationrojections in the 19th Century and the classic Limits to Growthtudy in 1970s. Criticisms have also been made concerning theominant influence of fossil fuels in footprint calculations. Itay underestimate the potential of a switch to renewable energy

echnologies in lowering the planetary footprint (Hammond,006). Indeed ‘technological optimists’ typically argue thatew technology will enable humanity to overcome biophysicalimits (Costanza, 2000), thereby making development sustain-ble. Recently McManus and Haughton (2006) have offeredhat they term a ‘sympathetic critique’ of both the theory andractice of environmental footprinting. They believe that, ifoorly interpreted, it can mislead policy makers. Planners andthers thinking of adopting the approach should therefore beware of its strengths and weaknesses; like those noted here.ut even McManus and Haughton acknowledge that it hasreat “visual and commonsense appeal”. In addition, it can bemployed to communicate the fact that environmental impactsxtend beyond the urban domain into its bioregion or rural hin-erland (Doughty and Hammond, 1997, 2004; McManus andaughton, 2006). In reality, the environmental burdens causedy urban and rural living in developed countries feedback ontoach other. Cities and towns require resources from beyondheir geographic boundaries, but rural communities also takedvantage of the economic, educational, employment, healthare, and leisure facilities typically provided in an urban setting.he notion of sustainability can only realistically be applied

n a broad geophysical context, and consequently land uselanning might more appropriately be focussed on a regionalcale.

cknowledgements

Rebecca Eaton wishes to thank the Gwent County Coun-il and the Higher Education Funding Council for EnglandHEFCE) for financial support for her contribution to theresent study. Geoffrey Hammond is Professor of Mechanicalngineering and Director of the International Centre for thenvironment (ICE) at the University of Bath. His research onarious aspects of energy, environment and sustainable devel-pment is currently supported via UK research grants awardedy the Carbon Trust, the Engineering and Physical Sciencesesearch Council (EPSRC), and the UK Energy Research Cen-

re. Outside the University, he is a member of the Swindontrategic Partnership’s Overview and Monitoring Group, andTrustee and a Council Member of the Wiltshire Wildlife

rust (WWT). Jane Laurie was Head of Sustainable Commu-ities at the WWT when the present study was undertaken,nd is now ‘Climate Change Champion’ for the South Westildlife Trusts. Helpful comments on an earlier draft of this

aper were provided by two of the authors’ Bath colleagues:emma Cranston and Dr Marcelle McManus. All the authorsish to acknowledge the care with which Gill Green (Univer-

ity of Bath) prepared the figures. The authors’ names appearlphabetically.

T

TUU

ban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

ppendix A. Uncertainty analysis of environmentalootprints

The uncertainties in EFA are dependent on the accuracy ofhe data collected. Some of the data represents a proxy adoptedrom national resource consumption statistics, and hence errorsre inevitably present in EF calculations. A critical aspect of theresent study was the collection of area-specific data with thessistance of local authority and other local organisations, suchs the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust. The uncertainties in the footprintsf each study area were calculated using a ‘standard’ methodeveloped originally by Kline and McClintock (1953) for single-ample experiments in engineering research. A more accessibleescription of the technique is given by Holman (2001). Herestimates of uncertainties were based on a careful assessmentf errors in the various primary and secondary (proxy) sources.he result of an experiment or study can be expressed using a

unction of the variables:

= R(X1, X2, X3, . . . , Xn)

f Wr is the uncertainty in the final result (footprint or bioca-acity), and W1, W2, W3,. . ., Wn are the uncertainties in thendividual variables, then the uncertainty in the result is giveny (Kline and McClintock, 1953; Holman, 2001):

r =[(

∂R

∂x1W1

)2

+(

∂R

∂x2W2

)2

+ · · · +(

∂R

∂xn

Wn

)2]1/2

n the present footprint study, the primary data consisted ofesource consumption estimates, via material flow accounting,sed to determine each component of the footprint. The functionmployed to calculate each footprint can be expressed in termsf the different components, viz:

nvironmental footprint

= built land + direct energy land + food land

+ materials and waste land + transport land + water area

otal 1,024,300 113,250

otal Footprint 1,024,300ncertainty (gha) 113,250ncertainty (%) 11.1

R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Ur

Table A2Uncertainty in the environmental footprint (EF) of Wiltshire

Components Footprint (gha) Uncertainty (%) Uncertainty (gha)

Direct energy 443,500 3.7 16,500Transport 340,800 10.7 36,460Food 551,900 9.4 51,880Materials and waste 964,200 16.3 157,430Water 3,200 10.5 340Built land 290,000 10.0 29,000

Total 2,593,600 291,610

Total footprint 2,593,600UU

frpeeb

E

Ta

R

D

A

A

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

EE

E

1

G

G

G

HH

H

H

H

H

I

J

K

L

O

M

P

P

R

R

R

R

ncertainty (gha) 291,610ncertainty (%) 11.2

or each component for the footprint of Swindon and Wiltshire,espectively. In addition, these uncertainties were converted intoercentage values for each component. The total uncertainty forach study area was obtained by summing the uncertainties forach component. The total uncertainty (in hectares) that coulde presented as a proportion of the overall footprint:

F Uncertainty%

=∑

W

EF

= WE + WT + WF + WP + WW + WB

EF

his process led to an estimate of the uncertainty for each studyrea of approximately ±11% (see Tables A1 and A2).

eferences

epartment for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2005. OneFuture—Different Paths, TSO, London [a shared framework for sustainabledevelopment jointly produced by the UK Government and the DevolvedAdministrations].

ntrop, M., 2006. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia?Landsc. Urban Plan. 75, 187–197.

zapagic, A., Perdan, S., Clift, R., 2004. Sustainable Development in Practice:Case Studies for Engineers and Scientists. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

ond, S., 2002. Ecological Footprints: A Guide for Local Authorities. WWF-UK, Surrey.

orgstrom, G., 1972. The Hungry Planet: The Modern World at the Edge ofFamine, 2nd ed. Macmillan, New York.

roman, G., Holmberg, J., Robert, K.-H., 2000. Simplicity without reduction:thinking upstream towards the sustainable society. Interfaces 30, 13–25.

hambers, N., Child, R., Jenkin, N., Lewis, K., Vergoulas, G., Whiteley,M., 2005. Stepping Forward: A Resource Flow and Ecological FootprintAnalysis of the South West of England, BFF, Oxford. [Available online -http://www.steppingforward.org.uk].

hambers, N., Simmons, C., Wackernagel, M., 2000. Sharing Natures Interest:Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability. Earthscan Publica-tions, London.

lift, R., 1995. The challenge for manufacturing. In: McQuaid, J. (Ed.), Engi-neering for Sustainable Development. Royal Academy of EngineeringLondon, pp. 82–87.

ostanza, R. (Ed.), 2000. Forum: the ecological footprint. Ecol. Econ. 32,341–394.

ay, A.K., Hammond, G.P., 1996. Sustainable cities, International Centre forthe Environment Seminar Series: ‘Towards an Environmental ResearchAgenda’, University of Bath (unpublished), 18 June.

S

S

ban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28 27

oughty, M.R.C., Hammond, G.P., 1997. The use of environmental footprintsto evaluate the sustainability of cities. In: Russell, N., Byron, H., Dixon,A., Richardson, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth IRNES Conference:Technology, the Environment and Us. Imperial College, London, pp. 170–176.

oughty, M.R.C., Hammond, G.P., 2003. Cities and sustainability. In: Win-nett, A.B. (Ed.), Towards a Collaborative Environment Research Agenda.Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 81–105.

oughty, M.R.C., Hammond, G.P., 2004. Sustainability and the built envi-ronment at and beyond the city scale. Build. Environ. 39, 223–1233.

hrlich, P., 1968. The Population Bomb. Ballantine, New York.kins, P., Cooper, I., 1993. Cities and Sustainability, Clean Technology Unit.

UK Research Councils, Swindon.verard, M., 1999. Towards sustainable development of still water resources.

Hydrobiologia 395/396, 29–38.995. Friends of the Earth Europe (FOE), 1995. Towards Sustainable Europe.

FOE, Brussels.irardet, H., 1992. The Gaia Atlas of Cities: New Directions for Sustainable

Urban Living. Gaia Books, London.irardet, H., 1999. Creating Sustainable Cities. Green Books/The Schumacher

Society, Totnes.raedel, T.E., Klee, R.J., 2002. Getting serious about sustainability. Environ.

Sci. Technol. 36 (4), 523–529.all, P., 1998. Cities in Civilisation. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.ammond, G.P., 2000. Energy, environment and sustainable development: a

UK perspective. Trans. IChemE Part B: Process Safety Environ. Protect. 78,304–323.

ammond, G.P., 2004. Engineering sustainability: thermodynamics, energy sys-tems, and the environment. Int. J. Energy Res. 28, 613–639.

ammond, G.P., 2006. ‘People, planet and prosperity’: the determi-nants of humanity’s environmental footprint. Nat. Resourc. Forum 30,27–36.

aughton, G., Hunter, C., 1994. Sustainable Cities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers,London.

olman, J.P., 2001. Experimental Methods for Engineers, 7th ed. McGraw-Hill,New York.

UCN/UNEP/WWF, 1991. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for SustainableLiving. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

ones, P., Flint, D., 2005. Building a Future for Wales. Welsh School of Archi-tecture, Cardiff.

line, S.J., McClintock, F.A., 1953. Describing uncertainties in single-sampleexperiments. Mech. Eng., 3–8.

oh, J., Goldfinger, S. (Eds.), 2006. Living Planet Report. WWF, Gland, Switzer-land.

ffice of National Statistics (ONS), 2004. Survey of Personal Incomes: IncomeTax by County and Region 2002–2003. ONS, London.

cManus, P., Haughton, G., 2006. Planning with ecological footprints: a sym-pathetic critique of theory and practice. Environ. Urban. 18 (1), 113–127.

arkin, S., 2000. Sustainable development: the concept and the practical chal-lenge. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering138, pp. 3–8.

orritt, J., 2000. Playing Safe: Science and the Environment. Thames & Hudson,London.

ees, W., 1997. Is ‘sustainable city’ an oxymoron? Local Environ. 2 (3),303–310.

ees, W., Wackernagel, M., 1996. Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannotbe sustainable—and why they are the key to sustainability. Environ. ImpactAssess. Rev. 16, 223–248.

enn, O., Goble, R., Kastenholz, H., 1998. How to apply the concept of sustain-ability to a region. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 58, 63–81.

ogers, R., 1997. Cities for a Small Planet. Faber and Faber, London.

atterswaite, D., 1997. Sustainable cities or cities that contribute to sustainable

development? Urban Stud. 34 (10), 1667–1691.immons, C., Lewis, K., Barrett, J., 2000. Two feet—two approaches:

a component-based model of ecological footprinting. Ecol. Econ. 32,375–380.

2 d Ur

S

U

U

W

W

Wolman, A., 1965. The metabolism of cities. Sci. American 213, 179–190.

8 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape an

windon Strategic Partnership (SSP), 2006. A Climate Change Action Plan forSwindon Borough 2006–2010. Swindon Borough Council, Swindon.

pham, P., 2000. Scientific consensus on sustainability: the case of the natural

step. Sustain. Dev. 8, 180–190.

rban Task Force, 1999. Towards an Urban Renaissance. E. & F.N. Spon,London.

ackernagel, M., 1998. The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile. LocalEnviron. 3 (1), 7–25.

W

W

ban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

ackernagel, M., Rees, W., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint. New Society,Philadelphia.

orld Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987. OurCommon Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

iltshire Wildlife Trust (WWT), 2004. Strategic Plan 2005–2010. WWT,Devizes.