An ecological footprint analysis of. Northamptonshire

Transcription

1 An ecological footprint analysis of Prepared for: County Council, Corby Borough Council, Daventry District Council, East Council, Kettering Borough Council, Northampton Borough Council, South Council and Wellingborough Borough Council Prepared by: Kevin Lewis and George Vergoulas Best Foot Forward Ltd 20 April 2005 Best Foot Forward Ltd The Future Centre, 115 Magdalen Road, Oxford, OX4 1RQ Tel: Fax: Website:

2 Executive Summary This ecological footprinting project was facilitated via the County Sustainability Group, a countywide partnership of officers from the eight local councils, working together on the collection of the data. This data collection was co-ordinated by the Observatory. The main aim of the Ecological Footprint project was to estimate the environmental sustainability of using the ecological footprint. The ecological footprint measures the resources consumed in order to sustain the current lifestyles of residents. Alongside this, global and local biocapacity was also calculated in order to compare the ecological footprint with the available supply of resources, indicating the environmental sustainability of. These first calculations of the region s ecological footprint and biocapacity used the most recent official published sources, typically 2001 data, supplementing these with information from the Observatory and officers from the 7 borough and district councils, as well as a variety of government departments. Data availability was generally good although gaps did occur. Where consumption data was not available it was estimated using official regional (East Midlands) data published by Central Government. The consumption data used to calculate the ecological footprint and biocapacity of the region is set out in full in this report. This includes: Direct energy Materials and waste Food Personal transport, and Land use The ecological footprint of is first broken down into constituent components and compared with United Kingdom (UK) figures. The ecological footprint of an average resident was found to be 4.90 gha per person. This compares favourably to the UK figure of 5.45 gha per person. 2

3 However, similar to the UK, the ecological footprint exceeds the average sustainable earthshare of 1.8 gha per person. Thus, if everyone on the planet consumed as much as the average resident we would require over two and a half planets to sustainably support global resource consumption. The ecological footprint of is also compared to the biocapacity of the region. This illustrates how the higher availability of arable land in, despite a higher population density (314 people per km 2 ), results in a higher local biocapacity. The total biocapacity of is 1.76 gha per person, compared with a resident s ecological footprint of 4.90 gha per person. This can be compared to the UK s population density of 244 people per km 2 (ONS, 2005, DEFRA, 2005b) and a local biocapacity of 1.53 gha per person (Loh & Wackernagel, 2004). In conclusion, s land area is not large enough to sustain local consumption patterns, and in theory would need to be 2.6 times larger in order to do so. To calculate the ecological footprints of the districts, the footprint of was adjusted according to the various district datasets. The coverage of the district datasets varied by component. It was good for energy, materials & waste and land use, partial for transport and no district data existed for food. The ecological footprints of the various districts of varied between 5.31 gha per person (Corby) and 4.60 gha per person (Daventry). This variation was mainly driven by the variation in waste produced and the amount recovered (recycled or composted), which is used to proxy overall material consumption. Corby also had the largest domestic energy, personal transport and built land footprints per person. Biocapacity across also varied between 0.56 gha per person in Northampton to 3.65 gha per person in Daventry. The main driver of this variation is the availability of arable land and the population density. 3

4 Contents Executive Summary... 2 Contents... 4 Tables & Figures... 5 Sustainable Development... 6 National and International... 6 Sustainable development in... 7 Aim of the Ecological Footprint... 9 Profile of Resource Consumption Data Availability Direct Energy Materials & Waste Food Personal Transport Land Use s Ecological Footprint Results Direct Energy Materials & Waste Food Personal Transport Built Land The Biocapacity of Biodiversity Sustainability Assessment s Ecological Footprint by District Direct energy Materials & Waste Food Personal transport Appendix A: Ecological Footprint Analysis Appendix B: Data Assumptions Appendix C: European Common Indicators Programme (ECIP) Appendix D: Consumption data sets and Ecological Footprint results by District

5 Glossary References Tables & Figures Table 1: Energy consumption in for Table 2: 's domestic waste, by management type for Table 3: 's domestic food consumption for Table 5: s land use, by type Table 6: The ecological footprint of, by component Figure 1: The ecological footprint of, by component Figure 2: The ecological footprint of, by ECIP components Figure 3: resident footprints compared with some EU country and world average residents Table 7: s direct energy ecological footprint Table 8: s materials & waste ecological footprint Table 9: s domestic food ecological footprint Table 10: s personal transport ecological footprint Table 11: 's built land ecological footprint Table 12: s ecological footprint, excluding biodiversity, shown against local biocapacity and the global earthshare Figure 4: residents ecological footprints Figure 5: UK and residents domestic energy ecological footprints.. 26 Figure 6: UK and residents materials & waste ecological footprint. 27 Figure 10: Land types used for ecological footprint analysis Table 13: An example analysis for the Footprint of UK car travel (per passenger-km). 34 Table 14: energy consumption, by district, in Table 15: s domestic waste generation, by district, in Table 16: s personal transport, by district, in Table 17: s ecological footprint, by component & district Table 18: s energy footprint, by district Table 19: s materials & waste footprint, by district Table 20: s personal transport footprint, by district Table 21: s built land footprint, by district Table 22: s biocapacity, by district

6 Sustainable Development National and International The UK Government was one of 178 governments that adopted a declaration at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, committing them to making development sustainable. A number of initiatives have arisen out of this Rio Summit at both the national and international levels. Since Rio de Janeiro, improvements have been monitored and sustainable development was again brought to the forefront during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in In March 2005 the UK Government published Securing the Future (DEFRA, 2005), its latest strategy for achieving sustainable development. This strategy follows on from the Government s last strategy in 1999 (A better quality of life), taking into account changes in the government s structure and legislation. More emphasis is placed on delivering successful sustainable development strategies on a local level. At the same time further research on ecological footprinting is encouraged by the strategy. To support the exercising of these new powers, the Audit Commission has published a local set of 38 Quality of Life indicators (Audit Commission, 2002). These form part of a reporting mechanism for Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs). The Audit Commission is currently planning to publish a revised version of its quality of life indicators in 2005, with emphasis on ecological footprint as an indicator of sustainable development. The intention is to adopt the ecological footprint as an aggregated indicator of environmental sustainability. At the European level, the EU Commission has established a common set of 11 regional sustainability indicators. To date, these have been partially incorporated into the Audit Commission s set of indicators. They include the ecological footprint as an aggregated indicator of environmental impact. 6

7 The Regional Stepwise ecological footprint methodology, used in this report, is entirely compatible with the EU common indicators approach (see Appendix C). It has been adopted by the European Commission as part of their European Common Indicators Project and is likely to be adopted by the UK Audit Commission (2002) as part of their Quality of Life Indicator set. Sustainable development in In response to the UK Government s sustainable development strategy, the East Midlands Regional Assembly produced England s East Midlands Integrated Regional Strategy our sustainable development framework (EMRA, 2000). A revised Integrated Regional Strategy has since been published by the EMRA in 2005, setting out a list of 5 priority areas where changes are needed. These include: 1. Reducing inequalities 2. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 3. Creating sustainable and healthy communities 4. Improve economic competitiveness, and 5. Use natural resources more efficiently and reduce the impact of climate change The East Midlands Regional Assembly (2005) has also set itself a list of 17 sustainable development objectives, of which 5 specifically address the environment: 1. To protect, enhance and manage the rich diversity of the natural, cultural and built environment 2. To enhance and conserve the environmental quality of the region 3. Manage natural resources carefully 4. Minimise the use of energy and develop the region s renewable energy sources 5. Involve the local people, through changes in lifestyle and at work EMRA, 2005 On a local level, one of the agreements during the Earth Summit in Rio was for Local Authorities to adopt objectives of Local Agenda 21 and develop strategies implementing and encouraging sustainable development. This led to the development of Local Agenda 7

8 21, illustrating how sustainable development can only be achieved successfully if tackled at a local level. County Council published a Community Strategy for. This report sets out a strategy for on improving social, economic and environmental conditions. The vision includes: the need to achieve sustainable development make prudent and responsible use of natural resources and minimise waste generation Also Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2000 placed on all local authorities a duty to prepare a community plan for promoting the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of their areas, as well as contributing to sustainable development in the UK. The seven borough and district councils in have all prepared Community Plans. County Council and the seven Borough and District councils have all agreed the use of ecological footprinting to chart the county s environmental sustainability performance. It is within this context that Best Foot Forward was asked to undertake the first ecological footprint analysis of and as a baseline study for all eight councils 1. This footprint study effectively acts as the baseline study for on which future footprint results should be compared and based upon. 1 Further information about ecological footprint analysis is contained in Appendix A. 8

9 Aim of the Ecological Footprint Commissioned by the eight Councils via the County Sustainability Group the aim of the Ecological Footprint project was to undertake the first ecological footprint of the county and its seven boroughs and districts. Specific study aims were to: 1. undertake secondary data research using official data sources 2. utilise these to calculate the main components of the region s ecological footprint (the impact on the environment), and 3. determine the locally available biocapacity (supply) 4. compare the district s individual ecological footprint results Outputs include: 1. A report which: a. describes the results of the component-based ecological footprint analysis b. describes both the resource 'demand' (the ecological footprint) and regional 'supply' (the biocapacity), and c. assesses the sustainability of 2. An interactive spreadsheet tool which presents the component results This project was completed by staff at Best Foot Forward Ltd, Oxford to budget. It satisfies all the outputs above. 9

10 Profile of is part of the East Midlands region and it lies close to the centre of England. It is essentially rural although it lies between London and the West Midlands conurbation. The main towns are Northampton, Kettering, Wellingborough and Corby. has a residential population of 629,676 and 259,066 households. The land area of extends to 2,008 square kilometres (over 200,000 ha); with an estimated 61% of land classified as arable, 23% pastureland, and 8% as woodland and urban each ( County Council, 2005a). Although in recent years the important footwear industry has declined, the economy of has thrived due to its proximity to London and the South East. The good roads and infrastructure in the county means it has become an important centre for the distribution trade (GOEM, 2005). People have inhabited the region for over 10,000 years, illustrated by buried archaeology, standing buildings, historic sites and landscapes. There are over 51 thousand archaeological monuments, over 6,500 listed buildings and 160 conservation areas in ( County Council, 2005b). Industry and business in is mixed, however key sectors are financial and business services as well as high performance engineering. The county is also home to Silverstone and Rockingham motorsport circuits providing business opportunities nationally and internationally ( County Council, 2005c). The distribution, hotels & restaurants sector employs the most people (26% of s jobs) followed by the manufacturing and public administration, education & health sectors (both at 19%). The fourth largest and significant employment sector is banking & finance at 18% (ONS, 2004). 10

11 Resource Consumption This section reviews and summarises the available data on the energy and materials consumption of residents. Such data is required to perform the ecological footprint calculations. Data assumptions are presented in Appendix B. Data Availability This project relies on existing data obtained primarily from government departments, such as the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Sources are referenced in the relevant data sections below. Where local data was not available, estimates of consumption were made by proxying regional and national data (as appropriate), and adjusting for population size. The use of such proxy data does tend to mask regional differences in consumption and this should be kept in mind when considering the figures presented here. In future analyses it is hoped that the use of proxy data could be reduced either by undertaking more primary research or by drawing on improved official data sources. For the analyses, data for the year 2001/2002 was used where possible. However, where this was not feasible, the most recent data was used. Resource data is presented below, under the following categories: Direct energy Materials & waste Food Personal transport Water Built land 11

12 Direct Energy Available and estimated domestic and service sector energy data is presented in Table 1, and where available with fuel types. s domestic energy consumption was assembled from several sources, while service sector energy consumption was based on regional (East Midlands) spend data. (See Appendix B for assumptions and notes). Table 1: Energy consumption in for Fuel type consumption (KWh/yr) Total 13,488 Domestic energy 9,451 Electricity 2,013 Natural gas & LPG 6,315 Heating Oil, Kerosene & Gas Oil 752 Coal 315 Renewables 55 Services energy 4,037 Hotels & Restaurants 686 Health & Education 1,096 Community, Social, Personal 717 Office & Administration 789 Commerce 749 Sources: DTI, 2005 Materials & Waste The seven boroughs and district councils provided waste data. The data on domestic waste arisings and management, which was utilised in this report, is set out in Table 2. (See Appendix B for assumptions and notes). 12

13 Table 2: 's domestic waste, by management type for Waste management % weight (kg/yr) Domestic Waste 100% 527 Landfilled & incinerated 84% 444 Composted 6% 30 Recycled 10% 52 Source: Borough & District Councils Food Food consumption data for was not available. It was estimated using East Midlands and UK proportions. Data is shown in Table 3. (See Appendix B for assumptions and notes). Table 3: 's domestic food consumption for Food type consumption (kg/yr) Domestic food 956 Animal-based 311 Plant-based 645 Sources: DEFRA, 2000 & Personal Transport Personal transport data for residents was partially complete and covered commuting and travel to school only. Regional (East Midlands) data had to be used for the remaining travel and modes. By using a variety of sources it was possible to estimate s specific residents travel for car, bus and rail travel modes. Similarly, it was also possible to estimate travel by car, bus and rail at a district level, although motorcycle, air and sea travel was only available at the UK level due to data gaps. A breakdown of personal transport data is shown in Table 4. (See Appendix B for assumptions and notes). 13

14 Table 4: s personal transport, by mode for Transport mode travel (Passkm/yr) Personal transport 13,872 Car 9,575 Bus & coach 381 Rail, tram & metro 684 Waterborne 84 Air 3,064 Motorbikes or scooters 84 Sources: DfT, 2003 & County Council, 2005a. Land Use Accurate land use data was available for and its districts, therefore estimates based on regional or national data was not necessary. s land area is 2,008 km 2 ( County Council, 2005a). Land type and area are given in Table 5 below. (See Appendix B for assumptions and notes). Table 5: s land use, by type. Land type % Land use (km 2 ) Total 100% 2,008 Arable 61% 1,224 Pasture (grasslands) 23% 460 Woodland 8% 169 Urban 8% 155 Source: County Council, 2005a. 14

15 s Ecological Footprint Results The ecological footprint of in 2001 was 3,087,643 gha or 4.90 gha per person Table 6 and Figure 1 summarise the ecological footprint of residents by component. Figure 2 shows the same data aggregated into fewer categories reflecting the European Common Indicator Programme (ECIP) 2 component definitions this is useful for comparative purposes. Ecological footprints of some EU residents and a world average resident are compared with the results in Figure 3. Table 6 also provides comparative UK data, which illustrates that based on available data, the average resident s ecological footprint is lower than the UK average. This difference is primarily due to a lower materials and waste ecological footprint (1.67 gha per person, compared to 1.92 gha per person), which is affected by the lower waste production throughout the county and higher recycling rates. generated 527 kg of domestic waste per person, compared to the UK s 590 kg per person. This, combined with a higher recycling and composting rate (16%) in the county compared to the UK (12%), is the main driver behind a lower ecological footprint overall. s personal transport footprint (0.88 gha per person) is lower than that of the UK (0.93 per person). This is mainly because residents travel approximately 8% less by car than the average UK resident and half (50%) the amount by bus and coach. Conversely, rail transport is higher, with residents using this mode 5% more than the UK average resident. This may be due to a proportion of the residents commuting to London for work. The domestic energy footprint for (0.71 gha per person) was slightly higher than the UK (0.69 gha per person). This is because residents consumed more electricity (2,013 kwh/yr per person) than the average UK resident (1,901 2 See Appendix C for more information about ECIP. 15

16 kwh/yr per person). Similarly, the services energy footprint is slightly higher in (0.31 gha per person) than in the UK (0.30 gha per person), which reflects that residents spending on goods and services was 6% higher than the UK average. The food ecological footprint for (1.20 gha per person) was slightly lower than the UK (1.28 gha per person). This is because, although residents consumed more food (956 kg/yr per person, compared to 950 kg/yr per person), less of this food was animal based. From an ecological footprint perspective, animal-based food commonly requires more resources to produce than plant-based food. Finally, residents had a significantly smaller built land ecological footprint (0.13 gha per person) compared to the UK (0.34 gha per person). This reflects the more rural landscape of than the UK as a whole. Table 6: The ecological footprint of, by component. Component Total footprint (gha) Per person footprint (gha) Per person UK footprint (gha) Ecological Footprint 3,087, Domestic Energy 445, Services Energy 195, Materials & Waste 1,053, Food 756, Personal Transport 552, Built Land 83,

17 Figure 1: The ecological footprint of, by component. Personal Transport 18% BuiltLand 3% Dom estic Energy 14% Services Energy 6% Food 25% Materials& Waste 34% Figure 2: The ecological footprint of, by ECIP components. Services 6% Nourishm ent 25% G oods 36% Shelter 15% Mobility 18% 17

18 Figure 3: resident footprints compared to the EU and world average residents Ecological footprint (gha/person) Average World Resident Italy Earthshare Austria Daventry Northampton Netherlands East Spain Germany South Wellingborough Belgium/Luxembourg Portugal Kettering Corby Greece UK France Ireland Denmark Sweden 18

19 Direct Energy Direct energy use by residents at home and for services consumed amounted to 22% of the total resident s ecological footprint, with domestic energy being the larger component of the two. Looking at the domestic supply, natural gas & LPG produced the largest footprint followed by electricity. Table 7 provides a breakdown of the direct energy footprint by energy type. Table 7: s direct energy ecological footprint. Fuel type Total footprint (gha) Per person footprint (gha) Total 641, Domestic energy 445, Electricity 168, Natural gas & LPG 223, Heating Oil, Kerosene & Gas Oil 34, Coal 18, Renewables (off grid) Other Services energy 195, Hotels & Restaurants 25, Health & Education 39, Community, Social, Personal 37, Office & Administration 39, Commerce 54, Materials & Waste The total footprint of materials and waste for residents was 1.67 gha. This is 34% of the total footprint and therefore the largest component (or big hitter ). Using UK trade proportions, this equates to 267,009 gha attributable to net traded goods 19

20 and 456,285 gha attributable to UK-produced goods (here referred to as nationallyproduced goods). Construction activities (energy use and timber) were also significant, with a footprint of 176,560 gha. Less significant are other plant-based goods (for example, clothing), which have a relatively low impact. See Table 8 for a breakdown. Given the limited data on waste content it was not possible to provide a more detailed breakdown of disposed materials. Table 8: s materials & waste ecological footprint. Categories Total footprint (gha) Per person footprint (gha) Materials & waste 1,053, of which Construction* 176, Plant-based (excl. wood products)** 61, Other wood and paper products 92, Net traded goods + 267, Nationally-produced goods + 456, Notes: *energy & construction timber **crop land + energy only Food The estimated ecological footprint for foodstuffs consumed by residents was 756,830 gha (or 1.20 gha per person). At 26 %, food was the second largest component of the overall footprint. Table 9 shows the breakdown of the food ecological footprint. The largest component in the food ecological footprint was animal-based food (see Appendix B for assumptions and notes). 20

21 Table 9: s domestic food ecological footprint 3. Food Total footprint (gha) Per person footprint (gha) Food category 756, Animal-based 468, Plant-based 224, Unharvested cropland 64, Personal Transport The ecological footprint of personal transport in was 552,851 gha, or 0.88 gha per person. Personal travel constituted 19% of the total footprint. Table 10 shows the breakdown of the personal transport ecological footprint. The largest component was car travel (0.46 gha per person), followed by air travel (0.37 gha per person). It should be noted that travel data for waterborne, air and motorbike travel was not available for or by district, so UK averages were applied for all residents. Table 10: s personal transport ecological footprint. Transport mode Total footprint (gha) Per person footprint (gha) Personal transport 552, Car 292, Bus & coach 5, Rail, tram & metro 12, Waterborne 5, Air 235, Motorbikes or scooters 1, The ecological footprint is a combination of consumption and impact per consumption unit. Because meat products are higher up the food chain and thus embody many more resources than plant based products, their impact per consumption unit is vastly higher. For example, the UN Population Fund (2001) state that it takes 4-5kg of feed to produce 1kg of meat. Therefore, even though animal-based food consumption is lower (see table 3), the impact of that consumption is greater than that for plant-based products. 21

22 Built Land The footprint of built, or degraded land, was 83,118 gha (0.13 gha per person) or 3 % of the total ecological footprint (see Appendix B Land Use assumptions for more detail). Table 11 below provides an ecological footprint of built land use for in more detail. Table 11: 's built land ecological footprint. Land type Total Footprint (gha) Per person footprint (gha) Built land 83, Housing land 24, Transport-related land 12, Commercial/industrial land (incl. hydro) 46,

23 The Biocapacity of Biodiversity In accordance with Living Planet Report (Loh & Wackernagel, 2004), the main findings of this study are presented excluding biodiversity. However, in an attempt to account for the biocapacity requirements of non-human species in the area an estimate is made below. Ecologists estimate that non-human species may require between 10% (Loh, 2000) and 75% (Noss & Cooperrider, 1994) of the bioproductive resources of the planet. The Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987) estimated that this requirement was 12%. This estimate has been adopted for calculating the ecological footprint of biodiversity. To gauge the biodiversity responsibility of each resident, the amount of land to be set-aside for biodiversity is relative to the ecological footprint; for example the bigger your ecological footprint the bigger your responsibility for biodiversity. The biocapacity of County Council is 1,107,838 gha or 1.76 gha per person County Council is 200,798 hectares (2,008km 2 ) ( County Council, 2005a). The biocapacity of is derived from the bioproductivity of this land and the UK sea area. Bioproductivity is expressed here in global hectares for comparability with the ecological footprint. Actual hectares are converted to global hectares by adjusting for land type and quality. Given that land in is much more productive than the global average, the biocapacity of expressed in global hectares is over five times that of the actual land area. Sea area is assumed to be of average UK size (per person) and average UK productivity. This gives a sea biocapacity of 0.36 gha per person. 23

24 Sustainability Assessment Comparing the ecological footprint of the resident population with the biocapacity of the region, it is possible to estimate regional sustainability, i.e. how many s would be needed to sustain current residents lifestyles. Looking at the bigger picture, one can compare the ecological footprint and the globally available average biocapacity or earthshare to determine how many planets would be required if everyone lived like a resident. As can be seen in Table 12, the ecological footprint of residents exceeds both local and global average sustainable supply. In addition, note that if residents lived within biocapacity, they would also be living within their global earthshares. Table 12: s ecological footprint, excluding biodiversity, shown against local biocapacity and the global earthshare. Ecological footprint of Average earthshare Biocapacity of (gha per person) (gha per person) (gha per person) If everyone in the world lived like the average resident we would require 2.7 planets to sustainably support consumption This assessment indicates that the 'average' resident is using 272% of the average earthshare, compared to the average UK resident using 303%. 24

25 s ecological footprint by district Figure 4 compares s ecological footprint with the UK, and also illustrates the variation that exists between the 7 districts of. Although the average resident in had an ecological footprint of 4.90 gha per person, individual district footprints varied between 5.31 gha per person (Corby - 8% above the average) and 4.60 gha per person (Daventry 6% below the average). Corby s high ecological footprint can be attributed to several factors, including high domestic energy consumption (10,400 kwh per capita) and residents travelling the furthest (14,090 pass-km/yr). Daventry s ecological footprint of 4.60 gha per person was due mainly to its low materials & waste footprint, the second lowest across and it s minimal built landscape. Although the average resident in Daventry generated 626 kg of domestic waste in 2001 (the highest in ), 44% was recovered - either recycled or composted. Diverting waste away from landfill affects the ecological footprint and this is discussed in the materials & waste component below. Figure 4: residents ecological footprints gha per capita Earthshare UK Corby Daventry East Kettering Northampton South Wellingborough Domestic Energy Services Energy Materials & Waste Food Personal Transport Built Land Earthshare Note: Please refer to Appendix D for consumption data sets and EF results. 25

26 Direct energy The direct energy ecological footprint is composed of domestic and services energy consumption. This section will only compare the ecological footprints of domestic energy use, since services energy (such as hotels, offices, commerce etc) was not available for individual districts. The ecological footprint of services energy use was estimated at 0.31 gha per capita for all residents (Table 14). Figure 5 shows Kettering residents to have the highest domestic energy ecological footprint (0.82 gha per capita) within. Kettering s electricity consumption (2,048 kwh/yr per person) was the second highest, with its gas consumption the highest (8,196 kwh/yr per person) across. This high energy consumption resulted in Kettering residents having the highest domestic energy footprint. On the other hand, East residents had the lowest domestic energy footprint at 0.63 gha per capita. This is because it consumed the lowest amount of total domestic energy (8,179 kwh/yr per person), which included the lowest gas consumption (5,079 kwh/yr per person) across. Figure 5: UK and residents domestic energy ecological footprints. gha per capita Renewables (off grid) Coal Heating Oil, Kerosene & Gas Oil Natural gas & LPG Electricity UK Corby Daventry East Kettering Northampton South Wellingborough Note: Please refer to Appendix D for consumption data sets and EF results. 26

27 Materials & Waste The average resident s materials and waste ecological footprint (1.67 gha per person) is significantly lower than the UK average (1.92 gha per person). Across, Corby residents had the highest materials and waste ecological footprint (1.88 gha per person), which was affected by its domestic waste generation (543 kg/yr) and low recycling rate (3%). Conversely, Northampton residents materials and waste ecological footprint was the lowest across the county, at 1.36 gha per person. This was influenced by its low domestic waste generation (396 kg/yr per person) and higher recycling rate (14%). See figure 6 for a more detailed breakdown of the materials and waste footprints of residents. Figure 6: UK and residents materials & waste ecological footprint gha per capita UK Corby Daventry East Kettering Northampton South Wellingborough Construction* Other wood and paper products Nationally-produced goods+ Plant-based (excl. wood products)** Net traded goods+ Note (1): Please refer to Appendix D for consumption data sets and EF results. Note (2): *Energy & construction timber. **Includes crop land. + Energy only. 27

28 Food The average resident s food ecological footprint was calculated at 1.20 gha per person. This was the second largest (26%) footprint component. It is important to note that the ecological footprint is sensitive to different food consumption patterns, such as consuming more animal-based food. Unfortunately, due to data gaps it was not feasible to distinguish food consumption differences between residents and instead, a regional (East Midlands) average was assumed for all residents. Personal transport The personal transport ecological footprint does not vary significantly between residents. The average resident s transport ecological footprint was calculated at 0.88 gha per capita. The highest personal transport ecological footprints belonged to Corby and Wellingborough residents (0.89 gha per capita), while the lowest were for Daventry, East and Kettering residents (0.87 gha per capita). This very small variation in the personal transport ecological footprint is a result of the transport data available, which only covered commuting and travel to school by mode for each district. The remaining travel was based on national and regional (East Midlands) data. Figure 7 illustrates residents personal travel ecological footprints. Built land Figure 8 shows Corby residents to have the largest built land ecological footprint (0.25 gha per person). Corby combines a fairly large built land area (25 km 2 ) with the smallest population (54 thousand residents), resulting in a high built land ecological footprint per person. South, which has the smallest built land area (6 km 2 ), combined with a larger population (79 thousand residents) has the smallest built land ecological footprint (0.04 gha per capita). 28

29 Figure 7: residents personal transport ecological footprints gha per capita Motorbikes or scooters Air Waterborne Rail, tram & metro Bus & coach Car UK Corby Daventry East Kettering Northampton South Wellingborough Note: Please refer to Appendix D for consumption data sets and EF results Figure 8: residents built land ecological footprints. gha per capita Commercial/industrial land (incl. hydro) Transport-related land Housing land UK Corby Daventry East Kettering Northampton South Wellingborough Note: Please refer to Appendix D for consumption data sets and EF results. 29

30 Biocapacity s biocapacity (1.76 gha per person) is slightly higher than the UK average (1.53 gha per person). The biocapacity of residents across varies significantly (see figure 9) with Daventry residents biocapacity measured at 3.65 gha per person, while Northampton residents biocapacity was only 0.56 gha per person. The main reason behind such variation is the amount of arable land available in each district, combined with population. Arable land is the most bioproductive land type, and is mostly associated with the countryside where the population is small in. For example, Daventry has a lot of arable land (347 km 2 ) and a small population (72 thousand residents). As a result there is a lot of highly productive land available for each resident, and thus a high biocapacity per person. Exactly the opposite occurs in Northampton, which is mostly an urban area with little arable land (9 km 2 ) and a high population (194 thousand residents), so there is less productive land available for residents, leading to a lower biocapacity per person. Figure 9: residents biocapacity UK Corby Daventry East Kettering Northampton South Wellingborough gha per capita Sea Urban Woodland Pasture (grasslands) Arable Note: Please refer to Appendix D for consumption data sets and EF results. 30

31 Appendix A: Ecological Footprint Analysis What is Ecological Footprint Analysis? Co-originated in the early 1990 s by Professor William Rees and Dr. Mathis Wackernagel, ecological footprint analysis 4 has rapidly taken hold and is now in common use in many countries at national and local levels; for example, the UK, Mexico, the United States, Canada, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Spain and Australia. The ecological footprint of a region or community can be said to be the bioproductive area (land and sea) that would be required to sustainably maintain current consumption, using prevailing technology. Imagine a glass dome over, what area would this dome have to cover to ensure that the population could maintain their current lifestyles using only the bioproductive space within the dome? For the purpose of the ecological footprint calculation, land and sea area is divided into four basic types; bioproductive land, bioproductive sea, energy land (forested land required for the absorption of carbon emissions) and built land (buildings, roads etc.). A fifth type refers to the area of land and water that would need to be set-aside to preserve biodiversity (see Figure 10). 4 Those wishing to go beyond the outline given in this report are recommended to read Sharing Nature's Interest by Chambers, Simmons and Wackernagel, 2000, 31

32 Figure 10: Land types used for ecological footprint analysis. Example 1: Example 2: A cooked meal of fish and rice would require bioproductive land for the rice, bioproductive sea for the fish, and forested 'energy' land to re-absorb the carbon emitted during the processing and cooking. Driving a car requires built land for roads, parking, and so on, as well as a large amount of forested 'energy' land to re-absorb the carbon emissions from petrol use. In addition, energy and materials are used for construction and maintenance. Once a total ecological footprint for a region is calculated, this figure can be used in certain ways. For example, by comparing the use of bioproductive area by an 'average' resident with the available average earthshare, one can estimate ecological sustainability. The earthshare is calculated by dividing the total amount of productive land on the planet by the population. Loh & Wackernagel (2004) estimate the average 'earthshare' to be about 2 gha 5. This earthshare can be considered as the maximum, equitable footprint allowance, without depriving either future generations or those now living. An annual Footprint of Nations study, published in summary form as part of the Living Planet Report (Loh & Wackernagel, 2004), provides a national context for considering regional ecological footprints (see also Wackernagel et al., 2000 and Lewan & Simmons, 5 The actual figure given by Loh & Wackernagel (2004) is 1.8 gha per person for an average earthshare. Figures are rounded in this report. 32

33 2001). Based on 2001 data, the ecological footprint of the UK was 5.45 gha per person compared with a bioproductive capacity of just 1.5 gha per person. Globally, the average ecological footprint was 2.2 gha per person in 2001, excluding biodiversity as opposed to an available capacity of 1.8 gha - suggesting that the human population is using over time, more natural resources than can be sustained. The Stepwise Methodology The Regional Stepwise ecological footprint calculations in this report follow the Stepwise Methodology. This is compatible with the method used by the European Common Indicators Programme (ECIP) ( to allow for benchmarking of cities and regions across Europe. The ECIP method is described in more detail in Appendix C (see also Lewan and Simmons (2001)). The Stepwise TM methodology is an evolution of the EcoIndex TM Methodology (see Chambers et al, 2000), both developed by Best Foot Forward, and uses a component (or bottom-up ) approach to perform ecological footprint analysis. The Stepwise TM methodology is wholly standardised with the compound (or top-down ) approach used by the Global Footprint Network in the National Footprint Accounts (Global Footprint Network, 2004), which uses international trade statistics as a starting point. The Stepwise TM Methodology, wherever possible, uses full life cycle impact data to derive ecological footprint conversion factors for key activities (the components ). For example, to calculate the ecological footprint of a car passenger travelling one kilometre, fuel use, materials and energy for manufacture and maintenance of the vehicle, and the share of UK roadspace appropriated by the car are accounted for (Table 13). This conversion factor is then applied to the number of passenger-kilometres travelled. 33

34 Table 13: An example analysis for the Footprint of UK car travel (per passenger-km). Energy land Built land Carbon per pass-km (kg) Uplift factor* 145% Carbon responsibility** 71% World carbon absorption (tonnes C/ha/yr)** 1.00 Direct land (total ha) 258,175 Land use (ha/car km) Equivalence factor Yield factor 2.32 Average occupancy (persons/car) 1.6 Total ecological footprint (gha/pass-km) * The uplift factor represents the fuel equivalent used for manufacturing and maintenance, and comes from Wackernagel & Rees (1996). Other sources suggest the uplift factor can range between 11% (derived from Hill et al., 1995 & Teufel et al., 1993) and 93% (derived from Teufel et al., 1993). ** See Glossary Sources: British Road Federation, 1998; DETR, 1997 and 1999; Global Footprint Network, 2004; Wackernagel & Rees, A similar approach is used to derive a range of ecological footprint component values, representing the main categories of impact, before summing them to calculate a total ecological footprint for. The key components used in this study are: Direct energy Materials & waste Food Personal transport Built Land Each of these key components is made up of smaller sub-categories. For example, Direct Energy is sub-divided into electricity, gas and domestic heating oil. Each of these subcategories can be broken down further. Using this component approach enables the calculation of ecological footprints at any level for a product, organisation, activity or region. 34

35 Box 1: Take only pictures - leave only footprints It is important to note that ecological footprint analysis is a snapshot methodology. It tells us how much bioproductive area would be required based on a specific data set - it does not attempt to predict future or past impacts. It is likely that, due to technology changes and variations in material flows into the economy, the ecological footprint will change over time. In the period which data is recorded some of the input flow of materials will stay in the economy, as stock, and some will flow out as waste. In both cases these materials were considered to have been consumed. Study Boundaries Any study of resource consumption faces boundary issues - what to include and what to exclude. One approach is to include all consumption that takes places within certain geographical bounds. This is known as the 'geographical principle'. The other common approach is to consider only the consumption attributable to those living within a geographic area (the 'responsibility principle'). This latter approach is favoured by WWF in their Living Planet Report (Loh & Wackernagel, 2004) and is the approach adopted in this report. A further discussion of the geographical and responsibility principle can be found in Lewan and Simmons (2001). 35

36 Appendix B: Data Assumptions Domestic Energy Energy data for was collected from the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) Energy Trends December 2004 (DTI, 2005) report. Gas consumption data was available by Government Office Region (Corby, Daventry, East, Kettering, Northampton, South and Wellingborough) covering the entire county council. DTI s regional gas data actually covered average domestic consumption (kwh) per household, thus the figures were divided by the number of residents per household in order to get a per person gas consumption figure. Electricity data was also obtained from the DTI s Energy Trends (DTI, 2005) report. Figures were specific to, and like gas data, a per person consumption figure was estimated using household numbers. Overall, the quality for energy data obtained for was good, specific at a local district level with very little data manipulation or necessary. Although no renewable energy information was available, it was assumed that 2.7% of national grid electricity is actually sourced from renewable sources. This percentage of renewable energy was applied to s electricity consumption figures, in order to estimate renewable energy consumption. Services Energy Energy consumption by service sector was not supplied or available for. Therefore UK average data was used and adjusted upwards by 6% reflecting the higher service spending levels in (ONS, 2001). The service sectors covered in this project are defined according to the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the EU (NACE Rev.1) (European Communities, 2002). Hotels & restaurants (NACE 55) 36

37 Health & education (NACE 80, 85). Other Community, social & personal service activities (NACE 90-93). Offices & administration (NACE 60-67, 70-75, 99). Commerce (NACE 50-52). To apportion the impact of services, it was assumed that their usage is proportional to spending on services. Excluded from this calculation are those services that are normally provided from general taxation (education and health) and those that relate to other categories (food, goods and mobility). Service use was assumed to be evenly distributed throughout the area's population. Service sector spending includes the following categories of spending: Communication Recreation & culture Restaurants & hotels Miscellaneous goods & services Excluded are - health & education, food & drink and clothing, furnishings & utilities etc. as these are related to goods or to services provided partly or wholly by the region. Materials & Waste Municipal waste data was used as a proxy for personal resource consumption. This necessitates a couple of key assumptions. Firstly, that personal material consumption is proportional to household waste arisings. Secondly, that the content of the waste can be assumed to be the same as the UK mix. The Office for the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM, 2005) web site has Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) data at a county council level, including domestic waste generation. The ODPM states that in 2002/03 generated 527 kgs of domestic was per person (including Civic Amenities). Average domestic waste per person 37

38 was also available at the district level from the ODPM site, but using the district data s domestic waste average comes out at 424 kgs. This difference of 103 kgs per person is the Civic Amenities waste, data that is not collected at a district level, and accounts for around 24% of s total domestic waste. District waste data was adjusted by 24% to account for Civic Amenities waste. It should be noted that the method used assumes that the proportion of stock (those materials retained within the economy) is the same across regions. Evidence suggests that the vast majority of retained materials are used for construction (roads, housing and so on) and have a long lifespan. Food Food consumption data specific to was unavailable. Regional data for the East Midlands was used instead. The main source of food consumption was two studies conducted by DEFRA: Expenditure and Food Survey (2003) and the National Food Survey (2000). These two reports have data on the amount of food consumed by residents (grams per week) at home and out in restaurants. The information covers over 100 different food types, which are split into vegetarian and animal-based food. According to the National Food Survey the East Midlands consume 0.59% more food than the UK average. The UK total figure of 950 kg of food consumed per person was adjusted to 956 kg per person for, assuming that they consume similar food products. The National Footprint Accounts 2001 (Global Footprint Network, 2004) identify unharvested cropland for the UK. At 0.10 gha per person, this was unadjusted for. Personal Transport Personal transport data at a district level did exist but only for commuting and travel to school, so regional average (East Midlands) data was assumed as an alternative for the remaining travel. Commuting and travel to school accounted for 23% of total travel in. Thus, the remaining 77% of travel data was based on average East Midlands travel data. The Regional Transport Statistics - November 2002 report published by the Department for Transports (DfT, 2003) covers the average distance travelled per 38