Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.2 The tools of sustainable development
2.2.1 The foundation thesis and application of ecological footprint ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 15
2.2.1 The foundation thesis and application of ecological footprint
The overall ecological footprint model should include the land-used directly and indirectly consumed from all the resource and energy. Because the manner of calculating the ecological footprint is set to list, when adding one assessment item into analysis will may increase the total footprint. That result in the ecological what we calculated is smaller and more conservation than the real world. There are two processes of the analysis and calculation about ecological footprint：At first, tracing and analyzing the overall consumption of resource and junk produced, and then transform it into the bio-productivity land area to provide and supply the function around the world.
In theory, ecological footprint model would calculate how much land and water area used for the consumption of resource. But the process is hard and complicated;
there are some simplify way to calculate：
1. The land with productivity is sustainable in the assumption; however, it is not true in the reality, the consumption of the lands are usually faster than re-use it.
2. Only considering the basic service of naturals and focus on how to use the function by the activities directly and indirectly by human being, including the recycle
16
energy and disposable consumption, the absorption of the consumption, the building land area, available water using and some environmental pollution.
3. If there are more than two services or activities in the same land area, not calculating the consumption of ecological doubly, only calculate which use more ecological footprint.
4. Simplify the manner of classification about bio-productivity to make it easier to calculate and analyze. E.g. separate ecological system into eight land categories.
Simplifying will underestimate the needs for land by human being. But if continuously tracing the development, the indicators of ecological footprint are just like camera that could display each step about the needs of human being. Ecological footprint presents the other thought to evaluate the problem of environment. It not only emphasizes the analyst of ecological physical, but also promotes the development and expansions of economy are all limited by the ecological carrying capacity. The consumption of resource and energy from human being also has to consider the limitation from the ecological system.
The major strength of ecological footprint analysis is its conceptual simplicity.
This method provides an intuitive and visually graphic tool for communicating the sustainability dilemma, which is one of the most important dimensions in sustainability.
It not only aggregates the ecological flows associated with consumption and translates them into appropriated land area, but is an indicator that anyone can understand it.
Then, the ecological footprint of population can be compared with the available supply of productive land. Individuals can contrast their personal footprints with their ecological “fair Earth shares”. National footprints can be compared to domestic territories, and the aggregate human footprint can be compared to the productive
17
capacity of the entire planet.
In case that the ecological footprint is significantly larger than a secure supply of productive land, the difference represents a “sustainability gap” and “ecological deficit” (Rees, 1996). This is the amount by which consumption must be reduced for long term ecological sustainability. Thus, unlike ordinary measures of total resource use, ecological footprint analysis provides secondary indices that can be used as policy targets. And then the questions appears：How large is our ecological deficit and what must be done to reduce it？
Although acknowledging its power to communicate a fundamental message, some commentators have suggested that the footprint concept is too simplistic. For example, the model is static, whereas both nature and the economy are dynamic systems.
Ecological footprinting therefore cannot directly take into account such things as technological change or the adaptability of social systems.
Footprint analysis is not dynamic modeling and has no predictive capability.
However, prediction was never our intent. Ecological footprinting acts, in effect, as an ecological camera－each analysis provides a snapshot of our current demands on nature, a portrait of how things stand right now under prevailing technology and social values. Ecological footprinting also estimates how much we have to reduce our consumption, improve our technology, or change our behavior to achieve sustainability.
18
2.2.2 The meaning and definition of ecological footprint
Ecological footprint analysis illustrates the fact that as a result of the enormous increase in per capita energy and material consumption made possible by technology, and universally increasing dependencies on trade, the ecological locations of high-density human settlements no longer coincide with their geographic locations. So far, our Ecological Footprint calculations are based on five major categories of consumption－food, housing, transportation, consumer goods and services－and on eight major land-use categories as Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Eight major land-use categories and categories
(1) Energy land a. ”Transformed land” by fossil energy Energy or the land of CO2
(2) Consumed land b. Build up land Deteriorated land
(3) Available land c. Garden Recuperated build-up land
d. Arable land Arable system
e. Pasture
Adjusted system f. Cultivated forest
(4) Limited undeveloped land
g. Uncultivated forest Productivity ecosystem h. Unavailable land Desert; Ice cap
Source： Wackernagel et al. (1999)
However, we have examined only one class of waste flow in detail. We account for carbon dioxide emissions from fossil energy consumption by estimating the area of average carbon-sink forest that would be required to sequester them
[carbon emissions/capita] / [carbon assimilation/hectare], on the assumption that atmospheric stability is a prerequisite of sustainability.
19
From Table 2.3, we could find out that most highly urbanized industrial countries run an ecological deficit about an order of magnitude larger than the sustainable natural income generated by the ecologically productive land within their political territories.
However, ecological footprint analysis illustrates the fact that as a result of the enormous increase in per capita energy and material consumption made possible by technology, and universally increasing dependencies on trade, the ecological locations of high-density human settlements no longer coincide with their geographic locations.
Cities necessarily appropriate the ecological output and life support functions of distant regions all over the world through commercial trade and natural biogeochemical cycles.
Perhaps the most important insight from this result is that no city or urban region can achieve sustainability on its own. Regardless of local land use and environmental policies, a prerequisite for sustainable cities is sustainable use of the global hinterland.
Table 2.3 Compared ecological footprint of different major countries around the world
Country
Iceland 274 9.91 Poland 38521 3.35
New Zealand 3654 9.83 Israel 5854 3.05
America 268189 8.36 Thailand 60046 2.77
Australia 18550 8.11 Hong Kong 5913 2.66
Canada 30101 6.99 Malaysia 21018 2.66
Ireland 3577 6.57 South Africa 43325 2.6
Finland 5l49 6.33 Venezuela 22777 2.6
Japan 125672 6.25 Brazil 167046 2.57
C.I.S. 146381 5.98 Costa Rica 3575 2.52
Sweden 8862 5.82 Hungary 10037 2.46
Denmark 5194 5.75 World average 5892480 2.34
20
France 58433 5.68 Mexico 97245 2.27
Norway 4375 5.68 Philippines 70375 2.17
Austria 8053 5.39 South Korea 45864 1.99
Singapore 2899 5.29 Turkey 64293 1.89
Portugal 9814 5.05 Peru 24691 1.73
Belgium 10174 5.03 Columbia 36200 1.72
Switzerland 7332 5.00 Nigeria 118369 1.69 Netherlands 15697 4.66 Indonesia 203.631 1.58
Argentina 35405 4.64 Jordan 203631 1.54
Germany 81845 4.61 China 1247315 1.18
England 58587 4.6 Egypt 65445 1.15
Italy 57247 4.51 Ethiopia 58414 0.99
Czech Republic 10311 4.2 Pakistan 148686 0.84
Spain 39729 4.18 India 970230 0.81
Greece 10512 3.91 Bangladesh 125898 0.73
Chile 14691 3.46
Source： Wackernagel et al. (1999)
2.2.3 The steps and calculation of ecological footprint
The calculation of ecological footprint includes the steps below：
1. Calculate annual per capita consumption of major consumption items (ci)
First, we estimate the annual per capita consumption of major consumption items from aggregate regional or national data by dividing total consumption by population size. Much of the data needed for preliminary assessments is readily available from national statistical tables on, for example, energy, food, or forest production and consumption. For many categories, national statistics provide both production and trade figures from which trade-corrected consumption can be assessed：
Trade-corrected consumption = production + imports – exports
21
2. Transform major consumption items into land area (aai)
Estimate the land area appropriated per capita for the production of each consumption item by dividing average annual consumption of that item (ci; kg/capita) by its average annual productivity or yield (p; kg/ha).
Land area appropriated per capita for the production of each consumption item (aai) = ci/p
Form this formulation; we could summary the total ecological area of annual per capita consumption and service (n). That is total average per capita ecological footprint (ef).
Total average per capita ecological footprint：
1
( ) n i
i
ef aa
3. Calculate total ecological footprint by multiplying the total average per capita footprint by population size (N), then obtaining the ecological footprint (EFp)
EFp ＝ N × ef
According to the idea of ecological footprint, this study applies this concept to transportation, trying to definite the ecological footprint of transport system. That means “To sum up the population who using the transport system, the productivity land area are needed by the consumption of energy and junk produced.” It also produced the burden to the environment when people use the transport system.
Reference and suppose
There is 15 million hectare of road area, car using is the major.
The car owner ratio is 1/1.75 (car/capita)
Suppose there are 230 work days a year
22
Suppose one bicycle rider needs 900 KJ foods by 10 kilometer riding.
Environment Canada points out that there is 98.4% car using in the traffic urgent time, however, only loading 62% commuter. As this result, we can make the conclusion about that one bus rider only occupied 2.6% road area of car driver.
（0.016/0.38）/（0.984/0.62）＝0.026
Calculation
Bicycle：Bicycle driver needs 900KJ foods to support the 10 kilometer trip back and forth. Suppose that additional energy comes from the sweet corn of breakfast. And sweet corns need land to produce and energy to manufacture. The needs of land are used to cultivate agriculture product and used to manufacture food is the same.
Therefore, the land used above is double than cultivation area. Suppose we neglect the road area of bicycle, per kilogram sweet corns include 13000KJ energy and average productivity per hectare per year 2600 kilogram of the sweet corns around the world.
900( / ) 230( . ) 2
0.0122 122
1300( / ) 2600( / / ) KJ year day year
hectare or each rider need square meters KJ kg kg ha year
Car：Average consumption of petrol by car in America approximately 12 liter each 100 kilometers. The manufacturers of car indirectly consume carbon dioxide and road maintenance about 45 %. And per liter petro include approximately 35 million J of energy. Therefore, the footprint of fossil fuels by car commuters is
1.45 12( / ) 0.035( / ) 10( / ) 230( / )
100( ) 100( / / )
L kg hundred milion J L kg day wrok day year km hundred million J ha year
= 0.14 (ha/capita) = 1500 (m2/capita)
In other side, car needs the road space, the car space of each American is
23
15,000,000( ) 2
0.06( . ) 600( / )
250,000,000( )
ha ha capita m capita
capita
Cars using about 97.4% road space, commuting 10 km every day occupied about 1/8 of average car using rate each year. However, each car using represents 7.15 capita, so per unit per capita needs （0.974×1/8×600/1.75）＝42（m2）road space when commuting 10 km. As this result, the footprint of one commuting car is 1442 m2.
Bus：Short distance bus needs 0.9 MJ/capita/km energy, and have to plus additional 45% (the same with the car) for the indirectly needs for road, bus and cost of maintenance.
1.45 0.0009( / / ) 230( / ) 10( )
100( / / )
hundred million J capita km work day year km MJ ha year
= 0.03 (ha/capita) = 300 (m2/capita)
Bus also needs the road space, as suppose above, the road space needed by a bus user is 2.6% the same distance by a car driver. That is （42 m2× 2.6％）＝1.092（m2）.
Therefore, the total needs of land area by bus user who have to commute 10 km every day is 301 m2
24
Discussion
Based on the statements above, this study summaries some key points about ecological footprint below：
1. It can help us to notice the ecological limit when systems running.
2. Avoiding over consumption and helping government to do the right policy making.
3. A way to help assess both current reality and alternative “what if” scenarios on the road to sustainability.
4. How to strongly share the productive land and water area around the world.
5. Distributing productivity and resource equitably by ecological footprint.
This study compares the purposes and the disadvantages in the table below：
Table 2.4 The purposes and disadvantages of ecological footprint Purposes and characteristics Limits and disadvantages The indicators of sustainable development：
Display the relationship with the consumption of human and natural environment by quantification indicators.
It’s hard to reflect the sustainable goal among different generations in reality.
The observation tool of sustainable development：
Help strategy maker to analyze and execute that the development is on the right way to goal.
It hard to quantification about the consumption of natural environment.
Continuously trace the ecological environment：
Observe the difference between people and development by the change of ecological footprint every year.
Lack biological diversity and the capability and demand of all ecological system.
25
This study summaries the idea of sustainability and the concept of the ecological footprint in the table 2.5 below：
Table 2.5 literature review about sustainable transportation
Authors/year Research Objectives National wide / City Research Approach
Whitelegg（1983） To decrease using less motorized transport for sustainable outcome
City level
（Europe）
Momo effect analysis
Time valued conception
Leisure life promotion Rees and Wackernagel（1996） To evaluate the effect of ecological system
influenced by human activities National wide Ecological footprint analysis
Acutt and Dodgson（1997） To decrease the environmental effect and
influence of transport modes National wide
Indicator proposed：
Emission regulations
Fuel taxes
Vehicle use restrictions Linster（1999） To compare different transport modes to different
effect of environment National wide Comparative table
Geurs and Van Wee（2000） To develop different sustainability by different
transport scenario National wide
Scenario analysis
High-technology scenario
Mobility-change scenario
Combination scenario
Steg and Gifford（2005） To find the balance of environment, society and economy.
Amekudzi（2009） To analyze the effect of transport systems to society and natural
City level
（Atlanta and Chicago） Sustainability footprint model
26
2.3 The concept of the quality of life
In the study from Steg and Gifford (2005), we find out that, in order to develop sustainability, behavioral and technological strategies not only differ in the extent to which they may improve different sustainability aspects, but probably also in the extent to which they affect the quality of life of citizens. In general, people prefer technological solutions much more than behavior changing, because the latter is perceived as more strongly reducing the freedom to move and convenience. For example, reducing car use implies that we need to adjust our lifestyle, which may evoke resistance because it requires effort and reduces freedom, comfort and convenience. And many people believe that technological measures require few behavioral changes. For example, an energy-efficient car allows individuals to drive as much as the used to do, thereby significantly reducing adverse environmental impacts.
However, technical measures generally require initial investments, and therefore often rather expensive, especially for low-income groups (Steg and Gifford, 2005).
Therefore, how to reduce the volume of car use are needed to manage the problems caused by traffic and transport. As this result, drivers agree that car use should be reduced, but they are not in favor of measures that restrict their own car use.
We find out the truth about that there are some conflict between individual benefit and sustainability transportation. How to use the balance function to choose an acceptable sustainable transport system is a very important task to be dealt with.
Quality of life is a multi-dimensional construct; there are some different definitions about quality of life from some references. Diener (1984) considers that quality of life is individuals’ cognitive and affective evaluations of their lives and is a
27
cognitive judgmental process of how satisfied people are with their current state of affairs. And Vemuri and Costanza (2006) think about the participation and the number of times in leisure activities is the decisive indicator of quality of life. The frequency and duration of engagement in leisure activities is an important objective determinant of quality of life. They further separate it into place-centered leisure activities and people-centered leisure activities to examine the relative importance of each for self reported quality of life. Place-centered leisure activities are focus on the special facilities and activities and dependent upon location specific activities, e.g. bowling golfing. And people-centered leisure activities are dependent upon social contact specific activities, e.g. socializing, playing cards. While Spinney (2009) purports people-centered leisure activities tend to have the most positive influence on quality of life. Therefore, in my study, the interaction of place-centered and people-centered factors both contribute to quality of life.
Eck et al. (2005) analyze what impact configurations on the quality of life of different population categories. They propose that individuals take participant in the activities in the special time and the potential action space. Calculate it by the distance from origin to destination, available time space, the ratio of travel time and the speed of the principal vehicle. And they use the following three indicators to evaluate quality of life： trip feasibility, efficiency of travel time and efficiency of travel distance. And we could find out the truth based on the study that the higher urbanization city will have much more shorter travel distance. And travel time will influence by traffic congestions and limit parking space due to higher urbanization cites. However, in higher urbanization cities, there are also some higher percentages to use public transport system, bicycle and walking. Available parking areas also have the limitation and the negative influences on the private car owner. As result, how to build up the
28
sustainable transportation strategies by the characteristic of urbanization is also a challenge that the policy maker has to realize deeper.
In the study of Steg and Gifford (2005), they use the questionnaires and the definition by compensatory decision-making model. The studies reveal that deteriorations in specific quality of life indicators may be compensated for by improvements in other dimension. Clearly, sustainable scenarios typically threaten individual quality of life indicators such as comfort, freedom and privacy, while quality of life indicators that refer to collective qualities such as environmental quality and nature and biodiversity would improve. For example, most current drivers choose to act in their own interest by continuing to drive, especially because cars are be lived to have many advantages over other modes of transport, such as public transport or bicycles.
However, changes typically are resisted at first, because these may have negative consequences. As long as individual are unsure of the consequences, they prefer the status quo (Steg et al., 2005). For example, Gifford et al. (2002) revealed that attitudes toward bus riding improved and bus riding increased after a policy change, because individuals perceive that the problem is being solved. Therefore, clear description of proposed changes in the transport system is important for helping respondents think through possible consequences of the plans for them personally. This may result in better and more acceptable sustainable transport plans.
Table 2.4 reveals that most quality of life indicators are considered to be very important to people’s lives. That means quality of life indicators refer to important needs and values. There are 22 indicators about different levels below. Policy-makers
29
should especially consider possible impacts on the most important quality of life indicators when designing and implementing sustainable transport policies. De Groot and Steg (2006) use these indicators to examine relationships between value orientations and perceived quality of life-changes when the cost of car use is doubled.
Three general value orientations should be distinguished when studying pro-environmental behavior： an egoistic value orientation (in which people will
Three general value orientations should be distinguished when studying pro-environmental behavior： an egoistic value orientation (in which people will