The State of the Art in Ecological Footprint Theory and Applications FOOTPRINT FORUMEditor Simone Bastianoni Academic Conference 2010Short Communications The State of the Art in Ecological Footprint Theory and Applications FOOTPRINT FORUM 2010 Academic Conference Short Communications Editor Simone Bastianoni We thank the following institutions for their endorsement: Book published for the Academic Conference FOOTPRINT FORUM 2010 Short Communications Colle Val d’Elsa 9th-10th June 2010 Editor Simone Bastianoni Credits graphic design for the cover Francesca Ameglio Pulselli FOREWORD The World is moving towards a severe limitation of resources and, in particular, some of those resources most important for human well-being are approaching their peak point (the point beyond which their withdrawal is no longer convenient). Understanding if a Nation is using its natural stocks and flows of natural resources in a sustainable way is becoming crucial information for policy makers in order to have a complete picture when developing future strategies. Sustainability poses the challenge of determining whether we can hope to see the current level of well-being at least maintained for future generations, and how this can be possible. Since the 1980’s, policy makers and academics as well as the general public have been debating over what sustainable development is, what the best metrics are to measure the level of sustainability a country (or a region), and how to understand and manage the available natural capital. The Ecological Footprint was introduced at the beginning of the 90’s by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees. The Ecological Footprint is, in fact, one of the first comprehensive attempts to measure human carrying capacity, not as a speculative assessment of what the planet might be able to support, but as a description of how many planets it would take in any given year to support human demand of resources in that given year. Starting from its introduction into the academic debate, the concept has achieved increasing interest in society, from the scientific world to the common people. The results of the Ecological Footprint for 150 Nations worldwide are well-known and rather striking: since the mid-1980’s, humanity’s footprint has been larger than the planet’s carrying capacity, and in 2008 humanity’s total Footprint exceeded the Earth’s Biocapacity by approximately 44 per cent. This second Footprint Forum, hosted by the Ecodynamics Group of the University of Siena and co-organized with the Global Footprint Network, represents a double occasion and is a unique event, aiming to connect the academic community with national and international stakeholders and Footprint practitioners, in order to learn and share knowledge and experiences regarding the use of the Ecological Footprint. This book contains all the short communications submitted for the Academic Sessions of the Footprint Forum 2010: Meet the Winners of the 21st Century. The papers presented in this book deal with three main topics - Theory; Applications and Communication/Policy relevance, and proposals for new developments on subjects as: the integration of the Ecological Footprint with other methodologies; sustainability accounting; visualization and communication; the use of the Ecological Footprint as an educational tool for environmental awareness. The Forum has brought together a considerable group of distinguished participants from more than 30 countries of five continents. On the objective basis of the numerous and excellent contributions received, it promises to become a step forward in the advancement of the methodology and the cross-fertilization between different “worlds” of Footprint practitioners. We gather here in Colle Val d’Elsa (Italy) this week to learn about and discuss the Ecological Footprint and the biosphere’s ecological limits, as well as to strengthen a network of people and organizations working towards the common good. Over the last year and half all of us from the Ecodynamics Group of the University of Siena and the Global Footprint Network have been involved in the organization of the Footprint Forum 2010, and we are now grateful to all of you for joining us. May Colle Val d’Elsa now be a hospitable and inspirational environment for all of us. Colle Val d’Elsa, 9 June 2010 CONTENTS Rees W.E. Globalization, Eco-Footprints and the Increasingly Unsustainable Entanglement of Nations. 1 Aall C., Heiberg E., Husabø I., Hille J. “Ecological bootprinting” as a method for illustrating the inadequacy of eco-efficiency for moving towards a sustainable development: the Norwegian case. 3 Abdullatif L., Ledwith L., Alam T., Al Mubarak R., Galli A. Policy role of the Ecological Footprint as an indicator: UAE case study. 5 Acosta K., Moore J. Creating an Ecological Footprint Assessment: Using Component and Compound Economic Input Output Methods together with The Natural Step to Develop a Sustainability Management System. 7 Agostinho F., Pereira L., Ortega E. Support area as an indicator of environmental load: comparison between ecological footprint, embodied energy and emergy accounting. 9 Alapetite J. A Benchmark to Assess Local Ecological Footprint Account. 11 Bagliani M., Bocco A., Contu S. A complete ecological footprint analysis of a building: the case of Concorezzo (Italy). 13 Bagliani M., Martini F. A joint implementation of Ecological Footprint Analysis and Cost Accounting techniques for measuring environmental pressures at the company level. 15 Bastianoni S., Niccolucci V., Pulselli R. M., Marchettini N. Indicator and Indicandum: “Sustainable way” vs “using prevailing technology” in Ecological Footprint definition 17 Blasi E., Passeri N., Franco S., Pancino B., Cicatiello C. The contribution of sub-regional areas to local sustainability. 19 Capineri C., Niccolucci V., Tiezzi E. Ecological Footprint vs Biocapacity of world regions: a geopolitical interpretation. 21 Castellani V., Sala S. Comparing Ecological Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment in the sustainability evaluation of tourism activities. 23 Collins A., Flynn A. Building a network for the Ecological Footprint Community. 25 Cooper J., Howe J. Carbon Footprinting and UK Nuclear Energy Policy. 27 Cranston G.R., Hammond G.P. Losing Weight or Treading Lightly: Understanding the Carbon Footprint. 29 Csutora M. The potential of voluntary environmentalism vs. policy driven environmentalism in reducing ecological footprint – the case of Hungary. 31 Dakhia K., Azzag E.B. Developing Indicators for the Urban Institutional and Ecological Footprint. 33 Dobereiner D. Matripolis: A Community Centered Ecocity System 35 Ercin A.E., Hoekstra A.Y. Corporate water footprint accounting and impact assessment: the example of a sugar- containing carbonated beverage. 37 Ercin A.E., Hoekstra A.Y. Comparison of Carbon and Water Footprint. 39 Ewing B., Galli A. Harmonizing the National Footprint Accounts with the System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting. 41 Ewing B., Reed A., Moore D. A Systematic Approach to the Creation of Sub-National Biological Capacity Accounts. 43 i Forrer J. Global Citizenship and Sustainable Change: Better Information, Smaller Footprint. 45 Galli A., Wiedmann T., Ercin A.E., Ewing B., Giljum S. Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water Footprint into a “Footprint Family” of indicators. 47 Gondran N. Ecological footprint of an organization: can it really be measured? 49 Grigoryeva V.V. Research of parameters of a personal ecological footprint as an effective tool of education for sustainable development. 51 Hartmann S., Reed A., Galli A. Reflections on the fishing ground Footprint Methodology: the UAE as a case study. 53 Hedayati A., Safahieh A., Savari A., Marammazi J.G. Is Endocrine Disruption a Man Made Ecological Indicator of Marine Environment? 55 Hedayati A., Safahieh A., Savari A., Marammazi J.G. Application of Fish Blood as Ecological Indicator of Undesirable Materials. 57 Hermele K. Ecological Unequal Exchange: A comparative analysis. 59 Herva M., Hernando R., Carrasco E.F., Roca E. Ecological Footprint of biofuels. A comparison between biodiesel and bioethanol production processes 61 Herva M., Roca E. Methodological advances in Ecological Footprinting. 63 Hild P., Schmitt B., Mey M., Benetto E., Jury C. An agenda for establishing the Ecological Footprint as communication instrument and indicator for sustainable development in small countries: Case study Luxembourg. 65 Iha K., Ewing B. Structural Decomposition Analysis of the Ecological Footprint in Okinawa, Japan. 67 James P.R. “And the winner is......South Australia”: Ecological footprint reduction by integrating government targets and community participation supported by university research and outreach. 69 Joseph S.A. Delivering equitability to sustainability: Examination of current models in delivering sustainable economic and environmental outcomes. 71 Keleş Ö. Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Views of Ecological Footprint. 73 Kissinger M. Managing trade with the Ecological Footprint Analaysis – The case of Israel’s grain supply. 75 Kunz H., Hagens N. The risk of forced footprint reductions. 77 Kuzyk L.W. Footprint by Income using Geographic Information Systems Down to a Canadian Census Village Scale. 79 Kuzyk L.W. Bottom up Ecological Footprint Housing Component: A Geographic Information System Analysis. 81 Lager A. Rare Earth Elements: At the Root of Carbon Offset 83 Lawton E.S. A Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development to Compliment Projects using the Ecological Footprint. 85 Lawton E.S., Vale R., Vale