Advertisement

Ecological Footprint: The Example of Gauteng Region

  • Enver Doruk Özdemir
  • Sheetal Dattatraya Marathe
Chapter
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

Since Wackernagel and Rees introduced the idea of the ecological footprint in 1992 [28, 21, 27], it has been established as a concept of measuring the sustainability of nations, regions, cities, individuals, industrial goods, etc. Today, the ecological footprint is seen as a measure of demand of natural resources with respect to the regeneration capacity of the Earth. Since the findings of Rees [21], quite sophisticated calculation procedures have been defined [15]. They are based on the generic idea that every impact on earth—which is a closed system—can be converted to an amount of biologically productive area. To allow comparability, they are expressed in global hectares (gha), which represent the average spatial productivity worldwide.

Keywords

Conversion Factor Ecological Footprint Gauteng Province Sustainability Aspect Capita Energy Consumption 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Buratti C (2012) An application of ecological footprint: Jokkmokk municipality (Sweden) and comparison with Montechiarugolo municipality (Italy). http://www.pdfio.com/k-872608.html%23. Accessed Nov 2012
  2. 2.
    Calgary, toward a preferred future—understanding Calgary’s ecological footprint, Calgary, Canada, 2007Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins A, Fairchild R (2007) Sustainable food consumption at a sub-national level: an ecological footprint, Nutritional and Economic Analysis. J Environ Policy Plan 9:5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cotton South Africa (Cotton SA) (2012) Hectares planted and yields for the RSA. http://www.cottonsa.org.za/. Accessed Dec 2012
  5. 5.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division (FAOSTATT) (2012) Online FAO databank. http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed Nov 2012
  6. 6.
    Flint K (2001) Institutional ecological footprint analysis—a case study of the University of Newcastle, Australia. Int J Sustain High Edu 2:48–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fürstenau C (2008) The impact of silvicultural strategies and climate change on carbon sequestration and other forest ecosystem functions. PhD thesis, Potsdam UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gärtner P (2009) Technisch-ökonomische Analyse und Bewertung der stofflichen Nutzung von Getreide im Vergleich zur Bioenergie Diplomarbeit IER Universität StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gasparatos A (2010) Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. J Environ Manage 91:1613–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gasparatos A, Scolobig A (2012) Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool. Ecol Econ 80:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gasson B (2002) The ecological footprint of Cape Town: unsustainable resource use and planning implementation. In: Presentation at SAPI international conference planning AfricaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Genesis (2005) The contribution, costs and development opportunities of the forestry, timber, pulp and paper industries in South Africa. http://www.genesis-analytics.com/. Accessed Dec 2012
  13. 13.
    Global Footprint Network (2010) Global footprint network. 13 October 2010. Retrieved 28 October 2010Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Global Footprint Network (2012) The national footprint accounts, 2011th edn. Global Footprint Network, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldfinger S, Oursler A (2009) Footprint factbook—Africa 2009. Global Footprint Network, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lyndhurst B (2003) London’s ecological footprint—a review. Greater London Authority, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marathe SD (2012) Land use changes in Gauteng—South Africa (unpublished report)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mckenzie RS, Wegelin W (2009) Challenges facing the implementation of water demand management initiatives in Gauteng Province. Water SA 35:168–174Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nel JH, Steyn NP (2002) Report on South African food consumption studies undertaken amongst different population groups (1983–2000): average intakes of foods most commonly consumed, Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Özdemir ED, Härdtlein M, Jenssen T, Zech D, Eltrop L (2011) A confusion of tongues or the art of aggregating indicators—reflections on four projective methodologies on sustainability measurement. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:2385–2396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rees W (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environ Urban 4:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schnauss M (2001) Der ökologische Fußabdruck der Stadt Berlin. http://www.nachhaltig-berlin.de/material/oef_berlin_abgeordnetenhaus.pdf. Accessed Nov 2012
  23. 23.
    Stöglehner G (2003) Ecological footprint—a tool for assessing sustainable energy supplies. J Clean Prod 11:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tomaschek J,Dobbins A, Haasz T, Fahl U (2012) Development of an energy and emissions balance for Gauteng 2007. http://www.enerkey.info/images/stories/intern/module1/enerkey%20fact%20sheet_energy%20and%20emissions%20balance%20for%20gauteng_v8_l.pdf. Accessed Nov 2012
  25. 25.
    Topp K, Rees B (2008) Carbon footprint reporting for a Scottish livestock farm. Rural policy centre—research briefingGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van den Bergh J, Grazi F (2010) On the policy relevance of ecological footprints. Environ Sci Technol 44:4843–4844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wackernagel M (1994) Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: a tool for planning toward sustainability. The University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wackernagel M, Rees W (1997) Our ecological footprint. Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wehnert T, Knoll M, Rupp J (2012) Socio-economic framework for 2010 set of EnerKey energy scenarios—summary of key figures. http://www.enerkey.info/images/stories/intern/module2/Documents/enerkey%20m2%20scenario%20assumptions%202010_may%202011.pdf. Accessed Nov 2012

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enver Doruk Özdemir
    • 1
  • Sheetal Dattatraya Marathe
    • 2
  1. 1.German Aerospace CenterStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy (IER)University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations