Upload
cathleen-cunningham
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Environment and Prosperity: Examining Long-Range Planning and Resource Limitations in the
21st Century
PRESENTATION TO UTAH CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, OCT. 6, 2011
UTAH VITAL SIGNS
Ecological Footprint of Utah and Utah GPI Report
Brief Overview of Research and Implications
by Wayne Martinson, Chair
Utah Population and Environment Coalition
Oct. 6, 2011
MISSION STATEMENT FOR UPEC
We believe it is our responsibility as citizens of the earth to be concerned about the environment, sustainability, and population. Furthermore, we place special value on the unique heritage and landscape of the state of Utah.
UTAH VITAL SIGNS
Goal: To empower Utah citizens and key decision-makers to make better decisions about their future by providing clear, well documented information about key indicators of environmental sustainability in Utah.
UTAH VITAL SIGNS
Taking available data and turning it into information that people can use
Result: indicators of sustainabilityTwo studies have been completedThe Utah Ecological Footprint Study
was completed in Summer 2007.The Utah Genuine Progress
Indicator Report was completed in January, 2011.
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
Resource accounting tool that compares Humanity’s demand (Footprint) Nature’s renewable supply (Biocapacity)
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
Established standards maintained by international organization
Based upon human demand on the Earth – not wildlife needs
Based on actual yields from productive land
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
Expressed in global hectares per person 1 hectare (ha) =
100 meters x 100 meters = 2.47 acres =2 football fields or 1 large soccer field
global hectare (gha) = hectare with world-average ability to produce resources and absorb wastes
EARTH’SFOOTPRINT TO BIOCAPACITY RATIO
FOOTPRINTS ACROSS THE WORLD
FOOTPRINT SCENARIOS
STUDY BOUNDARIES FOR UTAH REPORT
Geographical: State of UtahTime: two different years
1990• Base year for Kyoto Protocol• Last year of net out-migration in Utah• Population still under 2 million
2003 • Last year of complete data from many
sources
RESULTS FOR ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF UTAH, SANDRA MCINTYRE, PROJECT DIRECTOR AND HELEN PETERS, LEAD RESEARCHER
In 1990, Utah was living within its meansBy 2003, after the growth of the 1990s,
we were in ecological overshoot:
Footprint: 9.9 gha/capitaBiocapacity: 8.9 gha/capita
Comparison 1990
Land types Footprint Biocapacity
Cropland 1,987 2,675
Pasture 783 4,167
Forest 2,192 18,682
Fisheries 423 34
Built land 816 456
Energy land 8,973
TOTAL 15,174 26,014
global hectares (thousands)
Comparison 2003
Land types Footprint Biocapacity
Cropland 2,447 2,663
Pasture 1,150 3,840
Forest 3,030 13,951
Fisheries 560 27
Built land 1,136 976
Energy land 15,526
TOTAL 23,849 21,457
global hectares (thousands)
COMPARING UTAH’S FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY
GOING INTO “ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT”SURPLUS VS. DEFICIT
DATA AVAILABILITY
Now available online:Full report Utah dataNational and international data (as
licensed)Calculation formulasCharts in Excel and as GIF files
http://www.utahpop.org/vitalsigns/
IMPLICATIONS
Going into overshootDrawing down on nature’s capital
THE CHOICES AHEAD
Increase biocapacityDecrease footprint
Level of consumption Population
THE CHOICES AHEAD
Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis.
Utah Population Projections
THE CHOICES AHEAD
MaterialsEnergy-efficient technologiesBuy localClean energyConsume less
YOUR NEXT STEPS
Calculate your footprint
Interactive calculator athttp://myfootprint.org
YOUR NEXT STEPS
Compare to averages – how big are your feet?
Footprints 2003 (gha/capita)
Utah 9.9
U.S. 9.6
World 2.2
YOUR NEXT STEPS
Knowledge is powerWork together to find collective
actions and to choose a sustainable future
Use the Ecological Footprint tool to track progress
THE UTAH GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR (GPI) 1990-2007
A Report to the People of Utah
A UTAH VITAL SIGNS PROJECT OF
THE UTAH POPULATION & ENVIRONMENT COALITION
Authors: Erica Gaddis, Ph.D. and Günseli Berik, Ph.D.
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
“The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined by the GDP... goals for ‘more’ growth should specify of what and for what” - Simon Küznets (developed GDP)
“The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined by the GDP... goals for ‘more’ growth should specify of what and for what” - Simon Küznets (developed GDP)
GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR (GPI)
Alternative to GDP Full accounting (debit side and credit side) Monetary measure Single number and multidimensional Tracked over time Compared to other states and the nation Combined with other indicators to guide policy
Objective quality of life metric
US GPI AND GDP OVER TIME
Gross Production vs. Genuine Progress, 1950 - 2004
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
$40,000$35,000$30,000$25,000$20,000$15,000$10,000
—— GDP Per Capita —— GPI Per Capita
LOCAL GPI INITIATIVES
GPI COMPONENTS (ACCOUNTS)
SCOPE OF GPI STUDY FOR UTAH
Years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2007
Coverage State of Utah Counties: Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah,
Washington, WeberUnits
2000 US dollarsMethods
Modified from previous regional US studies Involves many assumptions and decisions
NOTES ON THE UTAH GPI STUDY
Framework Not policy prescriptive Transparent framework Basis for dialogue Open for modification and improvement
Not all issues are captured Water scarcity Nuclear waste
© Utah Population @ Environment Coalition
TRENDS IN ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL COMPONENTS
GPI COMPONENT RESULTS FOR 2007
-$10,000
-$5,000
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
Hou
seho
ld la
bor
Fore
st se
rvic
es
Wet
land
serv
ices
Des
ert s
ervi
ces
Net
Cap
ital G
row
th
Stre
ets a
nd h
ighw
ays
Crop
land
serv
ices
Volu
ntee
r lab
or
Ozo
ne d
eple
tion
Wat
er p
ollu
tion
Noi
se p
ollu
tion
Fam
ily b
reak
dow
n
Air p
ollu
tion
Pollu
tion
abat
emen
t
Crim
e
Und
erem
ploy
men
t
Vehi
cle
cras
hes
Net
serv
ices
of d
urab
les
Clim
ate
chan
ge
Com
muti
ng
Leisu
re ti
me
lost
Non
rene
wab
le re
sour
ces
Valu
e an
d Co
st o
f GPI
Com
pone
nts f
or U
tah
in 2
007
in M
illio
ns o
f Dol
lars
(200
0 U
SD)
GPI IS THE SUM OF COMPONENTS INCLUDING PERSONAL CONSUMPTION
$(20,000)
$(10,000)
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
Pers
onal
cons
umpti
on
Hou
seho
ld la
bor
Fore
st se
rvic
es
Wet
land
serv
ices
Des
ert s
ervi
ces
Net
Cap
ital G
row
th
Stre
ets a
nd h
ighw
ays
Crop
land
serv
ices
Volu
ntee
r lab
or
Ozo
ne d
eple
tion
Wat
er p
ollu
tion
Noi
se p
ollu
tion
Fam
ily b
reak
dow
n
Air p
ollu
tion
Pollu
tion
abat
emen
t
Crim
e
Und
erem
ploy
men
t
Vehi
cle
cras
hes
Net
serv
ices
of d
urab
les
Clim
ate
chan
ge
Com
muti
ng
Leisu
re ti
me
lost
Non
rene
wab
le re
sour
ces
GPI
Valu
e an
d co
st o
f GPI
Com
pone
nts f
or U
tah
in 2
007
in M
illio
ns o
f Dol
lars
(200
0 U
SD)
$14 BILLION: HOUSEHOLD AND VOLUNTEER LABOR
Photo credit: park.on.ca
DIVORCE WENT DIVORCE WENT DOWNDOWN
Photo credit: florida-divorce-ut.org
CRIME RATE WENT DOWN
Photo credit: government-fleet.com
CRASH RATE WENT DOWNCRASH RATE WENT DOWN
COST OF DRIVING IN 2007: $7.9 BILLIONCOST OF DRIVING IN 2007: $7.9 BILLION
Photo credit: udot.utah.gov
VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN UTAH IN 2007 WAS $25 BILLIONUTAH IN 2007 WAS $25 BILLION
PRIME FARMLAND WAS LOST
Photo credit: ut.usda.gov
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2007
Acr
es o
f pri
me
farm
land
EMISSIONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS & COSTS OF AIR QUALITY WENT UP
Photo credit: TimeScience 2009
MORE UTAHNS BECAME UNDEREMPLOYED
POLICY AND PLANNING IMPLICATIONS FOR GPI
GPI gives snapshot of well-being reflective of past decisions
Provides a blueprint for moving forward evaluate policy trade-offs prioritize the use of public funds
GPI could be adopted by stateFull accounting principles of GPI could
be integrated with existing assessment tools
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The Utah Footprint Study indicates that we need to be concerned about and address our demand for biological resources in Utah.
The Utah GPI report demonstrates that we can develop other ways of measuring success in Utah, including economic, social and environmental factors.
These types of studies can be done at a more localized level.
SPECIFIC EFFORTS
Calgary, Canada develops specific footprint reduction targets.
Maryland State Government uses GPI as a measurement tool for progress. Minnesota has also worked in this area.
Salt Lake City’s Green Guide to a Sustainable City and Salt Lake County Green.
Sustainability plans and efforts at universities in Utah. Envision Utah, Utah Quality Growth Commission and
Utah Foundation Other efforts in Utah? What are the results of these
efforts? And how much do these efforts work together?
© Utah Population and Environment Coalition
OVERALL DIRECTIONS FOR PLANNERS IN UTAH
The Ecological Footprint and Genuine Progress Indicator studies are among a set of new tools for better defining quality of life and its relationship to the natural environment.
Planners have increasing opportunities to use new tools to clarify how to better balance demands for action with the contraints of nature, as well as economic and social needs/values.