Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, population

growth and increases in consumption in many parts of the world have increased humanity's

ecological burden on the planet, even though there has not been an equal corresponding

increase in the Earth's bounty of natural resources. As stated in World Wildlife Fund: Living

Planet Report 2000, total global consumption of natural resources has risen by fifty percent

since 1970, while Earth's natural wealth has decreased by over thirty percent.

At the same time, although global environmental problems are typically considered part of

national and international decision-making, it is now much more important to consider the

environmental impacts of urban areas, because a rapidly growing proportion of the world's

population lives in cities. According to the United Nations Population Division, 2.9 billion

people or 47 percent of the earth's population lived in urban areas in 2000. In 2007, it is

projected that the global urbanization rate will reach 50 percent, and in 2030 it should reach

60 percent. In other words, the world's population could increase by 2.2 billion people in

2030, with 2.1 billion of these people living in cities. Nearly all of this additional population

growth is expected to occur in developing nations, and practically all of it will be

concentrated in urban areas.

As a response to this, municipal decision-makers must be able to measure urban and

regional ecological impacts to inform environmental policy at the local level. One way to do

this is through ecological footprint analysis, which was invented in 1992 by Dr. William Rees

and Mathis Wackernagel at the University of British Columbia. As an introductory report,

this guide focuses on the applicability of EF analysis for cities and regions, and does not

explain footprint calculation methodologies in detail.

1.2 Study area

Narsingdi Municipality has been selected as the study area.

1.2.1 Introduction of Narsingdi as a District

Narsingdi is a district in central of Bangladesh. It is located 57 km north-east of Dhaka,

capital city of Bangladesh. It is a part of the Dhaka Division, and is the only district in

Bangladesh that does not depend solely on agriculture. The district is famous for its textile

craft industry. Narsingdi is bordered by Kishoreganj in the north & north-east, by

Brahmanbaria in the east & south-east, Narayanganj at south & south-west and by Gazipur

in the west.

As it located near the Capital Dhaka, Its foundation directly developed under

industrialization. On the other hand it is one of the districts termed A category district for

the administration of the country. And so utilization of its land has more affectivity to the

environment and here ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT is higher than other district.

Source: Banglapedia

1.2.2 Introduction of Narsingdi Municipality

Narsingdi is a “A” class municipality. It was established in 1972. The area of this municipality

is 10.32 sq km which contains 9 wards and 33 Mahallah. The population is about 0.25 million

(According to birth registration,2008). Population of this municipality is about 13589 per sq

km (Population Census 2001, BBS). It has 12,000 holdings ( Population Census, 2001,BBS)

Total household number is 26,150 (Population census,2001,BBS). Literacy rate is 70 percent.

Location: Between 23°46’ to 23°58’ North latitude

Between 90°36 to 90°50 East longitude

Boundaries:

North Chinishpur union

South Branch of Meghna River

East Silmandi Union

West- Hajipur union and Haridoa River

1.3 Aim of the Study

The main aim of this study is to find out the Ecological Footprint of Narsingdi municipality

and its impacts.

1.4 Objectives of the study

The specific objectives of the study are:

To find out the Ecological Footprint of Narsingdi municipality

To know about the consumption of resources in Narsingdi municipality

1.5 Importance and Justification of the study

The ecological footprint is a comprehensive tool developed to measure the bio-productive

area (land and sea) needed to grow all those resources human consumers need for

sustenance and also reveal the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the bio-productive

areas.

Today it is important for people to become familiar with the idea of Ecological Footprint. It’s

a method of accounting utilized by business, governments as well as educational institutions

to measure the biological sustainability of the earth based on the activities of people and

their growing populations.

It has been designed to measure the quantity of the biologically productive sea and land

areas that a sector of a human population needs in order to sustain themselves and the

level of carbon dioxide emission absorbed. This is then measured against the amount of

land and sea available to meet these needs in the area where a human population is

located.

Our ecological footprint is important because it deals with what sorts of resources are

available currently, how much of those resources we have, and how long those resources

will continue to be around. The impact of an ecological footprint shows us how much of a

resources are using and gives researchers insight into what new resources need to be

created and utilized. Even more important, studying our ecological footprint helps to

determine whether sustainability efforts are working and how the future will be affected by

our efforts.

1.6 Methodology

Any study work needs a distinct method and it has been done by some specific way. I have

collected data by following the “Secondary Data Analysis method”.

I have done my study through following these steps to achieve a good and fruitful outcome.

First stage methodology:

Planning:

Pre-planning is a must for any study work. The objectives the study has to be made

first. The selection of study area is an important matter also. I have selected

Narsingdi Municipality as my study area.

Map collection of study area:

I collected several maps of Narsingdi Municipality.

Second Stage methodology:

I visited Narsingdi municipal office, Polli Bidyut Samiti, Water Development Board,

Directorate of Agricultural Extension, DC office, Upazilla information center, Titas Gas Field

for collecting the secondary data .

Different kinds of published and unpublished reading materials were collected. Related

information was also collected from different, journal articles, books etc.

Third stage methodology

Data manipulation and analysis:

I analyzed the collected secondary data by using the calculation method of Ecological

Footprint equation.

Ecological Footprint of any commodity = yield factor/ Global yield factors ×

Equivalence factor

Summarizing:

Then I summarized findings according to objectives.

Report writing:

A report is prepared in accordance with the findings of data.

1.7 Limitation of the study

This study has some limitations which are follows:

Data and information about the Ecological Footprint are not available

Information was conducted within a very short span of time.

More specific information was required.

More specific data was required in order to conduct the research work.

Chapter 2

Conceptual Framework of the study

2.1 Introduction

The Ecological Footprint has emerged as the world’s premier measure of humanity’s

demand on nature. This accounting system tracks, on the demand side (Footprint), how

much land and water area a human population uses to provide all it takes from nature. This

includes the areas for producing the resource it consumes, the space for accommodating its

buildings and roads, and the ecosystems for absorbing its waste emissions such as carbon

dioxide. These calculations account for each year’s prevailing technology, as productivity

and technological efficiency change from year to year. The accounting system also tracks the

supply of nature: it documents how much biologically productive area is available to provide

these services (bio-capacity ). Therefore, these accounts are able to compare human

demand against nature’s supply of bio-capacity.

2.2 Concept of the Ecological Footprint

The Ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It is a

standardized measure of demand for natural capital that may be contrasted with the

planet's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically

productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population

consumes, and to assimilate associated waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to

estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support

humanity if everybody followed a given lifestyle.

A measure of the impact humans have on the environment is called an ecological footprint.

A country’s ecological footprint is the sum of all the cropland, grazing land, forest and

fishing grounds required to produce the food, fiber and timber it consumes, to absorb the

wastes emitted when it uses energy and to provide space for infrastructure.

The ecological footprint is expressed in global hectares. A global hectare is a biologically

productive hectare as compared with the average world productivity. The ecological

footprint corresponds to the surface of land needed for the way of life of an individual, the

management of his wastes and the production of his food. Several kinds of ecological

footprints can be accounted for: that of an individual, of a family, of a town or a country.

Assessing the ratio of the number of hectares to the number of individuals is a means to

compare individuals or countries.

A normal example given by Robert Steele can helps us to understand Ecological Footprint

very easily. This is known as “The Apple analogy of Ecological Footprint”.

The Apple Analogy

2.2.1 Definition of ecological Footprint

The Ecological Footprint is a resource accounting metric that answers the research

question, “how much of the regenerative capacity of our planet do we use?” by quantifying

the demand that human consumption and waste generation place on the biosphere. The

complementary measure to Ecological Footprint is bio-capacity, which tracks how much

natural productive capacity.

(Global Footprint Network)

All of the resources which people use for their daily needs and activities come from

somewhere, even if not from their immediate surroundings. Food, electricity, and other

1. First, slice the apple into quarters (4 equal pieces)

2. Set aside 3 pieces. They represent the oceans of the world.

3. Slice the remaining quarter in half and set aside one of the pieces

4. The 1/8 remaining represents the land areas where people live, but do not necessarily grow the food they need for life.

5. Next, slice the 1/8 into four equal segments. Set aside three of the segments as they represent the areas that are too rocky, too wet, too cold, too steep or with very poor soil that can’t grow food. It also represents the urban and suburban sprawl, roads, shopping centers, schools, parks, factories, car parks, etc.

6. Finally, carefully peel the remaining slice. The skin represents al of the earth that remains to produce food.

basic amenities for survival must be produced within the confines of nature, using raw

natural resources. Based on this relationship between humanity and the biosphere, an

ecological footprint is a measurement of the land area required to sustain a population of

any size. Under prevailing technology, it measures the amount of arable land and aquatic

resources that must be used to continuously sustain a population, based on its consumption

levels at a given point in time. To the fullest extent possible, this measurement incorporates

water and energy use, uses of land for infrastructure, different forms of agriculture, forest

and all other forms of energy and material inputs that people require in their day to day

lives. (Hari Srinivas, 2002)

The original ecological footprint is defined as the land area that would be needed to meet

the consumption of a population and to absorb all their waste.

(Wackernagel and Rees 1995).

Ecological footprint analysis compares human demands on nature with the biosphere's

ability to regenerate resources and provide services. It does this by assessing the biologically

productive land and marine area required to produce the resources a population consumes

and absorb the corresponding waste, using prevailing technology. Footprint values at the

end of a survey are categorized for Carbon, Food, Housing, and Goods and Services as well

as the total footprint number of Earths needed to sustain the world's population at that

level of consumption. This approach can also be applied to an activity such as the

manufacturing of a product or driving of a car. This resource accounting is similar to life

cycle analysis wherein the consumption of energy, biomass (food, fiber), building

material, water and other resources are converted into a normalized measure of land area

called global hectares (gha).

2.3 Literature Review

Tatiana Valada, 2010 The analysis of the schematic representations of the Ecological

Footprint and Biocapacity, as they are presently considered by the Global Footprint

Network. The Global Footprint Network focuses the concept and calculation of the

Ecological Footprint in the consumption (and generation of wastes) of a given population

that lives within the borders of a given region. In this context, the Ecological Footprint

considers the resources that are harvested within the borders, minus the resources that are

exported, and plus the resources that are imported, in the Bio-capacity. The Global

Footprint Network considers and calculates the resources that are available for human

consumption and are produced inside the borders of the region under analysis (also the

ability to absorb the residues).

Barrett and Scott, 2001 Firstly, the analysis of the targets within the LTP provide an insight

into the application of the ecological footprint in the area of policy. The analysis indicates

that the ecological footprint can be employed to measure the success of past, present and

future policy decisions.

Secondly, the ecological footprint of different journeys on different types of vehicles was

considered. The ecological footprint provided an insight into various modal choices made by

Individuals, such an approach can help to influence travel behavior and provide a tool for

businesses that may wish to implement a green transport plan. Finally, the ecological

footprint was considered as an educational tool in relation to the impact of the school run.

The ecological footprint is a visual and perspective tool, which can be applied to many

groups. It helps to relate the issue of individual’s lifestyle to global environmental problems,

such as global warming and climate change. Each individual has the potential, through the

eyes of the ecological footprint, to understand their contribution to these global

environmental threats.

Ian Moffatt 2000, It has been suggested that as a method for raising awareness of our

impact on the earth it I strikingly clear. The fact that there is a minimum amount of land per

capita to support all life including humans is important. Beyond the striking message,

however, there is a need to explore in depth the flows into and out of the area and the

equally important problems of intra- and intergenerational equity. It is this crucial part of

the ongoing debate that the ecological footprint or other methods need to address.

Wolfgang Sachs 2003, “The world is no longer divided by the ideologies of ‘left’ and ‘right’

but by those who accept Ecological limits and those who don’t.”

Wilson and Anielsky, 2005, Ecological Footprint analysis converts the consumption of food,

energy and other materials to the equivalent area of biologically productive land that would

be required to produce the food and other materials to meet human consumption demand.

Wackernagel and Rees, 1996 The ecological footprint of a person or an object is the amount

of natural resources used (by this person or for this object). It is a tool to measure and

assess man's pressure on nature, each of us having an impact on the environment. It was

invented in the early 1990's by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees, specialists in resource

planning. The ecological footprint is a tool used to determine whether or not human

economy respects the planet's capacity to regenerate itself as we use its natural resources.

The Ecological footprint is a well known resource accounting tool that measures how much

biologically productive land and water area an individual, a city, a country, a region, or

humanity uses to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb the waste it generates,

using prevailing technology and resource management .

Nathan Fiala, 2008 The ecological footprint is a measure of the resources necessary to

produce the goods that an individual or population consumes. It is also used as a measure of

sustainability, though evidence suggests that it falls short. The assumptions behind footprint

calculations have been extensively criticized; I present here further evidence that it fails to

satisfy simple economic principles because the basic assumptions are contradicted by both

theory and historical data. Specifically, I argue that the footprint arbitrarily assumes both

zero greenhouse gas emissions, which may not be ex ante optimal, and national boundaries,

which makes extrapolating from the average ecological footprint problematic. The footprint

also cannot take into account intensive production, and so comparisons to bio-capacity are

erroneous. Using only the assumptions of the footprint then, one could argue that the Earth

can sustain greatly increased production, though there are important limitations that the

footprint cannot address, such as land degradation. Finally, the lack of correlation between

land degradation and the ecological footprint obscures the effects of a larger sustainability

problem. Better measures of sustainability would address these issues directly.

Lenzen and Murry, 2003 The ecological footprint was originally conceived as a simple and

elegant method for comparing the sustainability of resource use among different

populations. Since the formulation of the ecological footprint, a number of researchers have

mentioned the oversimplification in ecological footprints of the complex task of measuring

sustainability of consumption. In particular, aggregated forms of the final ecological

footprint make it difficult to understand the specific reasons for the unsustainability of the

consumption of a given population, and to formulate appropriate policy responses. While

generally acknowledged as a valuable educational tool that has enriches the sustainability

debate, the original ecological footprint is limited as a regional policy and planning tool for

ecologically sustainable development, because it does not reveal where impacts really

occur, what the nature and severity of these impacts are, and how these impacts compare

with the self-repair capability of the respective ecosystem.

Chapter 3

Ecological Footprint of Bangladesh

3.1 Introduction

“The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

3.2 Ecological Footprint Bangladesh in Global Context

The term Ecological Footprint has not been yet become popular in Bangladesh. Actually very

few people of our country are aware of this concept. Bangladesh Government has recently

started research work on this very global concept. The Ministry of Forest and Environment

has recently taken some effort to know about the Ecological Footprint of Bangladesh. Some

private and International organization has been running some project to find out the

Ecological Foot print of Bangladesh and comparing it with global context. According to

these comparisons Ecological Footprint of Bangladesh reading so small.

COUNTRY INFORMATION

Europeans began to set up trading posts in the area of Bangladesh in the 16th

century; eventually the British came to dominate the region and it became part

of British India. About a third of this extremely poor country floods annually

during the monsoon rainy season, hampering economic development.

Geography: Location: Southern Asia, bordering the Bay of Bengal, between

Burma and India.

People: Population: 156,118,464m (July 2010 est.) Population growth rate: 1.55%

(2010 est.)

Economy: The economy has grown 5-6% per year since 1996 despite political

instability, poor infrastructure, corruption, insufficient power supplies, and slow

implementation of economic reforms. Bangladesh remains a poor, overpopulated, and

inefficiently-governed nation.

Transport : International Airport 03

ENVIRONMENT STATS

FACTS STATS RANK

Areas Under Protection 10 114th of 146

Carbon Efficiency 0.36 CO2 emissions/$ GDP 119th of 141

CO2 Emissions 29,874.1 66th of 178

Current Issues

Many people are landless and

forced to live on and cultivate flood-

prone land; waterborne diseases

prevalent in surface water.

Ecological Footprint 0.6 141st of 141

Forest Area > % of land

area 6.69 % of land area 162nd of 195

Known Mammal Species 125 70th of 145

Known NOx emissions per

populated area0.67 thousand metric tons/squ 28th of 141

Known Threatened Species 61 29th of 158

Pollution > Carbon Dioxide

19996,945 67th of 199

SO2 emissions per

populated area690 thousand metric tons/squ 64th of 141

Threatened Species >

Mammal18 39th of 160

Water > Availability 0.6 thousand cubic metres 117th of 141

Water Pollution, Wood

Industry > % of total BOD

emissions

0.44 % 82nd of 114

Wildness 0.06% 105th of 141

Source: Global Environment Stats (Go Green)

3.3 Bio-capacity of Bangladesh

Biological capacity or bio-capacity is the capacity of ecosystems to produce useful

biological materials and to absorb waste materials generated by humans, using

current management schemes and extraction technologies. “Useful biological

materials” are defined as those demanded by the human economy. Hence what is

considered “useful” can change from year to year (e.g. use of corn (maize) stove for

cellulosic ethanol production would result in corn stoves becoming a useful material,

and thus increase the bio-capacity of maize cropland). The bio-capacity of an area is

calculated by multiplying the actual physical area by the yield factor and the

appropriate equivalence factor. Bio-capacity is usually expressed in global hectares.

Bio-capacity is the capacity of an area to provide resources and absorb wastes. When

the area's ecological footprint exceeds its bio-capacity, an ecological deficit occurs.

The bio-capacity of Bangladesh is very poor because of heavy stress is put on

biological resources by a large population in a small country. Total bio-capacity of

Bangladesh is 0.3 (National Footprint Accounts, 2008).

Bangladesh

Figure: Tracks the per-person resource demand Ecological Footprint and bio-

capacity in Bangladesh since 1961. Bio-capacity varies each year with ecosystem

management, agricultural practices (such as fertilizer use and irrigation), ecosystem

degradation, and weather, and population size. Footprint varies with consumption

and production efficiency. Where a dotted line is shown, interpolation estimates have

been used in place of highly unlikely outliers in the results.

(www.footprintnetwork.org)

3.4 Ecological Footprint in Global Context

In 2007, global Ecological Footprint was 18 billion gha or 2.7 gha per person while the

Earth’s bio-capacity was only 11.9 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person representing an

ecological overshoot of 50 percent. This means it would take 1.5 years for the Earth

to regenerate the renewable resources that humanity used in 2007 and to absorb the

CO2 emissions released. Put another way, in 2007 we used the equivalent of 1.5

planets to support our activities.

People in different countries place very different demands on ecological systems. In

2007, the average Ecological Footprint per person in Bangladesh is 0.6 gha, 0.5 gha

lower than the global average.

The Ecological Footprint is a resource accounting tool that measures the amount of

biologically productive land and water area an individual, a city, a country, a region,

or all of humanity uses to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its waste

using prevailing technology. The Ecological Footprint is used widely as a resource

management and communication tool by governments, businesses, educational

institutions, and non-governmental organizations.

Productive land and sea areas support human demands for food, fiber, timber,

energy, and space for infrastructure. These areas also absorb the waste products

from the human economy, such as CO2 emissions. This demand on the biosphere can

be compared to bio-capacity, a measure of the amount of biologically productive land

and water available for human use. Ecological overshoot occurs when a population’s

demand on an ecosystem exceeds the capacity of that ecosystem to regenerate the

resources it consumes and absorb its wastes; a practice that leads to a depletion of

the planet’s life supporting biological capital and/or to an accumulation of waste

products.

3.6 The Challenges of Urbanization and Ecological Footprint

Cities are the economic centers of the world and home to a growing proportion of the

world’s population. Since 1900, the worldwide urban population has increased by 20 times

while the rural population has increased by 2.5 times. As a proportion of the world’s total

population, urban population has climbed from 10 percent to around 50 percent in the

same period. As spatial units, cities now place the largest demand on the world’s natural

resources.

Urban regions account for 80 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions from burning

of fossil fuels and 75 percent of the world’s timber consumption (O’ Meara, 1999). The main

causes of the huge demand that cities place on the environment are high population

density, material consumption, energy consumption and waste discharge. Some cities now

have an Ecological Footprint of 100 times their own biocapacity.

The environmental stresses and biocapacity deficit faced by cities worldwide provide

Bangladesh with an early warning of the ecological risks which may arise in its urbanization

process. Neverthless, cities can and sometimes do achieve good results in reducing

Ecological Footprint. For example, London is a city with an almost entirely urban population

(over 90 per cent), and yet its per person Ecological Footprint is 1.5 percent lower than the

national average in the UK (Calcott and Bull, 2007). The urban design of cities like Tokyo,

Seoul, Paris and London may serve as a reference in terms of reducing carbon dioxide

emissions.

At this stage, Bangladesh cities appear to be doing relatively well in terms of their Ecological

Footprint.

Figure: Comparison of Ecological Footprint of cities.

The figures in brackets show the year for which Ecological Footprint values were calculated.

Per capita Ecological Footprint for Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Chongqing are per capita

Ecological Footprint of urban population. Data for Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Chongqing

sourced from IGSNRR. Data for Singapore sourced from Ecological Footprint Atlas 2009

(GFN, 2009). Data for Hong Kong sourced from Hong Kong Ecological Footprint Report 2008

(WWF & GFN, 2008). Data for London sourced from the published report by Alan Calcott

and Jamie Bull (2007).

However, traffic congestion, pollution and other urban environmental problems have

emerged as urban populations and living standards increase. Some Chinese cities are

showing signs of environmental decline. Compared to rural areas, cities have the largest

concentrations of high income segments of the population, and are responsible for the bulk

of resource consumption and carbon emissions. While dietary preferences and climatic

variations between regions do affect Footprint, regional per person Ecological Footprint has

a stronger overall association with urbanization.

3.7 Development and Ecological Footprint

Progress towards meeting the goals of sustainable development can be examined through

the combination of Ecological Footprint and the Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI

is a summary composite index developed by the United Nations Development Program

(UNDP) that measures a country’s average achievements in three basic aspects of human

development: health, education and standard of living UNDP considers countries with HDI

values of 0.8-0.899 to be experiencing “high human development” (HHD) and 0.9 or greater

to be experiencing “very high human development.” Accordingly, this report considers the

lower boundary of HHD to be the minimum level of optimal development. As noted above,

the global average bio-capacity per person is 1.8 gha, so in order to meet the minimum

levels of sustainability, including the needs of wild species, per person Ecological Footprint

must be below 1.8 gha. While these criteria may be necessary for a society to be considered

sustainable in the global context, it is important to note that they are not in themselves

sufficient to ensure sustainability. There are a large number of environmental, physical, and

social factors which these two indicators do not capture, and they should ideally be used in

the context of a broader set of indicators to guide sustainable development. Bangladesh HDI

increased significantly from 1971 to 2004, per person Ecological Footprint remained smaller

than available per capita bio-capacity at the global level.

Chapter 4

Analysis

“Ecological Footprint of Narsingdi Municipality”

4.1 Calculation Procedures

The calculations employed for the both the algorithms and consumption data and the

assumption required. The formula is willing to accept that there is insufficient data to

provide a truly accurate picture of human appropriation. The accuracy of footprint is totally

depending on the data availability. The Footprint is flexible enough to cope with a diverse

range of data, however assumptions need to be made. The better the data, the less

assumption and the more credible the final result becomes. In the case of Narsingdi

Municipality project over 90% of the data collected is specific to Narsingdi municipality and

gained from reliable sources. This does not mean that the remaining 10% is inaccurate. It

just means that certain assumptions have been made.

Ecological Footprint of any commodity = yield factor/ Global yield factors ×

Equivalence factor

4.2 Elements of Ecological Footprint for Narsingdi Municipality

The elements of Ecological Footprint approach for Narsingdi Municipality are ;

1. Landuse

2. Waste

3. Water

4. Energy

5. Foot

4.3 Ecological Footprint For Landuse

The built-up land Footprint is calculated based on the area of land covered by human

infrastructure: transportation, housing, industrial structures and reservoirs for hydroelectric

power generation. In 2007, the built-up land area of the world was 169.59 million hectares.

The 2010 Edition of the National Footprint Accounts assumes that built-up land occupies

what would previously have been cropland. This assumption is based on the observation

that human settlements are generally situated in fertile areas with the potential for

supporting high yielding cropland.

(Wackernagel , 2002).

Landuse Map of Narsingdi Municipality

Source:(Narsingdi Municipality Office)

Landuse data of Narsingdi municipality are given below:

Landuse type Area in sq km % of Total

area

Residential 5.4 51.94

Commercial 0.4 2.90

Industrial 0.3 2.33

Administrative 0.25 2.06

Social 0.07 0.48

Pond 0.05 0.48

Open space 0.15 1.46

Health 0.10 0.48

Education 0.07 0.48

Roads 0.54 0.65

Water bodies 0.62 6.0

Agriculture 2.37 26.74

Total 10.32 100.00

Source: (Narsingdi Municipal )

Ecological Footprint of Built Environment summarizes the Footprint associated with

buildings, infrastructure and hydroelectric reservoir area.

The Ecological Footprint of Landuse= local Landuse/ Global yield Landuse × Equivalence factor

(Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2010Edition)

Here , Local Landuse= 10.32 Sq km or 1032 hectares

Global yield Landuse= 169.59 hectares

Equivalence factor= 2.51

The Ecological Footprint of Landuse= local Landuse/ Global yield Landuse × Equivalence

factor

= 1032 (Ha) ÷ (169.59 × 2.51)

= 1032 ÷ 425.67

= 2.4344133

= 2.4344 Ha per capita

So, the Ecological Footprint Land of Narsingdi Municipal is 2.4344 Ha

Significance of the Calculation: The result shows that present land condition of Narsingdi

Municipality is not capable to fulfill the present needs. That’s means regenerate power of

land is very low according to demand. The people of Narsingdi need 2.43 time’s larger area

then they actually have.

4.4 Ecological Footprint of Waste

Waste is directly related to the consumption of food and dumping to the land. Ecological

footprint makes a relationship between two factors- the amount of land required to dispose

per capita generated waste.

Narsingdi Municipality is a small area with relatively higher population. These population is

producing huge amount of waste and that have a major impact on city economy and

environment. Disposal of solid waste is another concern.

Solid Waste production of Narsingdi municipality is nearly about 0.011 million Ton per year.

Source: ( Narsingdi Municipal Office)

In calculating the ecological footprint for household waste generation, methodology to

assess the household ecological footprint, developed by Mathis Warckernagel, Ritik

Dholakia, Diana Deumling and Dick Richardson, Redefining Progress v 2.0, March 2000, was

used. The methodology utilized the resource consumption and waste generation categories

and the land use categories for those consumption and waste generation.

Ecological footprint of waste makes a relationship between two factors- the amount of land

required to dispose and per capita generated waste. Generalized Methods for Calculating

Ecological Footprint of Waste Generation To calculate the ecological footprint of waste

generation, the generated waste are categorized as paper, plastic, glass, metal, and organic

waste. Footprint for each of this categorized waste have calculated by following formula

Built up land = Energy land required for waste * built up land footprint component of

waste / (world average fossil fuel area of goods + world average fossil fuel area of waste) /

primary biomass equivalence factor for built up area.

Energy land required for solid waste get from equation

built up land footprint component of waste 0.011 million ton

Built up land footprint component of waste is 1032 hector.

World average fossil fuel area of goods is 1324 hector.

World average fossil fuel area of waste is 1196 hector.

Primary biomass equivalence factor for built up area is 3.5

= 1032×0.011/(1324 +1196/ 3.5)

=11.352 / 720

= 0.0158

Ecological footprint of Solid waste of Narsingdi Municipality is =0.0158 hectares per ton

Municipal area.

Significance of the Calculation: The result shows that present amount solid waste of

Narsingdi Municipality is 0.0158 hectors per ton.

4.5 Ecological Footprint of Water

Water supply in Bangladesh is mainly relies on ground water. In rural areas more than 97% of the population extracts ground water to fulfill drinking water demand. Whereas 99 % of Narsingdi municipality’s water supply depend on ground water.

The water footprint was first defined by Arjen Hoekstra in 2002 and is a comprehensive indicator of freshwater resources appropriation for human activities. The water footprint helps us understand for what purposes our limited water resources are being consumed and polluted.

The yearly consumption of water of Narsingdi Municipality is 18.25 million Liters or 4.82

million US gal

Source: (Narsingdi Municipal Office)

Water Footprint = Production of water/ time of usage

Production of water = 0.25 million Liter or 0.06604 million US Gallon Daily

= 0.9125 million Liter or 24.1046 million US gallon yearly

Time of Usage = 7 hour or 420 minute (7 × 60) daily

= 153300 minute yearly (420 × 365)

Water Footprint = 24.1046 ÷ 153300

= 0.000157 or 0.00016 million US gl per capita in a year

(National Geography Water Calculation Method)

So the Ecological Footprint of water of Narsingdi Municipal is 0.0016 million US gallon per

capita in a year.

Significance of the Calculation: The result shows that present water footprint of Narsingdi

Municipality is 0.00016 million US gl per capita in a year. Water is increasingly becomes a

scarce resource and it should therefore be valued as such. It is said that water should be

allocated to where it produces the greatest benefits.

4.6 Ecological Footprint of Energy

Ecological Footprint of Energy can be sub divide in three types. These are electricity, Oil and

Gas.

Electricity production of Narsingdi Municipality is 13140 mWh per year.

( Palli Biduut Samiti,Narsingdi)

Ecological Footprint of Electricity = Total Production of Electricity / Time of usage

Total production of Electricity = 13140 mWh

Time of Usage = (365 × 24) Hour × 60 minute

= (8760 × 60) minute

= 525600 minute

Ecological Footprint of Electricity = 13140 ÷ 525600

= 0.025

Total consumption of Gas is about 189.456 Nm3.

Ecological footprint of Gas = Total Gas Production / Time of usage

Total Gas Production=189.456 Nm3

Time of usage= (365 × 24) Hour × 60 minute

= (8760 × 60) minute

= 525600 minute

Ecological footprint of Gas = (189.456 ÷ 525600)

= 0.0006046

Total ecological Footprint of Energy = Ecological Footprint of Gas + Electricity

= 0.0006046 + 0.025

= 0.0256046

Ecological Footprint of Energy of Narsingdi Municipal = 0.026 hectares per capita in a year.

Significance of the Calculation: The result shows that present footprint of Energy of

Narsingdi Municipality is 0.026 hectares per capita in a year, but day by day it will increase

gradually if the present lifestyle continues.

4.7 Ecological Footprint of Food

Narsingdi Municipal needs 3, 48,360 Metric ton food per year (487 gm food per person as

unit)

Total Food production 3, 36,557 Metric ton per year

Waste of Food (seed, animal food, waste etc) is 36,801 Metric ton per year.

Food Deficit 50,604 Metric ton per year.

Source (Directorate of Agricultural Extension)

The Ecological Footprint of food= local food production/ Global food production ×

Equivalence factor for food

Local food production =0.336557 million Metric ton per year

Global food production = 353.802049 million Metric ton per year

Equivalence factor for food = 2.64

The Ecological Footprint of food = 0.336557÷ (353.802049 × 2.64)

= 0.336557 ÷ 934.037409

= 0.000360325 or 0.00036

Ecological footprint of Food = 0.00036 hectares per 1 metric ton food production.

Significance of the Calculation: The result shows that present food Footprint of Narsingdi

Municipality is nearly moderate. But after the summations of all elements footprint it will

increase. Narsingdi Municipality’s population consume

4.8 Total Ecological Footprint of Narsingdi Municipality

The result of each of the separate components have been Analyzed within their specific

section .The section present over all findings of all separates components. The Ecological

Footprint of Narsingdi Municipality = Ecological footprint of (Land + waste + water +

energy + food).

= (2.43 + 0.0158 + 0.0016 + 0.02560 + 0.00036)

= 2.47336 or 2.48

This means that the average Narsingdi municipal people require just over 2.5 hectares of

land to supply them with all their necessary resources.

Chapter 5

Conclusion

Conclusion

It is important to remember that the Ecological Footprint is nearly and accounting tool. It is

now the decision of politician and residence of Narsingdi Municipality whether they wish to

pursue sustainable development. The Ecological footprint has provided the Necessary

information to know where Narsingdi Municipality is now. .It is now up to Narsingdi

municipality where it wishes to be in the future.

The scenarios are suggestion which would bring Narsingdi municipality clise to ecological

sustainability. Within Narsingdi Municipality the ecological foot print can be a valuable tool

for education at all ages, for businessman to understand their impact and as a comparative

tool with other cities and local authorities.

Narsingdi Municipality’s Ecological Footprint is 2.45 gha. Bio-capacity and regenerate power

is decrease with the increase of population. In present situation if population of this area

carries on their present lifestyle they need 2.5 times larger area to fill-up their needs. And in

future Ecological Footprint will increase.

The ecological foot print is higher than the Bio-capacity. Very few people are aware of the

Environment of present and near future. As people are unconscious, they are using natural

and urban resources for their benefit rather than thinking the benefit of environment.

People of all age’s especially young generation should be aware of the term and concept of

ecological footprint. The concept of Ecological Footprint can be taken as a mandatory part

of education in School and colleges. Otherwise like the old generation , present and

upcoming young generation won’t know about it. Government should take some positives

to ensure between the Ecological Footprint and the capacity of re generating resources.

References

Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. 1995. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on

the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Wals, A. 2009. Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) Global Report:

Learning for a Sustainable World: Review of Contexts and Structures for Education

Rees, W.E. 1996. Revisiting Carrying Capacity: Area-Based Indicators of Sustainability.

Population and Environment. 17(3): 195-215.

Rickinson, M., Lundholm, C. & Hopwood, N. 2009. Environmental Learning: Insights from

Research into the Student Experience. London: Springer.

Sawchuck, J. & Cameron, T. 2000. Measuring Your School‟s Ecological Footprint, Green

Teacher. 61:14-19.

Venetoulis, J. 2001. Assessing the Ecological Impact of a University – The Ecological

Footprint for the University of Redlands. International Journal of Sustainability in

Higher Education

Environmental Protection Agency Victoria (EPA). 2005a. EPA Ecological Footprint

Calculators: Technical Background Paper. EPA Victoria: Melbourne, Australia.

Environmental Protection Agency Victoria (EPA). 2005b. The Ecological Footprint of

Victoria: Assessing Victoria’s Demand on Nature. EPA Victoria: Melbourne,

Australia.

Wackernagel M, Monfreda C, Schulz N B, Erb K H, Haberl H, Krausmann F. Calculating

national and global ecological footprint time series: resolving conceptual challenges. Land

Use Policy, 2004

Chen C Z, Lin Z S. A nonlinear dynamic analysis of ecological footprint and biocapacity. Acta

Ecologica Sinica, 2006

LI W H, LIU M C. A discussion on indicator systems of Ecoprovince construction in China.

Resources Science, 2007

Rees W E. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics

leaves out. Environment and Urbanization,

1992

Wackernagel M, Rees W E. Our Ecological Footprint, Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.

Philadelphia: New society Publishers,1996

Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P, Callejas Linares A, Susana López Falfánn I, Méndez García

J, Isabel Suárez Guerrero A,Guadalupe Suárez Guerrero M. National natural capital

accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 1999

Hanley N, Moffatt I, Faichney R, Wilson M. Measuring sustainability: a time series of

alternative indicators for Scotland. Ecological Economics, 1999

Liu J X. Time Series and Geographical Distribution of Ecological Footprint for China.

Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Shenyang: Northeastern University, 2004

Aaland, D.M. and Capland , A.J. 1999. Household valuation of curbside recycling. Journal of

Environmental Planning. Vol 42. No 6. Glasgow, pp 781-799.

Barret, J. and Scott, A., 2000, An Ecological Footprint of Liverpool – Developing Sustainable

Scenarios, www.york.ac.uk/inst/sei/footprint/liverpool.html (Access on 23 March 2006)

Biswas, W.K. and Lucas, N.J.D., 1996. Economic Viability of Biogas Technology in Bangladesh

Village. Energy program, the School of Environment, Resource and Development, Asian

Institute of Technology,pp 763-769

Ehrlich P. and Holdren J., 1971. Impact of Population Growth, Science 171, pp 1212-1217

Loh, J. (Ed), 2002, Living Planet Report 2002, World Wildlife Fund & Redefining

Netherwood, A. and Collins, A. 2005, Cardiffs Ecological footprint, BRASS Research Center,

Cardiff University, UK.

Redefining Progress, 2002, Ecological Footprint Accounts: Moving Sustainability From

Concept ToMeasurable Goal

(http://www.redefiningprogress.org/programs/sustainability/ef/efbrochure.pdf )

Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W., 1996, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on

the Earth, New Society Publishers, http://www.newsociety.com(Access on 23 March 2006)

WasteSafe, 2005, Integrated Management and Safe Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste in

Least Developed Asian Countries, Forthcoming Final report, A feasibility Project Under the

Asia Pro Eco Program of EC, Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of

Engineering & Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh.

Directorate of Agricultural Extension)

(National Geography Water Calculation Method)

(Wackernagel et al. 2002).

Data for London sourced from the published report by Alan Calcott and Jamie Bull (2007).

Global Footprint Network, 2010

Chaina Ecological Footprint Report 2010

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/calculators/personal/introduction.asp

www.footprintnetwork.org.

http://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/what-is-ef.html