This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]On: 03 July 2014, At: 12:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Local Environment: The InternationalJournal of Justice and SustainabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

The ecological footprint of Santiagode ChileMathis Wackernagel aa PhD, Centro de Estudios para la Sustentabilidad , UniversidadAnáhuac de Xalapa Apdo , Postal 653, 91000 Xalapa, Ver.,Mexico. Fax: E-mail:Published online: 02 May 2007.

To cite this article: Mathis Wackernagel (1998) The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile,Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 3:1, 7-25, DOI:10.1080/13549839808725541

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839808725541

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Local Environment, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1998

ARTICLE

The Ecological Footprint of Santiagode ChileMATHIS WACKERNAGEL

ABSTRACT In the case of Santiago de Chile, this paper explains how theecological footprint of a city can be calculated and how this footprint can becompared with the biological capacity available for human use. As ecologicalfootprints provide an easily communicable way of measuring the ecologicalbottom-line condition for sustainability, it is a useful tool for promoting asustainable future. It is particularly useful for cities, as it is in cities where thebattle for sustainability will be won or lost. While cities are the largestcontributors to Gross World Product, they are also the largest consumers andwaste producers. This is particularly critical in a world that is alreadyoverloaded with human activities and, in addition, is rapidly urbanizing. Tomake cities win the battle for sustainability we must understand the economicsof cities, not just in monetary terms, but in terms of resource allocation. Humanactivities depend on the provision of resources, the absorption of waste andother essential life-support functions only nature can supply. Each of theseservices occupies land and water areas, and we can therefore calculate howmuch ecologically productive area is necessary to exclusively support thesehuman activities. This area is called the 'ecological footprint'. The roughassessment presented here shows its application as a motivational tool fordeveloping more sustainable cities—cities with a better quality of life andsmaller ecological footprints. However, the presented method provides a basisfor more detailed analyses which would be essential for the planning of suchcities. Still, this paper shows a matrix that lists which activity occupies whichkind of ecological function and a distribution of footprints among the citizens ofSantiago. The corresponding spreadsheet with all the calculations and refer-ences is available from ICLEI's website or it can be obtained directly from theauthor.

Why Measure the Ecological Footprint of Cities?

For a sustainable world, we need to secure people's quality of life within themeans of nature. Not living within our ecological means will lead to thedestruction of humanity's only home. Inadequate quality of life caused by a lack

Mathis Wackernagel, PhD, Centro de Estudios para la Sustentabilidad, Universidad Anáhuacde Xalapa Apdo Postal 653, 91000 Xalapa, Ver., Mexico. Fax: 19-04-53 Email:mathiswa @ edg. net. mx

1354-9839/98/010007-19 © 1998 Carfax Publishing Ltd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

M. Wackernagel

of resources, environmental health threats, social violence or injustice will causeconflict and erode our social fabric.

To plan effectively for sustainability we need to measure our currentcondition. On the one hand, we need to know whether people's quality of lifeis being maintained. On the other, we need to start monitoring whether we areliving within our ecological means or at what rate humanity, or a nation, isdepleting the biosphere's natural capital. After all, people are a part of natureand depend on its steady supply of the basic requirements for life: energy forheat and mobility, wood for housing, furniture and paper products, fibres forclothes, quality food and water for healthy living, ecological sinks for wasteabsorption and many life-support services for securing living conditions on ourplanet.

Rapid human expansion as witnessed since the Second World War hasreached a point where humanity's ecological load has exceeded what nature canregenerate (Wackernagel et ah, 1997; Worldwatch Institute, 1997b).1 In otherwords, humanity is now the main occupant of the world's ecological capacity.The conventional strategy to maximise society's resource throughput and therebylift people's standard of living has outlasted its usefulness; in an ecologicallyoverloaded world, further increase of resource use leaves us and future genera-tions poorer once we include the loss of natural capital in the equation. The newchallenge is to provide high-quality living for everybody without eroding ourultimate wealth: the natural capital of the world.

This battle for sustainability will be won or lost in the cities for four mainreasons:

• people power, in population numbers alone, cities will soon dominate on theworld scale. Today, they already house 45% of humanity—and by 2025 therewill be 61% of us living in cities. Chile today already comprises 84% ofcity-dwellers, and its cities are growing annually at 1.8% (World ResourcesInstitute, 1996);

• political power: most economic and political decisions are made in cities. Aswell, cities contain the business headquarters, the main educational centresand the bulk of the middle class, all politically active sectors. With thegrowing disparities, cities are also increasingly the scene of contradictions andconflict;

• economic power, cities are the largest contributors to Gross World Product.For example, the Santiago de Chile metropolitan area, with 36% of thenational population, generates at least 41% of Chile's national income {PlanRegulador Metropolitano de Santiago, 1994; Compendio estadistico 1996);

• ecological impact: with all their economic success, cities inevitably becomethe major modes of resource consumption and waste production, depending onincreasing amounts of hinterland to secure their needs (Folke et ah, 1997).Furthermore, the concentration of waste products is directly endangeringpeople's health, particularly where cities have not been able to install adequate

; waste infrastructure and contaminant reduction.

To make cities win the battle for sustainability, we must first understand somebasic urban resource economics—not primarily its monetary dimensions

8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

The Ecological Footprint of Santiago

FIGURE 1. The ecological footprint. Note: Any human economy, city or household is an ecologicalorganism much like the cow in the pasture. To maintain itself, the economy needs to "eat" resourcesand eventually all this intake becomes waste and has to leave the organism again. To address theecological bottom-line of sustainability we need to consider how much nature our cities use to securetheir intake of resources, the absorption of their waste and the maintenance of other essentiallife-support functions which they require and only nature can supply. Each of these services occupiesland and water areas, and we can therefore calculate how much ecologically productive space is

necessary to exclusively support these human activities. (Illustration by Phil Testemale.)

but rather its biophysical scope (Rees, 1992). More precisely, to plan for a futureconsistent with the ecological bottom-line condition for sustainability we need toconsider how much nature our cities use to secure their intake of resources, theabsorption of waste and the maintenance of other essential life-support functionsthey require and only nature can supply. Each of these services occupies landand water areas, and we can therefore calculate how much ecologically produc-tive space is necessary to exclusively support these human activities. This areais called the ecological footprint of that human activity (Wackernagel & Rees,1996).

What Footprints Measure

Ecological footprint calculations are based on two simple facts: first, one cankeep track of most of the resources people consume and many of the wastespeople generate; second, most of these resource and waste flows can beconverted to a biologically productive area necessary to provide these functions.

9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

M. Wackernagel

Hence, footprint analyses offer a measure for ecological sustainability. Thesemeasurements of energy and resource throughput can help policy planners assessa population's ecological impact and compare this impact with nature's capacityto regenerate. In other words, footprints contrast human load with nature'scarrying capacity. By comparing a city's footprint with the biological capacityavailable in the world, within the national territory or in the region surroundingthe city, this assessment offers a benchmark for today's ecological performance,

i identifies the challenges for lightening a city's ecological load and allowsi planners to document gains as a city moves toward sustainability. By document-ing the city's current ecological dependence, we have a base-line on which tobuild scenarios for our future.i Obviously, cities occupy more area than the physical space on which theyjare built. This in itself is a trivial insight. The good news is that if citiesare well organised, their per capita footprint may become quite small whilei still providing a high quality of life. In other words, having footprints—or| having footprints larger than the city surface—is not the actual sustain-ability challenge; humans must consume products and services of nature, andj therefore human impact on the earth is inevitable. The challenge is anotherlone: how to reduce humanity's total ecological load as it is starting to exceedIglobal carrying capacity. This points to cities' strategic intervention point:! rather than accommodating the continuous expansion of resource-hungry cities,I we must start planning for resource thrifty and liveable cities—and theI footprint can provide a yardstick to monitor whether we move in the rightdirection.\ We acknowledge and emphasise that the strength of ecological footprintlassessments is not their precision. Their main task is to visualise human impaction the earth. Our basic philosophy, rather than to maximise precision, has beento neither exaggerate the ecological footprints of a population, nor to underesti-mate the biological productivity of an area. Therefore, more advanced and morecomplete studies may lead to larger footprints. These larger footprints do notnecessarily mean that consumption has gone up or that older assessments werewrong. Rather new results point to improvements in the assessment. In conse-quence, one must be careful when comparing the results of various footprintstudies unless the same methodologies are used.| Ecological footprints are essentially 'big picture' tools that summarise avariety of human impacts, provide an understanding of its magnitude and allowfor a comparison with the available biological capacity. Various ecologicalaspects are still left out in current assessments which include: persistent contam-inants such as DDT or lead, biodegradable contaminants such as humanexcrement or nitrates, lasting ecological degradation, fresh water use and ozonedepletion. The energy footprint of fossil fuel is calculated via the land necessaryfor CO2 absorption. Nuclear energy is considered to occupy the same footprintper energy unit as fossil fuel for two reasons: first, rough estimates of alreadylost bioproductivity caused by accidents (mainly associated with the Chernobylreactor) compared with the total produced nuclear energy show similarly largefootprints. Second, as a parallel argument, non-subsidised nuclear power is noteconomically competitive and will most likely be replaced by (non-sustainable)

10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

The Ecological Footprint of Santiago

fossil fuel. More discussion on methodological limitations and the calculation ofenergy footprints can be found in other publications.2

Calculating Santiago de Chile's Footprint

The purpose of this study was to provide an overview perspective on Santiago deChile's ecological load on the planet. This is new territory as most ecologicalfootprint studies so far have focused on countries or processes. The few crudeestimates for cities so far have been mainly extrapolated according to theirpopulation share (Folke et al., 1997). The International Council for Local Environ-mental Initiatives (ICLEI) commissioned this study as an introductory piece toaccompany its Sustainable Santiago project. Boundary conditions for this footprintproject consisted of providing a rough estimate for Santiago within a short periodof time and at moderate costs.3 Therefore, the case presented here, built exclusivelyon readily available data, is primarily of didactic value, which points, however,towards a method for more reliable assessment and applications as a planning tool.

The National Footprint Calculation as a Foundation for the City Footprint

National footprints are among the most reliable estimates as most of thenecessary data for footprint calculations such as ecological productivity, resourceproduction and trade are already measured by national statistical institutes.Therefore, they become the basis for city calculations. Most of the data used atthe country level are available through United Nations publications.4 Thenational assessment for Chile is based on 1993 data, the latest year for which wehad a complete set of data available. The entire assessment is documented on aspreadsheet called 'santiago.xls' of 200 lines and 15 columns. It is availablefrom the World Wide Web http://www.iclei.org/iclei/santiago.htm and in it, themain resource and energy flows at the national and city level are analysed. Table1 shows a simplified version of the spreadsheet. To understand the mechanics ofthe calculation, it is easiest to consult this EXCEL spreadsheet file while readingthe following description. Also, some cells in this spreadsheet file contain notesthat explain more about the calculations and their assumptions.

The lines of the spreadsheet represent resource types, while the columnscontain the productivity,5 the production (in both biophysical and dollar terms),import, export and consumption of these resources. The spreadsheet is composedof four main areas. The upper part of the spreadsheet (up to line 45) assessesChile's consumption of biotic resources (or its sub-products).6 Consumption iscalculated by adding imports to national production and subtracting exports.With biological productivity data based on the United Nations Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO), estimates of average world yield, consumptionand waste absorption are translated into the occupied ecologically productiveland and water areas—the footprint components. For example, in the case ofpotatoes, the footprint component would be

s - ExpOltpotatoes _ ^ . .- = Footprint componentpotatoes

Yie ld potatoes

11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

TABLE 1. Simplified calculation spreadsheet for Chile

2 Calculation of the Chilean's average Eeological Footprint (1993 data)34 LAND AND SEA AREA ACCOUNTING5 CATEGORIES

6 units if not specified1

8 FOODS

Yield

[kg/ha](global average)

. meat. Yield for animal products from pasture(expressed in average units)

10 . . bovine, goat, mutton andbuffalo meat

11 . . non-bovine, non-goat, non-mutton.

non-buffalo12 .dairy13 . .mi lk

14 ..cheese15 . . butter16 . marine fish17 . cereals18 . .wheat19 . . cereal preparations20 . animal feed21 , v e g & fruit22 . . veg etc

23 . . fresh fruit24 . roots and tubers25 .pulses26 . coffee & tea27 .cocoa28 .sugar29 .oil seed (Incl. soya)30 TIMBER [in roundwood

equivalent, mVha/yr, m3]31 . roundwood [mVha, m3]

32 . fire wood [m\ calculated fromits weight]

33 . sawnwood [m3]34 . wood-based panels [m3]

35 . wood pulp [tl36 . paper and paperboard [t]39 OTHER CROPS

40 .tobacco41 . cotton42 .jute43 .rubber44 .wool45 .hide

74

33

502505029

2 744

2 74418 (KM

12 607852566454

4 8931856

1.99waste factors

0.533.00

4.50

1.9S

1.35

15481000

15001000

1574

(biotic resources)Production

[t]1

642 000

241000

40100016500001650 000

2 643 000

5446 000

933 00094 000

45100036 000

27 680 84232 241 000

9 627 0003113 000

613 0001867 000

572 000

20 000

Import

M

38 640

35 017

3 623

60 900

2 8913 199

956 821525 600

142 864216061

145 157

5 49723 238

18535 170

352 9164000

10006000

19O003000

177 000

828

Export

W

14410

3 497

1091319 69416 854

26915

consumption in [kg/cap]

196 7471300

88 454762 102

1 689 139

183 3511210146

27847 583

218

10978

11936 0005 435 000

820 000200 000

1480 000156 000

3 109

Consumption

M

666 230

272 520

393 7101 691 206

313 403 074

- 6 1 9 2383 972 921

932 7225191423 020

452 84340192

16 097 75826810000

9628 0002 229 000

432 000390000593 000

1771927 977

2711018415 02930 533

population of Chile: 13 822 000 in 199314 622 354 in 1997

Footprint component[ha/cap]

0.601

(alread)0.244

1.0670.090

-0 .0160.016

0.0050.0040.003

0.0000.0070.002

0.585

33%45%13%4%

5%

0.O010.002O.OOO0.0010.0720.030

pasture

' in cereals)pasture

sea

arable land

arable landarable land

arable landarable landarable landarable land

arable landarable land

forest

of cons, fire woodof cons, sawn woodof cons, panelsof cons, minesof cons, paper

arable land

arable landarable landarable land

pasturepasture

8-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

TABLE 1. Continued

B

464748 ENERGY BALANCE:4950 Specific energy footprint51 coal52 liquid fossil fuel53 fossil gas55 nuclear energy (thermal)56 assumed to be fossil energy57 hydro-electric energy59

133134135136 FOOTPRINT (per capita)137 Category138139140 fossil energy141 built-up area142 arable land143 pasture144 forest145 sea146147 TOTAL used

C

DEMAND

total

[ha/cap/0.50.00.10.90.61.1

3.3

E

glob. aver.[Gj/ha/yr]

5571937171

1000

equivalencyfactor[ - ]1.12.82.80.51.10.2

H I J K

Energy typecoal consumption:liquid fossil fuel consumption:fossil gas consumption:nuclear energy consumption (thermal):energy embodied in net imported goods:hydro-electricity consumption:

SUMMARYSUPPLY

L

[Gj/yr/cap]9

188035

M N O

Footprint component in [ha/cap]0.1634 fossil energy land for coal0.2498 fossil energy land for liquid fuel0.0829 fossil energy land for fossil gas0.0000 fossil energy land for nuclear energy0.0410 energy in net imports0.0046 built-up area for hydro power

EXISTING BIO-CAPACITY WITHIN CHILE (per capita) ON THE PLANET (per capita)equivalent Category

total[ha/cap]

0.6 CO2 absorption land0.1 built-up area0 J arable land0.5 pasture0.7 forest0.2 sea

TOTAL existing

yieldfactor

1.51.50.70.51.0

national yield adjusted global area yield adjusted areaarea equiv. area (for 1993)

[ha/cap] [ha/cap] [ha/cap]0.0 0.0 0.000.0 0.1 0.060.3 U 0.261.0 0.4 0.611.2 0.7 0.925.4 1.2 0.567.9 3.6 2.4

2.4 TOTAL available (minus 12% for biodiversity) 3.2

(for 1993)[ha/cap]

0.000.170.740.331.050.122.42.1

8

9a.3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

M. Wackernagel

The energy component for potatoes needed for agriculture (tractors, fertilisers,pesticides, etc.) and processing (transportation, packaging, distribution andcooking) would already be included in the energy balance of the country anddoes not need to be calculated separately.

The following part, from line 48 to 131, analyses the energy requirementsof Chile. First, it lists the fossil and hydroelectric energy consumptionof Chile's main sectors (up to line 74). This energy account needs tobe corrected for trade: on the one hand, some of the energy is consumedto produce export goods while on the other hand, Chile imports goodswhose production energy has already been invested elsewhere. The spread-sheet provides an energy balance of these traded goods between lines 75 and131. This balance adjusts the amount of directly consumed energy withinChile by the embodied energy that enters and leaves the country throughthe import and export of finished products. In Chile's case, net trade leads tothe export of embodied energy at the rate of 3 Gigajoules per year and perperson.

In the second to last part, Chile's footprint and its ecological capacity aresummarised in a box with two sections (lines 134 to 147). The left sectionitemises the ecological footprint in six ecological categories and gives thetotal. Comparison between these ecological categories is not appropriate sincethey are of unequal productive capacity. For example, land categorised asarable has a much higher potential for biological production than land onlysuitable for pasture. Therefore, to allow for a more meaningful comparisonbetween footprints and bio-capacity within as well as among nations, 'equiva-lence factors' are introduced. These equivalence factors scale these landcategories proportional to their productivity. More precisely, they provideinformation about the land category's relative productivity as compared withworld average land (such average land would represent the factor 1). Forexample, the arable land factor of 3.2 says that arable land can produce 3.2times more biomass than world average land. Through this scaling, the totalbio-capacity of the world is not distorted: the scaled global total adds up to thesame amount as the global total expressed in true physical spaces. Thiscomparison is shown in the left subsection of the box entitled 'global bio-capacity'.; All figures represent all results in per capita figures. This makes people fromdifferent places more directly comparable. Still, national aggregates are easy tocalculate from the per capita footprints. Multiply the per capita data by 14million people (Chile's population) and you will receive the total ecologicalfootprint of Chile.i The right section of the result box shows how much biologically productive

capacity exists within the country, and for comparison in the world. As theproductivity of Chile's land areas is higher than world average, its physical landarea is multiplied by the factor by which the local productivity exceeds the worldaverage (second column in the right box). We call this factor the 'yield factor'.7

A yield factor of 1.5, for example, means that the local productivity of thisecosystem category is 50% higher than world average—absorbing 50% moreCO2 or producing 50% more potatoes per hectare. Now the footprint and the

14

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

The Ecological Footprint of Santiago

ecological capacity existing within Chile are both measured in the same unitsand can be directly compared.

The section to the right makes the same capacity assessment for the globe. Asshown, a global area of 2.4 ha of biologically productive space per personexisted on this planet in 1993. In the left column, this information is presentedin physically true terms. The right column (printed in bold) lists the samestatistics in units adjusted to world average land. These are obtained bymultiplying the physically true spaces by the equivalency factors. Note that bothcolumns add up to the same total.

Not all the existing ecological capacity is available for human use as this areashould also give room to the 30 million fellow species with whom humanityshares this planet. According to the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, at least 12% of the ecological capacity (representing all ecosystemtypes) should be preserved for biodiversity protection (WCED, 1987, pp. 147,166). According to most conservation biologists, this 12% share may beinsufficient for securing biodiversity,8 but conserving more may be politicallyunfeasible. That is why we define, both at the global and national level, theavailable ecological capacity optimistically as 88% of the existing space.Accepting 12% as a pragmatic number for biodiversity preservation, one cancalculate that from the approximately 2.4 ha per capita of biologically productivearea that exist, only 2.1 ha per capita, at most, are available for human use,according to the 1994 figures. Taking the 1997 population figures, this spaceshrinks to 2.0 and is expected to be reduced even more in the future. Still, forthe time being, we may use these 2 ha as a benchmark for comparing people'secological footprints.

The last part of the spreadsheet (lines 150-192) presents the results in a'consumption land-use matrix', first for Chile, and then as described in thesection below, for Santiago. This matrix not only shows the land uses as listedin the result box but assigns them to a variety of human activities. The lines ofthe consumption land-use matrix on the left side represent various consumptioncategories and the headings across the top show the corresponding land-usecategories. 'Fossil energy', as used in the matrix, means how much land wouldbe necessary for absorbing the carbon dioxide released by current fossil fuelconsumption (coal, oil and natural gas). Alternatively, it could be calculatedaccording to the land area necessary to produce a biological substitute. Thisalternative approach would lead to even higher land requirements. 'Built-upland' means land that is no longer available for natural production because it hasbeen paved over or used for buildings. 'Goods and Services' includes everythingfrom non-edible products like soap or radios to the resources needed for servicessuch as heating hospitals or producing paper and electricity to prepare bankstatements.

The most complete statistics on the consumption by sector exist for energyuse. From the footprint analysis, it also becomes obvious which spaces are usedfor food. Analysing the flows within the forest economy, as done in the resourceaccounting section of the spreadsheet, provides the estimates for the amount ofthe timber products used in housing or for consumer goods. This information onwhich human activity is occupying how much of each ecosystem type is then

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

M. Wackernagel

Other areas of the metropolitan areaBuilt-up area of Santiago

FIGURE 2. Santiago's aggregate footprint compared with the city surface. With a footprint of at least2.6 ha per capita, Santiago's total ecological footprint is 16 times larger than the metropolitan area; and 300 times the actual built-up surface of Santiago. Note: Illustration by Iliana Pamanes.

summarised in the matrix. For instance, to use the matrix to find out how mucharable land is used to produce the average Chilean's cotton for his or her(non-synthetic) clothes, you would read across the 'clothes' line to the 'arableland' column, and find that 0.014 ha (or 140 m2 ) of world average land isneeded (in Table 2 the figures are rounded to two digits after the decimal point,therefore the table shows '0.01').

Calculating the Footprint of Santiago de Chile with the Help of the ConsumptionLand-use Matrix

The estimate of the national figures becomes the starting point for assessing thecity's footprint. These national estimates are quite reliable as official data onnational production and the import and export of all major resources and goodsare readily available. For sub-national assessments, however, local trade andconsumption statistics do not exist. Still, the footprints of a regional or municipalpopulation can be extracted from the national footprint by comparing to whatextent the consumption pattern in the region or municipality differs from thenational average and adjusting the national footprint accordingly. This indirect

16

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

The Ecological Footprint of Santiago

assessment leads to more precise results than an estimate based on a limited setof local data. The reason is that national statistics cover a large part of humanactivities and include many indirect effects of consumption such as publicexpenditures, waste in the production and distribution process or recycling ofwaste, all of which can get lost in analyses of local activities. In addition, mostmunicipalities and cities collect sufficient data on car use, housing, energyconsumption, income or living costs in their area, which allows for a comparisonof local to national consumption patterns.

In the case of Santiago de Chile, few local consumption data were readilyavailable. Our estimates were built on some key data provided by MonicaBaeza from ICLEI (Latin America). Still, they are sufficient for a firstapproximation and a first step to a more detailed analysis. Below are the keydata which helped us compare Santiago Metropolitan Area with Chile'snational average. In essence, these are the data which enable us to distinguishthe lifestyle of Santiago, the metropolitan area, from that of Chile, the country.With few exceptions, the data used come from official sources. However,people from the municipality of Santiago and from the Instituto de EcologiaPolftica in Santiago had the feeling that the data underestimate Santiago's shareof national consumption. In the next step of the project we would need toclarify these data in collaboration with the statisticians who published them.Here are the data:

• According to the Plan Regulador Metropolitano de Santiago (1994),the Santiago Metropolitan Area, in 1992, had 4 756 663 inhabitants. Inother words, Santiago houses 35.6% of the national population of13 348 000.

• With 1 048 615 households in the metropolitan area, Santiago's averagehousehold size adds up to 4.5 members per household (Plan ReguladorMetropolitano de Santiago, 1994).

• The metropolitan area contains 791 581 ha, of which 701 619 ha are ecolog-ically protected. The consolidated area of Santiago measures 41 215 ha. Theremaining 48 747 ha are equally shared among soon to be developed land,urban growth reserves and agricultural uses (Plan Regulador Metropolitano deSantiago, 1994).

• The road space in Santiago occupies 3600 ha (calculated from Plan ReguladorMetropolitano de Santiago, 1994).

• Santiago has 735 167 motorised vehicles out of Chile's total fleet of 1 632 283vehicles. Therefore, we assume that Santiago is responsible for 45% of Chile'straffic volume (Compendio Estadistico, 1996).

• The Santiago Metropolitan Area produces and consumes 41.5% of thenation's GNP (Compendio Estadistico, 1996); still, according to some statis-tics, the average income in the Santiago Metropolitan area is about the sameas that in the other 12 regions of Chile if the minimum wage can be used asa measure (Compendio Estadistico, 1996).

• Chilean households spend 32% of their income on Food (Compendio Estadis-tico 1996). According to Monica Baeza, food in Santiago de Chile is about20% more expensive than in rural areas.

17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

M. Wackernagel

TABLE 2. The footprint of the average inhabitant of Santiago in hectares per person is presentedhere in the consumption land-use

Factor

Food.vegetarian.animal products.water

Housing and FurnitureTransport

.road

.rail

.air

.coastal and waterwaysGoods

.paper production

.clothes (non-synthetic

.tobacco

.other

Total

Fossilenergy

0.119

9

0.040.250.180.000.020.040.430.180.00

0.25

0.83

Built-uparea

0.010.00

0.00

0.02

Arableland

0.350.32

0.03

0.15

0.020.13

0.49

: matrix.

Pasture

0.75

0.75

0.07

0.07

0.82

Forest

0.24

0.110.04

0.090.09

0.24

Sea

0.24

0.99

0.24

Total

1.450.32

0.160.290.180.000.020.040.740.270.080.130.25

2.64

; Note: The population of the Santiago Metropolitan Area was 4 756 663 in 1992.

• The daily waste generation per person in Santiago is about 1 kg. This; kilogram contains 550 g of organic waste, 140 g of paper and cardboard,; 100 g plastic (which adds up to 37 kg plastic per year or 1.8 Gj per year per! person), 40 g of textiles (or 15 kg per person per year, cotton?), and 170 g ofi other materials {Plan Regulador Metropolitano de Santiago, 1994).;• According to Monica Baeza, the yearly heating energy used per person\ amounts to about 2 Gj.• According to Monica Baeza, most houses in Santiago de Chile are built of! bricks and concrete, with only about 1 m3 of wood components.

Clearly, more detailed comparative data could provide a better resolution whenanalysing the ecological impact of Santiago de Chile. For example, figures onactual energy consumption in transportation (or kilometres driven per car) ormore precise data on the quantity and quality of the Santiago housing stockJwould improve the assessment in these categories. Still, these data provide someindication on how to adjust the national consumption land-use matrix specificallyto Santiago's, as shown in Table 2. Each cell of the matrix is recalculated withthe Santiago specific data. For example, the transportation footprint is calculatedassuming that Santiago's share of the national car fleet is the same as Santiago'sshare of consumed transportation energy. Or, the housing line takes into accountthe heating needs and the prevailing construction type of Santiago. Please notethat the figures refer to the year 1993. For more details on the calculation,consult the matrix in the spreadsheet file as it contains the figures and formulae.

18

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

The Ecological Footprint of Santiago

There, the most important assumptions and calculations are described in notesattached to the spreadsheet cells.

Assuming that the applied local data are correct—and there is good reason tobelieve that the consumption share of Santiago as shown by the statistics is anunderestimate—the footprint of the average Santiagan extends 2.6 ha. This ishigher than the 2.4 ha average footprint of Chile. This is in spite of the capitalcity's significantly lower wood consumption. In all other categories, however(such as energy or food), consumption in the capital city is higher. Still, the totalfootprint of the city is 16 times larger than the metropolitan area (including theecological reserves), or even 300 times larger than the actually occupied spaceof the city.

Ecological Footprint Distribution in Santiago de Chile

Of course, not everybody in Santiago de Chile has the same size of footprint.Using consumption/income distribution statistics published by the World Bank(World Bank, 1996), we estimated the size of footprint by income classes. Onecrude assumption is that the distribution for Santiago is the same as for all ofChile (see Table 3). In addition, these monetary statistics of income distri-bution are only coarse proxies of the varying standard of living within asociety—but the only ones available internationally. Even though money flowsare rarely correlated with quality of life, as pointed out extensively by theliterature criticising Gross National Product (Daly & Cobb, 1989) they areclosely linked to resource flows (Hall et al., 1986; Kaufmann, 1992). Still,these income distribution measures underestimate the gap between rich andpoor as various income benefits of the rich are hidden and escape moststatistical measurement attempts. These hidden benefits include capital gains,savings abroad or informal activities of the wealthy. On the other hand,monetary spending may exaggerate differences in footprint size: typically,additional income may lead to a shift from quantity (or resource-intensive)products to more quality (or labour-intensive) goods and services. In the bestcase, these two effects may cancel each other out. Therefore, we assume thatin this comparison (in a simplistic way), income is proportional to thefootprint. For follow-up studies, it would be particularly interesting to analysethe range of footprints within a given income level. For instance, purchasingby more affluent people could lead towards a more global consumption ofresources (large footprint) or to the use of more local labour. Such refinementsin the assessment would move the footprint analysis closer from its morepedagogic use today towards being a relevant management tool.

Interpreting the Results

The footprint of Santiago tells us the amount of ecological capacity appropriatedby the city to sustain its functioning. In other words, it shows the share of theglobal capacity of the biosphere to keep Santiago running. It also enables us tocompare to what extent this urban consumption can be covered by the ecologicalcapacity of its region or the nation. In a world with growing ecological

19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

M. Wackernagel

TABLE 3. Footprint distribution in Santiago according to economic levels (in hectares per person)

Lowest Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest Highest, Factor 10% 20% quintile quintile quintile 20% 10%

Consumption compared tonational average (in %) 14 18 33 55 91 305 461

Ecological footprint(hectares per person) 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.4 2.4 8 12

Note: For example, this table shows that the average person in the fourth quintile (60% of thepopulation are poorer, 20% of the population are richer) would earn (or spend) 91 % of the averageincome, resulting in a footprint of 2.4 ha per person.

overshoot, having sufficient ecological capacity becomes the most importantasset for a country.

Please note, however, that the footprint is not a health indicator of the; environment within the city boundaries as most of the ecological capacity toi sustain it lies outside the city. For example, there are some (wealthy) cities thatI have been able to preserve splendid local settings and restore high water and airquality. Often, however, these cities are only able to protect their local environ-ment thanks to their purchasing power with which they can appropriate addi-tional ecological capacity from somewhere else. From there, they receive theresources to build a sophisticated infrastructure. Or, they use these farawaycapacities to absorb their waste. Local air pollution, often misconceived as an^environmental problem', is therefore not a matter of ecological capacity, but,equally important, one of quality of life and human health. Sustainable cities:must resolve, therefore, the challenge of securing a high quality of life, includinga healthy local environment without eroding the ecological capacities beyond itsboundaries.

Chile's footprint amounts to 2.4 ha per capita. In comparison, the averageMexican's footprint is 2.6 ha; that of a Swiss, 4.9 ha; of a Canadian, 7.8 ha; andof an Indian, 0.8 ha (Wackernagel et al., 1997). Chile's terrestrial footprint of 2.2ha is as big as the 2.2 ha of ecologically productive land per person available;within its borders. In fact, according to these estimates (assuming for itstemperate forest a similar productivity to that of average European forests) Chilehas just a little more terrestrial ecological capacity than what is available on aper capita basis worldwide. However, Chile, with its long coast line, is wellendowed with sea area—it has about nine times more per capita than the worldaverage.

Chile is in the notable situation of consuming less than what its productiveareas can regenerate. The country is, ecologically, well endowed in comparisonwith the global situation. Thanks to its sea area, Chile has still a nationalecological remainder of 0.8 ha per capita, even though it consumes 20% morethan what is available per capita worldwide. Chile's consumption, however, isgrowing—as documented in Table 4. If Chile's resource use continued to expandonly at its current rate of demographic growth (1.6% per year), implying no

20

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

The Ecological Footprint of Santiago

increase in its per capita consumption, it would take approximately 17 years forChile to reach a level at which all of the ecological productivity within itsterritory would be occupied for its own consumption.9 If Chileans take on thewasteful lifestyles which are prevalent in the industrial world, they will reachthis point much sooner. Within 17 years, the world population may most likelyhave grown to 7.7 billion people with 1.5 ha of ecologically productive landavailable per person. Already today, one can show that it is far easier for acountry to be competitive if it does not run an ecological deficit.10 In a futureworld which will be even more loaded with human activities, ecological assetswill be even more essential. Therefore, it may be a more secure and prosperousnational strategy for Chile to curb its national ecological footprint expansion,thereby protecting its ecological wealth and economic advantage. As theseecological services will be in great demand in the future, they will become anincreasing asset to Chile.

Next Steps for City Footprints

As pointed out, this assessment of Santiago de Chile's ecological footprint andits surrounding biological capacity is still a rough estimate of the real situation.The calculation was based on a narrow set of local data and many crudeassumptions. However, it already provides us with an insight into the magnitudeof Santiago's ecological impact and dependence on the biosphere.

The present assessment could be improved in various steps: first, the nationalassessment could be reworked using a more complete set of national statisticsrather than depending on the more general UN data. Second, with more localdata available concerning aspects of city life such as housing, consumption ofgoods and services or transportation, these sub-systems could be analysed inmore detail. Third, local data on waste generation, waste management, watermanagement and wastewater treatment would allow the inclusion of additionalecological services in the footprint. Fourth, data on local productivity and yieldswould allow for a more precisely determined local productivity. For these moredetailed analyses—perhaps even including historical developments of consump-tion and land uses—a GIS based system (computer-aided geographic informationsystem) would allow the inclusion of much more analytical flexibility into thedata set. Historical developments or the implication of land-use changes could berapidly traced and compared with other trends. GIS systems could also help todocument more accurately city infrastructure and surrounding ecological capac-ities, thereby clarifying the various types and quantities of urban resourceconsumption and waste production.

This case study of Santiago de Chile illustrates a method to document a city'secological dependence on natural capital. While this first assessment is still quitesimple because of a limited amount of local data that we were able to gather forthis project, this same method, using a richer data set, would serve as a base-lineanalysis for planners and the public to identify saving potentials, measuringprogress toward sustainability and comparing trends and scenarios for the future.More complete footprint assessments, which we are in the process of developing,will be useful for analysing key issues concerning sustainability and cities. They

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

toto

TABLE 4. Growth trends in Chile"

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1997

Total population(in 000s)

Total urbanpopulation(in 000s)

Automobileregistrations(in 000s)

Gross domesticproduct per capita(in US$)

Commercial energyconsumption(in Petajoules)

Traditional fuelconsumption(in Petajoules)

6 747 7 595 8 566 9 494 10 334 11143 12 076 13 154 14 262 14 691

4 268 5 152 6 142 7 142

887

316

47

101 9 053 9 978 10 954 11966

1 030a 1 632"

699 2 474 1363 2 310

286

51

316

55

300

62

513

76

3 302°

539C

84a

8-OQ

Notes: Tor the year 1991, "from the Compendio estadi'stico 1996, cfor the year 1993.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

The Ecological Footprint of Santiago

will show to what extent a given level of quality of life will require higher orlower footprints in cities as compared with the countryside, and what determinesthese differences. In addition, they will point out what opportunities intelligenturbanisation offers to reduce the footprint of human activities and lifestyles, yetremain within ecological carrying capacity. No doubt the main contribution ofcurrent ecological footprint assessments is strongest on the motivational side asit enables people to perceive, in meaningful ways, the necessity to maintainnatural capital for their future well-being. Equally important is that theseresource assessments identify humanity's ecological boundary conditions withinwhich a sustainable human economy has to operate. In this way, the ecologicalfootprint identifies, at the city level, core sustainability challenges and helps findways which secure people's quality of life within the means of nature.

Acknowledgements

This study was commissioned and funded by the International Council for LocalEnvironmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Many thanks go to Monica Baeza, RagaChandra, Jaime Valenzuela and Maria Elena Zuninga from ICLEI Latin Americaand Sandra Makinson from ICLEI for collecting the data of Santiago de Chileand commenting on the report, Jeb Brugmann, Secretary General of ICLEI forencouraging this assessment, Alejandro Callejas Linares, Alex Long and AnnaKnaus for helping the author prepare this paper and the calculations, LarryOnisto for comments and support, and lliana Pâmanes for producing theillustrations. For questions, suggestions or interest in the development of othermunicipal footprint analyses, please contact the author at the Centre for Sustain-ability Studies in Mexico.

Notes1. For a calculation of humanity's aggregate impact see Wackernagel et al. (1997). Copies, including the disk

with the spreadsheets, are obtainable through ICLEI (fax: (416) 392-1478, email: < iclei@iclei.org > ). Fora preliminary version of this report, see the Earth Council's homepage at: http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/fo-cus/report/english/footprnt.htm. There, a zip archive of the report text and accompanying data files bycountry (Excel 4.0 format) is also available for download directly from that page.

2. For a more lengthy discussion, consult Wackernagel & Rees (1996). Assessments by others include: MånsNilsson (1997). Approaches to an Earth Audit (Sweden, Stockholm Environment Institute); Earth Council,Costa Rica; United Nations Environment Programme, Kenya. International Institute for Environment andDevelopment (1995) Citizen Action to Lighten Britain's Ecological Footprints, Report to the UKDepartment of the Environment; Andrew R.B. Ferguson (1997) Limits to population: the ecologicalconstraints, draft chapter for Union of Concerned Scientists, Commanding Spaceship Earth; Susan Mercott(1997) Sustainable development: a meta review of definitions, principles, criteria, indicators, conceptualframeworks, information systems, paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement ofScience Annual Conference, Seattle, WA, 13-17 February 1997. The most recent ecological footprintdevelopments are documented in Mathis Wackernagel, Lillemor Lewan, Carl Folke & Carina Hansson(1997) Evaluating the sustainability of a catchment area: the ecological footprint concept applied to theKävlinge watershed in the Malmöhus County, South Sweden, draft to be submitted to Ambio.

3. The calculations had to be completed within one month. The project costs were approximately US$2000which included the reworking of the national footprint calculation, the development of the consumptionland-use matrix and its adaptation for Santiago de Chile. The collection of local data was the responsibilityof ICLEI Latin America and its cost is not covered by the budget of the project discussed.

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

M. Wackernagel

4. All the main sources used in these calculations stem from United Nations documents. The codes in thespreadsheets' reference columns (E, H and K) point to the publication used. The first number of thereference code indicates the data source, the second the page and the third the classification numberwithin the data source. The data sources are (1) United Nations (1995) 1993 International TradeStatistics Yearbook, Vol. 1 (New York, Department for Economic and Social Information and PolicyAnalysis, Statistical Division), (2) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)(1994) UNCTAD Commodity Yearbook 1994 (New York and Geneva, United Nations); (3) Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1995) FAO Yearbook: Production 1994, Vol.48 (Rome, FAO); (4) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1994) FAOYearbook: Trade 1993, Vol. 47 (Rome, FAO); (5) Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO) (1995) FAO Yearbook: Forest Production 1993 (Rome, FAO); (6) (WRI) WorldResources Institute (1996) World Resources 1996-1997 (Washington DC, World Resources Institute,UNEP, UNDP, World Bank); (7) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)(1995) State of the World's Forests (Rome, FAO); (8) United Nations (1994) 1992 Energy StatisticsYearbook (New York, Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, StatisticalDivision), '-est' means that the number is estimated, either by extrapolating from subcategories, or byusing price/weight ratios from other countries.

5. Most world average productivities are taken from: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) (1995) FAO Yearbook: Production 1994 Vol. 48 (Rome, FAO). Productivity of animal products iscalculated from FAO world production figures, and weighed according to their conversion efficiencies. Theworld average productivity of forests we estimated from the International Panel on Climate Change (1997)Greenhouse Gas Inventory: Workbook. Revised 1996 1PCC Guidelines, Volume 2 (IPCC, OECD and IEA),which are based mainly on various FAO publications and studies. For rubber and jute we extrapolatedVietnamese data (Government of Vietnam, http://www.batin.com.vn/10years/indplant/) Cotton productivity istaken from Nick Robins et al, (1995) Citizen Action to Lighten Britain's Ecological Footprints (London,International Institute for Environment and Development), p. 64. Cocoa productivity is taken from Mexicanyields. Similar to Wackernagel & Rees (1996), fossil fuel is translated into land areas for CO2 absorption at therate of 55 to 93 Gj/ha/year, depending on the fuel's carbon intensity. FOr hydroelectricity the rate is assumedto be 1000 Gj/ha/year (land occupied by dams and power lines).

6. In the line description, capitalised names stand for main categories. Line description with a dot ('.') in frontindicates subcategories. Two dots ('..') means sub-subcategory. Wherever possible, the most generalcategories were used. These categories and subcategories are identified in bold print.

7. The calculation of each yield factor is explained in the notes of the Excel file. Please note that the yieldfactors probably overestimate the biological productivity of industrialised agriculture with heavy fertiliseruse. The yield factor for the sea is assumed to be 1. For built-up land, the yield factor is equal to that ofarable land, as settlements are typically located on such land.

8. Many ecologists believe that a much larger percentage of the world's ecosystems needs to be preserved inorder to secure biodiversity. For example, in 1970 ecologist Eugen Odum recommended in the case of thestate of Georgia that 40% of the territory remain as natural area (Eugene P. Odum (1970) Optimumpopulation and environment: a Georgia microcosm, Current History, 58, pp. 355-359). Wildlife ecologistand scientific director of the Wildlands Project, Reed Noss, hypothesised that about 50% of an averageregion needs to be protected as wilderness (or equivalent core reserves and lightly used buffer zones) torestore populations of large carnivores and meet other well-recognised conservation goals (Reed F. Noss(1991) Sustainability and wilderness, Conservation Biology, pp. 120-121).

9. With 3.2 ha of ecologically productive space available in Chile (expressed in world average productivity),its available capacity is 32% larger than its national footprint of 2.6 ha per person.With the formulaekk<t = FPcap/FPioday, we can calculate how long it takes for the Chilean footprint to reach the total availablecapacity if it expands at the rate of 1.6% a year (k is the growth rate = 0.016, t the time, FPtOday the footprintarea of today of 36 million hectares and FPcap of a completely filled Chile). In other words, the per capitafootprint would remain constant. Therefore t = In (FPCap/FPtoday)/k = 17 years. If at the same time the per

] capita footprint were to increase by 1% a year, this state would be reached within 10 years.10. See the analysis by Kaspar Müller, Andreas Sturm & Mathis Wackernagel, Competition and sustainability,i draft Ellipson, Basel.11. All the data from this table stem from the World Resources Institute's World Resources 1996-1997\ Database Diskette (1996, World Resources Institute). A more complete version of this table with trends

for Chile is compiled in file 'wri-chle.xls'.

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014

The Ecological Footprint of Santiago

ReferencesCompendio estadistico (1996) (Chile, INE).Daly, H. & Cobb, J. (1989) For the Common Good (Boston, Beacon Press).Folke, C, Jansson, A., Larsson, J. & Constanza, R. (1997) Ecosystem appropriation by cities, Ambio, 26(3).Hall, C , Cleveland, C. & Kaufman, R. (1986) Energy and Resource Quality (New York, Wiley).Kaufmann, R. (1992) A biophysical analysis of the energy/real GDP ratio: implications for substitution and

technical change, Ecological Economics, 6(1), pp. 35-56.Plan Regulador Metropolitana de Santiago (1994) (Chile, MINVU).Rees, W. (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out,

Environment and Urbanization, 4(2).Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth

(Gabriola Island, BC, New Society Publishers).Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Linares, A. C, Lopez Falfân, I. S., Garcia, J. M., Suaréz Guerrero, A. I. & Suaréz

Guerrero, M. G. (1997) Ecological Footprints of Nations: How Much Nature Do They Use? How MuchNature Do They Have?, commissioned by the Earth Council for the Rio+ 5 Forum (Toronto, ICLEI,revised version).

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future (Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press).

World Bank (1996) World Development Report (New York, Oxford University Press).World Resources Institute (1996) World Resources: A Guide to the Global Environment 1996-1997 (New

York, Oxford University Press).WorldWatch Institute (1997a) Vital Signs (New York, W.W. Norton).WorldWatch Institute (1997b) State of the World (New York, W.W. Norton).

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

12:

39 0

3 Ju

ly 2

014