IJSHE
2,1
48
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, 2001, pp. 48-62.
#MCB University Press, 1467-6370
Institutional ecological
footprint analysis
A case study of the University of
Newcastle, Australia
Kate Flint
School of Geosciences, University of Newcastle, Australia
Keywords Sustainable development, Tertiary education, Environmental management strategy, Ecology
Abstract With documented declines in the biophysical state of the planet, there is a need to develop indicators of sustainability. Ecological footprint analysis (EFA) can be considered an indicator of sustainability that converts consumption and waste production into units of equivalent land area. Based on the reality of biophysical limits to growth, and presenting data in an aggregated, quantifiable, yet easily comprehensible form, EFA is also a useful tool for environmental policy and management. EFA has typically been applied at the national and regional level as well, as for assessment of technology. This paper develops an ecological footprint model for institutional contexts and this study of the University of Newcastle (NSW) is the first institutional level EFA undertaken in Australia. The case study shows tertiary institutions to be net importers of consumption items and thus dependent on a vast external environment. The EFA highlights those areas of consumption which constitute the largest part of the footprint and thus provides the opportunity for targeting those areas for active management. EFA for this tertiary institution clearly identifies that a reduced ecological footprint would mean a movement towards sustainability.
Introduction
The need to recognise ecological and social dimensions of the environment has been accepted as essential for sustainability. The ecological integrity and social equity dimensions of sustainability have generated the need for appropriate signals of performance or ``indicators of sustainability''. Environmentally Adjusted Net Domestic Product[1], Natural Resource Accounting, the Human Development Index[2] and the Genuine Progress Indicator (Hamilton, 1997a) are attempts to incorporate social and environmental factors into traditional economic measures. Measurement of progress must move beyond the economic realm to monitor and report progress towards the holistic vision of sustainability. The complexity of ecological frameworks, including indicators such as net primary productivity (Vitousek et al., 1986) and energy analysis (Campbell, 1998), excludes a vast audience from comprehending the meaning of such measures, while participatory or community indicator frameworks primarily reflect social values rather than essential ecological foundations of
The research register for this journal is available at http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
Ecological
footprint
analysis
49
sustainability. As such, no universally acceptable indicators have yet emerged to evaluate development in relation to sustainability.
Central to the debate surrounding appropriate measures of sustainability is the lack of agreement about the conceptual framework of sustainability. On the one hand, the internationally influential World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED) advocating a ``5 percent growth in all countries'' (WCED, 1990, p. 94) and a ``five to tenfold expansion in world industrial output'' (WCED, 1990, p. 257), implies that there are no limits to growth. Yet, on the other hand, is the view that there are biophysical limits to economic growth and exceeding of these limits will result in non-sustainability (Meadowset al., 1992). The dependence of human economic and social systems on biophysical resources is supported by the ``laws of thermodynamics'', ``complexity theory'' and ``general systems theory'' (Odum, 1991; SchroÈdinger, 1944; Schneider and Kay, 1994). Within these theories, the earth can be described as a ``complex adaptive system'' dissipating energy received from the sun to drive matter cycles that form the basis of natural structures and biophysical processes; fresh water, air, plant and animal biomass (Giampietro and Pimental, 1991). Humans are part of this system, reliant on the pre-existing organisational structures of the planet. Physical and ecological needs, such as maintenance of energy flows, nutrient cycling and biophysical productivity are the foundation for sustainability.
Acknowledgement of ``foundational sustainability'' (Albrecht and Gutberlet, 2000) and the place of humans within ``the system'' has implications for how we measure progress towards sustainability. Use of separate economic indicators, social indicators, or even indicators of the physical environment can generate large amounts of data, but still not render indicators of sustainability. Indicators of sustainability need to reflect the state of the planet in terms of biophysical health and provide an account of how human activities are impacting on biophysical resources. In doing so, indicators of sustainability act as signals of performance, highlighting the need to alter, or reinforce, policy and behaviour that will result in movement towards sustainability goals.
Ecological footprint analysis
Ecological footprint analysis (EFA) is an:
. . .area-based indicator of sustainability that quantifies the intensity of human resource use
and waste discharge activity in a specified area in relation to the area's capacity to provide for that activity (Wackernagel and Yount, 1998, p. 512).
IJSHE
2,1
50
does not increase carrying capacity, but displaces the effects of consumption to the carrying capacity of some other part of the globe. Consequently, EFA is a measure of the carrying capacity of the whole planet and a tool with which to assess the human economy in terms of biophysical limits.
EFA has been used to calculate the land area requirements for defined populations in a geographically specific scale such as the globe, a nation or a region. For example, Rees (1995) calculated the ecological footprint of the Lower Fraser River Valley in Vancouver and showed the population's land area requirement to be 19 times the geographical area of the region. Similarly, Folke
et al. (1997) calculated that the 22 million inhabitants of Baltic cities appropriate an area of forests 18times larger, agricultural land 50 times larger, and marine systems area 133 times larger than the geographical space occupied. Overwhelmingly, EFA of the developed world demonstrates that regions and nations impact on areas well beyond their boundaries and thus maintain themselves and grow due to the importation of biophysical resources from elsewhere. Footprint analysis of 52 nations calculated a cumulative consumption overshoot of 37 percent to available biocapacity, indicating overconsumption of biophysical resources and thus unsustainability[3]. As argued by Wackernagel and Rees, such overconsumption leads to the conclusion that ``if everyone lived like the average Canadian or North American, we would need at least three such planets to live sustainably'' (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996, p. 13).
Technologies including transport and agricultural methods, and lifestyle choices such as residential densities have also been assessed by EFA for planning purposes (Walker and Rees, 1997). When using EFA for this purpose the conclusion is reached that a reduced footprint equates to a more sustainable technology or system.
The ecological footprint of the University of Newcastle (NSW)
Ecological
footprint
analysis
51
Efforts to assess the biophysical impacts of a university community are hampered by the mobile and transient nature of a population that only does a proportion of its consumption in the institutional environment. Mass student influx during semester is reduced to a basal staff population post-semester. The population is then further reduced to virtually zero during university closure periods. The transience of university life, for the majority of the population, leaves the real impact of the tertiary institution unconsidered. Further, education, as it exists in a public institution, is in conventional economic terms, a ``free resource'' ± or able to be utilised by everyone and undiminished even though utilised continuously (Hamilton, 1997b). It is likely that this is one of the reasons why education is not commonly perceived as consumption. Thus, impacts on the environment by public institutions are often not clearly monitored, evaluated and managed.
To sustain the public service provided by the institution requires a vast amount of resources essential to, but not readily associated with, education. With no internal production of consumption items, the University is a gross importer of consumption requirements. Food, buildings, transport, services and consumables are essential for the effective functioning of the public institution and hence must be imported from external systems. Similarly, the university system relies on the external environment as the destination for exported waste products (Figure 1). Given the size of the university and its regional importance, the University will affect the environment with an impact similar to a small to medium-sized town or community. Therefore, it is appropriate to conduct EFA for a tertiary institution and the results will be just as instructive to environmental management as an EFA conducted for cities and regions.
Figure 1.
IJSHE
2,1
52
Research methods
The EFA of the University of Newcastle was calculated by the author as part of an Honours Degree in Environmental Management. The research is a partial footprint calculation of 14 consumption ``items'' consumed in the functioning of the university during 1998-1999. The methodology employed is similar to the per capita assessment model of Wackernagel and Rees (1996 p. 65) which determines consumption to be equivalent to production of the consumption item plus importation of the item minus exportation of the item. However, with no internal production within the university, consumption is equivalent to importation. Further, per capita assessment, as in the Wackernagel and Rees model, is not the objective of the analysis of the ecological footprint of the University, an analysis which aims instead to determine the spatial and biophysical impact of the whole University system.
Difficulty in accessing data due to confidentiality, data costs, or simply because data are not collected in an appropriate format, is a problem for all ecological footprint assessments (Simpson et al., 1998). These problems also exist in the institutional analysis. Access to data would appear to be facilitated due to the ``local'' scale of the assessment required for the University; often single inflow and outflow channels can be monitored to trace and measure consumption. Data relevant to consumption items used in the calculation of this footprint assessment were available from a number of sources including departmental records, surveys and audits (Transit Planners, 1996; Energetics, 1998; Transit Planners, 1998; University of Newcastle, 1998). Data limitation, including availability and format, was the key determinant of the method used to calculate the ecological footprint.
The Newcastle model uses the Wackernagel and Rees' (1996) consumption-land use matrix and incorporates five consumption and six consumption-land use categories. Consumption categories include: food, housing, transportation, consumer goods, and services. Land use categories include ``consumed'' or built land which is land ``degraded'' by the built environment. ``Currently used land'' includes; land appropriated by ``gardens''; land utilised for growing ``crops''; ``pasture land'' for grazing livestock; and ``forests'' for the provision of timber products. ``Energy land'' is land required to assimilate carbon from fossil fuel burning.
The land area necessary to sequester the CO2 released from fossil fuel
burning, or ``CO2 absorption'' is described by Wackernagel (1994) as the
preferred methodology for converting energy use to land area. Global forest sequestering of CO2has been calculated to be an average of 6.6tCO2/ha/yr, or
Ecological
footprint
analysis
53
Close and Foran, 1998; Treloar, 1999; Chaplin, 1999). Gj energy consumption can then be divided by 100Gj/ha to determine the energy land footprint.
All EFA research reports an evolving methodology in relation to productivity and conversion factors[3] (Close and Foran, 1998; Bicknell et al., 1998). The conservative energy land conversion estimate of 100Gj/ha/yr by CO2
absorption is reported by Wackernagel (1994, pp. 104-7) as having gained the most acceptance for use in EFA. However, Simpson et al. (1998) report productivity of Australian forests up to 190Gj/ha/yr. The decision to use world averages is justified by the existence of a single global atmospheric compartment. The productivity of pastures in Australia is diverse, dependent on pasture types and climate. Productivity figures used were based on an assumption of the source of the consumption item. Simpson et al. (1998) demonstrated differences in the average Australian footprint related to the source of productivity figures. Typical of previous footprint estimates (Simpson et al., 2000) is the deliberate use of conservative estimates of productivity and consumption to productivity conversions. Hence the ecological footprint is likely to be larger than that actually calculated in this assessment. Bicknell et al.'s (1998) ``input-output'' methodology which traces the source and flows of all items would overcome this error.
The University of Newcastle model utilised the method of Simpson et al. (2000) in applying CO2intensity data (Common and Salma, 1992) to University
expenditure on consumption items such as food and service categories to calculate the energy embodied in consumer goods. Simpson (2000, p. 12) observes that:
CO2intensities include emissions from both fossil and non-fossil sources, which may result in
a slight overestimation in the land area appropriated by fossil energy consumption.
However, limits to the use of CO2 intensity analysis in the Newcastle model
means the impact of the overestimation is likely to be minimal. The use of CO2
intensity figures based on 1986/1987 Australian Bureau of Statistics energy input-output tables (Common and Salma, 1992) exposes two potential problems for EFA. First, the reliance on expenditure data implies static valuation of the item consumed ± a situation unlikely over a ten-year period. Second, declining energy intensities between 1986 and 2000, as projected by Common and Salma (1992), will lead to a likely reduction in CO2 output. Simpson et al. (1998)
identify a need for annual revision of CO2intensity figures and this conclusion
is reinforced by the institutional study.
IJSHE
2,1
54
Calculation of crop, grazing and forest land necessary to produce consumption items required the conversion of expenditure data into quantity and type consumed. The conversion of food expenditure to quantities based on cost per unit relies on a changeable economic indicator that represents factors beyond the biophysical resource availability focus of EFA. Dairy, meat and alcohol consumption was assumed to parallel Australian average consumption despite the situation that university consumption represents only part of the university population's consumption (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 1998a, b; Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC), 1994). Quantities consumed were then calculated based on average market prices for 1998. Conversion of quantitative consumption to land area utilised productivity data from the primary supply source of the product within Australia[4-8] (RAC, 1991). For example, beef for the Australian domestic market is produced on introduced and native pastures in southern Australia; thus productivity rates for southern Australia were used in the assessment.
Results and discussion
The consumption land use matrix for the partial footprint analysis of the University of Newcastle Callaghan Campus is presented in Table I. The consumption categories assessed are listed as row headings on the left-hand side of the Table, while the land-use categories required to produce and maintain the consumption categories are listed as column headings across the top of the Table. The 14 items of consumption assessed in the EFA of the University of Newcastle assimilate 3,592 hectares of land. The results presented indicate that the University of Newcastle appropriates 26 times more land than its geographical space of 135 hectares.
Ecological
footprint
analysis
55
Table
I.
The
consumption
land
use
matrix
for
the
University
of
Newcastle
Land use (hectares)
(a)a (b) (c) (d)b (e)c (f)d
Consumption category Energy Consumed Garden Crop Pasture Forest Total
Food 55.2 159.2
Dairy 35.2 88.9 214.4
Meat 20.0 70.3
Buildings 1,469.8 12.0 89.0
Building/maintenance 331.6 12.0 89.0 1,570.8 Operation 1,138.2
Transportation 1,498.8 33.6
Uni vehicles/infrastructure 319.6 33.5 1,532.4 Private transport 636.6
Rail travel 15.1 0.1 Bus travel 11.5
Air travel 516.0
Consumer goods 72.8 1.1 68.8
Office paper 39.9 68.8 142.7
Alcohol 32.9 1.1
Services 114.2 17.6
Water 17.7 131.8
Cleaning 113.3
Waste 0.91 0.001
Total 3,210.8 63.2 89.0 1.1 159.2 68.8 3,592.1
Sources: a Energy conversions and calculations sourced from Common and Salma (1992), Close and Foran (1998), Walker and Rees (1997),
Lawson (1996), Wackernagel (1993), Simpsonet al.(1998), Treloar (1999), Chaplin (1999);bCrop productivity calculated using data from Winetitles (1999);cPasture productivity conversion factors sourced from Australian Dairy Corporation (1994), Australian Bureau of statistics
(1998a), Simpsonet al. (1998);dForest productivity calculated using conversion figures from Resource Assessment Commission (1991), National
IJSHE
2,1
56
Consumption categories as components of the ecological footprint are presented in Figure 3. Buildings and transportation are the consumption items appropriating the largest portion of the University's ecological footprint. They appropriate 43 percent each of the University impact in terms of land area requirements. Private vehicle transport is the largest contributor to the transport footprint, with air transport of overseas students and University fleet vehicle operation and maintenance also having a significant contribution. Food comprises 6 percent of the total footprint, with both dairy and meat consumption contributing fairly evenly to land appropriation by food consumption. Consumer goods, including office paper consumption and alcohol consumption, appropriate 4 percent of the total footprint, as do the service components of the footprint. Cleaning is the largest component of service impact contributing to 86 percent, water storage accounts for 13 percent, whilst waste constitutes only 1 percent of the service impact.
Spatial impact of 26 times geographical area is greater than the spatial impacts calculated in footprint studies in both Europe and North America, but actually less than footprint analyses within Australia (Table II). The increased magnitude of impact for Australian economies is most likely due to the large spatial scale of Australia requiring increased transportation networks, and increased domestic and international transportation energy costs. The apparent lesser impact of the university economy when compared to other Australian footprints would appear to lie in the likely underestimation of the ecological footprint of the University of Newcastle. Three main factors lead to the underestimation of the tertiary education institution footprint. First, only a select number of consumption categories are measured in this assessment. Second, the assumptions made due to incomplete data sets intentionally err on the side of underestimation of the ecological footprint. Third, the energy land area conversion of 100Gj/ha is a conservative estimate (Wackernagel, 1994). With these factors in mind, it can be concluded that the actual ecological footprint of the University of Newcastle is larger than the figure presented. It is
Figure 2.
Ecological
footprint
analysis
57
Figure 3.
Consumption category contribution to ecological footprint with breakdown of specific consumption items' contribution to the consumption category footprint
Area/population
Geographical area (Ha)
EF
(Ha) Spatial impact
Italya 74,421,1000 240,437,400 6 3
The Netherlandsa 3,392,000 49,800,000
615
Lower Fraser Valley (BC)b 440,000 7,700,000
619
Canberrac 35,504 1,332,000 638
SE Queenslandd 2,224,500 10,206,000
645
University of Newcastle 135 3,592.1 626 + Sources: a Wackernagel et al. (1997); b Wackernagel and Rees (1996); c Close and Foran
(1998);dSimpsonet al.(1998)
Table II.
IJSHE
2,1
58
likely even that the spatial impact ratio of the tertiary institution would exceed those of Australian regional footprint estimates due to the institution's total reliance on ``imported'' consumer goods.
EFA as a management tool in the university
The presentation of an ecological footprint far greater than the geographical footprint is not surprising in an institution that is overtly a net importer of consumption items. In an era of dynamic global markets, the footprint does not relate to a static apportion of the globe radiating from the University. Importation of consumption items means that the footprint of the University impacts on the global community. Footprint analysis allows the location and extent of the impacts of consumption to be demonstrated. More importantly it relates consumption patterns in the university to specific biophysical impacts, reinforcing the basic assumption that sustainability in the University will equate to a reduced ecological footprint.
It is the individual components of the institutional ecological footprint that offer the greatest benefit for sustainability management. EFA allows consumption to be viewed in two related ways. First, it is possible to determine where the greatest impact is occurring. In the EFA of the university, energy land appropriation is the most significant part of the footprint impact. While this is likely to represent bias based in the chosen consumption categories and the ready availability of energy data for the institution, it clearly equates to Treloar's claim that 80 percent of the gross impact of tertiary institutions is indirect (Treloar, 1999). With 60 percent of the site currently existing as bushland, or landscaped ``pasture'', there would appear to be a capacity for carbon assimilation. EFA does not acknowledge ``dual purpose'' unless the system exists in a secure state; as the bushland is identified for potential development it cannot be categorised as a carbon sink within the current framework of EFA. Second is the ability to rank-order consumption based on contribution to the ecological footprint. The greatest benefits in terms of sustainability are likely if increased effort is directed at reducing the footprint of those consumption items contributing most to the ecological footprint.
Building and transportation constitute 86 percent of the ecological footprint of the University. An energy strategy study (Energetics, 1998) identified a number of internal management options to reduce energy consumption by the University. The initiatives addressing purchasing policy, lighting control, demand control devices and energy management systems are purported to be able to save A$380,000 per annum at a cost of A$1,640,000 with a payback period of 4.3 years (Energetics, 1998). Reduced energy costs will undoubtedly result in a reduced EF if they equate to reduced energy consumption. However, financial measures and incentives will not highlight the source of the problem, or relate the issue to the sustainability picture, as does EFA.
Ecological
footprint
analysis
59
photovoltaic and windmill applications, despite having efficiencies less than fossil fuel produced electricity, does not necessarily require ecologically productive land for carbon assimilation. The use of renewable resource-based heating and cooling in some of the alternative buildings demonstrates a trend towards the use of sustainable energy systems. Applications of sustainable energy technology to existing buildings would demonstrate a stronger commitment to sustainability and benchmark energy consumption reductions.
Similarly, EFA identifies a need to reduce the transportation component of the footprint of the university. Private vehicle transport represents 72 percent of transport modes for university travel, and yet constitutes 95 percent of the transport footprint (excluding air travel). Management strategies aimed at reducing private vehicle use have the greatest chance of reducing the transport component of the overall footprint.
Strategies already in place to achieve this outcome include the development of a rail link to the University and the timetabling of buses to coincide with lecture periods. The ``pay to park'' scheme introduced in 1997 was also an attempt to reduce private vehicle use. However, this scheme has merely displaced the car park footprint from inside the University to outside University grounds. Consequently, the social amenity of neighbouring residential areas is affected by parking congestion. The use of EFA also raises concerns about a proposal for a multi-level parking facility in the University. Increased availability of parking spaces initiates a positive feedback response to reinforce and indeed increase the use of private vehicles.
The siting of University facilities near to public transport is another management option. The relocation of several University departments to the Newcastle central business district, 12km away, can achieve more sustainable transport outcomes. Newcastle city is the source and destination of most public transport routes and restricted parking facilities act as a deterrent for private vehicle use.
Sustainable transport strategies also require individual commitment; individuals need to choose not to drive their vehicles. Widespread presentation of the ecological footprint provides a comprehensible understanding of the impacts of commuting beyond finances and air pollution. Understanding the ``big picture'', or in this case the ``big footprint'', can facilitate attitudinal change essential for sustainable outcomes.
IJSHE
2,1
60
Conclusion
An institutional EFA clearly demonstrates the extent of impacts and provides guidance on where effort to achieve sustainability is best focused. Integration of EFA into regular sustainability measurement routines adds to the sustainability assessment process. There is potential to use EFA for trend measurements, technology comparisons and target setting. The possibility exists for using footprint analysis as a comparative tool for assessment of sustainability between similar institutions. Repeating the ecological footprint process either as a total or as a partial calculation will undoubtedly improve the data sets on which the footprint is based and hence the accuracy of the footprint estimate. There is also potential for its use as an education tool, as demonstrated by the availability of ``online'' ecological footprint calculators[9].
The institutional model of EFA presents a cumulative assessment of the complex energy and matter through-puts and cycles supporting the university together with human interrelationships and impacts. It breaks down faculty barriers that traditionally exist in the University of Newcastle by requiring multidisciplinary input of data and information and presenting a common goal for sustainability. Similarly, sustainable solutions require multidisciplinary consultation and action.
As an educational institution, the University is obliged to take responsibility for promoting sustainability into the future. Offering environmental science, environmental engineering and sustainable technology departments, and with affiliations with major local and international environmental organizations, the university is in a key position to identify, monitor and address sustainability issues within the goal of a reduced ecological footprint for itself.
The ecological deficit revealed by EFA of the University of Newcastle is likely to be replicated in tertiary education institutions throughout the industrialized world. EFA clearly presents the challenge for institutional sustainability. By offering ways of identifying problem areas, assessing outcomes, modelling futures and tracking progress, EFA offers to take sustainability from policy to implementation.
EFA clearly confronts economic and social values which reinforce overconsumption by demonstrating their unsustainability. The simple goal of a reduced footprint for the University of Newcastle guarantees a movement towards genuine sustainability.
Notes
1. United Nations Division of Sustainable Development (2000), ``Indicators for sustainable development ± framework and methodologies'' chapter 2. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/ indisd/english/chapt2e.htm Accessed September 29, 2000.
2. UNDP (United Nations Development Program) (1997), ``Analytical tools for human development''. http://www.undp.org/hdro/anatools.htm#2 Accessed August 25, 2000. 3. Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Linares, AC., FalfaÂn, I., GarceõÂa, J.M., Guerrero, A.I.S. and
Ecological
footprint
analysis
61
4. MLA (Meat and Livestock Association) (1998), ``Industry news''. http://www.mla.com.au/ industry.cfm Accessed April 20, 1999.
5. ADC (Australian Dairy Corporation) (1999), ``Australian dairy industry statistics''. http:// www.dairy.com.au/adc/adc/profile/farm/htm accessed March 20 1999.
6. Ingham (1999), ``Corporate overview''. http://www.inghams.com.au/inghams.html Accessed March 20, 1999.
7. NAFI (National Association of Forest Industries) (1999), ``Pulp and paper''. http:// www.nafi.com.au/faq/paper.html
8. Winetitles (1999), ``The Australian wine industry ± an overview''. http://www.winetitles. com.au/overview.html Accessed April 20, 1999.
9. Redefining Progress (2000), ``Thirteen easy questions to assess your footprint''. http:// www.rprogress.org/resources/nip/ef/ef_household_calculator.html Accessed August 25, 2000.
References
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (1998a), Apparent Consumption of Foodstuffs and Nutrients 1993/94Australia, ABS 4306.0, Canberra.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (1998b),Livestock Products 1998 Australia, ABS 7215.0, Canberra.
ADC (Australian Dairy Corporation) (1994),Dairy Compendium, ADC, Glen Iris.
Albrecht, G. and Gutberlet, J. (2000), ``Sustainability in the Hunter Region'' in McManus, P., O'Neill, P., Loughran, R. and Rey Lescure, O. (Eds),Journeys, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 246-67.
Bicknell, K.B., Ball, R.J., Cullen, R. and Bigsby, H.R. (1998), ``New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy'',Ecological Economics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 149-60.
Campbell, D.E. (1998), ``Energy analysis of human carrying capacity and regional sustainability: an example using the state of Maine'',Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Review, Vol. 51 No. 1-2, pp. 531-69.
Chaplin, C. (1999), personal communication, BHP Research, Newcastle, Australia. Close , A. and Foran, B. (1998),Canberra's Ecological Footprint, CSIRO, Canberra.
Common, M.S. and Salma, U. (1992), ``Accounting for changes in Australian carbon dioxide emissions'',Energy Economics, July, pp. 217-25.
Energetics (1998), ``The University of Newcastle energy strategy study'', unpublished.
Folke, C., Jansson, A., Larsson, J. and Costanza, R. (1997), ``Ecosystem appropriation by cities'', Ambio,Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 167-72.
Giampietro, M. and Pimental, D. (1991), ``Energy analysis models to study the biophysical for human exploitation of natural processes'', in Crossi and Tiezzi, E. (Eds),Ecological Physical Chemistry, Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Sienna Italy, November 8-12, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Hamilton, C. (1997a),The Genuine Progress Indicator: A New Index of Changes and Wellbeing in Australia, The Australia Institute Discussion Paper, No. 14, October.
Hamilton, C. (1997b), ``Foundations of ecological economics'', in Diesendorf, M. and Hamilton, C. (Eds),Human Ecology, Human Economy: Ideas for a Sustainable Future, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
HVRF (Hunter Valley Research Foundation) (1998), ``Economic impact study ± University of Newcastle'' (unpublished), Newcastle.
IJSHE
2,1
62
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L. and Randers, J. (1992),Beyond the Limits: Global Collapse or a Sustainable Future?, Earthscan Publications, London.
Odum, H. (1991), ``Emergy and biogeochemical cycles'', in Crossi and Tiezzi, E. (Eds),Ecological Physical Chemistry, Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Sienna Italy, November 8-12, Elselvier, Amsterdam.
RAC (Resource Assessment Commission) (1991),Forest and Timber Inquiry, AGPS, Canberra. Rees, W.E. (1995), ``Reducing our ecological footprint'',Siemens Review, Vol. 2, pp. 30-35. Schneider, E.D. and Kay, J.J. (1994), ``Order from disorder: the thermodynamics of complexity in
biology'', in Murphy, M.P. and O'Neill, L.A.J. (Eds),What is Life? The Next Fifty Years, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
SchroÈdinger, E. (1944),What Is Life?, Cambridge University Press, London.
Simpson, R., Petroeschevsky, A. and Lowe, I. (1998), ``The ecological footprint of Australia, with a focus on the South-East Queensland region'', (unpublished), Griffith University, Brisbane. Simpson, R., Petroeschevsky, A. and Lowe, I. (2000), ``An ecological footprint analysis of
Australia'',Australian Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 11-18. Transit Planners (1996), ``University of Newcastle Transport Management Strategic Plan ±
strategic information'', (unpublished), Transit Planners Pty, Adamstown.
Transit Planners (1998), ``Transport Management Strategic Plan ± traffic counts'', (unpublished), Transit Planners Pty, Adamstown.
Treloar, G. (1999), personal communication, Deakin University, Australia.
University of Newcastle (1998), ``Dividing and conquering waste: waste audit report'', (unpublished), University of Newcastle.
Vitousek, P., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H. and Matson, P.A. (1986), ``Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis'',Bioscience, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 368-73.
Wackernagel, M. (1993), How Big Is Our Ecological Footprint? ± Using the Concept of Appropriated Carrying Capacity for Measuring Sustainability, Taskforce on Planning Healthy and Sustainable Communities, University of British Columbia.
Wackernagel, M. (1994), ``Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: a tool for planning towards sustainability'', PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.
Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996),Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island.
Wackernagel, M. and Yount, D. (1998), ``The ecological footprint: an indicator of progress towards regional sustainability'', Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 51 No. 1-2, pp. 511-29.
Wada, Y. (1994),Biophysical Productivity Data for Ecological Footprint Analysis, report to UBC Taskforce on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver.
Walker, L.A. and Rees, W.E. (1997), ``Urban density and ecological footprints ± an analysis of Canadian households'', in Roseland, M. (Ed.) (1998), Eco City Dimensions: Healthy Communities, Healthy Planet, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island.
