Thesis Draft April 12, 2006 Commonplace Ecovillage and the Ecological Footprint by Jessica Aird Commonplace Ecovillage and the Ecological Footprint by.

Thesis Draft April 12, 2006

Commonplace Ecovillage and the Ecological Footprint

byJessica Aird

Thesis QuestionThesis Question

What is the ecological footprint of an individual living in the Commonplace Ecovillage Niagara? What technological aspects (infrastructure) and lifestyle choices can be adopted to reduce the footprint?

What is the ecological footprint of an individual living in the Commonplace Ecovillage Niagara? What technological aspects (infrastructure) and lifestyle choices can be adopted to reduce the footprint?

EcovillagesEcovillages

According to the Global Ecovillage Network: “Ecovillages are urban or rural communities of

people, who strive to integrate a supportive social environment with a low-impact way of life. To achieve this, they integrate various aspects of ecological design, permaculture, ecological building, green production, alternative energy, community building practices, and much more” (GEN, 2005).

According to the Global Ecovillage Network: “Ecovillages are urban or rural communities of

people, who strive to integrate a supportive social environment with a low-impact way of life. To achieve this, they integrate various aspects of ecological design, permaculture, ecological building, green production, alternative energy, community building practices, and much more” (GEN, 2005).

Ecological FootprintEcological Footprint

Sustainability indicator that measures biologically productive land area required to sustain a given population indefinitely (Global Hectares).

This method will be critically assessed in thesis discussion

Sustainability indicator that measures biologically productive land area required to sustain a given population indefinitely (Global Hectares).

This method will be critically assessed in thesis discussion

Accounts for all wastes produced from consumption (incl. CO2).

Calibrated to include indirect commercial and public expenditures

Average Canadian EF is 8.8 Ha (Redefining Progress, 2006)

Due to trade most EF’s are not located in one area, and are usually not local

Accounts for all wastes produced from consumption (incl. CO2).

Calibrated to include indirect commercial and public expenditures

Average Canadian EF is 8.8 Ha (Redefining Progress, 2006)

Due to trade most EF’s are not located in one area, and are usually not local

Calculating EF’sCalculating EF’s

Calculated using a spreadsheet:Calculated using a spreadsheet:Fossil Fuel

Cropland Pasture Forest Built up land

Fisheries

Food

Housing

Transportation

Goods

Services

Waste

ProfilesProfiles

3 lifestyle profiles used for modelingAverage Impact (Stats Canada)Modest ImpactLow ImpactModest and Low Impact profiles are

derived from national averages or RD averages

3 lifestyle profiles used for modelingAverage Impact (Stats Canada)Modest ImpactLow ImpactModest and Low Impact profiles are

derived from national averages or RD averages

Average Impact IndividualAverage Impact Individual This person consumes average amounts of consumer goods and eats an

average amount of food (as per Statistics Canada data). This profile is intended to represent the average Canadian lifestyle, and impact this lifestyle has on an individuals ecological footprint.

Food: This person consumes food as per Stats Canada food consumption data. This includes regular meat consumption and foods that are imported, and foods that are processed and packaged.

Transportation: This person travels regularly by car for leisure, to work, and to shopping. Public transit, cycling and walking is rarely a method of transportation. All the distance traveled (as per the distance traveled survey by NRC) is done by car.

Goods: This person uses all goods needed as well as some luxury items. He/she is not concerned with the manufacturing of the goods.

Waste: This person recycles regularly, but puts a lot of recyclables in the garbage.

This person consumes average amounts of consumer goods and eats an average amount of food (as per Statistics Canada data). This profile is intended to represent the average Canadian lifestyle, and impact this lifestyle has on an individuals ecological footprint.

Food: This person consumes food as per Stats Canada food consumption data. This includes regular meat consumption and foods that are imported, and foods that are processed and packaged.

Transportation: This person travels regularly by car for leisure, to work, and to shopping. Public transit, cycling and walking is rarely a method of transportation. All the distance traveled (as per the distance traveled survey by NRC) is done by car.

Goods: This person uses all goods needed as well as some luxury items. He/she is not concerned with the manufacturing of the goods.

Waste: This person recycles regularly, but puts a lot of recyclables in the garbage.

Modest Impact IndividualModest Impact Individual This is a realistic lifestyle for an environmentally minded individual living in

Niagara. This profile is made to represent someone who would live in the Commonplace Ecovillage, and make environmentally minded choices.

Food: Mostly vegetarian, but with modest meat consumption (once or twice a week). Eats mostly local organic and free range foods, and rarely exceeds calorie requirements. This person eats some non-local foods, such as kiwi fruit, pineapple, and oranges, but all food that can be purchased locally will be.

Transportation: Cycles and walks when weather permits, uses public transit when weather is bad. Takes vacations once a year by airplane, and drives to several vacation destinations. This profile includes a hybrid vehicle.

Goods: Tries to purchase only what is needed, and buys environmentally sustainable products whenever possible. Tries to buy locally made goods.

Waste: This person recycles at the Niagara goal of 65%.

This is a realistic lifestyle for an environmentally minded individual living in Niagara. This profile is made to represent someone who would live in the Commonplace Ecovillage, and make environmentally minded choices.

Food: Mostly vegetarian, but with modest meat consumption (once or twice a week). Eats mostly local organic and free range foods, and rarely exceeds calorie requirements. This person eats some non-local foods, such as kiwi fruit, pineapple, and oranges, but all food that can be purchased locally will be.

Transportation: Cycles and walks when weather permits, uses public transit when weather is bad. Takes vacations once a year by airplane, and drives to several vacation destinations. This profile includes a hybrid vehicle.

Goods: Tries to purchase only what is needed, and buys environmentally sustainable products whenever possible. Tries to buy locally made goods.

Waste: This person recycles at the Niagara goal of 65%.

Low Impact IndividualLow Impact Individual This is an uncommon, but achievable lifestyle for a person living and working

in the Niagara region. For the purposes of the ecological footprint analysis this profile will demonstrate the affect that extreme lifestyle changes will have on a person’s overall footprint.

Food: Vegetarian who eats local organic foods, but maintains proper health. Transportation: Walks or rides bike to shopping and groceries, travels very

little, and usually by public transportation. Allowances are made for a couple vacations within Ontario, and one trip via airplane per year, but no vehicle is owned

Goods: Buys locally made products as much as possible. He/she buys only what is needed and has few luxury items. This person tries to buy clothing and other items from second hand sources.

Waste: This person goes above and beyond the Regional waste diversion goal and recycles 95% of the waste in this section of the spreadsheet.

This is an uncommon, but achievable lifestyle for a person living and working in the Niagara region. For the purposes of the ecological footprint analysis this profile will demonstrate the affect that extreme lifestyle changes will have on a person’s overall footprint.

Food: Vegetarian who eats local organic foods, but maintains proper health. Transportation: Walks or rides bike to shopping and groceries, travels very

little, and usually by public transportation. Allowances are made for a couple vacations within Ontario, and one trip via airplane per year, but no vehicle is owned

Goods: Buys locally made products as much as possible. He/she buys only what is needed and has few luxury items. This person tries to buy clothing and other items from second hand sources.

Waste: This person goes above and beyond the Regional waste diversion goal and recycles 95% of the waste in this section of the spreadsheet.

Green TechnologiesGreen Technologies

Includes in the housing portion of the spreadsheet for the ecovillage models

Wind or Solar powerGreen building techniques (straw

bale)On site greywater treatmentComposting Toilets

Includes in the housing portion of the spreadsheet for the ecovillage models

Wind or Solar powerGreen building techniques (straw

bale)On site greywater treatmentComposting Toilets

FoodFood

Cropland, fisheries, pastureFossil fuels Vegetarian choices and local foods can

reduce the footprint in this category.14 - 25% of total EF

Cropland, fisheries, pastureFossil fuels Vegetarian choices and local foods can

reduce the footprint in this category.14 - 25% of total EF

HousingHousing

Fossil energy to build and run household

Forest products for buildingLifespan of 40 yrs is assumedEnergy lost in conversion of fossil

energy to electricity (70%)19-41% of total footprint

Fossil energy to build and run household

Forest products for buildingLifespan of 40 yrs is assumedEnergy lost in conversion of fossil

energy to electricity (70%)19-41% of total footprint

TransportationTransportation

Fossil fuels used to build vehicles (15% additional energy) and roads/airports/bridges (35% additional energy) considered

Built up land for infrastructure considered

9-21% of total footprint

Fossil fuels used to build vehicles (15% additional energy) and roads/airports/bridges (35% additional energy) considered

Built up land for infrastructure considered


GoodsGoods

Includes waste and byproducts associated with the manufacture and use of goods

Built up land required for manufacture and disposal included


Includes waste and byproducts associated with the manufacture and use of goods

Built up land required for manufacture and disposal included


ServicesServices

Affects fossil fuel and built up landInsurance - Energy to rebuild

homes, medical insurance not considered

Water/Sewer/Garbage - Only garbage considered


Affects fossil fuel and built up landInsurance - Energy to rebuild

homes, medical insurance not considered

Water/Sewer/Garbage - Only garbage considered


WasteWaste

Fossil energy and built up land are affected

Energy required to transport and recycle or incinerate garbage

Energy saved by recyclingBuilt up land used for disposal

(landfills)7-15% of total footprint

Fossil energy and built up land are affected

Energy required to transport and recycle or incinerate garbage

Energy saved by recyclingBuilt up land used for disposal

(landfills)7-15% of total footprint

MethodologyMethodology

Household Ecological Footprint Calculator V. 3.2, 2003 is being used (Redefining Progress)

Modeling will be done to analyze impact areas

Based on modeling analysis recommendations will be made on ecovillages and sustainability

Household Ecological Footprint Calculator V. 3.2, 2003 is being used (Redefining Progress)

Modeling will be done to analyze impact areas

Based on modeling analysis recommendations will be made on ecovillages and sustainability

ResultsResults

Ecological Footprints of the various profiles Ecological Footprints of the various profiles

Very low Impact

Moderate Impact

Average Impact

Ecovillage 5.4 7.5 10.8

Regular Housing 5.8 7.8 11.1

Results - Top Three Impact Areas

Results - Top Three Impact Areas

Very Low Impact Modest Impact Average Impact Impact Area Urban Ecovillage Urban Ecovillage Urban Ecovillage Food 7,944 7,943 15,932 15,932 27,513 28,333 Transport 23,746 21,020 23,746 21,020 23,746 21,020 Housing 5,006 5,006 10,528 10,528 22,392 22,392

Very Low Impact Modest Impact Average Impact Impact Area Urban Ecovillage Urban Ecovillage Urban Ecovillage Food 7,944 7,943 15,932 15,932 27,513 28,333 Transport 23,746 21,020 23,746 21,020 23,746 21,020 Housing 5,006 5,006 10,528 10,528 22,392 22,392

Average Impact in Ecovillage

Average Impact in Ecovillage

The Ecological Footprint per household member (calibrated to include indirect commercial and public expenditures)

FOSSIL CROPLAND PASTURE FOREST BUILT-UP FISHERIES TOTAL

ENERGY LAND

CATEGORIES [gm2] [gm2] [gm2] [gm2] [gm2] [gm2] [gm2]

FOOD 6,924 14,212 2,981 0 0 4,216 28,333

HOUSING 10,080 0 0 10,231 709 0 21,020

TRANSPORTATION 20,109 0 0 0 2,284 0 22,392GOODS 7,970 2,387 329 871 169 0 11,726SERVICES 4,728 0 0 2,528 153 0 7,408WASTE 11,903 0 0 5,504 178 0 17,585

TOTAL 61,713 16,599 3,310 19,133 3,492 4,216 108,464

Ecological Footprint distribution

FOSSIL CROPLAND PASTURE FOREST BUILT-UP FISHERIES TOTALCATEGORIES ENERGY LANDFOOD 6% 13% 3% 0% 0% 4% 26%HOUSING 9% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 19%TRANSPORTATION 19% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 21%GOODS 7% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 11%SERVICES 4% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 7%WASTE 11% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 16%

TOTAL 57% 16% 3% 18% 3% 4% 100%



ENERGY LAND


FOOD 6,924 14,212 2,981 0 0 4,216 28,333

HOUSING 10,080 0 0 10,231 709 0 21,020


TOTAL 61,713 16,599 3,310 19,133 3,492 4,216 108,464



TOTAL 57% 16% 3% 18% 3% 4% 100%

Moderate Impact in Ecovillage

Moderate Impact in Ecovillage



ENERGY LAND


FOOD 2,157 8,078 745 0 0 4,953 15,932

HOUSING 10,080 0 0 10,231 709 0 21,020


TOTAL 39,066 10,018 1,074 16,134 3,388 4,953 74,632



TOTAL 52% 13% 1% 22% 5% 7% 100%



ENERGY LAND


FOOD 2,157 8,078 745 0 0 4,953 15,932

HOUSING 10,080 0 0 10,231 709 0 21,020


TOTAL 39,066 10,018 1,074 16,134 3,388 4,953 74,632



TOTAL 52% 13% 1% 22% 5% 7% 100%

Low Impact in EcovillageLow Impact in Ecovillage



ENERGY LAND


FOOD 315 7,090 538 0 0 0 7,943

HOUSING 10,080 0 0 10,231 709 0 21,020

TRANSPORTATION 4,996 0 0 0 11 0 5,006GOODS 6,951 1,638 323 912 104 0 9,928SERVICES 3,710 0 0 2,162 120 0 5,992WASTE 3,447 0 0 597 51 0 4,096

TOTAL 29,499 8,728 861 13,902 995 0 53,985



TOTAL 55% 16% 2% 26% 2% 0% 100%



ENERGY LAND


FOOD 315 7,090 538 0 0 0 7,943

HOUSING 10,080 0 0 10,231 709 0 21,020


TOTAL 29,499 8,728 861 13,902 995 0 53,985



TOTAL 55% 16% 2% 26% 2% 0% 100%

Average Impact UrbanAverage Impact Urban



ENERGY LAND


FOOD 6,924 13,392 2,981 0 0 4,216 27,513

HOUSING 17,126 0 0 4,295 2,325 0 23,746


TOTAL 69,530 15,779 3,310 13,198 5,134 4,216 111,166



TOTAL 63% 14% 3% 12% 5% 4% 100%



ENERGY LAND


FOOD 6,924 13,392 2,981 0 0 4,216 27,513

HOUSING 17,126 0 0 4,295 2,325 0 23,746


TOTAL 69,530 15,779 3,310 13,198 5,134 4,216 111,166



TOTAL 63% 14% 3% 12% 5% 4% 100%

Modest Impact UrbanModest Impact Urban



ENERGY LAND


FOOD 2,157 8,078 745 0 0 4,953 15,932

HOUSING 17,126 0 0 4,295 2,325 0 23,746


TOTAL 47,302 11,142 1,460 10,198 5,004 4,953 78,257



TOTAL 59% 14% 2% 13% 6% 6% 100%



ENERGY LAND


FOOD 2,157 8,078 745 0 0 4,953 15,932

HOUSING 17,126 0 0 4,295 2,325 0 23,746


TOTAL 47,302 11,142 1,460 10,198 5,004 4,953 78,257



TOTAL 59% 14% 2% 13% 6% 6% 100%

Low Impact UrbanLow Impact Urban



ENERGY LAND


FOOD 315 7,091 538 0 0 0 7,944

HOUSING 17,126 0 0 4,295 2,325 0 23,746


TOTAL 37,572 8,729 861 8,333 2,645 0 58,139



TOTAL 65% 15% 1% 14% 5% 0% 100%



ENERGY LAND


FOOD 315 7,091 538 0 0 0 7,944

HOUSING 17,126 0 0 4,295 2,325 0 23,746


TOTAL 37,572 8,729 861 8,333 2,645 0 58,139



TOTAL 65% 15% 1% 14% 5% 0% 100%

DiscussionDiscussion

Ecovillage was marginally betterLifestyle changes made large

difference in EFHousing, Transportation, and Food

were the big footprintsFootprint concept can be applied

to people who are not living in an ecovillage

Ecovillage was marginally betterLifestyle changes made large

difference in EFHousing, Transportation, and Food

were the big footprintsFootprint concept can be applied

to people who are not living in an ecovillage

Discussion - FoodDiscussion - Food

Eat more meat alternatives Canada Food Guide“field to fork” policy (OFA, 2006)Niche farming - Organic, Specialty

herbs, Free range products Organic Food

Eat more meat alternatives Canada Food Guide“field to fork” policy (OFA, 2006)Niche farming - Organic, Specialty

herbs, Free range products Organic Food

Discussion - HousingDiscussion - Housing

R-2000 certification - expand to all new homes

CHMC, NRC, Enbridge home retrofitting loans

Technologies used in an ecovillage are similar to R-2000

R-2000 certification - expand to all new homes

CHMC, NRC, Enbridge home retrofitting loans

Technologies used in an ecovillage are similar to R-2000

Discussion - Transportation

Discussion - Transportation

Increased public transportation use reduces footprint

GTA farecard makes public transit more convenient (MTO, 2005)

Poor fuel consumption increases footprint - SUV’s and Trucks are bad

Increased public transportation use reduces footprint

GTA farecard makes public transit more convenient (MTO, 2005)

Poor fuel consumption increases footprint - SUV’s and Trucks are bad

Discussion - DrawbacksDiscussion - Drawbacks

Weak in housing category because of ecovillage technologies

Natural gas and propane useBuilding materials not accounted forDoesn’t account for Organic foodDoesn’t account for compost

program

Weak in housing category because of ecovillage technologies

Natural gas and propane useBuilding materials not accounted forDoesn’t account for Organic foodDoesn’t account for compost

program

Discussion - AdvantagesDiscussion - Advantages

Accounts for embodied energyEasy to use, and works well for

standard situationsEnd units are easy to understandCan be used to measure progress

or to make a sustainability plan

Accounts for embodied energyEasy to use, and works well for

standard situationsEnd units are easy to understandCan be used to measure progress

or to make a sustainability plan

Discussion - FootprintDiscussion - Footprint

Not ideal for measuring sustainability of an ecovillage

Good for measuring EF when standard technologies are being used

Potential application for home useGood educational tool

Not ideal for measuring sustainability of an ecovillage

Good for measuring EF when standard technologies are being used

Potential application for home useGood educational tool

Application - The Nature Challenge

Application - The Nature Challenge

1 Reduce home energy use by 10% 2 Choose an energy-efficient home & appliances 3 Don't use pesticides 4 Eat meat-free meals one day a week 5 Buy locally grown and produced food 6 Choose a fuel-efficient vehicle 7 Walk, bike, carpool or take transit 8 Choose a home close to work or school 9 Support alternative transportation 10 Learn more and share with others

1 Reduce home energy use by 10% 2 Choose an energy-efficient home & appliances 3 Don't use pesticides 4 Eat meat-free meals one day a week 5 Buy locally grown and produced food 6 Choose a fuel-efficient vehicle 7 Walk, bike, carpool or take transit 8 Choose a home close to work or school 9 Support alternative transportation 10 Learn more and share with others

David Suzuki Foundation, 2006

Future ResearchFuture Research

Test same principles on a larger scale ecovillageIs the technology more significant?Can food footprint be further reduced by

farming on-site?An economic analysis of the technology

as well as the lifestyleCan we save money living this way?What are the low-cost ways to reduce the

footprint?

Test same principles on a larger scale ecovillageIs the technology more significant?Can food footprint be further reduced by

farming on-site?An economic analysis of the technology

as well as the lifestyleCan we save money living this way?What are the low-cost ways to reduce the

footprint?

ReferencesReferences Canada Food guide for Healthy Eating, 2004 David Suzuki Foundation, 2005. The Nature Challenge. Accessed April, 2006 h

ttp://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Challenge/ Lenzen, M. & Murray, S. A., 2001. A modified ecological footprint method

and its application to Australia, Ecological Economics, 37(2), 229–255. Natural Resources Canada, private vehicle use survey, 1996 Ontario Federation of Agriculture, 2006. Premier’s Opening Remarks to the

2006 Agri-Food Summit February 8, 2006. Wackernagel, Mathis., Monfreda ,Chad., Deumling, Diana., Dholakia, Ritik.,

2003. Household Ecological Footprint Calculator V 3.2, Redefining Progress, California.

Wackernagel, M., Yount, D.J., 2000, Footprints for Sustainability: The Next Steps. Environment, Development, and Sustainability, 2, 21-42

Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W., 1995. Our Ecological Footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Philadelphia, PA, New Society Publishers).

Canada Food guide for Healthy Eating, 2004 David Suzuki Foundation, 2005. The Nature Challenge. Accessed April, 2006 h

ttp://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Challenge/ Lenzen, M. & Murray, S. A., 2001. A modified ecological footprint method

and its application to Australia, Ecological Economics, 37(2), 229–255. Natural Resources Canada, private vehicle use survey, 1996 Ontario Federation of Agriculture, 2006. Premier’s Opening Remarks to the

2006 Agri-Food Summit February 8, 2006. Wackernagel, Mathis., Monfreda ,Chad., Deumling, Diana., Dholakia, Ritik.,

2003. Household Ecological Footprint Calculator V 3.2, Redefining Progress, California.

Wackernagel, M., Yount, D.J., 2000, Footprints for Sustainability: The Next Steps. Environment, Development, and Sustainability, 2, 21-42

Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W., 1995. Our Ecological Footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Philadelphia, PA, New Society Publishers).

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Challenge/








Thesis Draft April 12, 2006 Commonplace Ecovillage and the Ecological Footprint by Jessica Aird Commonplace Ecovillage and the Ecological Footprint by.

Documents

low impact profiles

average impact individual

ecological building

lowimpact way of life

average canadian lifestyle

lifestyle profiles

local slide

thesis discussion slide