1999; Kitzes et al. 2009; Levett 1998; Wackernagel 1998). For this reason, it is
necessary to consider the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity from an integrated
sustainability approach that considers the environmental as well as socioeconomic
implications. Another issue arising from living at 1 Earth is that health may be
impacted, improved due to a cleaner environment (where there is a low environmental impact stemming from consumption); however, this effect could be
counteracted if there are insufficient funds available to farmers for healthcare.
At exactly 2 Earths, the Earth Overshoot Day moves up in the year to June or July
2020 (so, at mid-year), meaning that resources are being depleted sooner in the year.
Crop land increases up to 0.8 (from 0.6 gha), grazing land to 0.1 (from zero), forest
land to 0.6 (from 0.4), fishing grounds 0.1 (same upper boundary), and built-up land
to 0.2 (from 0.1) global hectares – see Table 6.5. The carbon Footprint component is
now more than double (up to 2.0 gha), and its emissions are within 5.9 tonnes per
year, so have doubled. The proportion of the Ecological Footprint represented by the
carbon Footprint is up to 59%, an increase of 8% at the upper end – which is the least
increase evident in the shift from 1 to 2 Earths, apart from fishing grounds. This
suggests that the proportion of the carbon Footprint in the total Ecological Footprint
and fishing grounds are the least responsive to doubling the number of Earths. The
household Ecological Footprint itself increases up to 3.5 global hectares, nearly
double.
6.3.1 Sensitivity Analysis
An exercise entailing ‘sensitivity analysis’ in this context is where variable changes
are adopted from the suggested solutions in order to improve the household Ecological Footprint. The variables that could be altered here are as follows:
1. Question 1: Changing to a vegan diet (food);
2. Question 8: Reducing wastes and recycling (housing); and
3. Question 10: Increasing the use of public transport (transportation).
These changes are applied to a subsample of disparate households in the corridor (the
first households in each town examined in the 1 Earth and 2 Earths analysis – see
Table 6.5). The number of Earths resulting from these improvement scenarios appear
in Table 6.6, and the other results are in Table 6.7.
It is evident that these changes allow the 1 Earth cases to be reduced to <1 Earth
when a vegan scenario (1) is employed. It is noteworthy that a vegetarian or vegan
diet may not be considered to be healthiest, but there is an effect on the Ecological
Footprint observed in this study based on case results. Importantly, in all cases, it is
possible to reduce the impacts to <2 Earths with the other scenarios, especially by
reducing wastes and recycling (e.g., MO02). The tallied differences in Table 6.6
suggest that the changes employed in the housing scenario (2) are most impactful on
the household Ecological Footprint – based on the number of Earths, and the least
effective is the food scenario (1), with the transportation scenario (3) as middling in
92
6 Implications
necessary to consider the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity from an integrated
sustainability approach that considers the environmental as well as socioeconomic
implications. Another issue arising from living at 1 Earth is that health may be
impacted, improved due to a cleaner environment (where there is a low environmental impact stemming from consumption); however, this effect could be
counteracted if there are insufficient funds available to farmers for healthcare.
At exactly 2 Earths, the Earth Overshoot Day moves up in the year to June or July
2020 (so, at mid-year), meaning that resources are being depleted sooner in the year.
Crop land increases up to 0.8 (from 0.6 gha), grazing land to 0.1 (from zero), forest
land to 0.6 (from 0.4), fishing grounds 0.1 (same upper boundary), and built-up land
to 0.2 (from 0.1) global hectares – see Table 6.5. The carbon Footprint component is
now more than double (up to 2.0 gha), and its emissions are within 5.9 tonnes per
year, so have doubled. The proportion of the Ecological Footprint represented by the
carbon Footprint is up to 59%, an increase of 8% at the upper end – which is the least
increase evident in the shift from 1 to 2 Earths, apart from fishing grounds. This
suggests that the proportion of the carbon Footprint in the total Ecological Footprint
and fishing grounds are the least responsive to doubling the number of Earths. The
household Ecological Footprint itself increases up to 3.5 global hectares, nearly
double.
6.3.1 Sensitivity Analysis
An exercise entailing ‘sensitivity analysis’ in this context is where variable changes
are adopted from the suggested solutions in order to improve the household Ecological Footprint. The variables that could be altered here are as follows:
1. Question 1: Changing to a vegan diet (food);
2. Question 8: Reducing wastes and recycling (housing); and
3. Question 10: Increasing the use of public transport (transportation).
These changes are applied to a subsample of disparate households in the corridor (the
first households in each town examined in the 1 Earth and 2 Earths analysis – see
Table 6.5). The number of Earths resulting from these improvement scenarios appear
in Table 6.6, and the other results are in Table 6.7.
It is evident that these changes allow the 1 Earth cases to be reduced to <1 Earth
when a vegan scenario (1) is employed. It is noteworthy that a vegetarian or vegan
diet may not be considered to be healthiest, but there is an effect on the Ecological
Footprint observed in this study based on case results. Importantly, in all cases, it is
possible to reduce the impacts to <2 Earths with the other scenarios, especially by
reducing wastes and recycling (e.g., MO02). The tallied differences in Table 6.6
suggest that the changes employed in the housing scenario (2) are most impactful on
the household Ecological Footprint – based on the number of Earths, and the least
effective is the food scenario (1), with the transportation scenario (3) as middling in
92
6 Implications