Environment and Prosperity: Examining Long-Range Planning and Resource Limitations in the

21st Century

PRESENTATION TO UTAH CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, OCT. 6, 2011

UTAH VITAL SIGNS

Ecological Footprint of Utah and Utah GPI Report

Brief Overview of Research and Implications

by Wayne Martinson, Chair

Utah Population and Environment Coalition

Oct. 6, 2011

MISSION STATEMENT FOR UPEC

We believe it is our responsibility as citizens of the earth to be concerned about the environment, sustainability, and population. Furthermore, we place special value on the unique heritage and landscape of the state of Utah.

UTAH VITAL SIGNS

Goal: To empower Utah citizens and key decision-makers to make better decisions about their future by providing clear, well documented information about key indicators of environmental sustainability in Utah.

UTAH VITAL SIGNS

Taking available data and turning it into information that people can use

Result: indicators of sustainabilityTwo studies have been completedThe Utah Ecological Footprint Study

was completed in Summer 2007.The Utah Genuine Progress

Indicator Report was completed in January, 2011.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Resource accounting tool that compares Humanity’s demand (Footprint) Nature’s renewable supply (Biocapacity)

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Established standards maintained by international organization

Based upon human demand on the Earth – not wildlife needs

Based on actual yields from productive land

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Expressed in global hectares per person 1 hectare (ha) =

100 meters x 100 meters = 2.47 acres =2 football fields or 1 large soccer field

global hectare (gha) = hectare with world-average ability to produce resources and absorb wastes

EARTH’SFOOTPRINT TO BIOCAPACITY RATIO

FOOTPRINTS ACROSS THE WORLD

FOOTPRINT SCENARIOS

STUDY BOUNDARIES FOR UTAH REPORT

Geographical: State of UtahTime: two different years

1990• Base year for Kyoto Protocol• Last year of net out-migration in Utah• Population still under 2 million

2003 • Last year of complete data from many

sources

RESULTS FOR ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF UTAH, SANDRA MCINTYRE, PROJECT DIRECTOR AND HELEN PETERS, LEAD RESEARCHER

In 1990, Utah was living within its meansBy 2003, after the growth of the 1990s,

we were in ecological overshoot:

Footprint: 9.9 gha/capitaBiocapacity: 8.9 gha/capita

Comparison 1990

Land types Footprint Biocapacity

Cropland 1,987  2,675

Pasture 783 4,167

Forest 2,192 18,682

Fisheries 423 34

Built land 816 456

Energy land 8,973

TOTAL 15,174 26,014

global hectares (thousands)

Comparison 2003

Land types Footprint Biocapacity

Cropland 2,447 2,663

Pasture 1,150 3,840

Forest 3,030 13,951

Fisheries 560 27

Built land 1,136 976

Energy land 15,526

TOTAL 23,849 21,457

global hectares (thousands)

COMPARING UTAH’S FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY

GOING INTO “ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT”SURPLUS VS. DEFICIT

DATA AVAILABILITY

Now available online:Full report Utah dataNational and international data (as

licensed)Calculation formulasCharts in Excel and as GIF files

http://www.utahpop.org/vitalsigns/

IMPLICATIONS

Going into overshootDrawing down on nature’s capital

THE CHOICES AHEAD

Increase biocapacityDecrease footprint

Level of consumption Population

THE CHOICES AHEAD

Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis.

Utah Population Projections

THE CHOICES AHEAD

MaterialsEnergy-efficient technologiesBuy localClean energyConsume less

YOUR NEXT STEPS

Calculate your footprint

Interactive calculator athttp://myfootprint.org

YOUR NEXT STEPS

Compare to averages – how big are your feet?

Footprints 2003 (gha/capita)

Utah 9.9

U.S. 9.6

World 2.2

YOUR NEXT STEPS

Knowledge is powerWork together to find collective

actions and to choose a sustainable future

Use the Ecological Footprint tool to track progress

THE UTAH GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR (GPI) 1990-2007

A Report to the People of Utah

A UTAH VITAL SIGNS PROJECT OF

THE UTAH POPULATION & ENVIRONMENT COALITION

Authors: Erica Gaddis, Ph.D. and Günseli Berik, Ph.D.

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

“The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined by the GDP... goals for ‘more’ growth should specify of what and for what” - Simon Küznets (developed GDP)

“The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined by the GDP... goals for ‘more’ growth should specify of what and for what” - Simon Küznets (developed GDP)

GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR (GPI)

Alternative to GDP Full accounting (debit side and credit side) Monetary measure Single number and multidimensional Tracked over time Compared to other states and the nation Combined with other indicators to guide policy

Objective quality of life metric

US GPI AND GDP OVER TIME

Gross Production vs. Genuine Progress, 1950 - 2004

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

$40,000$35,000$30,000$25,000$20,000$15,000$10,000

—— GDP Per Capita —— GPI Per Capita

LOCAL GPI INITIATIVES

GPI COMPONENTS (ACCOUNTS)

SCOPE OF GPI STUDY FOR UTAH

Years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2007

Coverage State of Utah Counties: Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah,

Washington, WeberUnits

2000 US dollarsMethods

Modified from previous regional US studies Involves many assumptions and decisions

NOTES ON THE UTAH GPI STUDY

Framework Not policy prescriptive Transparent framework Basis for dialogue Open for modification and improvement

Not all issues are captured Water scarcity Nuclear waste

© Utah Population @ Environment Coalition

TRENDS IN ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL COMPONENTS

GPI COMPONENT RESULTS FOR 2007

-$10,000

-$5,000

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Hou

seho

ld la

bor

Fore

st se

rvic

es

Wet

land

serv

ices

Des

ert s

ervi

ces

Net

Cap

ital G

row

th

Stre

ets a

nd h

ighw

ays

Crop

land

serv

ices

Volu

ntee

r lab

or

Ozo

ne d

eple

tion

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

Noi

se p

ollu

tion

Fam

ily b

reak

dow

n

Air p

ollu

tion

Pollu

tion

abat

emen

t

Crim

e

Und

erem

ploy

men

t

Vehi

cle

cras

hes

Net

serv

ices

of d

urab

les

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Com

muti

ng

Leisu

re ti

me

lost

Non

rene

wab

le re

sour

ces

Valu

e an

d Co

st o

f GPI

Com

pone

nts f

or U

tah

in 2

007

in M

illio

ns o

f Dol

lars

(200

0 U

SD)

GPI IS THE SUM OF COMPONENTS INCLUDING PERSONAL CONSUMPTION

$(20,000)

$(10,000)

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

Pers

onal

cons

umpti

on

Hou

seho

ld la

bor

Fore

st se

rvic

es

Wet

land

serv

ices

Des

ert s

ervi

ces

Net

Cap

ital G

row

th

Stre

ets a

nd h

ighw

ays

Crop

land

serv

ices

Volu

ntee

r lab

or

Ozo

ne d

eple

tion

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

Noi

se p

ollu

tion

Fam

ily b

reak

dow

n

Air p

ollu

tion

Pollu

tion

abat

emen

t

Crim

e

Und

erem

ploy

men

t

Vehi

cle

cras

hes

Net

serv

ices

of d

urab

les

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Com

muti

ng

Leisu

re ti

me

lost

Non

rene

wab

le re

sour

ces

GPI

Valu

e an

d co

st o

f GPI

Com

pone

nts f

or U

tah

in 2

007

in M

illio

ns o

f Dol

lars

(200

0 U

SD)

$14 BILLION: HOUSEHOLD AND VOLUNTEER LABOR

Photo credit: park.on.ca

DIVORCE WENT DIVORCE WENT DOWNDOWN

Photo credit: florida-divorce-ut.org

CRIME RATE WENT DOWN

Photo credit: government-fleet.com

CRASH RATE WENT DOWNCRASH RATE WENT DOWN

COST OF DRIVING IN 2007: $7.9 BILLIONCOST OF DRIVING IN 2007: $7.9 BILLION

Photo credit: udot.utah.gov

VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN UTAH IN 2007 WAS $25 BILLIONUTAH IN 2007 WAS $25 BILLION

PRIME FARMLAND WAS LOST

Photo credit: ut.usda.gov

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2007

Acr

es o

f pri

me

farm

land

EMISSIONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS & COSTS OF AIR QUALITY WENT UP

Photo credit: TimeScience 2009

MORE UTAHNS BECAME UNDEREMPLOYED

POLICY AND PLANNING IMPLICATIONS FOR GPI

GPI gives snapshot of well-being reflective of past decisions

Provides a blueprint for moving forward evaluate policy trade-offs prioritize the use of public funds

GPI could be adopted by stateFull accounting principles of GPI could

be integrated with existing assessment tools

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

The Utah Footprint Study indicates that we need to be concerned about and address our demand for biological resources in Utah.

The Utah GPI report demonstrates that we can develop other ways of measuring success in Utah, including economic, social and environmental factors.

These types of studies can be done at a more localized level.

SPECIFIC EFFORTS

Calgary, Canada develops specific footprint reduction targets.

Maryland State Government uses GPI as a measurement tool for progress. Minnesota has also worked in this area.

Salt Lake City’s Green Guide to a Sustainable City and Salt Lake County Green.

Sustainability plans and efforts at universities in Utah. Envision Utah, Utah Quality Growth Commission and

Utah Foundation Other efforts in Utah? What are the results of these

efforts? And how much do these efforts work together?

© Utah Population and Environment Coalition

OVERALL DIRECTIONS FOR PLANNERS IN UTAH

The Ecological Footprint and Genuine Progress Indicator studies are among a set of new tools for better defining quality of life and its relationship to the natural environment.

Planners have increasing opportunities to use new tools to clarify how to better balance demands for action with the contraints of nature, as well as economic and social needs/values.