The Ecological Footprint Network has some interesting maps and animations of “Footprint Intensity” between 1961 and 2001. The maps also show how the human Footprint has increased 2.5 X between 1961-2001.
Ecological footprint intensity is the footprint per 1/2 degree grid cell. These maps are made by combining population distribution maps and national level ecological footprint data.
The maps were created by Chad Monfreda at SAGE University of Wisconsin - Madison.
I previously posted on SAGE maps of disease burden and mapping humanity’s footprint.
Also, Marc Imoff et al (Nature 2004) have another map of human ecological appropriation.
New Scientist of January 12, report on an initiative of the Norwegian government to create a large concrete room, hewn out of a mountain on a freezing-cold island just 1000 kilometres from the North Pole, to hold around 2 million seeds, representing all known varieties of the world’s crops.
It is being built to safeguard the world’s food supply against nuclear war, climate change, terrorism, rising sea levels, earthquakes and the ensuing collapse of electricity supplies. “If the worst came to the worst, this would allow the world to reconstruct agriculture on this planet,” says Cary Fowler, director of the Global Crop Diversity Trust, an independent international organisation promoting the project.
This initiative shows a practical implementation of principles to enhance resilience: redundancy and diversity.
R. B. Gordon, M. Bertram, and T. E. Graedel’s paper Metal stocks and sustainability in PNAS (Published online 23/01/06)
Shows that copper use per capita is increasing in the US. Increased efficency in use is outweighed by increased consumption. Globally use is increasing much faster than the discovery of new stocks. Below are figures from the article:
Continue reading ‘Absence of Environmental Kuznets in Copper’
I recently read a good paper by Richard York, Eugene A Rosa & Thomas Dietz 2003 Footprints on the Earth: The environmental consequences of modernity. American Sociological Review 68(2) 279-300.
The paper uses the statistical analysis of several competing models of what shapes human impact on the earth. The test models of ecological modernization (that democratic capitalist development is developing solutions to environmental problems - i.e. the environmental kuznets curve), political economic (the neo-Marxian treadmill of production), and ecological models (Impact=Population X Affluence X Technology). They found that population and economy size are the best predictors - by far - of a country’s ecological footprint. There is no evidence of ecological modernization, and a little support for political economic models, such as urbanization increases ecological footprint.
They note
Basic material conditions, such as population, economic production, urbanization, and geographical factors, all contribute to environmental impacts and explain the vast majority of cross-national variation in impacts. Factors derived from neo-liberal modernization theory, such as political freedom, civil liberties, and state environmentalism have no effect on impacts.
and conclude
The sobering note from this analysis is our failure to detect the ameliorating processes postulated by neoclassical economics and ecological modernization theorists. This suggess we cannot be sanguine about ecological sustainability via emergent institutional change.
…
A key consquence is that because of high levels of consumption in affluent nations, even a slow rate of population growth in these nations is at least as great a threat to the environment as is rapid rate of population growth in less developed nations. After all, the footprint of the typical American is nearly 25 times greater than that of the typical Bangladeshi.
ISI selected Footprints on the Earth as a fast breaking paper in Sociology last year.
A bibliography of their related research is avaiable in the STIRPAT Bibliography.
At the end of last year M. Sankaran et al had a paper Determinants of woody cover in African savannas (Nature 2005 438(8) 846-849) that maps the possibility of savannas that can exist in alternative states based on rainfall. This is the first map I have seen that maps the possibility of alternative states at a large scale.
Figure: The distributions of MAP-determined (‘stable’) and disturbance determined (‘unstable’) savannas in Africa. Grey areas represent the existing distribution of savannas in Africa. Vertically hatched areas show the unstable savannas (>784mm MAP); cross-hatched areas show the transition between stable and unstable savannas (516–784mm MAP); grey areas that are not hatched show the stable savannas (<516mm MAP).
Continue reading ‘Mapping Possibility of Alternative States in African savannas’
The december isssue of Ecosystems 8(8) 2005 has a special feature on Surrogates for Resilience of Social–Ecological Systems.
In the introductory paper, Surrogates for Resilience of Social–Ecological Systems, Steve Carpenter, Frances Westley and Monica Turner, explain resilience surrogates using a figure.
Figure 1. In most cases, resilience of an SES is shrouded by barriers to observation, and can be observed only partially or indirectly. Surrogates are inferred from observations, often with the aid of models. The relationships among observations, surrogates and models should be explicit and transparent. However, the relationship of the surrogate to resilience of the SES is usually uncertain.
The special feature includes the following papers (involving contributors to this blog):
- Surrogates for Resilience of Social–Ecological Systems by S. R. Carpenter, F. Westley, M. G. Turner
- A Systems Model Approach to Determining Resilience Surrogates for Case Studies by E. M. Bennett, G. S. Cumming, G. D. Peterson
- The Use of Discontinuities and Functional Groups to Assess Relative Resilience in Complex Systems by C. R. Allen, L. Gunderson, A. R. Johnson
- Building Resilience in Lagoon Social–Ecological Systems: A Local-level Perspective by F. Berkes and C. S. Seixas
- An Exploratory Framework for the Empirical Measurement of Resilience by G. S. Cumming, G. Barnes, S. Perz, M. Schmink, K. E. Sieving, J. Southworth, M. Binford, R. D. Holt, C. Stickler, T. Van Holt
Proportion of World Economy projected in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios (Tg - TechnoGarden, go-Global Orchestration, am- Adapting Mosaic, and OS-Order From Strength). Compared to yesterday’s post of Maddison’s data, which is in Purchasing Power Parity, this graph estimates the size of the world economy using 1995 exchange rates, which under estimates the purchasing power of poor countries - particularly the Chinese economy. Consquently, this graph and yesterday’s graph do not match in 2000.
This graph shows Asia passing Western Europe + North America & Oceania in about 75 years, later in the slow economic growth world of Order From Strength. If purchasing power is used then crossing date would be earlier.
Regional share of world economy over last five centuries
Share of the total world economy represented by different regions. W Eur, NA, AusNZ= Western Europe, North Americam, Australia and New Zeland. E Eur + FSU = Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union. Data from Angus Maddison 2005 Measuring and Interpreting World Economic Performance 1500-2001. Review of Income and Wealth, 51:1-35.
Graph shows how the recent centrality of Western Europe and North America to the world economy appears to represent a temporary break in Asian centrality in the world economy. The centrality’s of the West in the world economy began in about 1850 and appears likely to end soon.
Andre Gunder Frank, who died in early 2005, discussed this idea in his 1998 book Re:Orient: Global Economy in the Asian Age.
The four main reports of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment were released yesterday (Jan 19, 2006). The reports are the detailed scientific assessment (including literature citations) on which the MA synthesis reports are based. These large reports (500-800 page) are the products of the four MA working groups:
- Current State and Trends
- Scenarios
- Policy Responses
- Multi-Scale Assessments.
These reports are published by Island Press or chapters can be downloaded from the MA web site.
The press coverage of the release of the technical reports has been more balanced than the press coverage of the synthesis volumes. The Christian Science Monitor reports, quoting Steve Carpenter (his post on the scenarios):
When researchers scan the global horizon, overfishing, loss of species habitat, nutrient run-off, climate change, and invasive species look to be the biggest threats to the ability of land, oceans, and water to support human well-being.
Yet “there is significant reason for hope. We have the tools we need” to chart a course that safeguards the planet’s ecological foundation, says Stephen Carpenter, a zoologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “We don’t have to accept the doom-and-gloom trends.”
That’s the general take-home message in an assessment of the state of the globe’s ecosystems and the impact Earth’s ecological condition has on humans.
Continue reading ‘Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Reports Released’
During the winter semester at McGill I teach Adaptive Environmental Management (GEOG 380) to upper level undergraduates from a mixed science/arts background. This is the second year that I have taught this course at McGill. In the course I try to bridge the more technical approaches to adaptive environmental assessment and management described by Buzz Holling et al (1978) and Carl Walters (1986) with more recent efforts by Fikret Berkes and Carl Folke that better integrate social dimensions, such as trust building, bridging knowledge systems, and instititutional fit.
I define four pillar of adaptive management, based upon Berkes, Colding and Folke (2003): building resilience, bridging knowledge systems for learning, practice of experimental management, and navigating context.
Below are the papers and book chapters that I am planning to use in my course this semester.
Continue reading ‘Adaptive environmental assessment and management course readings’
The Ecological Footprint Network has some interesting maps and animations of “Footprint Intensity” between 1961 and 2001. The maps also show how the human Footprint has increased 2.5 X between 1961-2001.