|
|
|
| Ecological Footprint |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Footprint Breakdown
By Category |
Ecological Footprint
Acres per Capita |
Santa Monica's
Ecological Footprint |
|
|
INDICATOR |
Citywide Ecological Footprint |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATUS |
Good |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TREND |
Improving |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DESCRIPTION |
 |
|
|
The
Ecological Footprint is a tool designed to assist in measuring humanity’s use of nature and natural resources. The
city’s Ecological
Footprint was measured looking at the following factors: land use, electricity use by source, natural gas use, gasoline and diesel use,
transportation and vehicles, roads, housing, food, products, waste and recycling. These factors were converted into productive-land-area
equivalents. This represents the footprint of the city. The footprint of the
city was then divided by the number of residents to determine each
individual’s footprint.
The city does not have a target set for the
Ecological Footprint, but a downward trend in
the size of our Footprint is desirable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY |
|
|
|
The City of Santa Monica is 8.3 square miles around, but our Ecological Footprint was 2,747 square miles in 2000. That is a dramatic difference
of almost 2, 739 square miles. Santa Monica’s Footprint is shrinking. In 1990, the
city’s Footprint was 2,914 square miles. In the ten years
between 1990 and 2000, the city’s footprint shrank by 5.7 % or 167 square miles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HIGHLIGHTS |
|
|
|
The major results of Santa Monica’s Footprint assessment reveal that between 1990 and 2000 the city’s Footprint has:
● Declined by 167 square miles;
● Gone down ˝ an acre for each per person living in Santa Monica;
● Become nearly 4 acres smaller than the US average. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANALYSIS |
|
|
|
In 1990, the city’s per resident Footprint was 21.4 acres. In the ten years between 1990 and 2000, the
city’s per resident Footprint shrank by
˝ acre to 20.9 acres. This is almost three acres less than the American footprint, but it is still much larger than the 4.6 acres that has been
established as a sustainable footprint. Reductions in the use of natural gas and diesel, increased recycling rates, and the
city’s procurement of geothermal energy explain much of
the Footprint reductions over the decade. But, increases in electricity and gasoline use and built space offset
many of the gains made in the 1990s. Although our Footprint has been reduced, the
city’s Footprint still cannot be considered ecologically sustainable and is, on average, 16 acres
above the Fair Earth share. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHAT CAN WE DO TO IMPROVE? |
|
|
|
Continue our outreach efforts to communicate the degree to which human activity consumes our environment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
DATA SOURCES |
|
|
|
View source material in Excel:
RC6_EcoFootprint.xls.
Email contact for data source inquires. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRINTING TIPS
|
Printing tips for MS Internet Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LAST UPDATED
|
July 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CITATION |
www.smepd.org/scpr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
