Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

Footprints on the landscape: An environmental appraisal of urban

and rural living in the developed world
Rebecca L. Eaton a , Geoffrey P. Hammond a,b,c,∗ , Jane Laurie c
a Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
b International Centre for the Environment (ICE), University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
c Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, Elm Tree Court, Long Street, Devizes, Wiltshire SN10 1NJ, UK

Available online 12 July 2007

Abstract
Environmental or ‘ecological’ footprints have been widely used in recent years as partial indicators of sustainability; specifically of resource
consumption and waste absorption transformed on the basis of the biologically productive land area required by a defined population. In the present
study, the environmental footprints of the Borough of Swindon and the County of Wiltshire in Southern England have been evaluated and contrasted.
Swindon is largely an urban area, whereas the adjacent landscape of Wiltshire is predominantly rural in nature. A mixed compound/component
approach to footprint accounting was adopted. The data utilised was based on ‘proxy’ data extracted from national statistics, as well as local
data. These calculations show that, on a per capita basis, the footprints of the two neighbouring communities studied are roughly the same:
5.65–5.94 global hectares (gha), with an estimated uncertainty of about ±11%. Consumption and pollutant emission patterns in both rural and
urban communities are shown to be unsustainable, and well above the ‘Earthshare’ of 1.80 gha. However, the corresponding overshoot ratios for
Swindon and Wiltshire were found to be 10.35:1 and only 2.01:1, respectively. The environmental burdens caused by urban and rural living in
developed countries feedback onto each other. Cities and towns require resources from beyond their geographic boundaries, but rural communities
also take advantage of the modern infrastructure and services typically provided in an urban setting. The notion of sustainability can only realistically
be applied in a broad geophysical context, and consequently the land use planning effort might more appropriately be focussed on a regional scale.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cities; Environmental footprints; Landscape planning; Rural communities; Sustainability; Urban development

1. Introduction populations at different stages of economic development and

1.1. Background
Environmental or ‘ecological’ footprints have been widely
used in recent years as indicators of resource consumption
and waste absorption transformed on the basis of biologi-
cally productive land area required per capita with prevailing
technology. They represent a partial measure of the extent
to which the planet (Loh and Goldfinger, 2006), its nations
(Hammond, 2006; Loh and Goldfinger, 2006), or communities
(Doughty and Hammond, 1997, 2004; Girardet, 1999; Rees and
Wackernagel, 1996; Wackernagel, 1998) are moving along a sus-
tainable development pathway. Such footprints vary between
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Univer-
sity of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK. Tel.: +44 1225 386168; fax: +44 1225 386928.
E-mail address: ensgph@bath.ac.uk (G.P. Hammond).
varying geographic characteristics. Cities have been shown to
be unsustainable in the sense that their footprints greatly exceed,
or overshoot, their biocapacities by typically 15–150 times
(Doughty and Hammond, 2004).
Sustainable development is desirable and, hopefully, attain-
able on a global scale. However, it is less obviously applicable
on a city scale (Doughty and Hammond, 2004), where the term
‘sustainable cities’ is sometimes used synonymously with con-
cepts such as urban autonomy, self-reliance or self-sufficiency.
Doughty and Hammond (1997, 2004) used the technique of envi-
ronmental footprint analysis (EFA) to study the sustainability
of cities by placing them in their broader geographic context.
They examined the 18th Century (Georgian) city of Bath as a
sustainability case study. It was found to exhibit an environmen-
tal footprint that is greater than its surrounding bioregion, and
some twenty times larger than its own land area. Thus, cities only
survive because they are linked by human, material and commu-
nications networks to their hinterlands or bioregions (Doughty

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.009
14 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28
and Hammond, 1997, 2004). The notion of sustainability can
only be realistically applied in this wider geophysical perspec-
tive, where the urban–rural interface might play an important
role in land use planning. Doughty and Hammond (2004) recom-
mended that sustainability assessment, planning and monitoring
should therefore be undertaken at the regional scale or beyond.
This would be aimed at reducing environmental footprints by
encouraging greater self-reliance and low-impact development
across regions, whilst protecting indigenous ecosystems.
1.2. The issues considered
‘Ecological’ or environmental footprints (and related
parameters) represent, albeit partial, sustainability indicators
(Hammond, 2006). Resources used and wastes produced by a
defined population are converted to a common basis: the area of
productive land and aquatic ecosystems sequestered (in global
hectares) from whatever source in worldwide terms. This foot-
print is illustrated schematically in Fig. 1, where the various
constituent elements are depicted. Previous research conducted
by Friends of the Earth Europe (1995) and Wackernagel and
Rees (1996) found that most western lifestyles, such as those
in Europe and North America, have consumption patterns that
result in footprints which are far greater than the amount of geo-
graphically available land. In the case of cities, this ‘overshoot
factor’ (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996) amounts to some 20 times
the urban area for Bath (Doughty and Hammond, 1997, 2004),
125 times for London (Girardet, 1999), 16 times for Santiago
de Chile (Wackernagel, 1998), and more than 200 for Vancou-
ver (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996). These factors, which Rees
and Wackernagel (1996) suggest are representative of a ‘sus-
tainability gap’, do not correlate directly with urban population
size or geographic land area, but depend largely on economic
wealth per capita and building density. Much clearly needs to
be done in terms of significantly reducing the environmental
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the environmental footprint, and its land
types. Source: adapted from Chambers et al. (1999).
footprints of communities as part of the overall sustainability
agenda.
In the present study, the environmental footprints for the
Borough of Swindon and the County of Wiltshire in Southern
England have been evaluated and contrasted. Swindon is largely
an urban area, whereas the adjacent landscape of Wiltshire is pre-
dominantly rural in nature. A mixed ‘compound’/‘component’
approach to footprint accounting was adopted, where the foot-
print components (energy, transport, food, materials and waste,
and water) represented broad policy-making categories. The data
utilised was based on both proxy, or ‘top-down’, data extracted
from national statistics and local, or ‘bottom-up’, data provided
by local organisations. Thus, the uncertainties and deficien-
cies of using environmental footprints (and related parameters)
as sustainability indicators are examined, including problems
of urban and rural boundary definitions, data gathering, and
the basis for weighing the various consumption and associated
impacts.
2. Cities and sustainability
2.1. Sustainable development versus sustainability
The concept of sustainability has become a key idea in
national and international discussions following publication of
the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) published under the title
“Our Common Future”; the outcome of 4 years of study and
debate by the World Commission on Environment and Develop-
ment led by the former Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem
Brundtland. This Commission argued that the time had come
to couple economy and ecology, so that the wider community
would take responsibility for both the causes and the con-
sequences of environmental damage. It envisaged sustainable
development as a means by which the global system would sat-
isfy “the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs”. The notion there-
fore involves a strong element of intergenerational ethics. More
recently, sustainability has been the subject of renewed interest
and debate in the context of the 2002 World Summit on Sustain-
able Development in Johannesburg. Here the strapline “people,
planet, prosperity” was adopted to reflect the requirement that
sustainable development implies the balancing of economic and
social development with environmental protection: the ‘Three
Pillars’ model. The interconnections between these pillars are
illustrated by the sustainability Venn diagram shown in Fig. 2
[Hammond (2004); adapted from a version originally developed
by Clift (1995) and extended by Parkin (2000)]. Sustainability
is reflected in the central portion of the diagram, where the three
types of constraints are met. The originators themselves recog-
nised that this is a simplified model (see, for example, Azapagic
et al., 2004). An alternative concept still involving these three
elements is the so-called ‘Russian Dolls’ model in which the
economy is viewed as being surrounded by first human society,
that is in turn enclosed by the natural environment (Chambers
et al., 2000). Recently the UK Government has added two addi-
tional principles of sustainable development to the three pillars
(DEFRA, 2005): (i) promoting good governance, and (ii) using
 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28
Fig. 2. Venn diagram representation of ‘The Three Pillars’ of sustainability.
Source: Hammond (2004); adapted from Clift (1995) and Parkin (2000).
sound science responsibly. But science and technology cannot
be deployed without regard to their environmental and social
implications, or ‘side-effects’ (Hammond, 2000). In the long-
term, Planet Earth will impose its own constraints on the use
of its physical resources and on the absorption of contaminants,
whilst the ‘laws’ of the natural sciences (including, for exam-
ple, those of thermodynamics (Hammond, 2004)) and human
creativity will limit the potential for new technological develop-
ments. Many writers and researchers have acknowledged that the
concept of ‘sustainable development’ is not one that can readily
be grasped by the wider public (see, for example, Hammond,
2000). However, no satisfactory alternative has thus far been
found. Further confusion about this modern paradigm is added
by the large number of formal definitions for sustainable devel-
opment that can be found in the literature. Parkin (2000) refers
to more than 200.
Parkin (2000) and Porritt (2000) have stressed that sus-
tainable development is only a process or journey towards a
destination, which is ‘sustainability’. The end game cannot eas-
ily be defined from a scientific perspective, although Porritt
(2000) argues that the attainment of sustainability can be mea-
sured against a set of four ‘system conditions’. He draws these
from ‘The Natural Step’ (TNS); an initiative by the Swedish can-
cer specialist, Karl-Henrick Robèrt (see, for example, Broman
et al., 2000). Its system conditions put severe constraints on
economic development, and may be viewed (Hammond, 2004)
as being impractical or ‘utopian’. One of them, for example,
suggests that finite materials (including fossil fuels) should not
be extracted at a faster rate than they can be re-deposited in
the Earth’s crust on geological timescales. This may be con-
trasted with the present rapid rate of fossil fuel depletion on
the global scale: leading to estimates for resource to produc-
tion ratios of 20–40 years for oil, 40–70 years for natural gas,
15
and 80–240 years for coal (Hammond, 2000). Upham (2000)
argues that TNS moves beyond (scientific and other) knowledge
in signposting action for the business sector. He contends that
it represents a political and ethical statement rather than any
justifiable scientific consensus. TNS certainly implies that the
ultimate goal of sustainability is rather a long way off when com-
pared with the present conditions on the planet. Parkin (2000)
suggests 2050–2100 or beyond. More recently, a significant step
forward has been taken by Graedel and Klee (2002) in trying to
establish a quantifiable, long-term target for sustainability from
an ‘industrial ecology’ perspective. They suggest a framework,
or series of steps, to permit the establishment of the sustain-
able (or limiting) rate of natural resource use, which can then
be contrasted with the current rate of consumption. The process
is illustrated for the case of three common materials employed
or emitted by industrial societies: zinc, germanium, and green-
house gases. Unfortunately, the Graedel and Klee procedure
requires the establishment of equal planetary shares of mate-
rials/emissions on a 50-year timescale. They acknowledge that
the idea of an ‘Earthshare’ or quota of this sort is controversial,
and that the chosen timescale is somewhat arbitrary. Hammond
(2006) has suggested that an alternative quantitative indicator
that may be able to better track humanity’s pathway towards
sustainability is the environmental footprint utilised here. On a
global scale, Loh and Goldfinger (2006) have utilised it for this
purpose in the World Wide Fund for Nature’s (WWF) biannual
Living Planet Report. This is in keeping with an interpretation
of sustainable development devised by several leading inter-
national nature conservation and environmental organisations
(the IUCN, UNEP and WWF (1991)) as “improving the qual-
ity of human life while living within the carrying capacity of
supporting ecosystems”.
2.2. Sustainable cities
Three-quarters of the world’s population may live in cities by
the year 2025 (according to Rogers, 1997). They consequently
form a very important element of the human condition. Indeed
Hall (1998) observed that the Latin root of the word ‘civiliza-
tion’ is cives – citizen – and so cities are clearly at the heart
of human development (Doughty and Hammond, 2003, 2004).
The notion of ‘sustainable cities’ became fashionable in litera-
ture during the 1990s (see, for example, Girardet, 1992, 1999;
Haughton and Hunter, 1994; Rogers, 1997; the UK Urban Task
Force, 1999). Indeed, part of the UK Research Councils’ Clean
Technology Managed Programme was devoted to this topic (see
Ekins and Cooper, 1993). One of the leading thinkers on ‘sustain-
able cities’ has been the so-called ‘cultural ecologist’, Herbert
Girardet (1992 and 1999). Although he did not initially employ
the term, The Gaia Atlas of Cities (Girardet, 1992) was one of the
earliest texts to stimulate an interest in the role of cities as a major
source of environmental damage: “the city as parasite”. There
he posed the question as to whether or not cities are sustainable,
but did not really answer it. Instead he identified the many dis-
benefits of modern cities, and argued for a change in the way that
they are planned and organised. Girardet noted that the inputs
and outputs of urban living are unsustainable; finite energy
16 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

resources and other material inputs with waste outputs. How-

ever, it has been argued by Day and Hammond (1996) that the
notion of ‘sustainable cities’ is quite misleading. It looks back
to the 1970s’ idea of autonomy or self-sufficiency in the built
environment, when it became popular to strive for “autarkic”
buildings or settlements (Day and Hammond, 1996; Doughty
and Hammond, 1997, 2003, 2004). Such utopian visions of
urban habitats stretching from the level of individual buildings to
that of whole settlements have developed over recent decades (as
outlined by Doughty and Hammond, 2003), and were precursors
for the notion of sustainable cities as popularised in the modern
architectural and urban studies literature. Satterswaite (1997)
notes that (nearly interchangeable) expressions like ‘sustain-
able cities’, ‘sustainable human settlements’ and ‘sustainable
urban development’ were much in evidence at the second UN
Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) held in Istan-
bul, June 1996. But even here, they were poorly defined or
understood (Satterswaite, 1997). Similar criticisms have been
made by Antrop (2006) of the analogous concept of ‘sustain-
able landscapes’. He interpreted the latter concept in terms of a
broad perspective that embraced countryside, towns, and cities.
Given that landscapes continuously change “in a more or less Fig. 3. The ‘metabolism’ of cities: towards sustainability. Source: Doughty and
chaotic way”, Antrop argued that the goal of sustainable land- Hammond (2004); adapted from Girardet (1992, 1999) and Rogers (1997). (a)
scapes was also ‘utopian’. Nevertheless, clusters of buildings ‘Linear metabolism’ cities (consume and pollute at a high rate). (b) ‘Circular
metabolism’ cities (minimize new inputs and maximize recycling).
and an integrated human-scale transport infrastructure could
enhance energy conservation and reduce environmental impact.
Even what have often been termed ‘compact cities’ are not in tains many desirable elements of a modern urban community,
themselves sustainable (Day and Hammond, 1996; Doughty and but they do not amount to a verification of the concept. In order
Hammond, 1997). They survive only because they are inextrica- to secure sustainability in the wider context, the greater hurdle
bly linked by human, material and communications networks to is arguably the urban–rural divide. It is this interface or system
their hinterlands or ‘bioregions’ (Doughty and Hammond, 1997, boundary over which most of the input resources for cities must
2003, 2004). This outlying support structure extends from the pass.
regional to national and even global scale. Doughty and Hammond (1997, 2003, 2004) used the tech-
Lord (Richard) Rogers of Riverside, the eminent modernist nique of environmental footprint analysis (EFA) to examine the
architect, has been influenced by Girardet’s ideas about sus- sustainability of cities by placing them in their broader geo-
tainable cities. In the book based on his 1995 Reith Lectures graphic context. They studied the ‘Georgian’ city of Bath using
(Rogers, 1997) he uses the notion of ‘sustainable cities’ as well as this approach. Its per capita footprint was found to be greater
Girardet’s concept of ‘circular metabolism’ (see Fig. 3(b)). But than that of the surrounding bioregion, and indeed of the wider
the general idea of the ‘metabolism of cities’ was first proposed geographic area. The environmental footprint of the city is nearly
in the USA by Wolman (1965), who noted that communities twenty times larger than that of the corresponding land area. This
required inputs, such as food, materials and other commodi- lends support to Doughty and Hammond’s (2004) critique of the
ties, in order to sustain them. In turn they emit pollutants and idea of sustainable cities popularised in contemporary literature.
wastes that despoil the natural environment. But the term ‘sus- Such views were novel at the time they were first made (by Day
tainable cities’ was given a broad definition by Rogers (which and Hammond, 1996, and then Doughty and Hammond, 1997,
might better be denoted by the expression ‘convivial cities’) 2004), but the criticisms have subsequently been echoed by other
that could encompass the views of many, disparate protagonists. authors (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996; Rees, 1997; Renn et al.,
Conurbations that are beautiful (from both an architectural and 1998; Satterswaite, 1997).
landscape perspective), compact, creative, diverse, promote an
equitable and just distribution of amenities and resources, and 2.3. The planning context
that facilitates ease of contact and mobility. A key element in
such an urban design is the need to ensure resource efficiency, Notwithstanding the above critique of the idea of ‘sustainable
minimise environmental impact, and provide a safe infrastruc- cities’, urban design of compact and convivial cities can obvi-
ture, where the built form and landscape are balanced (Jones ously contribute to a more sustainable way of life, particularly
and Flint, 2005). Girardet’s support for the notion of ‘sustain- in industrialised societies. This can be done by encouraging the
able cities’ solidified over time (Girardet, 1999), although he development over time of integrated mixed-use urban communi-
has more recently used Rogers’ broad and inclusive definition ties in much the same way that has been advocated by a diverse
analogous to that of the ‘convivial cities’ formulation. This con- range of architectural critics and urban planners. Such cohe-
 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28
sive and convivial human settlements could provide diverse, yet
socially balanced, communities in an attractive setting (Urban
Task Force, 1999). This requires a conscious effort to reverse the
trends in urban planning evident during most of the 20th Cen-
tury. Sustainability assessment techniques need to be employed
across the urban–rural interface in an extended process. Envi-
ronmental footprint analysis could form an important element
of that assessment as an integral part of ‘systems thinking’ more
generally. A key element in this type of development is to focus
on greatly improving the efficiency of resource use within com-
munities, and thereby reducing their environmental footprint.
This will clearly enhance ‘sustainability’, although it is imprac-
tical to achieve the very strict system conditions laid down under
‘The Natural Step’ (Hammond, 2004).
Richard Rogers (1997) advocates ‘sustainable urban
planning’, which he contends should involve citizens in
decision-making at every level. However, by the time that he
chaired the UK Government’s Urban Task Force (1999) the idea
of sustainable cities had formally disappeared, although com-
ponent parts of the broader concept of sustainable development
remained ‘centre stage’. The Task Force was given the remit
of determining an appropriate strategy for providing 4 million
additional homes in England over the following 25 years. They
recommended greater re-use of ‘brown field’ sites to develop
new compact, cohesive settlements.
Doughty and Hammond (2004) argued that EFA should be
employed for sustainability assessment and planning out at the
regional level (although perhaps ‘regions’ that differ from those
designated for local government purposes) or beyond. This case
has also been argued from a Canadian perspective by Rees and
Wackernagel (1996) and from a European one by Renn et al.
(1998). The latter suggest, taking the German industrialised
region or ‘Lander’ of Baden-Württemberg as their example,
that cities have too many input resources (products and ser-
vices) crossing their boundaries to be considered sustainable.
This applied even to the regional capital of Stuttgart. [It is inter-
esting to note that Renn et al. (1998) reached this conclusion
using a set of sustainability principles that were similar to those
incorporated into the Natural Step system conditions (Everard,
1999; Porritt, 2000).] Likewise Rees and Wackernagel (1996)
advocate regional self-reliance by way of ‘rehabilitating’ natural
capital stocks, including the promotion of local fisheries, forests,
and agricultural land. Although Doughty and Hammond (2004)
noted that this approach to reducing environmental deficits
with the rest of the globalised World might appear rather more
feasible in a Canadian setting than that of the UK. Land-use
planning and sustainability assessment could therefore usefully
be employed on a regional scale with the aim of reducing envi-
ronmental footprints by encouraging greater self-reliance and
low-impact development, whilst protecting indigenous ecosys-
tems (much along the lines suggested by Rees, 1997).
Wolman (1965) noted that the inputs and outputs of urban
living are unsustainable; finite energy resources and other mate-
rial inputs with waste outputs. This has been termed the ‘linear
metabolism’ of cities by Girardet (1992), which is depicted
schematically in Fig. 3(a). A more desirable system would be
one that he called ‘circular metabolism’ (Girardet, 1992, 1999)
17
in which the inputs are efficiently harnessed and the waste prod-
ucts are reduced, reused or recycled. Such an arrangement is
also illustrated in Fig. 2(b). The notion of cyclic resource usage
comes from the study of natural ecosystems (see, for exam-
ple, Everard, 1999), but complete recycling is not feasible in
an urban context. Waste streams could be minimised and the
resource productivity of the city optimised. Communities can
play a useful role as potential exemplars of the type of holistic (or
systems) thinking that is a prerequisite for sustainability assess-
ment and planning. The Wiltshire Wildlife Trust (WWT), which
collaborates closely with the local authorities in both Swindon
and Wiltshire, has advocated the use of footprint analysis as
a tool for guiding progress towards securing more sustainable
lifestyles. They have established a Climate Friendly Communi-
ties programme across the two local authority areas to stimulate
collective action in suburbs, towns and villages on waste, energy,
transport, and local food. Local authority planners, and related
professionals, are ideally placed to account for the impacts of
resource and waste flows across the urban/rural boundary.
3. Environmental footprinting: back to basics
The use of ‘ecological’ or environmental footprint analysis
has grown in popularity over recent years, both in Europe and
North America. They provide a simple, but often graphic, mea-
sure of the environmental impact of human activity: whether
or not in the foreseeable future humanity will be able to “tread
softly on the Earth” (Hammond, 2000). Its roots lie in earlier
ideas, such as ‘Ghost Acres’ and similar concepts developed by
Borgstrom (1972) and Ehrlich (1968) in the late 1960s. William
Rees used footprint analysis in its basic form to teach plan-
ning students for some 20 years (see Wackernagel and Rees,
1996). He decided to adopt the term ‘ecological footprint’ in
the early 1990s, rather than ‘appropriated carrying capacity’
that he had previously used, after buying a new desk top com-
puter (Chambers et al., 2000). The deliveryman told him that
it had a smaller footprint (that is, took up less space) than his
old model. The terms ‘environmental’ and ‘ecological’ foot-
prints are used interchangeably here (as they were by Doughty
and Hammond (1997, 2004) and Hammond (2006)), although
the former is preferred. Ecology is that branch of biology deal-
ing with the introduction of organisms and their surroundings.
‘Human ecology’, sometimes used for the study of humans and
their environment, is closer to the usage implied by footprint
analysis.
Footprint calculations involve several steps. Initially the per
capita land area appropriated for each major category of con-
sumption (aai ) is determined:
ci annual consumption of an item (kg/capita)
aai = ∼
pi average annual yield (kg/ha)
In the original version of footprint analysis employed by
Wackernagel and Rees (1996), four consumption categories
were identified: energy use, the built environment (the land
area covered by a settlement and its connection infrastructure),
food, and forestry products. This is a restricted subset of all
goods and services consumed, which was determined by the
18 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28
practical requirements of data gathering and influenced by the
development of the technique in a Canadian setting. However,
unconnected work by Friends of the Earth Europe (1995) using
the related ‘Environmental Space’ concept, adopted a similar set
of categories. In the present study, five land types (as depicted
schematically in Fig. 1 above) are been employed: bioproduc-
tive land and sea, energy land, built land, and the land needed to
secure biodiversity (Chambers et al., 2000). The ‘energy land’
reflects that required for new forests (anywhere in the world)
needed to absorb carbon dioxide, and thereby stabilise the atmo-
sphere. Alternatively, it has been suggested that it could be
calculated from the land required to replace fossil fuels with
wood biomass (Chambers et al., 2000). In order to calculate the
per capita footprint (ef) in global hectares (gha), the appropri-
ated land area for each consumption category is then summed
to yield:
i=n
 4. The study areas and their boundaries
ef = aai
i=1
One global hectare represents a hectare (ha) of biologically
productive land at the average global productivity. Footprints
of different communities or areas need to be standardised in
this way, so that global hectares account for disparities in land
productivities.
The above computation then leads to a matrix of consumption
categories and land use requirements, which is ideally suited to
a spreadsheet implementation. In order to determine the total
footprint for a given country, region or community (EF), the per
capita figure is simply multiplied by the relevant population size
(N), viz:
EF = ef(N)
However, this is generally a less useful parameter for com-
parative purposes between countries or communities with
different sized populations (Doughty and Hammond, 1997,
2004; Hammond, 2006; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996).
Footprint analysis implies judgements about the relative
weighting of the various consumption categories, and their envi-
ronmental impact. It reduces all such impacts to a common basis
in terms of global hectares per capita, which may not prove to
be a unit that can be readily assimilated by ordinary people. The
International Institute for Environment and Development (1996)
described the process of analysis whereby all environmental
impacts are aggregated into a simple index as “resource reduc-
tionism”. They likened it to traditional measures of economic
welfare, such as the gross domestic product (GDP) or gross
national income (GNI); see Hammond (2000, 2006), respec-
tively. Nevertheless, it provides a useful basis for contrasting
the footprint of human activity with the available productive
area, biocapacity, or ‘carrying capacity’. The consequences of
human consumption can then be graphically viewed against the
‘natural capital’ of a community, nation, region, or the planet as
a whole.
EFA is a ‘static’ process that provides a measure of aggre-
gate environmental burdens at some specified date (or year).
It is nevertheless a valuable technique in a toolkit of mea-
sures that can aid the assessment of sustainable development,
although it is arguably weak in terms of social inequalities
or poverty within and between different countries and soci-
eties. Satterswaite (1997), for example, has devised a set of
criteria for urban sustainability, including health and sanita-
tion, recreational facilities, and numerous other aspects of social
provision. Clearly environmental footprint analysis would need
to be supplemented by the use of other measures to account
for these broader elements of human welfare. In Costanza
(2000), contributors noted that this aggregate indicator has a
number of advantages and disadvantages. It can be used as an
effective pedagogic device (or awareness raising tool) for illus-
trating human resource use and waste generation, employing
a simple measure (land area) that advocates view as readily
understandable.
4.1. The general context
This study focuses on two neighbouring local authority
areas—the County Council of Wiltshire and the Borough of
Swindon, a so-called ‘unitary authority’. The use of local author-
ity areas as the study boundaries was selected on the basis
that they provide a clearly defined boundary that is widely
acknowledged, and therefore aided the collection of local data.
A schematic map illustrating the boundaries of the two neigh-
bouring areas is presented in Fig. 4 in the context of the wider
region of the South West of England. The so-called ‘respon-
sibility principle’ was presumed to apply to each study area,
in order to attribute the resource consumption to those living
within the boundary. Evaluation was undertaken using 2003
data, as local and UK national statistical sources were read-
ily available for that year at the time that the present footprint
analysis was actually undertaken (in the first half of 2005). It
was necessary to utilise financial data for some purposes and, in
those cases, information for the financial year 2002–2003 was
adopted.
Fig. 4. Schematic map of the South West of England: depicting the regional
setting of the neighbouring local authority areas of Swindon and Wiltshire.
 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28
4.2. The Borough of Swindon
Swindon is located in South Central England where the
Cotswold Hills meet the West Country. It is a bustling urban
area surrounded by countryside. The Borough of Swindon cov-
ers an area of approximately 23,000 ha, and has a population of
about 181,000; yielding a population density of 7.89 persons/ha.
The bulk of this is developed land, and is occupied by buildings,
roads and other developments. Swindon offers all of the ameni-
ties of modern urbanised living, as well as the contrast of great
industrial heritage at the heart of Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s
Great Western Railway, built in the 1830s. The rest of the land
cover is mainly pasture, with only a small proportion used for
growing crops. Swindon residents have an average income of
approximately £21,000 (ONS, 2004). That is equivalent to 106%
of the average in the South West of England, or 97% of the UK
average. The ‘Gross Value Added’ (GVA) attributed to Swin-
don represents around 6% of the total in the South West region.
Unemployment in the Borough is below the England and Wales
average at 2.5% of the workforce. It has been identified within
the regional planning framework as a specific focus for growth.
Swindon Borough Council (SBC) aspires to be the best busi-
ness location in the UK, and to secure an international reputation
by 2025 as a centre of innovation, science, and technology, as
well as being an exemplar of ‘sustainable living’. Its relations
with central government are governed by a ‘Local Area Agree-
ment’ (LAA) to deliver agreed services. In this endeavour, the
SBC works in partnership with a range of community stakehold-
ers under the umbrella of the Swindon Strategic Partnership
(SSP). The SSP has provided the focus for the development
of a Community Strategy (currently being refreshed as a ‘Sus-
tainable Community Strategy’) of which the Swindon Climate
Change Action Plan, launched in the autumn of 2006, has been
a major deliverable. It recognised climate change as not just
an environmental problem, but as a crosscutting issue that will
have wide economic and social impacts. The Action Plan calls
for urgent precautionary action; believing that is vital to act
now to begin addressing this global problem at a community
level. It recognises the interconnectedness of many activities on
climate change: energy use, transport, biodiversity and the nat-
ural environment, food, health, water, and waste. Almost all of
these components are reflected in the environmental footprint of
Swindon reported here.
4.3. The County of Wiltshire
The study of Wiltshire included all of the area covered
by Wiltshire County Council. This incorporates the four Dis-
trict Councils of Kennet, North Wiltshire, Salisbury, and West
Wiltshire. The area encompassed by the County includes a
population of approximately 436,000 that stretches over some
325,000 ha; giving a population density 1.34 persons/ha. It is
predominantly a rural County, with over 75% of the land area
dedicated to agricultural use, but having nearly half the pop-
ulation living in towns or villages of less than 5000 people.
Significant concentrations of population can be found in the
cathedral city of Salisbury, the County town of Trowbridge,
19
and Wiltshire’s many market towns. The unemployment rate
in Wiltshire is well below the national average of 3.5% at about
1.2%. The British armed forces have a significant presence, par-
ticularly in the south of the County—on or around Salisbury
Plain. Military restructuring is resulting in the relocation, reuse
and disposal of assets in the north of the County, such as RAF
Lyneham, whilst expansion is simultaneously occurring in the
south. Wiltshire is an important area for biodiversity and land-
scape. Three ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ (AONB)
cover 43% of the County’s landscape, there are 10 ‘Special
Areas of Conservation’, two ‘special Protection Areas’, 136
‘Sites of Special Scientific Interest’ (SSSI), and seven ‘National
Nature Reserves’. It also contains an abundance of archaeo-
logical and architectural sites, including the UNESCO World
Heritage sites of Stonehenge and Avebury, Salisbury Cathedral,
nearly 20,000 prehistoric, Roman and medieval architectural
sites, and the industrial monuments like the Kennet and Avon
Canal and Brunel’s classic railway tunnel at Box. Wiltshire’s
GVA represents almost 9% of the total for the South West of
England. The average income for a person living in Wiltshire
is £22,900 (ONS, 2004) per year. This is equivalent to 116%
of the average for the South West, or 106 % of the UK average
personal income.
The development of Swindon will have a knock-on affect on
the location of business and residential accommodation in the
northern half of Wiltshire. The County is generally attractive
to inward migration for both work and retirement from Greater
London and the neighbouring cities of Bath and Bristol (see
Fig. 4), as well as from the adjoining region of the South East
of England. In addition, there is a significant amount of out-
ward commuting to surrounding cities and towns, which enjoy
better rates of job creation and higher salaries. The Wiltshire
Strategic Board (WiSB) plays an analogous partnerships role in
the County to that of the SSP in Swindon. This Board is in the
process of agreeing an LAA with central government, enshrined
in a community strategy document: ‘A Sustainable Strategy for
Wiltshire’. It seeks to “create strong and sustainable commu-
nities” across the County, thereby enhancing economic, social
and environmental wellbeing: the ‘three pillars’ of sustainable
development referred to above. On the environmental front, it
gives priority to waste minimisation, particularly in terms of
reducing household arisings (via composting and recycling).
The WiSB desires to be the most waste-efficient County in the
UK by 2014. Other initiatives focus on securing greater bio-
diversity, and on climate change mitigation through improving
energy efficiency and greater use of renewable energy systems.
It explicitly recognises that these various actions will lead to a
reduction in Wiltshire’s environmental footprint.
5. Resource flow and footprint accounting
5.1. The method of footprint analysis and data collation
A mixed ‘compound’/‘component’ approach to footprint
accounting was adopted for the present study, where the foot-
print components (energy, transport, food, materials and waste,
and water) represented broad policy-making categories. These
20 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

could be converted into the five basic land types; taking care
to avoid double accounting (particularly for embodied energy).
The data utilised was based on both proxy, or ‘top-down’, data
extracted from national or international statistics and local, or
‘bottom-up’, data. Wackernagel and Rees (1996), the origina-
tors of footprinting, developed the technique employing the
‘compound’ approach. They utilised aggregate data sources for
energy and trade flows. It has subsequently been adopted for
evaluating national footprints for the WWF’s biannual Living
Planet Report (the latest version of which has been reported
by Loh and Goldfinger (2006), and which Hammond (2006)
recently analysed in order to ascertain their determinants).
In contrast, Simmons et al. (2000) devised a ‘component’
approach, extending it to the estimation of footprints for sub-
national communities (for example, the Channel Island of
Guernsey), as well as those for organisations, households,
and products. In reality, Best Foot Forward (Chambers et al.,
2005) also employed a ‘mixed’ approach for their study of
the footprint of the South West of England, and for which
the second author of the present paper sat on the Advisory
Group.
Like Wackernagel’s study of Santiago de Chile (1998), the Fig. 5. Schematic representation of the component-based approach to environ-
aim here has been to make a rough estimate of the per capita mental footprint analysis devised by Simmons et al., 2000.
footprint for instructional purposes in a relatively short period of
time and at moderate cost. The duration of the present study was • Built land: land appropriated through urban development and
a little longer than that for Santiago de Chile, but this does not transport infrastructure.
necessarily imply any greater accuracy in the data or analysis. • Direct energy: electricity, natural gas, solid fuel, and
The use of a mixed approach to study Swindon and Wiltshire petroleum consumption.
enabled the uncertainties and limitations inherent in footprint • Food and drink: consumption of food materials and products.
analysis to be illustrated. • Materials and waste: consumption of products and materials.
• Transport: passenger-km travelled in each mode.
5.2. Resource flow analysis data • Water: domestic water use.
The initial phase of footprint analysis involves the collection
of consumption data covering the various components, such as In order to calculate the footprint of each component, it is nec-
energy, materials and waste, food, and transport. This yields essary to apply a conversion factor. Thus, in the case of transport,
the flow of resources into and out of the area under review: the number of car passenger-km travelled in each study area must
the Borough of Swindon and neighbouring County of Wilt- be converted to the footprint equivalent of the energy and road
shire in this case. The data collected needed to be specific space required (see, for example, Simmons et al., 2000):
to these local authority areas. In the spirit of a mixed ‘com-
Car travel footprint = number of passenger−kilometer travelled
pound’/‘component’ approach to EFA, proxy (or secondary)
data adapted from national statistics was employed in the × conversion factor
absence of locally obtained (or primary) data. This collation and
analysis of data is highly disaggregated with very many individ- The conversion factor here is the footprint equivalent of one car
ual items of information (for example, food and raw material passenger-km, and can be found using fuel use data, materials
inputs alone involved 14 separate categories). Limits of space and energy required for manufacture and maintenance, and the
have meant that only the aggregate results could to be presented share of UK road space appropriated by each of the study areas
here. (Simmons et al., 2000).
The area required to support each component (see Fig. 5) is
5.3. Environmental footprint calculations given by:
resource consumption (unit)
In addition to the consumption data needed for footprint land area (ha) =
analysis, yield and conversion (or ‘equivalence’) factors were average resource yield (unit/ha)
required. The EFA resource components had to be identified Then the footprint is found in global hectares using ‘equivalence
and categorised. They reflected broad and identifiable policy factors’ (Chambers et al., 2000):
making categories, which match the consumption of ‘natural
capital’. These components (see again Fig. 5) were: footprint (gha) = land area (ha) × equivalence factor.
 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28 21

Table 1
Footprints and their components on a local, regional and UK national scale
Component The Borough of Swindon The County of Wiltshire South West of England region United Kingdom 2001
2003 (gha/cap) 2003 (gha/cap) 2001 (gha/cap) (gha/cap)

Built land 0.42 0.66 0.26 0.32

Direct energy 1.23 1.02 1.00 0.92
Food 1.26 1.26 1.63 1.55
Materials and waste 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.09
Transport 0.61 0.78 0.53 0.57
Water 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Total 5.65 5.94 5.56 5.45

Sources: Swindon and Wiltshire, present study; South West Region, Chambers et al. (2005); UK, Loh and Goldfinger (2006).

Each land and sea type is normalised using different equivalence
factors (gha/ha), representing its bioproductivity relative to the
world average. Cropland is the most productive; bioproductive
sea is the least (Simmons et al., 2000).
Footprint calculations involve assembling the consumption
data taken from the resource flow analysis into a sequence
of tables, along with the corresponding conversion factors.
These footprints are then found for each resource. The additive
nature of the EFA means that the footprints for each compo-
nent can be summed in order to find an overall footprint for
both Swindon and Wiltshire: see Table 1. ‘Pie charts’ illus-
trating the environmental footprint balances for Swindon and
Wiltshire by land type and by components are displayed in
Figs. 6 and 7, respectively for the year 2003. The overall results
can be normalised in terms of land space, or footprints, per
capita (ef) simply by dividing the total footprints (EF) by the
population size of each study area. These are depicted sepa-
rately in Figs. 8 and 9 for Swindon and Wiltshire, respectively.
Estimates have been made of the uncertainties inherent in the
footprint calculations using the method of Kline and McClintock
(1953): see Appendix A below. This process led to an esti-
mate of the uncertainty for each study area of approximately
±11%.
5.4. Biocapacity calculations for Swindon and Wiltshire
Biocapacity is the total bioproductive area of the planet, a
country, or a subregion, and is again measured in terms of
global hectares (gha). It can be found using land use statis-
tics, which can then be compared with the footprints of the
study area, or with global ‘Earthshares’. Ideally, biocapacity is
found using local yield factors for the different land areas, but
an estimate of UK yields was used here for both local authority
areas studied. These calculations also enable an estimate to be
made of the ecological deficit of each study area (see Section 5.5
below).
The per capita biocapacity of Swindon by land type is
shown in Fig. 8, together with its environmental footprint (ef).
This indicates that there are potentially just over 99,000 gha
of bioproductive land available to support the population of
Swindon. That equates to about 0.55 ha/person. However, some
0.42 gha/person of built land had already been included in

Fig. 6. Environmental footprint balances for Swindon and Wiltshire by land type: 2003.
22 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28
Fig. 7. Environmental footprint balances for Swindon and Wiltshire by component: 2003.
Fig. 8. Environmental footprint vs. biocapacity for the Borough of Swindon.
the estimate of biocapacity. The corresponding biocapacity of
Wiltshire by land type is presented in Fig. 9. This shows that
there are around 1.29 million global hectares of bioproductive
land available to support that population. This amounts to
almost 3 ha/person. But this includes 0.66 gha/person of built
land previously incorporated into the estimate of biocapacity.
Fig. 9. Environmental footprint vs. biocapacity for the County of Wiltshire.
5.5. The ‘ecological deficit’ and biocapacity overshoot
A comparison of the footprint and biocapacity reveals
whether or not existing ‘natural capital’ is sufficient to sup-
port consumption and production patterns. If the footprint of
a region exceeds its biocapacity, then there is an ‘ecological
deficit’ (measured in gha):
ecological deficit = biocapacity − footprint
Such a deficit suggests (according to Chambers et al., 2000)
that the study area may be deemed ‘unsustainable’. The dif-
ference between the environmental footprint of Swindon and
its biocapacity is around 925,000 gha, which is equivalent to
5.10 gha/person. The deficit in ‘Energy Land’ principally con-
tributes towards the overall ‘ecological deficit’ of the town (see
Fig. 8). However, the difference between the footprint of Wilt-
shire and its corresponding biocapacity is about 1,302,000 gha,
or equivalent to 2.98 gha/person. The deficit in Energy Land is
again the primary contributor to the overall ecological deficit
of the County from amongst the various land types (Fig. 1), as
is shown in Fig. 9. It is only bioproductive crop and pasture
land that exceeds their footprint counterparts. These ecolog-
ical deficits for Swindon and Wiltshire (Figs. 8 and 9) do
not take into account the need to conserve biodiversity. It
has been argued by some that 12% of the global biocapacity
should be set aside in order to secure the world’s biodi-
versity (for a discussion of this issue, see Chambers et al.,
2000).
The ratio of the environmental footprint of each study area
to their corresponding biocapacity provides another means of
illustrating how much these communities overshoot their ‘car-
rying capacity’. Here the overshoot ratio is defined (Hammond,
2006) as:
environmental footprint
overshoot ratio =
available productive area
 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28
These were found to be 10.35:1 and only 2.01:1, respectively
for Swindon and Wiltshire. Obviously, ecological deficits also
imply that footprints have overshot biocapacity.
6. Looking at sustainability: thinking globally, acting
locally
6.1. Thinking globally: towards ‘one planet living’?
The environmental footprint methodology is designed to help
put local sustainability concerns within a larger context, whether
on a national or global scale. On a national scale, the foot-
print can be used to examine the effect that different trading
patterns could have on the footprint. In this way sustainable
development strategies can be created and implemented in a way
that reflects their importance on the global and local environ-
ment. The footprints of Swindon and Wiltshire can be compared
to those already determined for the UK and its South West
region. Table 2 compares the per capita footprints of Wiltshire
and Swindon with those of the UK and South West (extracted
from Loh and Goldfinger (2006) and Chambers et al. (2005),
respectively). Here the footprints of Wiltshire and Swindon are
shown to be slightly higher than the regional and national foot-
prints, i.e., local residents consume more natural capital than the
average British or South West resident. Both Swindon and Wilt-
shire are relatively affluent areas in terms of average income
per resident, resulting in greater purchasing power. Thus, the
local populations can afford to expend more of their income on
energy-intensive activities and products. However, these figures
should be viewed in the context of the uncertainties estimated in
the local footprints of ±11% (see Appendix A). The contribution
made to the footprint by each component is roughly compara-
ble across both study areas: Swindon and Wiltshire (see Fig. 7).
This emphasises the significance of particular components, such
as the ‘material and waste’ and ‘food’, which have a relatively
large impacts on each footprint.
The global implications of the environmental footprints for
Swindon and Wiltshire can be assessed by placing them in a
wider context. A comparison with the ‘Earthshare’ indicates
how close humanity is to achieving ‘One Planet Living’. That
would require a rate of consumption of natural resources equiv-
alent to 1.8 gha/person (see Table 2). Consequently, the global
environmental footprint exceeded the planet’s biocapacity by
some 0.4 gha/person in about 2001. This was achieved by using
resources laid down on a geological timescale; principally fossil
fuels. If the rest of the world consumed as much as is cur-
Table 2
Biocapacities of the study areas
Biocapacity (gha/cap)
The Borough of Swindon 0.55
The County of Wiltshire 2.96
South West of England region 1.91
United Kingdom 1.64
World 1.80
Sources: Swindon and Wiltshire, present study; South West Region, Chambers
et al. (2005); UK, Loh and Goldfinger (2006).
23
rently done in Wiltshire and Swindon, then humanity would
need access to a biocapacity of at least an extra two Earth-sized
planets to achieve sustainable living. In the same vein, the UK
‘standard of living’ would require the resources of three planets
(Jones and Flint, 2005; Loh and Goldfinger, 2006), the USA six
planets (Loh and Goldfinger, 2006), and the United Arab Emi-
rates (UAE) 10 planets (Loh and Goldfinger, 2006). However, it
must be borne in mind that the notion of an ‘Earthshare’ is sim-
ply an ethical construct—a value judgement about fair national
shares in environmental impacts. In practice, it is unlikely, given
the disparity in global wealth and resources between the pros-
perous ‘North’ and ‘Majority South’, that the different nations of
the world will converge towards ‘One Planet Living’ during the
21st Century. This would need, for example, a major reduction
in energy demand, along with a shift from a dependence on fossil
fuel and uranium resources (so-called ‘capital’ energy sources)
to renewable energy technologies (mainly solar-driven, ‘income’
sources) in both the industrialised and developing nations. Only
then would humanity be able to secure a low carbon global
economy.
National and global footprint data published by the ‘World
Wide Fund for Nature’ (WWF) in their Living Planet Report
(Loh and Goldfinger, 2006) highlight the global inequity asso-
ciated with the acquisition of the world’s resources. It illustrates
that the richer, more developed countries are the primary cause
for the current global ecological deficit. It is inevitable that, as the
poorer countries aspire to become more industrialised, the vision
of a ‘better’ way of life will result in a larger global footprint, a
growing ecological deficit, and a rising overshoot ratio. A conse-
quence of the rapidly growing world population is the continuing
overshoot of available natural resources. The biocapacity esti-
mates for Swindon and Wiltshire illustrate that, at a local level,
the demand for these natural resources is greater than either local
authority area can supply. Table 2 provides a comparison of the
biocapacity estimates for Swindon and Wiltshire with that for
the UK and its South West region. The UK is seen to have quite
a large biocapacity, bearing in mind its relative high population
density. This reflects the higher than global average productivity
of UK land area. The world’s per capita biocapacity, or Earth-
share, is smaller than that of the South West and Wiltshire. This
suggests that both areas have potential to be sustainable in terms
of ‘one planet’ lifestyles. However, Swindon is rather farther
away from a sustainable living, given its relatively small land
area, in common with many cities and urban areas that have high
population densities. Its main practical contribution towards sus-
tainability might therefore be to reorganise itself, over time, from
a community exhibiting linear metabolism to something closer
to the spirit of the Girardet’s circular metabolism for cities (see
Fig. 3(b) above). That is, one having greater resource efficiency
in terms of the reduction in demand, the reuse of goods, and
their recycling.
6.2. Acting locally: the role of environmental footprinting
Once a footprint is calculated for a defined population it
can be used as a planning, monitoring and educational tool
(Wackernagel and Rees, 1996; Chambers et al., 2000; Bond,
24 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

Table 3
The possible prioritisation of strategies aimed at reducing the environmental footprint of Swindon and Wiltshire
Component Typical contribution (%) Possible strategies

Built land 9.0 Adoption of sustainable construction principles

Redevelopment of unused land that could be made bioproductive
Direct energy 19.5 Adoption of energy efficiency measures
Investment in renewable energy technologies, where cost-effective
Food 21.5 Encourage use of more locally produced products, thereby reducing ‘food miles’
Support the use of allotments and private vegetable gardens
Materials and waste 37.9 Focus on recycling and composting, as well as the reuse of materials
Encourage use of materials derived from sustainable sources
Minimise embodied energy in construction and other materials
Resource-efficient manufacture and transportation of goods
Transport 12.0 Encourage more sustainable transport methods and better public transport—‘green’ transport planning
Reduce private car travel to work—car pooling, cycling, walking, and home working
Water 0.1 Improve water efficiency

2002). Footprint datasets can be employed to help model sce-
narios, and to investigate the environmental impact of different
human activities. It has certainly proved to be a valuable and
effective tool for educators: presenting complicated and detailed
statistics as a simple and visual concept. The footprint indicator
can then be used for the following purposes (see, for example,
Bond, 2002):
• as an indicator of environmental impact for lobbying decision
makers;
• to promote behaviour change at an individual level;
• to illustrate how shifting consumption to less resource inten-
sive items reduces environmental impact;
• to illustrate that global footprints can be affected by the sum
of local activities; and
• to link products to their global footprint and promote markets
for sustainably produced goods and services.
Once the impacts on the footprint have been defined, local
strategies and initiatives can be developed and prioritised. By
updating data sources, the footprint might then be used as a
monitoring tool. Changes in the footprint can be re-examined
annually or biannually. However, the role of proxy data in deter-
mining the footprint must be kept in mind. If a significant
proportion of the data employed is extracted from aggregate
data sources for energy and trade flows, then the local footprint
will be relatively insensitive to variations ‘on the ground’. The
planning function of the footprint relies on detailed analysis
of the collated results. The simplest means of prioritising the
impacting activities is to use the component breakdown of the
footprint. This is illustrated in Table 3, where possible strate-
gies for reducing the environmental footprint of Swindon and
Wiltshire are listed against the weighting of each component.
In both Swindon and Wiltshire activities of this sort are actu-
ally being given a higher priority (SSP, 2006; WWT, 2005). The
recently launched Swindon Climate Change Action Plan (SSP,
2006) drew attention to the use of carbon and environmental
footprints in pulling together a range of climate change impacts.
It advocates their utilisation to monitor the take-up of recycled
and/or traditional materials in construction, as well as improved
energy efficiency in building design and layout. This reflects
the largest of the footprint components: ‘materials and waste’,
including embodied energy. In the County of Wiltshire, the Wilt-
shire Wildlife Trust (WWT, 2004) has taken up the footprint
concept as a means of assessing environmental impacts “at all
levels from individuals to countries”. They have instigated a ‘Cli-
mate Friendly Communities’ programme in both Swindon and
Wiltshire in which communities (ranging from whole streets or
villages to towns) act together to address the issues that underpin
the environmental footprint: waste, energy, transport, and local
food. A certification scheme has been devised for successful
communities.
7. Concluding remarks
7.1. The environmental impact of urban and rural living in
the developed world
An environmental appraisal has been undertaken of two
neighbouring local authority areas in Southern England: the
Borough of Swindon and the County of Wiltshire (see the loca-
tion map presented as Fig. 4). This enabled a comparison to
be made of a largely urban area (Swindon) with that of a pre-
dominantly rural one (Wiltshire). Wiltshire was shown to have
an environmental footprint (EF) of some 2.6 million global
hectares, whereas Swindon was found to have a footprint of
just over 1.0 million global hectares. Thus, the present calcu-
lations have shown that, on a per capita basis, the footprints
of the two adjoining communities studied are roughly the same
(5.65–5.94 gha)–well above the ‘Earthshare’ of 1.80 gha in 2003
(Loh and Goldfinger, 2006). Associated biocapacity calculations
reveal large ‘ecological deficits’ in both communities; demon-
strating the unsustainable consumption and emissions pattern in
rural, as well as urban, communities. However, the correspond-
ing overshoot ratios for Swindon and Wiltshire were found to
be 10.35:1 and only 2.01:1, respectively. This suggests that the
 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28
largely rural community of Wiltshire has the greater potential to
live within its own biocapacity.
A mixed ‘compound’/‘component’ approach to the EFA
methodology has been adopted for Wiltshire and Swindon. This
approach presents the footprint in identifiable impact categories
(see Fig. 5): the built environment, direct energy, food, materials
and waste, transport, and water. They represent broad policy-
making categories. Resource flow analysis was carried out, and
significant data gaps were identified in some of the footprint
components. This included the most impacting components such
as ‘food’ and ‘materials and waste’. In order to estimate the
footprints of the two study areas, a significant proportion of the
consumption data were estimated using UK proxy figures. The
resource consumption figures were then converted into footprint
values for Swindon and Wiltshire, respectively. An uncertainty
of approximately ±11% was estimated for each footprint. This
estimation reflects the availability and reliability of data sources.
The ‘materials and waste’ component was shown to be a large
contributor to the overall uncertainty (∼±16%), which is a con-
sequence of the rather wide uncertainty band attributed to its
input consumption data. Thus, the data reported here, including
the use of proxy data where necessary, illustrates the uncertain-
ties and limitations inherent in footprint analysis.
The ‘materials and waste’ component was shown to domi-
nate both study area footprints, and was significantly larger than
the other components. It represented about 38% of each foot-
print (see Fig. 7), and was primarily a result of the embodied
energy requirements of the consumed materials and products.
This footprint component included the impact of recycling, and
significant savings had been made in terms of the goods recycled
or composted in each local authority area. ‘Energy Land’ was
identified as the major land type requirement for each footprint
(see Fig. 6). It accounted for 62% of the Wiltshire footprint, and
65% of the Swindon footprint. The breakdown of the footprint
results illustrated the impact not only of direct energy consump-
tion through fossil fuels, but also of the embodied energy that
is required for all the materials and food that are produced, pro-
cessed and transported. It is because of the generation of this
embodied energy that large amounts of equivalent forest are
needed to act as a carbon sink.
7.2. Reflections on environmental footprinting at the local
authority level
The results of the present study provide baseline footprints
that could be used as planning, monitoring, or educational tools.
It may assist the communities of Swindon and Wiltshire to assess
how they are reducing environmental burdens of different sorts
“on their patch”. The mixed ‘compound’/‘component’ approach
to EFA provides a footprint that is based around activities that
can be directly related to the material inputs and waste outputs
linked to specific communities. Each footprint component rep-
resents a broad policy category that can be analysed separately.
It is important, however, to take into account the associated
uncertainties of each footprint when putting the results in prac-
tice. Improved local footprint calculations could be achieved
by obtaining comprehensive local statistics. The accessibility
25
of local data is, on the whole, improving and local and central
government authorities are beginning to recognise the need for
such information. Typical actions needed to be taken by local
communities to reduce environmental footprints are indicated in
Table 3. In an ideal world, the aim would be to move consump-
tion and pollution patterns from those associated with linear
metabolism (see Fig. 3) to a circular one.
‘Biodiversity Land’ was found to account for only some 14%
of the environmental footprint of Swindon and Wiltshire (see
Fig. 5). The Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987) argued that
at least 12% of global biocapacity should be preserved for this
purpose. However, this may be insufficient to secure biodiversity
(Chambers et al., 2000), and some believe that as much as 50%
is needed to maintain a sustainable future for wildlife. In both
Swindon and Wiltshire local efforts have been made to protect
biodiversity via partnerships between local authorities, nature
conservation organisations, and the business community, led by
the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust. Wildlife priorities differ between
the two communities, but ‘Biodiversity Action Plans’ (BAPs)
have been put in place with the aim of setting out a vision of the
way in which local species can be protected in the long-term.
They provide information on particular habitats, and identify
key issues that need to be addressed.
Experience in trying to use the environmental footprint at a
local level by the staff of the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, in con-
nection with their ‘Climate Friendly Communities’ Programme,
suggested that it was quite a complex idea for the general pub-
lic to grasp. There has been a recent tendency in the UK to
adopt what is sometimes called the ‘carbon footprint’ as an
alternative indicator of sustainability. But the property that is
often used is actually a ‘carbon weight’ not a footprint: it has
units of kilograms or tonnes of carbon per person or activity,
rather than spatial ones. Giving this parameter an inappropri-
ate name and units will only cause greater confusion amongst
both professionals and the general public. It could be con-
verted to spatial units (hectares or metres squared) in much
the same way as is done for the ‘Energy Land’ element of
the environmental footprint analysed here; thereby reflecting
the amount of new forests (anywhere in the world) needed to
absorb carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. However,
even a ‘true’ carbon footprint is only likely to embrace around
60% of the environmental burdens attributable to a given com-
munity. Hammond (2006) noted that fossil fuel consumption
typically accounts for between 33% and 60% of national envi-
ronmental footprints for low-income and high-income countries,
respectively.
The role of environmental footprinting has not gone without
challenge. The uncertainties and deficiencies of using footprints
(and related parameters) as, albeit partial, sustainability indica-
tors include problems associated with boundary definitions, data
gathering, and the basis for weighing the various consumption
and associated impacts (Doughty and Hammond, 1997, 2004).
Its adoption as a tool for decision-making in a policy or plan-
ning context depends on an understanding of these assumptions
and uncertainties. The global and national footprint results peri-
odically reported in the WWF Living Planet Report (Loh and
Goldfinger, 2006) have been viewed by some (see the discussion
26 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

in Hammond, 2006) as amounting to something of a ‘dooms- Appendix A. Uncertainty analysis of environmental

day’ scenario in the tradition of Thomas Malthus’ population footprints
projections in the 19th Century and the classic Limits to Growth
study in 1970s. Criticisms have also been made concerning the The uncertainties in EFA are dependent on the accuracy of
dominant influence of fossil fuels in footprint calculations. It the data collected. Some of the data represents a proxy adopted
may underestimate the potential of a switch to renewable energy from national resource consumption statistics, and hence errors
technologies in lowering the planetary footprint (Hammond, are inevitably present in EF calculations. A critical aspect of the
2006). Indeed ‘technological optimists’ typically argue that present study was the collection of area-specific data with the
new technology will enable humanity to overcome biophysical assistance of local authority and other local organisations, such
limits (Costanza, 2000), thereby making development sustain- as the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust. The uncertainties in the footprints
able. Recently McManus and Haughton (2006) have offered of each study area were calculated using a ‘standard’ method
what they term a ‘sympathetic critique’ of both the theory and developed originally by Kline and McClintock (1953) for single-
practice of environmental footprinting. They believe that, if sample experiments in engineering research. A more accessible
poorly interpreted, it can mislead policy makers. Planners and description of the technique is given by Holman (2001). Here
others thinking of adopting the approach should therefore be estimates of uncertainties were based on a careful assessment
aware of its strengths and weaknesses; like those noted here. of errors in the various primary and secondary (proxy) sources.
But even McManus and Haughton acknowledge that it has The result of an experiment or study can be expressed using a
great “visual and commonsense appeal”. In addition, it can be function of the variables:
employed to communicate the fact that environmental impacts
R = R(X1 , X2 , X3 , . . . , Xn )
extend beyond the urban domain into its bioregion or rural hin-
terland (Doughty and Hammond, 1997, 2004; McManus and If Wr is the uncertainty in the final result (footprint or bioca-
Haughton, 2006). In reality, the environmental burdens caused pacity), and W1 , W2 , W3 ,. . ., Wn are the uncertainties in the
by urban and rural living in developed countries feedback onto individual variables, then the uncertainty in the result is given
each other. Cities and towns require resources from beyond by (Kline and McClintock, 1953; Holman, 2001):
their geographic boundaries, but rural communities also take  2  2  2 1/2
advantage of the economic, educational, employment, health ∂R ∂R ∂R
Wr = W1 + W2 + · · · + Wn
care, and leisure facilities typically provided in an urban setting. ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂xn
The notion of sustainability can only realistically be applied
in a broad geophysical context, and consequently land use In the present footprint study, the primary data consisted of
planning might more appropriately be focussed on a regional resource consumption estimates, via material flow accounting,
scale. used to determine each component of the footprint. The function
employed to calculate each footprint can be expressed in terms
of the different components, viz:
Acknowledgements environmental footprint
Rebecca Eaton wishes to thank the Gwent County Coun- = built land + direct energy land + food land
cil and the Higher Education Funding Council for England + materials and waste land + transport land + water area
(HEFCE) for financial support for her contribution to the
present study. Geoffrey Hammond is Professor of Mechanical To simplify the calculations, the uncertainty for each component
Engineering and Director of the International Centre for the was initially estimated by considering them separately. These
Environment (ICE) at the University of Bath. His research on uncertainties were then used to determine to total uncertainty
various aspects of energy, environment and sustainable devel- in the footprint. Tables A1 and A2 illustrate the uncertainties
opment is currently supported via UK research grants awarded
by the Carbon Trust, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Table A1
Research Council (EPSRC), and the UK Energy Research Cen- Uncertainty in the environmental footprint (EF) of Swindon
tre. Outside the University, he is a member of the Swindon Components Footprint (gha) Uncertainty (%) Uncertainty (gha)
Strategic Partnership’s Overview and Monitoring Group, and
Direct energy 223,100 4.3 9,580
a Trustee and a Council Member of the Wiltshire Wildlife Transport 110,400 10.6 11,670
Trust (WWT). Jane Laurie was Head of Sustainable Commu- Food 229,300 9.4 21,560
nities at the WWT when the present study was undertaken, Materials and waste 383,700 16.3 62,650
and is now ‘Climate Change Champion’ for the South West Water 1,300 10.5 140
Built land 76,500 10.0 7,650
Wildlife Trusts. Helpful comments on an earlier draft of this
paper were provided by two of the authors’ Bath colleagues: Total 1,024,300 113,250
Gemma Cranston and Dr Marcelle McManus. All the authors
Total Footprint 1,024,300
wish to acknowledge the care with which Gill Green (Univer- Uncertainty (gha) 113,250
sity of Bath) prepared the figures. The authors’ names appear Uncertainty (%) 11.1
alphabetically.
 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28 27

Table A2 Doughty, M.R.C., Hammond, G.P., 1997. The use of environmental footprints
Uncertainty in the environmental footprint (EF) of Wiltshire to evaluate the sustainability of cities. In: Russell, N., Byron, H., Dixon,
A., Richardson, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth IRNES Conference:
Components Footprint (gha) Uncertainty (%) Uncertainty (gha)
Technology, the Environment and Us. Imperial College, London, pp. 170–
Direct energy 443,500 3.7 16,500 176.
Transport 340,800 10.7 36,460 Doughty, M.R.C., Hammond, G.P., 2003. Cities and sustainability. In: Win-
Food 551,900 9.4 51,880 nett, A.B. (Ed.), Towards a Collaborative Environment Research Agenda.
Materials and waste 964,200 16.3 157,430 Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 81–105.
Water 3,200 10.5 340 Doughty, M.R.C., Hammond, G.P., 2004. Sustainability and the built envi-
Built land 290,000 10.0 29,000 ronment at and beyond the city scale. Build. Environ. 39, 223–
1233.
Total 2,593,600 291,610
Ehrlich, P., 1968. The Population Bomb. Ballantine, New York.
Ekins, P., Cooper, I., 1993. Cities and Sustainability, Clean Technology Unit.
Total footprint 2,593,600
UK Research Councils, Swindon.
Uncertainty (gha) 291,610
Everard, M., 1999. Towards sustainable development of still water resources.
Uncertainty (%) 11.2
Hydrobiologia 395/396, 29–38.
1995. Friends of the Earth Europe (FOE), 1995. Towards Sustainable Europe.
FOE, Brussels.
for each component for the footprint of Swindon and Wiltshire, Girardet, H., 1992. The Gaia Atlas of Cities: New Directions for Sustainable
respectively. In addition, these uncertainties were converted into Urban Living. Gaia Books, London.
percentage values for each component. The total uncertainty for Girardet, H., 1999. Creating Sustainable Cities. Green Books/The Schumacher
Society, Totnes.
each study area was obtained by summing the uncertainties for Graedel, T.E., Klee, R.J., 2002. Getting serious about sustainability. Environ.
each component. The total uncertainty (in hectares) that could Sci. Technol. 36 (4), 523–529.
be presented as a proportion of the overall footprint: Hall, P., 1998. Cities in Civilisation. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.
Hammond, G.P., 2000. Energy, environment and sustainable development: a
EF Uncertainty% UK perspective. Trans. IChemE Part B: Process Safety Environ. Protect. 78,
 304–323.
W
= Hammond, G.P., 2004. Engineering sustainability: thermodynamics, energy sys-
EF tems, and the environment. Int. J. Energy Res. 28, 613–639.
WE + W T + W F + W P + W W + W B Hammond, G.P., 2006. ‘People, planet and prosperity’: the determi-
= nants of humanity’s environmental footprint. Nat. Resourc. Forum 30,
EF 27–36.
This process led to an estimate of the uncertainty for each study Haughton, G., Hunter, C., 1994. Sustainable Cities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers,
London.
area of approximately ±11% (see Tables A1 and A2).
Holman, J.P., 2001. Experimental Methods for Engineers, 7th ed. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
References IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1991. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable
Living. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2005. One Jones, P., Flint, D., 2005. Building a Future for Wales. Welsh School of Archi-
Future—Different Paths, TSO, London [a shared framework for sustainable tecture, Cardiff.
development jointly produced by the UK Government and the Devolved Kline, S.J., McClintock, F.A., 1953. Describing uncertainties in single-sample
Administrations]. experiments. Mech. Eng., 3–8.
Antrop, M., 2006. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Loh, J., Goldfinger, S. (Eds.), 2006. Living Planet Report. WWF, Gland, Switzer-
Landsc. Urban Plan. 75, 187–197. land.
Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., Clift, R., 2004. Sustainable Development in Practice: Office of National Statistics (ONS), 2004. Survey of Personal Incomes: Income
Case Studies for Engineers and Scientists. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Tax by County and Region 2002–2003. ONS, London.
Bond, S., 2002. Ecological Footprints: A Guide for Local Authorities. WWF- McManus, P., Haughton, G., 2006. Planning with ecological footprints: a sym-
UK, Surrey. pathetic critique of theory and practice. Environ. Urban. 18 (1), 113–
Borgstrom, G., 1972. The Hungry Planet: The Modern World at the Edge of 127.
Famine, 2nd ed. Macmillan, New York. Parkin, S., 2000. Sustainable development: the concept and the practical chal-
Broman, G., Holmberg, J., Robèrt, K.-H., 2000. Simplicity without reduction: lenge. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering
thinking upstream towards the sustainable society. Interfaces 30, 13–25. 138, pp. 3–8.
Chambers, N., Child, R., Jenkin, N., Lewis, K., Vergoulas, G., Whiteley, Porritt, J., 2000. Playing Safe: Science and the Environment. Thames & Hudson,
M., 2005. Stepping Forward: A Resource Flow and Ecological Footprint London.
Analysis of the South West of England, BFF, Oxford. [Available online - Rees, W., 1997. Is ‘sustainable city’ an oxymoron? Local Environ. 2 (3),
http://www.steppingforward.org.uk]. 303–310.
Chambers, N., Simmons, C., Wackernagel, M., 2000. Sharing Natures Interest: Rees, W., Wackernagel, M., 1996. Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot
Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability. Earthscan Publica- be sustainable—and why they are the key to sustainability. Environ. Impact
tions, London. Assess. Rev. 16, 223–248.
Clift, R., 1995. The challenge for manufacturing. In: McQuaid, J. (Ed.), Engi- Renn, O., Goble, R., Kastenholz, H., 1998. How to apply the concept of sustain-
neering for Sustainable Development. Royal Academy of Engineering ability to a region. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 58, 63–81.
London, pp. 82–87. Rogers, R., 1997. Cities for a Small Planet. Faber and Faber, London.
Costanza, R. (Ed.), 2000. Forum: the ecological footprint. Ecol. Econ. 32, Satterswaite, D., 1997. Sustainable cities or cities that contribute to sustainable
341–394. development? Urban Stud. 34 (10), 1667–1691.
Day, A.K., Hammond, G.P., 1996. Sustainable cities, International Centre for Simmons, C., Lewis, K., Barrett, J., 2000. Two feet—two approaches:
the Environment Seminar Series: ‘Towards an Environmental Research a component-based model of ecological footprinting. Ecol. Econ. 32,
Agenda’, University of Bath (unpublished), 18 June. 375–380.
28 R.L. Eaton et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 13–28

Swindon Strategic Partnership (SSP), 2006. A Climate Change Action Plan for
Swindon Borough 2006–2010. Swindon Borough Council, Swindon.
Upham, P., 2000. Scientific consensus on sustainability: the case of the natural
step. Sustain. Dev. 8, 180–190.
Urban Task Force, 1999. Towards an Urban Renaissance. E. & F.N. Spon,
London.
Wackernagel, M., 1998. The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile. Local
Environ. 3 (1), 7–25.
Wackernagel, M., Rees, W., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint. New Society,
Philadelphia.
Wolman, A., 1965. The metabolism of cities. Sci. American 213, 179–190.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987. Our
Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wiltshire Wildlife Trust (WWT), 2004. Strategic Plan 2005–2010. WWT,
Devizes.