Tải bản đầy đủ

Ecological footprint and the wealth of people from socioecological point of view

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

KERAIA VINCE MATEO GERONIMO

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND THE NATURAL WEALTH
OF PEOPLE FROM PALEMBANG, INDONESIA
FROM SOCIOECOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW

BACHELOR THESIS
Study Mode : Full- time
Major

: Bachelor in Environmental Science and
Management

Faculty

: International Program Office

Batch


: 2012-2016

Thai Nguyen, 2017
i


Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry
Degree Program

Bachelor in Environmental Science and Management

Student Name

Keraia Vince Mateo Geronimo

Student ID

DTN1353110556

Thesis Title

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND THE WEALTH OF
PEOPLE FROM SOCIOECOLOGICAL POINT OF
VIEW

Supervisors

Arinafril Naalim, P.hD.
Duong Van Thao, P.hD.

Abstract
The depletion of earth’s natural resources and the demand of the increasing population
is certainly one of the biggest problems that humans are facing nowadays. Humans are
using 1.6 planets for all the resources used and absorbing waste which means it take
one year and six months for the earth to regenerate the resources consumed in a year.
But the good news is that humans are gifted with the potential for self-awareness and
intelligent choice, and knowing our circumstances in an invitation to change. Thus, to
achieve sustainability, a special tool can be used. This tool is designed to calculate the
ecological footprint of an individual or a certain place. However, this study focused on


the ecological footprint of the people from Palembang, Indonesia. An ecological
footprint test was conducted and the scores were analyzed to find out if educational
attainment is significant on how people behave towards the nature. Furthermore, the
results have shown that the use of natural resources is not in line with educational level
of the respondents. This explained that educational attainment did not affect the

ii


ecological footprint of an individual.

Number of pages

Ecological Footprint, Ecological Footprint Analysis,
Sustainability, Education
Forty-three (43) pages

Date of Submission

April, 2017

Keywords:

iii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I declare my highest praise and my deepest gratitude to
our FATHER GOD for the overwhelming love; for making me as strong as I can
be; for all the blessing and for guiding me to be a better person.
To my parents, Roumel and Maribel Geronimo, and my siblings, Kim and
Keanah, for the unconditional love; for the help and support; and for being my
strength and inspiration.
To my grandmother, my most precious Lola During, for all the prayers, for
the endless love and care; and for being one of my greatest inspiration.
My sincerest thanks to my adviser, Dr. Arinafril Naalim and the University
of Sriwijaya for the warm welcome and accommodation during our stay in
Palembang, Indonesia. Also to Mr. Muhammad Abduh for helping me in
collecting my data. And to all my lovely Indonesian friends especially Rotua,
Naufal and Umiya for being nice and for all the help.
To the Advanced Education Program, Thai Nguyen University of
Agriculture and Forestry and the University of California, Davis together with
Dr. Duong Van Thao and the staffs for the great opportunity that was given to us.
To my classmates, K44 AEP, for the awesome moments that we spent inside
and outside the class. And to our seniors from K42 and K43 for being a good role
model to all of us.

iv


To all the international and Filipino students that serves as my second family
in Vietnam especially Ate Jimlea, Jose, Ye, Colleene, Alex, Joshua, and Kuya
Ezekiel for being such a great friend and for the endless motivation.
And lastly, to all my friends back home for always giving me smiles; for
motivating and inspiring me; for making me happy and keeping in touch.
I am so blessed to have you all with me in this wonderful journey. My
sincerest and deepest thanks.

The Researcher,
Keraia Vince M. Geronimo

v


Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures.......................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. ix
Part I. Introduction...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Research Rationale ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research’s Objectives .......................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research Questions .............................................................................................. 3
1.4 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 3
1.5 Hypothesis ............................................................................................................. 4
1.5.1 Null Hypothesis .......................................................................................... 4
1.5.2 Alternative Hypothesis ............................................................................... 4
1.6 Scope and Limitation............................................................................................ 4
1.7 Definition of Terms .............................................................................................. 5
1.8 Assumption of the Study ...................................................................................... 5
PART II. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 6
2.1. Ecological Footprint ............................................................................................ 6
2.2 Ecological Footprint Analysis ............................................................................11
2.3 Global Ecological Footprint Problems ...............................................................14

vi


2.4 Importance of Educational Level for Humanity ................................................16
PART III. METHODS.............................................................................................. 19
3.1 Research Location ...............................................................................................19
3.2 Materials ...............................................................................................................19
3.3 Research Design ..................................................................................................19
3.4 Sampling Technique ............................................................................................19
3.5 Data Collection ....................................................................................................20
3.6 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................20
3.6.1 Ecological Footprint Test Scoring ............................................................ 21
PART IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................. 23
PART V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 28
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 31

vii


List of Figures
Figure 1. Components of Ecological Footprint .......................................................... 6
Figure 2. Per-person Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of world regions in 2002.
.................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Growing Global Footprint ......................................................................... 15
Figure 4. Ecological Footprint Comparison ............................................................. 25
Figure 5. Correspondence Analysis .......................................................................... 26

viii


List of Tables
Table 1. Distribution of Respondents Across Ranges of Ecological Footprint Score
.................................................................................................................................. 24
Table 2. Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity of Indonesia in 2007 ........................ 9

ix


Part I. Introduction
1.1.

Research Rationale
As of now the world is facing environmental issues particularly affecting our

ecosystem which would not be ignored. It is a fact that as the population increases;
the consumption of the natural wealth also increases with it. The world’s economy
ultimately relied on goods and services derived from the natural resources. The
natural wealth provides human’s essential needs to support our living requirements
(e.g. food, water, shelter, etc.). By consuming these goods and services, people have
a huge impact on earth, particularly in our day to day living. But since nature has
the ability to regenerate and resupply our needs, it can support human demand as
long as the demand stays within the regenerative capacity of the biosphere. This
relationship between human beings and the ecosystem makes humans to be
responsible of the sudden changes. In many parts of the world, increased human
ecological burden poses a problem with our natural resources. Yet not everyone is
aware of the problem that comes with the over-consumption of the natural
resources. The question is how can we determine if we are consuming too much or
if our supply is enough for sustaining our needs?
Rees and Wackernagel (Columbia, 1992) invented a special tool to measure
the human’s impact on earth and to provide evidence of the impacts of
consumption. The footprint demonstrates how much “nature” is available for certain
populations and the size of the footprint depends on the natural resources consumed
by the population based on their choice of lifestyle, income and technology. The

1


higher the demand of a society, the higher natural resources needed, thus, this
situation resulted on higher ecological footprint. Furthermore, if the ecological
footprint value is compared to its bio-capacity (environmental capacity to supply
natural resources) level, sustainability of a region can be identified. By that, future
mitigation or policies can be implemented.
Palembang is the second-largest city in the Island of Sumatra and the capital
city of South Sumatra Province in Indonesia. The city has been developing
economically through the years with an increasing population. However, due to
recent environmental changes that we are experiencing, it is important to balance
economic and environmental status and for the community to be aware of their
surroundings. With the use of ecological footprint, we can assess our pressure on
planet, determine and manage the ecological assets more wisely and take personal
and collective actions. It can be a good opportunity for the society to gain
knowledge and change their life styles to have a more balanced relationship
between nature and economy.
Moreover, this paper examined if the educational level of the respondents
has a relationship with the use of natural resources. Thus, education affected the
way people think and behave towards the environment. Education is one of the most
important means in building a sustainable environment.

2


1.2.

Research’s Objectives

General Objective
This study aimed to determine the ecological footprint and wealth in a
socioecological point of view of the people from Palembang, South Sumatra
Indonesia.
Specific Objectives
The study also aims the following:
 To know people’s behavior towards the environment and natural resources.
 To provide information and recommendations in accordance to the results of
the study.
 To enlighten the readers regarding the topic.
1.3.

Research Questions
The following are the questions to be answered by the end of the research.

 What is the ecological footprint of the people from Palembang, South
Sumatra, Indonesia?
 Does the condition of the people affect their ecological footprint?
 How can ecological footprint analysis help in achieving a sustainable living?
 Why is it important to know one’s ecological footprint?
1.4.

Significance of the Study
The result of this study will bring benefits; firstly, to the author for it will be

a fulfillment and a great source of knowledge. It can also bring knowledge to the
3


readers and can be used as a baseline reference for the future researchers. But most
importantly, this study could provide information about ecological footprint and
encourage the people to change environmental behavior towards the nature and to
use the natural resources wisely and carefully for a sustainable environment and for
the future generation.
1.5. Hypothesis
1.5.1. Null Hypothesis
The use of natural resources is in line with education level.
1.5.2. Alternative Hypothesis
The use of natural resources is not in line with educational level.
1.6. Scope and Limitations
The scope of this study focused on the ecological footprint and wealth of the
people from Palembang.
However, there is a limited communication with the respondents. Not all the
respondents can speak English so the researcher was not able to do the interview
herself and could not ask more than what is written on the translated questionnaire.
The honesty of the respondents in answering the questions asked by the
researcher or answered through the questionnaire is not assured though the
researcher cannot control the way the respondents want to answer.

4


1.7. Definition of Terms
The following are defined to provide a clearer understanding on the
terminologies used in the study:
Ecological footprint. The estimated impact of human activities in terms of
waste and resource consumption.
Nature. Provides a steady supply of human’s basic requirements in life and
also absorbs the waste and provides life support services.
Education. The process of facilitating learning or the achievement of
knowledge, skills, values, beliefs and habits.
Educational Level. It pertains to the education attained by the respondents.
Sustainability. The possibility of all people living rewarding lives within the
means of nature.
1.8. Assumption of the Study
The researcher assumes that the educational level of the respondents has a
significant relationship with their ecological footprint.

5


PART II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Ecological Footprint
Wackernagel and Rees (1996) defined ecological footprint as the estimated
impacts of human activities in terms of the waste and resource consumption of a
human population or economy associated with the existing resources. The
Ecological Footprint approach is intended to show the dependency of human being
to their environment and also to reserve the natural resources for future mankind
(Fallis, 2013). They explained further that if a small society or city were to be
isolated from the rest of the world through a glass dome, the resources within the
city, trapped together with the population would eventually be scarce and this
scarcity will eventually be a threat to our survival.

Figure 1. Components of Ecological Footprint
(Source: Global Footprint Network)
6


Figure 1 demonstrates the components of ecological footprint. Ecological
Footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and sea area an
individual, a region, or a human activity requires producing the resources it
consumes and absorbing the carbon dioxide emissions, and compares this
measurement to how much land and sea area is available. Biologically productive
land and sea includes area that supports human demand for food, fiber, timber,
energy and space for infrastructure and absorbs the carbon dioxide emissions from
the human economy. Biologically productive areas include cropland, forest and
fishing grounds that are able to provide ecological resources or services used by
humans.

Figure 2. Per-person Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of world regions in
2002.
Based on the study “Shrink and share: humanity’s present and future
Ecological Footprint” they presented the per-person ecological footprint and bio
7


capacity of world regions in year 2002.

The footprint and bio capacity story

becomes considerably more varied at the level of regions as shown in figure 2.
Citizens from North America and Western Europe, for example, live at levels of
ecological demand that exceed the biocapacity available within those geographical
areas. If everyone in the world would live the same with most of the North
American or Western European, global society would overshoot the planet’s
biocapacity three to five fold. Eastern Europe lives within the biocapacity available
in that region, but with a level of consumption that cannot be sustainably adopted at
a global scale. The Asia-Pacific region lives beyond the biocapacity available
within its borders, but with an Ecological Footprint that would not cause overshoot
if extended globally. Residents of Africa, on average, use less than the biocapacity
available per person either regionally or globally (Kitzes et al., 2008).
However, from the result of the “Ecological Footprint of Indonesia” table 1
was presented to show the calculation of the components of ecological footprint and
biocapacity of Indonesia.

8


9

(Source: Ministry of Public Works, Indonesia)

Table 1. Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity of Indonesia in 2007


The table presents that there are surplus on land carrying capacity (the difference
between biocapacity and ecological footprint) of grazing land, forest land, and
fishing grounds. The highest component for the land carrying capacity is fishing
grounds (0.26 gha/person). High biocapacity level for fishing ground is mainly due
to the location of most regions in Indonesia are on the coastlines with high potential
for fishing grounds with high biodiversity of the marine‐ ecology. For the cropland
components the ratio between the ecological footprint value and its biocapacity
value are similar, that is 0.35 gha/person. This shows that the demand from the
population towards the agricultural product and the environmental capacity as the
supplier of agricultural product are still aligned. The carrying capacity for forest
land supplier is the second highest in Indonesia (right after the fishing grounds) that
is 0.16 gha/person. Forest land in Indonesia has two very opposite functions, as a
location to preserve the environment and the ecosystem, and part of the forest land
is also used for other activities, such as plantation, agriculture, housing and mining.
This would potentially lower the carrying capacity of forest land. Nevertheless, the
ratio between the biocapacity and ecological footprint value for this component is
still high, compared to the other components. So it is safe to say, that in utilizing the
forest land, Indonesian still does prioritize the achievement of sustainability. In
total, it is concluded that the ecological footprint of Indonesia is still sustainable
because the biocapacity of the country is still in reserve condition.

10


2.2 Ecological Footprint Analysis
Ecological Footprint Analysis is compared to the ecological footprint with
available bio capacity. It compares biological capacity used against what is
available on a renewable basis. When humanity’s footprint is smaller than global
bio capacity it is considered sustainable. When it is larger, it is reported to be
engaging ecological overshoot or running a negative ecological balance (Venetoulis
& Talberth, 2008). The technique was designed both analytical and educational. It is
not only to assess sustainability of human activities but also as an effective tool in
building public awareness and assisting decision-making (Wackernagel & Rees,
1996).
They also stated that Ecological Footprint is not about “how bad things are”
rather it is about how dependent humans are to nature and the things we can do to
secure the capacity of our Earth to support humans now and in the future. Although
it may seem painful but the EF approach acknowledges that humanity is facing
difficult challenges, makes them apparent, and leads action towards sustainable
living. However, sustainability can be achieved if the use of natural resources and
environment are still considering the carrying capacity and the capacity of the
environment. By then and only then the harmony between the natural and artificial
environment can be achieved (Fallis, 2013).
Furthermore, Ecological Footprint accounting is based on six fundamental
assumptions (Wackernagel et al. 2002):

11


 The majority of the resources people consume and the wastes they generate
can be tracked.
 Most of these resource and waste flows can be measured in terms of the
biologically productive area necessary to maintain flows. Resource and
waste flows that cannot be measured are excluded from the assessment,
leading to a systematic underestimate of humanity’s true Ecological
Footprint.
 By weighting each area in proportion to its bioproductivity, different types of
areas can be converted into the common unit of global hectares, hectares
with world average bioproductivity.
 Because a single global hectare represents a single use, and all global
hectares in any single year represent the same amount of bioproductivity,
they can add up to obtain an aggregate indicator of ecological footprint or
biocapacity.
 Human demand, expressed as the Ecological Footprint, can be directly
compared to nature’s supply, biocapacity, when both are expressed in global
hectares.
 Area demanded can exceed area supplied if demand on an ecosystem
exceeds that ecosystems regenerative capacity (e.g., humans can temporarily
demand more biocapacity from forests, or fisheries, than those ecosystems
have available).
On account of the advanced knowledge on sustainable development, the
government of Indonesia took the initiative to raise the awareness on environmental
12


issues like global warming and climate change. The environmental issues made
them do the action to prevent further damage to the environment. The method used
in the study of “Ecological Footprint of Indonesia” is the method developed by the
Global Footprint Network (GFN, USA) written in the Guidebook to the National
Footprint Accounts 2008 (Fallis, 2013). However, although the study experienced
difficulty in obtaining the data, the methods provided by GFN is perfectly
compatible with the condition of Indonesia. The result shows that the biocapacity of
Indonesia is still in reserved condition. After knowing the condition policy
implementation could be formulated and further recommendations were presented.
So far, EFA is a largely heuristic tool that has been widely used in
sustainability analyses through years (Venetoulis & Talberth, 2008) but this study
used the simpler way of analyzing ecological footprint which is using ecological
footprint quiz that focus on the personal footprint of the respondents. And millions
of people each year take the popular ‘‘footprint quiz’’ to understand how their
consumption choices can be made more sustainable. Thus, according to Seyfang
(2003) the ecological footprint is a ‘‘touchstone for understanding the obligations of
ecological citizens as a justice based account of how we should live’’. Likewise,
Recide (2015), a student researcher also used ecological footprint quiz as one of her
tool to determine the role of emotion in developing a pro-environmental behavior
with the influence of environmental changes. She conducted an EF test as one of her
method. As a result of her study it showed that emotion significantly affects the
willingness of the participants to be engaged to a pro-environmental behavior.

13


2.3 Global Ecological Footprint Problems
As our world is a closed system, which means that no resources comes in and
out of the planet, the earth’s capacity to support life is very limited; ecological
interaction (e.g. plant and animals) determines the capacity of nature to recycle the
necessary requirement for promoting a sustainable ecology for the next generation.
The ecological footprint of a city is proportional to both population and the per
capita resources consumption, thus computing the ecological footprint of a study
population would determine how much area of land would be required if every
society would follow the same lavish actions (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996).
According to the latest report from the WWF (2014), for the last 50-60 years,
humanity has already exceeded the resource demand that our planet can provide, it
was said that we would need another 1.5 earth in order to replenish and provide the
ecological services we are currently using. Carbon from burning fossil fuel has been
a dominating factor in human's ecological footprint for more than half a century and
continues to an upward trend. For the last 50-60 years, carbon footprint rose from
36% (1960s) to 53% (2010s).

14


Figure 3. Growing Global Footprint
The advancement of technology ,especially in agriculture, humans are a now
able to harvest more crops per hectare affecting the growth of human population
from estimated 3.1 billion (1960) to about 7 billion (2010), and rising, reducing the
available bio capacity that the planet can provide, increasing our chances in facing
soil degradation, water scarcity and increased energy production. By 2010, the
ecological footprint has reached 18.1 billion gha more than the 12 billion gha bio
capacity of our planet (Figure 3) (WWF Living Planet Report 2014).
The problem of the effects of our ecological footprint is a global problem,
not only the developing countries but also those developed one; the United States,
being a major player in the consumption of resources, also faces the same problem.
It was determined that every American would require an estimated area of 6 acres
per individual and 5 acres for each European. For both countries/ continent, Europe
is in dire deficit because its land area is small compared to the U.S. (Bazan, 1997).

15


Conventional economical practices based on monetary measures to alleviate
poverty contributes to the unsustanability problem we are experiencing, causing the
rich benefit to the act while depreciates the poor to the benefits (Wackernagel ,
2010). An example happened in the Philippines, where the government during the
1960s-1980s focused their attention on the impending economic growth of the
country but neglected to consider the effects of the sudden economic uplift of the
country until the effects has already felt by the country (Puno, 2003).
Now the common challenge that we are facing is to achieve higher levels of
social and economic development while reducing poverty and the degradation of
natural capital and ecosystem services that underpin livelihoods and the natural
environment. Strategies are needed that resulted in more sustainable use of bio
capacity and greater efficiency in resource use (NI, 2012).
2.4 Importance of Educational Level for Humanity
Human plays an important role towards the environmental issues that we are
facing nowadays. But the good news is, as Wackernagel & Rees quoted, “humans
are gifted with the potential for self-awareness and intelligent choice, and knowing
our circumstances is an invitation to change.” According to Wackernagel & Rees
people possess to show different behaviors because they have different ways of
thinking. Thus, higher education bear a profound, moral responsibility to increase
the awareness, knowledge, skills, and values needed to create a just and sustainable
future (Cortese, 2003). Venkatraja (2011) stated that education is one of the most
important means to develop personal endowments, build abilities, overcome
constraints and in the process, enlarge available set of opportunities and choices for
16


Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay

×