In order to validate LandSHIFT.JR, three different validation methods were applied: (1) ROC analysis [43], (2) map comparison using *κ* and *κsim* as performance measures [42, 60], and (3) a comparison of the quantity of simulated land-use changes with observed land-use changes. The results for the ROC analysis (AUC = 0.81 for METRO, AUC = 0.84 for AGRO, and AUC = 0.83 for GRAZE) indicate that the suitability assessment in LandSHIFT.JR explains the location of change to a high degree. The validation results for the map comparison are at the lower range of values reported for land-use models, with 0.6 and 0.12 for *κ* and *κsim* (0.72 and 0.22 without rangeland), respectively. Bearing in mind that the modeling approach of LandSHIFT.JR does not include a calibration step (e.g. [50, 65]), but is entirely based on parsimonious assumptions and objective methods, we consider these values as acceptable. The comparison of observed and simulated land-use changes shows an almost perfect agreement for PA. Discrepancies resulting for Israel and Jordan might partly be induced by inconsistencies in the reported values. Based on the validation results, we consider LandSHIFT.JR suitable for the simulation of the location and quantity of land-use changes in the Jordan River region.

As shown for the application example, LandSHIFT.JR implements modules for the four land-use activities infrastructure and housing, irrigated crop production, rainfed crop production, and livestock grazing. For each land-use activity, besides the dominant land-use types also an indicator of land-use intensity is allocated (population density, irrigated or rainfed crop production amount, stocking density). Hence, the model concept implemented in LandSHIFT.JR considers not only land-use patterns, but also the corresponding land-use intensities. This makes LandSHIFT.JR land-use simulation results suitable for applications focusing on natural resource management and environmental impact assessment [24, 39].

We see a potential for improvement regarding the validation process. The spatially explicit validation of rangeland, net irrigation water requirements, and the separate validation of irrigated and rainfed cropland was limited by insufficient data availability. This will be caught up for, once suitable datasets are available. We encounter this validation issues by choosing a straightforward modeling approach, based on logical assumptions and renunciation of model calibration and consider this approach as second best to data.

In addition to extensive sensitivity and uncertainty analyses to improve the scientific knowledge and understanding of land-use systems in the Jordan River region, we see a strong potential for future studies on the relationship between irrigation water supply (including treated wastewater), net irrigation water requirements, and soil sensitivity towards the irrigation with treated wastewater [47]. For this purpose, additional GEPIC simulations for other crop types besides wheat would be required in order to be able to assess the irrigation water requirements more accurately. This would allow for interesting analyses regarding the potential of using treated wastewater for irrigation purposes, under consideration of possible environmental problems associated with the use of treated wastewater for irrigation [5].

## **Acknowledgments**

24 Will-be-set-by-IN-TECH

In contrast to earlier versions of LandSHIFT.JR, the current version includes the effect of changing climate conditions on crop yields and productivity of natural vegetation, which was shown to have a strong effect on land demand in the Jordan River region [32]. The indirect effect of productivity on area demand for the different agricultural activities is included indirectly by spatially explicit simulation models (WADISCAPE and GEPIC), driven by high-resolution climate change simulations for the Jordan River region [53]. This allows the inclusion of a high level of spatial detail into the simulations of land-use and land-cover change, which is carried out on a grid with a spatial resolution of 30 arc seconds. This is of high importance in a region with such high variability in biogeographic conditions as the Jordan River region. Furthermore, it applies a consistent assessment method to the entire Jordan River region and allows the combined assessment of socio-economic and climate impact on the food production systems in the Jordan River region which is considered to be mandatory

Another striking feature of the presented modeling system is the separate module for irrigated crop production. This module allows to simulate spatial and temporal dynamics of irrigated crop production and the resulting land-use patterns and intensities [32]. The model also enables an assessment of climate dependent net irrigation water requirements simulated with the GEPIC model. Hence, the modeling system can now be used the evaluate the effect of changes in cropland extent (induced by changing climate conditions and/or demands for agricultural commodities) on the net irrigation water requirements. However, it has to be mentioned that the current LandSHIFT.JR version only evaluates the demand and no connection to water supply is implemented so far. LandSHIFT.JR considers only crop categories and does not differentiate between crop types. The net irrigation water requirements for the different crop categories were inferred from GEPIC simulations for wheat yields using a crop-specific adjustment parameter. This approach introduces some inaccuracy into the simulation and, as a result, makes the simulation results more suitable for the evaluation of changes in water requirements as compared to the absolute amounts. Furthermore, no information on conveyance efficiencies or irrigation efficiencies (e.g. drip irrigation versus sprinkler irrigation) is included, which would be required to derive the gross

In order to validate LandSHIFT.JR, three different validation methods were applied: (1) ROC analysis [43], (2) map comparison using *κ* and *κsim* as performance measures [42, 60], and (3) a comparison of the quantity of simulated land-use changes with observed land-use changes. The results for the ROC analysis (AUC = 0.81 for METRO, AUC = 0.84 for AGRO, and AUC = 0.83 for GRAZE) indicate that the suitability assessment in LandSHIFT.JR explains the location of change to a high degree. The validation results for the map comparison are at the lower range of values reported for land-use models, with 0.6 and 0.12 for *κ* and *κsim* (0.72 and 0.22 without rangeland), respectively. Bearing in mind that the modeling approach of LandSHIFT.JR does not include a calibration step (e.g. [50, 65]), but is entirely based on parsimonious assumptions and objective methods, we consider these values as acceptable. The comparison of observed and simulated land-use changes shows an almost perfect agreement for PA. Discrepancies resulting for Israel and Jordan might partly be induced by inconsistencies in the reported values. Based on the validation results, we consider LandSHIFT.JR suitable for the simulation of the location and quantity of land-use changes in

[55, 56].

irrigation water requirements.

the Jordan River region.

This study is part of the GLOWA Jordan River project financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FKZ 01LW0502). We thank Katja Geissler (Potsdam University, Research Group Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation) and Martin Köchy (Johann Heinrich von Thünen Insitut, Braunschweig) for the provision of WADISCAPE model output. Furthermore, we thank Gerhard Smiatek (IMK-IFU, Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research-Atmospheric Environmental Research) for the provision of regional climate simulation results.

## **Author details**

Jennifer Koch, Florian Wimmer, Rüdiger Schaldach, Janina Onigkeit *Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Germany*

## **9. References**

[1] Abahussain, A.A., Abdu, A.S., Al-Zubari, W.K., El-Deen, N.A. & Abdul-Raheem, M. (2002). Desertification in the Arab region: analysis of current status and trends, *Journal of Arid Environments* 51(4):521–545.

[2] Alcamo, J. (2002). Three issues for improving integrated models: uncertainty, social science, and legitimacy, *in* Gethmann, C.F. & Lingner, S. (eds.), *Integrative Modellierung zum Globalen Wandel*, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 3–14.

[18] FAO (2012). *FAO statistical database*, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

An Integrated Land-Use System Model for the Jordan River Region 113

[19] FIMA (2011). *RWDB2 River-surface water body network*, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Aquaculture Management and Conservation Service (FIMA), Rome, Italy. URL: http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/

[20] Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N. & Snyder, P.K.

[21] Friedl, M.A., McIver, D.K., Hodges, J.C.F., Zhang, X.Y., Muchoney, D., Strahler, A.H., Woodcock, C.E., Gopal, S., Schneider, A., Cooper, A., Baccini, A., Gao, F. & Schaaf, C. (2002). Global land cover mapping from MODIS: algorithms and early results, *Remote*

[22] Ghasemi, F., Jakeman, A.J. & Nix, H.A. (1995). *Salinisation of land and water resources: human causes, extent, management and case studies*, Centre for Resources and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, CAB International,

[23] Grimm, V., Berger, U., Bastiansen, F., Eliassen, S., Ginot, V., Giske, J., Goss-Custard, J., Grand, T., Heinz, S.K., Huse, G., Huth, A., Jepsen, J.U., Jørgensen, C., Mooij, W.M., Müller, B., Pe'er, G., Piou, C., Railsback, S.F., Robbins, A.M., Robbins, M.M., Rossmanith, E., Rüger, N., Strand, E., Souissi, S., Stillman, R.A., Vabø, R., Visser, U. & DeAngelis, D.L. (2006). A standard protocol for describing individual-based and

[24] Gunkel, A. & Lange, J. (2012). New insights into the natural variability of water resources in the lower Jordan River basin, *Water Resources Management* 26(4):963–980. [25] Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Bondeau, A., Plutzar, C., Gingrich, S., Lucht, W. & Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2007). Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth's terrestrial ecosystems, *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* 104(31):12942–12947. [26] Kan, I., Rapaport-Rom, M. & Shechter, M. (2007). Economic analysis of climate-change impacts on agricultural profitability and land use: the case of Israel, *Proceedings of 15th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists*

[27] Khresat, S.A., Rawajfih, Z. & Mohammad, M. (1998). Land degradation in north-western Jordan: causes and processes, *Journal of Arid Environments* 39(4):623–629. [28] Koch, J., Schaldach, R. & Köchy, M. (2008). Modeling the impacts of grazing land management on land-use change for the Jordan River region, *Global and Planetary Change*

[29] Koch, J., Schaldach, R. & Kölking, C. (2009). Modelling the impact of rangeland management strategies on (semi-)natural vegetation in Jordan, *Proceedings of the 18th World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and*

[30] Koch, J. (2010). *Modeling the impacts of land-use change on ecosystems at the regional and*

*continental scale*, Thesis, kassel university press GmbH, Kassel, Germany.

Nations, Rome, Italy. URL: http://faostat.fao.org/

(2005). Global consequences of land use, *Science* 309(5734):570–574.

agent-based models, *Ecological Modelling* 198(1-2):115–126.

*Sensing of Environment* 83(1-2):287–302.

*(EAERE)*, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 14-17.

*Simulation*, Cairns, Australia, pp. 1929–1935.

64(3-4):177–187.

Wallingford, United Kingdom.

main.home

[18] FAO (2012). *FAO statistical database*, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. URL: http://faostat.fao.org/

26 Will-be-set-by-IN-TECH

[2] Alcamo, J. (2002). Three issues for improving integrated models: uncertainty, social science, and legitimacy, *in* Gethmann, C.F. & Lingner, S. (eds.), *Integrative Modellierung*

[4] Al-Jaloudy, M.A. (2001). *FAO country profiles: Jordan. Country pasture/forage resource profiles*, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. URL: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Jordan/Jordan.htm [5] Al-Nakshabandi, G.A., Saqqar, M.M., Shatanawi, M.R., Fayyad, M. & Al-Horani, H. (1997). Some environmental problems associated with the use of treated wastewater for

[6] Anonymous (2011). *Future management of the Jordan River basin's water and land resources under climate change - a scenario analysis*, Summary report, Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel, Germany and Israel/Palestine Center for Research and

[7] Asner, G.P., Elmore, A.J., Olander, L.P., Martin, R.E. & Harris, A.T. (2004). Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change, *Annual Review of Environment and*

[8] CIESIN (2004). *Global rural-urban mapping project (GRUMP): urban/rural population grids*, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University, International Food Policy Research Institute, the World Bank & Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. URL: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/ [9] Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales, *Educational and*

[10] Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G. & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the CRITIC method, *Computers & Operations Research*

[11] Eastman, J.R., Jin, W., Kyem, P.A.K. & Toledano, J. (1995). Raster procedures for multi-criteria/multi-objective decisions, *Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing*

[12] Erb, K.-H., Gaube, V., Krausmann, F., Plutzar, C., Bondeau, A. & Haberl, H. (2007). A comprehensive global 5 min resolution land-use data set for the year 2000 consistent

[13] EXACT (1998). *Overview of Middle East water resources,* Executive Action Team, Middle East Water Data Banks Project. URL: http://exact-me.org/overview/index.

[14] Falkenmark, M. & Rockström, J. (2004). *Balancing water for humans and nature: the new*

[15] FAO (2003). *Review of world water resources by country*, Water Reports 23, Food and

[16] FAO (2007). *Gridded livestock of the world 2007*, Food and Agriculture Organization of the

[17] FAO (2012). *AQUASTAT: FAO's information system on water and agriculture*, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. URL: http://www.fao.

with national census data, *Journal of Land Use Science* 2(3):191–224.

*approach in ecohydrology*, Earthscan, London, United Kingdom.

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

org/nr/water/aquastat/main/index.stm

*zum Globalen Wandel*, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 3–14. [3] Alcamo, J. (2009). *Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis*,

irrigation in Jordan, *Agricultural Water Management* 34(1):81–94.

Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Information, Jerusalem, Israel.

*Psychological Measurement* 20(1):37–46.

*Resources* 29:261–299.

22(7):763–770.

61(5):539–547.

United Nations, Rome, Italy.

htm

	- [31] Koch, J., Onigkeit, J., Schaldach, R., Alcamo, J., Köchy, M., Wolff, H.-P. & Kan, I. (2011). Land-use change scenarios for the Jordan River region, *International Journal of Sustainable Water and Environmental Systems* 3(1):25–31.

[46] Saaty, R.W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process - what it is and how it is used,

An Integrated Land-Use System Model for the Jordan River Region 115

[47] Schacht, K., Gönster, S., Jüschke, E., Chen, Y., Tarchitzky, J., Al-Bakri, J., Al-Karablieh, E. & Marschner, B. (2011). Evaluation of soil sensitivity towards the irrigation with treated

[48] Schaldach, R. & Koch, J. (2009). Conceptual design and implementation of a model for the integrated simulation of large-scale land-use systems, *in* Athanasiadis, I.N., Mitkas, P.A., Rizzoli, A.E. & Gómez, J.M. (eds.), *Information Technologies in Environmental*

[49] Schaldach, R., Alcamo, J., Koch, J., Kölking, C., Lapola, D.M., Schüngel, J. & Priess, J.A. (2011). An integrated approach to modelling land-use change on continental and global

[50] Schweitzer, C., Priess, J.A. & Das, S. (2011). A generic framework for land-use

[51] Seré, C. & Steinfeld, H. (1996). *World livestock production systems - current status, issues and trends*, FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 127, Food and Agriculture

[52] Siebert, S., Döll, P., Feick, S., Hoogeveen, J. & Frenken, K. (2007). *Global Map of Irrigation Areas version 4.0.1*, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. [53] Smiatek, G., Kunstmann, H. & Heckl, A. (2011). High-resolution climate change simulations for the Jordan River area, *Journal of Geophysical Research* 116:D16111. [54] Solecki, W.D. & Oliveri, C. (2004). Downscaling climate change scenarios in an urban land use change model, *Journal of Environmental Management* 72(1-2):105–115. [55] Tubiello, F.N., Soussana, J.-F. & Howden, S.M. (2007). Crop and pasture response to climate change, *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of*

[56] Tubiello, F.N., Amthor, J.S., Boote, K.J., Donatelli, M., Easterling, W., Fischer, G., Gifford, R.M., Howden, M., Reilly, J. & Rosenzweig, C. (2007). Crop response to elevated CO2 and world food supply: a comment on "Food for Thought ..." by Long et al., Science

[57] Uchida, H. & Nelson, A. (2008). *Agglomeration index: towards a new measure of urban*

[58] UNEP (2007). *Global Environment Outlook - environment for development (GEO-4)*, United

[59] U.S. Geological Survey (1998) *HYDRO1k: elevation derivative database*, Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, SD, United States. URL: http://eros.usgs.gov/#/Find\_Data/Products\_and\_Data\_Available/

[60] van Vliet, J., Bregt, A.K. & Hagen-Zanker, A. (2011). Revisiting Kappa to account for change in the accuracy assessment of land-use change models, *Ecological Modelling*

[61] Verburg, P.H., de Koning, G.H.J., Kok, K., Veldkamp, A. & Bouma, J. (1999). A spatial explicit allocation procedure for modelling the pattern of land use change based upon

*Engineering*, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 425–438.

wastewater in the Jordan River region, *Water* 3(4):1092–1111.

scales, *Environmental Modelling & Software* 26(8):1041–1051.

Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

*America* 104(50):19686–19690.

gtopo30/hydro

222(8):1367–1375.

modelling, *Environmental Modelling & Software* 26(8):1052–1055.

312:1918–1921, 2006, *European Journal of Agronomy* 26(3):215–223.

Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

actual land use, *Ecological Modelling* 116(1):45–61.

*concentration*, Background Paper, World Development Report 2009.

*Mathematical Modelling* 9(3-5):161–176.

[46] Saaty, R.W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process - what it is and how it is used, *Mathematical Modelling* 9(3-5):161–176.

28 Will-be-set-by-IN-TECH

[31] Koch, J., Onigkeit, J., Schaldach, R., Alcamo, J., Köchy, M., Wolff, H.-P. & Kan, I. (2011). Land-use change scenarios for the Jordan River region, *International Journal of Sustainable*

[32] Koch, J., Wimmer, F., Schaldach, R., Onigkeit, J. & Folberth, C. (2012). Modelling the impact of climate change on irrigation area demand in the Jordan River region, *in* Seppelt, R., Voinov, A.A., Lange, S. & Bankamp. D. (eds.), *Proceedings of the 2012 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software: Managing Resources of a*

[33] Köchy, M. (2008). Effects of simulated daily precipitation patterns on annual plant

[34] Köchy, M., Mathaj, M., Jeltsch, F. & Malkinson, D. (2008). Resilience of stocking capacity to changing climate in arid to Mediterranean landscapes, *Regional Environmental Change*

[35] Lambin, E.F., Rounsevell, M.D.A. & Geist, H.J. (2000). Are agricultural land-use models able to predict changes in land-use intensity? *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment*

[36] Lauf, S., Haase, D., Hostert, P., Lakes, T. & Kleinschmit, B. (2012). Uncovering land-use dynamics driven by human decision-making - a combined model approach using cellular automata and system dynamics, *Environmental Modelling & Software*

[37] Liu, J., Williams, J.R., Zehnder, A.J.B. & Yang, H. (2007). GEPIC - modelling wheat yield and crop water productivity with high resolution on a global scale, *Agricultural Systems*

[38] Malkinson, D. & Jeltsch, F. (2007). Intraspecific facilitation: a missing process along increasing stress gradients - insights from simulated shrub populations, *Ecography*

[39] Menzel, L., Koch, J., Onigkeit, J. & Schaldach, R. (2009). Modelling the effects of land-use and land-cover change on water availability in the Jordan River region, *Advances in*

[40] Perevolotsky, A., Landau, S., Kababia, D. & Ungar, E.D. (1998). Diet selection in dairy goats grazing woody Mediterranean rangeland, *Applied Animal Behaviour Science*

[41] Pimm, S.L. & Raven, P. (2000). Biodiversity: extinction by numbers, *Nature* 403:843–845. [42] Pontius Jr., R.G. (2000). Quantification error versus location error in comparison of categorical maps, *Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing* 66(8):1011–1016. [43] Pontius Jr., R.G. & Schneider, L.C. (2001). Land-cover change model validation by an ROC method for the Ipswich watershed, Massachusetts, USA, *Agriculture, Ecosystems &*

[44] Portmann, F.T., Siebert, S. & Döll, P. (2010). MIRCA2000 - Global monthly irrigated and rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: a new high-resolution data set for agricultural

[45] Rosegrant, M.W., Meijer, S. & Cline, S.A. (2002). *International model for policy analysis of agricultural commodities and trade (IMPACT): model description*, International Food and Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, United States. URL: http://www.ifpri.

and hydrological modeling, *Global Biogeochemical Cycles* 24:GB1011.

populations depend on life stage and climatic region, *BMC Ecology* 8(4).

*Water and Environmental Systems* 3(1):25–31.

*Limited Planet (iEMSs 2012)*, Leipzig, Germany.

8(2):73–87.

82(1-3):321–331.

27-28:71–82.

94(2):478–493.

30(3):339–348.

*Geosciences* 21:73–80.

*Environment* 85(1-3):239–248.

org/themes/impact/impactmodel.pdf

57(1-2):117–131.

© 2012 Appiah-Opoku and Taylor, licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is

© 2012 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,

properly cited.

**Environmental Land Use**

Seth Appiah-Opoku and Crystal Taylor

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/48191

**1. Introduction**

a less sustainable society.

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

**and the Ecological Footprint of Higher Learning**

The lifestyles of individuals, groups, or nations can be measured by utilizing an accounting tool known as ecological footprint. Ecological footprint refers to the productive land needed to support a given population. As discussed by Wackernagel and Rees (1996), "The ecological footprint concept is simple, yet potentially comprehensive: it accounts for the flows of energy and matter to and from any defined economy and converts these into the corresponding land/water are required from nature to support these flows" (p. 3). A concept known as "overshoot" occurs if demands by humans exceed the supply of a given biologically productive area (Turner et al., 2006). Thus, a larger ecological footprint indicates

Research on ecological footprint literature links together the concepts of footprint size and economic development. In other words, footprints represent population size and consumption levels (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). Furthermore, more-developed countries contain market economies that consume greater levels of natural resources, and environmental degradation is largely driven by the growth and intensification of market economies (Jorgenson, as cited in Jorgenson & Burns, 2006). For example, Americans when compared to the rest of the world exhibit a large ecological footprint due to an intensely consumption-oriented lifestyle. The average ecological footprint for an American is 23.68 acres as compared to the world's average of 5.53 acres (Global Footprint Network, 2003). Further research suggests an economical discrepancy between those who possess large ecological footprints and those who possess small ecological footprints. Wackernagel et al. (2003) found that those contributing most to climate change through their energy intensive lifestyles will most likely be less affected by, and better shielded from, the outfalls of climate

change than poor people living on marginal land or in underserved urban conditions.

and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **Environmental Land Use and the Ecological Footprint of Higher Learning**

Seth Appiah-Opoku and Crystal Taylor

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/48191

## **1. Introduction**

30 Will-be-set-by-IN-TECH

[62] Verburg, P.H., Soepboer, W., Veldkamp, A., Limpiada, R., Espaldon, V. & Mastura, S.S.A. (2002). Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use: the CLUE-S model,

[63] Verburg, P.H., Kok, K., Pontius, R.G. & Veldkamp, A. (2006). Modeling land-use and land-cover change, *in* Lambin, E.F. & Geist, H.J. (eds.), *Land-use and land-cover change - local processes and global impacts*, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp.

[64] Vitousek, P.M. (1994). Beyond global warming: ecology and global change, *Ecology*

[65] Wang, F., Hasbani, J.-G., Wang, X. & Marceau, D.J. (2011). Identifying dominant factors for the calibration of a land-use cellular automata model using Rough Set Theory,

[66] WDPA Consortium (2004) *Word Database on Protected Areas.* URL: http://www.wdpa.

[67] Williams, J.R., Jones, C.A., Kiniry, J.R. & Spanel, D.A. (1989). The EPIC crop growth model, *Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers* 32(2):497–511. [68] Williams, J.R. (1995). The EPIC model, *in* Singh, V.P. (ed.), *Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology*, Water Resources Publications, Colorado, United States, pp. 909–1000. [69] Wu, F. (1999). GIS-based simulation as an exploratory analysis for space-time processes,

*Environmental Management* 30(3):391–405.

*Journal of Geographical Systems* 1(3):199–218.

*Computers, Environment and Urban Systems* 35(2):116–125.

117–135.

org/

75(7):1861–1876.

The lifestyles of individuals, groups, or nations can be measured by utilizing an accounting tool known as ecological footprint. Ecological footprint refers to the productive land needed to support a given population. As discussed by Wackernagel and Rees (1996), "The ecological footprint concept is simple, yet potentially comprehensive: it accounts for the flows of energy and matter to and from any defined economy and converts these into the corresponding land/water are required from nature to support these flows" (p. 3). A concept known as "overshoot" occurs if demands by humans exceed the supply of a given biologically productive area (Turner et al., 2006). Thus, a larger ecological footprint indicates a less sustainable society.

Research on ecological footprint literature links together the concepts of footprint size and economic development. In other words, footprints represent population size and consumption levels (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). Furthermore, more-developed countries contain market economies that consume greater levels of natural resources, and environmental degradation is largely driven by the growth and intensification of market economies (Jorgenson, as cited in Jorgenson & Burns, 2006). For example, Americans when compared to the rest of the world exhibit a large ecological footprint due to an intensely consumption-oriented lifestyle. The average ecological footprint for an American is 23.68 acres as compared to the world's average of 5.53 acres (Global Footprint Network, 2003). Further research suggests an economical discrepancy between those who possess large ecological footprints and those who possess small ecological footprints. Wackernagel et al. (2003) found that those contributing most to climate change through their energy intensive lifestyles will most likely be less affected by, and better shielded from, the outfalls of climate change than poor people living on marginal land or in underserved urban conditions.

© 2012 Appiah-Opoku and Taylor, licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2012 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Though ecological footprint can be used as a useful tool to help measure sustainability, some scientists have criticized ecological footprint calculations for oversimplifying ecosystem processes to numerical values. Assumptions may not be valid as the ecological footprint arbitrarily assumes both zero greenhouse gas emissions, which may not be optimal, and national boundaries, which makes extrapolating from the average ecological footprint problematic (Fiala, 2008). Despite these criticisms, the ecological footprint calculation can serve as a heuristic tool for designing and implementing plans for today as well as for tomorrow. Moreover, plans that take environmental calculations into consideration will have a far greater potential of keeping the Earth as a stakeholder in the planning process than those plans without such calculations.

Environmental Land Use and the Ecological Footprint of Higher Learning 119

Although all the above-listed universities have displayed an extraordinary commitment to green initiatives, Harvard University located in Cambridge, MA; Emory University located near Atlanta, GA; and Bates College in Lewiston, ME, were chosen for closer examination in part due to the accessibility of online information concerning green programs as well as in respect to their diverse financial strategies for integrating sustainable principles. An inventory was performed encompassing a list of similarities and differences concerning green initiatives and strategies. Moreover, this inventory can serve as a framework for other colleges to follow in the future. It is in this context that we discuss the current consumption and environmental awareness levels associated with the use of water and energy resources

The University of Alabama is in the preliminary stages of moving toward a more sustainable campus. Currently, it is difficult to track environmentally friendly progress on campus, as no study has been previously performed to establish where The University of Alabama is concerning environmental initiatives. Thus, if a snapshot of the University were established to include both consumption and environmental awareness levels, then those findings would serve as a benchmark from which the implementation of green strategies may be evaluated in terms of effectiveness. Accordingly, this research documented the environmental awareness and consumption levels of dormitory students concerning energy and water resources on The University of Alabama's campus. Moreover, findings were gathered from the dormitories Ridgecrest East and Lakeside East. The goal was to measure the current ecological footprint of dormitory students on The University of Alabama campus. Specific research objectives were to (a) determine the current state of students' environmental awareness, and (b) determine the current consumption levels in terms of

A case study approach was utilized during this research. According to Theodorson and Theodorson (as cited in Punch, 1998) a case study is defined as "a method of studying social phenomena through the thorough analysis of an individual case. Described simply, a case study provides a snapshot of particular social phenomena (Hakim, 1987, p. 61). Thus, the case study approach allows for in-depth research on specific populations, such as the dormitory students that will serve as the focus for this research. This approach also permits the researcher to evaluate subjects in a naturalistic setting as well as conduct research from a wide array of methods such as interviews, observations, numerical data, and questionnaires

Georgia Institute of Technology

University of New Hampshire

State University of New York at Binghamton

for dormitory students on The University of Alabama's campus.

electricity and water usage for specific dormitories on campus.

Harvard University

 University of Oregon University of Washington

**2. Research methods**

Yale University

Colleges and Universities across the world serve as incubators for tomorrow's leaders. In essence, they leave an educational imprint on individuals in an effort to educate and facilitate the development of tomorrow's leaders. These institutions serve as the setting where ideas can take form and this is where ideas can be implemented in a semi contained setting as part of the larger community. Though it is well established that educational institutions leave their imprints on innovative minds, this chapter introduces the idea that institutions of higher learning also leave ecological footprints on the landscape. Universities provide support to environmental issues through policies, programs, and research. The idea of greening campuses has become so popular that the Princeton Review has posted a Green Rating Honor Roll to document the top schools that provide a healthy and sustainable quality of life for the students, environmentally-minded and educational preparations for the future workforce, and environmentally responsible school policies for all to follow (Princeton Review, 2008).

Thinking green has been a hot topic among US Colleges in recent years. To think green is to incorporate environmental impacts into decision-making activities that affect daily lifestyles. The impact that a society imposes on the environment holds importance, as it is a key issue of sustainability. Sustainability refers to the dilemma of how to "meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996, p. 33). Fortunately, one place where sustainable initiatives have spread is on campuses throughout America. Universities have provided support to environmental issues through policies, programs, and research.

The Princeton Review has posted a Green Rating Honor Roll to document the top schools that provide a healthy and sustainable quality of life for the students, environmentallyminded and educational preparations for the future workforce, and environmentally responsible school policies for all to follow (Princeton Review, 2008). The Princeton Review ranked the following eleven colleges throughout the United States as receiving a green rating of ninety-nine points.

(Princeton Review, 2008).

rating of ninety-nine points.

 College of the Atlantic Emory University

Bates College

Arizona State University, Tempe

Though ecological footprint can be used as a useful tool to help measure sustainability, some scientists have criticized ecological footprint calculations for oversimplifying ecosystem processes to numerical values. Assumptions may not be valid as the ecological footprint arbitrarily assumes both zero greenhouse gas emissions, which may not be optimal, and national boundaries, which makes extrapolating from the average ecological footprint problematic (Fiala, 2008). Despite these criticisms, the ecological footprint calculation can serve as a heuristic tool for designing and implementing plans for today as well as for tomorrow. Moreover, plans that take environmental calculations into consideration will have a far greater potential of keeping the Earth as a stakeholder in the

Colleges and Universities across the world serve as incubators for tomorrow's leaders. In essence, they leave an educational imprint on individuals in an effort to educate and facilitate the development of tomorrow's leaders. These institutions serve as the setting where ideas can take form and this is where ideas can be implemented in a semi contained setting as part of the larger community. Though it is well established that educational institutions leave their imprints on innovative minds, this chapter introduces the idea that institutions of higher learning also leave ecological footprints on the landscape. Universities provide support to environmental issues through policies, programs, and research. The idea of greening campuses has become so popular that the Princeton Review has posted a Green Rating Honor Roll to document the top schools that provide a healthy and sustainable quality of life for the students, environmentally-minded and educational preparations for the future workforce, and environmentally responsible school policies for all to follow

Thinking green has been a hot topic among US Colleges in recent years. To think green is to incorporate environmental impacts into decision-making activities that affect daily lifestyles. The impact that a society imposes on the environment holds importance, as it is a key issue of sustainability. Sustainability refers to the dilemma of how to "meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996, p. 33). Fortunately, one place where sustainable initiatives have spread is on campuses throughout America. Universities have provided support to

The Princeton Review has posted a Green Rating Honor Roll to document the top schools that provide a healthy and sustainable quality of life for the students, environmentallyminded and educational preparations for the future workforce, and environmentally responsible school policies for all to follow (Princeton Review, 2008). The Princeton Review ranked the following eleven colleges throughout the United States as receiving a green

planning process than those plans without such calculations.

environmental issues through policies, programs, and research.

Although all the above-listed universities have displayed an extraordinary commitment to green initiatives, Harvard University located in Cambridge, MA; Emory University located near Atlanta, GA; and Bates College in Lewiston, ME, were chosen for closer examination in part due to the accessibility of online information concerning green programs as well as in respect to their diverse financial strategies for integrating sustainable principles. An inventory was performed encompassing a list of similarities and differences concerning green initiatives and strategies. Moreover, this inventory can serve as a framework for other colleges to follow in the future. It is in this context that we discuss the current consumption and environmental awareness levels associated with the use of water and energy resources for dormitory students on The University of Alabama's campus.

The University of Alabama is in the preliminary stages of moving toward a more sustainable campus. Currently, it is difficult to track environmentally friendly progress on campus, as no study has been previously performed to establish where The University of Alabama is concerning environmental initiatives. Thus, if a snapshot of the University were established to include both consumption and environmental awareness levels, then those findings would serve as a benchmark from which the implementation of green strategies may be evaluated in terms of effectiveness. Accordingly, this research documented the environmental awareness and consumption levels of dormitory students concerning energy and water resources on The University of Alabama's campus. Moreover, findings were gathered from the dormitories Ridgecrest East and Lakeside East. The goal was to measure the current ecological footprint of dormitory students on The University of Alabama campus. Specific research objectives were to (a) determine the current state of students' environmental awareness, and (b) determine the current consumption levels in terms of electricity and water usage for specific dormitories on campus.

## **2. Research methods**

A case study approach was utilized during this research. According to Theodorson and Theodorson (as cited in Punch, 1998) a case study is defined as "a method of studying social phenomena through the thorough analysis of an individual case. Described simply, a case study provides a snapshot of particular social phenomena (Hakim, 1987, p. 61). Thus, the case study approach allows for in-depth research on specific populations, such as the dormitory students that will serve as the focus for this research. This approach also permits the researcher to evaluate subjects in a naturalistic setting as well as conduct research from a wide array of methods such as interviews, observations, numerical data, and questionnaires (Punch, 1998, p. 153). Suitably, interviews, observations, surveys, and data analysis are the primary methods utilized in this research. Even as the case study approach proves to be a viable research tool, a limitation is the inability of the researcher to derive generalizations from specific instances (Punch, 1998, p. 155). In light of this accusation, it is of importance to note that the case study approach warrants merit as this research requires an in-depth inquiry into a particular situation that has yet to be documented.

Environmental Land Use and the Ecological Footprint of Higher Learning 121

**Figure 2.** Lakeside East Residential Hall.

**Figure 3.** Ridgecrest East Residential Hall.

themes and patterns. Additionally, the records assisted with the calculation of the ecological footprint analysis of energy and water usage in dormitories on campus. The energy records acquired reported monthly electrical and natural gas usage figures for the two dormitories from 2007 and 2008. Due to some technical problems with the water meters, only the last five months of 2008 were available for analysis. However, water usage assumptions were derived for the entire year of 2008. Ecological footprint calculations were projected from estimates of the average water usage in 2008 and from the actual natural gas and electricity usage figures from 2007 and 2008. Even from water approximations, the derived ecological footprint has the ability to serve as a benchmark that can be utilized in future research. During the analysis of water and energy records, the data concerning the population rates for Ridgecrest East and Lakeside East during 2007 were unfortunately unattainable; consequently, the 2008 population numbers were substituted. In addition to the analysis of energy records, an interview with the Director of Energy Management was conducted in an

effort to get a proper vision of the campus in terms of resource management.

As mentioned previously, the focus of this research is centered around dormitory students residing on The University of Alabama campus located in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. In the fall of 2008, The University of Alabama reached a record enrollment of 27,052 students (Andreen, 2008). Of the 27,052 students approximately 7,000 students are housed on campus (E. Russell, e-mail, February 24, 2009).1 Therefore, on-campus residency accounts for approximately 26% of the student population as illustrated by Figure 1.

## **UA Student Housing**

**Figure 1.** UA student housing.

For this study two dormitories were chosen for sampling. The selection was done by methods of random sampling. Random sampling allowed every dormitory to have an equal opportunity of being selected. The process entailed writing down the names of all the possible dormitories on campus on individual slips of paper. The dormitory names were mixed up and then drawn out of a hat. The dormitories Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East were selected for an analysis of energy and water usage records. The coed student populations housed within Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East are 238 and 316 students, respectively.

## **3. Survey and data analysis**

The University of Alabama's Department of Energy Management aided in providing energy and water consumption records concerning the Ridgecrest East and Lakeside East dormitories. A content analysis of the records was performed to determine applicable

<sup>1</sup> An e-mail was received from Russell, E. on February 24, 2009. This e-mail is not traceable by the reader and is therefore not found in the references per APA style.

Environmental Land Use and the Ecological Footprint of Higher Learning 121

**Figure 2.** Lakeside East Residential Hall.

120 Environmental Land Use Planning

**Figure 1.** UA student housing.

74%

**3. Survey and data analysis**

therefore not found in the references per APA style.

(Punch, 1998, p. 153). Suitably, interviews, observations, surveys, and data analysis are the primary methods utilized in this research. Even as the case study approach proves to be a viable research tool, a limitation is the inability of the researcher to derive generalizations from specific instances (Punch, 1998, p. 155). In light of this accusation, it is of importance to note that the case study approach warrants merit as this research requires an in-depth

As mentioned previously, the focus of this research is centered around dormitory students residing on The University of Alabama campus located in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. In the fall of 2008, The University of Alabama reached a record enrollment of 27,052 students (Andreen, 2008). Of the 27,052 students approximately 7,000 students are housed on campus (E. Russell, e-mail, February 24, 2009).1 Therefore, on-campus residency accounts for

26%

**UA Student Housing**

For this study two dormitories were chosen for sampling. The selection was done by methods of random sampling. Random sampling allowed every dormitory to have an equal opportunity of being selected. The process entailed writing down the names of all the possible dormitories on campus on individual slips of paper. The dormitory names were mixed up and then drawn out of a hat. The dormitories Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East were selected for an analysis of energy and water usage records. The coed student populations housed within Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East are 238 and 316 students, respectively.

On-Campus Housing

Off-Campus Housing

The University of Alabama's Department of Energy Management aided in providing energy and water consumption records concerning the Ridgecrest East and Lakeside East dormitories. A content analysis of the records was performed to determine applicable

1 An e-mail was received from Russell, E. on February 24, 2009. This e-mail is not traceable by the reader and is

inquiry into a particular situation that has yet to be documented.

approximately 26% of the student population as illustrated by Figure 1.

**Figure 3.** Ridgecrest East Residential Hall.

themes and patterns. Additionally, the records assisted with the calculation of the ecological footprint analysis of energy and water usage in dormitories on campus. The energy records acquired reported monthly electrical and natural gas usage figures for the two dormitories from 2007 and 2008. Due to some technical problems with the water meters, only the last five months of 2008 were available for analysis. However, water usage assumptions were derived for the entire year of 2008. Ecological footprint calculations were projected from estimates of the average water usage in 2008 and from the actual natural gas and electricity usage figures from 2007 and 2008. Even from water approximations, the derived ecological footprint has the ability to serve as a benchmark that can be utilized in future research. During the analysis of water and energy records, the data concerning the population rates for Ridgecrest East and Lakeside East during 2007 were unfortunately unattainable; consequently, the 2008 population numbers were substituted. In addition to the analysis of energy records, an interview with the Director of Energy Management was conducted in an effort to get a proper vision of the campus in terms of resource management.

## **4. Calculating the ecological footprint**

Data from the Department of Energy Management were utilized in the ecological footprint calculation. The following identifies the process for calculating ecological footprints:

Environmental Land Use and the Ecological Footprint of Higher Learning 123

**Step 4** Estimate the Ecological Footprint for the average person

Ridgecrest East Lakeside East

**Step 5** Multiply the per capita footprint by the total population on campus

Source: University of Alabama Department of Energy Management

**Step 2** Obtain water records

**Watter Usage (CF)**

**Step 1** Identify the population size of the dormitories

**Figure 5.** Ecological footprint procedure for water.

dormitory by the subsequent student populations residing in each residential hall. Consequently, the average amount of water consumed per student for Lakeside East was 3,830 cubic feet (28,649 gallons) and 2,363 cubic feet (17,674 gallons) for Ridgecrest East.

Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08

**2008 Water Usage for Ridgecrest East & Lakeside East**

**Months**

**Step 3** Determine land area requirements for water resources

To obtain a real-world comparison, consumption figures of the individual dormitory student are listed in gallons as well as cubic feet. The individual usage levels can further be broken down into daily usage figures by dividing by 365 to represent the approximate number of days in a year. As a result the daily consumption level for an individual residing in Lakeside East was 10.49 cubic feet or 78.49 gallons and 6.47 cubic feet or 48.42 gallons for those in Ridgecrest East. Daily usage figures are useful as they can be easily compared to the national average of the average American. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (2003), the average American consumes 90 gallons of water daily in the home, as

**Figure 4.** 2008 Water Usage for Ridgecrest East and Lakeside East.

The ecological footprint calculation was utilized to determine land use requirements associated with the consumption of resources. The calculation was performed utilizing water, electric, and natural gas records. All the records used in this study were obtained from the Department of Energy Management.

Water

Water usage records were acquired pertaining to Ridgecrest East and Lakeside East Residential Halls from August to December 2008. Due to some technical problems with the water meters, accurate water usage readings prior to August 2008 were unattainable. The trend for water usage at Ridgecrest East showed little variation during the months of August, September, and October as consumption ranged from approximately 72,000 to 80,000 cubic feet or approximately 538,000 gallons to 599,000 gallons. Usage dropped slightly during November followed by a dramatic decrease in December. Lakeside East Residential Hall demonstrated more drastic trends than Ridgecrest East as usage in August peaked at nearly 140,000 cubic feet followed by a marked decline in September as Lakeside levels dropped around 40%. A slight increase occurred during the month of October. In November and December consumption decreased drastically as water usage dipped below Ridgecrest levels.

Figure 11 details water usage in cubic feet consumed. Figure 12 depicts the steps we were utilized to calculate the ecological footprint of water resources consumed in the dormitories Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East. First, the populations of Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East were established. As mentioned previously, 238 students reside within Lakeside East, whereas 316 students live in Ridgecrest East. A full twelve months of records were unavailable, so estimations were used to approximate the yearly water consumption levels within the dormitories. The 2008 yearly estimations for each building were derived from taking the average amount of water used during the five months and then multiplying that average by twelve months. For Ridgecrest East the figure 746,616 cubic feet was used as the 2008 water usage estimate, while the figure 911,496 cubic feet was used for Lakeside East.

Thus, an ecological footprint calculation concerning water resources can be derived by utilizing the water consumption estimates for the two residential halls as indicated above. Initially, the amount of water consumed in cubic feet per dormitory student must be established. The number was calculated by dividing the total water estimates for each

## **2008 Water Usage for Ridgecrest East & Lakeside East**

Source: University of Alabama Department of Energy Management

122 Environmental Land Use Planning

Water

Ridgecrest levels.

**4. Calculating the ecological footprint**

1. Estimate the average population size.

from the Department of Energy Management.

Data from the Department of Energy Management were utilized in the ecological footprint

3. Estimate the land area appropriated per capita for the production of items consumed. 4. Estimate the ecological footprint of the average person for all items consumed.

The ecological footprint calculation was utilized to determine land use requirements associated with the consumption of resources. The calculation was performed utilizing water, electric, and natural gas records. All the records used in this study were obtained

Water usage records were acquired pertaining to Ridgecrest East and Lakeside East Residential Halls from August to December 2008. Due to some technical problems with the water meters, accurate water usage readings prior to August 2008 were unattainable. The trend for water usage at Ridgecrest East showed little variation during the months of August, September, and October as consumption ranged from approximately 72,000 to 80,000 cubic feet or approximately 538,000 gallons to 599,000 gallons. Usage dropped slightly during November followed by a dramatic decrease in December. Lakeside East Residential Hall demonstrated more drastic trends than Ridgecrest East as usage in August peaked at nearly 140,000 cubic feet followed by a marked decline in September as Lakeside levels dropped around 40%. A slight increase occurred during the month of October. In November and December consumption decreased drastically as water usage dipped below

Figure 11 details water usage in cubic feet consumed. Figure 12 depicts the steps we were utilized to calculate the ecological footprint of water resources consumed in the dormitories Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East. First, the populations of Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East were established. As mentioned previously, 238 students reside within Lakeside East, whereas 316 students live in Ridgecrest East. A full twelve months of records were unavailable, so estimations were used to approximate the yearly water consumption levels within the dormitories. The 2008 yearly estimations for each building were derived from taking the average amount of water used during the five months and then multiplying that average by twelve months. For Ridgecrest East the figure 746,616 cubic feet was used as the 2008 water usage estimate, while the figure 911,496 cubic feet was used for Lakeside East.

Thus, an ecological footprint calculation concerning water resources can be derived by utilizing the water consumption estimates for the two residential halls as indicated above. Initially, the amount of water consumed in cubic feet per dormitory student must be established. The number was calculated by dividing the total water estimates for each

calculation. The following identifies the process for calculating ecological footprints:

2. Estimate the average annual consumption for a particular item.

5. Multiply the population by the per capita footprint.

**Figure 4.** 2008 Water Usage for Ridgecrest East and Lakeside East.

**Figure 5.** Ecological footprint procedure for water.

dormitory by the subsequent student populations residing in each residential hall. Consequently, the average amount of water consumed per student for Lakeside East was 3,830 cubic feet (28,649 gallons) and 2,363 cubic feet (17,674 gallons) for Ridgecrest East.

To obtain a real-world comparison, consumption figures of the individual dormitory student are listed in gallons as well as cubic feet. The individual usage levels can further be broken down into daily usage figures by dividing by 365 to represent the approximate number of days in a year. As a result the daily consumption level for an individual residing in Lakeside East was 10.49 cubic feet or 78.49 gallons and 6.47 cubic feet or 48.42 gallons for those in Ridgecrest East. Daily usage figures are useful as they can be easily compared to the national average of the average American. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (2003), the average American consumes 90 gallons of water daily in the home, as

compared to the average European consuming 53 gallons daily, and the typical Sub-Saharan African citizen consuming only 3-5 gallons per day.

Environmental Land Use and the Ecological Footprint of Higher Learning 125

Despite the September peak for Lakeside East, electricity usage throughout the 2007 year remained somewhat consistent as January through March accounted for a range of approximately 50,000 to 65,000 kWh. April to May experienced a slight increase with consumption hovering near 80,000 kWh. June to July numbers were barely below 70,000 kWh, while August numbers increased back up to nearly 80,000 kWh. October boasted the second highest usage for 2007 at 87,151 kWh. Finally, during the months of November and December consumption ranged from 65,000 to 55,000 kWh. Interestingly, even as Lakeside East consistently consumed less power per month during 2007 with the exception of the September spike, the total 2007 energy consumption figures for Lakeside East (1,067,609

> **2007 Electricity Usage for Lakeside East & Ridgecrest East**

kWh) were slightly higher than Ridgecrest East (1,066,400 kWh).

Source: University of Alabama Department of Energy Management

Feb-07

Mar-07

Apr-07

May-07

Jun-07

**Months**

Jul-07

Aug-07

Sep-07

Oct-07

Nov-07

Dec-07

Lakeside East

Ridgecrest East

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

**Kwh**

Jan-07

**Figure 6.** 2007 Electricity Usage for Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East.

As mentioned previously, Ridgecrest East has in general consumed a higher amount of electricity in terms of kilowatt hours per month during 2007 when compared to Lakeside East. Those higher consumption rates for Ridgecrest East are indicated as the following approximated percentages above Lakeside East's usage levels: January was 11% higher, February displayed an 8% increase, March had an 11% increase, April saw a 16% increase, May's increase jumped up 22%, June displayed a 24% increase, July had a 35% increase, October displayed a 27% rise, November increased to 35%, and finally December had a 36% increase over Lakeside East's consumption levels. Electricity consumption for Ridgecrest

East during September 2007 was only about 44% of what Lakeside East consumed.

During 2008, Lakeside East consumed less total electricity each month than Ridgecrest East. Moreover, when the total consumption figures of 2008 for both dormitories are compared to the 2007 fiscal year, together the buildings show an overall decrease in electrical usage. Lakeside East displayed the following monthly consumption during 2008 recorded in

After establishing the consumption levels for water resources, it was necessary to determine the amount of land required for the utilization of water resources. Thus, water resources were converted to cubic meters by multiplying by 0.0283 and then divided by 1,500 m3/ha/yr to accommodate the amount of forested land needed to accommodate the water consumed (Anundson et al., 2001, p. 26). The result was equivalent to

0.0723 hectares (0.1785 acres) per dormitory student in Lakeside East and 0.0446 hectares (0.1101 acres) per dormitory student in Ridgecrest East.

**Table 1.** Ecological Footprint for Water 2008

It is germane to keep in mind that all of these figures, concerning hectares/acreage required, only apply to the land required concerning water resources utilized during the consumption of housing. Accordingly, "the ecological footprint concept is based on the idea that for every item of material or energy consumption, a certain amount of land in one or more ecosystem categories is required to provide the consumption-related resource flows and waste sinks" (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996, p. 63). Thus, a complete ecological footprint calculation encompasses many different goods and services as this study looks specifically at water and energy resources associated with housing needs of dormitory students on The University of Alabama's campus.

#### a. Electricity

In addition to supplying the water records, as indicated in the findings in the previous section, the Department of Energy Management also provided electric and natural gas records for use in this research. To assist with the analysis of Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East Residential Communities, complete electrical and natural gas records were gathered from January 2007 to December 2008. Energy consumptions records from both 2007 and 2008 show a general trend of Lakeside East utilizing slightly less electricity per month with the exception of a peak on September 2007. During September 2007, Lakeside East Residential Hall experienced a spike in usage as

315,007 kilowatt hours (kWh) were consumed. This consumption stands-out on the electrical records as neither Lakeside East nor Ridgecrest East demonstrated another usage level over 140,000 kilowatt hours during the two-year span.

Despite the September peak for Lakeside East, electricity usage throughout the 2007 year remained somewhat consistent as January through March accounted for a range of approximately 50,000 to 65,000 kWh. April to May experienced a slight increase with consumption hovering near 80,000 kWh. June to July numbers were barely below 70,000 kWh, while August numbers increased back up to nearly 80,000 kWh. October boasted the second highest usage for 2007 at 87,151 kWh. Finally, during the months of November and December consumption ranged from 65,000 to 55,000 kWh. Interestingly, even as Lakeside East consistently consumed less power per month during 2007 with the exception of the September spike, the total 2007 energy consumption figures for Lakeside East (1,067,609 kWh) were slightly higher than Ridgecrest East (1,066,400 kWh).

Source: University of Alabama Department of Energy Management

124 Environmental Land Use Planning

African citizen consuming only 3-5 gallons per day.

(Anundson et al., 2001, p. 26). The result was equivalent to

(0.1101 acres) per dormitory student in Ridgecrest East.

**Table 1.** Ecological Footprint for Water 2008

Residential Hall experienced a spike in usage as

140,000 kilowatt hours during the two-year span.

Alabama's campus.

a. Electricity

compared to the average European consuming 53 gallons daily, and the typical Sub-Saharan

After establishing the consumption levels for water resources, it was necessary to determine the amount of land required for the utilization of water resources. Thus, water resources were converted to cubic meters by multiplying by 0.0283 and then divided by 1,500 m3/ha/yr to accommodate the amount of forested land needed to accommodate the water consumed

0.0723 hectares (0.1785 acres) per dormitory student in Lakeside East and 0.0446 hectares

**Ecological Footprint for Water 2008 Lakeside East Ridgecrest East**  Total Water Usage 2008 (cubic ft) 911,496 746,616 Water Usage per Month (cubic ft) 75,958 62,218 Water per Student in 2008 (cubic ft) 3,830 2,363 Total Land Area in Hectares per Dormitory Student 0.0723 0.0446 Total Land Area in Acres per Dormitory Student 0.1785 0.1101

It is germane to keep in mind that all of these figures, concerning hectares/acreage required, only apply to the land required concerning water resources utilized during the consumption of housing. Accordingly, "the ecological footprint concept is based on the idea that for every item of material or energy consumption, a certain amount of land in one or more ecosystem categories is required to provide the consumption-related resource flows and waste sinks" (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996, p. 63). Thus, a complete ecological footprint calculation encompasses many different goods and services as this study looks specifically at water and energy resources associated with housing needs of dormitory students on The University of

In addition to supplying the water records, as indicated in the findings in the previous section, the Department of Energy Management also provided electric and natural gas records for use in this research. To assist with the analysis of Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East Residential Communities, complete electrical and natural gas records were gathered from January 2007 to December 2008. Energy consumptions records from both 2007 and 2008 show a general trend of Lakeside East utilizing slightly less electricity per month with the exception of a peak on September 2007. During September 2007, Lakeside East

315,007 kilowatt hours (kWh) were consumed. This consumption stands-out on the electrical records as neither Lakeside East nor Ridgecrest East demonstrated another usage level over **Figure 6.** 2007 Electricity Usage for Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East.

As mentioned previously, Ridgecrest East has in general consumed a higher amount of electricity in terms of kilowatt hours per month during 2007 when compared to Lakeside East. Those higher consumption rates for Ridgecrest East are indicated as the following approximated percentages above Lakeside East's usage levels: January was 11% higher, February displayed an 8% increase, March had an 11% increase, April saw a 16% increase, May's increase jumped up 22%, June displayed a 24% increase, July had a 35% increase, October displayed a 27% rise, November increased to 35%, and finally December had a 36% increase over Lakeside East's consumption levels. Electricity consumption for Ridgecrest East during September 2007 was only about 44% of what Lakeside East consumed.

During 2008, Lakeside East consumed less total electricity each month than Ridgecrest East. Moreover, when the total consumption figures of 2008 for both dormitories are compared to the 2007 fiscal year, together the buildings show an overall decrease in electrical usage. Lakeside East displayed the following monthly consumption during 2008 recorded in

**2008 Electricity Usage for Lakeside East & Ridgecrest East**

Environmental Land Use and the Ecological Footprint of Higher Learning 127

was considerably less than those found at Lakeside East. Just as the 2007 electricity records were broken down for analysis, the 2008 electricity records were evaluated for individual

To acquire the electricity consumed per dormitory student during 2008, the electrical totals were divided by the amount of the respective residential populations. Thus, the average student consumed 3,343 kWh within Lakeside East and 3,177 kWh for Ridgecrest East. To relate student electricity consumption rates to a real-world example the 2007 and 2008 figures were broken into monthly averages. The 2007 monthly rates per dormitory student were calculated to be approximately 374 kWh for Lakeside East and approximately 281 kWh for Ridgecrest East. For 2008 the monthly averages were approximately 279 kWh for Lakeside East and approximately 265 kWh for Ridgecrest East. According to the Energy Information Administration (2007), the average Alabama household consumes 1,305 kWh per month.

After the consumption levels were successfully calculated for electrical resources, the amount of land could be determined for the usage of electrical resources. To accommodate the carbon emissions from the utilization of electricity the rate of 169 m2 of forest for every 100 kWh of electricity was used for the following ecological footprint calculations (Anundson et al., 2001, p.11). Thus, the individual amount of electricity per dormitory student was first divided by 100 kWh and then multiplied by 169 m2. Accordingly during 2007 for Lakeside East, the amount of land needed per dormitory student was 7,581 m2 (0.758 hectares or 1.873 acres) and for Ridgecrest East 5,703 m2 (0.570 hectares or 1.409 acres). During 2008, the amount of forested land area necessary per student amounted to 5,650 m2 (0.565 hectares or 1.396 acres) for Lakeside East and 5,369 m2 (0.537 or 1.327 acres) for Ridgecrest East. In Table 7, meters squared were converted to hectares by dividing by

**Ecological Footprint for Electricity 2007 Lakeside East Ridgecrest East**  Total Electricity 2007 (kWh) 1,067,609 1,066,400 Electricity per Student in 2007 (kWh) 4,486 3,375 2007 Total Land (m)2 per dormitory student 7,581 5,703 2007 Total Land in Hectares per dormitory student 0.758 0.570 2007 Total Land in Acres per dormitory student 1.873 1.409 **Ecological Footprint for Electricity 2008 Lakeside East Ridgecrest East**  Total Electricity 2008 (kWh) 795,636 1,004,000 Electricity per Student in 2008 (kWh) 3,343 3,177 2008 Total Land (m)2 per dormitory student 5,650 5,369 2008 Total Land in Hectares per dormitory student 0.565 0.537 2008 Total Land in Acres per dormitory student 1.396 1.327

10,000. Additionally, hectares were converted by multiplying by 2.471.

**Table 2.** Ecological Footprint for Electricity 2007 and 2008

usage levels.

Source: University of Alabama Department of Energy Management

**Figure 7.** 2008 Electricity Usage for Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East.

kilowatt hours: January was 39,628 kWh; followed by February with 62,320 kWh; March consumed 58,206 kWh; April used 65,469 kWh; May was 68,613 kWh; June was recorded at 59,222 kWh; July had 62,597 kWh; August consumed 72,264 kWh; September was recorded at 108,040 kWh; October used 81,022 kWh; November had 60,623 kWh of usage; and finally during December 57,632 kWh were utilized. Similar to the methodology utilized to calculate the ecological footprint concerning water resources, Figure 15 depicts the ecological footprint procedure from which the electrical impact of students was derived.

**Figure 8.** Ecological footprint procedure for electricity

For a more in-depth analysis of electrical usage for the two dormitories, the amount of energy utilized by each dormitory student for the year was calculated as the total electricity consumption numbers were divided by the amount of students residing within each dormitory. This accounted for the amount of electricity utilized per student to be 4,486 kWh at Lakeside East and 3,375 kWh at Ridgecrest East. It is important to note that even though the energy consumption numbers showed little variation during the 2007 fiscal year, the higher population numbers within Ridgecrest East resulted in energy usage per student that was considerably less than those found at Lakeside East. Just as the 2007 electricity records were broken down for analysis, the 2008 electricity records were evaluated for individual usage levels.

126 Environmental Land Use Planning

0

50,000

**Step 1** Identify the population size of the dormitories

100,000

**Kwh**

150,000

Source: University of Alabama Department of Energy Management

**Figure 8.** Ecological footprint procedure for electricity

**Step 2** Obtain electricity records

**Figure 7.** 2008 Electricity Usage for Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East.

kilowatt hours: January was 39,628 kWh; followed by February with 62,320 kWh; March consumed 58,206 kWh; April used 65,469 kWh; May was 68,613 kWh; June was recorded at 59,222 kWh; July had 62,597 kWh; August consumed 72,264 kWh; September was recorded at 108,040 kWh; October used 81,022 kWh; November had 60,623 kWh of usage; and finally during December 57,632 kWh were utilized. Similar to the methodology utilized to calculate the ecological footprint concerning water resources, Figure 15 depicts the ecological

> **Step 3** Determine land area requirements for electrical resources

**Step 4** Estimate the Ecological Footprint for the average person

**Step 5** Multiply the per capita footprint by the total population on campus

Lakeside East Ridgecrest East

For a more in-depth analysis of electrical usage for the two dormitories, the amount of energy utilized by each dormitory student for the year was calculated as the total electricity consumption numbers were divided by the amount of students residing within each dormitory. This accounted for the amount of electricity utilized per student to be 4,486 kWh at Lakeside East and 3,375 kWh at Ridgecrest East. It is important to note that even though the energy consumption numbers showed little variation during the 2007 fiscal year, the higher population numbers within Ridgecrest East resulted in energy usage per student that

footprint procedure from which the electrical impact of students was derived.

**Months**

**2008 Electricity Usage for Lakeside East & Ridgecrest East**

> To acquire the electricity consumed per dormitory student during 2008, the electrical totals were divided by the amount of the respective residential populations. Thus, the average student consumed 3,343 kWh within Lakeside East and 3,177 kWh for Ridgecrest East. To relate student electricity consumption rates to a real-world example the 2007 and 2008 figures were broken into monthly averages. The 2007 monthly rates per dormitory student were calculated to be approximately 374 kWh for Lakeside East and approximately 281 kWh for Ridgecrest East. For 2008 the monthly averages were approximately 279 kWh for Lakeside East and approximately 265 kWh for Ridgecrest East. According to the Energy Information Administration (2007), the average Alabama household consumes 1,305 kWh per month.

> After the consumption levels were successfully calculated for electrical resources, the amount of land could be determined for the usage of electrical resources. To accommodate the carbon emissions from the utilization of electricity the rate of 169 m2 of forest for every 100 kWh of electricity was used for the following ecological footprint calculations (Anundson et al., 2001, p.11). Thus, the individual amount of electricity per dormitory student was first divided by 100 kWh and then multiplied by 169 m2. Accordingly during 2007 for Lakeside East, the amount of land needed per dormitory student was 7,581 m2 (0.758 hectares or 1.873 acres) and for Ridgecrest East 5,703 m2 (0.570 hectares or 1.409 acres). During 2008, the amount of forested land area necessary per student amounted to 5,650 m2 (0.565 hectares or 1.396 acres) for Lakeside East and 5,369 m2 (0.537 or 1.327 acres) for Ridgecrest East. In Table 7, meters squared were converted to hectares by dividing by 10,000. Additionally, hectares were converted by multiplying by 2.471.

**Table 2.** Ecological Footprint for Electricity 2007 and 2008

As a reminder, it is important to note that all the ecological footprint analysis that has been mentioned in this section pertains only to the electrical energy consumption as related to housing concerns. In reality electricity consumed for housing is only one area of a person's life where electricity is utilized. Therefore, the electrical usage and subsequent land area may in fact be larger than the estimates listed above. In general, ecological footprint calculations encompass a variety of goods and services associated with a person's lifestyle. This research looked specifically at water and energy usage of the footprint equation as related to housing needs.

Environmental Land Use and the Ecological Footprint of Higher Learning 129

Although much progress has been made in recent years there is more that The University of Alabama can do in support of sustainable practices, as exemplified by green universities across the country. The first step toward becoming a green campus merely entails setting the goal of wanting to be more sustainable. The President of University of Alabama's message to the student body during fall of 2008 was the initial step required to set the tone for the campus. Now that a goal has been set, a subsequent plan will need to be developed. Objectives will need to be established in order to facilitate progress toward

Before any other steps of the plan can be formulated lest carried out, it is essential to stop and take an inventory. The inventory determines where the campus is now so that progress may be more accurately measured. Thus, this research has served as a snapshot of where the campus currently is, during the academic semesters of fall of 2008 to early spring of 2009 in terms of sustainability. The snapshot is a useful tool as it was used to compare The University of Alabama to the top green schools. These prestigious universities were utilized in this analysis to serve as the pinnacle of where The University of Alabama may strive to be

Taking the other schools analyzed in this research into consideration, our first recommendation is to formulate an official environmental plan that involves a variety of stakeholders in the planning process. This initiative needs the involvement of students, faculty, staff, alumni, investors, and the community as a whole. During the planning process, objectives must be set that are measurable as well as quantifiable to the overall goal of the plan. If these objectives are to serve as serve as milestones towards the goal of sustainability. Ecological footprint calculations as used in this study will be beneficial for

Our second recommendation is to strive to establish a recognizable environmental office on campus supported by a full-time staff. This ensures availability of knowledgeable staff to assist with inquiries from environmentally-aware students and community members as well as to address sustainability issues in accordance with the campus's environmental plan. According to data gathered on sustainable universities by the Sustainable Endowments Institute (2009), a considerable number of schools have recognized the need for full-time campus sustainability administrators. Currently, 56 percent report having dedicated

We also recommend the incorporation of green building elements within residential student housing just. Generally speaking, universities are long-term owners of institutions. Hence, looking at the cost of operation over the period of a product's life cycle will help them accept some of the additional costs associated with green building methods. According to Moskow (2008), "Sustainable developments are more cost-effective in the long term and, therefore,

**5. Conclusion and policy implications**

concerning environmental initiatives.

monitoring progress towards this goal.

sustainability staff.

the end goal.

In addition, each student's consumption of natural gas was calculated in the same way. Thereafter, each students total land area requirement at Lakeside East was calculated as follows: 0.179 acres for water resources in 2008, 1.873 acres for electricity in 2007, 1.396 acres for electricity in 2008, 0.170 acres for natural gas in 2007, and 0.177 acres for natural gas in 2008. Furthermore, Ridgecrest East's numbers were 0.110 acres for water in 2008, 1.409 acres for electricity in 2007, 1.327 acres for electricity in 2008, 0.142 acres for natural gas in 2007, and 0.140 acres for natural gas in 2008. Thus, if the entire student population that resides oncampus of approximately 7,000 individuals adopted the consumption habits of either Lakesides East or Ridgecrest East residents, then the land acreage as illustrated in Table 7 would have been needed.

When evaluating these figures it is important to understand that Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East are both relatively new buildings found on The University of Alabama's campus. As this study represents a sample of consumption levels taken from the new and therefore more efficiently constructed dormitories, the land requirement estimations for the students living on-campus are likely to be a best-case scenario. Overall, from the ecological footprint calculations utilized, Ridgecrest East displayed a lower environmental impact or land requirement than Lakeside East for water, electricity, and natural gas.

Additionally, land requirements decreased for electricity needs for both dormitories from 2007 to 2008. On the other hand, during the two year-span the land requirements for natural gas showed only a slight decrease for Ridgecrest East while Lakeside East showed an increase in demand. Acreage for water resources were not compared from 2007 to 2008 as the required data were unattainable.

**Table 3.** Ecological Footprint for the On-Campus Population

## **5. Conclusion and policy implications**

128 Environmental Land Use Planning

related to housing needs.

would have been needed.

the required data were unattainable.

**Ecological Footprint: Land Requirements in Acres**

**Table 3.** Ecological Footprint for the On-Campus Population

As a reminder, it is important to note that all the ecological footprint analysis that has been mentioned in this section pertains only to the electrical energy consumption as related to housing concerns. In reality electricity consumed for housing is only one area of a person's life where electricity is utilized. Therefore, the electrical usage and subsequent land area may in fact be larger than the estimates listed above. In general, ecological footprint calculations encompass a variety of goods and services associated with a person's lifestyle. This research looked specifically at water and energy usage of the footprint equation as

In addition, each student's consumption of natural gas was calculated in the same way. Thereafter, each students total land area requirement at Lakeside East was calculated as follows: 0.179 acres for water resources in 2008, 1.873 acres for electricity in 2007, 1.396 acres for electricity in 2008, 0.170 acres for natural gas in 2007, and 0.177 acres for natural gas in 2008. Furthermore, Ridgecrest East's numbers were 0.110 acres for water in 2008, 1.409 acres for electricity in 2007, 1.327 acres for electricity in 2008, 0.142 acres for natural gas in 2007, and 0.140 acres for natural gas in 2008. Thus, if the entire student population that resides oncampus of approximately 7,000 individuals adopted the consumption habits of either Lakesides East or Ridgecrest East residents, then the land acreage as illustrated in Table 7

When evaluating these figures it is important to understand that Lakeside East and Ridgecrest East are both relatively new buildings found on The University of Alabama's campus. As this study represents a sample of consumption levels taken from the new and therefore more efficiently constructed dormitories, the land requirement estimations for the students living on-campus are likely to be a best-case scenario. Overall, from the ecological footprint calculations utilized, Ridgecrest East displayed a lower environmental impact or

Additionally, land requirements decreased for electricity needs for both dormitories from 2007 to 2008. On the other hand, during the two year-span the land requirements for natural gas showed only a slight decrease for Ridgecrest East while Lakeside East showed an increase in demand. Acreage for water resources were not compared from 2007 to 2008 as

**for the Dormitory Student Population Lakeside East Ridgecrest East**  From 2008 Water Consumed 1,253 770 From 2007 Electricity Consumed 13,111 9,863 From 2008 Electricity Consumed 9,772 9,289 From 2007 Natural Gas Consumed 1,190 994 From 2008 Natural Gas Consumed 1,239 980

land requirement than Lakeside East for water, electricity, and natural gas.

Although much progress has been made in recent years there is more that The University of Alabama can do in support of sustainable practices, as exemplified by green universities across the country. The first step toward becoming a green campus merely entails setting the goal of wanting to be more sustainable. The President of University of Alabama's message to the student body during fall of 2008 was the initial step required to set the tone for the campus. Now that a goal has been set, a subsequent plan will need to be developed. Objectives will need to be established in order to facilitate progress toward the end goal.

Before any other steps of the plan can be formulated lest carried out, it is essential to stop and take an inventory. The inventory determines where the campus is now so that progress may be more accurately measured. Thus, this research has served as a snapshot of where the campus currently is, during the academic semesters of fall of 2008 to early spring of 2009 in terms of sustainability. The snapshot is a useful tool as it was used to compare The University of Alabama to the top green schools. These prestigious universities were utilized in this analysis to serve as the pinnacle of where The University of Alabama may strive to be concerning environmental initiatives.

Taking the other schools analyzed in this research into consideration, our first recommendation is to formulate an official environmental plan that involves a variety of stakeholders in the planning process. This initiative needs the involvement of students, faculty, staff, alumni, investors, and the community as a whole. During the planning process, objectives must be set that are measurable as well as quantifiable to the overall goal of the plan. If these objectives are to serve as serve as milestones towards the goal of sustainability. Ecological footprint calculations as used in this study will be beneficial for monitoring progress towards this goal.

Our second recommendation is to strive to establish a recognizable environmental office on campus supported by a full-time staff. This ensures availability of knowledgeable staff to assist with inquiries from environmentally-aware students and community members as well as to address sustainability issues in accordance with the campus's environmental plan. According to data gathered on sustainable universities by the Sustainable Endowments Institute (2009), a considerable number of schools have recognized the need for full-time campus sustainability administrators. Currently, 56 percent report having dedicated sustainability staff.

We also recommend the incorporation of green building elements within residential student housing just. Generally speaking, universities are long-term owners of institutions. Hence, looking at the cost of operation over the period of a product's life cycle will help them accept some of the additional costs associated with green building methods. According to Moskow (2008), "Sustainable developments are more cost-effective in the long term and, therefore,

ultimately, more valuable" (p.xv). This is especially true as the price of resources such as electricity and natural gas continue to rise. Additionally, green buildings have been noted to promote a healthy, productive work environment that would benefit the welfare and academic status of The University of Alabama.

Environmental Land Use and the Ecological Footprint of Higher Learning 131

American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment. (2008). *About the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment.*Retrieved March 10, 2009, from

Andreen, C. (2008). *UA Enrollment Reaches Record 27,052 Students; Freshman Class Tops*

Anundson, B., Crooks, J., Fletcher, A., Frank, M., et al. (2001). *A Study of the Ecological*

Barrella, N. (2008, November 20). *In competition, Harvard seeks to "green up" dorms*. Harvard

http://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2008/11/20/News/In.Co

Bates College. (2008). *Student Housing at 280 College Street.* Retrieved December 2, 2008, from

Bralley, B. (2008, September 10). *UA Construction Goes Green*. Crimson White. Retrieved

Bursch, K. (2009, January 7). *UA Starts New Green Campaign.*Crimson White. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://www.cw.ua.edu/ua\_starts\_new \_green\_campaign Emory University. (2008a). *Emory Sustainable Initiative: History.* Retrieved December 11, 2008,

Emory University. (2008b). *Emory Sustainable Initiative: Sustainable Food.* Retrieved December

Enck, J., & Turner, S. (2003). *ASHRAE Green Guide: An ASHRAE Publication Addressing Matters of Interest to Those Involved in Green or Sustainable Design of Buildings.* Atlanta:

Energy Information Administration. (2007). *U.S. Average Monthly Bill by Sector, Census*

Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). *Water on tap: What you need to know.*Retreived

Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). *Wastes – Non-Hazardous Wastes.* Retrieved October

Environmental Protection Agency. (2009a). *Brownfields and Land Revitalization.* Retrieved

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Energy Information Administration. (2001). *Natural Gas Consumption and Expeditures in U.S. Households by End Uses and Census Region, 2001.* Retrieved March 3, 2009, from

11, 2008, from http://sustainability.emory.edu/page/1008/Sustainable-Food

http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/ html/about.php

http://uanews.ua.edu/anews 2008/sep08/enrollment091608.htm

mpetition.Harvard.Seeks.To.green.Up.Dorms-3554348.shtml

*Footprint of Allegheny College.* Unpublished manuscript.

Law Record. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from

September 12, 2008, from http://www.cw.ua.edu/ua

from http://sustainability.emory.edu/page/1015/History

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/byfuels/2001/byfuel\_ng.pdf

March 25, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/safewater/wot/pdfs/

12, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/index.htm

March 19, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/

*Division, and State 2007.* Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html

book\_waterontap\_full.pdf

*5,000.*Retrieved February 26, 2009, from

http://www.bates.edu/x175547.xml

**6. References**

Fortunately, The University of Alabama has already begun incorporating some green features in buildings such as low flow toilets, low flow faucets, low flow showerheads as well as plans for lighting controls and high efficiency hoods for new projects. Though those efforts are commendable, our recommendation is to use Bates College as an example to strive toward concerning green buildings. Due to cost restrictions, Bates College has not filed for the proper LEED certification for their structures. Despite not having filed, Bates College has used the LEED criteria as a standard in which to construct LEED equivalent buildings. Furthermore, green is marketable and green building designs are a good way to promote The University of Alabama's image.

Our final recommendation is education. Additional educational opportunities may in fact reduce the environmental impact of the University. Due to the fact that the role of academic institutions is to educate and facilitate in the development of tomorrow's leaders, this is a prime environment within which to integrate green technologies. Leaders that are unable to recognize the mismanagement of resources will be incapable of solving environmental problems. If environmentally friendly strategies are to be incorporated into future policies, then exposure to sustainable education is essential.

An expansion of research concerning ecological footprint analysis would be beneficial in an effort to determine the environmental impact of the campus. Though food and recycling strategies were only briefly discussed in this study, a more in-depth analysis may be needed to evaluate whether or not the University should try to promote locally or organically supplied food in the cafeterias and whether or not to participate in the *RecycleMania*  competition. Additionally as only dormitory students were analyzed in this study, more sample groups could be evaluated and include both on-campus and off-campus students. Studies on climate change, transportation issues, student led initiatives, and a plethora of other opportunities exist for exploration.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that if places of higher learning are able to lessen their ecological footprints, they would ultimately have a greater positive impact on humanity and the dwindling resources of the World.

## **Author details**

Seth Appiah-Opoku *Geography Department, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA*

Crystal Taylor *Florida State University, USA*

#### **6. References**

130 Environmental Land Use Planning

academic status of The University of Alabama.

promote The University of Alabama's image.

then exposure to sustainable education is essential.

other opportunities exist for exploration.

the dwindling resources of the World.

*Geography Department, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA*

**Author details**

Seth Appiah-Opoku

*Florida State University, USA*

Crystal Taylor

ultimately, more valuable" (p.xv). This is especially true as the price of resources such as electricity and natural gas continue to rise. Additionally, green buildings have been noted to promote a healthy, productive work environment that would benefit the welfare and

Fortunately, The University of Alabama has already begun incorporating some green features in buildings such as low flow toilets, low flow faucets, low flow showerheads as well as plans for lighting controls and high efficiency hoods for new projects. Though those efforts are commendable, our recommendation is to use Bates College as an example to strive toward concerning green buildings. Due to cost restrictions, Bates College has not filed for the proper LEED certification for their structures. Despite not having filed, Bates College has used the LEED criteria as a standard in which to construct LEED equivalent buildings. Furthermore, green is marketable and green building designs are a good way to

Our final recommendation is education. Additional educational opportunities may in fact reduce the environmental impact of the University. Due to the fact that the role of academic institutions is to educate and facilitate in the development of tomorrow's leaders, this is a prime environment within which to integrate green technologies. Leaders that are unable to recognize the mismanagement of resources will be incapable of solving environmental problems. If environmentally friendly strategies are to be incorporated into future policies,

An expansion of research concerning ecological footprint analysis would be beneficial in an effort to determine the environmental impact of the campus. Though food and recycling strategies were only briefly discussed in this study, a more in-depth analysis may be needed to evaluate whether or not the University should try to promote locally or organically supplied food in the cafeterias and whether or not to participate in the *RecycleMania*  competition. Additionally as only dormitory students were analyzed in this study, more sample groups could be evaluated and include both on-campus and off-campus students. Studies on climate change, transportation issues, student led initiatives, and a plethora of

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that if places of higher learning are able to lessen their ecological footprints, they would ultimately have a greater positive impact on humanity and

http://uanews.ua.edu/anews 2008/sep08/enrollment091608.htm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html

Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). *Water on tap: What you need to know.*Retreived March 25, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/safewater/wot/pdfs/

book\_waterontap\_full.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (2009b). *Wastes – Resource Conservation – Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.* Retrieved April 16, 2009, from

Environmental Land Use and the Ecological Footprint of Higher Learning 133

Leopard, T. (2008). *SGA Memo: University Efforts in Regard to Sustainability.* [Memo].

Loftus, M. (2007, Autumn). *Emory sprouts new green residence halls*. Emory Magazine.

Mayell, H. (2002, January 10). Green Group Gives Earth Failing Report Card. *National*

Moskow, K. (2008). *Sustainable Facilities: Green Design, Construction, and Operations.* New

National Geographic Website. (2008). *Effects of Global Warming*. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-

Pinkse, J., & Dommisse, M. (2008) Overcoming Barriers to Sustainability: An Explanation of Residential Builders' Reluctance to Adopt Clean Technologies. *Business Strategy and the*

Punch, K. (1998). *Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods*. London:

Spiegel, R., & Meadows, D. (2006). *Green Building Materials: A Guide to Product Selection and*

Sustainable Endowments Institute. (2009). *Administration – Leaders – Green Report Card 2009*. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-

Turner, K., Lenzen, M., Wiedmann, T., & Barret, J. (2006).Examing the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities-Part 1: A technical note on combining inputoutput and ecological footprint analysis. *Ecological Economics*. Retrieved October 10,

Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Schulz, N., Erb, K., Haberl, H., & Krausmann, F.(2003). Calculating national and global ecological footprint times series: resolving conceptual challenges. *Land Use Policy*. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from

Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). *Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the*

Wallace, S. (2007, January). Farming the Amazon: Last of the Amazon. *National Geographic.*

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/last-of-amazon.html

*Environment.* Retrieved September 12, 2008, from Wiley InterScience database. Princeton Review. (2008). *Green Rating Honor Roll*. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from,

http://www.princetonreview.com/green-honor-roll.aspx?uidbadge=%07

RecycleMania (2009). *General Overview.* Retrieved January 05, 2009, from

*Specification*.(2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0110\_020110worldwatch.html

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY\_MAGAZINE/2007/autumn/halls.html

University of Alabama.

York: McGraw-Hill

Sage Publications.

http://www.recyclemania.org/

2009/categories/administration.

2008, from ScienceDirect database.

Retrieved October 11, 2008, from

*Earth.*Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

ScienceDirect database.

effects.html

Retrieved December 3, 2008, from

*Geographic*. Retrieved on October 11, 2008, from

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/reduce.htm

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn\_sub.php?content=national\_footprints

http://www.emory.edu/home/news/releases/2008/09/green-dorms-open.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0331\_050330\_unenvironment.html

Jorgenson, A., & Burns, T. (2006). The political-economic causes of change in the ecological footprints of nations, 1991-2001: A quantitative investigation. *Social Science Research*. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from Science Direct database.

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY\_MAGAZINE/2007/autumn/halls.html

132 Environmental Land Use Planning

Inc.

ScienceDirect database.

October 1, 2008, from

Retrieved December 3, 2008, from

London: Allen & Unwin.

Protection.

*Recycle.* Retrieved April 16, 2009, from

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/reduce.htm

Environmental Protection Agency. (2009b). *Wastes – Resource Conservation – Reduce, Reuse,*

Fiala, N. (2008). Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economic and bad environmental science. *Ecological Economics*. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from

Glavinich, T. (2008). *Contractor's Guide to Green Building Construction: Management, Project Delivery, Documentation, and Risk Reduction*. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,

Global Footprint Network. (2003). National Footprints.*Global Footprint Network.* Retrieved

"Global Warming". (n.d.).*New York Times*. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html "Graduate Green Living Program Enters Its Second Year". (2007, Spring). *Harvard Green*

 http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/newsletter/archives/2007/05/graduate\_green.php Gray, K. (2008, September 19). *Emory Freshman Live 'Green' in New Housing.* [News Release].

Hakim, C. (1987). *Research Design: Strategies and Choices in the Design of Social Research.*

Handwerk, B. (2005, March 31). Earth's Health in Sharp Decline, Massive Study Finds.

 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0331\_050330\_unenvironment.html Harper, C. (2008). *Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental Issues* (4th

Harvard University. (2008). *Green Campus Loan Fund: Harvard Office for Sustainability.* Retrieved December 11, 2008, from http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/gclf/ Ireland, C. (2008, November 13). *Living in the green zone at "Rock Hall".* Harvard University

Jorgenson, A., & Burns, T. (2006). The political-economic causes of change in the ecological footprints of nations, 1991-2001: A quantitative investigation. *Social Science Research*.

Kitzes, J., Galli, A., Bagliani, M., Barrett, J., Dige, G., Ede., S., et al. (2008). A research agenda for improving national ecological Footprint accounts. *Ecological Economics*. Retrieved

Kobet, B., Lee, S., & Mondor, C. (1999). *Green Buildings: Guidelines for Creating High-Performance Green Buildings*. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn\_sub.php?content=national\_footprints

http://www.emory.edu/home/news/releases/2008/09/green-dorms-open.html

*Campus Newsletter.* Retrieved December 4, 2008, from

*National Geographic*. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from

Gazette Online. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from

October 11, 2008, from ScienceDirect database.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/11.13/11-rockefeller.html

Retrieved October 11, 2008, from Science Direct database.

ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/last-of-amazon.html

Wymer, M. (2008) *UA Experts Offer 'Going Green' Advice.* Retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://uanews.edu/anews2008/apr08/earthday040808.htm

**Chapter 7**

© 2012 Carneiro and Miguez, licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2012 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,

**A Flood Control Approach Integrated**

**with a Sustainable Land Use Planning**

Paulo Roberto Ferreira Carneiro and Marcelo Gomes Miguez

The Brazilian National Water Resources Policy, instituted by Law no. 9.433 in 1997, is based on six fundamental principles that structure the whole National Water Resource Management System: 1) water is a commodity in the public domain; 2) water is a limited natural resource, endowed with economic value; 3) in situations of scarcity, the priority water resources use is for human consumption and watering animals; 4) the management of water resources must always provide multiple water uses; 5) the hydrographical basin is the territorial unit for the implementation of the National Water Resources Policy and the activities of the entities belonging to the of National Water Resources Management System; 6) the water resource management must be decentralized and have the participation of

This Law and its regulatory texts incorporate municipalities, along with users and civil organisations, into the management system, ensuring a greater balance of power on water resource committees and boards. However, no legal text has clearly defined the relation between water management, which is a state or federal attribution, and land use planning, which is responsibility of the municipalities. In this sense, there remains a lack of definition regarding the fundamental role of municipal administrations as formulators and implementers of urban policies with impacts on water resources, whether through direct

Besides the gap pointed out above, the occurrence of conflicts of competency is also observed in the hydrographical basins related to metropolitan areas, given that the 1988 Brazilian Constitution did not establish clear management rules for these territories. The definition of the needed and related administrative organisation for the metropolitan

and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**in Metropolitan Regions**

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

public authorities, water users, civil society and communities.

investment, or by means of actions of regulatory nature.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/50573

**1. Introduction**

## **Chapter 7**

## **A Flood Control Approach Integrated with a Sustainable Land Use Planning in Metropolitan Regions**

Paulo Roberto Ferreira Carneiro and Marcelo Gomes Miguez

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/50573

## **1. Introduction**

134 Environmental Land Use Planning

Wymer, M. (2008) *UA Experts Offer 'Going Green' Advice.* Retrieved February 16, 2009, from

http://uanews.edu/anews2008/apr08/earthday040808.htm

The Brazilian National Water Resources Policy, instituted by Law no. 9.433 in 1997, is based on six fundamental principles that structure the whole National Water Resource Management System: 1) water is a commodity in the public domain; 2) water is a limited natural resource, endowed with economic value; 3) in situations of scarcity, the priority water resources use is for human consumption and watering animals; 4) the management of water resources must always provide multiple water uses; 5) the hydrographical basin is the territorial unit for the implementation of the National Water Resources Policy and the activities of the entities belonging to the of National Water Resources Management System; 6) the water resource management must be decentralized and have the participation of public authorities, water users, civil society and communities.

This Law and its regulatory texts incorporate municipalities, along with users and civil organisations, into the management system, ensuring a greater balance of power on water resource committees and boards. However, no legal text has clearly defined the relation between water management, which is a state or federal attribution, and land use planning, which is responsibility of the municipalities. In this sense, there remains a lack of definition regarding the fundamental role of municipal administrations as formulators and implementers of urban policies with impacts on water resources, whether through direct investment, or by means of actions of regulatory nature.

Besides the gap pointed out above, the occurrence of conflicts of competency is also observed in the hydrographical basins related to metropolitan areas, given that the 1988 Brazilian Constitution did not establish clear management rules for these territories. The definition of the needed and related administrative organisation for the metropolitan

© 2012 Carneiro and Miguez, licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2012 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

areas is left to the federative states. On the other hand, overlaps is observed in the attributions of the local, state, or even federal administrations, and various undefined roles are identified, which make the task of coordination and sharing of the responsibilities even more complex.

A Flood Control Approach Integrated with a Sustainable Land Use Planning in Metropolitan Regions 137

Although local administrations are closer to local populations, their politico-administrative role does not allow a systemic vision of the territory in which they lie. More effective participation of local governments in water management is hindered, or even made unviable, also by the absence of clear definitions about its nature and functions, and by the fact that the majority of municipalities have limited budgetary autonomy, bearing in mind that they depend heavily on fund transfers from the other levels of government

Regarding the financial restrictions [2], it is alarming that most of the multilateral financial agencies, except the Global Environment Facility – GEF, still have not included, in their agenda, projects of integrated natural resources management articulated to land use planning, particularly in urban areas. There are few planning experiments implemented articulating water conservation and/or preservation measures and land use regulation,

Another aspect is that the sectoral nature of local government interests makes them act more as users than as "impartial" managers of water resources [3]. The debility and lack of institutional hierarchy of local governments confronted by actors wielding greater power would lead to greater vulnerability and to the possibility of capture and politicisation in water management [3]. These aspects are aggravated in metropolitan areas, where municipal administrations often express antagonistic interests and priorities among themselves, creating atmospheres of dissension with little space for

Although there are restrictions on the participation of municipalities as direct managers of water resources, there is no doubt related to the importance of local governments in territorial planning, as well as in its consequences to water resources conservation. It is the attribution of municipalities to devise, approve and inspect instruments related with territorial order, such as master plans, zonings, development of housing programs, delimitation of industrial, urban and environmental preservation areas, among other activities with impacts on water resources, mainly in the case of predominantly urban

These attributions have recently been strengthened upon approval of the Brazilian Statute of the City. This is a Federal Act, established in 2001, which proposes standards of public and social interest to govern the use of the urban property in favour of the collectivity safety and welfare, as well as the environmental balance. The urban policy established aims to organise the fulfilment of the social functions of the city and of the urban property by the application of a set of general guidelines, from which the following topics are

 the guarantee of the right to sustainable cities, meaning the right to urban land, housing, environmental sanitation, urban infrastructure, transport and public services,

work and leisure for present and future generations;

administration.

cooperation.

hydrographical basins.

detached:

despite the dysfunctions of urban growth.

Based on these elements, and departing from Brazilian reality, the proposed chapter deals with the need of integration of land use planning with water resource management, seeking to establish relations between the types of land use, urban settlements and the problems involving urban flooding.

A case study was developed for the Iguaçu-Sarapuí River Basin, located in the western portion of the Guanabara Bay Basin, which lies at the Rio de Janeiro State Metropolitan Region, in Brazil, and is one of the most critical areas in the state in relation to urban flooding. In this region, urban expansion dynamics is, in general, marked by irregular occupation of risk areas, without the appropriated infrastructure in terms of land tenure.

The significant investments in infrastructure in progress in the region, mainly the construction of the Metropolitan Ring Road1 will bring substantial transformation to the region current urban configuration. The scenarios built with the aid of mathematical modelling demonstrate that the disorderly urban expansion, induced by the accessibility to the rural areas in the interior of the region, may be degrading for the medium and long term urban flooding control in this basin.

## **2. The role of the municipality in water resource management in Brazil**

The competence of municipalities in federated countries is concentrated on functions that, in general, are related with the allocation or rendering of local public services and with the functions of planning, incentive and inspection of the territorial order, environmental protection and also with some level of regulation of economic activities [1]. In the case of Brazil, recently, municipalities with greater capacity of investment have begun to incorporate functions related with the provision of more comprehensive social services, which, traditionally, were restricted to the state and federal spheres.

In the specific case of water resource management, however, municipal participation in basin committees has been the main form, if not the sole, of interaction with other public and private actors related with water. Many factors hinder the municipality action in the water management sphere, the main one being the legal impossibility, by Constitutional definition, of the municipalities directly managing water resources, even in the case of basins entirely contained by their territories. The exceptions may be associated to the transfer of some specific attributions through cooperation agreements with the states or the Federal Government.

<sup>1</sup> The Metropolitan Ring Road is a Federal Government work, whose estimated cost is approximately US\$ 1.6 billion. It will have an intersection with five federal highways, a railroad and a link with various large scale industrial poles being set up in the Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region.

Although local administrations are closer to local populations, their politico-administrative role does not allow a systemic vision of the territory in which they lie. More effective participation of local governments in water management is hindered, or even made unviable, also by the absence of clear definitions about its nature and functions, and by the fact that the majority of municipalities have limited budgetary autonomy, bearing in mind that they depend heavily on fund transfers from the other levels of government administration.

136 Environmental Land Use Planning

involving urban flooding.

responsibilities even more complex.

urban flooding control in this basin.

Federal Government.

being set up in the Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region.

areas is left to the federative states. On the other hand, overlaps is observed in the attributions of the local, state, or even federal administrations, and various undefined roles are identified, which make the task of coordination and sharing of the

Based on these elements, and departing from Brazilian reality, the proposed chapter deals with the need of integration of land use planning with water resource management, seeking to establish relations between the types of land use, urban settlements and the problems

A case study was developed for the Iguaçu-Sarapuí River Basin, located in the western portion of the Guanabara Bay Basin, which lies at the Rio de Janeiro State Metropolitan Region, in Brazil, and is one of the most critical areas in the state in relation to urban flooding. In this region, urban expansion dynamics is, in general, marked by irregular occupation of risk areas, without the appropriated infrastructure in terms of land tenure.

The significant investments in infrastructure in progress in the region, mainly the construction of the Metropolitan Ring Road1 will bring substantial transformation to the region current urban configuration. The scenarios built with the aid of mathematical modelling demonstrate that the disorderly urban expansion, induced by the accessibility to the rural areas in the interior of the region, may be degrading for the medium and long term

**2. The role of the municipality in water resource management in Brazil**

which, traditionally, were restricted to the state and federal spheres.

The competence of municipalities in federated countries is concentrated on functions that, in general, are related with the allocation or rendering of local public services and with the functions of planning, incentive and inspection of the territorial order, environmental protection and also with some level of regulation of economic activities [1]. In the case of Brazil, recently, municipalities with greater capacity of investment have begun to incorporate functions related with the provision of more comprehensive social services,

In the specific case of water resource management, however, municipal participation in basin committees has been the main form, if not the sole, of interaction with other public and private actors related with water. Many factors hinder the municipality action in the water management sphere, the main one being the legal impossibility, by Constitutional definition, of the municipalities directly managing water resources, even in the case of basins entirely contained by their territories. The exceptions may be associated to the transfer of some specific attributions through cooperation agreements with the states or the

1 The Metropolitan Ring Road is a Federal Government work, whose estimated cost is approximately US\$ 1.6 billion. It will have an intersection with five federal highways, a railroad and a link with various large scale industrial poles Regarding the financial restrictions [2], it is alarming that most of the multilateral financial agencies, except the Global Environment Facility – GEF, still have not included, in their agenda, projects of integrated natural resources management articulated to land use planning, particularly in urban areas. There are few planning experiments implemented articulating water conservation and/or preservation measures and land use regulation, despite the dysfunctions of urban growth.

Another aspect is that the sectoral nature of local government interests makes them act more as users than as "impartial" managers of water resources [3]. The debility and lack of institutional hierarchy of local governments confronted by actors wielding greater power would lead to greater vulnerability and to the possibility of capture and politicisation in water management [3]. These aspects are aggravated in metropolitan areas, where municipal administrations often express antagonistic interests and priorities among themselves, creating atmospheres of dissension with little space for cooperation.

Although there are restrictions on the participation of municipalities as direct managers of water resources, there is no doubt related to the importance of local governments in territorial planning, as well as in its consequences to water resources conservation. It is the attribution of municipalities to devise, approve and inspect instruments related with territorial order, such as master plans, zonings, development of housing programs, delimitation of industrial, urban and environmental preservation areas, among other activities with impacts on water resources, mainly in the case of predominantly urban hydrographical basins.

These attributions have recently been strengthened upon approval of the Brazilian Statute of the City. This is a Federal Act, established in 2001, which proposes standards of public and social interest to govern the use of the urban property in favour of the collectivity safety and welfare, as well as the environmental balance. The urban policy established aims to organise the fulfilment of the social functions of the city and of the urban property by the application of a set of general guidelines, from which the following topics are detached:

 the guarantee of the right to sustainable cities, meaning the right to urban land, housing, environmental sanitation, urban infrastructure, transport and public services, work and leisure for present and future generations;

 the democratic management through people's participation representing segments of the community in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of plans, programs and projects for urban development;

A Flood Control Approach Integrated with a Sustainable Land Use Planning in Metropolitan Regions 139

several areas present land use patterns that do not ensure minimal standards of living,

consequently, several serious flooding problems occur in the watershed plain

water sources found in the basin area are used for complementing the Metropolitan

Tinguá Biological Reserve, the main remnant of the Atlantic Forest in Rio de Janeiro

 organised social movements, congregating federations of residents associations and entities involved in matters of environment, sanitation, housing, among others, are present in the basin, what demonstrates the great organisation capacity of its population vis-à-vis the questions related to citizenship and quality of

local administrations are becoming more committed to efficiency in public affairs,

the presence of major private and public investments in infrastructure will lead to

The Iguaçu-Sarapuí River basin is situated in Baixada Fluminense lowlands. Its drainage area covers around 727 km2, all of which is situated in the Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region. Iguaçu River springs in Serra do Tinguá massif, at an altitude of 1,600m. Its course runs southeast for approximately 43 km, until it reaches the outfall at Guanabara Bay. Its main tributaries from the left margins are Tinguá, Pati and Capivari Rivers, and, from the

The physiography of Iguaçu-Sarapuí river basin is characterized by two main elements: the Serra do Mar Mountains and Baixada Fluminense lowlands, with a marked difference in altitude. The climate in the basin is hot and humid with a rainy season in the summer, the average annual precipitation being around 1,700mm, and the mean annual temperature approximately 22o C. The rivers run down the mountains in torrents with great erosive force, losing speed after reaching the plains, often overflowing their banks

The basin fully encompasses the municipalities of Belford Roxo and Mesquita, also hosting part of the municipalities of Rio de Janeiro (covering the neighbourhoods of Bangu, Padre Miguel and Senador Câmara), Nilópolis, São João de Meriti, Nova Iguaçu and Duque de Caxias (Figure 1). According to the 2010 Brazilian census, the population of these municipalities reached 9,225,557 habitants (Table 1). However, just two of these

significant transformations in the present urban configuration of the region.

**3.1. Physical and socio-economic characteristics of the basin**

there rural areas in a process of urban development

especially those of poor drainage;

Region drinking water supply;

State, is situated in this territory;

although in a still timid process;

right margins, Botas and Sarapuí Rivers.

municipalities are totally inserted in the basin.

into large wetlands.

areas;

life;

the basin also contains rural areas still protected from urbanisation;

Several important urban management tools were made available in the context of the Statute of the City and the Urban Master Plan is considered to be the basic instrument for the urban developing policy.

The possibility of achieving a sustainable water resource management must necessarily pass through a clear articulation with land use plans. What is observed in Brazil, however, is the disarticulation between instruments of water resource management and land use planning, reflecting, perhaps, the lack of legitimacy of planning and urban legislation in Brazilian cities, marked by a high degree of informality, and even illegality, in land use occupation. According to Tucci [4], the greatest difficulty for the implementation of integrated planning arises from the limited institutional capacity of municipalities in facing complex interdisciplinary problems, and in the sectoral ways in which local administrations are organized.

Here, however, it is worth stressing the differences among municipalities: while in large cities, mainly metropolitan cores, it is possible to find efficient administrations, with good capacity to access information and with relatively modern legislation, in other minor cities, like peripheral municipalities in metropolitan areas, a total obsolescence in the legislation is verified. This is aggravated by the absence of reliable general data and information about the processes of urban structuring and also by the small number and low qualification of the technical staff [5].

This inequality in the municipal scale presents a great obstacle for a greater effectiveness of water resource management structures and for the cooperation among the different hierarchical levels of government.

## **3. Flood control in the Baixada Fluminense lowland**

Baixada Fluminense lowland is located in the western portion of the Guanabara Bay basin, in one of the most critical regions of Rio de Janeiro State, in terms of urban flooding. It is particularly interesting as an empirical study, considering the following aspects:

there rural areas in a process of urban development

138 Environmental Land Use Planning

developing policy.

organized.

technical staff [5].

hierarchical levels of government.

and projects for urban development;

and its negative effects on the environment;

services to serve the interests and needs of the population;

besides cultural, historical, artistic and landscape heritages.

 the democratic management through people's participation representing segments of the community in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of plans, programs

the planning of city development to prevent and correct the distortions of urban growth