La sentencia

All human beings and their activities depend on nature. Wackernagel et al. (1999) claimed that, from the activity of a single individual to a whole country, all have an impact on the environment because they consume the products and services of nature. Human ecological impact corresponds to the amount of nature they occupy in order to live, and these are to a large extent measurable quantities of natural capacity they require in order to function (Wackernagel et al., 1999).

As highlighted in section 1.2.4, researchers have used several methods to calculate environmental footprints. These include: Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel and Rees, 1998; Gaube et al., 2013;

Wackernagel, 2014); Input-output analysis (IOA); Life Cycle Analysis (LCA); Material Footprint (Wiedmann et al., 2013; Lettenmeier et al., 2014); Carbon Footprint (Wiedmann and Minx, 2008;

Benjaafar et al., 2013; Lizarralde et al., 2014); Nitrogen Footprint (Leach et al., 2012; Leip et al., 2013; Stevens et al., 2014) and Water Footprint (Chapagain et al., 2006; Aldaya et al., 2012;

Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). The environmental footprint methods listed above can be classified into two broad categories of analyses. Firstly, the streamlined life-cycle assessments that use a single unit indicator such as carbon dioxide equivalent (Perez-Garcia et al., 2005; Weidema et al., 2008; Campbell et al., 2011); and secondly, the location specific analyses, such as the ecological footprint of a city (Collins and Flynn, 2007; Collins et al., 2007; Collins and Flynn, 2008).

2.1.1 Ecological footprint

Ecological footprint (EF) measures the amount of land and/or ocean required to support a certain level and type of consumption by an individual or population. This measurement is estimated by assessing the total biologically productive land and ocean areas required to produce the resources

Chapter 2. Methods of measuring environmental impact, connection to nature and wellbeing

consumed and mitigate the associated waste for a certain human activity or population (Wackernagel and Rees, 1998; Chambers et al., 2014). Hoekstra and Mekonnen (2012) confirm that ecological footprint is expressed in hectares and can be calculated for individuals as well as well-defined communities such as villages, towns, cities, provinces, nations or global population and organisations, particularly human activities or specific goods or services (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). The total ecological footprint of an individual or community could be broken down into a number of components. However, six components are distinguished (Monfreda et al., 2004): use of arable land (for food, feed and other agricultural products), use of pasture land (for animal grazing), use of woodland or forest (for timber), use of built-up land (for living), use of productive sea space (for fish), and use of forest land to absorb CO₂ that is emitted due to human activities. The first three categories are often referred to as the use of productive land (Monfreda et al., 2004).

The ecological footprint method is different from other methods in two ways: firstly, it expresses the impact of humanity on the environment in one common unit (use of bioproductive space); and secondly, the method can be related to the carrying capacity of the earth (the available bioproductive space, which is regarded by experts in ecological footprint as the greatest step forward (Chambers et al., 2014). This method is beneficial because it is possible to estimate the fraction of land or ocean required to support a specific lifestyle within a specific geographic area such as a city, region, and nation. EF, as one of the methods used in environmental analyses, has many advantages, but it is claimed that it is not clear what is being measured and how resources and waste are being converted. Another limitation of the method is that the definition of nature is not well-defined in how much nature people use to sustain themselves and that it is not clear what is meant by carrying capacity (Van Kooten and Bulte, 2000). It can be suggested that ecological footprint is only a convenient means of organising globally available data on population, income, resources use and resource availability into a single measure (Van Kooten and Bulte, 2000).

Chapter 2. Methods of measuring environmental impact, connection to nature and wellbeing

53 See Table 2.1 for the environmental evaluation tools.

Table 2.1: Environmental evaluation methods

1936 Leontief Economic theory An economic technique that uses

Climate change The amount of CO2 -equivalent

Note: Details of environmental measuring tools adapted from (Dong et al., 2016)

2.1.2 Material footprint

Material footprint is a tool to measure and optimise the resource consumption of both products and their ingredients and the production processes along the whole value chain (Lettenmeier et al., 2012). This method covers the entire life cycle of products, from extraction of raw materials to the

Chapter 2. Methods of measuring environmental impact, connection to nature and wellbeing

processing industry, distribution, recycling and disposal. The unit of measurement is kilogram per kilometre travelled (Lettenmeier et al., 2009).

2.1.3 Nitrogen footprint

Nitrogen footprint (NF) is a measure of the reactive nitrogen (for example, nitrogen oxides, ammonia and others) associated with a population or activity through agriculture, energy use and resource consumption (Bontemps et al., 2011; Leach et al., 2012; Perming, 2012). Nitrogen footprints are typically expressed in terms of mass loading per time (i.e. kg/year) (Bontemps et al., 2011; Leach et al., 2012).

2.1.4 Water footprint

Water footprint (WF) is another method employed in environmental analysis, which measures the total volume of freshwater that is directly or indirectly consumed by a well-defined population, business or product. Water use is measured by the volume of water consumed (the amount evaporated and or polluted in a given period of time) and is indicative of the water volume required to sustain a given population (Chapagain et al., 2006). The water footprint of a region is the total volume of water used, direct or indirect, to produce goods and services consumed by inhabitants of a region. An internal water footprint measures the consumption within a region for goods and services, while an external water footprint measures the embodied water used outside the region for goods and services. The water footprint is divided into three elements (Yeh et al., 2011; Berger et al., 2012; Ercin et al., 2013): blue (freshwater consumed from surface and groundwater sources), green (freshwater consumed from rainwater stored in the soil), and grey (the amount of polluted water, which is calculated as the volume of water needed to dilute pollutant loads to meet water quality standards).

Chapter 2. Methods of measuring environmental impact, connection to nature and wellbeing

55 2.1.5 Carbon footprint

However, from all the environmental footprint analyses methods, carbon footprint is the most developed. It is a measure of the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions caused by a defined population, system or activity. Scholars define carbon footprint as a measure of an individual’s contribution to climate change in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced by him/her or GHG produced from their activity or activities and is measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalent (Weidema et al., 2008; Wiedmann and Minx, 2008; Hertwich and Peters, 2009).

Carbon footprint is calculated by taking an inventory of six greenhouse gases identified in the Kyoto protocol: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons (Kolk and Pinkse, 2005; Matthews et al., 2008). Each of these greenhouse gases is expressed in terms of the single unit indicator: carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) (Wiedmann and Minx, 2008). Carbon footprints are categorised into three scopes (Sinden, 2009;

Benjaafar et al., 2013): Scope 1 (direct greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion in vehicles and facilities), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased electricity), and Scope 3 (other indirect greenhouse gas emissions, for example waste disposal). This Defra’s scope or method will be used in this study to calculate the carbon footprint of both spectator and participant-dominated sport from waste and travel. It helps to identify climate impacts and lower them in a cost-effective manner; and the carbon footprint results can be used in strategic and operative planning, constructing a climate policy, environmental reporting, increasing awareness of an individual’s behaviour or life style as a source of global carbon emissions, and planning of cost savings. The Defra’s method of calculating carbon footprint was employed in this research to calculate travel GHG emissions using mode of travel to participant or spectator dominated sporting location and multiplying the distance travelled by 2012 DEFRA/DECC’s GHG Conversion Factors. The GHG emission is expressed in kgCO2e (DEFRA, 2012). The GHG emissions from waste sent to landfill and waste recycled at football clubs annually were calculated using Defra’s conversion factors of year 2012 of 290kgCO2e/1000kg

Chapter 2. Methods of measuring environmental impact, connection to nature and wellbeing

landfill waste (municipal waste, average) and 21kgCO₂e/1000kg recycled waste (DEFRA, 2013). All the calculation of GHG emissions from both participant and spectator dominated sport was based upon the recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its environmental reporting guidelines.