Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 391–405 | Cite as

Urban hinterlands—the case of an Israeli town ecological footprint



Modern urban life is characterized by the consumption of materials and energy, which are imported from all over the world and discharge waste that in many cases has a negative impact on ecosystems far from the cities in which they consumed. Indeed, cities cannot survive without worldwide hinterlands for resources and emissions sequestration. The ecological footprint (EF) concept provides valuable insights into the human appropriation of resources relative to earth’s carrying capacity, and therefore it enables us to compare human demands with nature’s supply and provides an indicator of human ecological sustainability. An attempt was made to calculate the EF of Ra’anana, Israel as a case study, to compare the EF-value with the expected for ecological sustainability and to emphasize the dependence on overseas ecosystems. Ra’anana, a town of 67,300 inhabitants in the year 2002, is considered a ‘dormitory town’ with a high quality of life. The EF was calculated using mainly the component method. The calculated EF for Ra’anana is 4.0 ha/resident which means that the required hinterland, located all over the world, is nearly 180 times the size of the town. The town’s EF is twice the value expected for sustainability on a global scale. We draw several scenarios in order to reduce the EF. On a national basis as well as with the town case study, electric energy, food and waste can be reduced and in turn would have a dramatic impact on the EF.


Ecological footprint analysis Sustainability Urban hinterlands Material and energy consumption Biocapacity Israel Terrestrial ecosystems 


  1. Barrett, J. (2001). Component ecological footprint: Developing sustainable scenarios. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 19(2), 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, J., Scott, A., & Vallack, H. (2001). The ecological footprint of passenger transport in Merseyside. York, Stockholm: Environmental Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, J., Vallack, H., Jones, A., & Haq, G. (2002). A material flow analysis and ecological footprint of York. York, Stockholm: Environmental Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Biotec (1995). National solid waste composition survey, Israel Ministry of the Environment, Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
  5. CBS – Central Bureau of Statistics (2000). Municipalities in Israel, No. 1170, Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
  6. CBS – Central Bureau of Statistics (2001). Statistical abstract of Israel, No. 52, Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
  7. CBS – Central Bureau of Statistics (2002a). Statistical abstract of Israel, No. 53, Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
  8. CBS – Central Bureau of Statistics (2002b). Car use statistics – December 2001, Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
  9. Chambers, N., Simmons, C., & Wackernagel, M. (2000). Sharing natures interest. London: Earth scan publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  10. Chambers, N., Griffiths, P., Lewis, K., & Jenkin, N. (2004). Scotland Footprint. Oxford: Best Foot Forward.Google Scholar
  11. Costanza, R., Daly, E. H., & Bartholomew, A. J. (1991). Goals, agenda, and policy recommendations for Ecological Economics. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological Economics: The science and management of sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Daly, G. C. (Ed.). (1997). Natures services – societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington D.C: Island Press.Google Scholar
  13. Darwin, R., Tsigas, M., Lewandrowski, J., & Raneses, A. (1996). Land use and cover in ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 17, 157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglas, I. (1994). Human settlement. In W. B. Meyer, & B. L. Turner (Eds.), Changing in land use and land cover: A global perspective. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Energy Analysis Program (EAP), Version 3.2 (2000). Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. The Netherlands: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  16. FAO (1999). The future of our lands – guidelines for integrated planning for sustainable management of land resources. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  17. FAOSTAT – Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics (2003). www.faostat.org.Google Scholar
  18. Girardet, H. (1999). Creating sustainable cities. UK: Schumacher Society.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, P. (Ed.). (1966). Von Thunen isolated state, the English edition of Von Thunen Der Isolierte staat. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  20. IEC – Israel Electricity Company (2002). Ra’anana’s electricity consumption, IEC, Ra’a’anan.Google Scholar
  21. IME – Israel Ministry of the Environment (2002). Israel solid waste treatment policy, Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
  22. Inoguchi, T., Newman, E., & Paoletto, G. (1999). Cities and the environment – new approaches for eco-societies. Tokyo: United Nation University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), & United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2000). Land use, Land-use Change, and forestry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobs, J. (1984). Cities and the wealth of nations. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  25. Mather, A. S. (1984). Land use. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  26. Meyer, W. B., & Turner, B. L. (Ed.). (1994). Changing in land use and land cover: A global perspective, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. MNI – Ministry of national infrastructure (2002). www.mni.gov.il, Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
  28. Muniz, I., & Galindo, A. (2005). Urban form and the ecological footprint of commuting: The case of Barcelona. Ecological Economics, 55, 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Princen, T. (1999). Consumption and environment: Some conceptual issues. Ecological Economics, 31, 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban Economics Leaves Out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rees, W. E. (1995). Achieving sustainability: Reform or transformation? Journal of planning literature, 9(4), 343–361.Google Scholar
  32. Rees, W. E. (1997). Is ‘Sustainable City’ an Oxymoron?. Local Environment, 2(3), 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rees, W. E. (2000). Ecological footprints and the Pathology of consumption. In R. Woollard, & A. Ostry, (Eds.), Fatal consumption – rethinking sustainable development. Vancouver: UBC press.Google Scholar
  34. Rees, W. E. (2001). Ecological footprint concept. Encyclopedia of biodiversity, 2, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rees, W. E. (2002). Carrying capacity and sustainability: Waking Malthus’ Ghost. In D. Bell, & Y. A. Cheung, (Eds.), Introduction to sustainable development, Encyclopedia of life support systems. Oxford: EOLSS publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Rees, W. E. (2004). Waking the sleepwalkers – Globalization and sustainability. In W. Chesworth, M. Moss, & V. Thomas (Ed.), The human ecological footprint, University of Guelph.Google Scholar
  37. Rees, W. E., & Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: Measuring the natural capital requirements of human economy. In A. M, Janson, M. Hammer, C. Folke, & R Costanza (Eds.), Investing in natural capital: The ecological economics approach to sustainability.Google Scholar
  38. Simmons, C., Lewis, K., & Barrett, J. (2000). Two feet – two approaches: A component based model of ecological footprinting. Ecological Economics, 32(3), 375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stewart, P., Fincham, J., Wackernagel, M., Martiniak, C., Goldfinger, S., & Loh, J. (2003). Toward sustainable London – reducing the capital ecological footprint. London: WSP environmental Ltd and Natural Strategies.Google Scholar
  40. UNEP – United Nations Environmental Program (2003). Ecosystems and Human well-being, MEA – millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  41. UNEP – United Nations Environmental Program (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis report. @ www.millenniumassessment.org/en/products.aspx.Google Scholar
  42. UNPD – United Nations Population Division (2004). World population growth, in www.popin.org.Google Scholar
  43. Uusitalo, L. (1983). Environmental impacts of consumption patterns. Aldershot: Gower publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996) Our ecological footprint – reducing human impact on the Earth. Vancouver: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., Barrett, J., & Wackernagel, M. (2006). Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input–output analysis. Ecological Economics, 56, 28–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. WWF (2004). Living planet report, World Wild Fund, United Nations Environmental Program.Google Scholar
  47. Young, A. (1998). Land resources – now and for the future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and Environmental ManagementUniversity of HaifaMount CarmelIsrael
  2. 2.School of Community and Regional PlanningUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations