Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 97–117 | Cite as

Effect of consumption choices on fluxes of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus through households

  • Lawrence A. Baker
  • Paul M. Hartzheim
  • Sarah E. Hobbie
  • Jennifer Y. King
  • Kristen C. Nelson
Article

Abstract

Households are an important scale of analysis for human ecosystems because they are a major source of pollutants and could thus be a new focus for pollution management, particularly for education-based source reduction strategies. The household is also a meaningful unit for analysis of human ecosystems, being common to all human cultures. This study develops a Household Flux Calculator (HFC) to compute C, N, and P fluxes for scenarios intended to represent three levels of household consumption: low, typical, and high. All three scenarios were developed for suburban households with two adults and two children in the Minneapolis-St. Paul (Twin Cities) metropolitan area, Minnesota. Calculated ratios of fluxes between high and low consumption households were 3.5:1 for C, 2.7:1 for N and 1.4:1 for P. Results suggest a high level of discretionary consumption that could be reduced without a substantial reduction in standard of living. Thus, modest changes in behavior in high consumption households would greatly reduce fluxes of C, N, and P without major changes in lifestyle.

Keywords

Household Household ecosytem Lawn Fertilizer Emissions Food Wastewater Flux Carbon Nitrogen Phosphorus 

References

  1. AHS (2001) American housing for the United States, 2001. American Housing Study, US Census Bureau, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker LA, Hope D, Xu Y, Edmonds J (2001a) Multicompartment ecosystem mass balances as a tool for understanding and managing the biogeochemical cycles of human ecosystems. Proceedings of the Second International Nitrogen Conference, Optimizing Nitrogen Management in Food and Energy Production and Environmental Management. The Science World 1Google Scholar
  3. Baker LA, Xu Y, Hope D, Lauver L, Edmonds J (2001b) Nitrogen mass balance for the Phoenix-CAP ecosystem. Ecosystems 4:582–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker LA, Brazel A, Westerhoff P (2004) Environmental consequences of rapid urbanization in warm, arid lands: case study of Phoenix, Arizona (USA). In: Marchettini N, Brebbia CA, Tiessi E, Wadhwa LC (eds) Sustainable cities 2004. WIT Press, Sienna, Italy, pp 155–164Google Scholar
  5. Barr Engineering (2004) Minnesota phosphorus study. Conducted for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  6. Barten J (1994) Suburb lawn fertility study. Three Rivers Park DistrictGoogle Scholar
  7. Barten J, Jahnke E (1997) Stormwater lawn runoff water quality in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, 1996 and 1997. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Maple Plain, MNGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck, Inc (1999) Municipal solid waste management and its impact on resource conservation and greenhouse gas emissions. Conducted for the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  9. Bin S, Dowlatabadi H (2005) Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 33:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlsson-Knyama A, Engstrom R, Kok R (2005) Indirect and direct energy requirements of city households in Sweden: options for reduction, lessons from modeling. J Ind Ecol 9:221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen A, Weterholm R, Almen J (2001) Measurement of regulated and unregulated exhaust emissions from a lawn mower with and without an oxidizing catalyst: a comparison of two different fuels. Environ Sci Technol 35:2166–2170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins JP, Kinzig A, Grimm NB, Fagan W, Hope D, Wu J, Borer ET (2000) A new urban ecology. Am Sci 88:416–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Creason JR, Runge CF (1992) Use of lawn chemicals in the Twin Cities, Report # 7, Minnesota Water Resources Center. University of Minnesota, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  14. Decker EH, Elliott S, Smith FA, Blake DR, Rowland FS (2000) Energy and material flow through the urban ecosystem. Annu Rev Energy Environ 25:685–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EIA (1999) A look at residential energy consumption in 1997. Energy Information Agency, US Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. EIA (2001) Residential energy consumption survey (RECS): public use data files. Energy Information Agency, US Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  17. EIA (2002) Updated state-level greenhouse gas emission coefficients for electricity generation: 1998–2000. Energy Information Agency, US Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  18. EIA (2005) Long form for voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases-instructions. Form EIA1605. Energy Information Agency, US Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  19. FAA (2005) Aviation and emissions: a primer. Federal Aviation Administration, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Faerge J, Magid J, Penning de Vries WT (2001) Urban nutrient balance for Bangkok. Ecol Model 139:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. FAO (2001) Statistical data base. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, http://apps.fao.org
  22. Gray SR, Becker NSC (2002) Contaminant flows in urban residential water systems. Urban Water 4:331–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grimm NB, Grove M, Pickett S, Redman CL (2000) Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. BioScience 50:571–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grimm NB, Baker LA, Hope D (2002) An ecosystem approach to understanding cities: familiar foundations and uncharted frontiers. In: Berkowitz AR, Nilon CH, Hollweg KS (eds)Understanding urban ecosystems: a new frontier for science and education. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 94–114, pp 94–114Google Scholar
  25. Groffman PM (2004) Nitrogen fluxes and retention in urban watershed ecosystems. Ecosystems 7:393–403Google Scholar
  26. Hope D, Xu W, Gries C, Oleson J, Kaye J, Grimm N, Baker L, Jenerette D (2005) Spatial variation in soil inorganic nitrogen across an arid urban ecosystem. Urban Ecosyst 8:251–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horgan BP, Branham BE, Mulvaney RL (2002) Mass balance of N-15 applied to Kentucky bluegrass including direct measurement of denitrification. Crop Sci 42(5):1595–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaye JP, Burke IC, Mosier AR, Guerschman JP (2004) Methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from urban soils to the atmosphere. Ecol Appl 14(4):975–981Google Scholar
  29. Kaye JP, McCulley RL, Burke IC (2005) Carbon fluxes, nitrogen cycling, and soil microbial communities in adjacent urban, native and agricultural ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol 11(4):575–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaye JP, Groffman PM, Grimm NB, Baker LA, Pouyat RV (2006) A distinct urban biogeochemistry? Trends in Research in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (TREE) 21(4):192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klass DL (2004) Biomass for renewable energy and fuels. In Encyclopedia of Energy, 4th edn. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Kopp K, Guillard K (2002) Clipping management and nitrogen fertilization of turfgrass: growth, nitrogen utilization, and quality. Crop Sci 42:1225–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lake Access (2001) West Metro lawn survey. Cooperative project with the University of Minnesota-Duluth, Natural Resources Research Institute, Three Rivers Park District, Minnesota Sea Grant, Mn Department of Education, Minnehaha Watershed District and Apprise Technologies, DuluthGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu J, Daly GC, Ehrlich PR, Luck GW (2003) Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature 421:530–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luck M, Jennerette D, Wu J, Grimm N (2001) The urban funnel model and spatially heterogeneous footprint. Ecosystems 4:782–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayer, PW, De Oreo, WB, Opitz, EM, Keifer, JC, Davis, WY, Dziegielewski, B, Nelson, JO (1999) Am. Water Works Research Foundation, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  37. McCury M (2000) Minnesota births on upswing. Report OSD00-88, Minnesota State Demography Center, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  38. McPherson EG (1998) Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Sacramento’s urban forest. J Arboric 24:215–223Google Scholar
  39. Met Council (2000) Travel behavior inventory: home interview data and methodology. Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TBI_2000.htm
  40. Metcalf and Eddy Inc., (1991) Wastewater engineering: treatment, disposal and reuse, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Milesi C, Elvidge CD, Dietz JB, Tuttle BT, Ramkrishna RN, Running SWW (2005) Mapping and modeling the biogeochemical cycling of turf grasses in the United States. J. Environ Manag 36:426–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morris B, Traxler D (1996) Dakota County sub-watersheds residential survey on lawn care and water quality. Report by Decision Resources, Ltd. Prepared for Dakota County GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  43. NCDC (2005) Midwest Regional Climate Center online database. National Climate Data Center (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the Illinois Water Survey, http://mcc.sws.uiuc.edu/overview/overview.htm
  44. Nilsson J (1995) A phosphorus budget for a Swedish municipality. J Environ Manag 45:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2000) The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model: quantifying urban forest structure and functions. In: Hansen M, Burk T (eds) Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century: proceedings of the IUFRO conference. US Forest Service, St. Paul, MN, pp 714–720Google Scholar
  46. Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2002) Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollut 116:381–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. NRC (1985) Nutrient requirements of dogs. Subcommittee on Dog Nutrition, Committee on Animal Nutrition. National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. NRC (2001) Grand challenges in environmental science. National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Olson J (1963) Energy storage and balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pickett S, Burch W, Dalton S, Foresman T, Grove J, Rowntree R (1997) A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst 1:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Costanza R (2001) Urban ecological systems: Linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 32:127–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Qian YL, Follett RF (2002) Assessing soil carbon sequestration in turfgrass systems using long-term soil testing data. Agron J 94:930–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Qian YL, Bandaranayake WW, Parton WJ, Mecham B, Harivandi MA, Mosier A (2003) Long-term effects of clipping and nitrogen amendment on management in turfgrass on soil organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics: the CENTURY model simulation. J Environ Qual 32:1694–1700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rodin LE, Bazilevich NI (1967) Production and mineral cycling in terrestrial vegetation. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Schulte P, Schlager H (1996) In-flight measurements of cruise altitude nitric oxide emission indices of commercial jet aircraft. Geophys Res Lett 23:165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schulte P, Schlager H, Ziereis H, Schumann U, Baughcum SL, Deidewig F (1997) NOx emission indices of subsonic long-range jet aircraft at cruise altitude: In situ measurements and predictions. J Geophys Res 102:21431–21442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schultz JW, Cooper TH (1995) Fertilizing twin cities lawns. Center for urban and regional affairs. CURA Reporter 25:6–9Google Scholar
  58. Sinnot RW (1984) Virtues of the haversine. Sky Telesc 68:159Google Scholar
  59. Suh S (2005) Theory of materials and energy flow analysis in ecology and economics. Ecol Model 189:251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL (1991) Wastewater engineering: treatment, disposal, and reuse. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil H (1993) Integrated solid waste management: engineering principles and management issues. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. USDA (2005) Dietary intake of ten key nutrients for public health, United States: 1999–2000. Advance Data No. 334, Continuing Survey of Foods, Beltsville, MDGoogle Scholar
  63. USDOT (2004) National transportation statistics. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  64. USDOT (1995) American travel survey, 1995. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  65. USEPA (2005a) Average annual emissions and fuel consumption for gasoline-fueled passenger cars and light trucks. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  66. USEPA (2005b) MOBILE 6.2 Vehicle emissions modeling software. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  67. van der Wal J, Noorman KJ (1998) Analysis of household metabolic flows. In: Noorman KJ, Uiterkamp TS (eds) Green households? Domestic consumers, environment and sustainability. Earthscan, London, pp 35–63Google Scholar
  68. Wu J, David JL (2002) A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological systems: theory and application. Ecol Model XXXXGoogle Scholar
  69. Xu Y, Baker L, Johnson P (in press) Spatial and temporal patterns in groundwater nitrate pollution in the Salt River Project areaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence A. Baker
    • 1
  • Paul M. Hartzheim
    • 2
  • Sarah E. Hobbie
    • 3
  • Jennifer Y. King
    • 3
    • 4
  • Kristen C. Nelson
    • 5
  1. 1.Water Resources CenterUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Water Resources Science Graduate ProgramUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  4. 4.Department of Soil, Water and ClimateUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  5. 5.Department of Forest Resources and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations