The ecological footprint related to the age of the citizens at Belgrano

November 2017
Environmental systems and societies
Word count: 2128

1
 Index
Section Page

Investigation 3-5

Research question 6

Hypothesis 6

Variables 6

Materials 6

Method 7

Data collection 8-10

Data processing 11

Ecological footprint graph 11-12

New method 12

How far by public transport 13

How far by motorcycle 14

How far by car 15

Evaluation and improvement 16

Conclusion 17

Bibliography 18

2
Tittle: The ecological footprint related to the age of the citizens in Belgrano, CABA.

Investigation
Today it is estimated that humanity uses the equivalent of 1.4 planets every year, so it takes a
year and five months to regenerate what was consumed in a year, and this estimate shows that by
2050 2.5 planets would be needed every year ( SLU)1. To make this estimation an indicator called
"ecological footprint" was used. This indicator analyzes the resources that a person uses and the
residues that this consumption produces, the amount of hectares to urbanize, to generate
infrastructure, work centers, hectares to provide vegetal food surface necessary to feed cattle, surface
for aquatic to produce marine food and The hectares of forests that use CO2 that we produce through
energy, if they are renewable energy will be a smaller footprint. According to ("Eco-intelligence -
Change to a Sustainable Lifestyle!”)2. In addition the footprint is "the total ecologically productive
surface needed to produce the resources consumed by a middle-aged citizen of a given human
community, as well as that needed to absorb the Waste generated, regardless of the location of these
surfaces "(" What is the Ecological Footprint? “)3.
In this specific case i will try to analyze particular the effect of transportation towards the
footprint. Transport utilize energy as for movement energy is needed and this generates a different
impact depending on the transport that is utilized and how it is utilized. A car or motorcycle based in
fossil fuels will generate a bigger impact than a electric vehicle or even a bus as maybe it generates
more carbon but transports more people. So personal choice will have a direct impact in the selection
of transport, being one of the main reason one choose a transport.
I will try to see in CABA (ciudad autonoma de Buenos Aires) in Belgrano if there is an impact
in the ecological footprint related to transport by the age of the one being interview.

1
S.L.U., Unidad. "La Humanidad Necesita 1,5 Planetas Para Satisfacer Su Demanda De Recursos."
ELMUNDO. N.p., 2014. Web. 14 Aug. 2017.
2"Ecointeligencia - Cambia A Un Estilo De Vida Sostenible!." ecointeligencia - cambia a un estilo
de vida sostenible!. Web. 14 Aug. 2017.
3"¿Qué Es La Huella Ecológica?." ecointeligencia - cambia a un estilo de vida sostenible!. N.p., 2011.
Web. 14 Aug. 2017.
3
CABA, Belgrano 4
I will base part of my hypothesis in a investigation and article of Al Wasmi were he said
“Today’s youth feel protecting the environment is more imporant than economic gain and see

4 "MAPAS DE BELGRANO BUENOS AIRES ARGENTINA: MAPA DEL BARRIO BELGRANO

- PUNTOS TURISTICOS, ATRACCIONES, SHOPPING, RESTAURANTES, NOCHE DE
BELGRANO." Latidobuenosaires.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 24 Aug. 2017.

4
education and social awareness as key enablers to sustainable development”5. So this goes to why
age should have an impact in the transport related ecological footprint as the younger will have more
awareness towards an appropriate management and sustainable use of resources ergo they will tend
to worry about what transports they used depending on the impact they generate to the environment.
Another aspect that my hypothesis is based on is salary were i used statistics of CEDLAS
("CEDLAS - EstadSticas De Argentina”)6 it can be seen that as age increases the salarie increases as
we can see the difference between 15-24 salarie with 24-65 salarie is around a 45%.
This salarie gap generated by ages will generate a difference between the transports used
supposedly as the public transport is cheaper that a car. So by this two aspect that are dependent
directly to the age as their awareness and their salarie will make younger people use more ecologically
aware transport leading to a smaller ecological footprint.

5 Al Wasmi, Naser. "Young People Value Environment Over Money, According To Global Survey."
The National. N.p., 2016. Web. 24 Aug. 2017.
6
"CEDLAS - Estad�Sticas De Argentina." Cedlas.econo.unlp.edu.ar. N.p., 2017. Web. 24 Aug.
2017.
5
Research question: What the impact of the age in CABA, Belgrano in the transport chosen, ergo their
ecological footprint?

Hypothesis: The citizens which are younger as they will be more aware and as well have less income
that older people so its expected they will utilize more public transport, bicycles and shared cars than
going in their own cars ergo they will generate a smaller footprint related to transport.

Variable:
Independent:
Age
Dependent:
Kilometer of car per week
Kilometers of motorbike per week
Often of deriving with someone else
Kilometers of public transport
Fixed:
Trash generation
People living in their house
Type of house
Origin of food consume
Eating of animal based food
Hours of flight per year
Belgrano as place to do interview

Materials:
1. Computer
2. Global footprint calculator7
3. Paper
4. Pencil.

Methods:
1. Go to the street Luis Maria Campos and Olleros

7
Footprintcalculator.org. N.p., 2017. Web. 1 Sept. 201
6
2. Ask to 10 people how pass by between ages of 18-23 that point the questions:
1. How far do you travel on public transportation each week?
2. How far do you travel by car or motorcycle each week?
3. How often do you drive in a car with someone else?
1. Rarely
2. Infrequently
3. Occasionally
4. Often
5. Very often
3. Repeat the process with the age ranges of 23-28, 28-33, 33-38, 38-42, 42-48, 48-53 53-58.
4. Maintaining all except transport related variables constant fell it with the answer of the 50 citizens
information
5. Do an average for each aspect ask in the particulars age to reach the average people of each age
range.
6. with this average person for each age calculate the ecological footprint with the ecological
footprint estimation calculator8

Footprintcalculator.org. N.p., 2017. Web. 1 Sept. 201

7
Data collection by interviews:

Internal ESS

Age range of Person Age How far in How far by How far by car. How often do they
search interviewed public transport motorcycle. travel in a car with
someone else

Person 1 21 0 0 0 Never

Person 2 22 0 90 0 Never

Person 3 22 40 50 0 Never

Person 4 21 200 0 0 Never

Person 5 18 0 0 150 Often

18-23
Person 6 19 100 0 0 Never

Person 7 23 100 0 0 Never

Person 8 23 150 0 0 Never

Person 9 18 70 0 0 Never

Person 10 23 90 0 0 Never

Person 11 24 0 100 0 Never

Person 12 27 100 0 60 Infrequently

Person 13 28 150 0 0 Never

Person 14 25 0 0 80 Often

Person 15 24 50 0 50 Often
23-28
Person 16 27 0 100 0 Never

Person 17 28 50 100 0 Never

Person 18 25 150 0 0 Never

Person 19 25 50 0 50 Always

Person 20 25 50 0 0 Never

Person 21 31 100 0 0 Never

Person 22 33 0 50 0 Never

Person 23 32 50 0 100 Occasionally

Person 24 31 100 0 0 Never

Person 25 29 50 0 50 Always
28-33
Person 26 28 0 200 0 Never

Person 27 28 100 0 0 Never

Person 28 29 0 0 200 Often

Person 29 31 0 0 50 Never

Person 30 32 100 0 50 Infrequently

8
 Internal ESS

Age range of Person Age How far in How far by How far by car. How often do they
search interviewed public transport motorcycle. travel in a car with
someone else

Person 31 34 50 0 50 Infrequently

Person 32 34 0 0 150 Never

Person 33 37 50 0 50 Occasionally

Person 34 38 0 0 100 Never

Person 35 35 0 100 0 Always

33-38
Person 36 36 0 100 0 Never

Person 37 36 0 0 100 Often

Person 38 35 100 0 50 Never

Person 39 37 100 0 50 Always

Person 40 34 0 200 0 Never

Person 41 40 0 50 50 Occasionally

Person 42 40 0 0 100 Never

Person 43 43 100 0 25 Infrequently

Person 44 42 0 0 100 Never

Person 45 39 0 150 0 Never

38-43
Person 46 39 0 0 100 Never

Person 47 43 100 50 50 Often

Person 48 41 50 0 50 Never

Person 49 40 0 0 100 Often

Person 50 41 25 0 50 Never

Person 51 48 0 0 50 Never

Person 52 47 0 0 150 Never

Person 53 44 100 0 50 Never

Person 54 45 0 0 50 Never

Person 55 46 0 100 0 Never

43-48
Person 56 45 0 0 80 Never

Person 57 45 0 0 120 Never

Person 58 45 100 0 30 Never

Person 59 44 0 100 0 Never

Person 60 48 0 0 100 Never

48-53 Person 61 51 50 0 100 Never

9
 Internal ESS

Age range of Person Age How far in How far by How far by car. How often do they
search interviewed public transport motorcycle. travel in a car with
someone else

Person 62 50 0 0 100 Never

Person 63 49 0 0 200 Never

Person 64 53 0 0 100 Never

Person 65 52 50 0 50 Never

Person 66 50 0 0 50 Never

Person 67 49 0 200 0 Never

Person 68 49 0 0 50 Never

Person 69 53 100 0 40 Never

Person 70 52 0 0 60 Never

Person 71 58 0 0 150 Never

Person 72 57 0 0 100 Never

Person 73 57 0 0 200 Never

Person 74 55 0 0 200 Never

Person 75 54 0 0 50 Never
53-58
Person 76 58 50 0 0 Never

Person 77 56 50 0 0 Never

Person 78 58 0 0 100 Never

Person 79 54 0 0 150 Never

Person 80 57 50 0 50 Never

10
Data processing:

Data processing

Age range of Avarage km in average km average km in average frequency of Ecological

search public transport in car traveling with footprint
motorcycle someone else

18-23 75 14 15 Never 1.1

23-28 60 30 24 Infrequently 1.2

28-33 50 25 45 Infrequently 1.2

33-38 30 40 55 Infrequently 1.2

38-43 27.5 41 57 Infrequently 1.2

43-48 20 20 63 Never 1.2

48-53 20 20 75 Never 1.2

53-58 15 0 100 Never 1.2

Average person from each age range and its ecological footprint

Graphs
Ecological foot print graph
With this date we didn't arrive to any collusion as there only a small change of 0.1 earths per year

Ecological footprint

18-23

23-28

28-33

33-38

38-43

43-48

48-53

53-58

1.045 1.0725 1.1 1.1275 1.155 1.1825 1.21

from 18-23 to all the other age ranges. This may be due to the fact that the ecological footprint is only

11
given by one decimal and the difference may be in the second decimal so I couldn't evaluate what i
introduce in my hypothesis with this data.
The results of this in an ideal world should be 1 or less than one as the population a bigger
natural capital than natural income, so we are consuming more earths than what we got. This will
lead the depletion of resources and will generate bigger impacts in the future. Will leak to the loose
of resources making in human needs

New method
So cause of this i decided to search the impact of this 3 different methods of transport with
their effect to the earth for this i will utilize some estimations that were done by the guardians
(Choppin)9. Here we can see the effect of different types of transportations in the producción of of
carbon evaluated in the same distance nd by person. The motorcycle average considering all variables
as type of motorcycle and amount of passengers is 63 kilograms of carbon dioxide. Cars by the other
side vary their carbon footprint by person having as average 73 kg of carbon dioxide without
considering electric cars that don't are often in Argentina neither SUV and considering the car being
full or in different amount of person by car plus the type of car. For last the average carbon footprint
of the public transport, in this place considering bus over other types of transport that are electric is
40 kilograms of carbon dioxide. So we have as rank of carbon production first the car with 73 then
the motorcycle with 63 and with less amount of production the public transport with 40.
With this data i will simply analyze per age each type of transportation the public, the car and
the motorcycle to see the particle effect of each age range depending of their choice of transport.

How far in public transport

Here we can see how its a constant decrease in the use of this type of transport. The younger ages
contaminate less as they have a base movement in the public transport which is the one that produce

9
Choppin, Simon. "Emissions By Transport Type." the Guardian. N.p., 2009. Web. 1 Sept. 2017.
12
 less carbon as i mention before. This has a direct correlation with the variable that my hypothesis
base on, at hight age will be more income so will reduce to the public transport towards a private
transport and this is seen here.

Average kilometers by public transport

18-23

23-28

28-33
Age ranges

33-38

38-43

43-48

48-53

53-58

0 20 40 60 80

How far in motorcycle

This type of transport provides eventualities. As it is expected as the start it is low and then increases
This will be due to the hypothesis of before that more income transports to a more private transport.
The first anomaly is that in 28-33 it decreased this may be due to the fact that i only interview 10

13
member of each range so it will not be a so representative sample of that population. Then by the last
3 age ranges it started to decrease this may be to the dangers that motorcycles produce and bring plus
the conformability that other transport give. So because of this two characteristics will make peace
of an older age abandon motrocycles and based their movement in other types of transportation.

Average kilometers by motorcycle

18-23

23-28

28-33
Age range

33-38

38-43

43-48

48-53

53-58

0 12.5 25 37.5 50

How far in car

14
 This category also works out as the public transport. It decrease in a constant way from small

How far by car.

Average kilometers by car

18-23

23-28

28-33
Age range

33-38

38-43

43-48

48-53

53-58

0 25 50 75 100 125

amount of kilometer to a big amount. So the hypothesis it shows this idea of income affecting the
amount of carbon footprint. As we see younger people that had lees salarie use lees car than the
expected to have more income the older ages.

15
Evaluation and improvements:
Evaluating the possible improvement rated to the errors i made is that the impact of this small
change in km of transportation it was insignificant towards the change of the ecological footprint.
This may be due to the fact that they were in BBAA capital city so possible their work was near. Next
time for evaluating this impact it may be a good option to change the location to a one further away
from capital city so may've a bigger count of kilometer producing a bigger effect in the ecological
footprint bringing a result that can be analyzed.
Other improvement that may be done is to add questions about the effectiveness of the motors
of the cars and the motorcycles, with this information its possible to make the ecological footprint in
a more precise way.
To prove the fact of environmental awareness instead of using secondary ways it include
question in the questionary. This will lead to a more precise analysis of the data. A question can be if
they know the difference between production of carbon dioxide depending the vehicles to see if they
though about it when choosing their trasnport.
To see if there is difference between the income also to prove again my based information in
the hypothesis. For this an option should be questions related to their house their model of car to see
more or less what is their income.
Other possible evaluation in the method is the choosing of an area in a particular hour, 5 pm.
This lead to have analyzed answers of particular group of individuals of the zone instead of a accurate
sample. This may be improved to do the survey different days of the week at different hours but for
this it will be needed more time.
For last another evaluation possible is the place y choose as it is part of a high income sone
so maybe the transport decision aren't so drastic and lead to a similar ecological footprint. As well
this place as it is the center of the cities may lead to smaller movement so a better option may be a
further away place of the city were people need to move more for reaching their places of interest
leading to a bigger impact in the ecological footprint.

16
Conclusion:

I couldn't reach to a clear conclusion about my hypothesis us the results of the estimator had
a lack of change but it was seen the impact of the age and the awareness in the transport chosen. Its
seen in the results that the younger ages choose mainly public transport and as the age increase the
cars use increase and the public transport decrease. The motorcycle do a ciclic way as it increases and
then decreases. This shows even the ecological footprint is more or less the same between al age
ranges that the production of carbo dioxide by the different ranges trends towards the younger ages
producing less amount of carbon dioxide and the older ages more.
So the relationship between the age and the transport exist and the hypothesis was prover
right. The younger ages as they have less income and more awareness towards the environment
leading to use transport with a smaller amount of carbon dioxide as public transport or bicycles. This
can be seen in a way by the fact that they have less km compared to the middle age ranges then the
older ages have also trend to smaller amount of km done generating the idea of they choosing and
having the possibility to live near their places of interest.
This project will have importance for future analysis as the world has a energy problems and
this may work to create awareness for generating a possible impact in the environment. This will be
important as the word is being used more that what it regenerates so we should reduce the carbon
footprint to reduce the ecological footprint te reduce the footprint to 1 earths instead of 1.5 earths.

17
Bibliografia
Al Wasmi, Naser. "Young People Value Environment Over Money, According To Global Survey."
The National. N.p., 2016. Web. 24 Aug. 2017.

"CEDLAS - Estad�Sticas De Argentina." Cedlas.econo.unlp.edu.ar. N.p., 2017. Web. 24 Aug. 2017.

Choppin, Simon. "Emissions By Transport Type." the Guardian. N.p., 2009. Web. 1 Sept. 2017.

"Ecointeligencia - Cambia A Un Estilo De Vida Sostenible!." ecointeligencia - cambia a un estilo de

vida sostenible!. Web. 14 Aug. 2017.

Footprintcalculator.org. N.p., 2017. Web. 1 Sept. 201

"MAPAS DE BELGRANO BUENOS AIRES ARGENTINA: MAPA DEL BARRIO BELGRANO

- PUNTOS TURISTICOS, ATRACCIONES, SHOPPING, RESTAURANTES, NOCHE DE
BELGRANO." Latidobuenosaires.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 24 Aug. 2017.

"¿Qué Es La Huella Ecológica?." ecointeligencia - cambia a un estilo de vida sostenible!. N.p., 2011.
Web. 14 Aug. 2017.

S.L.U., Unidad. "La Humanidad Necesita 1,5 Planetas Para Satisfacer Su Demanda De Recursos."
ELMUNDO. N.p., 2014. Web. 14 Aug. 2017.

18