Modeling the per capita ecological footprint for Dallas County, Texas: Examining demographic, environmental value, land-use, and spatial influences

摘要

This study addresses factors driving the variation in the per capita EcologicalFootprint (EF) in Dallas County, Texas. A main hypothesis was that scientificallyestimated demography, environmental values, spatial attributes, and land-use patternssurrounding an individual are significant factors in the size of per capita EF. This studywas based on the survey method and GIS routines. Additionally, a multiple regressionmethod was employed to address the study question. The survey measured respondents??EF using an ??Ecological Footprint Quiz?? consisting of sixteen questions regardingindividual food, mobility, housing, and goods/services consumption. GIS technologieswere used to objectively measure spatial attributes. The environmental values weremeasured by selected questions regarding ecological crises.This study found from the descriptive analysis that Dallas County??s averagepersonal EF was 26.4 acres: food (5.1), mobility (3.3), shelter (8.3), and goods and services (9.8). The study indicates that the residents need ecologically productive landmore than 105 times the area of the county.Based on the explanatory analysis, the following summary points can be madeabout the factors driving of the variance, not only in the per capita composite footprintbut also in each of the personal footprint components:First, a highly educated, non-married, older male living in a high incomehousehold located in a low population density area is more likely to have a largerpersonal composite footprint. Second, a person with a weak environmental awarenessliving where the ratio of employment opportunities (places to work) is worse, and livingfar from freeways and major lakes but close to major malls, is more likely to have alarger personal food footprint. Third, a younger person living in a high incomehousehold located close to major malls but far from Dallas/Fort Worth Airport is morelikely to have a larger mobility footprint. Fourth, a highly educated non-married oldermale living in a highly developed area is more likely to have a larger shelter footprint.Fifth, a highly educated non-married older male living in a high income householdlocated in a low population density area is more likely to have a larger goods andservices footprint.