Manfred,  we have not used the calculations that Bill Rees and Mathias Wachernagel have applied on a national level. We have calculated the 'eco-prosperity' potential  which is focused on the potential dollar value savings using work from an energy presentation. We kept our numbers more conservative, and only projected between 1% and 16% reductions. Part of our consideration for the numbers we used came from a German study in the mid 1980s, and work by Robert Ayers. By weight human designed products and services are grossly inefficient - about 96% inefficient. Paul Hawken (Drawdown and the Ecology of Commerce) I think placed it at 98% inefficient. Some of our work is geared to help small business. While we first had a challenge accepting this number, after a few years of research, and seeing what small businesses CAN do with the right sized tools, I think Ayers and Hawken are closer to the truth. Big cities are not the only ones that can reduce their footprint - its cumulative and the significance is relative to the size of the city.

Thank you Lynn, 

I did not find the corresponding publication in your records. Could you tell me where to find it? 

Manfred

Manfred:

There appear to be some case studies, and some studies that look at small areas that assess, for example, the ecological footprint of universities/colleges.

You could try the method used in this paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800909000366

which uses aggregate estimates household level demand/consumption. But, since that is limited to households, it doesn't estimate the entire EF for an area.

Michael,

Thank you kindly for the indication. I shall study the paper.

Manfred