The Growing Ecological Footprint
of a Himalayan Tourist Centre

Victoria Cole Natural Resources Institute University of Manitoba Shastri Project on Sustainable Development of Mountain Environments in India and Canada Technical Report No. 12 June 1999

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Ecological Footprint Analysis

3.0 Methods

4.0 Results - Manali’s Growing Footprint

List of Figures

1.0 Introduction

Over the last fifty years there has been a worldwide shift from rural to urban living. Statistics show that at the beginning of this century ten percent of people lived in cities. By 1960 this value had tripled to thirty four percent of the population and, if current trends continue, sixty percent of the world’s population will be urban dwellers by the year 2025 (Brown & Jackson 1987; Folke et al. 1997; Lowe 1991). Nowhere is this trend more apparent than in the developing world where many cities are doubling every ten to fifteen years, accommodating nearly two-thirds of the developing world’s population growth (Bartone 1991; Lowe 1991). An excellent example of this is India. India will be home to over a billion people by the year 2000. Although this population is still predominantly rural, with only about 24 percent of individuals living in urban areas, it is not immune to global urbanization trends (Abram et al. 1996; Gardner et al. 1997; Kusey 1996; Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998; United Nations 1995). Indian cities grow by over 600,000 people each month and, as these urban areas swell, they threaten the sustainability of India’s natural resources - despite the fact that the average Indian consumes much less than an inhabitant of a typical Western country (Abram et al. 1996).

The growth of Indian cities, as well as others worldwide, is a strong indication that urban sustainability is fundamental to global sustainable development. The sheer number of people living in urban areas, however, is not the only rationale for adopting an urban focus to sustainability problems. At the urban level the environmental impacts of human activities often emerge more quickly, more intensely and more acutely than elsewhere. Urban areas require large inputs of natural resources and usually hold major concentrations of polluting activities such as industrial development, automobile use and waste generation. As a result, these areas may act as early-warning indicators of more deep-seated, broader reaching sustainability crises (Wackernagel 1998; White 1994). In addition, urban areas generally house substantial economic and political power. Worldwide, cities are the largest contributor to Gross World Product and most economic and political decisions are made in cities (Wackernagel 1998). As well, over the last ten years, the bulk of sustainable development initiatives associated with the United Nations convention Agenda 21 have been taken by city governments rather than national governments (Piel 1992; White 1994 ).

A predominantly urban world population, however, presents significant sustainability challenges. Urban areas require productive ecosystems outside of their borders to produce the food, water and renewable resources consumed by their residents. They also depend upon ecological systems to absorb wastes and to provide life support services, such as climate stability and protection from ultraviolet radiation (Bartone 1991; Brown & Jackson 1987; Folke et al. 1997; Lowe 1991; Wackernagel et al. 1993). As cities grow, so too does their consumption of energy and resources and their production of wastes and pollution. This can quickly overtax the capacity of ecosystems in the surrounding countryside, forcing the city to exert pressure on more distant ecosystems for desperately needed resources and ecological services (Brown & Jackson 1991; Folke et al. 1997; Holden 1995). In this way, cities import or appropriate carrying capacity from other regions.

Not only does the appropriation of carrying capacity from other regions go against the tenets of sustainable development, but it can be highly risky for city inhabitants. It creates dependence on foreign resources and ecosystem functions over which city inhabitants have little control or influence. It creates the illusion of resource abundance by sheltering cities (or isolated urban areas) from the ecological damage they inflict outside their boundaries. And, it creates inequity by exploiting the resources and ecosystem functions of other, often less fortunate, populations (Bartone 1991; Brown & Jackson 1991; Folke et al. 1997; Lowe 1991).

As well as overtaxing local ecosystems, rapid urbanization in the developing world can also overtax local administration. Urban growth can occur so rapidly that city administrators, frequently faced with a lack of authority to guide land use and a lack of funds to provide basic services, find their ability to provide residents with clean water, sewerage, adequate transportation and other basic services, completely overwhelmed. The resulting chaotic and uncontrolled growth draws on ever more land, water and energy from surrounding regions to meet urban demands and the cities become unhealthy, inefficient and inequitable places to live (Bartone 1991; Brown & Jackson 1991; Gardner et al. 1997; Lowe 1991; Pirazizy 1992).

The sustainability problems associated with rapid urbanization can be particularly troublesome in mountainous regions, where they are intensified by the fragility of the mountain environment (Berkes et al. 1998; Kant 1998; Marh 1998; Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998; Pirazizy 1992). Mountain ecosystems are incredibly sensitive to even small disturbances and, in recent history, many such regions have suffered rapid degradation because of human activities, particularly urbanization, population growth, development and tourism (Ahmad 1998; Kayastha 1998; Marh 1998). The negative impact of humans on this environment can be seen in the increased incidence of landslides, deforestation, air and water pollution and soil erosion (Groetzbach 1988; Kant 1998; Marh 1998). Such is the case in many parts of the Indian Himalayas, which over the last few decades, have experienced raid urbanization and tourism expansion. For example, in the mountainous state of Himachal Pradesh, the environmental consequences of urban growth are clearly evident in traditional service centres like Mandi and former hill stations like Shimla in the southern Himalayan ranges.

Having determined the threats that urbanization presents to sustainability, the challenge now lies in finding effective ways to measure whether urban areas are moving towards this ideal. Unfortunately, this task has been complicated by the fact that urban sustainability, like its parent, sustainable development, is still a vague concept. There is no single best definition of urban sustainability because it can be very local and situation specific (Maclaren 1996; Roseland 1992). In general, sustainable communities are those that protect and preserve important resources, decrease unnecessary consumption of global resources and recycle their used resources. Since cities are essentially man-made artifacts, sustainability requires them to strive for the ecological balance and conservation of their natural environment, as well as the maintenance of their built environments. The latter is particularly important to social and cultural sustainability and constitutes a city’s unique contribution to the environment (Porter 1993).

Although much qualitative work has been done to assess sustainability in urban areas, few quantitative measurements exist. One of the more interesting quantitative techniques to emerge is Ecological Footprint, or Appropriated Carrying Capacity, Analysis. Developed by William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel, this technique measures the land and resources a society consumes in order to sustain itself. The Ecological Footprint of a region is the area of productive land required to provide all the energy and material resources consumed and to absorb all of the wastes discharged by the population of the region using current technology, wherever on earth that land is located (Wackernagel & Rees 1996). Levett (1998) has suggested that "..footprinting is the best tool we yet have for measuring and comparing the ecological impact of different activities, places, people or lifestyles". The analysis acknowledges that everyone will have some impact on the earth, and suggests that the challenge for sustainability lies in reducing this impact. Small or decreasing per capita Ecological Footprints indicate that the region is moving towards sustainability, while those that are inordinately large or rapidly growing indicate just the opposite. Urban areas can use Ecological Footprint analysis as a yardstick measurement against which the impact to sustainability of future developments and growth can be measured (Wackernagel 1998).

1.1 Purpose & Objectives

The purpose of this paper is use Ecological Footprint analysis to examine the sustainability of Manali, a rapidly growing tourist town located in the Kullu District of Himachal Pradesh, India. The Kullu District is situated in the Pir Panjal Range of the Western Himalayas and has faced an even more rapid rate of urbanization and social change than the average for India because it has become one of the most rapidly developing tourism areas in India (Gardner et al. 1997). Despite the fact that the magnitude of these activities is often small relative to the surrounding plains area, the fragility of the mountain serves to intensify the negative impacts associated with rapid urbanization (Berkes et al. 1998; Kant 1998; Marh 1998; Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998; Pirazizy 1992).

The primary objectives of the paper are: 1. To quantify the historical Ecological Footprint of Manali, that prior to the town becoming a major tourist destination; 2. To quantify the current Ecological Footprint of Manali and; 3. To determine monthly variations in Manali’s Ecological Footprint.

1.2 Description of the Study Area

Manali is located in India’s most popular and most accessible hill state, Himachal Pradesh (see Figure 1). The town lies at the north end of the Kullu Valley and is situated within the watershed of the Upper Beas River. Sitting at an elevation of 2050 metres above mean sea level and nestled in the Pir Panjal Range of the Western Himalayas, Manali is known for its idyllic mountain scenery, orchards, forests and terraced fields (see Figure 1.1) (Abram et al. 1996; Berkes et al. 1998; Berkes & Gardner 1997; Chetwode 1972; Pandey; Singh & Singh 1998; ). Despite its idyllic surroundings, Manali provides an excellent case study for the effects of urbanization on sustainability in a mountain environment.

The village of Manali, originally called Dana, was established as a service centre by British settlers in the late 1800’s. Dana, which literally translates to ‘fodder’, was almost the end point of human settlement in the Kullu Valley and was the last place where travellers could get fodder for their mules before crossing the Rohtang Pass at the head of the Valley (Chetwode 1972; Gardner 1995; Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998). The traditional lifestyle led by residents in and around Manali was a kind of semi-tribal or small family oriented life with an economy based primarily on subsistence activities (Berkes et al. 1998; Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998; Pirazizy 1992). Manali’s British settlers brought fruits, principally apples, to the area and a flourishing horticulture industry has developed (Gardner 1995).

Manali continued to function as a small, relatively unknown service centre until 1958 when independent India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, visited the region. Legend has it that Nehru was overwhelmed by the beauty and serenity of Manali and declared his full support

in developing the area’s tourist potential. The Himachal Government capitalized on the media publicity and began its own program to develop tourism infrastructure in the region. This development proceeded at a steady, albeit slow pace, until the late 1970’s. From that point forward, major changes in the shape and size of Manali began to take place. Small, orchard-based guest-houses began to be replaced by a myriad of hotels ranging from economy to luxury accommodations; the Himachal Pradesh Tourist Development Corporation (HPTDC) established four of its own hotel operations in Manali; and HPTDC, along with other tour operators began to develop and market package tours to the Manali area to domestic and foreign tourists (Gardner 1995; Singh 1989). By 1981, the village had been declared a town and became one of only three urban centres in the Kullu Valley (Kusey 1996; Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998).

Manali has rapidly developed into a full blown Indian tourist resort (Kusey 1996). The pace of this development is among the fastest in the Himalayas, largely because of the inter-regional and intra-regional political unrest in other tourist areas, such as Kashmir and Uttarkhand (Abram et al. 1996; Gardner 1995; Kusey 1996; Pandey; Singh & Singh 1998; Singh 1989). These conflicts have literally funneled tourists into Manali, as it has become one of a handful of alternative tourist destinations in the Indian Himalaya (see Figure 2). In addition, Manali’s location on the only alternative surface transport route to Ladakh, in northern India, has added to its growth.

To put the growth of Manali into perspective, consider the following: there was a six-fold increase in Manali’s tourist flow between 1985 and 1993; only 82 vehicles passed through Manali in 1969 - in 1994 there were 205,185; 18,500 tourists visited Manali in 1971 - in 1995 there were over 300,000 tourists; in 1975 there were only 2 hotels/guesthouses in the Manali area - in 1998 there were 693; there are more hotels/guesthouses in Manali than in Bhuntar and Kullu, the two other urban centres in the Kullu Valley, combined. The statistics are even more alarming when one considers that, as a town, Manali is only 3.5 square kilometers, consists of only 7 wards and 5 urban blocks and has a permanent population of only about 3,000 people (Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998; Singh, 1998).

Although one may consider this growth to be a real boon to what is traditionally a rural area, in terms of sustainability, it is far from successful. Meeting the demands of the modern tourist industry requires that extensive infrastructure facilities be put in place which impact environmental quality. In Manali, new buildings have been hastily and haphazardly erected along frequently flooded river banks and the traditional character of mountain homes is being lost (Abram et al. 1996; Gardner 1995; Himachal Pradesh Tourism Department 1993; Singh 1989). The amount of land suitable for development has decreased and areas surrounding Manali, like those surrounding most tourist centres, are annually losing land, trees, grasses and aggregate building materials, and are subject to the leveling of hills and paving of farmland in order to accommodate the tourist sector (Gardner et al. 1997; Groetzbach 1988; Kant 1998; Pirazizy 1992). The infrastructure required to provide basic amenities to tourists also has the indirect effect of accelerating the process of urbanization (Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998). As the urban population grows it is placing increasing demands on the surrounding area for a variety of goods and services, including the production of marketable surpluses. This requires modern agriculture with its massive technological infrastructure which further disturbs the marginal equilibrium of the natural environment (Pirazizy 1992).

Overall, the chaotic, unplanned nature of these developments, combined with the speed at which they occurred, has left Manali in a situation where it is now facing problems of air and water quality and waste removal and disposal (Gardner et al. 1997; Kayastha 1998; Lohumi 1998a; Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998; Singh & Tingal 1998). Litter and non-biodegradable wastes, such as water bottles, tetra juice packs, tin cans and plastic bags, proliferate as the number of tourists increases. The numbers of private vehicles and buses are rising leading to

problems of both air and noise pollution. In addition, studies indicate that the ‘A’ quality water entering Manali degenerates to ‘B’ and ‘C’ quality as it passes through the town and that levels of suspended particulate matter (SPM) in the air are frequently well above the prescribed level of 100 parts per million (Lohumi 1998b). Pandey, Singh and Singh (1998) have gone so far as to suggest that the "…quality and quantity of hotels and guest houses have reduced [Manali] from a tourist destination to an urban slum without adequate water or sewerage facilities".

Certainly some might argue that this situation is far from critical given Manali’s low population when compared to other urban areas in the sub-continent (e.g. approximately 3,000 in Manali, as opposed to 7,200,000 in Delhi), but population numbers alone do not tell the whole story (Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998; United Nations 1995). It is important to remember that the environment in this region is extremely fragile with an inherently low carrying capacity. It is not naturally equipped with the resources to house large numbers of people and the increased population, coupled with thousands of tourists threatens the already marginal availability of resources (Berkes et al. 1998; Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998; Pirazizy 1992).

Not only is the urbanization of Manali causing environmental havoc, but it is also leading to social upheaval. A surplus of wage labour and opportunities for seasonal employment are enticing new residents and workers into the area and it is estimated that the population of Manali increases by 10,000 people during the peak tourist season (Town of Manali 1997). As well, many local residents are opting for jobs as hotel operators, trekking guides and shop owners, among others, in exchange for or in addition to their traditional agricultural livelihoods (Chetwode 1972; Ham 1997; Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998; Pirazizy 1992). Many local residents, as well as scholars, believe that the influx of tourists coupled with urbanization is eroding the traditional family-oriented values of area residents and replacing them with materialistic values, such as greed and selfishness (Chetwode 1972; Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998; Pirazizy 1992; Singh 1998).

As one Himalayan scientist has remarked, "Tourism is not only the goose that lays the golden eggs… it also fouls its own nest" (Bishop 1988). Today, Manali’s economy is almost wholly dependent on tourism and its natural resource base. Considering the fragility and low carrying capacity of this region, it seems only logical to conclude that Manali’s exploitation of surrounding and external ecosystems must be curbed if the town wishes to protect its own nest!

2.0 Ecological Footprint Analysis

Ecological Footprint analysis, as developed by William E. Rees and Mathis Wackernagel, is a tool for measuring local, regional, national and even global sustainability. The Ecological Footprint of a region is the area of productive land required to provide all the energy and material resources consumed and to absorb all the waste discharged by the population of the region using current technology, wherever on Earth this land is located (Rees 1996; Rees & Wackernagel 1994; Wackernagel & Rees 1996; Wackernagel et al. 1993). Estimates of the Ecological Footprint of a region are based on the notion that for every item of material or energy consumption, a certain amount of land is required to provide the consumption-related resource flows and waste sinks. Therefore, in order to determine the total land area required to support a particular pattern of consumption, the land-use implications of each consumption category are estimated and then summed to determine the population’s total Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel & Rees 1996).

Ecological Footprint analysis is rooted in the concept of carrying capacity. The analysis is unique, however, because it circumvents the problems associated with estimating carrying capacity by inverting the quintessential carrying capacity question. Rather than asking, ‘What population can the land and resources available support indefinitely?’, Ecological Footprint analysis asks ‘How large an area of productive land is needed to sustain a population indefinitely at current levels of technology and consumption, wherever that land may be located?’ (Rees 1996). Ecological Footprint analysis acknowledges that everyone will have some impact on the earth, but this is considered to be acceptable as long as this human load stay’s within the Earth’s carrying capacity (Barrett 1998; Bricknell et al. 1998; Wackernagel 1998). Acknowledging that the location of the land may be different from the location of the supported population is an important insight. As a result of technology and trade, human populations have the ability to appropriate carrying capacity from around the globe and the ecological locations of human settlements no longer need to coincide with their geographic locations (Rees 1996; Wackernagel et al. 1993). As well, by relating sustainability to land use Ecological Footprint Analysis moves the study of sustainability away from the problems inherent in purely economic valuations.

As a tool for measuring sustainability, Ecological Footprint analysis seeks to answer the fundamental question: will resource flows in the region be adequate to sustain anticipated future demand? In so doing, the analysis has the potential to address the issues of ecological, social and economic sustainability. In terms of ecological sustainability, Ecological Footprint analysis helps to identify gaps between the Ecological Footprint of a region and its current productivity. In other words, it allows us to estimate the ‘ecological deficit’ of any specified region or country, ecological deficit being a measure of the amount by which a region exceeds its local carrying capacity. This serves to reveal the extent to which the region is dependent on external productive capacity through trade or appropriated resource flows. Those regions that are running high ecological deficits, i.e. are appropriating large amounts of carrying capacity, are not sustainable (Folke et al. 1997; Wackernagel & Rees 1996). Ecological Footprint analysis also allows for a comparison of the ecological impacts of separate human activities. This helps to determine the ecological constraints within which a society operates and can be used to establish policy criteria for sustainability (Wackernagel et al. 1993; Wackernagel & Rees 1996).

In terms of social sustainability, Ecological Footprint analysis can be used to study inter- and intra-generational equity issues. Sustainability requires that each generation inherit an adequate stock of essential resources. Ecological Footprint analysis helps to identify whether the current consumption of resources is so great that stocks are being depleted faster than they can be replenished, thus threatening long-term social sustainability. Ecological Footprint analysis also allows for the identification of areas where carrying capacity is being unfairly appropriated. Per capita Ecological Footprints can be compared on an international level to determine disparities between countries or on a national or regional level to determine disparities between groups of individuals within a society (Rees & Wackernagel 1994). This serves to raise consciousness and forces over-consumers to face the otherwise implicit trade-off made between their own consumption levels and the poverty and human suffering that results "elsewhere". As well, by showing that not everyone can become as materially wealthy as the average North American, European or Australian without undermining global life support systems, Ecological Footprint analysis strengthens the case for a more equitable distribution of earth’s natural resources (Wackernagel et al. 1993).

Finally, Ecological Footprint analysis can also be used to measure economic sustainability. For example, the Ecological Footprint of trade can be calculated to determine how much carrying capacity is embodied in a region’s imports and how much capacity it gives up to produce the exports required to pay for the imports (Wackernagel & Rees 1996). This is important for long-term sustainability because an economy which does not rely heavily on outside resources is cushioned from disruptions to the supply of those resources caused by such things as conflict or lack of availability (Wackernagel et al. 1993) Conversely, those economies which depend heavily on the exportation of their carrying capacity are subject to losses caused by changes in consumption patterns and the need of others for their ecological goods and services. If the carrying capacity exported by these regions exceeds its natural surplus then, once lost to the export market, the carrying capacity of these economies may never be recovered and the region may have no choice but to become a net importer of carrying capacity (Rees & Wackernagel 1994).

3.0 Methods

The basic Ecological Footprint of Manali (that excluding wastes) has been calculated for the years 1971 and 1995 using national data. The year 1971 was chosen because data for this period were readily available and because it represents the situation in Manali prior to large scale tourism development. The year 1995 was chosen to represent the situation in Manali following the development of large-scale tourism in the town since this is the most recent year for which a full data set is available. The methods used to calculate the Ecological Footprints of Manali, as well as its associated assumptions, are discussed below.

3.1 Assumptions of Ecological Footprint Analysis

In order to fully appreciate the derived Ecological Footprints of Manali, it is important to understand the general assumptions that are made when using this analysis. In theory, the Ecological Footprint of a population is estimated by calculating how much land and water area is required on a continuous basis to produce all the goods consumed and to assimilate all of the wastes produced by that population. In practice, however, it is virtually impossible to accurately account for all of the different consumption items, waste types and ecosystem functions (Wackernagel & Rees 1996). For this reason, simplifications are made to the theoretical Ecological Footprint concept. The first of these simplifications is the inclusion of only biologically productive land (pastures, arable land, forests and sea) in the calculation. According to Rees and Wackernagel, this restriction was chosen because: a) this land alone produces the renewable resource flows to the human economy; b) fossil fuel is only a temporary and not a sustainable energy source and; c) it represents the finite character of Earth, as its productive areas have remained fairly constant. This biologically productive land area is classified using a simple taxonomy of ecological productivity into five land (ecosystem) categories - fossil energy land, built-up area, arable land, pasture, and sea (Wackernagel 1998; Wackernagel & Rees 1996; Wackernagel et al. 1993). A similar type of taxonomy is used for consumption items. These are restricted to major categories and individual items since it is not feasible to determine the land requirements for the provision, maintenance and disposal of each of tens of thousands of consumer goods (Wackernagel & Rees 1996).

Another major assumption of Ecological Footprint analysis is that current industrial harvest practices, such as those used for agriculture and forestry, are sustainable which they often are not. As well, only the basic services of nature are included in the calculation. Among these are the appropriation of nature’s services through the harvest of renewable resources, the extraction of non-renewable resources and paving over. There are various ecological aspects which are still excluded from current assessments, such as soil contamination and other forms of pollution, such as ozone depletion, and waste absorption (Wackernagel & Rees 1996; Wackernagel 1998).

The net effect of these assumptions is that all ‘derived’ Ecological Footprints are smaller than the ‘actual’ footprint of the region. Thus, they represent an extremely conservative view of humanity’s demands on nature.

3.2 General Calculations for the Ecological Footprint

Estimating the Ecological Footprint of a population is a multi-stage process.

The first step in calculating the Ecological Footprint of a region is estimating its per capita Ecological Footprint. This begins with an estimate of the average person’s annual consumption [‘c’, in kg/capita] of particular items. For Manali, this was done by calculating the per capita consumption of an average Indian citizen. The items included in the analysis reflected those used in readily available international data, primarily compiled by organizations of the United Nations, such as the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistical Office (see Table 1). In all of the categories where trade data was

Table 1: References for the data used to calculate Manali's basic Ecological Footprint

available, trade-corrected consumption was assessed by subtracting exports from the sum of production and imports (Wackernagel & Rees 1996).

Once the average annual consumption per Indian had been estimated, the next step was to estimate the land area appropriated per capita (aa) for the production of each major consumption item (‘i’). This was done by dividing average annual consumption of a particular item, as calculated above, by its average annual productivity or yield [‘p’, in kg/ha]. Thus, the following equation was used:

  aa_i = c_i / p_i (Wackernagel & Rees 1996).

Next, the total consumption footprint for the average Indian (‘cf’) was calculated by summing all of the ecosystem areas appropriated (aa_i) by all purchased consumption goods and services (n) on an annual basis. This per capita Indian consumption footprint was found using the following equation:

  cf = 3 aa_i

   i = 1 to n (Wackernagel & Rees 1996).

The total consumption footprint (CF_p) of Manali was then calculated by multiplying the average per capita Indian Ecological Footprint by the total population of Manali (N) as follows:

  CF_p = N(cf) (Wackernagel & Rees 1996).

3.3 Calculating the Ecological Footprint of The Average Indian - 1971 & 1995

The calculations of Indian Ecological Footprint per capita in 1971 and 1995 were completed using an Excel spreadsheet model developed by Mathis Wackernagel (1998). The spreadsheets of the Ecological Footprint calculations for Manali in 1971 and 1995 can be seen in Appendices 1 and 2, respectively. It is probably easiest to refer to these spreadsheets throughout the following discussion of the methods employed.

The rows of the spreadsheet represent resource types, while the columns contain the productivity, production, import, export and consumption of these resources (Wackernagel 1998). In most cases, total consumption is calculated by subtracting total exports of a resource type from the sum of its production and imports. The final column represents the Ecological Footprint per capita.

The spreadsheet is composed of three main areas. The upper part of the spreadsheet is used to calculate India’s consumption of biotic resources, namely foods, timber and other crops. The middle section of the spreadsheet considers India’s energy balance while the final section summarizes the Ecological Footprint of the average Indian citizen and the ecological capacity of India. The calculations and assumptions specific to each of these areas will be discussed in turn.

3.3A Biotic Resources - Foods, Other Crops and Timber

The upper part of the spreadsheet is used to calculate India’s consumption of biotic resources. These consist of foods, timber and other crops. The per capita Ecological Footprint for each product in this section of the spreadsheet was found by dividing the consumption per capita of a product by the product’s associated productivity. For example, in the case of cereals, the Ecological Footprint per capita would be:

The numerator represents the consumption per capita of cereals, while the denominator represents the average global yield of cereals (Wackernagel 1998).

3.3A i) Productivity Values

In most cases, the productivity value used for foods and other crops was the average world yield of the item in question. Average world yield was chosen, rather than average Indian yield, because trade facilitates the consumption of items from all over the globe. The data for world yield of each crop was obtained from FAO’s statistical database on the Internet at http://apps.fao.org. The productivity of animal products from pasture (bovine, goat, mutton and buffalo meat, dairy products, and hides and skins), sugar, cotton and wool were either derived or came from alternative sources.

3.3A i) a) Productivity of Animal Products from Pasture

The productivity of animal products from pasture was calculated by dividing the weight of all animal products, in kilograms, grown on pastures by the total pasture area, in hectares, of the world. In order to do this, the various animal products were weighed according to their conversion efficiencies - that is, the ratio of the total kilojoules of input to the total kilojoules of output for each product. These conversion efficiencies are 16 for beef, goat, sheep and buffalo and 5 for milk, with an average conversion efficiency estimated to be about 7.1. (Pork, chicken and eggs have a conversion efficiency of between 5 and 6, but are not included in this calculation because they grow on cereals from arable land rather than being pasture raised.) To calculate the average productivity, the weight of all beef, goat, sheep and buffalo products (including hides and three times the wool as its conversion efficiency is three times lower than beef) was multiplied by 16/7.1 to convert it into average animal product. The amount of milk was multiplied by 5/7.1 and then divided by 4.78 since one kilojoule of milk is 4.78 times heavier than one meat kilojoule. The sum of these products was then divided by the total pasture area of the world to get the final productivity value (Wackernagel 1998). Thus, the general equation for this calculation was:

In the case of 1971, this productivity was 61 kilograms per hectare and in 1995 it was 82 kilograms per hectare.

The productivity of beef, goat, sheep and buffalo meat from pasture was calculated by dividing the world average productivity of animal products from pasture by 16 (the average conversion efficiency for these meats) and multiplying by 7.1 (the average world productivity for animal products from pasture). Similarly, the average productivity of milk was calculated by dividing the average world productivity of animal products from pasture by 5 (the average conversion efficiency of milk) and multiplying by 4.78 (since one kilojoule of milk is 4.78 times heavier than one meat kilojoule) and then by 7.1 (the average world productivity for animal products from pasture). The average productivity of cheese and butter was found by dividing the productivity of milk by 10 since it takes approximately 10 kilograms of milk to produce 1 kilogram of butter or cheese (Wackernagel 1998; Wackernagel et al. 1993). The productivity of wool was calculated in 1993 by Wackernagel et al. to be 15 kilograms per hectare.

3.3A i) b) Productivity of Sugar

The productivity of sugar was calculated using the average world yield of sugar crops - sugar beets, sugar cane and other sugar crops. As sugar cane is the primary sugar crop in India, the production of sugar cane was used to represent the production of sugar. Import and export statistics, however, were given for sugar only so they needed to be converted into crop equivalents. It takes approximately 13 kilograms of sugar cane or 6 kilograms of sugar beets to produce 1 kg of sugar (Wackernagel et al. 1993). Using these values, it can be estimated that an average of 9.5 kilograms of sugar crop are needed to produce one kilogram of sugar. Thus, in order to convert the amount of sugar imported and exported into crop equivalents these values were multiplied by 9.5.

3.3A i) c) Productivity of Cotton

Finally, the productivity of cotton came from the International Institute of Economic Development and is estimated to be 1000 kilograms per hectare (Wackernagel 1998).

3.3B Energy Balance of India

The next part of the spreadsheet analyzes the energy requirements of India. The energy types included in this analysis were coal, liquid fossil fuels, gaseous fossil fuels, nuclear power, hydroelectricity, biomass and the energy embodied in net imported goods. Although the majority of these categories are self-explanatory, the latter energy type, energy embodied in net imported goods, is a bit less obvious.

The energy embodied in net imported goods is used to account for trade in the calculation of per capita energy consumption. Per capita energy consumption needs to be corrected for trade because India consumes energy to produce export goods, but also imports goods whose production energy has been invested elsewhere. Thus, an energy balance of traded goods was calculated by considering the energy requirements of a variety of imported and exported commodities. For each commodity, total consumption in tonnes was calculated by subtracting the exports from the imports. The total consumption of each product was then multiplied by its embodied energy (gigajoules per tonne) to determine the amount of energy consumed. (The embodied energy values come from a variety of studies that have been compiled and assessed by both William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel (Wackernagel et al. 1993; Wackernagel 1998; Wackernagel & Rees 1996)). The sum of these energy values represents India’s energy balance in traded goods or the total amount of energy embodied in net imported goods.

3.3B i) Energy Consumption Per Capita

The total Indian consumption of each energy type was obtained from statistics compiled by the United Nations and World Resources Institute, with the exception of energy embodied in net imported goods (see above). All of these values were converted from their respective units into total gigajoules. The consumption per capita was then calculated by dividing the total consumption of each energy type by the population of India. In order to determine the per capita Ecological Footprint for each energy source, the consumption per capita was divided by the conversion factor of the energy type in question. These conversion factors are discussed below.

3.3B ii) Conversion Factors

3.3B ii) a) Conversion Factors for Fossil Energy

For fossil fuel energy sources - coal, liquid fossil fuels and gaseous fossil fuels - the conversion factors are estimates of the land area needed today to absorb the excessive carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) released by fossil energy burning. Forest ecosystems and peat bogs are among those systems that can be significant natural assimilators of CO₂. Young to middle-aged forests, however, accumulate CO₂ at the fastest rate over a 50 to 80 year time span. Data on typical forest productivities of temperate, boreal and tropical forests show that an average forest can accumulate approximately 1.05 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year. This means that one hectare of average forest can annually absorb the CO₂ emission generated by the consumption of 60 gigajoules of biomass fuel (Wackernagel 1998; Wackernagel & Rees 1996). The conversion factor for each fossil energy type is approximated by adjusting this value by the specific carbon intensity of the energy type. For example, the conversion factor for coal is 55 gigajoules per hectare per year, compared to values of 71 and 93 for liquid and gaseous fossil fuels, respectively (Wackernagel 1998). This is because coal combustion releases a greater amount of carbon dioxide than the combustion of fossil liquids or gases. As a result, it takes a greater amount of land to absorb the carbon dioxide released per gigajoule of coal consumed.

3.3B ii) b) The Conversion Factor for Nuclear Energy

For nuclear energy, the same footprint per energy unit as that for liquid fossil fuel is used. There are two reasons why this assumption has been made. Firstly, rough calculations suggest that the lost bioproductivity caused by accidents, primarily the Chernobyl accident, compared with the total nuclear power produced since the 1970’s leads to a nuclear footprint similar to that for liquid fossil fuels. Secondly, non-subsidized nuclear energy is not economically competitive with fossil fuel and, as a result, will likely be replaced in the short run with fossil energy (Wackernagel 1998; Wackernagel & Rees 1996).

3.3B ii) c) The Conversion Factor for Hydro-Electric Energy

In the case of hydro-electric energy, the conversion factor is estimated by dividing the flooded land behind dams, plus the land occupied by high voltage power line corridors, by the annual electricity production. Based on a variety of studies, the land-for-energy ratio of one hectare for each 1,000 gigajoules of continuous generating capacity is considered reasonable for general Ecological Footprint calculations. However, this a very general estimate and more specific calculations would require regionally collected data (Wackernagel et al. 1993; Wackernagel 1998; Wackernagel & Rees 1996; ).

3.3B ii) d) The Conversion Factor for Wood-Based Energy

The conversion factor for wood-energy is based on the assumption that the density of wood is 600 kilograms per cubic metre and that forests used for fuel can produce double the biomass per unit of time because they are left in a highly productive, immature state. On average, each hectare of forest can produce 1.99 cubic metres of roundwood with a waste factor for firewood equal to 0.53 (because its productivity is considered to be twice that of roundwood). This means that the average hectare of forest can produce approximately 3.8 cubic metres of firewood, or 2253 kilograms. With an energy content of wood of 20 megajoules per kilogram this equates to a footprint of approximately 90 gigajoules per hectare. The ecological footprint of wood energy is not included in this section, however, because it has already been included in the section dealing with the use of timber products (Wackernagel 1998).

3.3B ii) e) The Conversion Factor for Energy Embodied in Net Imported Goods

The conversion factor for the energy embodied in net imported goods is considered to be the same as that for liquid fossil fuels - 71 gigajoules per hectare per year. This is based on the assumption that liquid fossil fuels are the primary energy source used to produce these goods (Wackernagel 1998).

3.3C Summaries

The final section of the Excel spreadsheet summarizes the Ecological Footprint of the average Indian citizen and the ecological capacity of India.

3.3C i) Summary of the Ecological Footprint Per Capita

The left section itemizes the footprint components according to the six ecological categories of: fossil energy land, built-up area, arable land, pasture, and forest, and gives total values for each of these components. In order to facilitate comparisons between each of these land areas, the total area for each ecological component has been multiplied by an equivalency factor. This was done because the productive capacity of each land type is substantially different. For example, arable land has a much higher potential for biological production than land only suitable for pasture. The equivalency factors scale the land categories proportional to their productivities. Each equivalency factor provides information about the land category’s relative productivity as compared with world average land, which has a factor of 1. For example, the arable land factor of 3.2 indicates that arable can produce 3.2 times more biomass than would average land (Wackernagel 1998).

3.3C ii) Summary of the Biologically Productive Capacity Within India

Having accounted for the per capita Ecological Footprint, the right section quantifies the biologically productive capacity within India and, for comparison, in the world. To do this, the physical land area per capita was multiplied by the equivalency factor and the ‘yield factor’ associated with each land type. For the sake of comparison, the same capacity assessment was completed for the globe (Wackernagel 1998).

The physical land per capita for India was estimated using national land use statistics (Wackernagel 1998). Most of these came from FAO and the World Resources Institute. The area of built-up land was estimated at 50 percent of the land use category ‘land unavailable for cultivation’ - a classification which includes water bodies, railways, deserts, high mountain areas, roads and buildings (Statistical Abstract of India 1997). The sea area per capita was calculated by dividing the total area of India’s Exclusive Economic Zone, 202 million hectares, by the population of India (Roy 1999).

The ‘yield factor’ is the relative productivity of each land type in India compared to the average world productivity for these lands. For example, a yield factor of 1.5 indicates that the local productivity of this ecosystem category is fifty percent higher than world average. The yield factors for each ecosystem category are calculated differently. For arable land, the yield factor is found dividing the per hectare yield of cereals in India by the global per hectare cereals yield. The yield factor for built-up land is considered to be the same as that for arable land since most settlements are placed on land with prime agricultural potential. The yield factor for pasture is calculated by summing up the total Indian animal production on pastures (converted into "average animal products"), dividing by the pasture area of India (to obtain the productivity for animal products produced from pasture) and then dividing by the average world productivity for animal products produced from pasture. The yield factor for forests is estimated from FAO statistics. The yield factor for the sea is based on the assumption that all sea space in the Economic Exclusive Zones is equally productive and therefore, it is 1.

3.4 Calculating Manali’s Ecological Footprint - 1971 & 1995

The estimate of the national Ecological Footprint per capita was the starting point for assessing Manali’s Ecological Footprint. In order to calculate the Ecological Footprint of Manali, the population of Manali was multiplied by the national per capita Ecological Footprint. As this research progresses, this estimate will be refined with data that is more specific to Manali, such as the number of cars, rickshaws and buses, the area of each ecosystem type within Manali, and the number of hotels and houses in Manali.

It is important to mention at this stage the variability in the population figures suggested for Manali. The 1991 Census of India indicates that the population of Manali is 2,433. These numbers have been criticized by local individuals who complain that the Census in done in January and February when many Manali residents have gone to Southern India for the winter months. A more recent study done by the Town of Manali on waste disposal puts the town’s population at 2,609 (1997?). Other researchers working in Manali have suggested that the population is between 4,000 and 5,000 individuals (Berkes et al. 1998; Gardner 1995; Pandey, Singh & Singh 1998, among others). Finally, an article which recently appeared in The Tribune, a local newspaper, state that the population of Manali is 2,850 and that there are approximately 5,000 Tibetan refugees living in the town and an additional 4,000 individuals which come to the town each day to work (Lohumi 1998b). For the purposes of this study, the population figure generated by the Town of Manali (1997 ?) of 2,609 has been chosen. This number is conservative, at approximately half of the estimated 5,000 people quoted in other studies, and was apparently calculated in 1995, the year this study is examining. Tibetan refugees have not been included in the study at this stage. Thus, the estimates given for the Ecological Footprint of Manali are likely extremely conservative and actually underestimates of the town’s true footprint.

Considering Manali’s role as a "hot" tourist destination, it was also important to include the consumption of tourists to the area in the overall footprint of the town. On average, tourists stay in Manali for 3 days. Thus, the average per capita Ecological Footprint of a tourist to Manali was calculated by multiplying the ratio of the number of days of the year a tourist spends in Manali (3 days/365 days) by the Ecological Footprint of the average Indian per year. This per capita tourist footprint was then multiplied by the total number of tourists to Manali to get the total footprint of tourists for 1971 and 1995. In 1971, the total number of tourists to Manali was 18,500 (Singh 1989). Based on informal interviews in Manali, as well as comparisons with tourism statistics for the years 1987 to 1995 from the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (HPTDC) (1998?), it was estimated that 3 percent of these visitors were foreigners.

Precise data for the number of visitors to Manali in 1995 was unavailable. The number of tourists to the Kullu Valley, however, was available from the HPTDC. Based on comparisons with data provided by Singh (1989) for tourist arrivals to Manali in the 1980’s and the data for the same time period from the HPTDC, it was estimated that the approximately 87 percent of the visitors to the Kullu Valley went to Manali. It is assumed that this ratio is the same for 1995. Thus, in 1995, 425,878 Indian tourists and 13,856 foreign tourists visited the Kullu Valley for a total visitor count of 438,734 people (Himachal Pradesh Tourism Department 1998(?)). Assuming that 87 percent of these individuals visited Manali, the numbers drop to 370,514 Indian tourists and 12,055 foreign tourists for a total of 382,569 tourists to Manali.

It is assumed that all of the visitors in 1971 and 1995 stayed in Manali for the average period of three days and that during this time their consumption patterns were the same as those found for the average Indian. This latter assumption errs strongly on the side of caution. It is likely that tourist consumption is actually much greater than local consumption since individuals on a vacation tend to dine frequently in restaurants, purchase souvenirs and take day trips to other locations. All of these activities are usually not part of every day life and, as a result, would serve to increase the average consumption of tourists to Manali. This, in turn, would increase the total cumulative effect that tourists are having on Manali’s Ecological Footprint.

Tourism in Manali also attracts a substantial number of seasonal workers. It has been estimated that the floating population of Manali for 1995 (i.e. seasonal workers) was approximately 10,000 people (Town of Manali 1997(?)). Since the main tourist season in Manali occurs during the months of May and June it was assumed that on average each seasonal worker remains in Manali for approximately two months or 61 days. Naturally, there are some that stay for longer periods of time, while others remain for shorter periods of time, but this is considered to be a conservative estimate. Having said this, the Ecological Footprint per capita of the seasonal workers is 61 days/365 days multiplied by the Ecological Footprint of the average Indian. No data of this sort is available for 1971, however it can be assumed that since the number of tourists and hotels at this time was low there was likely no appreciable

floating population.

3.5 Monthly Variations in Manali’s Ecological Footprint - 1971 & 1995

Due to the large fluctuations in the tourist population throughout the year, monthly estimates of Manali’s Ecological Footprint were also calculated to assess changes throughout the year (see Tables 2 and 3).

In order to determine the monthly Ecological Footprint of Manali’s permanent residents, the total Ecological Footprint for these individuals was divided by 12. It was assumed that the consumption pattern of each individual remains approximately the same throughout the year. This is likely not the case since Manali is quite cold in the winter and energy consumption likely increases during this time.

The monthly Ecological Footprint of tourists was estimated using 1995 data compiled by the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Department on the number visitors each month to the Kullu Valley. Again, it was assumed that 87 percent of these individuals visited Manali. For 1971, no monthly data on tourist arrivals was available so monthly fluctuations in tourist flow were estimated using the 1995 data. The percentage of total annual tourists to Manali in each month was calculated for 1995. These values were then used to determine the number of tourists, of the total 18,500 for the year, in each month of 1971. For example, in 1995, 23.02 percent of the tourists who visited Manali came in the month of May. Thus, for 1971 it was assumed that 23.02 percent of the 18,500 tourists which visited Manali, or 422 people, came in the month of May. Having determined the number of tourists to Manali in each month, the total tourist footprint per month was calculated by multiplying the number of tourists by 3/365 and then multiplying this value by the Ecological Footprint per capita of the average Indian.

For 1995, the monthly Ecological Footprint of the floating population was also estimated using the 1995 tourist statistics. It was assumed that the floating population mirrored the number of

Table 2: The monthly Ecological Footprint of Manali - 1971

Table 3: The monthly Ecological Footprint of Manali - 1995

tourists per month in Manali. As such, the total Ecological Footprint of the resident population for the year was multiplied by the percentage of total tourists visiting Manali in each month. For example, in the month of May, 23.02 percent of the total yearly tourists visited Manali. Thus, the footprint component for May for the floating population was 0.2302 multiplied by the total yearly footprint of 2134 hectares for the floating population.

4.0 Results - Manali’s Growing Footprint

4.1 The Per Capita Ecological Footprint for India

Based on the above calculations, the Ecological Footprint of the average Indian was estimated to be approximately 1.3 hectares in 1995 and 0.97 hectares in 1971. This equates to a 34 percent increase in the per capita footprint in India over the 24 year period.

Looking at the summary table, it is apparent that the bulk of this increase is due to an increase in the per capita energy consumption between 1971 and 1995. There was almost a six-fold increase in the fossil energy footprint between these years, as it rose from 0.09 hectares per capita in 1971 to 0.54 hectares per capita in 1995. As well, in 1971 the largest per capita land use was for pasture at 0.55 hectares per capita, while in 1995, the largest per capita land use was for fossil energy land. These changes indicate a substantial increase in India’s consumption of fossil fuels and a corresponding increase in the quantity of greenhouse gases produced by India as a whole. In an age of global warming and world conferences on curbing greenhouse gas emissions, this increase is a definite step away from sustainability.

The per capita Ecological Footprint for India can also be compared to the total available bio-productive land in the country. In 1971, this value was 0.79 hectares per person and by 1995, it had decreased to 0.64 hectares per person. In both years, India was in the precarious situation of consuming more than that which its productive areas could regenerate. As well, while the per capita footprint of the average Indian rose by 34 percent from 1971 to 1995, the average land available per capita actually decreased by 20 percent. This means that India has been forced to appropriate increasingly more amounts of land from ecosystems outside of its political borders. As mentioned previously, this is a dangerous situation because it creates dependence on foreign resources and ecosystem functions over which India has little control or influence (Bartone 1991; Brown & Jackson 1991; Folke et al. 1997; Lowe 1991).

4.2 The Ecological Footprint of Manali

In terms of Manali, the Ecological Footprint created by the permanent population, based on national data, has increased from 1737 hectares (17.37 square kilometres) in 1971 to 3331 hectares (33.31 square kilometres) in 1995 (see Figure 3). This is almost a doubling (or 100 percent increase) in the town’s Ecological Footprint over the 24 year period, despite the fact that the resident population has only risen by 45 percent. To put these values into perspective it is important to remember that the size of Manali was approximately 1.8 square kilometers (180 hectares) in 1971 and 3 square kilometres (300 hectares) in 1995. This means that the Ecological Footprint of Manali’s residents was over 9 times the actual area of Manali in both 1971 and 1995. Naturally, the 1995 values would be much higher if the number of Tibetan refugees living in Manali were included.

The big differences, however, are seen in changes to the tourist footprint of the town. In 1971, the total footprint of tourists to Manali was approximately 146 hectares - 142 hectares of which was created by Indian tourists and 4 hectares of which was created by foreign tourists. In 1995, this figure had jumped to 4015 hectares - 3888 hectares of which was for Indian tourists and 127 of which was for foreign tourists. Further, the additional population of seasonal workers in 1995 added another 2134 hectares to this already burgeoning footprint. Thus, the Ecological Footprint of Manali, with the inclusion of tourists and the floating population, increased from 1883 hectares in 1971 to 9353 hectares in 1995. This means that in 1971 the footprint with tourists was about 10 times greater than the size of Manali. By 1995, this footprint had grown to be almost 25 times greater than the area of Manali.

This substantial increase is a sign that Manali is moving away from, rather than towards, urban sustainability. It is becoming increasingly dependent on outside sources for its food, energy, housing materials and other goods and beginning to acquire unaccounted for ‘ecological deficits’. This threatens both the ecological and economic sustainability of the town. Its increased dependency on outside resources means that Manali is less able to cushion itself from possible economic disruptions and discontinuities in resource availability (Wackernagel et al. 1993; Wackernagel & Rees 1996). As well, the magnitude of the resources consumed by tourists is a direct indication of the money these individuals are spending in Manali. In this sense, tourists can almost be considered an imported commodity because the economy of Manali is relying so heavily on tourist rupees. This single industry mentality threatens long-term sustainability because disruptions to the flow of tourists have the potential to completely devastate the local economy.

4.3 Monthly Variations in the Ecological Footprint of Manali

Results for the monthly Ecological Footprints of Manali indicate that the largest Ecological Footprints occur in the months of May and June - those months when tourist arrivals are at their highest (see Figures 4 and 5 and Tables 2 and 3). It is interesting to note that the Indian tourist footprint peaks in these months, while the foreign tourist footprint peak in the months when the Indian tourist footprint appears to be at a minimum - August, September and, to some extent, October. This occurs because, in general, Indian tourists come to Manali in May and June for the purposes of going to Rohtang Pass and seeing snow. These are the best months for snow viewing because the Pass is open, but the snow has not yet melted. Foreign tourists, on the other hand, generally come to Manali for trekking. The best months for this activity are August, September and October, when the weather is warm and the monsoon has passed (Kumar 1996; Singh 1989). It is important to note again that variations in energy use throughout the year have not been included in this calculation. It is likely that the winter

months, in particular, have higher monthly footprints than specified because of increased energy use.

5.0 Conclusion and Future Directions

The Ecological Footprints calculated for Manali, thus far, indicates that the town is moving away from sustainability and into a situation where it is relying increasingly on outside ecosystems. As well, the footprint indicates that tourism is placing a definite strain on the marginal availability of resources in this mountainous region. It is important to remember that the footprint calculations are an underestimate of the ‘true’ ecological footprint of Manali and it is likely that both the town’s residents and its tourists are having a far greater impact than those indicated by these results.

The calculations presented throughout this paper rely on the use of national statistics. In the future, these calculations will be modified with local data to more accurately represent the situation in Manali. The data to be used has been collected from a variety of sources, including Statistical Abstracts for Kullu District, Census Abstracts for Kullu District, state statistics for Himachal Pradesh, and interviews with local hotel, restaurant and shop owners, as well as local residents, town administrators and government officials.

In improving the resolution of Manali’s Ecological Footprint, the waste footprint of Manali will also be calculated. The data for this purpose has been collected through interviews in Manali town, studies done by departments of the Himachal Pradesh Government, as well as the G.B. Pant Institute in Kullu, and various literature sources which outline the decomposition of wastes.

Finally, Manali’s future Ecological Footprint will be estimated using current growth trends. These growth trends will be gathered from national population projections and projections generated by other researchers on the potential growth of Manali’s tourism industry. The potential future footprint will be calculated using the computer modelling program STELLA II. STELLA II is designed specifically to model the interactions of systems and can be used to model resource stocks, resource flows and feedback mechanisms within a system (High Performance Systems 1997; NCSA 1992). By using STELLA II to calculate the future ecological footprint, a variety of different potential scenarios can be tested and the resulting footprints observed. In this way, an average future footprint can be generated and the outcomes of the different scenarios can be compared and analyzed.

The generation of more precise estimates of Manali’s Ecological Footprints, will allow for a better analysis of the consumption categories which are contributing the most to the size of the overall footprint. This type of analysis can be used to determine which consumption items and waste types are having the greatest impact on the size of Manali’s footprint and, hence, its sustainability. This is important for several reasons. Firstly, in an area where demands on scarce resources are escalating, this analysis identifies the primary resource needs of Manali’s economy. In so doing, it provides an opportunity to compare those resource needs to the productivity of the resource stocks available to the town and to determine whether the stocks will be able to meet the town’s needs in the future - a factor certainly important for the long-term sustainability of Manali (Wackernagel et al. 1993). As well, identification of the town’s main consumption and waste products will offer insight into the urban policies and programs that would be most effective in increasing the sustainability and ecological efficiency of Manali.

If possible, an analysis of the per capita footprints among different income groups will also be undertaken. This analysis is important to social sustainability because it highlights equity issues within the community of Manali. If those with higher incomes are appropriating the lion’s share of the resources flowing into Manali, then the situation is clearly inequitable. With the limited resource flows from the surrounding area, a greater than per capita use by one person can limit or exclude the use of those resources by another person (Wackernagel et al. 1993). As well, poorer individuals who are unable to take advantage of resource flows into Manali will suffer the consequences of the environmental impacts inflicted by those who over-indulge.

References

Abram, D., D. Den, H. Sharkey, G. Williams, 1996. India: The Rough Guide . Penguin Books, London.

Ahmad, A., 1998. Ecologically Sustainable Development of the Himalayan Mountain - Environmentalist Viewpoints. In: Sustainable Development of Mountain     Environment in India and Canada (R.B. Singh, Ed.). Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD., New Delhi, pp. 319- 334.

Barrett, J., 1998. Sustainability Indicators and Ecological Footprints. The Case of Guernsey (unpublished). Environmental Planning Research Unit, School of the Built Environment, Liverpool. John Moores university, Liverpool.

Bartone, C., 1991. Environmental Challenge in Third World Cities. Journal of the American Planning Association . 57(4): 441-415.

Berkes, F. & J. Gardner, 1997. Mountain Environments and Sustainability. In: Sustainability of Mountain Environments in India and Canada ( Berkes, F. & J. Gardner, Eds.). Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, pp. 1-18.

Berkes, F., G. S. Chauhan, I. Davidson-Hunt, K. Davidson-Hunt, C. Duffield, J. Gardner, L. Ham, B. W. Pandey, J. Sinclair, R. B. Singh & M. Thakur, 1998. Sustainability of a Mountain Watershed Ecosystem in the Himachal Pradesh Himalaya: Background & Overview. In: Sustainable Development of Mountain Environment in India and Canada (R.B. Singh, Ed.). Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD., New Delhi, pp. 1-35.

Bishop, B., 1988. A Fragile Heritage: The Mighty Himalaya. National Geographic . November 1988: 624-631.

Bricknell, K.B., R.J. Ball, R. Cullen & H.R. Bigsby, 1998. New Methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy. Ecological Economics . 27(1998): 149-160.

Brown, L. & J. Jackson, 1987. The Future of Urbanization: Facing the Ecological and Economic Constraints . Worldwatch Paper 77. Worldwatch Institute, Washington.

Chetwode, P., 1972. KULU: The end of the habitable world . Time Books International, New Delhi.

Folke, C. A. Jansson, J. Larsson & R. Costanza, 1997. Ecosystem Appropriation By Cities. Ambio. 26(3): 167-172.

Gardner, J. S., 1995. Tourism and Risk from Natural Hazards. Manali, Himachal Pradesh. Technical Report No.2. Shastri Project on Sustainable Development of Mountain Environment in India and Canada. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Disasters, Environment and Development. December 9-12, 1994, New Delhi, India.

Gardner, J., R.B. Singh, J. Sinclair, Dr. Bahti, & F. Berkes, 1997. Sustainability of Mountain Environments in India and Canada, Phase 2 - Project Proposal . Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Groetzbach, E. 1988. High Mountains as Human Habitats. In: Human Impact on Mountain Environments (N. Allan, G. Knapp & C. Stadel, Eds.). Rowan & Littlefield, , Totowa, New Jersey, pp. 24-35.

Ham, L., 1997. Livelihood Security in Two Himalayan Villages. In: Sustainability of Mountain Environments in India and Canada . Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, pp. 187-236.

High Performance Systems, 1997. STELLA Introduction to Systems Thinking Guide . On the Internet at: http://www.hps-inc.com/products/STELLA/STELLA.html.

Himachal Pradesh Tourism Department, 1993. Minutes of the First Meeting of the Coordination Committee on Himachal Tourism. October 26^th, 1993.

Himachal Pradesh Tourism Department (1998?). Districtwise/Monthwise Break-up of Tourists for the Years 1987-1995.

Holden, R., 1995. Sustainable Ambitions. Landscape Design . April 1995, 239: 45-46.

Kant, S., 1998. Sustainable Development in Himachal Himalaya. In: Sustainable Development of Mountain Environment in India and Canada (R.B. Singh, Ed.). Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD., New Delhi, pp. 182-196.

Kayastha, S.L., 1998. Conservation of Natural Resources in the Himalaya. In: Sustainable Development of Mountain Environment in India and Canada (R.B. Singh, Ed.). Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD., New Delhi, pp. 279-285.

Kumar, N., 1996. Tourism and Economic Development . S.B. Nangia for APH Publishing House, New Delhi.

Kusey, F., 1996. India. 4^th Edition. Cadogan Books, London.

Levett, R., 1998. Footprint: a great step forward, but tread carefully. A Response to Mathis Wackernagel. Local Environment. 3(1): 67-75.

Lohumi, R., 1998a. Tourism tramples Manali environment. The Tribune . August 1, 1998.

Lohumi, R., 1998b. Choking to death. The Tribune . August 8, 1998.

Lowe, M., 1991. Shaping Cities: The Environment and Human Dimensions . Worldwatch Paper 105. Worldwatch Institute, Washington.

Maclaren, V., 1996. Urban Sustainability Reporting. Journal of the American Planning Association . 62(2): 184-202.

Marh, B., 1998. Sustainable Mountain Development, Watershed Management and Lessons to be Learnt from a resent catastrophe in the Himachal Himalaya. In: Sustainable Development of Mountain Environment in India and Canada (R.B. Singh, Ed.). Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD., New Delhi, pp. 197-207.

NCSA, 1992. What is Stella? On the Internet at: http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Pubs/access/92.4/92.4Stella.html.

Pandey, B.W., R.B. Singh & T. Singh, 1998. Population, Urbanization and Tourism in the Kullu District. In: Sustainable Development of Mountain Environment in India and Canada (R.B. Singh, Ed.). Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD., New Delhi, pp. 153-171.

Pirazizy, A. A., 1992. Man and the Environment: Himachal Himalayan Perspectives . Minerva Book House, Simla.

Piel, G., 1992. Agenda 21: A new Magna Carta. Earth Summit Times . September 14, 1992.

Porter, D., 1993. Down-to-Earth Sustainability. Urban Land . 52(9): 32-35

Rees, W., 1996. Revisiting Carry Capacity: Area-Based Indicators of Sustainability. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies . 17(3): 195-215.

Rees, W. & M. Wackernagel, 1994. Ecological Footprint and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: Measuring the natural Capital Requirements of the Human Economy. In: Investing in Natural Capital (A.M. Jansson, ed.) Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 362-390.

Roseland, M., 1992. Towards Sustainable Communities . National Round Table on Environment and Economy, Ottawa.

Roy, R., 1999. Maritime Surveillance of the Indian EEZ. On the Internet at: http://www.idsa-india.org/an-apr8-4.html.

Singh, R.B., 1998. Landuse/Cover Changes, Extreme events and Ecohydrological Responses in the Himalayan Region. In: Sustainable Development of Mountain Environment in India and Canada (R.B. Singh, Ed.). Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD., New Delhi, pp. 53-67.

Singh, R.B. & D. Tingal, 1998. Biophysical & Anthropogenic Systems Interface in Kullu District. In: Sustainable Development of Mountain Environment in India and Canada (R.B. Singh, Ed.). Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD., New Delhi, pp. 36-52.

Singh, T.V., 1989. The Kullu Valley: Impact of Tourism Development in the Mountain Areas . Himalayan Books, New Delhi in association with Centre Books for Tourism Research, Lucknow.

Statistical Abstract of India 1997. Published by the Central Statistical Organisation Department of Statistics, Ministry of Planning and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi.

Town of Manali, 1997 (?). Integrated Solid Waste Management and Environmental Project for Manali Town.

United Nations, 1995. World Urbanization Prospects: The 1994 Revisions . United Nations, New York.

Wackernagel, M., 1998. The Ecological Footprint of Santiago de Chile. Local Environment . 3(1): 7-25.

Wackernagel, M. & W. Rees, 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth . Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers.

Wackernagel, M. with J. McIntosh, W. Rees & R. Wollard, 1993. How Big is Our Ecological Footprint? A Handbook for Estimating A Community’s Appropriated Carrying Capacity . School of Regional and Community Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

White, R., 1994. Strategic Decisions for Sustainable Urban Development in the Third World. Third World Planning Review . 16(2): 103-116.

APPENDIX 1: Simplified Spreadsheet for the Ecological Footprint of Manali - 1971

APPENDIX 2: Simplified Spreadsheet for the Ecological Footprint of Manali - 1995