Ecological Footprint of the National Capital Region Households: Bridging the Gap Between Nutrition and Environment
Michael E. Serafico*, Marilen M. Espinoza, Leah A. Perlas,
and Celeste C. Tanchoco
Food and Nutrition Research Institute, Department of Science and Technology
DOST Complex, Gen. Santos Avenue, Bicutan, Taguig City,
Metro Manila, Philippines
The impact/influence of environmental conditions on the nutritional status of the National Capital Region (NCR) households in the Philippines was studied. Ecological Footprint (EF), an indicator that measures how much nature is used to produce resources and to absorb wastes by means of existing technologies and thereby translates it in terms of land area, was utilized to assess each household’s consumption pattern. A questionnaire was prepared to obtain the data needed to utilize the EF worksheet developed by Wackernagel and Rees. Body Mass Index (BMI) was used to assess the nutritional status of the household members. Data on weight and height of each household member were taken from the 7th National Nutrition Survey (NNS) conducted by the Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) in 2008. The calculated EF of the NCR was 4.6666 global hectares per person (gha/person). Quezon City topped the list with 1.2048 gha/person while the only city living within the sustainable limits of its boundaries was Mandaluyong City with 0.4143 gha/person. The highest consumption category contributing to the total EF of all cities was the food category while pasture and arable lands topped the land-use components. About 60% of the participants lived within the city’s resources and 70% had normal BMI. A significant correlation was recognized between the nutritional status of the population studied and the environment in terms of EF. Household size was found to be a factor for both EF and nutritional status.
As more developing countries like the Philippines are geared towards industrialization, the implementation of various activities requires drastic transformations in order to support the unstable economy. . . . . . . . . . . .
BRISSON I. 1993. Packaging waste and the environment: economics and policy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 8(3-4): 183-292.
CUNNINGHAM L. 2010. Behold: The world’s 10 fattest countries. Downloaded from http://www.globalpost. com on 01 August 2011 at 1310H.
ESPINOZA MM, SERAFICO ME, PERLAS LA, TANCHOCO CC. 2008. 2003 Ecological footprints of the NCR households: One step forward towards sustainability – pilot study. Phil J Nutr 55: 1-8.
ISLAM MD, KHAN S, TANAKA M. 2004. Waste loading in shrimp and fish processing effluents: potential source of hazards to the coastal and nearshore environments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40: 103-110.
JOHNS T. 2003. Plant biodiversity and malnutrition: Simple solutions to complex problems. Theoretical basis for the development and implementation of a global strategy linking plant genetic resource conservation and human nutrition. African J of Food, Agr, Nutr and Devt 3(1): 45-52.
JOHNS T, EYZAGUIRRE PB. 2001. Nutrition for Sustainable Environments. SCN News 21: 24-29.
KITZES J, PELLER A, GOLDFINGER S, WACKERNAGEL M. 2007. Current methods for calculating national ecological footprint accounts. Science for Environment & Sustainable Society, 4(1): 1-9.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE. 2010. “Total Population of the National Capital Region Increased by 1.6 Million Persons (Results from the 2007 Census of Population).” Downloaded from http:// www.census.gov.ph on 11 May 2012 at 0900H.
SPSS Inc. 1998. SPSS Base 9.0 for Windows User's Guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago IL.
WACKERNAGEL M, REES W. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint. Reducing Human Impact on Earth. New Society Publishers: Canada, p. 3.
[WHO] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. 2006. WHO Child Growth Standards. Length/height-forage, weight-for-age, weight-for-length, weight-for-height and body mass index-for-age. Methods and Development. Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, WHO. WHO Press. Geneva, Switzerland. p. 255-296.
[WHO] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. 1993. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. Physical Status: The Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry. WHO. Geneva, Switzerland. p. 452.
WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE. 2008. Living Planet Report 2008. Ropress: Gland, Switzerland. p. 36-37.
WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE. 2006. Living Planet Report 2006. Ropress: Gland, Switzerland. p. 38.
WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE - ITALIA. 2002. Ecological footprint of the Tuscan Region, Synthesis. WWF Italia, p.1.