%PDF-1.3
%
1 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (D:20081105140559Z00'00')
/ModDate (D:20081105140601Z)
/Producer (Acrobat Distiller 5.0 \(Windows\))
/Author (GIG)
/Title (TE8\(1\))
/Subject (TE8\(1\))
/Creator (Adobe PageMaker 7.0)
/Keywords ()
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<< /Type /Metadata /Subtype /XML /Length 1144 >>
stream
TE8(1)TE8(1)
endstream
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources 5 0 R
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
4 0 obj
<< /Length 4293 >>
stream
BT
/F1 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 56.76 655.135 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0.0082 Tc
0.1611 Tw
[(T)99.2(ourism Economics)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
6.72 0 TD
0.0078 Tc
0.1639 Tw
(, 2008, 14 \(4\), 751768)Tj
/F3 1 Tf
18.5 0 0 18.5 68.4 591.175 Tm
-0.0118 Tc
0.1775 Tw
(Measuring the environmental sustainability)Tj
3.5157 -1.0832 TD
-0.0117 Tc
0.175 Tw
(of a major sporting event:)Tj
-1.5373 -1.0832 TD
-0.0121 Tc
0.1745 Tw
[(a case study of the F)72.2(A)0.5( Cup Final)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
11.65 0 0 10.5 141.24 507.415 Tm
0 Tc
0 Tw
(A)Tj
9.3 0 0 8.4 149.04 507.415 Tm
0.0073 Tc
(NDREA)Tj
11.65 0 0 10.5 180.84 507.415 Tm
0.169 Tc
( C)Tj
9.3 0 0 8.4 192.96 507.415 Tm
0.0052 Tc
(OLLINS)Tj
11.65 0 0 10.5 223.8 507.415 Tm
0 Tc
( )Tj
9.3 0 0 8.4 228.6 507.415 Tm
0.0068 Tc
(AND)Tj
11.65 0 0 10.5 249 507.415 Tm
0.1748 Tc
( A)Tj
9.3 0 0 8.4 261.72 507.415 Tm
0.0047 Tc
(NDREW)Tj
11.65 0 0 10.5 296.64 507.415 Tm
0.177 Tc
( F)Tj
9.3 0 0 8.4 307.44 507.415 Tm
0.0046 Tc
[(L)78.8(YNN)]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
10.35 0 0 11.5 68.64 488.815 Tm
0.0025 Tc
0.1898 Tw
[(School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University)48.9(, Glamorgan Building, King)]TJ
1.2522 -1.127 TD
0.0029 Tc
0.1896 Tw
[(Edwar)14.5(d VII A)26.1(venue, Car)26.1(diff CF10 3W)107.2(A, UK. E-mail: collinsa@car)14.5(diff.ac.uk;)]TJ
10.9101 -1.1374 TD
0.0052 Tc
0 Tw
[(flynnac@car)16.8(diff.ac.uk.)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
10.5 0 0 10.5 94.08 431.215 Tm
0.0044 Tc
0.1837 Tw
(Policymakers are increasingly interested in the wider consequences)Tj
0 -1.04 TD
0.0041 Tc
0.283 Tw
(of major sporting events, including their environmental impacts.)Tj
0 -1.0514 TD
0.1476 Tw
(Indeed, London 2012 included as part of its winning Olympic bid)Tj
T*
0.0043 Tc
0.1333 Tw
(a commitment to measure and take steps to minimize the environ-)Tj
0 -1.04 TD
0.0934 Tw
(mental impacts of the forthcoming Games. This paper demonstrates)Tj
0 -1.0514 TD
0.0213 Tc
0.328 Tw
(how the Ecological Footprint has been used to measure the)Tj
T*
0.004 Tc
0.2199 Tw
[(environmental)-258.9(sustainability of the UK)61.1(s Football Association \(F)61.1(A\))]TJ
0 -1.04 TD
0.1169 Tw
(Cup Final. This approach provides valuable insights into the global)Tj
0 -1.0514 TD
0.0042 Tc
0.2278 Tw
(environmental impacts generated by visitor consumption patterns.)Tj
0 -1.04 TD
0.0043 Tc
0.0762 Tw
(The paper also demonstrates how this tool can support policymakers)Tj
0 -1.0514 TD
0.011 Tc
0.3279 Tw
[(and event or)11(ganizers in staging sustainable events through the)]TJ
T*
0.0042 Tc
0.2001 Tw
[(development)-247.2(and assessment of policy scenarios.)]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
0 -3.4743 TD
0.0033 Tc
0 Tw
[(Keywor)14.7(d)5.3(s)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
3.2914 0 TD
0.004 Tc
0.3202 Tw
[(:)-500.3(ecological footprint; environmental assessment; environ-)]TJ
-3.2914 -1.0514 TD
0.0042 Tc
0.2274 Tw
[(mental sustainability; sport tourism; F)49.9(A)-0.2( Cup Final; London 2012)]TJ
0 -1.04 TD
0.0037 Tc
0.1857 Tw
(Olympic Games)Tj
11.5 0 0 11.5 58.08 203.335 Tm
0.0011 Tc
0.0331 Tw
[(In addition to the economic impacts associated with major events, policymakers)]TJ
0 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.054 Tw
[(and event or)11.6(ganizers are increasingly interested in their environmental impacts.)]TJ
T*
0.0645 Tw
(More specifically in relation to sport events, there has been increased attention,)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0225 Tw
(especially at the international level, to take action to reduce their environmental)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1529 Tw
[(impacts. For example, the or)22.3(ganizers of the 1994 W)53.6(inter Olympic Games in)]TJ
T*
0.0008 Tc
0.225 Tw
(Lillehammer developed a comprehensive environmental action plan, and the)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1155 Tw
(2000 Summer Olympic Games in Sydney took steps towards staging the first)Tj
T*
0.2987 Tw
[(green games. More recently)84.8(, or)22.2(ganizers of the 2006 W)74.3(orld Cup Football)]TJ
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1498 Tw
(competition in Germany introduced Green Goal as the first environmental)Tj
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.0977 Tw
[(initiative at a FIF)64.2(A W)74.6(orld Cup and set environmental protection tar)22.5(gets. But,)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1383 Tw
[(so far)53.4(, few have sought to measure the total environmental impact of staging)]TJ
T*
0.1067 Tw
[(an event. So, how might or)11.6(ganizers of international and national sports events)]TJ
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.328 Tw
(begin to identify and measure the environmental impacts associated with)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/FirstChar 32
/LastChar 150
/Widths [ 250 389 333 500 500 833 667 222 333 333 500 600 250 333 250 278 500
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 250 250 600 600 600 500 800
667 611 611 722 556 556 722 722 333 389 611 556 833 722 556 556
611 611 444 611 722 611 889 722 667 611 389 278 389 600 500 278
444 389 278 444 278 278 389 444 278 278 444 278 611 444 333 389
444 333 278 278 444 389 611 444 389 389 389 222 389 600 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 0 0 0 500 ]
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
/BaseFont /JDPNNL+GaramondThree-Italic
/FontDescriptor 65 0 R
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/FirstChar 32
/LastChar 233
/Widths [ 250 278 333 500 500 833 667 222 278 278 500 600 250 333 250 278 500
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 250 250 600 600 600 389 800
667 611 611 722 556 500 722 778 333 389 722 500 833 778 722 556
722 667 444 611 722 667 1000 722 667 611 333 278 333 600 500 278
389 500 389 500 389 278 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 444 500
500 333 333 333 500 444 667 444 444 389 333 222 333 600 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 222 389 389 0 500 0 0 990 0 0 0
0 0 0 250 0 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 0 333 0 0 0 600 0 0 278 500
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 389 ]
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
/BaseFont /JDPOBD+GaramondThree
/FontDescriptor 67 0 R
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/FirstChar 32
/LastChar 121
/Widths [ 250 278 333 500 500 833 722 222 278 278 500 600 250 333 250 278 500
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 250 250 600 600 600 389 800
722 667 611 778 556 556 722 778 389 389 778 556 833 778 722 611
722 667 500 667 778 722 1000 778 722 667 278 278 278 600 500 278
444 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 278 556 278 833 556 500 556
556 389 389 333 556 500 778 500 444 ]
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
/BaseFont /JDPOEG+GaramondThree-Bold
/FontDescriptor 69 0 R
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /ExtGState
/SA false
/SM 0.02
/OP true
/op true
/OPM 1
/BG2 /Default
/UCR2 /Default
/TR2 /Default
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Type /Pages
/Kids [ 3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 17 0 R 20 0 R 23 0 R 26 0 R 30 0 R 33 0 R 36 0 R
]
/Count 10
/Parent 42 0 R
>>
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources 13 0 R
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<< /Length 4667 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.2 203.38 654.895 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0 Tc
0 Tw
(T)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 209.26 654.895 Tm
0.0025 Tc
(OURISM)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.2 239.5 654.895 Tm
0.1666 Tc
( E)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 248.86 654.895 Tm
0.0018 Tc
(CONOMICS)Tj
9 0 0 9 68.02 655.135 Tm
0.01 Tc
(752)Tj
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 635.455 Tm
0.0012 Tc
0.1261 Tw
(staging major sporting events? One approach is to apply the Ecological Foot-)Tj
0 -1.0435 TD
0.292 Tw
[(print \(EF\).)-259.7(The EF is becoming an increasingly popular tool by which to)]TJ
T*
0.1763 Tw
(identify those resources that are being consumed by citizens and assess their)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.1704 Tw
(global environmental impact. In a highly novel application, we have applied)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0719 Tw
[(the EF to a major sport event the F)53.6(A)0.1( Cup Final in Cardiff, the capital city)]TJ
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1058 Tw
[(of W)74.6(ales \(UK\). If the EF can be applied to this event successfully)95.4(, then it has)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.008 Tw
(the potential to be applied to other major sporting events, including the London)Tj
T*
0.1818 Tw
[(2012 Olympic Games and W)63.8(orld Cup Competitions.)]TJ
/F3 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 187.9 509.695 Tm
-0.0003 Tc
0.1792 Tw
(Structure of the paper)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 485.695 Tm
0.0015 Tc
0.0166 Tw
[(This paper is structured as follows. First, the football industry)53.7(s current response)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1177 Tw
(to the environmental impacts associated with the sport is described. The next)Tj
T*
0.1516 Tw
(section then explains what an EF is and why it may be a valuable tool from)Tj
T*
0.1102 Tw
(which to assess the environmental impacts of major sporting events. Here, we)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1644 Tw
[(also explain briefly how an EF is calculated. Following this, we explain how)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.2536 Tw
[(the EF of the case event the 2004 F)53.6(A)0( Cup Final was measured. The)]TJ
T*
0.0308 Tw
(subsequent section presents and discusses the EF results of the case event. Based)Tj
T*
0.2674 Tw
(on these results, we identify those areas of visitor consumption that are a)Tj
T*
0.1043 Tw
(priority in terms of their resource use and we demonstrate how the EF can be)Tj
T*
0.0124 Tc
0.3277 Tw
(used to assess the extent to which different scenarios could reduce the)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1079 Tw
[(environmental)-259.7(impacts of the event. The final section provides a discussion on)]TJ
T*
0.0607 Tw
[(the value of using the EF approach to measure the environmental)-259.7(sustainability)]TJ
T*
0.186 Tw
(of an event, and also those difficulties that were encountered.)Tj
/F3 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 87.58 298.855 Tm
-0.0001 Tc
0.1781 Tw
(Football industry and the environment: current state of play)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 274.855 Tm
0.0015 Tc
0.135 Tw
[(In the football industry)95.4(, it is primarily at an international level that environ-)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1883 Tw
(mental and sustainability issues are starting to be recognized and addressed.)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1179 Tw
[(FIF)53.3(A \(the Fdration Internationale de Football Association\), the international)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.0723 Tw
(governing body of the sport, has engaged with environmental issues for almost)Tj
T*
0.0121 Tc
0.3278 Tw
(ten years. The approach adopted has focused on promoting and raising)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.148 Tw
[(awareness)-259.9(of local environmental issues through football development projects)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.3243 Tw
[(such as slum clean-up sessions in developing countries. However)53.5(, it has)]TJ
T*
0.0239 Tc
0.3279 Tw
[(only)-257.8(been more recently that there has been recognition of the wider)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1045 Tw
[(environmental)-259.7(impacts associated with staging major football events. It was at)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0629 Tw
[(the 2006 FIF)53.6(A W)74.4(orld Cup that or)22.3(ganizers in Germany voluntarily pursued the)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.121 Tw
(goal to reduce some of the environmental impacts of the tournament through)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0848 Tw
(its Green Goal environmental initiative, which set environmental protection)Tj
T*
0.0035 Tc
0 Tw
[(tar)13.9(gets.)]TJ
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.132 Tw
[(At a European level, UEF)53.5(A \(the Union of European Football Associations\),)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.27 Tw
(the governing body of football in Europe, has also responded to increased)Tj
T*
0.3187 Tw
[(pressure to or)11.6(ganize green games. Following the signing of a Sustainable)]TJ
T*
0.1944 Tw
[(Development Charter in June 2007, UEF)53.4(A plans to use the 2008 European)]TJ
T*
0.2058 Tw
(tournament in Austria as an opportunity to provide a benchmark and set a)Tj
T*
0.2739 Tw
(standard for future championships. Key issues being addressed include the)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources 16 0 R
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<< /Length 4817 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 400.2 655.135 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0.01 Tc
0 Tw
(753)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
-26.92 0 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1666 Tw
(Environmental sustainability of sporting events)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 56.64 635.455 Tm
0.0011 Tc
0.1429 Tw
(development of more environmentally friendly stadiums and improved public)Tj
0 -1.0435 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.185 Tw
(transport to encourage supporters to leave their cars at home.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.2548 Tw
(But what interest has there been at the national level? In the UK, the)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0011 Tc
0.1474 Tw
[(Premiership League and Football Association \(F)53.3(A\) currently does not force or)]TJ
T*
0.103 Tw
(encourage clubs to consider the environmental impacts of their operations and)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1059 Tw
(take action to minimize those impacts. In an attempt to gain an insight as to)Tj
T*
0.0189 Tw
(what steps are being taking by local football clubs on a voluntary basis, a review)Tj
T*
0.2149 Tw
(was undertaken of those clubs that were part of the Premiership League in)Tj
T*
0.3179 Tw
(2007. This involved reviewing reports and other literature made publicly)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1272 Tw
(available on individual club websites. Of the 20 clubs reviewed, it was found)Tj
T*
0.2663 Tw
(that few had policies in place or were voluntarily engaging in projects to)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.0538 Tw
(minimize their environmental impacts. Manchester City Football Club \(MCFC\))Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1093 Tw
(was found to be the only club that was actively engaged in projects to reduce)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1573 Tw
[(the negative environmental impacts of the club)53.6(s activities and its supporters)]TJ
T*
0.0145 Tc
0.3279 Tw
[(attending matches at the stadium. In recent years, MCFC, through its)]TJ
T*
0.0641 Tc
0.3319 Tw
[(Environmental)-259.4(A)42.4(wareness Programme, has developed a number of)]TJ
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.2187 Tw
[(environmental)-259.8(initiatives designed to raise awareness of environmental issues)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.3049 Tw
(and encourage sustainable behaviours amongst its partners and supporters.)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.0591 Tw
(These include recycling of waste, reduced packaging, procurement of local food)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1517 Tw
(and a transport strategy which encourages supporters use of public transport)Tj
T*
0.1559 Tw
(and the provision of a safe walking route linking the city centre to the City)Tj
T*
0.256 Tw
[(of Manchester Stadium. More recently)84.9(, MCFC announced that it would be)]TJ
T*
0.1337 Tw
(erecting an 85 m wind turbine adjacent to the stadium, which would supply)Tj
T*
0.0009 Tc
0.1254 Tw
(enough energy to power the stadium and any excess would be made available)Tj
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.1869 Tw
(to local residents.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.2281 Tw
(Although it is primarily at an international and European level that the)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.1182 Tw
(environmental impacts associated with the football industry are starting to be)Tj
T*
0.1589 Tw
(addressed, so far few have sought to measure the total environmental impact)Tj
T*
0.1167 Tw
(of staging a major event. The reason for this could be that the environmental)Tj
T*
0.0528 Tw
(impacts are perceived as being small, as events are limited primarily to one day)Tj
T*
0.0194 Tw
(and therefore clubs and national administrations choose to ignore them. So, how)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.2493 Tw
[(might or)11.4(ganizers begin to identify and measure the environmental impacts)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1664 Tw
(associated with staging major sporting events? One approach is to apply the)Tj
T*
0.1471 Tw
[(EF)105.6(. In the following section, we explain what an EF is and why it may be a)]TJ
T*
0.0494 Tw
(valuable tool from which to assess the environmental impacts of major sporting)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.2431 Tw
[(events. W)74.1(e)0( then describe how an EF was calculated for the 2004 F)53.3(A)0( Cup)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0 Tw
(Final.)Tj
/F3 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 161.4 167.335 Tm
0.0001 Tc
0.1812 Tw
(Ecological Footprint analysis)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 56.64 143.335 Tm
0.0011 Tc
0.17 Tw
(Although we have chosen to analyse the environmental impacts arising from)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.109 Tw
[(an F)53.7(A)0( Cup Final through the EF methodology)95.4(, there are a number of ways in)]TJ
T*
0.001 Tc
0.2543 Tw
(which the event could have been studied. For example, environmental and)Tj
T*
0.0661 Tw
[(ecological economists have sought to analyse resource use \(see, for example, the)]TJ
T*
0.0512 Tw
[(review by Pezzey and T)95(oman, 2002\). Environmental economists are much more)]TJ
T*
0.0008 Tc
0.1174 Tw
(sympathetic to neoclassical welfare theory and microeconomics than ecological)Tj
T*
0.002 Tc
0.3275 Tw
[(economists \(van den Ber)12.4(gh, 2001\). Conventional)-248.4(environmental economists)]TJ
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.3278 Tw
(point out that the degradation of the environment arises because natural)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources 19 0 R
/Contents 18 0 R
>>
endobj
18 0 obj
<< /Length 5321 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.2 203.38 654.895 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0 Tc
0 Tw
(T)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 209.26 654.895 Tm
0.0025 Tc
(OURISM)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.2 239.5 654.895 Tm
0.1666 Tc
( E)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 248.86 654.895 Tm
0.0018 Tc
(CONOMICS)Tj
9 0 0 9 68.02 655.135 Tm
0.01 Tc
(754)Tj
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 635.455 Tm
0.0012 Tc
0.0727 Tw
(resources are unpriced and so operate outside of the market. For environmental)Tj
0 -1.0435 TD
0.1359 Tw
(economists, the task is to secure the efficiency of resource use. Since environ-)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1562 Tw
[(mental problems are conceived as an externality)84.6(, the object is to reduce such)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1357 Tw
(non-market effects by assigning monetary values to environmental losses \(and)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.1609 Tw
(services\). Ecological economists, meanwhile, adopt a less orthodox conceptual)Tj
T*
0.0009 Tc
0.2491 Tw
(and methodological approach in which they seek explicitly to engage with)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.1635 Tw
[(peopleenvironment or economicecological relations \(van den Ber)11.4(gh, 2001,)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.0478 Tw
(p 15\). As a result, ecological economists have discussed more fully the meaning)Tj
T*
0.0333 Tw
(of sustainable development and contributed to debates on environmental limits.)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1613 Tw
(Ecological economists are also much more sympathetic to methodologies and)Tj
T*
0.0426 Tw
(indices that explore the relationship between the economy and the environment)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.2012 Tw
[(\(Martinez-Alier)53.5(, 1990\).)]TJ
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.1117 Tw
[(Ecological economists have adopted diver)22.2(gent attitudes towards the EF)116.1(. For)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.1826 Tw
(example, Martinez-Alier \(1990\) is sympathetic to the question raised by the)Tj
T*
0.1075 Tw
[(Footprint \(and similar notions such as Ecological Space\): how lar)22.1(ge an area of)]TJ
T*
0.1873 Tw
(productive land is needed \(as an environmental source and sink\) in order to)Tj
T*
0.2194 Tw
[(sustain a population at their current standard of living? However)53.5(, van den)]TJ
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1527 Tw
[(Ber)11.9(gh \(2001, pp 1819\) ar)22.4(gues that the Footprint is too crude a measure to)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0365 Tw
(distinguish different types of environmental pressure or of their relative weight.)Tj
T*
0.1961 Tw
(Environmental economists would also point out that the Footprint does not)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.2886 Tw
[(take)-249.2(into account that land has different values or pay sufficient attention)]TJ
T*
0.0215 Tc
0.3279 Tw
[(t)-5(o)-249.8(externalities.)-260.2(In our discussion of the EF below)73.7(, we return to these)]TJ
T*
0.0021 Tc
0 Tw
(points.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
-0.0089 Tc
0.0002 Tw
[(Ecological Footprint analysis was pioneered in the early 1990s \(see W)74.6(ackernagel)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0014 Tc
0.0313 Tw
(and Rees, 1996\). The starting point for the EF concept is that there is a limited)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1457 Tw
(amount of bioproductive land on the earth to provide for all human resource)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.201 Tw
(demands. Sustainable development requires that we live within the carrying)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1332 Tw
(capacity of the earth, allowing our economies to develop whilst still ensuring)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.3278 Tw
(that human needs are met. The EF is an aggregated indicator of global)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0195 Tw
(environmental impact and is measured using a standardized area unit equivalent)Tj
T*
0.0605 Tw
(to a world average productive hectare or global hectare \(gha\), which is usually)Tj
T*
0.0009 Tc
0.1892 Tw
(expressed in global hectares per capita \(gha/cap\).)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.001 Tc
0.027 Tw
(Whereas economists are interested in the different \(economic\) values attached)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.1557 Tw
(to land, EF modellers are concerned with attributing an environmental value)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1317 Tw
(to land. For example, economists would wish to attribute a higher value to a)Tj
T*
0.2209 Tw
(unique habitat than to agricultural land, but Footprint modellers use quite)Tj
T*
0.1054 Tw
(different categories. This is because the EF is derived for a defined population)Tj
T*
0.0985 Tw
(by estimating the area of bioproductive land and sea required to support their)Tj
T*
0.219 Tw
[(resource consumption using prevailing technology; for example, demands in)]TJ
T*
0.296 Tw
[(terms of ener)11.7(gy use, food and drink consumption, travel and waste. This)]TJ
T*
0.0008 Tc
0.0119 Tw
[(demand on nature can be compared with the available Earth)53(s biocapacity)84.3(, which)]TJ
T*
0.0026 Tc
0.3277 Tw
[(translated into an average 1.8 gha/cap in 2001 \(WWF)106.9(, 2006\). However)65.2(,)]TJ
T*
0.0144 Tc
0.3281 Tw
[(humanity)-256.9(currently is using 2.2 gha/cap, which indicates a situation of)]TJ
T*
0.0114 Tc
0.3277 Tw
[(overshoot where nature)53.1(s capital is being spent faster than it is being)]TJ
T*
0.0207 Tc
0.3283 Tw
[(regenerated)-261(\(WWF)114.6(, 2006\). Overshoot may reduce the earth)52(s ecological)]TJ
T*
0.0053 Tc
[(capacity)-255.6(permanently)-245.1(and this is a key concern for sustainability)88.8(. The EF)]TJ
T*
0.0008 Tc
0.2952 Tw
[(concept)-260.1(has gained widespread appeal and provides an innovative approach)]TJ
T*
0.0177 Tc
0.3282 Tw
[(to)-253.6(communicating)-264(messages about the global impact of current resource)]TJ
T*
0.0019 Tc
0 Tw
(consumption.)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F2 7 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
20 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources 22 0 R
/Contents 21 0 R
>>
endobj
21 0 obj
<< /Length 5623 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 400.2 655.135 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0.01 Tc
0 Tw
(755)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
-26.92 0 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1666 Tw
(Environmental sustainability of sporting events)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.64 635.455 Tm
0.0012 Tc
0.0498 Tw
(Although the EF is being used widely and applied in the UK and elsewhere,)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0703 Tw
(the concept has faced a number of criticisms. Amongst the main points, critics)Tj
T*
0.0148 Tc
0.3277 Tw
(have argued that the Footprint does not reflect the impacts of human)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0801 Tw
[(consumption)-259.8(accurately \(see van den Ber)22(gh and V)53.3(erbruggen, 1999; Lenzen and)]TJ
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.26 Tw
[(Murray)85(, 2001; Ferng, 2002\); it does not allocate responsibilities of impact)]TJ
T*
0.001 Tc
0.0334 Tw
(correctly \(see McGregor )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
9.5478 0 TD
0.0006 Tc
0.0348 Tw
(et al)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
1.5652 0 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.0337 Tw
(, 2004\); and does not provide decision makers with)Tj
-11.113 -1.0435 TD
0.315 Tw
(a useful tool for policymaking, as there is limited understanding of how)Tj
T*
-0.0032 Tc
0.0001 Tw
[(different consumer activities relate to impact \(see van den Ber)7.2(gh and V)59.4(erbruggen,)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0659 Tw
[(1999; A)22.3(y)0(res, 2000; Moffatt, 2000; Ferng, 2002\). A more recent critique of the)]TJ
T*
0.1856 Tw
(EF can be found in McDonald and Patterson \(2004, pp 5254\) and a more)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.1846 Tw
[(general debate can be found in van V)32.3(uuren and Smeets \(2001\).)]TJ
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.132 Tw
(A specific concern for environmental economists is that whilst the EF may)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.1164 Tw
(capture explicitly the price that users pay for some goods and services, it will)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.0862 Tw
[(not be comprehensive and the latter can be regarded as externalities. However)53.2(,)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1435 Tw
(from the viewpoint of EF analysts, whether or not an environmental resource)Tj
T*
0.2037 Tw
[(has a market value is not the point. Rather)43(, those who work within an EF)]TJ
T*
0.0553 Tw
(framework are keen to identify the resources required to meet our consumption)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0699 Tw
(demands and assimilate our wastes. In policy terms, it means that the greatest)Tj
T*
0.0515 Tc
0.3277 Tw
(contribution to ecological sustainability may well come, not from)Tj
T*
0.007 Tc
0.328 Tw
[(environmental)-253.9(protection or a supply-side emphasis on improved resource)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.0824 Tw
[(management)-259.6(but rather from efforts to reduce demand \(Rees, 2003, p 42\). So,)]TJ
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.2478 Tw
(whilst from an environmental economics perspective a reduction in the EF)Tj
T*
0.0551 Tw
(ideally should lead to a reduction in environmental services that are not priced,)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1864 Tw
(the externalities from an EF perspective are not considered.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0014 Tc
-0.0221 Tw
(Despite criticisms of the EF method, it is becoming an ever more popular tool.)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
-0.0094 Tw
[(It does offer a number of advantages to those wanting to understand and measure)]TJ
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0603 Tw
[(the impact of major events, and also to those who plan and or)11.5(ganize lar)11.5(ge-scale)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.2689 Tw
[(events. One potentially lar)11.8(ge contribution is that as the EF relates to the)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.127 Tw
(consumption activities of a defined population, it potentially has many appli-)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.2298 Tw
(cations. For example, in the UK, the Footprint has had a number of uses,)Tj
T*
0.0733 Tw
[(including products, or)22.2(ganizations, services, different levels of government, pro-)]TJ
T*
-0.0026 Tw
[(posed lar)11.8(ge-scale developments and tourism \(see Barrett and Scott, 2003; Barrett)]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
T*
0.0006 Tc
0.0348 Tw
(et al)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
1.5757 0 TD
0.0018 Tc
(, 2005; Collins and Flynn, 2005; Collins )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
16.1113 0 TD
0.0006 Tc
(et al)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
1.5757 0 TD
0.0014 Tc
0.0357 Tw
(, 2005, 2006\). Here, we apply)Tj
-19.2626 -1.0435 TD
0.1287 Tw
(the concept to the visitor consumption that occurs at a major sporting event,)Tj
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.087 Tw
[(the F)53.8(A)0( Cup Final. This approach is useful here, for a number of reasons. First,)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1187 Tw
[(the Footprint method provides valuable insights into natural resource use and)]TJ
T*
0.095 Tw
(an estimate of the land area required to support that level of consumption. As)Tj
T*
0.0898 Tw
(the EF aggregates the impacts of different consumption activities into a single)Tj
T*
0.0118 Tw
(measure, it also offers policymakers the potential to identify clearly and compare)Tj
T*
0.0909 Tw
[(the environmental impact of different visitor activities such as transport,)-249.1(waste)]TJ
T*
0.1265 Tw
[(and ener)11.6(gy use. Second, the Footprint provides the potential for policymakers)]TJ
T*
-0.0112 Tw
[(and event or)22.2(ganizers to prioritize their actions in a more informed and integrated)]TJ
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1678 Tw
[(manner)53.7(. Third, the Footprint may be good as an awareness-raising tool as it)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.314 Tw
(personalizes sustainability by assessing the impact of consumption from a)Tj
T*
-0.025 Tw
(consumer perspective \(that is, it takes into account the impact of residents within)Tj
T*
0.1359 Tw
[(a defined boundary)84.8(, rather than the industries in a particular locality\). So, by)]TJ
T*
0.0484 Tw
(converting the resource use of visitors to an area of land, the global hectare, the)Tj
T*
0.0063 Tw
(EF presents itself as a powerful communication tool. The Footprint can therefore)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
-0.014 Tw
(be a useful tool by which to communicate with people and for them to appreciate)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
22 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
23 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources 25 0 R
/Contents 24 0 R
>>
endobj
24 0 obj
<< /Length 6403 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.2 203.38 654.895 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0 Tc
0 Tw
(T)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 209.26 654.895 Tm
0.0025 Tc
(OURISM)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.2 239.5 654.895 Tm
0.1666 Tc
( E)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 248.86 654.895 Tm
0.0018 Tc
(CONOMICS)Tj
9 0 0 9 68.02 655.135 Tm
0.01 Tc
(756)Tj
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 635.455 Tm
0.001 Tc
0.1745 Tw
[(the link between their local consumption)-259.9(activities and global environmental)]TJ
0 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
-0.0106 Tw
[(impacts. A significant advantage)-259.7(of the EF over a number of other environmental)]TJ
T*
0.0087 Tw
[(appraisal tools is that it provides decision makers with information on ecological)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0676 Tw
[(impacts rather than asking them to make judgements. Used sensitively)84.9(, the EF)]TJ
T*
0.0025 Tc
0.3278 Tw
(can provide a benchmark against which developments and events can be)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1252 Tw
[(calculated.)-259.7(Moreover)63.8(, since the Footprint measures the impact of consumption)]TJ
T*
-0.0279 Tw
[(activities, these can be linked to the responsibilities of different or)11.6(ganizations and)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0548 Tw
[(so provide an agenda for change \(that is, a Footprint reduction\). Finally)95.3(, the EF)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.2336 Tw
(can be used to analyse the impact of different policy options; for example,)Tj
T*
0.0096 Tw
(increased visitor journeys by public transport. This can inform policymakers and)Tj
T*
0.0941 Tw
[(assist event or)22.1(ganizers in planning and minimizing the environmental impacts)]TJ
T*
0.1326 Tw
(of major events.)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 174.7 479.335 Tm
0.0006 Tc
0.1792 Tw
(Calculating Ecological Footprints)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 460.735 Tm
0.0064 Tc
0.3278 Tw
[(T)74.8(raditionally)79.4(, national EFs \(the National Footprint Accounts\) have been)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.2161 Tw
[(calculated)-259.7(based on a country)63.8(s domestic production, imports and exports of)]TJ
T*
0.1887 Tw
(primary and secondary products, together with an estimate of the embodied)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0173 Tw
[(ener)22.3(gy of secondary products \(Monfreda )]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
15.6417 0 TD
0.0217 Tw
(et al)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
1.5548 0 TD
0.0017 Tc
0.0174 Tw
(, 2004\).)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
3.0678 0 TD
0 Tc
0 Tw
( )Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.2609 0 TD
0.0011 Tc
0.0193 Tw
[(However)53.3(, this method does)]TJ
-20.5252 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.0799 Tw
(not assign resource flows to final consumption categories accurately as it omits)Tj
T*
0.055 Tw
(all mutual interrelationships between product sectors and excludes the environ-)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0338 Tw
(mental effects of tertiary products, services, for example. Recent methodological)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.3097 Tw
(developments by the Stockholm Environment Institute \(SEI\) have allowed)Tj
T*
0.027 Tw
(intermediate resource flows to be assigned to final consumption, thereby adding)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1391 Tw
(significant strength to the EF calculation \(see Barrett)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
21.4122 0 TD
0.002 Tc
[( et al)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
2.0661 0 TD
(, 2005;)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
2.9009 0 TD
0 Tc
0 Tw
( )Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.3965 0 TD
0.0009 Tc
[(W)51.3(iedmann)]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
-26.7757 -1.0435 TD
0.0028 Tc
0.0261 Tw
(et al)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
1.5652 0 TD
0.0015 Tc
0.0304 Tw
(, 2006\))Tj
/F1 1 Tf
2.8174 0 TD
0.0017 Tc
0 Tw
(. )Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.5426 0 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.0304 Tw
[(The Footprinting method then \(following Barrett)]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
19.2417 0 TD
0.0016 Tc
[( et al)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
1.847 0 TD
0 Tc
0 Tw
(,)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
0.2504 0 TD
( )Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.2817 0 TD
0.0005 Tc
0.0305 Tw
(2005\) takes)Tj
-26.5461 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.2594 Tw
(the existing National Footprint Account provided by the Global Footprint)Tj
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.1602 Tw
(Network \(GFN, 2004\) as a starting point. The total Footprint of the UK is)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.2317 Tw
(then disaggregated by economic sector and re-allocated to final demand by)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.2387 Tw
(using inputoutput analysis based on economic supply and use tables. The)Tj
T*
0.0009 Tc
0.0468 Tw
(breakdown of final demand categories includes detailed household consumption)Tj
T*
0.0406 Tc
0.328 Tw
(activities according to the international Classification of Individual)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.3279 Tw
[(Consumption)-259.5(According to Purpose \(COICOP\) classification system and a)]TJ
T*
0.001 Tc
0.1459 Tw
(detailed breakdown of capital investment. For a comprehensive description of)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1393 Tw
[(this method, see W)53.5(iedmann)]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
11.2278 0 TD
0.0021 Tc
0.1406 Tw
[( et al )]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
2.4626 0 TD
0.0017 Tc
0.141 Tw
[(\(2006\). W)53.9(ith this method, it is possible to)]TJ
-13.6904 -1.0435 TD
0.0011 Tc
0.2194 Tw
[(calculate Footprints for subnational areas or socio-economic groups, and the)]TJ
T*
0.0338 Tw
[(approach has been used successfully to calculate the Footprint of the UK, W)74.2(ales)]TJ
T*
0.0018 Tc
0.1108 Tw
(and Cardiff \(see Barrett )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
9.6522 0 TD
0.0004 Tc
0.1087 Tw
(et al)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
1.6383 0 TD
0 Tc
0 Tw
(,)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
0.2609 0 TD
( )Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.3652 0 TD
0.0019 Tc
0.1087 Tw
(2005; Collins)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
5.3426 0 TD
0.0007 Tc
0.1109 Tw
[( et al)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
2.0139 0 TD
0.0016 Tc
(, 2005, 2006\).)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
5.7704 0 TD
0 Tc
0 Tw
( )Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.3652 0 TD
0.0005 Tc
0.1109 Tw
(Here, we have)Tj
-25.4087 -1.0435 TD
0.0122 Tc
0.3277 Tw
(used the methodology developed by SEI as the basis for our Footprint)Tj
T*
0.0009 Tc
0.1845 Tw
[(calculations)-260(of the 2004 F)53.1(A)-0.1( Cup Final.)]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 130.3 150.295 Tm
0.0006 Tc
0.175 Tw
[(Car)20.6(diff and UK Ecological Footprint results \(2001\))]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 131.695 Tm
0.0013 Tc
0.0723 Tw
(An EF study of Cardiff has calculated that in 2001 the Footprint of an average)Tj
T*
0.1138 Tw
(Cardiff resident was 5.59 gha/capita \(see Collins)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
19.1687 0 TD
0.0011 Tc
0.1152 Tw
[( et al)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
2.0139 0 TD
0.1138 Tw
(, 2005\), which is greater)Tj
-21.1826 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.0147 Tw
[(than the Footprint of an average UK resident \(5.35 gha/cap\) \(see T)84.7(able 1\). These)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.2055 Tw
(figures show that the level of consumption by Cardiff residents is currently)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.2778 Tw
(inequitable as they are using resources more than three times the average)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1453 Tw
[(earthshare of 1.8 gha/cap. In terms of equity)84.9(, Cardiff)-61.2()66.9(s)0.2( residents would need)]TJ
T*
0.001 Tc
0.1877 Tw
(to reduce their ecological demand by 68% to reach the average earthshare.)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
26 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources 28 0 R
/Contents 27 0 R
>>
endobj
27 0 obj
<< /Length 4692 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 400.2 655.135 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0.01 Tc
0 Tw
(757)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
-26.92 0 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1666 Tw
(Environmental sustainability of sporting events)Tj
ET
0 0 0 RG
0 J 0 j 0.96 w 10 M []0 d
/GS1 gs
1 i
56.64 642.895 m
413.88 642.895 l
S
0.48 w
56.64 625.255 m
413.88 625.255 l
S
BT
/F3 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.5 56.64 630.655 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0065 Tc
-0.0053 Tw
[(T)79.8(able 1.)-498.8(Comparison of the Ecological Footprints of UK and Cardif)19.1(f \(2001\).)]TJ
0 -1.9579 TD
0.0069 Tc
-0.0112 Tw
[(Component areas)-9087.8(Cardif)19.5(f)-9752.7(U)-3.4(K)]TJ
15.3347 -1.1621 TD
0.0059 Tc
0 Tw
[( \(gha/capita\))-6853( \(gha/capita\))]TJ
-15.3347 -2.3242 TD
0.0068 Tc
-0.0105 Tw
(Household consumption)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0 -1.1495 TD
0.0064 Tc
-0.0052 Tw
[(Food and drink)-11437.8(1.33)-10250.4(1.34)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0055 Tc
0 Tw
[(Ener)5.5(gy)-14659.8(0.99)-10251.3(0.90)]TJ
T*
0.0061 Tc
[(T)73.9(ravel)-15000.2(0.99)-10250.7(0.72)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
0.0063 Tc
[(Housing)-14027.4(0.16)-10250.5(0.18)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0061 Tc
[(Consumables)-12284.4(0.64)-10250.7(0.75)]TJ
T*
0.0054 Tc
[(Services)-14369.3(0.26)-10251.4(0.32)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
0.0057 Tc
-0.0107 Tw
[(Holidays abroad)-11084.8(0.10)-10251.1(0.12)]TJ
/F3 1 Tf
0 -1.7558 TD
0.0065 Tc
-0.0052 Tw
(Non-household consumption)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0 -1.1621 TD
0.006 Tc
[(Capital investment)-9998.2(0.74)-10250.8(0.74)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
0.0054 Tc
0 Tw
[(Government)-12525.1(0.41)-10251.4(0.41)]TJ
0 -1.4653 TD
0.0058 Tc
[(Other)-14596.3(0.03)-10251(0.12)]TJ
0 -1.4526 TD
0.0059 Tc
-0.0026 Tw
[(Credits for recycling)-8949.9(0.030)-9240.4(0.108)]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
0 -1.4653 TD
0.0061 Tc
0 Tw
[(T)86.6(otal)-15518.1(5.59)-10250.7(5.35)]TJ
ET
0.96 w
/GS1 gs
56.64 402.775 m
413.88 402.775 l
S
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.5 56.64 407.935 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0071 Tc
[(W)72.4(aste)]TJ
/F3 1 Tf
2.4 0 TD
0 Tc
( )Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.2526 0 TD
0.006 Tc
-0.0106 Tw
[(\(satellite account\))-7901.4(0.81)-10250.8(0.71)]TJ
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.64 370.975 Tm
0.0014 Tc
0.0351 Tw
[(T)90.7(able 1 shows the EF results for Cardiff and the UK in 2001 and the relative)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0015 Tc
0.0949 Tw
(size of the different components in the Footprint. The results for Cardiff show)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1696 Tw
[(that food and drink is the single lar)11.6(gest component and accounts for almost)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1375 Tw
(24% of the total Footprint figure, and together with three other components)Tj
T*
0.0113 Tw
[( travel, ener)11.7(gy and consumables contributes 70% of the total Footprint. That)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1244 Tw
(four factors dominate the Cardiff Footprint is indicative of how contemporary)Tj
T*
0.3052 Tw
(patterns of consumption have major implications for resource use. As the)Tj
T*
0.0055 Tc
0.3277 Tw
(Footprint methodology used here considers the environmental impacts of)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1358 Tw
(consumables, to avoid double counting, the Footprint of waste is treated as a)Tj
T*
0.1094 Tw
[(satellite account. Cardiff)-61.2()56.4(s)-0.1( household waste has a Footprint result of 0.81 gha/)]TJ
T*
0.001 Tc
0.2087 Tw
(capita \(see Collins)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
7.3357 0 TD
0.0013 Tc
[( et al)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
2.2017 0 TD
0 Tc
0 Tw
(,)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
0.2504 0 TD
( )Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.4591 0 TD
0.0015 Tc
0.2093 Tw
(2005\). Credits for recycling in Cardiff produces a)Tj
-10.247 -1.0435 TD
0.0011 Tc
0.3184 Tw
(negative Footprint of 0.030 gha/capita as recycled materials re-enter the)Tj
T*
0.0009 Tc
0.1855 Tw
[(economy \(see T)84.4(able 1\).)]TJ
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.1617 Tw
[(Cardiff)-71.7()66.8(s)-0.1( EF results can also be broken down into six different land types;)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0016 Tc
0.1691 Tw
[(ener)22.5(g)6.5(y)85.1(, crop, pasture, built land, sea and forest \(see T)95.5(able 2\). This is known)]TJ
T*
0.0009 Tc
0.2512 Tw
[(as the compound approach to ecological footprinting \(see W)73.9(ackernagel and)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1271 Tw
(Rees, 1996\). The type of land area which contributes the most to the Cardiff)Tj
T*
0.16 Tw
[(Footprint is ener)22.2(gy land, the land area required to sequester carbon dioxide)]TJ
T*
0.1439 Tw
[(emissions from fossil fuel ener)11.8(gy consumption. This is then followed by crop)]TJ
T*
0.3086 Tw
(and sea land. When combined, these land types account for almost 80%)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1794 Tw
[(\(79.4%\) of the Cardiff EF)105.9(.)]TJ
/F3 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 73.44 95.575 Tm
-0.0001 Tc
0.1758 Tw
[(Measuring the Ecological Footprint of the 2004 F)79.9(A)0.8( Cup Final)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 56.64 71.575 Tm
0.0012 Tc
0.1826 Tw
(There are several reasons for selecting and applying the EF approach to this)Tj
T*
0.0953 Tw
(particular event. First, the Cardiff EF study involved calculating the Footprint)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS1 29 0 R /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
29 0 obj
<<
/Type /ExtGState
/SA false
/SM 0.02
/OP false
/op false
/OPM 1
/BG2 /Default
/UCR2 /Default
/TR2 /Default
>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources 32 0 R
/Contents 31 0 R
>>
endobj
31 0 obj
<< /Length 5596 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.2 203.38 654.895 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0 Tc
0 Tw
(T)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 209.26 654.895 Tm
0.0025 Tc
(OURISM)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.2 239.5 654.895 Tm
0.1666 Tc
( E)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 248.86 654.895 Tm
0.0018 Tc
(CONOMICS)Tj
9 0 0 9 68.02 655.135 Tm
0.01 Tc
(758)Tj
ET
0 0 0 RG
0 J 0 j 0.96 w 10 M []0 d
/GS1 gs
1 i
68.02 642.895 m
425.26 642.895 l
S
0.48 w
68.02 625.255 m
425.26 625.255 l
S
BT
/F3 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.5 68.02 630.655 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0063 Tc
-0.006 Tw
[(T)79.6(able 2.)-499(Cardif)18.9(f Ecological Footprint land type summary \(2001\).)]TJ
0 -1.9579 TD
0.006 Tc
0 Tw
[(Component)-2937.2(T)91.9(otal)-1926.6(Ener)6(gy)-1989.8(Crop)-1825.6(Pasture)-1800.3(Built)-2697.2(S)5.3(e)5.3(a)-2457.2(Forest)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0017 Tw
[(areas)-4655.2(Cardif)18.5(f EF)-1737.3(E)-6.3(F)-3341.5(E)-6.3(F)-3341.5(E)-6.3(F)-2293(land )5.7(EF)-2293(E)-6.3(F)-3341.5(E)-6.3(F)]TJ
7.0358 -1.1621 TD
0.0062 Tc
0 Tw
[(\(gha/cap\))-650.6(\(gha/cap\))-638(\(gha/cap\))-638(\(gha/cap\))-638(\(gha/cap\))-650.6(\(gha/cap\))]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
-7.0358 -2.3116 TD
0.0061 Tc
-0.0049 Tw
[(Food and drink)-2103.4(1.33)-2444.4(0.281)-2204.4(0.438)-2191.8(0.215)-2191.8(0.011)-2204.4(0.356)-2191.8(0.030)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0057 Tc
0 Tw
[(Ener)5.7(gy)-5324.8(0.99)-2444.8(0.894)-2204.8(0.001)-2192.2(0.000)-2192.2(0.085)-2204.8(0.001)-2192.2(0.005)]TJ
T*
0.0059 Tc
[(T)73.7(ravel)-5665.7(0.99)-2444.6(0.577)-2204.6(0.009)-2192(0.004)-2192(0.039)-2204.6(0.008)-2192(0.014)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
-0.0052 Tw
[(Capital investment)-663.5(0.74)-2444.5(0.560)-2204.5(0.034)-2191.9(0.016)-2191.9(0.013)-2204.5(0.009)-2191.9(0.112)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0 Tw
[(Consumables)-2949.8(0.64)-2444.5(0.387)-2204.5(0.122)-2191.9(0.058)-2191.9(0.018)-2204.5(0.033)-2191.9(0.054)]TJ
T*
0.0057 Tc
[(Government)-3190.1(0.41)-2444.8(0.312)-2204.8(0.018)-2192.2(0.009)-2192.2(0.021)-2204.8(0.016)-2192.2(0.032)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
[(Services)-5034.3(0.26)-2444.8(0.164)-2204.8(0.020)-2192.2(0.010)-2192.2(0.013)-2204.8(0.030)-2192.2(0.019)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.006 Tc
[(Housing)-4692.9(0.16)-2444.5(0.087)-2204.5(0.016)-2191.9(0.008)-2191.9(0.004)-2204.5(0.008)-2191.9(0.035)]TJ
T*
-0.0105 Tw
[(Holiday activities)-1168.7(0.10)-2444.5(0.037)-2204.5(0.022)-2191.9(0.011)-2191.9(0.002)-2204.5(0.028)-2191.9(0.004)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
0.0058 Tc
0 Tw
[(Other)-5261.6(0.03)-2444.7(0.024)-1699.5(0.016)-1686.8(0.008)-2192.1(0.008)-1699.5(0.038)-1686.8(0.001)]TJ
ET
0.96 w
/GS1 gs
68.02 447.175 m
425.26 447.175 l
S
BT
/F1 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.5 68.02 452.335 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.006 Tc
[(T)86.5(otal)-6183.5(5.59)-2444.5(3.323)-2204.5(0.665)-2191.9(0.322)-2191.9(0.212)-2204.5(0.453)-2191.9(0.304)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 396.175 Tm
0.0015 Tc
0.2581 Tw
[(of Cardiff)-50.7()46.1(s)0( near 11 million annual tourists. Results showed that a Cardiff)]TJ
0 -1.0435 TD
0.0011 Tc
0.1655 Tw
[(tourist had a significant ecological impact and had a lar)11.5(ger Footprint than a)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1339 Tw
(Cardiff resident \(8.67 gha/tourist compared to 5.59 gha/capita\) \(see Collins )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
30.5009 0 TD
-0.003 Tc
0 Tw
(et)Tj
-30.5009 -1.0435 TD
-0.002 Tc
(al)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.72 0 TD
0.0015 Tc
0.0637 Tw
[(, 2005, 2006\). Second, tourism is an important part of Cardiff)-61.1()67(s)0.4( development)]TJ
-0.72 -1.0435 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.1053 Tw
[(strategy as an events city \(Jones, 2001\). Cardiff has hosted the F)43(A)0.1( Cup Final)]TJ
T*
0.0815 Tw
[(since 2001 and it is one of the city)53.6(s most high-profile annual sporting events.)]TJ
T*
0.0353 Tw
(The potential environmental implications of hosting this particular sports event)Tj
T*
0.0264 Tw
(were such that they could not be ignored. Measuring the EF of a major sporting)Tj
T*
0.0549 Tw
[(event such as the F)53.4(A)0( Cup Final would represent a novel application of the tool.)]TJ
T*
0.2506 Tw
(The findings from this research would provide, for the first time, detailed)Tj
T*
0.2404 Tw
(information on visitor consumption patterns at a major sporting event and)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1869 Tw
(provide a measurement of their global ecological impacts.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0015 Tc
0.1425 Tw
[(Similar to the waste component of the EF)105.8(, tourists also take the form of a)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.0363 Tw
(satellite account. The Footprint of tourists can be calculated using two different)Tj
T*
0.2402 Tw
(methods; top-down and bottom-up. The top-down approach calculates the)Tj
T*
0.0831 Tw
(Footprint using modelled expenditure data, and the bottom-up approach uses)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.083 Tw
(locally specific data. Whilst the top-down approach can be useful in providing)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.0493 Tw
(an indication of visitor impact, the consumption patterns of visitors at an event)Tj
T*
0.1229 Tw
[(such as the F)53.5(A)0( Cup Final will be event specific. For the purposes of this case)]TJ
T*
0.0615 Tw
(event, it was necessary to use the bottom-up approach as the collection and use)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.0489 Tw
(of primary data relating specifically to the event would provide a more accurate)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1863 Tw
(account of visitor consumption and its environmental consequences.)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 124.06 105.295 Tm
0.0007 Tc
0.1754 Tw
[(Background to the case event: the 2004 F)70.7(A)-0.1( Cup Final)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 84.175 Tm
0.0016 Tc
0.0407 Tw
[(The F)53.8(A)0.1( Cup Final is one of the most prestigious competitions for football clubs)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1692 Tw
[(in the UK and is ar)22.3(guably one of the greatest single matches in world club)]TJ
T*
0.109 Tw
[(football. Cardiff, the capital city of W)64(ales, has hosted the F)64(A)0( Cup Final event)]TJ
ET
endstream
endobj
32 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS1 29 0 R /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
33 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources 35 0 R
/Contents 34 0 R
>>
endobj
34 0 obj
<< /Length 5091 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 400.2 655.135 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0.01 Tc
0 Tw
(759)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
-26.92 0 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1666 Tw
(Environmental sustainability of sporting events)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 56.64 635.455 Tm
0.0013 Tc
0.1673 Tw
[(\(and other major football matches, including the W)63.9(orthington Cup Final\) at)]TJ
0 -1.0435 TD
0.1069 Tw
[(the Millennium Stadium since 2001, whilst the W)74.2(embley Stadium in London)]TJ
T*
0.0562 Tw
(was being rebuilt. In 2004, the two football teams to reach the Cup Final were)Tj
T*
0.1879 Tw
(Manchester United Football Club and Millwall Football Club. An estimated)Tj
T*
0.1217 Tw
(73,000 football supporters travelled to Cardiff for the event, of which 71,350)Tj
T*
0.1156 Tw
(were spectators in the Millennium Stadium. Based on ticket sales information)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1145 Tw
[(provided by The F)53.7(A, it was estimated that 70% of spectators were supporters)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.2578 Tw
(of Manchester United Football Club and 30% were supporters of Millwall)Tj
T*
0.1782 Tw
(Football Club.)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 169.32 500.575 Tm
0.0009 Tc
0.177 Tw
(Estimating visitor consumption)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 56.64 479.455 Tm
0.0013 Tc
0.2107 Tw
(Events can attract a range of visitors, but not all should be included when)Tj
T*
0.1792 Tw
(calculating the EF as not all visitors will be in the host city specifically for)Tj
T*
0.0181 Tw
(the event. As highlighted by Clarke \(2004\), within any tourist destination there)Tj
T*
0.0857 Tw
(will be a population of general tourists who will visit for a number of reasons.)Tj
T*
0.0076 Tw
(This may or may not include attending the event in question. This subsequently)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1138 Tw
(raises questions related to attribution what proportion of general tourists in)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.0695 Tw
(a destination should be attributed to the event in question?)Tj
/F3 1 Tf
23.4574 0 TD
0 Tc
0 Tw
( )Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.3235 0 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.0695 Tw
(For the case event,)Tj
-23.7809 -1.0435 TD
0.0425 Tw
(the geographical boundary of the study was taken to be the host city of Cardiff.)Tj
T*
0.0942 Tw
(The study population was all event visitors and included both ticket and non-)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1178 Tw
(ticket holders. Based on information provided by Cardiff County Council, the)Tj
T*
0.0942 Tw
[(majority of visitors travelled to Cardiff on match day)95.2(, and therefore the period)]TJ
T*
0.1119 Tw
(for which visitors EF was calculated was one day \(that is, the day of the Cup)Tj
T*
-0.0001 Tc
0 Tw
(Final\))Tj
/F1 1 Tf
2.233 0 TD
0 Tc
(.)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.2504 0 TD
0.0014 Tc
0.1378 Tw
[( Primary data relating to visitor consumption were collected for visitor)]TJ
-2.4835 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.0166 Tw
(travel, food and drink consumption, infrastructure of the event venue and waste,)Tj
T*
0.0402 Tw
[(as they were considered to have the most significant impacts. Below)74.2(, we outline)]TJ
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1846 Tw
(briefly how visitor consumption is calculated for each of these.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.1375 Tw
(The transport component of the EF was calculated based on visitors mode)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.1359 Tw
(of travel and return distances travelled from their home location to the event)Tj
T*
0.0504 Tw
[(venue. The amount of food and drink consumed by visitors attending the event)]TJ
T*
0.1535 Tw
(was calculated using business sales data on items sold on the match day and)Tj
T*
0.0449 Tw
(an estimation of the proportion of customers that were event visitors. Sales data)Tj
T*
0.1685 Tw
(were obtained from food and drink businesses in Cardiff city centre and bay)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1063 Tw
(area, licensed mobile food operators and caterers operating at the event venue.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.0746 Tw
(The EF of the event venue \(that is, the Millennium Stadium\) was calculated)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.1732 Tw
(based on the quantity and composition of materials used to build the venue)Tj
T*
0.0406 Tw
(and supply all fittings and services, together with an estimation of the expected)Tj
T*
0.2668 Tw
(lifespan of the venue and number of visitors attending events during that)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1795 Tw
(period. The waste EF was calculated based on the quantity and composition)Tj
T*
0.2826 Tw
(of waste generated on the day of the event and how it was subsequently)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1304 Tw
(managed and disposed of \(that is, recycled or sent for landfill\). This included)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0099 Tw
(waste collected from the event venue, food and drink businesses, licensed mobile)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.2514 Tw
[(food operators, coach and car parks, street sweepings and litters bins from)]TJ
T*
0.2453 Tw
(streets adjacent to the event venue. For a more detailed description of the)Tj
T*
0.0914 Tw
[(methodology)84.7(, including data collection methods, data sources and assumptions)]TJ
T*
0.2304 Tw
(made in calculations, see Collins )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
13.8678 0 TD
(et al)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
1.7635 0 TD
[( \(2007\). In the following section, we)]TJ
-15.6313 -1.0435 TD
0.0016 Tc
0.1814 Tw
[(present and discuss the EF results for the 2004 F)53.8(A)0( Cup Final.)]TJ
ET
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
36 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources 38 0 R
/Contents 37 0 R
>>
endobj
37 0 obj
<< /Length 5711 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.2 203.38 654.895 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0 Tc
0 Tw
(T)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 209.26 654.895 Tm
0.0025 Tc
(OURISM)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.2 239.5 654.895 Tm
0.1666 Tc
( E)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 248.86 654.895 Tm
0.0018 Tc
(CONOMICS)Tj
9 0 0 9 68.02 655.135 Tm
0.01 Tc
(760)Tj
ET
0 0 0 RG
0 J 0 j 0.96 w 10 M []0 d
/GS1 gs
1 i
68.02 642.895 m
425.26 642.895 l
S
0.48 w
68.02 625.255 m
425.26 625.255 l
S
BT
/F3 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.5 68.02 630.655 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0067 Tc
-0.0051 Tw
[(T)80(able 3.)-498.6(Ecological Footprint of 2004 F)82.5(A)-1( Cup Final.)]TJ
0 -1.9579 TD
0.0058 Tc
0.0002 Tw
[(Category)-7333.1(V)71(isitor total)-4225.8(V)83.6(isitor )10.8(Ecological)-1282.6(V)83.6(isitor )5.1(additional)]TJ
11.04 -1.1621 TD
0.0056 Tc
0.0003 Tw
[(Ecological)-4983.9(Footprint at home)-941.8(Ecological)]TJ
T*
0.0063 Tc
-0.0056 Tw
[(Footprint)-5197.9(location per day)]TJ
5.5 0 0 5.5 324.94 593.215 Tm
0 Tc
0 Tw
(a)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.5 343.06 589.975 Tm
0.0067 Tc
(Footprint)Tj
-17.9116 -1.1495 TD
0.0062 Tc
[(\(gha/day\))-5425.4(\(gha/day\))-4819.1(\(gha/day\))]TJ
-11.04 -2.3242 TD
0.0072 Tc
-0.0079 Tw
(Food and drink)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.04 0 TD
0.0064 Tc
0 Tw
[(1,413)-6978.9(266)-7130.4(1,147)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0061 Tc
-0.0013 Tw
[( \(0.0194 gha/visitor\))-1219.2(\(0.0036 gha/visitor\))-865.5(\(0.0157 gha/visitor\))]TJ
-11.04 -1.1495 TD
0.0066 Tc
-0.0114 Tw
[(Drinks \(alcoholic\))-4086(502)-7736.6(26)-7635.5(477)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0062 Tc
-0.0057 Tw
[(Drinks \(non-alcoholic\))-2280.1(81)-8242.2(9)-8146.4(7)-4.3(2)]TJ
T*
0.0068 Tc
-0.0077 Tw
[(Meat and meat products)-1622.7(654)-7736.4(88)-7635.3(566)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
0.0053 Tc
0 Tw
[(Cereals)-8281(3)-5.2(5)-8243.1(1)-5.2(9)-7636.8(1)-5.2(6)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0073 Tc
-0.0088 Tw
[(Fruit and vegetables)-3150.6(20)-8241.1(27)-7634.8(7)]TJ
T*
-0.0044 Tw
[(Oils, fats and spreads)-2796.8(60)-8241(10)-7634.7(50)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
0.0067 Tc
[(Milk and dairy products)-1610.1(55)-8241.7(75)-7635.4(20)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.006 Tc
-0.0131 Tw
[(Sugar and confectionary)-1762.4(6)-8752.9(1)-4.5(1)-7636.1()-4.5(4)]TJ
T*
0.0056 Tc
0 Tw
[(Other)-8735.5(Negligible)-5034.4(2)-8147()-4.9(2)]TJ
/F3 1 Tf
0 -1.7432 TD
0.0069 Tc
-0.0184 Tw
[(T)80.2(ransport \(ex. air\))]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
5.5 0 0 5.5 140.14 433.495 Tm
0 Tc
0 Tw
(b)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.5 172.9 430.375 Tm
0.0064 Tc
[(1,670)-6978.9(111)-7130.4(1,559)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0061 Tc
[(\(0.0229 gha/visitor\))-1471.8(\(0.0015 gha/visitor\))-865.5(\(0.0214 gha/visitor\))]TJ
-11.04 -1.1621 TD
0.0057 Tc
[(Car)-9695.4(1,139)-6979.6(101)-7131.1(1,038)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
0.005 Tc
[(Rail)-9418.2(325)-7738.2(2)-8147.6(3,234)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0063 Tc
[(Coach)-8684.2(164)-7736.9(0.4)-7383.2(164)]TJ
T*
0.0068 Tc
-0.0035 Tw
[(Private hire bus)-4894.3(41)-8241.6(0.5)-7382.7(41)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
0.0064 Tc
-0.0078 Tw
[(Local bus \(park and ride\))-1408.3(0.05)-7484.1(3)-8146.2()-4.1(3)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0061 Tc
(Other modes \(inc.)Tj
0.5053 -1.1621 TD
0.0063 Tc
-0.008 Tw
[(walking, taxi, motorbike\))-562.1(Negligible)-5033.7(4.3)-7383.2(4)]TJ
/F3 1 Tf
-0.5053 -1.7432 TD
0.0053 Tc
0 Tw
(Infrastructure)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
5.5 0 0 5.5 125.26 328.855 Tm
0 Tc
(c)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.5 68.02 314.695 Tm
0.0062 Tc
[(Stadium)-7774.9(0.10)-7484.3()-8146.4()]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
0 -1.7558 TD
[(T)86.8(otal)-9151.6(3,083)-6979(377)-7130.5(2,706)]TJ
11.04 -1.1621 TD
0.0061 Tc
[(\(0.0422 gha/visitor\))-1749.7(\(0.0052 gha/visitor\))-1143.4(\(0.0371 gha/visitor\))]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
-11.04 -1.7432 TD
0.0071 Tc
[(W)72.4(aste)]TJ
5.5 0 0 5.5 90.82 273.535 Tm
0 Tc
(d)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.5 172.9 270.415 Tm
0.0079 Tc
[(151)-7735.3()-8144.7()]TJ
ET
0.96 w
/GS1 gs
68.02 254.215 m
425.26 254.215 l
S
BT
9.5 0 0 9.5 172.9 259.375 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0061 Tc
(\(0.0021 gha/visitor\))Tj
/F1 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 68.02 241.375 Tm
0.0052 Tc
(Note)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
1.6533 0 TD
0 Tc
(:)Tj
5.2 0 0 5.2 89.62 244.375 Tm
(a)Tj
9 0 0 9 91.78 241.375 Tm
0.0082 Tc
-0.0056 Tw
[(Based on levels of consumption for an average UK resident per day)101.5(.)]TJ
5.2 0 0 5.2 68.02 234.415 Tm
0 Tc
0 Tw
(b)Tj
9 0 0 9 70.66 231.415 Tm
0.0081 Tc
-0.0056 Tw
(All transport calculations have excluded air travel to enable comparisons to be made.)Tj
5.2 0 0 5.2 68.02 224.455 Tm
0 Tc
0 Tw
(c)Tj
9 0 0 9 70.06 221.455 Tm
0.008 Tc
0.0007 Tw
(The Ecological Footprint of infrastructure for an average UK resident is not directly comparable as it)Tj
-0.2267 -1.12 TD
-0.007 Tw
(includes the impact of housing and other general infrastructure including offices, schools, etc.)Tj
5.2 0 0 5.2 68.02 204.415 Tm
0 Tc
0 Tw
(d)Tj
9 0 0 9 70.66 201.415 Tm
0.008 Tc
0.1411 Tw
(The Ecological Footprint for event waste is not directly comparable with that of an average UK)Tj
-0.2933 -1.1067 TD
-0.006 Tw
(resident as it includes other household waste such as furniture and garden waste.)Tj
/F3 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 136.06 156.055 Tm
-0.0001 Tc
0.1775 Tw
[(F)75.9(A)0( Cup Final: Ecological Footprint results)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 132.055 Tm
0.0016 Tc
0.0388 Tw
[(The EF results for the 2004 F)53.8(A)0.2( Cup Final are shown in T)95.5(able 3. Based on those)]TJ
0 -1.0435 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.1595 Tw
[(consumption categories included in this study)84.8(, the total EF of the event was)]TJ
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.0522 Tw
[(3,083 gha \(0.0422 gha/visitor\) \(see T)85.1(able 3\). )12.1(In this case study)95.5(, the EF was also)]TJ
T*
0.001 Tc
0.0838 Tw
(used to calculate the additional ecological impact generated by the event. This)Tj
T*
0.1139 Tw
(was calculated by estimating visitor resource consumption at their home loca-)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1351 Tw
(tion \(per day\) and subtracting this from their total consumption at the event)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0996 Tw
[(for each of the )-8.6(Footprint)-9.3( component areas. The additional Footprint generated)]TJ
ET
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS1 29 0 R /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
39 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 43 0 R
/Resources 41 0 R
/Contents 40 0 R
>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<< /Length 5424 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 400.2 655.135 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0.01 Tc
0 Tw
(761)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
-26.92 0 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1666 Tw
(Environmental sustainability of sporting events)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 56.64 635.455 Tm
0.0052 Tc
0.3278 Tw
(by visitors attending the event was 2,706 gha \(0.0371 gha/visitor\). The)Tj
0 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.111 Tw
[(additional)-259.7(EF was calculated for the transport and food and drink components)]TJ
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.2155 Tw
[(only)84.6(, as comparable data were not available for capital investments \(that is,)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1621 Tw
(stadium infrastructure\) and waste at the visitors home locations. If the total)Tj
T*
0.1121 Tw
(EF of an average visitor at the event is compared with that estimated at their)Tj
T*
0.096 Tw
(home location for the same duration \(that is, one day\), the total impact of the)Tj
T*
0.015 Tc
0.3276 Tw
[(event is found to be eight times greater)46.3(. This significant difference is)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1397 Tw
[(not)-270.1(surprising, as visitors attending the F)63.8(A)0.1( Cup Final will consume resources)]TJ
T*
0.0277 Tc
0.3278 Tw
[(in different ways from their normal practices. Below)69.4(, we analyse the)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.2582 Tw
[(results)-259.6(further)-259.6(and identify those factors that contribute significantly to the)]TJ
T*
0.0006 Tc
0.1928 Tw
[(event)52.8(s EF)105(.)]TJ
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.1558 Tw
[(V)52.6(isitor travel to the event had the most significant impact and created an)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0917 Tw
(EF of 1,670 gha \(0.0229 gha/capita\). This Footprint result accounted for 54%)Tj
T*
0.1337 Tw
[(of the total EF of the F)43.1(A)0.1( Cup Final. When compared to the travel Footprint)]TJ
T*
0.136 Tw
(of an average visitor at their home location for the same period of time \(that)Tj
T*
0.1029 Tw
[(is, one day\), the visitor)53.6(s travel Footprint was found to be seven times greater)53.6(.)]TJ
T*
0.0956 Tw
[(The most popular mode of visitor travel was by car)53.6(, which accounted for 47%)]TJ
T*
0.0587 Tw
(of the total distance travelled by all visitors \(43,000,000 passenger kilometres\).)Tj
T*
0.1497 Tw
[(V)52.6(isitor travel by car had the most significant impact and was responsible for)]TJ
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.0093 Tw
[(68% of the total transport Footprint figure \(see T)85.1(able 3\). Although visitor travel)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1019 Tw
(by rail accounted for 34% of the total distance travelled by all visitors, it was)Tj
T*
0.1743 Tw
(responsible for only 20% of the total travel Footprint figure. The reason for)Tj
T*
0.1596 Tw
(this is that journeys made by rail have an impact of 60% less than journeys)Tj
T*
0.1206 Tw
[(made by car)53.4(. T)63.8(ravel by all other modes of transport \(coach, minibus and park)]TJ
T*
0.1826 Tw
(and ride\) accounted for 12% of the total transport Footprint.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.2844 Tw
[(The second lar)11.7(gest component was visitor food and drink consumption,)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0015 Tc
0.0061 Tw
[(which created an EF of 1,413 gha \(see T)85(able 3\). This Footprint figure for visitors)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0242 Tw
(was five times greater than that for visitors at their home location over the same)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1267 Tw
(time period \(that is, one day\). The reason for the size of this Footprint result)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.309 Tw
(relates primarily to the scale, type and pattern of visitor food and drink)Tj
T*
0.1937 Tw
(consumption at the event. Those individual food and drink items that were)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0454 Tw
[(consumed in lar)11.5(ge amounts, namely alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks \(86.1%\))]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.3196 Tw
(and meat and meat products \(4.4%\), were highly processed and required)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1966 Tw
[(substantial amounts of resources and ener)11.8(gy to produce. Consequently)95.3(, these)]TJ
T*
0.1097 Tw
(products were found to be responsible for 41.3% and 46.3% of the total food)Tj
T*
0.1848 Tw
[(and drink Footprint figure, respectively)95.3(.)]TJ
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.2076 Tw
(As visitors use a range of fixed assets \(that is, capital investment\) whilst)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.1101 Tw
(attending the event, for example, shops, car parks, roads and the event venue,)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.0907 Tw
(it is important that visitor use of these assets is accounted for within the total)Tj
T*
0.1565 Tw
(EF for the event. Due to difficulties in assessing visitor use of such assets at)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1337 Tw
[(the event, their total impact could not be accounted for)53.4(. However)53.4(, this study)]TJ
T*
0.1455 Tw
(did include in its analysis the impact of the event venue, as it was the main)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0472 Tw
(fixed asset that the majority of visitors would use during the event. This would)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1688 Tw
(also enable comparisons to be made with other areas of visitor consumption,)Tj
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.184 Tw
(such as visitor travel.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.288 Tw
[(The event venue, Cardiff)-61.3()45.9(s)-0.3( Millennium Stadium, is 40,000 m)]TJ
6.7 0 0 6.7 366 99.295 Tm
0 Tc
0 Tw
(2)Tj
11.5 0 0 11.5 369.36 95.455 Tm
0.0007 Tc
0.2891 Tw
[( and was)]TJ
-27.193 -1.0435 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.1126 Tw
(constructed using some 40,000 tonnes of concrete and 20,000 tonnes of steel.)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.106 Tw
(Based on the stadium having an estimated 100-year lifespan and an estimated)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.2708 Tw
(100 million visitors attending major events during that period, the venue)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
41 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
42 0 obj
<<
/Type /Pages
/Kids [ 10 0 R 43 0 R ]
/Count 18
/MediaBox [ 0 0 482 692 ]
>>
endobj
43 0 obj
<<
/Type /Pages
/Kids [ 39 0 R 44 0 R 47 0 R 50 0 R 53 0 R 56 0 R 59 0 R 62 0 R ]
/Count 8
/Parent 42 0 R
>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 43 0 R
/Resources 46 0 R
/Contents 45 0 R
>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<< /Length 4818 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.2 203.38 654.895 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0 Tc
0 Tw
(T)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 209.26 654.895 Tm
0.0025 Tc
(OURISM)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.2 239.5 654.895 Tm
0.1666 Tc
( E)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 248.86 654.895 Tm
0.0018 Tc
(CONOMICS)Tj
9 0 0 9 68.02 655.135 Tm
0.01 Tc
(762)Tj
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 635.455 Tm
0.0013 Tc
0.0659 Tw
[(attracts a very low Footprint score of 0.104 gha/event \(see T)84.8(able 3\). The reason)]TJ
0 -1.0435 TD
0.0015 Tc
0.0291 Tw
[(for this is that the impact of ener)22.4(gy and resources used to construct the stadium)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1438 Tw
(is apportioned to the total number of visitors that will use the venue during)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1891 Tw
(its estimated lifespan.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.1044 Tw
(As previously discussed, the EF for waste is treated as a satellite account so)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0014 Tc
0.0407 Tw
[(as to avoid double counting. The F)53.6(A)0( Cup Final generated a total of 59.2 tonnes)]TJ
T*
0.1295 Tw
(of waste, of which 62.3% was glass, 18.3% food waste and 13.9% paper and)Tj
T*
0.2141 Tw
(card packaging. The majority of this waste was then sent for landfill, with)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.2399 Tw
(minimal recycling or composting taking place. This waste and how it was)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0321 Tw
(disposed of resulted in a total waste Footprint of 151 gha, or 0.0021 gha/visitor)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1307 Tw
[(\(see T)95(able 5\). Food waste and paper and card packaging accounted for 80.4%)]TJ
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.088 Tw
[(and 13.9% of this Footprint figure, respectively)95.5(. It is likely that the Footprint)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.11 Tw
(result for waste is an underestimate as it includes only waste produced on the)Tj
T*
0.0123 Tw
[(day of the event and therefore excludes packaging such as that used to distribute)]TJ
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1821 Tw
(food and drink items to retailers prior to the event.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.1697 Tw
[(The EF results show how)74.3(, within a short space of time, a lar)11.7(ge ecological)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0679 Tw
[(impact can be produced by visitors attending major events such as the F)53.5(A)-1.9( Cup)]TJ
T*
0.1416 Tw
(Final. The number of visitors, how they travel to an event, the types of food)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.1269 Tw
(and drink they consume and the wastes they produce can generate significant)Tj
T*
0.3039 Tw
(ecological impacts. So, how might we begin to reduce the environmental)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1592 Tw
[(impacts associated with this major event? T)95.2(o)0.2( begin to provide some possible)]TJ
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1036 Tw
(answers and direction, a number of scenarios have been developed to illustrate)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1848 Tw
(how this might be achieved.)Tj
/F3 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 129.58 324.055 Tm
-0.0005 Tc
0.175 Tw
[(Reducing the Footprint of the F)69.5(A)0.2( Cup Final)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 300.055 Tm
0.0012 Tc
0.182 Tw
(Understanding visitor consumption and its environmental impact potentially)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0174 Tw
[(can assist decision makers and those managing events to plan and or)11.5(ganize them)]TJ
T*
0.0307 Tc
0.3274 Tw
[(in such )-9.7(a )6.8(way as to limit their impact. The inputoutput approach)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.269 Tw
[(underpinning)-259.7(the EF methodology)11.6( used here means that changes in event-)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1272 Tw
[(related consumption patterns can be explored. This has the potential to assist)]TJ
T*
0.1795 Tw
[(event or)11.7(ganizers in assessing the impact of different policy scenarios. In this)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1585 Tw
(section, we develop scenarios for three of the component areas: visitor travel,)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1776 Tw
(food and drink and waste, and show the extent to which they could impact)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1839 Tw
(on the overall EF of the case event.)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 166.3 174.895 Tm
0.0007 Tc
0.1766 Tw
(Reducing the impact of visitor travel)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 156.295 Tm
0.0012 Tc
0.1688 Tw
(The most significant area of consumption was visitor travel, which created a)Tj
T*
0.0684 Tw
[(total Footprint of 1,670 gha. The car was the most popular mode of travel and)]TJ
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.2278 Tw
(was responsible for more than two-thirds \(68%\) of this transport Footprint)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1557 Tw
(figure. Here, we consider three different travel scenarios and their impact on)Tj
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.1821 Tw
(the transport Footprint figure and total EF for the event.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.1069 Tw
(The first scenario is concerned with the impact of increased car journeys. If)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0011 Tc
0.0953 Tw
(the number of visitor journeys made by car increased and replaced those made)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.0724 Tw
[(by rail and coach, this would increase the transport Footprint significantly)95.2(. For)]TJ
T*
0.001 Tc
0.2975 Tw
(example, a 100% increase in journeys made by car would create a travel)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
46 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
47 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 43 0 R
/Resources 49 0 R
/Contents 48 0 R
>>
endobj
48 0 obj
<< /Length 5555 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 400.2 655.135 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0.01 Tc
0 Tw
(763)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
-26.92 0 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1666 Tw
(Environmental sustainability of sporting events)Tj
ET
0 0 0 RG
0 J 0 j 0.96 w 10 M []0 d
/GS1 gs
1 i
56.64 642.895 m
413.88 642.895 l
S
0.48 w
56.64 625.255 m
413.88 625.255 l
S
BT
/F3 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.5 56.64 630.655 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0063 Tc
-0.0058 Tw
[(T)79.6(able 4.)-499(Impact of scenarios on the transport and the total Footprints.)]TJ
0 -1.9579 TD
0.0059 Tc
-0.0367 Tw
[(T)79.2(ransport scenarios)-3038.3(T)79.2(ransport)-4945.7(%)-5653.7(T)79.2(otal)-5943.6(%)]TJ
9.1326 -1.1621 TD
0.0052 Tc
0.0009 Tw
[(Ecological Footprint)-1258(Increase/)-954.8(Ecological Footprint)-1258(Increase/)]TJ
2.3874 -1.1621 TD
0.0047 Tc
0 Tw
[(\(gha/day\))-3759.5(decrease)-3443.7(\(gha/day\))-3759.5(decrease)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
-11.52 -2.3116 TD
0.006 Tc
-0.0104 Tw
[(1.)-499.3(Increased car travel)-3215.1(2,421.0)-4756.1(+45.0)-4452.9(3,833.8)-4743.5(+24.4)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0062 Tc
-0.0172 Tw
[(\(replace coach and rail)-966.4(\(0.0332 )-17.1(gha/visitor\))-6840.1(\(0.0525 )-17.1(gha/visitor\))]TJ
T*
-0.0105 Tw
(with car\) \(100%\).)Tj
5.5 0 0 5.5 122.16 549.175 Tm
0 Tc
0 Tw
(a)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.5 56.64 529.375 Tm
0.0063 Tc
-0.0179 Tw
[(2.)-499(Replace car with)-4566.3(974.9)-5185.3(41.6)-4503.2(2,387.6)-4793.7(22.5)]TJ
T*
0.007 Tc
-0.0263 Tw
(coach \(100%\).)Tj
5.5 0 0 5.5 109.44 521.455 Tm
0 Tc
0 Tw
(b)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.5 147.24 518.335 Tm
0.0061 Tc
[(\(0.0134 gha/visitor\))-6966.5(\(0.0327gha/visitor\))]TJ
-9.5368 -1.7558 TD
0.0064 Tc
-0.018 Tw
[(3.)-498.9(Replace car with)-4566.2(983.4)-5185.2(41.1)-4882(2,396)-5172.5(22.3)]TJ
ET
0.96 w
/GS1 gs
56.64 485.575 m
413.88 485.575 l
S
BT
9.5 0 0 9.5 56.64 490.615 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0068 Tc
-0.0047 Tw
(rail \(100%\).)Tj
5.5 0 0 5.5 101.64 493.855 Tm
0 Tc
0 Tw
(b)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.5 147.24 490.615 Tm
0.0061 Tc
[(\(0.0135 gha/visitor\))-6840.2(\(0.0328 gha/visitor\))]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 56.64 472.735 Tm
0.0052 Tc
(Note)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
1.6533 0 TD
0 Tc
(:)Tj
5.2 0 0 5.2 78.24 475.735 Tm
(a)Tj
9 0 0 9 80.4 472.735 Tm
0.0081 Tc
-0.0492 Tw
(This scenario also accounted for increased use of park and ride facilities associated with increased)Tj
-2.64 -1.1067 TD
0.0074 Tc
-0.0111 Tw
(car travel.)Tj
5.2 0 0 5.2 56.64 455.695 Tm
0 Tc
0 Tw
(b)Tj
9 0 0 9 59.4 452.695 Tm
0.008 Tc
-0.0541 Tw
(These scenarios also accounted for decreased use of park and ride facilities associated with decreased car)Tj
-0.3067 -1.1067 TD
0.0084 Tc
0 Tw
(travel.)Tj
11.5 0 0 11.5 56.64 415.495 Tm
0.0014 Tc
0.1077 Tw
[(Footprint of 2,421 gha, an increase of almost 45% \(see T)84.9(able 4\). Overall, this)]TJ
0 -1.0435 TD
0.1838 Tw
(scenario would increase the total EF of the event by almost 25%.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.187 Tw
[(The second and third transport scenarios consider the impact of increased)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.001 Tc
0.1264 Tw
(visitor travel by rail and coach, both of which have a lower ecological impact)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.0951 Tw
[(than the car)53.5(. As shown in T)95.2(able 4, if coach or rail replaced all car travel, both)]TJ
T*
0.1735 Tw
(of these scenarios could each reduce the transport Footprint by almost 42%.)Tj
T*
0.0769 Tw
(The overall impact of this shift in travel from car to coach or rail could reduce)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1593 Tw
(the transport Footprint by more than 41% and the total EF of the event by)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1253 Tw
(almost 23%. Overall, these travel scenarios suggest that to reduce the impact)Tj
T*
0.0731 Tw
[(of visitor travel, event or)11.8(ganizers should focus on encouraging visitors to travel)]TJ
T*
0.0276 Tw
(to the event by public transport \(that is, rail or coach\), rather than, for example,)Tj
T*
0.125 Tw
[(promoting the use of event )-8.4(park and ride facilities, as the lar)22.3(gest proportion)]TJ
T*
0.1837 Tw
[(of visitor journeys will have been made by car)53.4(.)]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 106.56 246.295 Tm
0.0009 Tc
0.1755 Tw
(Reducing the impact of visitor food and drink consumption)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 56.64 227.695 Tm
0.0012 Tc
0.0917 Tw
[(Food and drink was another area of visitor consumption that generated a lar)11.6(ge)]TJ
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0502 Tw
(ecological impact \(1,413 gha for all visitors\). The food scenarios developed here)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1229 Tw
(consider changing the types of food and drink that visitors consume, whether)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1925 Tw
(food items are produced locally or imported and whether they are produced)Tj
T*
0.0006 Tc
0.1917 Tw
[(conventionally or or)11(ganically)84.1(.)]TJ
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0014 Tc
0.0612 Tw
[(V)52.7(isitor consumption of meat and meat products at the event was responsible)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.1057 Tw
(for 46% of the total food Footprint figure. Beef alone accounted for 81.4% of)Tj
T*
0.0264 Tw
(the total impact of all meat and meat products. The first food scenario considers)Tj
T*
0.0009 Tc
0.1249 Tw
(replacing all beef products with chicken, which has a lower ecological impact)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1582 Tw
(per kg, as less energy is needed for its production and processing. As shown)Tj
T*
0.1348 Tw
[(in T)84.7(able 5, if all beef products were replaced with chicken, this could reduce)]TJ
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1055 Tw
(the food Footprint figure by as much as 30.3% and the total Footprint of the)Tj
T*
0.1826 Tw
(event by 13.9%.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0011 Tc
0.1639 Tw
(Food and drink that is produced locally in the UK has a lower ecological)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0844 Tw
[(impact compared to that which is imported, as additional ener)11.5(gy is needed for)]TJ
ET
endstream
endobj
49 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS1 29 0 R /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
50 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 43 0 R
/Resources 52 0 R
/Contents 51 0 R
>>
endobj
51 0 obj
<< /Length 5050 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.2 203.38 654.895 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0 Tc
0 Tw
(T)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 209.26 654.895 Tm
0.0025 Tc
(OURISM)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.2 239.5 654.895 Tm
0.1666 Tc
( E)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 248.86 654.895 Tm
0.0018 Tc
(CONOMICS)Tj
9 0 0 9 68.02 655.135 Tm
0.01 Tc
(764)Tj
ET
0 0 0 RG
0 J 0 j 0.96 w 10 M []0 d
/GS1 gs
1 i
68.02 642.895 m
425.26 642.895 l
S
0.48 w
68.02 625.255 m
425.26 625.255 l
S
BT
/F3 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.5 68.02 630.655 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0064 Tc
-0.0049 Tw
[(T)79.7(able 5.)-498.9(Impact of scenarios on the food and the total Footprints.)]TJ
0 -1.9579 TD
0.0067 Tc
-0.0217 Tw
[(Food scenarios)-6107(Food)-5968(%)-5652.9(T)80(otal)-5942.8(%)]TJ
9.1326 -1.1621 TD
0.0052 Tc
0.0009 Tw
[(Ecological Footprint)-1258(Increase/)-954.8(Ecological Footprint)-1258(Increase/)]TJ
2.3874 -1.1621 TD
0.0047 Tc
0 Tw
[(\(gha/day\))-3746.9(decrease)-3456.3(\(gha/day\))-3746.9(decrease)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
-11.52 -2.3116 TD
0.0064 Tc
-0.0228 Tw
[(1.)-498.9(Replace all beef)-4957.8(984.6)-5185.2(30.3)-4503.1(2,654.6)-4793.6(13.9)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0062 Tc
-0.0078 Tw
[(products with chicken)-865.4(\(0.0135 )-7.7(gha/visitor\))-6827.5(\(0.0364 )-7.7(gha/visitor\))]TJ
T*
0.0053 Tc
0 Tw
(\(100%\).)Tj
0 -1.7432 TD
0.0059 Tc
-0.0052 Tw
[(2.)-499.4(Increase consumption)-2229.9(1,406.4)-5059.4(0.4)-4756.2(3,076.4)-5046.7(0.2)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0062 Tc
-0.013 Tw
[(of locally produced)-2166.4(\(0.0193 )-12.9(gha/visitor\))-6827.5(\(0.0421 )-12.9(gha/visitor\))]TJ
T*
0.0061 Tc
-0.0053 Tw
(food and drink)Tj
0 -1.1495 TD
0.0053 Tc
0 Tw
(\(100%\).)Tj
0 -1.7558 TD
0.0059 Tc
-0.0052 Tw
[(3.)-499.4(Increase consumption)-2608.8(918.1)-5185.7(35.0)-4503.6(2,588.1)-4794.1(16.0)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.007 Tc
-0.0087 Tw
[(of or)19.6(ganic food and)]TJ
ET
0.96 w
/GS1 gs
68.02 452.575 m
425.26 452.575 l
S
BT
9.5 0 0 9.5 68.02 457.615 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0061 Tc
-0.0017 Tw
[(drink \(100%\).)-3960.2(\(0.0126 gha/visitor\))-6827.6(\(0.0355 gha/visitor\))]TJ
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 414.535 Tm
0.0014 Tc
0.1724 Tw
(its transportation into the UK. In the second food scenario, we consider the)Tj
0 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.0372 Tw
(impact of increased consumption of locally produced food and drink by visitors.)Tj
T*
0.0538 Tw
(The results for this scenario show that increasing visitor consumption of locally)Tj
T*
0.0482 Tw
(produced food and drink by 100% would only reduce the food Footprint figure)Tj
T*
0.0016 Tc
0.1254 Tw
[(by 0.4% \(see T)85.1(able 5\). This small reduction in the Footprint is for two main)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1674 Tw
(reasons. First, only a small proportion of the total food and drink consumed)Tj
T*
0.1756 Tw
[(by visitors at the event was imported \(0.1%\), the majority of this was beer)53.6(,)]TJ
T*
0.0085 Tc
0.3278 Tw
[(lager and wine. Secondly)81.5(, the ener)18.9(gy required for food transportation is)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1851 Tw
[(relatively)-259.6(small compared to that used for its production and processing.)]TJ
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0947 Tw
[(Conventional food and drink requires more ener)11.7(gy and resources to produce)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0011 Tc
0.0701 Tw
[(compared to that which has been produced or)22(ganically)84.6(, as it is grown or reared)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1098 Tw
[(in a more ener)11.8(gy-intensive manner)43.1(, and this results in a lar)22.3(ger Footprint. The)]TJ
T*
0.1091 Tw
[(third food scenario focuses on increasing visitors consumption of or)11.7(ganic food)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1858 Tw
[(and drink at the event. Increasing the proportion of or)11.6(ganic food and drink)]TJ
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1819 Tw
(consumed by visitors to 100% could reduce the food Footprint figure by as)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.0962 Tw
[(much as 35% and the total event Footprint by 16% \(see T)85(able 5\). The results)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.062 Tw
(from these scenarios suggest that focusing on how food and drink are produced)Tj
T*
0.0722 Tw
(would be more effective in reducing the food Footprint of an event rather than)Tj
T*
0.157 Tw
(increasing visitor consumption of locally produced food and drink. Changing)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1599 Tw
[(the types of food and drink items consumed by visitors to low impact alter)43.1(-)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.0732 Tw
(natives would also be an effective strategy for reducing the food Footprint, but)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1862 Tw
(not as effective as the production scenario.)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 154.06 137.935 Tm
0.0009 Tc
0.175 Tw
(Reducing the impact of event-related waste)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 119.335 Tm
0.0012 Tc
0.1713 Tw
(When considering the impact of the food and drink consumed at the event,)Tj
T*
0.0322 Tw
(it is not only the purchase of foods that needs to be considered but also whether)Tj
T*
0.0668 Tw
(or not it is consumed and also the packaging that accompanies it. At the 2004)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.0934 Tw
[(F)52.8(A)0( Cup Final, visitors and food and drink businesses generated 59.2 tonnes of)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.1207 Tw
(waste. This waste created a Footprint figure of 146 gha, of which 80.4% was)Tj
T*
0.2976 Tw
(attributable to food waste. This was followed by paper and card \(10.9%\))Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
52 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS1 29 0 R /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
53 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 43 0 R
/Resources 55 0 R
/Contents 54 0 R
>>
endobj
54 0 obj
<< /Length 4569 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 400.2 655.135 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0.01 Tc
0 Tw
(765)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
-26.92 0 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1666 Tw
(Environmental sustainability of sporting events)Tj
ET
0 0 0 RG
0 J 0 j 0.96 w 10 M []0 d
/GS1 gs
1 i
56.64 642.895 m
413.88 642.895 l
S
0.48 w
56.64 625.255 m
413.88 625.255 l
S
BT
/F3 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.5 56.64 630.655 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0063 Tc
-0.0067 Tw
[(T)79.6(able 6.)-499(Impact of scenarios on the waste Footprint.)]TJ
0 -1.9579 TD
0 Tw
[(Scenarios)-8368.5(T)92.1(otal)-3113.8(Amount)-4402.2(W)71.5(aste)-5008.5(W)71.5(aste)]TJ
11.4063 -1.1621 TD
0.0059 Tc
-0.016 Tw
[(landfilled)-1610.9(recycled or)-3000.4(Ecological)-3303.6(Ecological)]TJ
0.3411 -1.1621 TD
0.0061 Tc
0 Tw
[(\(tonnes\))-1977.1(composted)-3113.9(Footprint)-3518.1(Footprint)]TJ
5.9621 -1.1495 TD
0.0057 Tc
-0.0161 Tw
[(\(tonnes\))-3859.6(\(gha/day\))-3265.9(% increase/)]TJ
14.9432 -1.1621 TD
0.003 Tc
0 Tw
(decrease)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
-32.6526 -2.3242 TD
0.0061 Tc
-0.0133 Tw
[(1.)-499.2(Increased recycling of)-2899.2(57.4)-4452.8(1.7)-5678.1(147.6)-5551.8(2.5)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
-0.0121 Tw
[(paper and card \(30%\).)-13989.7( )-9.5(\(0.00202 )-9.5(gha/visitor\))]TJ
0 -1.7558 TD
0.0062 Tc
-0.0089 Tw
[(2. )-499.2(Increased recycling of)-2633.8(48.1)-4200.1(11.0)-5425.4(149.7)-5551.7(1.2)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0061 Tc
-0.0034 Tw
[(glass \(30%\).)-17791.8( \(0.00205 gha/visitor\))]TJ
0 -1.7558 TD
-0.0029 Tw
[(3.)-499.3(Increased composting of)-1876.1(57.8)-4452.9(1.4)-5678.2(149.0)-5551.9(1.7)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
0.0062 Tc
-0.0103 Tw
[(food waste \(30%\).)-15581.2( )-7.6(\(0.00204 )-7.6(gha/visitor\))]TJ
0 -1.7558 TD
0.0064 Tc
[(4.)-498.9(Scenarios A, B and C)-3164.1(45.0)-4199.9(14.2)-5425.2(143.4)-5551.5(5.3)]TJ
ET
0.96 w
/GS1 gs
56.64 446.815 m
413.88 446.815 l
S
BT
9.5 0 0 9.5 56.64 451.975 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0057 Tc
-0.0022 Tw
[(combined.)-18512.2( \(0.00196 gha/visitor\))]TJ
11.5 0 0 11.5 56.64 403.255 Tm
0.0012 Tc
0.2015 Tw
[(and glass \(5.3%\). )-9.2(The waste scenarios here consider the impact of increased)]TJ
0 -1.0435 TD
0.0011 Tc
0.0623 Tw
(recycling of paper and card packaging, glass and the composting of food waste.)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.09 Tw
[(As shown in T)84.7(able 6, recycling paper and card would bring about the greatest)]TJ
T*
0.0525 Tw
(reduction in the waste footprint. For example, recycling 30% of paper and card)Tj
T*
0.0895 Tw
(packaging could reduce the waste Footprint by 2.5%. This is more than twice)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0138 Tw
(as much compared to that achieved by recycling glass or composting food waste.)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.2913 Tw
[(The scenarios presented here suggest that waste strategies which focus on)]TJ
T*
0.001 Tc
0.1765 Tw
(composting food waste and recycling paper and card packaging would bring)Tj
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.143 Tw
(about the greatest reduction in the waste Footprint, and therefore the overall)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1826 Tw
(Footprint of the event.)Tj
/F3 1 Tf
12 0 0 12 204.96 251.815 Tm
0.0003 Tc
0 Tw
(Conclusions)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 56.64 227.815 Tm
0.001 Tc
0.1374 Tw
(Decision makers today have to grapple with the economic and environmental)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.0186 Tw
[(impacts of development strategies. No longer are ar)11.6(guments in favour of income)]TJ
T*
0.0213 Tw
(creation or job security sufficient. The environmental dimension of major events)Tj
T*
0.0474 Tw
(cannot be ignored. This paper has demonstrated that events do have potentially)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.0744 Tw
[(lar)11.4(ge environmental consequences, which should be a consideration when plan-)]TJ
T*
0.0013 Tc
0.0624 Tw
(ning future events. It has also demonstrated the value of the EF as an approach)Tj
T*
0.0085 Tc
0.328 Tw
(from which to understand and measure the global environmental effects)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.1845 Tw
[(associated)-259.7(with staging a major event such as the F)53.4(A)-0.8( Cup Final.)]TJ
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0015 Tc
0.1666 Tw
[(Our EF analysis of the F)53.7(A)0.1( Cup Final has shown that it is a valuable tool)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.166 Tw
(which has the ability to isolate those consumption activities \(food and drink)Tj
T*
0.0993 Tw
(and transport behaviour\) and waste types that have the greatest impact on the)Tj
T*
0.1053 Tw
[(Footprint. These impacts may be lar)11.7(ge and the EF provides both a useful way)]TJ
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1598 Tw
(of communicating the scale of those impacts to decision makers and a wider)Tj
T*
0.1289 Tw
(audience and of suggesting means by which those impacts might be reduced.)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1392 Tw
(It also has the potential to illustrate ways in which those pressures might be)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
55 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS1 29 0 R /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
56 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 43 0 R
/Resources 58 0 R
/Contents 57 0 R
>>
endobj
57 0 obj
<< /Length 5316 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.2 203.38 654.895 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0 Tc
0 Tw
(T)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 209.26 654.895 Tm
0.0025 Tc
(OURISM)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.2 239.5 654.895 Tm
0.1666 Tc
( E)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 248.86 654.895 Tm
0.0018 Tc
(CONOMICS)Tj
9 0 0 9 68.02 655.135 Tm
0.01 Tc
(766)Tj
ET
0 0 0 RG
0 J 0 j 0.96 w 10 M []0 d
/GS1 gs
1 i
68.02 642.895 m
425.26 642.895 l
S
BT
/F3 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.5 68.02 630.655 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0064 Tc
0.0396 Tw
[(T)79.7(able 7.)-498.9(Summary of advantages and disadvantages of using the Ecological Footprint to)]TJ
ET
0.48 w
/GS1 gs
68.02 614.215 m
425.26 614.215 l
S
BT
9.5 0 0 9.5 68.02 619.615 Tm
/GS2 gs
0.0061 Tc
-0.007 Tw
(measure the environmental impacts of major events.)Tj
0 -1.9579 TD
0.0058 Tc
0 Tw
[(Advantages)-14571(Disadvantages)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
0 -2.3242 TD
0.0062 Tc
-0.0073 Tw
[(Aggregates the impact of different activities)-2355.9(Data )6.8(collection )6.8(of )6.8(event-specific)]TJ
0.5053 -1.1495 TD
0.0061 Tc
-0.0062 Tw
[(into a single measure. Compares the total)-3429.7(consumption can be resource intensive.)]TJ
0 -1.1621 TD
0.0064 Tc
-0.0097 Tw
(ecological impact of events over time and)Tj
T*
0.0056 Tc
0 Tw
(with other events.)Tj
-0.5053 -1.7432 TD
0.0062 Tc
-0.0057 Tw
[(Compares the impact of different visitor)-3934.9(Difficulties in accounting for all areas of)]TJ
0.5053 -1.1621 TD
0.0058 Tc
-0.0001 Tw
[(consumption activities.)-10440.5(visitor)43.7(-related )-16(consumption.)]TJ
-0.5053 -1.7558 TD
0.0062 Tc
-0.0072 Tw
[(Useful tool and approach to communicate and)-1635.9(Issues relating to data availability for all areas)]TJ
0.5053 -1.1621 TD
0.006 Tc
-0.0073 Tw
[(raise awareness of the environmental impacts)-2090.8(of )-7.2(consumption.)]TJ
0 -1.1495 TD
0.0062 Tc
-0.0053 Tw
(of major events.)Tj
-0.5053 -1.7558 TD
-0.0069 Tw
[(Develop different policies and assess the extent)-1320.1(Difficulties in accounting for some)]TJ
ET
0.96 w
/GS1 gs
68.02 446.815 m
425.26 446.815 l
S
BT
9.5 0 0 9.5 72.82 451.975 Tm
/GS2 gs
[(to which they will reduce the event Footprint.)-1560.1(displacement )14.3(effects.)]TJ
11.5 0 0 11.5 68.02 407.695 Tm
0.0011 Tc
0.0308 Tw
(reduced through the development of scenarios. For example, replacing car travel)Tj
0 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.2771 Tw
[(with coach or rail, or replacing conventional food and drink with or)22.1(ganic)]TJ
T*
0.0022 Tc
0 Tw
(alternatives.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.001 Tc
0.1207 Tw
[(However)53.2(, the EF when applied to events also has several disadvantages \(see)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.1448 Tw
[(T)90.4(able 7\). First, data collection for event-specific consumption can be resource)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0 Tw
(intensive)Tj
/F3 1 Tf
3.4539 0 TD
0.0026 Tc
(. )Tj
/F2 1 Tf
0.5113 0 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.0107 Tw
(Second, the method used here did not account for all visitor consump-)Tj
-3.9652 -1.0435 TD
0.1862 Tw
[(tion at the event, for example, ener)11.7(gy use in visitor accommodation, due to)]TJ
T*
0.1352 Tw
(difficulties in accessing relevant data for the EF calculation. Furthermore, the)Tj
T*
0.0679 Tw
(Footprint as used in this case does not take account of any displacement effects)Tj
T*
0.0881 Tw
(generated by the event, such as reduced consumption by Cardiff residents who)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1436 Tw
[(did not eat out in the city on match day)95.4(. The final issue relates to problems)]TJ
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1008 Tw
(of data availability for all areas of consumption, for example, consumables and)Tj
T*
0.0015 Tc
0.1833 Tw
[(durables purchased by visitors during their stay)95.4(.)]TJ
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0012 Tc
0.183 Tw
(As the EF methodology relates to the consumption activities of a defined)Tj
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.019 Tw
(population, it therefore has many potential applications. It could also be applied)Tj
T*
0.1584 Tw
(to a range of events, such as those attended by local residents only or where)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.0963 Tw
[(the boundaries of an event extend beyond the geographical boundary of a city)95(.)]TJ
T*
0.0107 Tw
(For example, the Footprint could be applied to an event which takes place across)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.1205 Tw
[(one country)84.9(, such as the FIF)53.6(A W)74.4(orld Cup, or across several countries, such as)]TJ
T*
0.1478 Tw
(the RBS Six Nations Championships. The Footprint could also be applied to)Tj
T*
0.0011 Tc
0.1565 Tw
(mega events such as the Olympic Games, which are held over a longer time)Tj
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.2007 Tw
(period. In the case event presented here, the impact of UK travel only was)Tj
T*
0.1834 Tw
(included, but this could be extended to include visitor travel from abroad.)Tj
1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0011 Tc
0.1431 Tw
[(Sustainable development was an integral part of London)53.3(s successful bid to)]TJ
-1.0435 -1.0435 TD
0.0013 Tc
0.1278 Tw
(host the 2012 Olympic Games and built on the ethos of the Olympic Move-)Tj
T*
0.001 Tc
0.1673 Tw
[(ment)53.2(s Agenda 21 \(Sport for Sustainable Development\) and the International)]TJ
T*
0.0012 Tc
0.0484 Tw
[(Olympic Committee)53.4(s Declaration on partnerships for Sustainable Development)]TJ
T*
0.0374 Tw
[(\(London 2012, 2005\). The London Or)11.6(ganizing Committee for the Olympic and)]TJ
T*
0.0699 Tw
(Paralympic Games \(LOCOG\) have committed in their bid to use lessons learnt)Tj
T*
0.0014 Tc
0.0329 Tw
[(from this Footprint Analysis of the F)43.1(A)0.1( Cup Final and other environmental pilot)]TJ
ET
endstream
endobj
58 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS1 29 0 R /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
59 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 43 0 R
/Resources 61 0 R
/Contents 60 0 R
>>
endobj
60 0 obj
<< /Length 7807 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 400.2 655.135 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0.01 Tc
0 Tw
(767)Tj
/F1 1 Tf
-26.92 0 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1666 Tw
(Environmental sustainability of sporting events)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.5 0 0 11.5 56.64 635.455 Tm
0.0012 Tc
0.2406 Tw
(projects to inform the development of their Environmental and Sustainable)Tj
0 -1.0435 TD
0.3185 Tw
(Development Programmes. In addition to ensuring that the infrastructure)Tj
T*
0.2728 Tw
(developed for the Games has a limited impact, our study has shown that)Tj
T*
0.0364 Tw
(consideration of how visitors travel to events, their food and drink consumption)Tj
T*
0.1083 Tw
(and the waste they produce will also be important considerations if London is)Tj
T*
-0.0105 Tc
0 Tw
[(to deliver its vision of making progress towards staging a One Planet Olympics)-250.5(i)5.8(n)]TJ
T*
0.001 Tc
(2012.)Tj
/F3 1 Tf
13.2522 -2.4209 TD
0.0018 Tc
(References)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 56.64 519.775 Tm
0.008 Tc
0.2176 Tw
[(A)35(yres, R.U. \(2000\), Commentary on the utility of the Ecological Footprint concept, )]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
36.1733 0 TD
0.0083 Tc
0 Tw
(Ecological)Tj
-34.9067 -1.1067 TD
0.008 Tc
(Economics)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
3.4667 0 TD
0.1625 Tw
[(, V)61.3(ol 32, pp 347349.)]TJ
-4.7333 -1.1067 TD
0.1259 Tw
(Barrett, J., and Scott, A. \(2003\), The application of the Ecological Footprint: a case of passenger)Tj
1.2667 -1.12 TD
0.0077 Tc
0.1629 Tw
(transport in Merseyside, )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
10.4133 0 TD
0.0083 Tc
0.1667 Tw
(Local Environment)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
6.8267 0 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1638 Tw
[(, V)61.3(ol 8, No 2, pp 167183.)]TJ
-18.5067 -1.1067 TD
0.1477 Tw
[(Barrett, J., Birch, R., Cherrett, N., and W)61.4(iedmann, T)88.1(.)0.5( \(2005\), )]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
26.12 0 TD
0.15 Tw
[(Reducing W)141.3(ales Ecological Footprint)]TJ
-24.8533 -1.1067 TD
0.0083 Tc
0.1861 Tw
( Main Report)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
5.7067 0 TD
0.1863 Tw
[(, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of Y)101.5(ork; WWF Cymru, Cardiff,)]TJ
-5.7067 -1.12 TD
0.008 Tc
0.16 Tw
[(http://www)74.7(.wwf.or)8(g.uk/filelibrary/pdf/ef_rdcngwales_full.pdf \(last accessed 6 August 2008\).)]TJ
-1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.1175 Tw
(Clarke, A. \(2004\), Evaluating mega-events: a critical review, paper presented at The 3rd Dehaan)Tj
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.1299 Tw
[(T)99.1(ourism Management Conference on The Impact and Management of T)88.1(ourism-Related Events,)]TJ
0 -1.12 TD
0.1639 Tw
(December 2004, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham.)Tj
-1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.1322 Tw
[(Collins, A., and Flynn, A. \(2005\), A new perspective on the environmental impacts of planning:)]TJ
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.0361 Tw
[(a case study of Cardiff)-58.8()56.6(s)0( International Sports V)47.9(illage, )]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
21.2667 0 TD
0.0081 Tc
0.0378 Tw
(Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
16.9067 0 TD
0 Tc
0 Tw
(,)Tj
-38.1733 -1.12 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.1629 Tw
[(V)61.6(ol 7, pp 277302.)]TJ
-1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.2989 Tw
[(Collins, A., Flynn, A., and Netherwood, A. \(2005\), Reducing Cardiff)-58.8()56.6(s)-5.8( Ecological Footprint)]TJ
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.0081 Tc
0.0556 Tw
[(T)99.1(echnical Report, BRASS, Cardiff University)88.1(, WWF Cymru, Cardiff, http://www)88.1(.cardiff.gov)74.8(.uk/)]TJ
0 -1.12 TD
0.3014 Tw
(content.asp?nav=2870%2C3148%2C4119&parent_directory_id=2865 \(last accessed 6 August)Tj
0 -1.1067 TD
0.0064 Tc
0 Tw
(2008\).)Tj
-1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.008 Tc
0.2756 Tw
[(Collins, A., Flynn, A., W)48(iedmann, T)101.3(., and Barrett, J. \(2006\), The environmental impacts of)]TJ
1.2667 -1.12 TD
0.18 Tw
[(consumption at a sub-national level: the Ecological Footprint of Cardiff)-58.7()5.7(,)5.7( )]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
30.5733 0 TD
0.1806 Tw
(Journal of Industrial)Tj
-30.5733 -1.1067 TD
0.0073 Tc
0 Tw
(Ecology)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
2.6133 0 TD
0.0084 Tc
0.1473 Tw
[(, V)61.7(ol 10, No 3, pp 116.)]TJ
-3.88 -1.1067 TD
0.0081 Tc
0.1409 Tw
[(Collins, A., Flynn, A., Munday)88.1(, M., and Roberts, A. \(2007\), Assessing the environmental conse-)]TJ
1.2667 -1.12 TD
0.1038 Tw
[(quences of major sporting events: the 2003/04 F)61.3(A)0.6( Cup Final, )]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
25.4667 0 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.1056 Tw
(Urban Studies)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
5.24 0 TD
0.1047 Tw
[(, V)61.2(ol 44, No 3, pp)]TJ
-30.7067 -1.1067 TD
0.0075 Tc
0 Tw
(120.)Tj
-1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.008 Tc
0.0671 Tw
[(Ferng, J.J. \(2002\), T)88(oward a scenario analysis framework for ener)8(gy footprints, )]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
32.12 0 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.0722 Tw
(Ecological Economics)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
7.32 0 TD
0 Tc
0 Tw
(,)Tj
-38.1733 -1.12 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.163 Tw
[(V)61.6(ol 40, pp 5369.)]TJ
-1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.0074 Tc
0.1417 Tw
(GFN \(2004\) )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
5.44 0 TD
0.0082 Tc
0.1431 Tw
(National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
16.6933 0 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1444 Tw
(, Global Footprint Network, Oakland, CA,)Tj
-20.8667 -1.1067 TD
0.1611 Tw
[(http://www)74.8(.footprintnetwork.or)21.4(g/gfn_sub.php?content=nrb \(last accessed 6 August 2008\).)]TJ
-1.2667 -1.12 TD
0.1385 Tw
(Jones, C. \(2001\), Mega-events and host region impacts: determining the true worth of the 1999)Tj
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.1627 Tw
[(Rugby W)74.6(orld Cup, )]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
8.56 0 TD
0.0084 Tc
0.1652 Tw
[(International Journal of T)101.7(ourism Research)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
15.6133 0 TD
0.0082 Tc
0.165 Tw
[(, V)48.2(ol 3, pp 241251.)]TJ
-25.44 -1.1067 TD
0.008 Tc
0.0868 Tw
[(Lenzen, M., and Murray)88(, S.A. \(2001\), A modified Ecological Footprint method and its application)]TJ
1.2667 -1.12 TD
0.0078 Tc
0.1611 Tw
(to Australia, )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
5.6933 0 TD
0.1666 Tw
(Ecological Economics)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
7.4133 0 TD
0.0084 Tc
0.1637 Tw
[(, V)61.7(ol 37, pp 229255.)]TJ
-14.3733 -1.1067 TD
0.008 Tc
0.2464 Tw
(London 2012 \(2005\), Candidate file. Theme 5: Environment and meteorology, London 2012,)Tj
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.0093 Tc
0.3247 Tw
[(London, http://www)62.6(.london2012.com/documents/candidate-files/theme-5-environment.pdf \(last)]TJ
0 -1.12 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1648 Tw
(accessed 6 August 2008\).)Tj
-1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.0383 Tw
[(McDonald, G.W)128(., and Patterson, M.G. \(2004\), Ecological Footprints and interdependencies of New)]TJ
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.0082 Tc
0.1611 Tw
(Zealand regions, )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
7.2667 0 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.1666 Tw
(Ecological Economics)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
7.4133 0 TD
0.0085 Tc
0.1638 Tw
[(, V)61.8(ol 50, pp 4967.)]TJ
-15.9467 -1.12 TD
0.0081 Tc
0.1603 Tw
[(McGregor)48.1(, P)128.1(.G., Swales, J.K., and T)88.1(urner)61.4(, K.R. \(2004\), The impact of Scottish consumption on)]TJ
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.1194 Tw
(the local environment: an alternative to the Ecological Footprint? Fraser of Allander Institute,)Tj
T*
0.0079 Tc
0.0686 Tw
(University of Strathclyde, )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
10.5333 0 TD
0.0081 Tc
0.0688 Tw
(Quarterly Economic Commentary Economic Perspectives)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
20.3467 0 TD
0.0078 Tc
0.07 Tw
[(, V)47.8(ol 29, No 1, pp)]TJ
-30.88 -1.12 TD
0.0073 Tc
0 Tw
(2934.)Tj
-1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.0078 Tc
0.2923 Tw
[(Martinez-Alier)47.8(,)0.3( J. \(1990\). )]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
11.2133 0 TD
0.2945 Tw
[(Ecological Economics: Energy)34.6(, Environment, and Society)]TJ
/F2 1 Tf
21.0933 0 TD
0.0076 Tc
(, Basil Blackwell,)Tj
-31.04 -1.1067 TD
0.0071 Tc
0 Tw
(Oxford.)Tj
-1.2667 -1.12 TD
0.008 Tc
0.0666 Tw
(Moffatt, I. \(2000\), Ecological Footprints and sustainable development, )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
28.84 0 TD
0.0082 Tc
(Ecological Economics)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
7.32 0 TD
0.0091 Tc
0.0669 Tw
[(, V)62.4(ol 32,)]TJ
-34.8933 -1.1067 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.1611 Tw
(pp 359362.)Tj
-1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1676 Tw
[(Monfreda, C., W)61.3(ackernagel, M., and Deumling, D. \(2004\), Establishing national natural capital)]TJ
1.2667 -1.12 TD
0.1422 Tw
(accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity assessments, )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
34.8 0 TD
0.0076 Tc
0.1444 Tw
(Land Use)Tj
-34.8 -1.1067 TD
0.0069 Tc
0 Tw
(Policy)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
2.16 0 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1387 Tw
[(, V)48(ol 21, pp 231246.)]TJ
ET
endstream
endobj
61 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
62 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 43 0 R
/Resources 64 0 R
/Contents 63 0 R
>>
endobj
63 0 obj
<< /Length 2925 >>
stream
BT
/F2 1 Tf
9.5 0 0 9.2 203.38 654.895 Tm
0 0 0 rg
/GS2 gs
0 Tc
0 Tw
(T)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 209.26 654.895 Tm
0.0025 Tc
(OURISM)Tj
9.5 0 0 9.2 239.5 654.895 Tm
0.1666 Tc
( E)Tj
8.1 0 0 7.8 248.86 654.895 Tm
0.0018 Tc
(CONOMICS)Tj
9 0 0 9 68.02 655.135 Tm
0.01 Tc
(768)Tj
0 -2.04 TD
0.0081 Tc
0.0364 Tw
[(Pezzey)88.1(, J.C., and T)101.4(oman, M.A. \(2002\), The economics of sustainability: a review of journal articles,)]TJ
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.1638 Tw
[(Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 02-03, W)74.7(ashington, DC.)]TJ
-1.2667 -1.12 TD
0.0983 Tw
[(Rees, W)128(.E. \(2003\), Economic development and environmental protection: an ecological economics)]TJ
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0 Tw
(perspective, )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
5.2667 0 TD
0.1648 Tw
(Environmental Monitoring and Assessment)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
15.6133 0 TD
0.0085 Tc
0.1638 Tw
[(, V)61.8(ol 86, pp 2945.)]TJ
-22.1467 -1.1067 TD
0.008 Tc
0.2317 Tw
[(van den Ber)8(gh, J.C.M. \(2001\), Ecological economics: themes, approaches, and differences with)]TJ
1.2667 -1.12 TD
0.1639 Tw
(environmental economics, )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
11 0 TD
(Regional Environmental Change)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
11.84 0 TD
0.0085 Tc
0.1638 Tw
[(, V)61.8(ol 2, No 1, pp 13)8.5(23.)]TJ
-24.1067 -1.1067 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.1332 Tw
[(van den Ber)7.9(gh, J.C.J.M., and V)47.9(erbruggen, H. \(1999\), Spatial sustainability)101.2(, trade and indicators:)]TJ
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1639 Tw
(an evaluation of the Ecological Footprint, )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
18.4933 0 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.1666 Tw
(Ecological Economics)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
7.4 0 TD
0.0083 Tc
0.165 Tw
[(, V)48.3(ol 29, pp 6172.)]TJ
-27.16 -1.12 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1619 Tw
[(van V)34.7(uuren, D.P)114.7(., and Smeets, E.M.W)128(. \(2001\), Ecological Footprints: reply to A.R.B Fer)21.3(guson,)]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.0082 Tc
0.1611 Tw
(Ecological Economics)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
7.4 0 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.1639 Tw
[(, V)61.2(ol 37, pp 23.)]TJ
-8.6667 -1.1067 TD
0.0111 Tw
[(W)74.5(ackernagel, M., and Rees, W)114.5(.E. \(1996\), )]TJ
/F1 1 Tf
16.6133 0 TD
0.0081 Tc
0.0125 Tw
(Our Ecological Footprint. Reducing Human Impact on the Earth)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
22.8267 0 TD
0 Tc
0 Tw
(,)Tj
-38.1733 -1.12 TD
0.0081 Tc
0.1639 Tw
(New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia.)Tj
-1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.0079 Tc
0.0476 Tw
[(W)47.9(iedmann, T)87.9(., Minx, J., Barrett, J., and W)61.2(ackernagel, M. \(2006\), Allocating Ecological Footprints)]TJ
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.008 Tc
0.1618 Tw
(to household consumption activities by using InputOutput analysis, )Tj
/F1 1 Tf
28.9867 0 TD
0.0082 Tc
0.1611 Tw
(Ecological Economics)Tj
/F2 1 Tf
7.4 0 TD
0.0065 Tc
0.1667 Tw
[(, V)46.5(o)-4.8(l)]TJ
-36.3867 -1.12 TD
0.0081 Tc
0.1612 Tw
[(56, pp 2848.)]TJ
-1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.1687 Tw
[(W)74.8(orld W)48.1(ildlife Fund \(2006\) Living planet report 2006, http://www)88.1(.assets.panda.or)8.1(g/downloads/)]TJ
1.2667 -1.1067 TD
0.1639 Tw
(living_planet_report.pdf \(last accessed November 2006\).)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
64 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ]
/Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS2 9 0 R >>
>>
endobj
65 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/Ascent 656
/CapHeight 614
/Descent -220
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -184 -254 1029 833 ]
/FontName /JDPNNL+GaramondThree-Italic
/ItalicAngle -13
/StemV 60
/XHeight 394
/StemH 26
/CharSet (/T/o/u/r/i/s/m/space/E/c/n/S/h/l/f/C/t/y/a/d/R/e/g/P/comma/U/v/G/B/K/w/V\
/I/A/F/one/zero/three/W/period/hyphen/colon/at/k/semicolon/b/p/parenleft\
/two/parenright/five/nine/six/four/eight/seven/slash/N/L/quoteright/enda\
sh/M/J/Q/O/H)
/FontFile3 66 0 R
>>
endobj
66 0 obj
<< /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 8524 /Subtype /Type1C >>
stream
HU{PT}dUXq/+.{Ru|+>@X|"",ᵏ{waE^cPHBQK} ACMLQbDkNնO9s~}1qx
;oO[N>@[}X,Ru4/zhqex>!pτ3b_xéZI{Y$-_l0.ObRl
a2k
̖^gk z(%4RaLWT<Ԛ,}>=ĤjM:UNp_4СԵAsl=)ǒv7~G.}nB Xr?PȐC*3U ;D!ؒáty_R1FDpTc$rSe~j~3.:yJDM$<A6lP֠Bjbni F?9fǧ|;pQkǕCe|VVUZHO
㪶@] `vyiGlv=A
fe>g@,ZfHR#!UlX;p~քzJ$\Xev}t[SMB?Ac4jfͤCSUsnh8Vg(jZʈިk477
Gť/}EhJ<3
Ø
q8
M孓YیtYrdlR:A6o]:o>*?f1B06>!Cu9.oSyZVm*9Q+lRڬ,TkRU~²5+dWE] 'NԵz| 粺hSu1N!hfk6(A{:ku=4?ϔ.5bq$ʓNla=Ef.*tX-c2[& Mu2At#Ub*H5\އ(@'UdW7%32}#`U?XRa5&OmYA#]BwtFAfZ4(t-ʧ@|8D>yw2E(u.|r'HY_\!Yс8l*gSEW[F$vvv{=vEǭ1?V1LG`)KӒddjRƇeT>Kwlh)H$Ós
qȮ=ANe`"EAči4k̜Ud#{'^
"|b(MOJ[V/aikie*;ѳ+Au ]T@GA ?[d@}S)"Z"vބ˯f
>ph#0SL> =]˔(2m!Una:DubOTMqMݓUU]UH.JN[yIF%-sSxo#TOB*t )`YW]*)L6 {r@_+$NηN.g^-#^(z JkueaNVqHS}_|ut*=~1l4~Uٜt'J*`-Se\` uw|o8KjToWgj(%
%M)ED 2(\ks==|ڬ(1vibIIRWB=~(Ծf%:y}ޕ$hu@EI)V[lMf.
e(u!|\;<%v=;
1\D7 [h?h_ó[#G#-{Na<$zw:Mo:1KϦp,2^GV^}eWw/ܹ;WTEe
s6:ȋo]Ί
-:fۚH\T5$o쏬کG)-g+Pv@$3 ex5>DƐak~eۻ`3 6 Ts@gt1P9 I%;Nu!e2H,tZO!@ EUYTDĴ~* h:? w_]exI|1ʐ8=(6dEPupDŽCN쥝
_;b\<?#|(pT0P|#tD'kjDݻTEP1?~o8H()/y{IE7Z9{J/>>gL/dr?J&IbTZͥ&/z`J3r"
ș-o'#"JiA5g1j_YE Mo'AOqphK8{rfsqg_r&6.%D~-3K;T@m5F|@02LTrY!&6jXGt}1G
sV/O1jqÜal>vxo9A]3r2xaZeRQM<<8~VL]Hblu1jӪU=倜7VFS#P:!En:N$RTF.T(h%)8zfx~Aju,"3bEo,DL!,!h.>)lFy1L4$SVi]4?1dRB`:=ҍe!a7FH
ȬъrcʭP6Жl*~ c{1>&bՕ:r3^iBb6Yι'Zu{|~`Gd}IV
GO߾N3!x E$*!_0$X%Yf"[HA=F]hϾ3ɣ{&ĄU=|WS1%KHȵȘ
e~odNQ Y% q9-萑q8ЇÑWQbsl +v\BcQ.
SǏL<6g,I(S|X`cqm0OHdU?YSV\3z(
(F2\%5ON)\p}(58gWn~;d\).J9}}(*u28wv_w|\7|RFӢ!?sb5TKtF"ރtǾSQ_XT<fsEv;V6gkK險O~PK*{4'1N08W>9C0͕sc$dk ȡCX %讚UE
Uf{7G5JїMkC-&܉阾OOi׀Jq**0HSfX^#d!W20v84gܞxhZA?c#&
EoD,_5)8t(kp![`)&T,0Ԣwu^N+-&VM+IP2u]\@ƻwsdbϸVvqLʛp</G:[墉SpT-ck.BUumWԼa";h&5%?> 8୮o!1NS] u?U84_kQ Qa!J&,HX4;6"Zwñ"-?0\Yqx9wp7"&fâAO.wZu
"1f0z=50xqv~)b.Z- &(Q2b:g95D:o1@5inӔGT49k[j
0˟QTxsf'iOrhrb4f-B7h04g'V^s_/Ѳ[@V84ӐFDv\^]CT@WbwL: 3[Pc9>| .\)\
iYeܪjz"LGST<*.Ql3%KeaKFtπCXBcxdF!jj"^'} NxcJYRe
RD^q1hdP6zyٽ6
X~6w
0z X]NN3ݹw)w.¼g&P C"&G[Z p":=Vvg-W*KQвy{_Mzߡ5+y.uodWP% 3,<`k(c{deI4'mds{C)uKNpk!ya*FLN~ŃeIjdKB>MG3pn+*;o69)%|?dfi:|?N]}2:ψ
T^EUU'=Mz"!F74e.v\U8g@cn`xwh&Z9Jr%8wZ5rѾ= ˸Bb0eWH125$O{\NFd]jWTA2A)E\j-(6y:nbxDO%,?dCd4: X*9N8]3Hxǣ'3~qwp
Ip)P
ios]sH\}@YQfF9O_B) yy}VŋXC
&5(LnbYYU+E::a}8
gp6. Kj\8UkK#/Ł,/yP/q"O4ib