Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, vol. 19, no. 1

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 1 (2025): Geomatics and Environmental Engineering

Date Log

Submitted
Sep 13, 2024
Accepted
Jan 6, 2025
Published
Feb 7, 2025
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Carbon Footprint Assessment for Sustainable Spatial Management in Urban Settlements: Study of Polish Cities

https://doi.org/10.7494/geom.2025.19.1.25
Mikołaj Mądzik
Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Faculty of Spatial Management and Landscape Architecture, Wrocław, Poland
Małgorzata Świąder
Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Faculty of Spatial Management and Landscape Architecture, Department of Systems Research, Wrocław, Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3398-4985

Corresponding Author(s) : Małgorzata Świąder

malgorzata.swiader@upwr.edu.pl

Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 1 (2025): Geomatics and Environmental Engineering

Abstract

Urbanization significantly contributes to environmental changes, increasing carbon emissions, and resource consumption. This study quantifies the carbon footprints (CFs) and biocapacities (BCs) of urban settlements in Poland by focusing on household consumption levels in 18 regional cities.
The research assesses CF in categories like waste generation, energy use, mobility, and food consumption, converting it into global hectares [gha] in order to measure the environmental impact. BC is evaluated by land use types in order to understand urban sustainability.
The results showed considerable disparities, with Warsaw having the highest level CF and Zielona Góra the lowest. Mobility, electricity, and food contributed more than 80% of the total CF in our study. All of the cities exhibited ecological deficits, with CF levels exceeding those of BC; this indicated unsustainable resource use. Warsaw, for example, required more than 28 times its BC to support its consumption patterns.
The study emphasizes the need for targeted interventions in transportation, energy efficiency, and public awareness in order to reduce urban environmental impacts. Local governments must prioritize sustainability efforts – especially in high-impact sectors. The research highlights the importance of urban planning strategies that align with sustainability goals in order to achieve a long-term ecological balance and resilience against climate change, thus offering insights that could guide policy development beyond Poland.

Keywords

carbon footprint spatial management urban settlements environmental impact human impact Earth overshoot sustainable cities and communities
Mądzik, M., & Świąder, M. (2025). Carbon Footprint Assessment for Sustainable Spatial Management in Urban Settlements: Study of Polish Cities. Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, 19(1), 25–66. https://doi.org/10.7494/geom.2025.19.1.25
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Seto K.C., Churkina G., Hsu A., Keller M., Newman P.W.G., Qin B., Ramaswami A.: From lowto net-zero carbon cities: The next global agenda. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 46, 2021, pp. 377–415. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-050120-113117.
  2. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: World Urbanization Prospects. New York 2019.
  3. Sovacool B.K., Brown M.A.: Twelve metropolitan carbon footprints: A preliminary comparative global assessment. Energy Policy, vol. 38(9), 2010, pp. 4856–4869. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2009.10.001.
  4. Luqman M., Rayner P.J., Gurney K.R.: On the impact of urbanisation on CO2 emissions. npj Urban Sustainability, vol. 3, 2023, 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00084-2.
  5. Ekka P., Patra S., Upreti M., Kumar G., Kumar A., Saikia P.: Land degradation and its impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, [in:] Raj A., Jhariya M.K., Banerjee A., Nema S., Bargali K. (eds.), Land and Environmental Management through Forestry, Wiley, Hoboken 2023, pp. 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119910527.ch4.
  6. Seto K.C., Güneralp B., Hutyra L.R.: Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109(40), 2012, pp. 16083–16088. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109.
  7. Sylla M., Lasota T., Szewrański S.: Valuing environmental amenities in periurban areas: Evidence from Poland. Sustainability, vol. 11(3), 2019, 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030570.
  8. Grimm N.B., Faeth S.H., Golubiewski N.E., Redman C.L., Wu J., Bai X., Briggs J.M.: Global change and the ecology of cities. Science, vol. 319(5864), 2008, pp. 756–760. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150195.
  9. IPCC: Summary for Policymakers, [in:] Edenhofer O., Pichs-Madruga R., Sokona Y., Farahani E., Kadner S., Seyboth K., Adler A., Baum I., Brunner S., Eickemeier P., Kriemann B., Savolainen J., Schlömer S., von Stechow C., Zwickel T., Minx J.C. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, New York, NY, USA 2014, pp. 1–32.
  10. Angel S., Parent J., Civco D.L., Blei A., Potere D.: The dimensions of global urban expansion: Estimates and projections for all countries, 2000–2050. Progress in Planning, vol. 75(2), 2011, pp. 53–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROGRESS.2011.04.001.
  11. Creutzig F., Roy J., Lamb W.F., Azevedo I.M.L., de Bruin W.B., Dalkmann H., Edelenbosch O.Y., Geels F.W., Grübler A., Hepburn C., Hertwich G.E., Khosla R., Mattauch L., Minx J.C., Ramakrishnan A., Rao N.D., Steinberger J.K., Tavoni M., Ürge-Vorsatz D., Weber E.U.: Towards demand-side solutions for mitigating climate change. Nature Climate Change, vol. 8(4), 2018, pp. 268–271. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0121-1.
  12. Ma W., de Jong M., de Bruijne M., Mu R.: Mix and match: Configuring different types of policy instruments to develop successful low carbon cities in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 282, 2021, 125399. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.125399.
  13. Liu W., Qin B.: Low-carbon city initiatives in China: A review from the policy paradigm perspective. Cities, vol. 51, 2016, pp. 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CITIES.2015.11.010.
  14. Collins A., Flynn A.: The ecological footprint : New developments in policy and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, Northampton 2015.
  15. Gao T., Liu Q., Wang J.: A comparative study of carbon footprint and assessment standards. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technology, vol. 9(3), 2014, pp. 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctt041.
  16. Mancini M.S., Galli A., Niccolucci V., Lin D., Bastianoni S., Wackernagel M., Marchettini N.: Ecological footprint: Refining the carbon footprint calculation. Ecological Indicators, vol. 61(2), 2016, pp. 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2015.09.040.
  17. Świąder M., Szewrański S., Kazak J., van Hoof J., Lin D., Wackernagel M., Alves A.: Application of ecological footprint accounting as a part of an integrated assessment of environmental carrying capacity: A case study of the footprint of food of a large city. Resources vol. 7(3), 2018, 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030052.
  18. Wackernagel M., Lin D., Evans M., Hanscom L., Raven P.: Defying the footprint oracle: Implications of country resource trends. Sustainability, vol. 11(7), 2019, 2164. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072164.
  19. Solarin S.A., Gil-Alana L.A., Lafuente C.: Persistence in carbon footprint emissions: An overview of 92 countries. Carbon Management, vol. 10(4), 2019, pp. 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2019.1620038.
  20. Dembińska I., Kauf S., Tłuczak A., Szopik-Depczyńska K., Marzantowicz Ł., Ioppolo G.: The impact of space development structure on the level of ecological footprint – shift share analysis for European Union countries. Science of the Total Environment, vol. 851(2), 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157936.
  21. Rees W., Wackernagel M.: Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable – And why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 16(4–6), 1996, pp. 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(96)00022-4.
  22. Høgevold N.M.: A corporate effort towards a sustainable business model: A case study from the Norwegian furniture industry. European Business Review, vol. 23(4), 2011, pp. 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341111145771.
  23. Ertung E.A., Hoekstra A.Y.: Carbon and Water Footprints: Concepts, Methodologies and Policy Responses. UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme, Paris 2012.
  24. Frączek K., Śleszyński J.: Carbon footprint indicator and the quality of energetic life. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, nr 435, 2016, pp. 136–151. https://doi.org/10.15611/pn.2016.435.09.
  25. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting. OJ L 322, 16.12.2022. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2464/oj.
  26. Matemilola S., Fadeyi O., Sijuade T.: Paris Agreement, [in:] Idowu S.O., Capaldi N., Zu L., Del Baldo M., Abreu R (eds.), Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management, Springer, Cham 2020, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02006-4_516-1.
  27. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations, 2015.
  28. Wiedmann T., Allen C.: City footprints and SDGs provide untapped potential for assessing city sustainability. Nature Communications, vol. 12(1), 2021, 3758. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23968-2.
  29. Correlation of Ecological Footprint (2008) and the Human Development Index (2012). European Environment Agency. 11.09.2024. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/correlation-of-ecological-footprint-2008 [access: 14.01.2025].
  30. Moran D.D., Wackernagel M., Kitzes J.A., Goldfinger S.H., Boutaud A.: Measuring sustainable development – nation by nation. Ecological Economics, vol. 64(3), 2008, pp. 470–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.017.
  31. Moore J., Kissinger M., Rees W.E.: An urban metabolism and ecological footprint assessment of Metro Vancouver. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 124, 2013, pp. 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.009.
  32. Hammond G.P., Iddenden T., Wildblood J.: Environmental and resource burdens associated with an urban community and its surrounding bioregion. Energy Procedia, vol. 143, 2017, pp. 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.12.714.
  33. Kovács Z., Farkas J.Z., Szigeti C., Harangozó G.: Assessing the sustainability of urbanization at the sub-national level: The ecological footprint and biocapacity accounts of the Budapest Metropolitan Region, Hungary. Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 84, 2022, 104022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104022.
  34. Vigier M., Ouellet-Plamondon C.M., Spiliotopoulou M., Moore J., Rees W.E.: To what extent is sustainability addressed at urban scale and how aligned is it with Earth’s productive capacity? Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 96, 2023, 104655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104655.
  35. Wiedmann T., Barrett J.: A review of the ecological footprint indicator-perceptions and methods. Sustainability, vol. 6(2), 2010 pp. 1645–1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2061645.
  36. Kennedy C., Pincetl S., Bunje P.: The study of urban metabolism and its applications to urban planning and design. Environmental Pollution, vol. 159(8–9), 2011, pp. 1965–1973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.10.022.
  37. Świąder M., Lin D., Szewrański S., Kazak J.K., Iha K., van Hoof J., Belčáková I., Altiok S.: The application of ecological footprint and biocapacity for environmental carrying capacity assessment: A new approach for European cities. Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 105, 2020, pp. 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.010.
  38. Zborowski A., Raźniak P.: Suburbanizacja rezydencjonalna w Polsce – ocena procesu [Residential suburbanization in Poland – estimate of proces]. Studia Miejskie, t. 9, 2013, pp. 37–50.
  39. Świąder M., Szewrański S., Kazak J.K.: Environmental carrying capacity assessment – the policy instrument and tool for sustainable spatial management. Frontiers in Environmental Science, vol. 8, 2020, 579838. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.579838.
  40. Pourebrahim S., Hadipour M., Emlaei Z., Heidari H., Goh C.T., Lee K.E.: Analysis of environmental carrying capacity based on the ecological footprint for the sustainable development of Alborz, Iran. Sustainability, vol. 15(10), 2023, 7935. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107935.
  41. Szewrański S., Świąder M., Kazak J.K., Tokarczyk-Dorociak K., van Hoof J.: Socio-environmental vulnerability mapping for environmental and flood resilience assessment: The case of ageing and poverty in the city of Wrocław, Poland. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, vol. 14(5), 2018, pp. 592–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4077.
  42. Carmen E., Fazey I., Ross H., Bedinger M., Smith F.M., Prager K., McClymont K., Morrison D.: Building community resilience in a context of climate change: The role of social capital. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, vol. 51, 2022, pp. 1371–1387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01678-9.
  43. Sharifi A., Allam Z., Bibri S.E., Khavarian-Garmsir A.R.: Smart cities and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A systematic literature review of co-benefits and trade-offs. Cities, vol. 146(3), 2024, 104659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104659.
  44. Arciniegas G., Wascher D., Eyre P., Sylla M., Vicente-Vicente J.L., Świąder M., Unger T., Prag A.A., Lysák M., Schafer L.J., Welker E., Sanz E.S., Henriksen C.B.: A participatory tool for assessing land footprint in city-region food systems – a case study from metropolitan Copenhagen. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 6, 2022, 846869. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.846869.
  45. Kazak J.K., Świąder M., Arciniegas G., Aslanoğlu R., Wascher D., Chrobak G.: The application of geoplanner in the management of local development. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Administratio Locorum, vol. 22(4), 2023, pp. 525–535. https://doi.org/10.31648/aspal.9012.
  46. Galli A., Iha K., Moreno Pires S., Mancini M.S., Alves A., Zokai G., Lin D., Murthy A., Wackernagel M.: Assessing the ecological footprint and biocapacity of Portuguese cities: Critical results for environmental awareness and local management. Cities, vol. 96, 2020, 102442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102442.
  47. Buzási A., Pálvölgyi T., Csete M.S.: Assessment of climate change performance of urban development projects – case of Budapest, Hungary. Cities, vol. 114, 2021, 103215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103215.
  48. Shtjefni D., Ulpiani G., Vetters N., Koukoufikis G., Bertoldi P.: Governing climate neutrality transitions at the urban level: A European perspective. Cities, vol. 148, 2024, 104883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104883.
  49. Vigier M., Ouellet-Plamondon C.M., Spiliotopoulou M., Moore J., Rees W.E.: To what extent is sustainability addressed at urban scale and how aligned is it with Earth’s productive capacity? Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 96, 2023, 104655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104655.
  50. Solecka I., Sylla M., Świąder M.: Urban sprawl impact on farmland conversion in suburban area of Wroclaw, Poland. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 245(7), 2017, 072002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/245/7/072002.
  51. Bhoyar S.P., Dusad S., Shrivastava R., Mishra S., Gupta N., Rao A.B.: Understanding the impact of lifestyle on individual carbon-footprint. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 133, 2023, pp. 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2014.04.168.
  52. Moore J.: Ecological footprints and lifestyle archetypes: Exploring dimensions of consumption and the transformation needed to achieve urban sustainability. Sustainability, vol. 7(4), 2015, pp. 4747–4763. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044747.
  53. Baabou W., Grunewald N., Ouellet-Plamondon C., Gressot M., Galli A.: The ecological footprint of Mediterranean cities: Awareness creation and policy implications. Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 69, 2017, pp. 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.013.
  54. Genta C., Sanyé-Mengual E., Sala S., Lombardi P.: The consumption footprint as possible indicator for environmental impact evaluation at city level. The case study of Turin (Italy). Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 79, 2022, 103679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103679.
  55. Śleszyński P.: Delimitation and typology of functional urban regions in Poland based on commuting, 2006. Geographia Polonica, vol. 87, 2014, pp. 317–320. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.2014.20.
  56. Marcińczak S., Bartosiewicz B.: Commuting patterns and urban form: Evidence from Poland. Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 70, 2018, pp. 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.05.019.
  57. Wolny A.: Are suburban commuters confined to private transport? A case study of a medium-sized functional urban area (FUA) in Poland. Cities, vol. 92, 2019, pp. 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.013.
  58. Szagała P., Brzeziński A., Dybicz T., Olszewski P., Osińska B.: Problems with implementation of sustainable urban mobility in selected Polish cities. Sustainability, vol. 16(24), 2014, 11003. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411003.
  59. Fedoruk A.: 14 milionów Polaków nie ma na co dzień dostępu do transportu publicznego. Forbes, 8.10.2018. https://www.forbes.pl/gospodarka/14-milionowpolakow-nie-ma-na-co-dzien-dostepu-do-transportu-publicznego/6r7jjxw [access: 15.01.2025].
  60. Ercan T., Onat N.C., Tatari O.: Investigating carbon footprint reduction potential of public transportation in United States: A system dynamics approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 133, 2016, pp. 1260–1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.051.
  61. Dang L.M., Nguyen L.Q., Nam J., Nguyen T.N., Lee S., Song H.K., Moon H.: Fifth generation district heating and cooling: A comprehensive survey. Energy Reports, vol. 11, 2024, pp. 1723–1741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2024.01.037.
  62. Pan A., Xu S., Zaidi S.A.H.: Environmental impact of energy imports: natural resources income and natural gas production profitability in the Asia-Pacific economic cooperation countries. Geoscience Frontiers, vol. 15(2), 2024, 101756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101756.
  63. Anuardo R.G., Espuny M., Costa A.C.F., Oliveira O.J.: Toward a cleaner and more sustainable world: A framework to develop and improve waste management through organizations, governments and academia. Heliyon, vol. 8(4), 2022, e09225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09225.
  64. Xiao L., Fu B., Lin T., Meng L., Zhang O., Gao L.: Promoting and maintaining public participation in waste separation policies – a comparative study in Shanghai, China. Resources, Environment and Sustainability, vol. 12, 2023, 100112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2023.100112.
  65. Chowdhury S., Kain J.H., Adelfio M., Volchko Y., Norrman J.: Greening the browns: A bio-based land use framework for analysing the potential of urban brownfields in an urban circular economy. Sustainability, vol. 12(15), 2020, 6278. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12156278.
  66. Belčáková I., Świader M., Bartyna-Zielińska M.: The green infrastructure in cities as a tool for climate change adaptation and mitigation: Slovakian and Polish experiences. Atmosphere (Basel), vol. 10(9), 2019, 552. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10090552.
  67. Di Sacco A., Hardwick K.A., Blakesley D., Brancalion P.H.S., Breman E., Cecilio Rebola L., Chomba S., Dixon K., Elliott S., Ruyonga G., Shaw K., Smith P., Smith R.J., Antonelli A.: Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Global Change Biology, vol. 27(7), 2021, pp. 1328–1348. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15498.
Read More

Author Biographies

Mikołaj Mądzik, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Faculty of Spatial Management and Landscape Architecture, Wrocław, Poland

Graduate of engineering studies in spatial economy. Currently a student in the second-degree program in spatial economics with a specialization in socio-economic analytics. His research interests are related to environmental and social aspects, i.e. carbon footprint, and the relationship between local human development index and environmental impact.

Małgorzata Świąder, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Faculty of Spatial Management and Landscape Architecture, Department of Systems Research, Wrocław, Poland

Małgorzata Świąder is an assistant professor at the ​Department of Systems Research at Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland. She specializes in the indicator-based evaluation of human activity and its relation to environmental conditions, supported by new technologies such as Geographical Information Systems and Business Intelligence. The scientific work focuses on analyzing anthropogenic pressures on the natural environment. In research, she uses, among others, carbon footprint, biocapacity, and foodshed approaches to assess the environment carrying capacity. Dr. Świąder has experience in socio-environmental sciences and projects, ie. she volunteered in the interdisciplinary research and animation project “Reading the City” implemented as part of the Lower Silesian ECC 2016+ Platform” (2015-2016); she was a member of a project “Be:In” (dedicated to public participation in various areas of action) realized within Erasmus + program (2017-2018); she was a Polish partner in the FoodSHIFT2030, a Horizon2020 project (2020-2023). She served as MC Substitute in COST Action CA17133 (Circular City Re.Solution). Currently, she is working as a researcher and GIS specialist in the project City&Co (ERA-NET).

Download this PDF file
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 55 Download : 37

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

 

 

Most read articles by the same author(s)