Reminders

Environment 2008 Supplementary

Environment: 2008 Archive - Supplementary Information

Canada's natural beauty is a hallmark, and also reflects how we treat our environment. How are we taking care of our environment?

 

 

 

8-1 Cost ($) for Water Treatment/Disposal per Megalitre: 2005, 2006 (Comparative)

 

Cost ($) for Water TreatmentDisposal per Megalitre 2005, 2006 Environment Supplemental Graphs 2008 14 (2).jpg
 2005
Waterloo Region146
Ontario Regional
Municipalities
217

Source: Region of Waterloo MPMP and Ontario MPMP Reports for 2005

 

Back to Top

 

8-2 Cost ($) for Water Treatment/Disposal per Megalitre: 2005, 2006 (Waterloo Region).

Cost ($) for Water TreatmentDisposal per Megalitre 2005, 2006 Environment Supplemental Graphs 2008 14 (5).jpg
 20052006
Waterloo Region146138

 

Source: MPMP Reports 2005,  2006

 

Back to Top

8-3 Cost ($) of Treating Drinking Water per Megalitre: 2005, 2006 (Comparative)

Cost ($)of Treating Drinking Water per Megalitre 2005, 2006 Environment Supplemental Graphs 2008 14 (3).jpg
 2005
Waterloo Region271
Ontario Regional Municipalities183
 

Source: Region of Waterloo MPMP and Ontario MPMP Reports for 2005

 

Back to Top

 

8-4 Cost ($) of Treating Drinking Water per Megalitre: 2005, 2006 (Waterloo Region)

Cost ($) of Treating Drinking Water per Megalitre 2005, 2006 Environment Supplemental Graphs 2008 14 (6).jpg
 20052006
Waterloo Region271306

Source: MPMP Reports 2005,  2006

 

Back to Top

 

8-5 Cost ($) of Solid Waste Management per Tonne: 2005 (Comparative)

Cost ($) of Solid Waste Management per Tonne 2005 Environment Supplemental Graphs 2008 14 (4).jpg
 2005
Waterloo Region57.26
Ontario Regional Municipalities104.00
 

Source: Region of Waterloo MPMP and Ontario MPMP Reports for 2005

 

Back to Top

 

8-6 Per Capita Cost ($) of Solid Waste Management per Tonne: 2005, 2006 (Waterloo Region)

Per Capita Cost ($) of Solid Waste Management per Tonne 2005, 2006 Environment Supplemental Graphs 2008 14 (7).jpg
 20052006
Waterloo Region57.2664.25
 

Source: MPMP Reports 2005,  2006

 

Back to Top

 

8-7 Vital Signs® Canada Original Data Sources

Back to Top

 

8-8 Vital Signs® Canada Original Data Sources - Where Waterloo Region Stands

VIII-1: Average Daily Flow of Water

 

 

1999

2001

2004

Kitchener CMA

66.08102

80.66373

83.18702

 

In 2004, the average daily flow of water for residential use in Kitchener was 83 litres per capita, up 3 per cent from 2001. The average daily flow was 68 per cent below the provincial rate and 75 per cent below the national rate.

 

Source for  municipal data: Environment Canada. Water Use Data 2004. Based on Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey for survey years 1999 2001 and 2004. http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/use/e_data.htm.

 

Back to Top

 

VIII-2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation

 

 

Population

GHG Emission (kt)

Annual GHG/capita (t)

Kitchener CMA

387000

961

2.48

 

 

In 2001, greenhouse gas emission from transportation, which was defined as emissions from automobiles and trucks, in Kitchener was 2.48 tonnes per capita. This was 3.3 per cent above the average of the eleven CMAs for which data were available (2.40 tonnes per capita).

 

Source: "The Impact of Transit Improvements of GHG Emissions: A National Perspective." March, 2005 Transport Canada, retrieved from:

 http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/policy/docs/Summary.pdf

 

Back to Top

 

VIII- 3-a: Air Quality

 

 

Days With Daily Maximum 8h Ozone > 65 ppb

 

 

 

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Average

Kitchener CMA

26

30

17

8

27

11

19.83333

 

 

TEOM Number of Days with PM25 Concentrations > 30 (ug/m3)

 

 

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Average

Kitchener CMA

6

n.a

5

11

13

2

7.4

 

 

In Kitchener in 2006 the number of days of above threshold levels of 8h Ozone was 11, down from 26 days.  The 2001-2006 period average was 20 days.  The number of days with PM 2.5 concentrations above threshold levels was two, down from six days in 2001.  The 2001-2006 period average was seven days.  Over the 2001-2006 period, Kitchener ranked second worst of the 15 Vital Signs Communities for the first indicator and fourth worst for the second indicator.

 

Source: Environment Canada.  Data obtained by special request.

Note: The definitons for ground-level ozone and particulates are from the community accounts data published by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

http://www.communityaccounts.ca/CommunityAccounts/OnlineData/acct_selection.asp?comval=prov&menucomval=prov&whichacct=env

 

Back to Top

 

 

VIII-3-b: Households Influenced by Advisories of Poor Air Quality

 

 

 

 

 

Households aware of an advisory of poor air quality (%) 1

Households who did not change routine because of an air quality advisory (%) 2

Kitchener CMA

69

51

 

 

In Kitchener in 2005, 69 per cent of surveyed households reported that they had been aware of an advisory of poor air quality in their area.  Of those households, 51 per cent reported that they changed their behaviour as a result of the advisory.  By comparison, 56 per cent of all Ontario households were aware of an advisory, of whom 56 per cent altered their behaviour.  Canada-wide, 32 per cent of households were aware of an air quality advisory in 2005, of whom 61 percent altered their behaviour in response.

 

Source: Statistics Canada.  Households and the Environment, 2006. 

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-526-XIE/11-526-XIE2007001.pdf

 

Back to Top

 

VIII-4: Recycling Rate

 

Glass

Paper

Plastic

Metal cans

Any recyclable material

 

Had access to program (%)

Used program (as a percent of households with access)

Had access to program (%)

Used program (as a percent of households with access)

Had access to program (%)

Used program (as a percent of households with access)

Had access to program (%)

Used program (as a percent of households with access)

Had access to program (%)

Used program (as a % of households with access)

Kitchener CMA

95

96

94

98

93

98

92

97

97

98

               

 

In Kitchener in 2006, 97 per cent of households had access to a recycling program, 4.3 per cent above the rate for all CMAs (93 per cent). Of the households that had access to a recycling program, 98 per cent participated, a proportion that was 1.0 per cent above the rate for all CMAs (97 per cent).

 

Source: Statistics Canada Households and the Environment 2006 pages 54 and 55.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-526-XIE/11-526-XIE2007001.pdf

 

Back to Top

 

VIII- 6 Air Quality

 

 

Seasonal Mean 8h Daily Max Ozone (ppb)

 

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Kitchener CMA

48

53

49

44

49

45

 

TEOM Seasonal Mean PM2.5 Concentrations (ug/m3)

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

9.1

11.0

9.8

10.1

11.2

8.9

 

 

In Kitchener in 2006 the number of days of above threshold levels of 8h Ozone was 11, down from 26 days.  The 2001-2006 period average was 20 days.  The number of days with PM 2.5 concentrations above threshold levels was two, down from six days in 2001.  The 2001-2006 period average was seven days.  Over the 2001-2006 period, Kitchener ranked second worst of the 15 Vital Signs Communities for the first indicator and fourth worst for the second indicator.

 

Source: Environment Canada.  Data obtained by special request.

 

Back to Top

 

VIII-7: Households that Composted Kitchen or Yard Waste

 

 

Households that composted (%)1

Composted kitchen waste (%)1

Composted yard waste (%)2

Kitchener CMA

31

24

34

 

In 2006, 31 per cent of all households in Kitchener reported that they composted; 24 per cent reported that they composted kitchen waste, and 34 per cent of households that did not live in apartment buildings and had a lawn or garden reported composting their yard waste.  By comparison, 34 per cent of all households in Ontario reported that they composted; 30 per cent reported that they composted kitchen waste, and 37 per cent of households that did not live in apartment buildings and had a lawn or garden reported composting their yard waste.  Canada-wide, 27 per cent of households composted, 23 per cent composted kitchen waste, and 30 per cent of households that did not live in apartment buildings and had a lawn or garden composted yard waste.

 

Source: Statistics Canada.  Households and the Environment, 2006. 

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-526-XIE/11-526-XIE2007001.pdf

*Note: This does not include households who were apartment building dwellers

1. As a percentage of all households

2. As a percentage of households that were not apartment building dwellers and had a lawn or garden in 2005.

 

Back to Top

 

VIII-8: Dwelling Temperature Changes

 

 

Per cent of Households with:

 

 

 

 

Programmable thermostat1

Programmed thermostat2

Lowered temerature when household was asleep

Unprogrammed or non-programmable thermostat3

Lowered temperature when household was asleep

Any compact fluorescent light bulbs

Kitchener CMA

55

82

64

55

39

54

 

In 2006, 55 per cent of households in Kitchener had a programmable thermostat, of whom 82 per cent actually programmed their thermostats.  64 per cent of households with a programmable thermostat lowered the temperature while asleep, while only 39 per cent of those with an unprogrammed or non-programmable thermostat did so.  In Ontario, 50 per cent of households had a programmable thermostat while 57 per cent had an unprogrammed or non-programmable one.  Canada-wide, the percentages were 40 and 67 per cent, respectively.  In addition, 54 per cent of Kitchener households had compact fluorescent light bulbs, compared with 60 per cent in Ontario and 56 per cent in Canada.

 

Source: Statistics Canada.  Households and the Environment, 2006. 

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-526-XIE/11-526-XIE2007001.pdf

F: means data not reliable to be published.

1. As a percentage of all households with a thermostat.

2. As a percentage of all households with a programmable thermostat.

3. As a percentage of households with a thermostat.  The percentages include a portion of households with programmable thermostat.

 

Back to Top


Viewed 1,779 times