26
with the highest carbon
EFs
Carbon dioxide The EF only considers
CO2 as the main waste of
the
anthropogenic
activity
Non-CO2 greenhouse
gases
should
be
included in
the calculation
Assessment of the
EF using other GHG
gases
Dias-Oliveira
et al., 2005
The ecological
footprint
embodied in
Trade
Consumption and trade
of consumers goods
Product manufacturing
and trade rely on input
materials that also
require
land
for
production
or
sequestration. The EF
should than consider
embodied footprints
(imported and exported
hectares)
Use of Input-output
analysis
Use of life cycle
analysis of products
Lenzen
&
Murray,
2001;
Hubacek and
Giljum
2003, Turner
et al., 2007 ;
Wiedmann et
al., 2007
The Ecological Footprint has influenced the policies and communications of many
governmental and non-governmental organizations (Holmberg et al., 1999; Blomqvist et al.,
2013), urban planning expert also see this tool as a useful for policy design and planning
(Wackernagel & Silverstein, 2000). However, the EF concept, its methodological approach, and
outcomes have been subject to criticism since its formulation (Lenzen & Murray, 2001;
Venetoulis & Talbert, 2006). Indeed, users and reviewers argued that the EF is not
revolutionary, and not needed to inform policy-makers about global warming problems,
overexploitation of marine resources, or deforestation (Van Den Berg & Grazi, 2013), and that
given the magnitude of these problems the simple declaration of a "footprint" is only an
attention grabbing device (Opschoor, 2000; Moffatt, 2000), or even misunderstanding of what
the EF is trying to measure, thus, irrelevant for serious scientific or political context (Blomqvist
et al., 2013). The criticism targeted general and specific parameters such the EF inability to
describe the impact of unsustainable resources consumption and land use practices impacts
on ecosystems. These comments have fuel the EF founders to review and integrate the
suggested modifications in an ongoing process of development, maintenance and upgrades of
the NFAs (Ewing et al., 2010). The modifications suggested by users has played a crucial role
in refining the methodology, as the most interesting are considering the land state and the
impact of land use using disturbance-based approach (Bicknell et al., 1997; Lenzen & Muray,
2001; Zhao et al., 2005), integrating life cycle assessment and input-output analysis to capture
the EF of embodied flows associated with consumers goods (Lenzen & Murray, 2001; Hubacek
& Giljum, 2003, Turner et al., 2007; Wiedmann et al., 2007; Moore, 2013; Akrour & Grimes,
2021). Accordingly, the GFN encourages countries to introduce appropriate modifications and
contribute to the improvement of the method (Ewing, 2009), mainly through reliable figures,
since the national accounts of the EF are built on synthetic data produced by international
organizations (World Bank, FAOSTAT, IEA). However, downscaling the EF assessment requires
more data, which means adjusting the calculation model and integrating other data-producing
analyses.
with the highest carbon
EFs
Carbon dioxide The EF only considers
CO2 as the main waste of
the
anthropogenic
activity
Non-CO2 greenhouse
gases
should
be
included in
the calculation
Assessment of the
EF using other GHG
gases
Dias-Oliveira
et al., 2005
The ecological
footprint
embodied in
Trade
Consumption and trade
of consumers goods
Product manufacturing
and trade rely on input
materials that also
require
land
for
production
or
sequestration. The EF
should than consider
embodied footprints
(imported and exported
hectares)
Use of Input-output
analysis
Use of life cycle
analysis of products
Lenzen
&
Murray,
2001;
Hubacek and
Giljum
2003, Turner
et al., 2007 ;
Wiedmann et
al., 2007
The Ecological Footprint has influenced the policies and communications of many
governmental and non-governmental organizations (Holmberg et al., 1999; Blomqvist et al.,
2013), urban planning expert also see this tool as a useful for policy design and planning
(Wackernagel & Silverstein, 2000). However, the EF concept, its methodological approach, and
outcomes have been subject to criticism since its formulation (Lenzen & Murray, 2001;
Venetoulis & Talbert, 2006). Indeed, users and reviewers argued that the EF is not
revolutionary, and not needed to inform policy-makers about global warming problems,
overexploitation of marine resources, or deforestation (Van Den Berg & Grazi, 2013), and that
given the magnitude of these problems the simple declaration of a "footprint" is only an
attention grabbing device (Opschoor, 2000; Moffatt, 2000), or even misunderstanding of what
the EF is trying to measure, thus, irrelevant for serious scientific or political context (Blomqvist
et al., 2013). The criticism targeted general and specific parameters such the EF inability to
describe the impact of unsustainable resources consumption and land use practices impacts
on ecosystems. These comments have fuel the EF founders to review and integrate the
suggested modifications in an ongoing process of development, maintenance and upgrades of
the NFAs (Ewing et al., 2010). The modifications suggested by users has played a crucial role
in refining the methodology, as the most interesting are considering the land state and the
impact of land use using disturbance-based approach (Bicknell et al., 1997; Lenzen & Muray,
2001; Zhao et al., 2005), integrating life cycle assessment and input-output analysis to capture
the EF of embodied flows associated with consumers goods (Lenzen & Murray, 2001; Hubacek
& Giljum, 2003, Turner et al., 2007; Wiedmann et al., 2007; Moore, 2013; Akrour & Grimes,
2021). Accordingly, the GFN encourages countries to introduce appropriate modifications and
contribute to the improvement of the method (Ewing, 2009), mainly through reliable figures,
since the national accounts of the EF are built on synthetic data produced by international
organizations (World Bank, FAOSTAT, IEA). However, downscaling the EF assessment requires
more data, which means adjusting the calculation model and integrating other data-producing
analyses.