6.1 Introduction
95
of footprints and boundaries, and finally offer a picture of the overall environmental
performance of different countries. The purpose of our analysis is to provide novel
insights into the development of a robust methodology for ESA (Sect. 6.2), and to
present available knowledge on the environmental sustainability of 28 nations in a
coherent way with respect to carbon emissions, water use, and land use (Sect. 6.3).
Section 6.4 comprises discussions on the contribution of selected variables to national
performance, the consistency with other estimates, and the policy relevance of a
weighted index to trade-off issues. Conclusions and some final remarks are drawn
in Sect. 6.5.
6.2 Methods
6.2.1 An Explanation to the Footprint–Boundary ESA (F–B
ESA) Framework
Having recognized the benefits of integrating footprints and boundaries for ESA,
Fang et al. (2015) establish a footprint–boundary ESA (F–B ESA) framework for the
joint use of a set of footprint and boundary metrics in a systematic way. It comprises
the definitions of ecological footprints and planetary boundaries, the development of
the concepts of sustainability gap, policy gap, and implementation gap, and a technical discussion of the measurement of regional and local environmental footprints
and boundaries and of the trade-offs between different sustainability gaps. The logic
is to identify some crucial environmental issues, select suitable footprint indicators
for each of them, demonstrate at which level the environmental boundaries are most
likely to exist, determine the appropriate methods for quantifying relevant boundary
indicators, and finally account for the resulting sustainability gaps. To ensure the
consistency and reliability of the F–B ESA framework, it is argued that the footprint
and boundary metrics should be measured in such a way that they match well with
each other.
The F–B ESA framework challenges, for the first time, the isolation of the two
research communities and opens the door to collaborative research in defining and
assessing environmental sustainability at multiple scales. Its primary purpose is to
inform policy makers on the sustainability gap between current environmental states
and critical capacity thresholds, indicating whether or not human activities have fallen
into an unsustainable state that may result in undesirable environmental changes, with
detrimental or even disastrous consequences for the population of a region or the
world. By use of the F–B ESA framework, environmental sustainability, and unsustainability can be explicitly defined and distinguished from a footprint–boundary
perspective:
• Environmental sustainability: a safe state in which the footprint of human
activities placed on the environment is kept within boundary of capacity.
95
of footprints and boundaries, and finally offer a picture of the overall environmental
performance of different countries. The purpose of our analysis is to provide novel
insights into the development of a robust methodology for ESA (Sect. 6.2), and to
present available knowledge on the environmental sustainability of 28 nations in a
coherent way with respect to carbon emissions, water use, and land use (Sect. 6.3).
Section 6.4 comprises discussions on the contribution of selected variables to national
performance, the consistency with other estimates, and the policy relevance of a
weighted index to trade-off issues. Conclusions and some final remarks are drawn
in Sect. 6.5.
6.2 Methods
6.2.1 An Explanation to the Footprint–Boundary ESA (F–B
ESA) Framework
Having recognized the benefits of integrating footprints and boundaries for ESA,
Fang et al. (2015) establish a footprint–boundary ESA (F–B ESA) framework for the
joint use of a set of footprint and boundary metrics in a systematic way. It comprises
the definitions of ecological footprints and planetary boundaries, the development of
the concepts of sustainability gap, policy gap, and implementation gap, and a technical discussion of the measurement of regional and local environmental footprints
and boundaries and of the trade-offs between different sustainability gaps. The logic
is to identify some crucial environmental issues, select suitable footprint indicators
for each of them, demonstrate at which level the environmental boundaries are most
likely to exist, determine the appropriate methods for quantifying relevant boundary
indicators, and finally account for the resulting sustainability gaps. To ensure the
consistency and reliability of the F–B ESA framework, it is argued that the footprint
and boundary metrics should be measured in such a way that they match well with
each other.
The F–B ESA framework challenges, for the first time, the isolation of the two
research communities and opens the door to collaborative research in defining and
assessing environmental sustainability at multiple scales. Its primary purpose is to
inform policy makers on the sustainability gap between current environmental states
and critical capacity thresholds, indicating whether or not human activities have fallen
into an unsustainable state that may result in undesirable environmental changes, with
detrimental or even disastrous consequences for the population of a region or the
world. By use of the F–B ESA framework, environmental sustainability, and unsustainability can be explicitly defined and distinguished from a footprint–boundary
perspective:
• Environmental sustainability: a safe state in which the footprint of human
activities placed on the environment is kept within boundary of capacity.