116
7 Summary
from others. This is particularly true in the context of globalized economy, where a
simple product may have a global coverage of resource extractions and hazardous
emissions. Without a systemic view of the complexity of human–environment interactions, reducing one type of product environmental footprint (PEF) may induce a
remarkable increase in others (see Chap. 2).
Stemming from the firm belief that environmental issues are getting increasingly
complex, and that wise environmental policies cannot be formulated without looking
at the whole picture, the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water
footprints takes a fundamental step towards constructing a unified footprint family
(see Chap. 2). Although these four footprints differ in more aspects than only in the
impacts that are addressed, the footprint family has proved effective in making use
of them in a complementary way. The value added of the footprint family lines in
its systemic view that allows to provide policy makers with a complete picture of
human disturbance associated with the demand for the regenerative and assimilative
capacity of the biosphere. By that, one can examine whether or not a reduction in
one footprint would lead to undesirable consequences for others. Problem shifting, in
this sense, would be avoided to some extent by operationalizing the footprint family
concept.
The integration of environmental footprints goes beyond framing a footprint
family and requires a deep understanding of the general structure that underlies
existing footprint indicators. Defined in simple terms, environmental footprints are
indicators that measure anthropogenic effects on the planet’s environment by human
actions, irrespective of the precise units and dimensions. An investigation into the
conceptual and mathematical structure behind different versions of the carbon, water,
land, and material footprints suggests that there are two broad categories of environmental footprints, namely, the inventory-oriented footprints (IVOFs) and impactoriented footprints (IPOFs) (see Chap. 3). The two-category classification captures
the inherent distinction between most, if not all, footprint accounts in terms of inventory analysis and impact characterization; that is, the IVOFs present a physical interpretation of the pressure of resource use which is causing environmental impacts
at the inventory level, whereas the IPOFs further link inventory flows to a specific
environmental impact and assess the impact category on a scientific characterization
basis.
The next step to the categorization is selection. While both footprint categories
have their own strengths and weaknesses, the integration of environmental footprints
only makes sense if all involved are members of the IPOF category. The foremost
reason for choosing the IPOFs rather than choosing the IVOFs is that the former
can prevent the process of integration from double counting and double weighting
that would undoubtedly compromise the validity of the final composite metric. To
meet the policy demands for a single-score, stand-alone metric, a framework for
characterization, normalization, and weighting of conceivable IPOFs is proposed,
whereby the results of inventory analysis are first to be translated into single impact
category indicators, and subsequently normalized, weighted, and integrated into a
composite footprint index (CFI) (see Chap. 3). The three-step framework differs
from life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) in that it can be fruitful in life cycle-less
7 Summary
from others. This is particularly true in the context of globalized economy, where a
simple product may have a global coverage of resource extractions and hazardous
emissions. Without a systemic view of the complexity of human–environment interactions, reducing one type of product environmental footprint (PEF) may induce a
remarkable increase in others (see Chap. 2).
Stemming from the firm belief that environmental issues are getting increasingly
complex, and that wise environmental policies cannot be formulated without looking
at the whole picture, the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water
footprints takes a fundamental step towards constructing a unified footprint family
(see Chap. 2). Although these four footprints differ in more aspects than only in the
impacts that are addressed, the footprint family has proved effective in making use
of them in a complementary way. The value added of the footprint family lines in
its systemic view that allows to provide policy makers with a complete picture of
human disturbance associated with the demand for the regenerative and assimilative
capacity of the biosphere. By that, one can examine whether or not a reduction in
one footprint would lead to undesirable consequences for others. Problem shifting, in
this sense, would be avoided to some extent by operationalizing the footprint family
concept.
The integration of environmental footprints goes beyond framing a footprint
family and requires a deep understanding of the general structure that underlies
existing footprint indicators. Defined in simple terms, environmental footprints are
indicators that measure anthropogenic effects on the planet’s environment by human
actions, irrespective of the precise units and dimensions. An investigation into the
conceptual and mathematical structure behind different versions of the carbon, water,
land, and material footprints suggests that there are two broad categories of environmental footprints, namely, the inventory-oriented footprints (IVOFs) and impactoriented footprints (IPOFs) (see Chap. 3). The two-category classification captures
the inherent distinction between most, if not all, footprint accounts in terms of inventory analysis and impact characterization; that is, the IVOFs present a physical interpretation of the pressure of resource use which is causing environmental impacts
at the inventory level, whereas the IPOFs further link inventory flows to a specific
environmental impact and assess the impact category on a scientific characterization
basis.
The next step to the categorization is selection. While both footprint categories
have their own strengths and weaknesses, the integration of environmental footprints
only makes sense if all involved are members of the IPOF category. The foremost
reason for choosing the IPOFs rather than choosing the IVOFs is that the former
can prevent the process of integration from double counting and double weighting
that would undoubtedly compromise the validity of the final composite metric. To
meet the policy demands for a single-score, stand-alone metric, a framework for
characterization, normalization, and weighting of conceivable IPOFs is proposed,
whereby the results of inventory analysis are first to be translated into single impact
category indicators, and subsequently normalized, weighted, and integrated into a
composite footprint index (CFI) (see Chap. 3). The three-step framework differs
from life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) in that it can be fruitful in life cycle-less