7.2 Further Reflections
119
7.2 Further Reflections
7.2.1 Advances to the Establishment of a Footprint Family
Chapters 2 and 3 are dedicated to the development of a conceptual and methodological framework of the footprint family, with the aim to call for a policy transformation from assessing single environmental footprints in isolation towards an
integrated assessment. Each of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints
involved in the footprint family focuses on limited aspects of human-induced environmental change to the Earth’s ecosystems, but in combination, they are able to
provide an overall picture of anthropogenic effects on the biosphere, atmosphere
and hydrosphere. However, there is still a need to avoid overlapping and conflicting
messages of the current footprint family. For this concern, we suggest: (1) exclude
the energy-related component from the ecological footprint accounting and rename
the remaining as “land footprint”; (2) reshape the energy footprint to make it relevant
for assessing the depletion of non-renewable energy resources in the lithosphere; (3)
keep the footprint family systematized and flexible so that emerging environmental
footprints could be continuously taken into account; (4) ensure the harmonization of
all selected footprint accounts by including them in unified procedures for structuring,
categorization and integration; and (5) present the final results both at aggregate and
disaggregate levels in keeping with the varying requirements of policy makers and
scientists.
7.2.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Versus
Environmental Sustainability Assessment
Chapters 5 and 6 are committed to an investigation into the complementary use of
environmental footprints and planetary boundaries, for which there are two leading
but disparate communities in the fields of environmental and ecological sciences.
The simultaneous assessment of the footprint and boundary metrics not only aims at
describing what is happening to the environment, as is done in environmental impact
assessment (EIA), but also at determining whether this is deviating away from a
state of environmental sustainability—a prerequisite for the economic and social
pillars of sustainable development. It builds on the recognition that man should not
merely minimize his environmental footprints which many footprint users currently
concentrate on, but make sure these footprints stay within the planetary boundaries.
As pointed out by Lancker and Nijkamp (2000), an indicator does not provide any
information on sustainability unless a reference value is given to it. The F–B ESA
framework is, to our knowledge, the first attempt to create synergies between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries, representing an evolution of prognostic
and preventive ESA—a step ahead from EIA. To obtain a better understanding of the
implications for ESA, further improvements need to focus on the following issues:
119
7.2 Further Reflections
7.2.1 Advances to the Establishment of a Footprint Family
Chapters 2 and 3 are dedicated to the development of a conceptual and methodological framework of the footprint family, with the aim to call for a policy transformation from assessing single environmental footprints in isolation towards an
integrated assessment. Each of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints
involved in the footprint family focuses on limited aspects of human-induced environmental change to the Earth’s ecosystems, but in combination, they are able to
provide an overall picture of anthropogenic effects on the biosphere, atmosphere
and hydrosphere. However, there is still a need to avoid overlapping and conflicting
messages of the current footprint family. For this concern, we suggest: (1) exclude
the energy-related component from the ecological footprint accounting and rename
the remaining as “land footprint”; (2) reshape the energy footprint to make it relevant
for assessing the depletion of non-renewable energy resources in the lithosphere; (3)
keep the footprint family systematized and flexible so that emerging environmental
footprints could be continuously taken into account; (4) ensure the harmonization of
all selected footprint accounts by including them in unified procedures for structuring,
categorization and integration; and (5) present the final results both at aggregate and
disaggregate levels in keeping with the varying requirements of policy makers and
scientists.
7.2.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Versus
Environmental Sustainability Assessment
Chapters 5 and 6 are committed to an investigation into the complementary use of
environmental footprints and planetary boundaries, for which there are two leading
but disparate communities in the fields of environmental and ecological sciences.
The simultaneous assessment of the footprint and boundary metrics not only aims at
describing what is happening to the environment, as is done in environmental impact
assessment (EIA), but also at determining whether this is deviating away from a
state of environmental sustainability—a prerequisite for the economic and social
pillars of sustainable development. It builds on the recognition that man should not
merely minimize his environmental footprints which many footprint users currently
concentrate on, but make sure these footprints stay within the planetary boundaries.
As pointed out by Lancker and Nijkamp (2000), an indicator does not provide any
information on sustainability unless a reference value is given to it. The F–B ESA
framework is, to our knowledge, the first attempt to create synergies between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries, representing an evolution of prognostic
and preventive ESA—a step ahead from EIA. To obtain a better understanding of the
implications for ESA, further improvements need to focus on the following issues: