120
7 Summary
(1) development of measurable aggregated boundaries at multiple scales; (2) partitioning of systemic planetary boundaries for sub-global assessments; (3) harmonized
accounting of the footprint and boundary metrics; and (4) trade-offs between different
sustainability gaps.
7.2.3 The Role of Methodological Standards
Chapter 4 gives novel insights into the relationship between environmental footprints
and LCA. At present, a series of initiatives have been made or are under way to reach
agreement on methodological standards for footprint accounting, such as the PAS
2050 (BSI 2011) for the carbon footprint, the ISO 14046 (ISO 2014) for the water
footprint, and the Environmental Footprint Analysis (EPA 2014). More recently,
guidelines for Product and Organization Environmental Footprints (PEF/OEF) have
been launched (EC 2015a, b), in the hope that the environmental impacts of products and organizations can be assessed within LCA frameworks. While it is an
appealing idea to proceed with the development of footprinting standards from an
LCA perspective, inappropriate and misleading results may be encountered when
equating environmental footprints with impact category indicators defined in LCA.
This is why until now there is no consensus on the most appropriate footprinting
method, and neither is there a clear recognition of the applicability of every conceivable method nor of the compatibility of the results due to varying methods chosen.
All this leads to a question about the role of international standards for the calculation
and interpretation of environmental footprints: is it a boost or obstacle?
7.2.4 Data Quality and Uncertainty
This book as a whole is not intended to generate new data but to generate new insights
obtained by critical reading and contemplation. The contradicting literature and the
non-quantitative nature of the analysis make the research distinguished from others.
Nevertheless, on the basis of the findings of the book, the following remarks can be
drawn: (1) in the absence of exhaustive data for life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis and
LCIA, footprint accounts may be satisfied by using classical footprinting methods,
such as National Footprint Accounts (NFA) and the Water Footprint Network (WFN)
approach, which provide feasible alternatives to LCA; (2) recent development in environmentally extended multi-regional input–output (MRIO) models offers an opportunity for footprint users to get access to more comprehensive and detailed datasets for
macro- and meso-scale studies than previously available; (3) analysis of uncertainty
in both raw data and final results is necessary to add to the procedure for interpretation of environmental footprints; (4) there is a need for high-resolution remote
sensing data to map the spatial and temporal variations in anthropogenic extractions
7 Summary
(1) development of measurable aggregated boundaries at multiple scales; (2) partitioning of systemic planetary boundaries for sub-global assessments; (3) harmonized
accounting of the footprint and boundary metrics; and (4) trade-offs between different
sustainability gaps.
7.2.3 The Role of Methodological Standards
Chapter 4 gives novel insights into the relationship between environmental footprints
and LCA. At present, a series of initiatives have been made or are under way to reach
agreement on methodological standards for footprint accounting, such as the PAS
2050 (BSI 2011) for the carbon footprint, the ISO 14046 (ISO 2014) for the water
footprint, and the Environmental Footprint Analysis (EPA 2014). More recently,
guidelines for Product and Organization Environmental Footprints (PEF/OEF) have
been launched (EC 2015a, b), in the hope that the environmental impacts of products and organizations can be assessed within LCA frameworks. While it is an
appealing idea to proceed with the development of footprinting standards from an
LCA perspective, inappropriate and misleading results may be encountered when
equating environmental footprints with impact category indicators defined in LCA.
This is why until now there is no consensus on the most appropriate footprinting
method, and neither is there a clear recognition of the applicability of every conceivable method nor of the compatibility of the results due to varying methods chosen.
All this leads to a question about the role of international standards for the calculation
and interpretation of environmental footprints: is it a boost or obstacle?
7.2.4 Data Quality and Uncertainty
This book as a whole is not intended to generate new data but to generate new insights
obtained by critical reading and contemplation. The contradicting literature and the
non-quantitative nature of the analysis make the research distinguished from others.
Nevertheless, on the basis of the findings of the book, the following remarks can be
drawn: (1) in the absence of exhaustive data for life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis and
LCIA, footprint accounts may be satisfied by using classical footprinting methods,
such as National Footprint Accounts (NFA) and the Water Footprint Network (WFN)
approach, which provide feasible alternatives to LCA; (2) recent development in environmentally extended multi-regional input–output (MRIO) models offers an opportunity for footprint users to get access to more comprehensive and detailed datasets for
macro- and meso-scale studies than previously available; (3) analysis of uncertainty
in both raw data and final results is necessary to add to the procedure for interpretation of environmental footprints; (4) there is a need for high-resolution remote
sensing data to map the spatial and temporal variations in anthropogenic extractions