1.4 The Relation to Life Cycle Assessment
5
use of LCA for nation-wide economy (Hellweg and Milà i Canals 2014). Moreover,
there are certain important types of issues for which environmental footprints are
desirable while an LCA is not or only partially suitable, as proved by the risk of
double-counting in large-scale LCA (Lenzen et al. 2007), and vice versa, some typical
impact categories (e.g., ozone depletion, ionizing radiation) are out of the scope of
the footprint family in its present form. These discrepancies observed suggest that
environmental footprints may preferably have a different orientation from LCA.
1.5 The Relation to Planetary Boundaries
With the latest scientific knowledge, the planetary boundaries framework (PBF)
defines the global-scale safe operating space for humanity by determining the difference between the current and threshold values for several environmental issues
(Rockström et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2015). The PBF, in this sense, has much in
common with the EFA because both of them are well suited for monitoring the
extent to which humanity is approaching or exceeding biophysical limits. Yet, this
does not mean that there is no difference between the PBF and the EFA. Their differing
optimal scales present one example, in which the former is primarily limited to the
global scale with the aim of supporting global sustainability goals and pathways,
whereas the latter has a far wider range of applications and thus can be applied
to environmental sustainability assessment (ESA) at sub-global scales (e.g., cities,
nations).
In contrast to the ecological footprint, many footprint indicators, especially those
based on LCA, do not include a comparison to any reference conditions, although this
is increasingly being perceived as essential for ESA (e.g., Hoekstra 2015; Moldan
et al. 2012). For this reason, allocating planetary boundaries to the national- or
regional-scale shares in comparison to environmental footprints may be a novel way
to enhance the policy relevance of EFA (Fang et al. 2015). One challenge is that not
all environmental issues are likely to show explicit threshold behaviors at sub-global
scales. Meanwhile, lots of well-grounded footprint models would allow the PBF to
have more accurate and reliable estimates of environmental pressures or impacts due
to human activities at multiple scales. All this calls for a deeper understanding of the
synergies between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries.
1.6 Research Questions
The aims of the book are to provide novel insights into the ongoing discourse on
environmental footprints and to bring clarity to a number of important theoretical and
methodological issues that pose substantial barriers to the development of footprint
indicators. On the basis of the brief introduction to the background, we identify the
following research questions that will be answered in this book:
5
use of LCA for nation-wide economy (Hellweg and Milà i Canals 2014). Moreover,
there are certain important types of issues for which environmental footprints are
desirable while an LCA is not or only partially suitable, as proved by the risk of
double-counting in large-scale LCA (Lenzen et al. 2007), and vice versa, some typical
impact categories (e.g., ozone depletion, ionizing radiation) are out of the scope of
the footprint family in its present form. These discrepancies observed suggest that
environmental footprints may preferably have a different orientation from LCA.
1.5 The Relation to Planetary Boundaries
With the latest scientific knowledge, the planetary boundaries framework (PBF)
defines the global-scale safe operating space for humanity by determining the difference between the current and threshold values for several environmental issues
(Rockström et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2015). The PBF, in this sense, has much in
common with the EFA because both of them are well suited for monitoring the
extent to which humanity is approaching or exceeding biophysical limits. Yet, this
does not mean that there is no difference between the PBF and the EFA. Their differing
optimal scales present one example, in which the former is primarily limited to the
global scale with the aim of supporting global sustainability goals and pathways,
whereas the latter has a far wider range of applications and thus can be applied
to environmental sustainability assessment (ESA) at sub-global scales (e.g., cities,
nations).
In contrast to the ecological footprint, many footprint indicators, especially those
based on LCA, do not include a comparison to any reference conditions, although this
is increasingly being perceived as essential for ESA (e.g., Hoekstra 2015; Moldan
et al. 2012). For this reason, allocating planetary boundaries to the national- or
regional-scale shares in comparison to environmental footprints may be a novel way
to enhance the policy relevance of EFA (Fang et al. 2015). One challenge is that not
all environmental issues are likely to show explicit threshold behaviors at sub-global
scales. Meanwhile, lots of well-grounded footprint models would allow the PBF to
have more accurate and reliable estimates of environmental pressures or impacts due
to human activities at multiple scales. All this calls for a deeper understanding of the
synergies between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries.
1.6 Research Questions
The aims of the book are to provide novel insights into the ongoing discourse on
environmental footprints and to bring clarity to a number of important theoretical and
methodological issues that pose substantial barriers to the development of footprint
indicators. On the basis of the brief introduction to the background, we identify the
following research questions that will be answered in this book: