1.7 Outline of the Book
7
able to offer policy makers a more complete picture of human-induced environmental
change particularly at the national level than single footprints.
Chapter 3 investigates the roles of inventory schemes and impact characterization
schemes in shaping footprint indicators, and concludes that within a single footprint, environmental exchange (extractions and emissions) is addressed either at the
inventory level or at the impact assessment level. As such, a two-category framework is proposed, whereby existing environmental footprints can be classified into
the inventory-oriented category and impact-oriented category. While both categories
have been found simultaneously in each of the carbon, water, land, and material footprints in the literature, a truly integrated footprint family could be achieved only if
all environmental footprints involved are impact-oriented. A unified framework for
characterization, normalization, and weighting of the impact-oriented footprints is
established, with the aim of assisting policy makers in modeling the overall environmental impacts of single products, organizations, nations, or even the whole human
economy.
Chapter 4 explores the tangled relationship between environmental footprints and
LCA from different angles. On the one hand, footprint indicators could benefit from
the use of LCIA elements. The important contribution of life cycle characterization
modeling to the scientific foundation of the carbon footprint is discussed. With examples of the carbon and material footprints, it is strongly evident that the procedures
for inventory aggregation can be improved by substitution of science-based characterization factors for arbitrary weighting factors. On the other hand, an analysis of
several limitations of LCA in footprint accounting is conducted. It is demonstrated
that narrowing environmental footprints down to an LCA context could create blind
spots, where either inventory analysis and impact characterization are difficult to
handle due to lack of data, or double counting of impacts occurs due to the inherent
limits of LCA at the meso-level.
Chapter 5 uncovers the complementary linkages between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in support of ESA. By presenting a set of consensusbased estimates of the regenerative and absorptive capacity on the global scale,
the PBF is found able to benchmark environmental footprints against reference
conditions and, in reverse, many well-grounded footprinting methods could provide
the PBF with more accurate and reliable estimates of contemporary anthropogenic
interference. A framework for the complementary use of environmental footprints
and planetary boundaries is therefore proposed, where sustainability gap is referred
to as a means to understand the difference between current magnitudes of human
disturbance and finite biophysical thresholds. The footprint–boundary (F–B) ESA
framework makes sense as it represents an important shift in focus, from EIA to
ESA.
Chapter 6 conducts an empirical analysis of the F–B ESA framework, with a particular focus on its application at the national level. By using the latest datasets available,
the planetary boundaries for carbon emissions, water use, and land use are allocated
to 28 selected countries in comparison to the respective national environmental footprints. The environmental sustainability ratio (ESR)—an internationally comparable
indicator that communicates the sustainability gap in relative terms—allows one to
7
able to offer policy makers a more complete picture of human-induced environmental
change particularly at the national level than single footprints.
Chapter 3 investigates the roles of inventory schemes and impact characterization
schemes in shaping footprint indicators, and concludes that within a single footprint, environmental exchange (extractions and emissions) is addressed either at the
inventory level or at the impact assessment level. As such, a two-category framework is proposed, whereby existing environmental footprints can be classified into
the inventory-oriented category and impact-oriented category. While both categories
have been found simultaneously in each of the carbon, water, land, and material footprints in the literature, a truly integrated footprint family could be achieved only if
all environmental footprints involved are impact-oriented. A unified framework for
characterization, normalization, and weighting of the impact-oriented footprints is
established, with the aim of assisting policy makers in modeling the overall environmental impacts of single products, organizations, nations, or even the whole human
economy.
Chapter 4 explores the tangled relationship between environmental footprints and
LCA from different angles. On the one hand, footprint indicators could benefit from
the use of LCIA elements. The important contribution of life cycle characterization
modeling to the scientific foundation of the carbon footprint is discussed. With examples of the carbon and material footprints, it is strongly evident that the procedures
for inventory aggregation can be improved by substitution of science-based characterization factors for arbitrary weighting factors. On the other hand, an analysis of
several limitations of LCA in footprint accounting is conducted. It is demonstrated
that narrowing environmental footprints down to an LCA context could create blind
spots, where either inventory analysis and impact characterization are difficult to
handle due to lack of data, or double counting of impacts occurs due to the inherent
limits of LCA at the meso-level.
Chapter 5 uncovers the complementary linkages between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in support of ESA. By presenting a set of consensusbased estimates of the regenerative and absorptive capacity on the global scale,
the PBF is found able to benchmark environmental footprints against reference
conditions and, in reverse, many well-grounded footprinting methods could provide
the PBF with more accurate and reliable estimates of contemporary anthropogenic
interference. A framework for the complementary use of environmental footprints
and planetary boundaries is therefore proposed, where sustainability gap is referred
to as a means to understand the difference between current magnitudes of human
disturbance and finite biophysical thresholds. The footprint–boundary (F–B) ESA
framework makes sense as it represents an important shift in focus, from EIA to
ESA.
Chapter 6 conducts an empirical analysis of the F–B ESA framework, with a particular focus on its application at the national level. By using the latest datasets available,
the planetary boundaries for carbon emissions, water use, and land use are allocated
to 28 selected countries in comparison to the respective national environmental footprints. The environmental sustainability ratio (ESR)—an internationally comparable
indicator that communicates the sustainability gap in relative terms—allows one to