2.2 Review of the Literature on Combining Environmental Footprints
13
simultaneously and independently by Giljum et al. (2008) and Stoeglehner and Narodoslawsky (2008). Subsequently, a landmark work on this topic is being undertaken
by the OPEN: European Union (EU) Project within the Seventh Framework Program,
integrating the ecological, carbon, and water footprints into a footprint family in
collaboration with an environmentally extended multiregional input–output (MRIO)
model (Galli et al. 2012, 2013).
Some other studies have discussed similar topics without mentioning the term
“footprint family”. For instance, De Benedetto and Klemeš (2009) designed a
composite footprint indicator as a single measure for the sustainability of a given
option. Niccolucci et al. (2010) developed an integrated footprint-based approach for
environmental labeling of products. Herva et al. (2011) reviewed a series of environmental indicators and proposed the ecological and carbon footprints to be the most
appealing indicators for enterprises. ˇ
Cuˇ cek et al. (2012a) presented a comprehensive
overview of the environmental, social, and economic footprints that can be used to
measure the three pillars of sustainability. Steen-Olsen et al. (2012) used an MRIO
model to quantify the total pressures due to consumption in the EU by calculating the
carbon, water, and land footprints. Fang et al. (2013) presented a critique on some
of these integration schemes.
A review of the existing literature that compares or integrates multiple footprints
is shown in Table 2.1. As we see, the environmental pillar of sustainability is much
better covered than the social and economic pillars, so we restrict the discussion of
footprints in the environmental domain. The social and economic footprints ( ˇ
Cuˇ cek
et al. 2012a), for instance, are outside the scope of our analysis.
2.3 Elaboration of a Footprint Family
A footprint family consists of a number of members, each of which is a singledimensional footprint. In this section, we discuss the most important potential
members with an emphasis on their characteristics in a comparative sense.
2.3.1 Selection of Footprint Indicators
The composition of a footprint family may vary depending on the relevance of the
impact categories addressed (Ridoutt and Pfister 2013). In principle, any two or more
footprint indicators could be considered as a footprint family. However, given the fact
that there are a variety of footprint indicators that measure individual or collective
pressures or impacts arising from production and consumption, we have to choose
some of them to define a specific footprint family which is expected to address some
significant anthropogenic impacts on major ecosystem compartments of the Earth
system.
13
simultaneously and independently by Giljum et al. (2008) and Stoeglehner and Narodoslawsky (2008). Subsequently, a landmark work on this topic is being undertaken
by the OPEN: European Union (EU) Project within the Seventh Framework Program,
integrating the ecological, carbon, and water footprints into a footprint family in
collaboration with an environmentally extended multiregional input–output (MRIO)
model (Galli et al. 2012, 2013).
Some other studies have discussed similar topics without mentioning the term
“footprint family”. For instance, De Benedetto and Klemeš (2009) designed a
composite footprint indicator as a single measure for the sustainability of a given
option. Niccolucci et al. (2010) developed an integrated footprint-based approach for
environmental labeling of products. Herva et al. (2011) reviewed a series of environmental indicators and proposed the ecological and carbon footprints to be the most
appealing indicators for enterprises. ˇ
Cuˇ cek et al. (2012a) presented a comprehensive
overview of the environmental, social, and economic footprints that can be used to
measure the three pillars of sustainability. Steen-Olsen et al. (2012) used an MRIO
model to quantify the total pressures due to consumption in the EU by calculating the
carbon, water, and land footprints. Fang et al. (2013) presented a critique on some
of these integration schemes.
A review of the existing literature that compares or integrates multiple footprints
is shown in Table 2.1. As we see, the environmental pillar of sustainability is much
better covered than the social and economic pillars, so we restrict the discussion of
footprints in the environmental domain. The social and economic footprints ( ˇ
Cuˇ cek
et al. 2012a), for instance, are outside the scope of our analysis.
2.3 Elaboration of a Footprint Family
A footprint family consists of a number of members, each of which is a singledimensional footprint. In this section, we discuss the most important potential
members with an emphasis on their characteristics in a comparative sense.
2.3.1 Selection of Footprint Indicators
The composition of a footprint family may vary depending on the relevance of the
impact categories addressed (Ridoutt and Pfister 2013). In principle, any two or more
footprint indicators could be considered as a footprint family. However, given the fact
that there are a variety of footprint indicators that measure individual or collective
pressures or impacts arising from production and consumption, we have to choose
some of them to define a specific footprint family which is expected to address some
significant anthropogenic impacts on major ecosystem compartments of the Earth
system.