18
2 A Conceptual Framework for Constituting a Footprint Family
activities taking place on the biosphere within a given year while considering the
prevailing technology and resource management of that year (Bastianoni et al. 2012;
Borucke et al. 2013).
The methodology of the ecological footprint is included in a standardization process directed by the Global Footprint Network (GFN). National Footprint
Accounts (NFAs)—the most widely used approach for the ecological footprint practitioners and users—is developed and maintained by the GFN. The NFA has been
applied in more than 200 countries, serving as an essential database for the Living
Planet Report that is prepared by a number of the world’s top organizations (WWF
2012). A detailed research agenda for improving the NFA is established as a way
of reaching consensus on priorities for implementing ecological footprint standards
(Kitzes et al. 2009).
2.3.2.2 Energy Footprint
Ferng’s (2002) initiative highlights the importance of the energy footprint independent of the ecological footprint in energy scenario analysis by using an input–output
analysis (IOA) based framework. Over the past years, an expanding list of researchers
has chosen to concentrate exclusively on the topic of the energy footprint (e.g., Palmer
1998; Stöglehner 2003; Wiedmann 2009a). It was previously introduced as a subindicator of the ecological footprint, representing the amount of forest area that
would be required to absorb CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and electricity generation through the use of sequestration values for a world-average forest
(Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Depending on updated data obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001), the calculation of the energy
footprint has been revised with a fraction of approximately 30% of the total anthropogenic emissions for ocean uptake (Borucke et al. 2013; Monfreda et al. 2004).
Recently, some researchers argue for a redefinition of the energy footprint as the sum
of all areas used to sequestrate CO 2 emissions from the consumption of non-food
and non-feed energy ( ˇ
Cuˇ cek et al. 2012a; GFN 2009).
2.3.2.3 Carbon Footprint
The carbon footprint has become tremendously popular over the last few years,
giving rise to a wide range of discussions in the scientific community. It is defined
as the amount of CO 2 -equivalent emissions caused directly and indirectly by an
activity (Wiedmann and Minx 2008) or as the total amount of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions over the life cycle of a process or product (BSI 2008). The usefulness
of the carbon footprint differs from the energy footprint and has been justified in
two respects: it takes into account non-CO 2 emissions (e.g., CH 4 , N 2 O) of which
the global warming potentials (GWPs) are much higher than that of CO 2 (IPCC
2007; Weidema et al. 2008), and the carbon footprint makes it easy to allocate the
responsibility for global warming to consumers (Wiedmann and Minx 2008; Wright
2 A Conceptual Framework for Constituting a Footprint Family
activities taking place on the biosphere within a given year while considering the
prevailing technology and resource management of that year (Bastianoni et al. 2012;
Borucke et al. 2013).
The methodology of the ecological footprint is included in a standardization process directed by the Global Footprint Network (GFN). National Footprint
Accounts (NFAs)—the most widely used approach for the ecological footprint practitioners and users—is developed and maintained by the GFN. The NFA has been
applied in more than 200 countries, serving as an essential database for the Living
Planet Report that is prepared by a number of the world’s top organizations (WWF
2012). A detailed research agenda for improving the NFA is established as a way
of reaching consensus on priorities for implementing ecological footprint standards
(Kitzes et al. 2009).
2.3.2.2 Energy Footprint
Ferng’s (2002) initiative highlights the importance of the energy footprint independent of the ecological footprint in energy scenario analysis by using an input–output
analysis (IOA) based framework. Over the past years, an expanding list of researchers
has chosen to concentrate exclusively on the topic of the energy footprint (e.g., Palmer
1998; Stöglehner 2003; Wiedmann 2009a). It was previously introduced as a subindicator of the ecological footprint, representing the amount of forest area that
would be required to absorb CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and electricity generation through the use of sequestration values for a world-average forest
(Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Depending on updated data obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001), the calculation of the energy
footprint has been revised with a fraction of approximately 30% of the total anthropogenic emissions for ocean uptake (Borucke et al. 2013; Monfreda et al. 2004).
Recently, some researchers argue for a redefinition of the energy footprint as the sum
of all areas used to sequestrate CO 2 emissions from the consumption of non-food
and non-feed energy ( ˇ
Cuˇ cek et al. 2012a; GFN 2009).
2.3.2.3 Carbon Footprint
The carbon footprint has become tremendously popular over the last few years,
giving rise to a wide range of discussions in the scientific community. It is defined
as the amount of CO 2 -equivalent emissions caused directly and indirectly by an
activity (Wiedmann and Minx 2008) or as the total amount of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions over the life cycle of a process or product (BSI 2008). The usefulness
of the carbon footprint differs from the energy footprint and has been justified in
two respects: it takes into account non-CO 2 emissions (e.g., CH 4 , N 2 O) of which
the global warming potentials (GWPs) are much higher than that of CO 2 (IPCC
2007; Weidema et al. 2008), and the carbon footprint makes it easy to allocate the
responsibility for global warming to consumers (Wiedmann and Minx 2008; Wright