2.3 Elaboration of a Footprint Family
25
2.3.3.4 Other Characteristics
(a) A strength of the ecological footprint lies in its spatial dependence for easy interpretation as it translates the demand for biological resources and energy by the
population into an easily interpretable area-based unit (Cranston and Hammond
2012; Kitzes and Wackernagel 2009). In addition, the ecological footprint benefits from its counterpart biocapacity, which is the ability of the Earth to supply
the ecosystem services that humanity consumes (Borucke et al. 2013), as the
comparison between the two metrics enables us to differentiate environmental
sustainability assessment (ESA) from environmental impact assessment (EIA)
of a given activity (Castellani and Sala 2012; Kates et al. 2001). The ecological
footprint, however, has come under intense criticism for several reasons such as
controversial hypotheses, a weak analytical basis, and an aggregate calculation
system (e.g., Fiala 2008; Kitzes et al. 2009; Van den Bergh and Grazi 2010;
Vogelsang 2002).
(b) In comparison with the ecological footprint, the usefulness of the energy footprint becomes apparent as it establishes a delicate connection between atmospheric carbon emissions and terrestrial carbon sinks. However, objections to
the basic methodology never stop. A noticeable critique of its scientific robustness can be attributed to the failure to capture energy-related emissions other
than CO 2 and to reduce the uncertainty in the estimation of carbon sequestration
rate (Kitzes et al. 2009; Van den Bergh and Verbruggen 1999; Venetoulis and
Talberth 2008), even though some of the concerns have been addressed through
a series of modified models (e.g., De Benedetto and Klemeš 2009; Kitzes et al.
2009; Lenzen and Murray 2001).
(c) The carbon footprint is booming with a much broader appeal than alternative
indicators and LCA (Weidema et al. 2008). Nevertheless, criticisms toward
the carbon footprint remain. A prominent one is the view expressed by some
observers that the huge demand for detailed data compromises the quality of
outcome, especially in those situations where extremely limited data for use
might lead to underestimation (Chakraborty and Roy 2013; De Benedetto and
Klemeš 2009). Another criticism is that the lack of consideration of carbon
sequestration land runs the risk of disregarding the terrestrial feedback processes
such as abrupt degradation of forest or changes in the distribution of vegetation
and oceanic fluxes that further affect the global carbon cycle, which may have
subsequent detrimental impacts on climate (Fang et al. 2013).
(d) Freshwater is a highly site-specific resource cycling throughout the planet
(Herva et al. 2011; Kitzes et al. 2009); it requires tracking down the origin
of consumer products at the place of production (Hoekstra 2009). As a consequence, the water footprint is unlikely to be as globally expressed as the ecological footprint but, rather, to be a geographically explicit indicator that shows not
only the volume of water use but also the locations with emphasis on the distinction between internal and external water footprints (Hoekstra 2009). On the other
hand, the water footprint seems to be more vulnerable to data constraints than
the ecological footprint.
25
2.3.3.4 Other Characteristics
(a) A strength of the ecological footprint lies in its spatial dependence for easy interpretation as it translates the demand for biological resources and energy by the
population into an easily interpretable area-based unit (Cranston and Hammond
2012; Kitzes and Wackernagel 2009). In addition, the ecological footprint benefits from its counterpart biocapacity, which is the ability of the Earth to supply
the ecosystem services that humanity consumes (Borucke et al. 2013), as the
comparison between the two metrics enables us to differentiate environmental
sustainability assessment (ESA) from environmental impact assessment (EIA)
of a given activity (Castellani and Sala 2012; Kates et al. 2001). The ecological
footprint, however, has come under intense criticism for several reasons such as
controversial hypotheses, a weak analytical basis, and an aggregate calculation
system (e.g., Fiala 2008; Kitzes et al. 2009; Van den Bergh and Grazi 2010;
Vogelsang 2002).
(b) In comparison with the ecological footprint, the usefulness of the energy footprint becomes apparent as it establishes a delicate connection between atmospheric carbon emissions and terrestrial carbon sinks. However, objections to
the basic methodology never stop. A noticeable critique of its scientific robustness can be attributed to the failure to capture energy-related emissions other
than CO 2 and to reduce the uncertainty in the estimation of carbon sequestration
rate (Kitzes et al. 2009; Van den Bergh and Verbruggen 1999; Venetoulis and
Talberth 2008), even though some of the concerns have been addressed through
a series of modified models (e.g., De Benedetto and Klemeš 2009; Kitzes et al.
2009; Lenzen and Murray 2001).
(c) The carbon footprint is booming with a much broader appeal than alternative
indicators and LCA (Weidema et al. 2008). Nevertheless, criticisms toward
the carbon footprint remain. A prominent one is the view expressed by some
observers that the huge demand for detailed data compromises the quality of
outcome, especially in those situations where extremely limited data for use
might lead to underestimation (Chakraborty and Roy 2013; De Benedetto and
Klemeš 2009). Another criticism is that the lack of consideration of carbon
sequestration land runs the risk of disregarding the terrestrial feedback processes
such as abrupt degradation of forest or changes in the distribution of vegetation
and oceanic fluxes that further affect the global carbon cycle, which may have
subsequent detrimental impacts on climate (Fang et al. 2013).
(d) Freshwater is a highly site-specific resource cycling throughout the planet
(Herva et al. 2011; Kitzes et al. 2009); it requires tracking down the origin
of consumer products at the place of production (Hoekstra 2009). As a consequence, the water footprint is unlikely to be as globally expressed as the ecological footprint but, rather, to be a geographically explicit indicator that shows not
only the volume of water use but also the locations with emphasis on the distinction between internal and external water footprints (Hoekstra 2009). On the other
hand, the water footprint seems to be more vulnerable to data constraints than
the ecological footprint.