28
2 A Conceptual Framework for Constituting a Footprint Family
Harmonized accounting of the footprint family on the national level is most likely
achieved through a unified MRIO-based framework as a series of MRIO models have
been successfully applied to the measurements of the land footprint (Weinzettel et al.
2013), the energy footprint (Wiedmann 2009a), the carbon footprint (Hertwich and
Peters 2009), and the water footprint (Yu et al. 2010), as well as to the measurements
of different sets of footprints (Galli et al. 2013; Lenzen et al. 2012; Moran et al.
2013; Steen-Olsen et al. 2012). The life cycle, consumption-based perspective of the
MRIO models make it easy to operationalize the footprint family concept without
distracting from the issue of responsibility allocation which is too complicated to
be thoroughly settled (Finnveden et al. 2009; Heijungs and Suh 2002; Lenzen et al.
2007; Wiedmann 2009a). We, therefore, consider that MRIO models would become
a consensus approach for the national-level footprint family studies. More importantly, the ongoing development of MRIO models has been accompanied by the
recognition that an updated version should be prepared in such a way that it allows
more conceivable footprints to be incorporated (Galli et al. 2013).
In contrast, the methodological harmonization of the micro- or meso-scale footprint family is far from satisfactory. Apart from the low data availability, this can be
partially attributed to the fact that consumer products are, in many cases, not compatible with the top-down IOA but rather appear to be compatible with the bottom-up
LCA (Peters 2010). Therefore, the proposal for a full LCA-based footprint family
(Ridoutt and Pfister 2013) would be feasible, though this probably pertains to the
product level. An integration of certain existing methods such as hybrid approaches
that take advantage of the alignment of both LCA and IOA could be a prospective
solution to formulating the organizational-level footprint family. Yet, the likelihood
of such a development is not available as no footprint other than the carbon footprint
has been tested with a hybrid approach (Ewing et al. 2012).
2.4.1.4 Policy Relevance
A remarkable advantage of the footprint family is that it offers policy makers an
overall vision of the combined effects of various human pressure which then enables
a deeper understanding of environmental complexity. In a policy context, the analysis
of any single footprint should not be uncoupled from others as impact categories
are so tightly linked that changing one may profoundly affect others in ways that
people do not expect. The carbon footprint, for instance, has been found to be a poor
representative of the environmental burden of products because problems will shift
to other impact categories (like photochemical ozone or human toxicity) if reducing
the carbon footprint is overemphasized to manufacturers (Laurent et al. 2012). That
is, perhaps, why policy makers are insistent on a set of indicators rather than just a
single one (Kitzes et al. 2009). Only the completeness of those indicators can allow
one to examine whether an improvement in one category would lead to undesirable
situations in other categories. Problem shifting, to some extent, could thus be avoided
by using the footprint family.
2 A Conceptual Framework for Constituting a Footprint Family
Harmonized accounting of the footprint family on the national level is most likely
achieved through a unified MRIO-based framework as a series of MRIO models have
been successfully applied to the measurements of the land footprint (Weinzettel et al.
2013), the energy footprint (Wiedmann 2009a), the carbon footprint (Hertwich and
Peters 2009), and the water footprint (Yu et al. 2010), as well as to the measurements
of different sets of footprints (Galli et al. 2013; Lenzen et al. 2012; Moran et al.
2013; Steen-Olsen et al. 2012). The life cycle, consumption-based perspective of the
MRIO models make it easy to operationalize the footprint family concept without
distracting from the issue of responsibility allocation which is too complicated to
be thoroughly settled (Finnveden et al. 2009; Heijungs and Suh 2002; Lenzen et al.
2007; Wiedmann 2009a). We, therefore, consider that MRIO models would become
a consensus approach for the national-level footprint family studies. More importantly, the ongoing development of MRIO models has been accompanied by the
recognition that an updated version should be prepared in such a way that it allows
more conceivable footprints to be incorporated (Galli et al. 2013).
In contrast, the methodological harmonization of the micro- or meso-scale footprint family is far from satisfactory. Apart from the low data availability, this can be
partially attributed to the fact that consumer products are, in many cases, not compatible with the top-down IOA but rather appear to be compatible with the bottom-up
LCA (Peters 2010). Therefore, the proposal for a full LCA-based footprint family
(Ridoutt and Pfister 2013) would be feasible, though this probably pertains to the
product level. An integration of certain existing methods such as hybrid approaches
that take advantage of the alignment of both LCA and IOA could be a prospective
solution to formulating the organizational-level footprint family. Yet, the likelihood
of such a development is not available as no footprint other than the carbon footprint
has been tested with a hybrid approach (Ewing et al. 2012).
2.4.1.4 Policy Relevance
A remarkable advantage of the footprint family is that it offers policy makers an
overall vision of the combined effects of various human pressure which then enables
a deeper understanding of environmental complexity. In a policy context, the analysis
of any single footprint should not be uncoupled from others as impact categories
are so tightly linked that changing one may profoundly affect others in ways that
people do not expect. The carbon footprint, for instance, has been found to be a poor
representative of the environmental burden of products because problems will shift
to other impact categories (like photochemical ozone or human toxicity) if reducing
the carbon footprint is overemphasized to manufacturers (Laurent et al. 2012). That
is, perhaps, why policy makers are insistent on a set of indicators rather than just a
single one (Kitzes et al. 2009). Only the completeness of those indicators can allow
one to examine whether an improvement in one category would lead to undesirable
situations in other categories. Problem shifting, to some extent, could thus be avoided
by using the footprint family.