30
2 A Conceptual Framework for Constituting a Footprint Family
cumulative energy demand for non-renewable stocks and to determine how much
stock can be consumed until the global ecosystem breaks down.
2.4.2.2 Setting Sustainability Limits
The measurement of the biocapacity introduced by the ecological footprint practitioners is unique and important (Ewing et al. 2012); it allows the footprints to
be comparable with the relative limits, representing the degree to which biophysical limits have been approached or exceeded (Costanza 2000). With the aim to
complement the footprint family with an integrated sustainability core, it is of great
importance to identify and quantify sustainability limits for some other footprints
as well. The reality is that seven out of nine Earth-system processes identified by
Rockström et al. (2009) including land use change (land footprint), climate change
(carbon footprint), freshwater use (water footprint), nitrogen cycle (nitrogen footprint), phosphorus cycle (phosphorus footprint), biodiversity loss (biodiversity footprint), and chemical pollution (chemical footprint), have been addressed through a
variety of footprint indicators. In this sense, the combination of those footprints as an
extended footprint family which would have sufficient spatial coverage to encompass
the majority of Earth-system processes may serve as a starting point for demarcating
planetary boundaries. Given the gaps in current knowledge about the complexity of
Earth system, determining critical values for each of the planetary boundaries has
to involve normative or even subjective judgments (Lewis 2012; Rockström et al.
2009). Thus the major constraint on setting sustainability limits for a footprint family
is that it is almost unlikely to be able to present reasonable and accurate estimates
that can be consistently validated by the scientific community.
2.5 Conclusions
This chapter provides an overview of a new footprint family which is designed in such
a way that some significant environmental impacts associated with human activities
can be measured through a set of selected footprint indicators. The ecological, energy,
carbon, and water footprints involved in the proposed footprint family can be regarded
as complementary to each other as each of them focuses on different aspects of environmental issues. The footprint family is found to be able to capture a broad spectrum
of sustainability issues in relation to natural resource use and waste discharge and
to provide policy makers with a more complete picture of environmental complexity
than single footprints. This study shows that data for the footprint family is already
available on the national level in which harmonized accounting is likely to be achieved
through a unified MRIO-based framework. Nevertheless, the footprint family still
suffers from limitations. Neither the data availability nor methodological consistency
has been satisfactory for products or organizations. Another weakness is due to the
2 A Conceptual Framework for Constituting a Footprint Family
cumulative energy demand for non-renewable stocks and to determine how much
stock can be consumed until the global ecosystem breaks down.
2.4.2.2 Setting Sustainability Limits
The measurement of the biocapacity introduced by the ecological footprint practitioners is unique and important (Ewing et al. 2012); it allows the footprints to
be comparable with the relative limits, representing the degree to which biophysical limits have been approached or exceeded (Costanza 2000). With the aim to
complement the footprint family with an integrated sustainability core, it is of great
importance to identify and quantify sustainability limits for some other footprints
as well. The reality is that seven out of nine Earth-system processes identified by
Rockström et al. (2009) including land use change (land footprint), climate change
(carbon footprint), freshwater use (water footprint), nitrogen cycle (nitrogen footprint), phosphorus cycle (phosphorus footprint), biodiversity loss (biodiversity footprint), and chemical pollution (chemical footprint), have been addressed through a
variety of footprint indicators. In this sense, the combination of those footprints as an
extended footprint family which would have sufficient spatial coverage to encompass
the majority of Earth-system processes may serve as a starting point for demarcating
planetary boundaries. Given the gaps in current knowledge about the complexity of
Earth system, determining critical values for each of the planetary boundaries has
to involve normative or even subjective judgments (Lewis 2012; Rockström et al.
2009). Thus the major constraint on setting sustainability limits for a footprint family
is that it is almost unlikely to be able to present reasonable and accurate estimates
that can be consistently validated by the scientific community.
2.5 Conclusions
This chapter provides an overview of a new footprint family which is designed in such
a way that some significant environmental impacts associated with human activities
can be measured through a set of selected footprint indicators. The ecological, energy,
carbon, and water footprints involved in the proposed footprint family can be regarded
as complementary to each other as each of them focuses on different aspects of environmental issues. The footprint family is found to be able to capture a broad spectrum
of sustainability issues in relation to natural resource use and waste discharge and
to provide policy makers with a more complete picture of environmental complexity
than single footprints. This study shows that data for the footprint family is already
available on the national level in which harmonized accounting is likely to be achieved
through a unified MRIO-based framework. Nevertheless, the footprint family still
suffers from limitations. Neither the data availability nor methodological consistency
has been satisfactory for products or organizations. Another weakness is due to the