2.5 Conclusions
31
significant double counting that exists in terms of energy-related carbon emissions
and sequestration.
Our discussion comprises a sequence of suggestions. First, the carbon uptake
land is supposed to be disaggregated from the ecological footprint, and it is better
to rename the remaining as “land footprint” which addresses the actual land appropriation by humanity. Second, data availability is a limiting factor for the microand meso-scale footprint family studies and thus deserves attention in efforts to
improve data accessibility and reliability. Third, a full LCA could be appropriate
for the footprint family at the product level while the hybrid approach might be a
prospective solution to the organizational-level studies. Fourth, the footprint family
can currently be used for assessing some relevant environmental impacts but not for
evaluating environmental sustainability. To achieve a more rigorous footprint family,
two priorities for further development are provided. One is to reshape the energy
footprint to monitor the depletion of energy stocks. The other is to identify sustainability limits for a variety of footprints in order to complement the footprint family
with a more comprehensive integrated sustainability core.
References
Allan JA (1998) Virtual water: a strategic resource, global solutions to regional deficits. Groundwater
36:545–546
Bastianoni S, Galli A, Pulselli RM, Niccolucci V (2007) Environmental and economic evaluation
of natural capital appropriation through building construction: practical case study in the Italian
context. Ambio 36:559–565
Bastianoni S, Niccolucci V, Pulselli RM, Marchettini N (2012) Indicator and indicandum:
“Sustainable way” vs “prevailing conditions” in the Ecological Footprint. Ecol Ind 16:47–50
Berners-Lee M, Howard DC, Moss J, Kaivanto K, Scott WA (2011) Greenhouse gas footprinting
for small businesses—The use of input–output data. Sci Total Environ 409:883–891
Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Iha K, Larson J, Lazarus E, Morales JC, Wackernagel
M, Galli A (2013) Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity:
the National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecol Ind 24:518–533
Browne D, O’Regan B, Moles R (2009) Use of ecological footprinting to explore alternative domestic energy and electricity policy scenarios in an Irish city-region. Energy Policy
37:2205–2213
BSI (British Standards Institution) (2008) Guide to PAS 2050. How to Assess the Carbon Footprint
of Goods and Services, British Standards, London. https://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/faculty/
hall/publications/PAS2050_Guide.pdf
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and
budgets. Ecol Ind 21:17–29
Carballo-Penela A, Doménech JL (2010) Managing the carbon footprint of products: the contribution of the method composed of financial statements (MC3). the International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 15:962–969
Castellani V, Sala S (2012) Ecological Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment in the sustainability
assessment of tourism activities. Ecol Ind 16:135–147
Chakraborty D, Roy J (2013) Energy and carbon footprint: numbers matter in low energy and low
carbon choices. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5:237–243
31
significant double counting that exists in terms of energy-related carbon emissions
and sequestration.
Our discussion comprises a sequence of suggestions. First, the carbon uptake
land is supposed to be disaggregated from the ecological footprint, and it is better
to rename the remaining as “land footprint” which addresses the actual land appropriation by humanity. Second, data availability is a limiting factor for the microand meso-scale footprint family studies and thus deserves attention in efforts to
improve data accessibility and reliability. Third, a full LCA could be appropriate
for the footprint family at the product level while the hybrid approach might be a
prospective solution to the organizational-level studies. Fourth, the footprint family
can currently be used for assessing some relevant environmental impacts but not for
evaluating environmental sustainability. To achieve a more rigorous footprint family,
two priorities for further development are provided. One is to reshape the energy
footprint to monitor the depletion of energy stocks. The other is to identify sustainability limits for a variety of footprints in order to complement the footprint family
with a more comprehensive integrated sustainability core.
References
Allan JA (1998) Virtual water: a strategic resource, global solutions to regional deficits. Groundwater
36:545–546
Bastianoni S, Galli A, Pulselli RM, Niccolucci V (2007) Environmental and economic evaluation
of natural capital appropriation through building construction: practical case study in the Italian
context. Ambio 36:559–565
Bastianoni S, Niccolucci V, Pulselli RM, Marchettini N (2012) Indicator and indicandum:
“Sustainable way” vs “prevailing conditions” in the Ecological Footprint. Ecol Ind 16:47–50
Berners-Lee M, Howard DC, Moss J, Kaivanto K, Scott WA (2011) Greenhouse gas footprinting
for small businesses—The use of input–output data. Sci Total Environ 409:883–891
Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Iha K, Larson J, Lazarus E, Morales JC, Wackernagel
M, Galli A (2013) Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity:
the National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecol Ind 24:518–533
Browne D, O’Regan B, Moles R (2009) Use of ecological footprinting to explore alternative domestic energy and electricity policy scenarios in an Irish city-region. Energy Policy
37:2205–2213
BSI (British Standards Institution) (2008) Guide to PAS 2050. How to Assess the Carbon Footprint
of Goods and Services, British Standards, London. https://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/faculty/
hall/publications/PAS2050_Guide.pdf
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and
budgets. Ecol Ind 21:17–29
Carballo-Penela A, Doménech JL (2010) Managing the carbon footprint of products: the contribution of the method composed of financial statements (MC3). the International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 15:962–969
Castellani V, Sala S (2012) Ecological Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment in the sustainability
assessment of tourism activities. Ecol Ind 16:135–147
Chakraborty D, Roy J (2013) Energy and carbon footprint: numbers matter in low energy and low
carbon choices. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5:237–243