3.2 Investigation into the Inventory and Characterization …
43
3.2.3.2 Scarcity-Related Water Footprint (WF scarc )
In contrast to carbon emissions, which mix globally, water is a highly heterogeneous
resource with varying impacts from region to region, which means that the same
volumetric water consumption in places could trigger different degrees of water
scarcity (Berger and Finkbeiner 2013). Consequently, it is probably desirable to
take local water scarcity into account. The scarcity-related water footprint (WF scarc )
complies with the inventory analysis of consumptive water use and brings the water
inventories into an impact characterization model where blue and/or green water
are characterized with location-specific withdrawal-to-availability (WTA) ratios or
analogous indices (Lenzen et al. 2013; Ridoutt and Pfister 2010). It proceeds with
the recognition that scarcity is the key to understanding the environmental relevance
of local water consumption (Ridoutt and Huang 2012). The final result of the WF scarc
is expressed in a H 2 O-equivalent volumetric unit (e.g., m
3 H 2 O-eq.) (ZonderlandThomassen et al. 2014).
3.2.4 Land Footprint
3.2.4.1 Classical Land Footprint (LF class )
Within the footprint family, the first quantification exercise is the case of the classical land footprint (LF class ) (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). It converts hundreds
of primary and secondary bio-products into the area of cropland, grassland, woodland, and fishing ground expressed in world-average bioproductivity. This conversion
essentially corresponds to inventory analysis, irrespective of the approximation of
such a process. Bioproductivity, defined as an estimate of the biological production
of a specific land type that can renewably support for human consumption (Kitzes
et al. 2009; Lenzen et al. 2007), should not be viewed as a characterization factor
due to the ambiguity of the impact assessed and the lack of confirmed environmental
mechanism. According to the latest National Footprint Accounts (NFAs) for the
LF class , the inventory weighting of different land use types is fulfilled through equivalence factors (EQFs)—a type of expert knowledge-based weighting assuming that
the most suitable land type will be planted to cropland, and that woodland, grassland,
and fishing ground would be the second, third, and last choices (Borucke et al. 2013).
3.2.4.2 Disturbance-Related Land Footprint (LF disturb )
Having realized that the intensity of human-induced changes to land use considerably
varies independently of bioproductivity, Lenzen and Murray (2001) come up with
a revised version of the land footprint describing the degree of land disturbance
(LF disturb ). All land types are reclassified and expressed in disturbed hectares, by
multiplying the land inventories resulting directly from land cover survey or remote
43
3.2.3.2 Scarcity-Related Water Footprint (WF scarc )
In contrast to carbon emissions, which mix globally, water is a highly heterogeneous
resource with varying impacts from region to region, which means that the same
volumetric water consumption in places could trigger different degrees of water
scarcity (Berger and Finkbeiner 2013). Consequently, it is probably desirable to
take local water scarcity into account. The scarcity-related water footprint (WF scarc )
complies with the inventory analysis of consumptive water use and brings the water
inventories into an impact characterization model where blue and/or green water
are characterized with location-specific withdrawal-to-availability (WTA) ratios or
analogous indices (Lenzen et al. 2013; Ridoutt and Pfister 2010). It proceeds with
the recognition that scarcity is the key to understanding the environmental relevance
of local water consumption (Ridoutt and Huang 2012). The final result of the WF scarc
is expressed in a H 2 O-equivalent volumetric unit (e.g., m
3 H 2 O-eq.) (ZonderlandThomassen et al. 2014).
3.2.4 Land Footprint
3.2.4.1 Classical Land Footprint (LF class )
Within the footprint family, the first quantification exercise is the case of the classical land footprint (LF class ) (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). It converts hundreds
of primary and secondary bio-products into the area of cropland, grassland, woodland, and fishing ground expressed in world-average bioproductivity. This conversion
essentially corresponds to inventory analysis, irrespective of the approximation of
such a process. Bioproductivity, defined as an estimate of the biological production
of a specific land type that can renewably support for human consumption (Kitzes
et al. 2009; Lenzen et al. 2007), should not be viewed as a characterization factor
due to the ambiguity of the impact assessed and the lack of confirmed environmental
mechanism. According to the latest National Footprint Accounts (NFAs) for the
LF class , the inventory weighting of different land use types is fulfilled through equivalence factors (EQFs)—a type of expert knowledge-based weighting assuming that
the most suitable land type will be planted to cropland, and that woodland, grassland,
and fishing ground would be the second, third, and last choices (Borucke et al. 2013).
3.2.4.2 Disturbance-Related Land Footprint (LF disturb )
Having realized that the intensity of human-induced changes to land use considerably
varies independently of bioproductivity, Lenzen and Murray (2001) come up with
a revised version of the land footprint describing the degree of land disturbance
(LF disturb ). All land types are reclassified and expressed in disturbed hectares, by
multiplying the land inventories resulting directly from land cover survey or remote