44
3 Exploring Some Fundamentals of Environmental Footprints
sensing with relative land disturbance factors (LDFs) (Kitzes et al. 2009; Lenzen et al.
2007). Contrary to the practitioners’ belief, we consider LDF to be a characterization
factor more than a weighting factor because disturbance has been identified as one
of land use impacts (Udo de Haes 2006). One may argue that the characterization
model implemented in the LF disturb has not been formally validated by the global
community. This is true, but land use in LCA is confronted with the same challenge
(Klinglmair et al. 2014). For instance, while the ReCiPe method (Goedkoop et al.
2009) is the best among the existing characterization models for recommendation,
the databases are nevertheless far from satisfactory and thus leave much room for
improvement (Hauschild et al. 2013).
3.2.5 Material Footprint
3.2.5.1 Classical Material Footprint (MF class )
The classical material footprint (MF class ) is a measure of abiotic and biotic resource
use by adding up the quantity of a wide range of raw material consumption (e.g.,
metals, minerals, fossil energy) (Schoer et al. 2012; Wiedmann et al. 2015). In analogy
to the LF class , the MF class commits to not only an inventory calculation, but also an
aggregation of the inventory results. By means of the MF class , one can be easily aware
of the total resource needs of an investigated system. Interestingly, there is a tradition
of summing up a great variety of materials at the kilogram level, as exemplified by
the book “The Weight of Nations” (Matthews et al. 2000). It should be noted that
inventorying in this way is subject to equal weighting, implying that all material
categories are regarded as equally important. It is likely to come to the conclusion
that the MF class is well suited to facilitating the dematerialization of production and
consumption processes, rather than to reduce associated environmental impacts, as
the ranking order of materials based on their environmental impacts can significantly
deviate from that based on mass (Van der Voet et al. 2004).
3.2.5.2 Scarcity-Related Material Footprint (MF scarc )
One obvious impact arising from material extraction is resource scarcity. Although
different material categories are quite distinct in nature, they simultaneously
contribute to the depletion of natural capital. A scarcity-related material footprint
(MF scarc ) has been proposed in this context (Fang and Heijungs 2014a). Given that
water and land—two special but elemental resource categories have already been
addressed by the water and land footprint accounts, and that most biotic resources
can be reproduced by a production process and that this would hardly contribute
to scarcity (Guinée et al. 1993; Guinée and Heijungs 1995), the MF scarc presently
restricts its inventory analysis and impact assessment to the abiotic aspect. The
3 Exploring Some Fundamentals of Environmental Footprints
sensing with relative land disturbance factors (LDFs) (Kitzes et al. 2009; Lenzen et al.
2007). Contrary to the practitioners’ belief, we consider LDF to be a characterization
factor more than a weighting factor because disturbance has been identified as one
of land use impacts (Udo de Haes 2006). One may argue that the characterization
model implemented in the LF disturb has not been formally validated by the global
community. This is true, but land use in LCA is confronted with the same challenge
(Klinglmair et al. 2014). For instance, while the ReCiPe method (Goedkoop et al.
2009) is the best among the existing characterization models for recommendation,
the databases are nevertheless far from satisfactory and thus leave much room for
improvement (Hauschild et al. 2013).
3.2.5 Material Footprint
3.2.5.1 Classical Material Footprint (MF class )
The classical material footprint (MF class ) is a measure of abiotic and biotic resource
use by adding up the quantity of a wide range of raw material consumption (e.g.,
metals, minerals, fossil energy) (Schoer et al. 2012; Wiedmann et al. 2015). In analogy
to the LF class , the MF class commits to not only an inventory calculation, but also an
aggregation of the inventory results. By means of the MF class , one can be easily aware
of the total resource needs of an investigated system. Interestingly, there is a tradition
of summing up a great variety of materials at the kilogram level, as exemplified by
the book “The Weight of Nations” (Matthews et al. 2000). It should be noted that
inventorying in this way is subject to equal weighting, implying that all material
categories are regarded as equally important. It is likely to come to the conclusion
that the MF class is well suited to facilitating the dematerialization of production and
consumption processes, rather than to reduce associated environmental impacts, as
the ranking order of materials based on their environmental impacts can significantly
deviate from that based on mass (Van der Voet et al. 2004).
3.2.5.2 Scarcity-Related Material Footprint (MF scarc )
One obvious impact arising from material extraction is resource scarcity. Although
different material categories are quite distinct in nature, they simultaneously
contribute to the depletion of natural capital. A scarcity-related material footprint
(MF scarc ) has been proposed in this context (Fang and Heijungs 2014a). Given that
water and land—two special but elemental resource categories have already been
addressed by the water and land footprint accounts, and that most biotic resources
can be reproduced by a production process and that this would hardly contribute
to scarcity (Guinée et al. 1993; Guinée and Heijungs 1995), the MF scarc presently
restricts its inventory analysis and impact assessment to the abiotic aspect. The