54
3 Exploring Some Fundamentals of Environmental Footprints
understandable physical units, with the advantages of stimulating more forwardlooking policy strategies and of reducing reliance on environmental governance at
the end of treatment. Since both of the footprint categories have pros and cons, there
is a need for more clarity on the applicability and limitations of each of them, as well
as for an exploration of their potential synergies. Gaps in current knowledge, such
as the unavailability of data and methods for inventory analysis and characterization modeling, and the uncertainty and subjectivity of normalization and weighting
schemes, pose barriers to achieving that goal. In addition to the difficulties associated with footprinting integration, the classification issue is far from being settled as
well. For instance, things get more complicated when it comes to the gray component of the WF class , of which the quasi-characterization nature moves a bit away
from our two-category framework. Responding to all these challenges that have
to be confronted in proceeding with the development of footprint methodologies,
we argue for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration between footprint
users and non-footprint users.
References
Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, Hjelm O, Hochschorner E (2011) Weighting and valuation in
selected environmental systems analysis tools—suggestions for further developments. J Cleaner
Prod 19:145–156
Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2013) Methodological challenges in volumetric and impact-oriented water
footprints. J Ind Ecol 17:79–89
Blomqvist L, Brook BW, Ellis EC, Kareiva PM, Nordhaus T, Shellenberger M (2013) Does the
shoe fit? Does the shoe fit? Real versus imagined ecological footprints. PLoS Biol 11:e1001700
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
Boulay AM, Bulle C, Bayart JB, Deschênes L, Margni M (2011) Regional characterization of
freshwater use in LCA: Modeling direct impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 45:8948–
8957
BSI (British Standards Institution) (2011) PAS 2050: 2011 specification for the assessment of the
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution, London,
UK
Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY (2008) The global component of freshwater demand and supply: an
assessment of virtual water flows between nations as a result of trade in agricultural and industrial
products. Water Int 33:19–32
Chapman PM, Maher B (2014) The need for truly integrated environmental assessments. Integr
Environ Assess Manage 10:151–151
ˇ
Cuˇ cek L, Klemeš JJ, Kravanja Z (2012) A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts
on sustainability. J Cleaner Prod 34:9–20
De Meester S, Callewaert C, De Mol E, Van Langenhove H, Dewulf J (2011) The resource footprint of biobased products: a key issue in the sustainable development of biorefineries. Biofuels,
Bioprod Biorefin 5:570–580
Dietz T (2013) Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 110:14081–14087
EC (European Commission) (2015) Product environmental footprint (PEF). https://ec.europa.eu/
environment/eussd/smgp/dev_pef.htm
3 Exploring Some Fundamentals of Environmental Footprints
understandable physical units, with the advantages of stimulating more forwardlooking policy strategies and of reducing reliance on environmental governance at
the end of treatment. Since both of the footprint categories have pros and cons, there
is a need for more clarity on the applicability and limitations of each of them, as well
as for an exploration of their potential synergies. Gaps in current knowledge, such
as the unavailability of data and methods for inventory analysis and characterization modeling, and the uncertainty and subjectivity of normalization and weighting
schemes, pose barriers to achieving that goal. In addition to the difficulties associated with footprinting integration, the classification issue is far from being settled as
well. For instance, things get more complicated when it comes to the gray component of the WF class , of which the quasi-characterization nature moves a bit away
from our two-category framework. Responding to all these challenges that have
to be confronted in proceeding with the development of footprint methodologies,
we argue for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration between footprint
users and non-footprint users.
References
Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, Hjelm O, Hochschorner E (2011) Weighting and valuation in
selected environmental systems analysis tools—suggestions for further developments. J Cleaner
Prod 19:145–156
Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2013) Methodological challenges in volumetric and impact-oriented water
footprints. J Ind Ecol 17:79–89
Blomqvist L, Brook BW, Ellis EC, Kareiva PM, Nordhaus T, Shellenberger M (2013) Does the
shoe fit? Does the shoe fit? Real versus imagined ecological footprints. PLoS Biol 11:e1001700
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
Boulay AM, Bulle C, Bayart JB, Deschênes L, Margni M (2011) Regional characterization of
freshwater use in LCA: Modeling direct impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 45:8948–
8957
BSI (British Standards Institution) (2011) PAS 2050: 2011 specification for the assessment of the
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution, London,
UK
Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY (2008) The global component of freshwater demand and supply: an
assessment of virtual water flows between nations as a result of trade in agricultural and industrial
products. Water Int 33:19–32
Chapman PM, Maher B (2014) The need for truly integrated environmental assessments. Integr
Environ Assess Manage 10:151–151
ˇ
Cuˇ cek L, Klemeš JJ, Kravanja Z (2012) A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts
on sustainability. J Cleaner Prod 34:9–20
De Meester S, Callewaert C, De Mol E, Van Langenhove H, Dewulf J (2011) The resource footprint of biobased products: a key issue in the sustainable development of biorefineries. Biofuels,
Bioprod Biorefin 5:570–580
Dietz T (2013) Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 110:14081–14087
EC (European Commission) (2015) Product environmental footprint (PEF). https://ec.europa.eu/
environment/eussd/smgp/dev_pef.htm