70
5 Understanding the Complementarities of Environmental …
define human carrying capacity, from a demographic perspective, as the maximum
human population which can be raised by the Earth in a way that would ensure the
interests of future generations (Daily and Ehrlich 1992; Ehrlich 1982). This definition
is, however, seemingly somewhat pedantic and meaningless, because the growth in
global population remains virtually unchanged and of course cannot be diminished
by force even though Ehrlich (1982) already warned of the overshoot of human
carrying capacity.
In response to the then-current debates surrounding carrying capacity, the ecological footprint was conceived to represent the spatial appropriation ideally required
to support a given population (Rees 1992; Wackernagel and Rees 1996). It can be
regarded as a complement to carrying capacity. Leaving out many key aspects of
sustainability by design (Goldfinger et al. 2014), the ecological footprint practically
equates human demand for nature with that for biotic resource provision and energyrelated carbon sequestration. Subsequently, an array of footprint-style indicators has
been spawned as complements to the communication of pressure or impact that
humanity places on the planet’s environment. This array includes the water footprint
(Hoekstra and Hung 2002), chemical footprint (Guttikunda et al. 2005), carbon footprint (Wiedmann and Minx 2008), phosphorus footprint (Wang et al. 2011), nitrogen
footprint (Leach et al. 2012), biodiversity footprint (Lenzen et al. 2012), material
footprint (Wiedmann et al. 2015), and so on.
At the same time, revisiting sustainability limits has never stopped since the publication of Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972), a remarkable book which for the
first time alarmed the public with environmental constraints on population expansion. In 2009, as conceptually similar to carrying capacity, a framework of planetary boundaries was launched by Rockström et al. (2009a, b). By its definition,
capacity thresholds for a broad range of environmental issues at the global scale
are explicitly identified, including climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean
acidification, global freshwater use, change in land use, chemical pollution, and
atmospheric aerosol loading. Because of the initiative of providing quantitative and
measurable preconditions for human development, the planetary boundaries concept
has grown in interest over recent years, with particular focus on its implications for
Earth system governance (Biermann 2012), biospheric monitoring, and forecasting
(Barnosky et al. 2012), green economy (Kosoy et al. 2012), food security (De Vries
et al. 2013), and environmental equity (Steffen and Stafford Smith 2013).
There have been a considerable number of studies that deal with either environmental footprints or planetary boundaries, and only very few that discuss both topics
within one study. Moreover, those that address environmental footprints together
with planetary boundaries employ different principles, frameworks, and terminologies. This chapter aims to highlight the promise of connecting environmental footprints and planetary boundaries by exploring their relationships and synergies, by
providing a harmonized framework and terminology, and by offering novel insights
into their complementary use.
5 Understanding the Complementarities of Environmental …
define human carrying capacity, from a demographic perspective, as the maximum
human population which can be raised by the Earth in a way that would ensure the
interests of future generations (Daily and Ehrlich 1992; Ehrlich 1982). This definition
is, however, seemingly somewhat pedantic and meaningless, because the growth in
global population remains virtually unchanged and of course cannot be diminished
by force even though Ehrlich (1982) already warned of the overshoot of human
carrying capacity.
In response to the then-current debates surrounding carrying capacity, the ecological footprint was conceived to represent the spatial appropriation ideally required
to support a given population (Rees 1992; Wackernagel and Rees 1996). It can be
regarded as a complement to carrying capacity. Leaving out many key aspects of
sustainability by design (Goldfinger et al. 2014), the ecological footprint practically
equates human demand for nature with that for biotic resource provision and energyrelated carbon sequestration. Subsequently, an array of footprint-style indicators has
been spawned as complements to the communication of pressure or impact that
humanity places on the planet’s environment. This array includes the water footprint
(Hoekstra and Hung 2002), chemical footprint (Guttikunda et al. 2005), carbon footprint (Wiedmann and Minx 2008), phosphorus footprint (Wang et al. 2011), nitrogen
footprint (Leach et al. 2012), biodiversity footprint (Lenzen et al. 2012), material
footprint (Wiedmann et al. 2015), and so on.
At the same time, revisiting sustainability limits has never stopped since the publication of Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972), a remarkable book which for the
first time alarmed the public with environmental constraints on population expansion. In 2009, as conceptually similar to carrying capacity, a framework of planetary boundaries was launched by Rockström et al. (2009a, b). By its definition,
capacity thresholds for a broad range of environmental issues at the global scale
are explicitly identified, including climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean
acidification, global freshwater use, change in land use, chemical pollution, and
atmospheric aerosol loading. Because of the initiative of providing quantitative and
measurable preconditions for human development, the planetary boundaries concept
has grown in interest over recent years, with particular focus on its implications for
Earth system governance (Biermann 2012), biospheric monitoring, and forecasting
(Barnosky et al. 2012), green economy (Kosoy et al. 2012), food security (De Vries
et al. 2013), and environmental equity (Steffen and Stafford Smith 2013).
There have been a considerable number of studies that deal with either environmental footprints or planetary boundaries, and only very few that discuss both topics
within one study. Moreover, those that address environmental footprints together
with planetary boundaries employ different principles, frameworks, and terminologies. This chapter aims to highlight the promise of connecting environmental footprints and planetary boundaries by exploring their relationships and synergies, by
providing a harmonized framework and terminology, and by offering novel insights
into their complementary use.