5.1 Introduction
71
To that end, the remainder of this chapter is structured as follows: Sect. 5.2 provides
evidence on the importance of the planetary boundaries concept for making environmental footprints policy-relevant; Sect. 5.3, on the contrary, investigates the role
of environmental footprints in improving the scientific robustness of the planetary
boundaries framework (PBF); Sect. 5.4 demonstrates the benefits of jointly defining
environmental sustainability; Sect. 5.5 proceeds with a detailed discussion of the
challenges of synthesizing the footprint and boundary metrics and of how these
inform a research agenda.
5.2 Why Knowledge of Planetary Boundaries is Important
for Making Environmental Footprints Policy-Relevant?
Many environmental footprints have proven useful in measuring the pressure or
impact exerted by human activities (Galli et al. 2012; Leach et al. 2012). Meanwhile,
it has been widely acknowledged that focusing exclusively on a single footprint runs
the risk of shifting the environmental burden to other impact categories (Fang et al.
2014). Shrinking the product carbon footprint (PCF), for instance, could induce a
remarkable increase in other environmental footprints (Laurent et al. 2012). Likewise,
reductions in water footprint by inter-basin water or food transfer are found at the
expense of increasing energy footprint (Gerbens-Leenes et al. 2009). Considerable
evidence from the literature calls for a policy transformation from assessing single
footprints in isolation to tackling diverse footprints, i.e., a footprint family (Fang
et al. 2014; Galli et al. 2012), from an integrated perspective.
However, this is not enough. Man should not merely minimize his environmental
footprints, which many footprint users concentrate on, but make sure these footprints
stay within the planetary boundaries, which is a critical prerequisite for sustainable
development (Fang and Heijungs 2015; Heijungs et al. 2014). As pointed out by
Lancker and Nijkamp (2000), an indicator does not provide any information on
sustainability unless a reference value is given to it. A simultaneous assessment
of environmental footprints and related capacity thresholds is therefore of vital
importance, representing the evolution of backtracking towards a prognostic and
preventive measure that helps prevent human activities from triggering undesirable
environmental changes.
The ecological footprint was designed in such a way that it can be readily compared
to available bio-productive area of the Earth, which is referred to as “biocapacity”
(Rees 1992; Wackernagel and Rees 1997). The difference between the ecological
footprint and biocapacity reflects a form of sustainability gap, explaining why our
world is operating in a state of overshoot with respect to biotic resource extractions
and energy-related carbon emissions (Niccolucci et al. 2009; Wackernagel and Rees
1997). The inclusion of biocapacity is unique and important, making the ecological
footprint outstand from many other footprint indicators (Ewing et al. 2012; Hoekstra
2009).
71
To that end, the remainder of this chapter is structured as follows: Sect. 5.2 provides
evidence on the importance of the planetary boundaries concept for making environmental footprints policy-relevant; Sect. 5.3, on the contrary, investigates the role
of environmental footprints in improving the scientific robustness of the planetary
boundaries framework (PBF); Sect. 5.4 demonstrates the benefits of jointly defining
environmental sustainability; Sect. 5.5 proceeds with a detailed discussion of the
challenges of synthesizing the footprint and boundary metrics and of how these
inform a research agenda.
5.2 Why Knowledge of Planetary Boundaries is Important
for Making Environmental Footprints Policy-Relevant?
Many environmental footprints have proven useful in measuring the pressure or
impact exerted by human activities (Galli et al. 2012; Leach et al. 2012). Meanwhile,
it has been widely acknowledged that focusing exclusively on a single footprint runs
the risk of shifting the environmental burden to other impact categories (Fang et al.
2014). Shrinking the product carbon footprint (PCF), for instance, could induce a
remarkable increase in other environmental footprints (Laurent et al. 2012). Likewise,
reductions in water footprint by inter-basin water or food transfer are found at the
expense of increasing energy footprint (Gerbens-Leenes et al. 2009). Considerable
evidence from the literature calls for a policy transformation from assessing single
footprints in isolation to tackling diverse footprints, i.e., a footprint family (Fang
et al. 2014; Galli et al. 2012), from an integrated perspective.
However, this is not enough. Man should not merely minimize his environmental
footprints, which many footprint users concentrate on, but make sure these footprints
stay within the planetary boundaries, which is a critical prerequisite for sustainable
development (Fang and Heijungs 2015; Heijungs et al. 2014). As pointed out by
Lancker and Nijkamp (2000), an indicator does not provide any information on
sustainability unless a reference value is given to it. A simultaneous assessment
of environmental footprints and related capacity thresholds is therefore of vital
importance, representing the evolution of backtracking towards a prognostic and
preventive measure that helps prevent human activities from triggering undesirable
environmental changes.
The ecological footprint was designed in such a way that it can be readily compared
to available bio-productive area of the Earth, which is referred to as “biocapacity”
(Rees 1992; Wackernagel and Rees 1997). The difference between the ecological
footprint and biocapacity reflects a form of sustainability gap, explaining why our
world is operating in a state of overshoot with respect to biotic resource extractions
and energy-related carbon emissions (Niccolucci et al. 2009; Wackernagel and Rees
1997). The inclusion of biocapacity is unique and important, making the ecological
footprint outstand from many other footprint indicators (Ewing et al. 2012; Hoekstra
2009).