20
F. Scrucca et al.
These calculators usually divide the individual’s profile into common activities
and produce estimates on an annual basis through the use of different input data.
The simplest calculators allow to obtain a CO 2 emissions value based only on
energy-related activities, while more detailed calculators consider lifestyle and/or
consumption attitudes (household, food and travel), with also some attempts to
provide recommendations on reducing CO 2 emissions.
Scientific literature includes several studies that analyzed and compared individual
CF calculators, highlighting the differences between them.
Padgett et al. [59] compared 10 calculators in the United States, founding significant differences in the individual CF estimates despite the use of the same input
parameters and thus stressing the need for a higher degree of standardization. Similarly, Kenny and Gray [37] analyzed the inconsistencies and contradictions related
to the differences in assumptions, input parameters and methodological aspects (e.g.
emission factors used) between individual and household calculators in Ireland,
underlining that the available models are able provide estimates rather than accurate
measures of CO 2 emissions. ˇ
Cuˇ cek et al. [12] explored different tools for footprints
evaluation in their work, identifying CF calculators as the main tools and pointing
out that these calculators lack consistency and calculate different results. Birnik [6],
reviewing the existing literature, derived a set of 13 normative and evidence-based
calculation principles concerning how personal and household carbon footprints have
to be calculated, and then evaluated 15 commonly used online CF calculators in order
to assess the extent to which they conform to these identified principles.
A summary list of online individual CF calculators, in part also critically examined
in a recent study by Mulrow et al. [50], is reported in Table 3.
Analyzing the calculation features of these CF calculators it emerges that the
emissions related to home energy and transportation are generally considered (all
the calculators collect at least basic information on energy use, and all but one take
into account transportation), with a commonly detailing also of air transportation
and flight categories. Other emission categories, such as for instance food, water and
wastewater are instead less common to the various calculators and, furthermore, additional specific categories (waste and recycling, purchases or consumption activities,
etc.) are considered in each one of them. Other common features of the calculators
are the advice for lowering emissions and the opportunity to have the breakdown of
CO 2 emissions for the different considered categories (Fig. 4).
Salo et al. [72] examined 10 online calculators for non-professional users, focusing
the attention on the ones available for Nordic citizens in their own languages and
also including two calculators outside these focus regions. They also interviewed
6 calculator hosts to study their expectations and experiences on engaging people
to use calculators and to guide consumption. The outcomes of their work show
that knowledge intensive calculators are able to reflect lifestyle and activities from
an environmental perspective, with tips and pledges are included in calculators to
support taking action. However the possibility to engage people in using calculators,
especially more than once, is often considered to be a challenge. Salo et al. [72]
also point out how calculators’ features hold potential for further improvement, as
F. Scrucca et al.
These calculators usually divide the individual’s profile into common activities
and produce estimates on an annual basis through the use of different input data.
The simplest calculators allow to obtain a CO 2 emissions value based only on
energy-related activities, while more detailed calculators consider lifestyle and/or
consumption attitudes (household, food and travel), with also some attempts to
provide recommendations on reducing CO 2 emissions.
Scientific literature includes several studies that analyzed and compared individual
CF calculators, highlighting the differences between them.
Padgett et al. [59] compared 10 calculators in the United States, founding significant differences in the individual CF estimates despite the use of the same input
parameters and thus stressing the need for a higher degree of standardization. Similarly, Kenny and Gray [37] analyzed the inconsistencies and contradictions related
to the differences in assumptions, input parameters and methodological aspects (e.g.
emission factors used) between individual and household calculators in Ireland,
underlining that the available models are able provide estimates rather than accurate
measures of CO 2 emissions. ˇ
Cuˇ cek et al. [12] explored different tools for footprints
evaluation in their work, identifying CF calculators as the main tools and pointing
out that these calculators lack consistency and calculate different results. Birnik [6],
reviewing the existing literature, derived a set of 13 normative and evidence-based
calculation principles concerning how personal and household carbon footprints have
to be calculated, and then evaluated 15 commonly used online CF calculators in order
to assess the extent to which they conform to these identified principles.
A summary list of online individual CF calculators, in part also critically examined
in a recent study by Mulrow et al. [50], is reported in Table 3.
Analyzing the calculation features of these CF calculators it emerges that the
emissions related to home energy and transportation are generally considered (all
the calculators collect at least basic information on energy use, and all but one take
into account transportation), with a commonly detailing also of air transportation
and flight categories. Other emission categories, such as for instance food, water and
wastewater are instead less common to the various calculators and, furthermore, additional specific categories (waste and recycling, purchases or consumption activities,
etc.) are considered in each one of them. Other common features of the calculators
are the advice for lowering emissions and the opportunity to have the breakdown of
CO 2 emissions for the different considered categories (Fig. 4).
Salo et al. [72] examined 10 online calculators for non-professional users, focusing
the attention on the ones available for Nordic citizens in their own languages and
also including two calculators outside these focus regions. They also interviewed
6 calculator hosts to study their expectations and experiences on engaging people
to use calculators and to guide consumption. The outcomes of their work show
that knowledge intensive calculators are able to reflect lifestyle and activities from
an environmental perspective, with tips and pledges are included in calculators to
support taking action. However the possibility to engage people in using calculators,
especially more than once, is often considered to be a challenge. Salo et al. [72]
also point out how calculators’ features hold potential for further improvement, as