What is a footprint? A conceptual analysis of environmental footprint indicators

被引:98
作者
Matustik, Jan [1 ]
Koci, Vladimir [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Chem & Technol Prague, Fac Environm Technol, Tech 5, Prague 16000, Czech Republic
[2] Czech Tech Univ, Fac Architecture, Prague, Czech Republic
关键词
Environmental footprint accounting (EFA); Ecological footprint; Carbon footprint; Water footprint; Life cycle assessment (LCA); Planetary boundaries; WEIGHTED WATER FOOTPRINT; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; INPUT-OUTPUT-ANALYSIS; SAFE OPERATING SPACE; POLICY LAND-USE; ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT; NITROGEN FOOTPRINT; EUROPEAN-UNION; BIODIVERSITY FOOTPRINTS; PLANETARY BOUNDARIES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124833
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
To describe and measure the apparent pressures humanity poses to functioning of the crucial Earth systems, scientists have long strived to develop comprehensive indicators, of which environmental footprints are probably the most popularly recognized and employed. Since the inception of environmental footprint accounting in the 1990s, the concept has evolved to comprise, next to the ecological footprint, many other environmental and socio-economic issues. However, there is not yet a generally accepted definition of what (environmental) footprints are and how should they be calculated. Thus, most people have only a vague idea of what the footprint results entail, which seems to hold for the scientific community as well. This paper sets to critically overview the various methodological approaches to the most eminent footprinting methodologies, and to conceptually analyze the, often opposing, views on what footprint indicators are or should be; thus providing a key to current footprint research literature and debates. Starting with the ecological footprint, it is shown how footprints started and evolved, but also how the original concept is heavily criticized. The carbon footprint is the most well-known indicator; however, it is also the one where the chaos is most apparent, with a multitude of differing definitions and approaches. The evolution, as well as the debate of the opposing views and methodologies are described regarding water footprint. Also, other evolving concepts, such as land or material footprints are analyzed, as well as how environmental footprints are grouped to a Footprint Family. Then, the general environmental footprint concept is analyzed, regarding the most eminent debates and opposition to life cycle assessment. Finally, the relationship of footprints to the planetary boundaries concept is analyzed. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 141 条
[1]   Virtual water: A strategic resource global solutions to regional deficits [J].
Allan, JA .
GROUND WATER, 1998, 36 (04) :545-546
[2]   Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats analysis of carbon footprint indicator and derived recommendations [J].
Alvarez, Sergio ;
Carballo-Penela, Adolfo ;
Mateo-Mantecon, Ingrid ;
Rubio, Agustin .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2016, 121 :238-247
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2008, KYOT PROT REF MAN
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2018, ISO 14064-1
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2022, J., V49
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2018, Greenhouse gases - Carbon footprint of products - Requirements and guidelines for quantification ISO 14067
[7]   Product Biodiversity Footprint e A novel approach to compare the impact of products on biodiversity combining Life Cycle Assessment and Ecology [J].
Asselin, Anne ;
Rabaud, Suzanne ;
Catalan, Caroline ;
Leveque, Benjamin ;
L'Haridon, Jacques ;
Martz, Patricia ;
Neveux, Guillaume .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2020, 248
[8]   Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Pilot Phase-Comparability over Flexibility? [J].
Bach, Vanessa ;
Lehmann, Annekatrin ;
Goermer, Marcel ;
Finkbeiner, Matthias .
SUSTAINABILITY, 2018, 10 (08)
[9]  
Barros V, 2014, CLIMATE CHANGE 2014: IMPACTS, ADAPTATION, AND VULNERABILITY, PT A: GLOBAL AND SECTORAL ASPECTS, pIX
[10]   Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity [J].
Bellard, Celine ;
Bertelsmeier, Cleo ;
Leadley, Paul ;
Thuiller, Wilfried ;
Courchamp, Franck .
ECOLOGY LETTERS, 2012, 15 (04) :365-377