The Ecological Footprint Accounting of Products: When Larger Is Not Worse

Nicoletta Patrizi, Valentina Niccolucci, Riccardo M. Pulselli, Elena Neri and Simone Bastianoni
Additional contact information
Nicoletta Patrizi: Ecodynamics Group, Dept. of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
Valentina Niccolucci: Ecodynamics Group, Dept. of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
Riccardo M. Pulselli: Ecodynamics Group, Dept. of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
Elena Neri: Ecodynamics Group, Dept. of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
Simone Bastianoni: Ecodynamics Group, Dept. of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy

Resources, 2018, vol. 7, issue 4, 1-13

Abstract: One of the main goals of any (sustainability) indicator should be the communication of a clear, unambiguous, and simplified message about the status of the analyzed system. The selected indicator is expected to declare explicitly how its numerical value depicts a situation, for example, positive or negative, sustainable or unsustainable, especially when a comparison among similar or competitive systems is performed. This aspect should be a primary and discriminating issue when the selection of a set of opportune indicators is operated. The Ecological Footprint (EF) has become one of the most popular and widely used sustainability indicators. It is a resource accounting method with an area based metric in which the units of measure are global hectares or hectares with world average bio-productivity. Its main goal is to underline the link between the (un)sustainability level of a product, a system, an activity or a population life style, with the land demand for providing goods, energy, and ecological services needed to sustain that product, system, activity, or population. Therefore, the traditional rationale behind the message of EF is: the larger EF value, the larger environmental impact in terms of resources use, the lower position in the sustainability rank. The aim of this paper was to investigate if this rationale is everywhere opportune and unambiguous, or if sometimes its use requires paying a special attention. Then, a three-dimensional modification of the classical EF framework for the sustainability evaluation of a product has been proposed following a previous work by Niccolucci and co-authors (2009). Finally, the potentialities of the model have been tested by using a case study from the agricultural context.

Keywords: Ecological Footprint; Product Ecological Footprint; three dimensional footprint; sustainability; size; depth (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/4/65/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/4/65/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jresou:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:65-:d:175922

Access Statistics for this article

Resources is currently edited by Ms. Donchian Ma

More articles in Resources from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().