National environmental footprints and planetary boundaries: from methodology to policy implementation 59th LCA forum, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, June 12, 2015

  • Rolf Frischknecht
  • Philippe Stolz
  • Laura Tschümperlin


The 59th LCA forum was held on 12 June, 2015 to discuss the situation with regard to national environmental footprints and their relation to planetary boundaries and to the global carrying capacity. This conference report presents the highlights of the LCA forum. Several approaches of how to quantify a safe operating space of the Earth were presented, such as the planetary boundary concept published by Rockström et al. (Nature 462:472–475, 2009) and the ecological footprint (Bastianoni et al. 2013). Several presenters showed how they transformed environmental planetary boundaries to national and per capita allowances. In a research project funded by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment safe and unsafe areas were determined by combining the level of overshoot, the level of confidence in the information and the trend in the environmental load. The areas of climate change, biodiversity losses and nitrogen losses show a large overshoot on a global level but also from the point of view of Swiss consumption. Other organizations use the planetary boundary concept to identify companies which qualify for environmentally sustainable funds. Finally, life cycle impact assessment methods are being developed using the planetary boundary concept. The weighting step is based on the level of overshoot, which is close to “distance to target” approaches. It was discussed that the nine planetary boundaries face some consistency and operationalisation problems. For instance, land use changes cause biodiversity losses, which is a planetary boundary parameter in its own. Chemical pollution on the other hand is a general topic, for which a quantification approach has to be developed first (load as well as its planetary boundary). The discussion forum showed that individual countries and political entities like the European Union start monitoring their consumption based environmental footprint. Within this context, approaches and concepts are needed to define the environmentally safe operating space. The LCA forum showed that there is still basic research needed to reliably and consistently quantify relevant planetary boundaries (avoiding overlapping indicators) and to transfer these boundaries to per capita allowances.


Ocean Acidification Ecological Footprint Biodiversity Loss Water Footprint Genetically Modify Organism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bastianoni S, Niccolucci V, Neri E, Cranston G, Galli A, Wackernagel M (2013) Sustainable development: ecological footprint in accounting. Encyclopedia of Environmental Management. doi: 10.1081/E-EEM-120047347 Google Scholar
  2. Dao H, Friot D, Peduzzi P, Bruno C, Andrea DB, Stefan S (2015) Environmental limits and Swiss footprints based on planetary boundaries. UNEP/GRID-Geneva & University of Geneva, commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. Doka G (2015) Combining life cycle inventory results with planetary boundaries: the planetary boundary allowance impact assessment method PBA'05. Doka Life Cycle Assessment, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  4. Frischknecht R, Nathani C, Büsser Knöpfel S, Itten R, Wyss F, Hellmüller P (2014) Entwicklung der weltweiten Umweltauswirkungen der Schweiz; Umweltauswirkungen von Konsum und Produktion von 1996 bis 2011. treeze Ltd/Rütter Soceco AG, commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Uster/RüschlikonGoogle Scholar
  5. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, Wit CAD, Hughes T, Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 462:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):736–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Tukker A, Bulavskaya T, Giljum S, de Koning A, Lutter S, Simas M, Stadler K, Wood R (2014) The global resource footprint of nations; carbon, water, land and materials embodied in trade and final consumption calculated with EXIOBASE 2.1. CML, TNO, WU, NTNU, Leiden/Delft/Vienna/TrondheimGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rolf Frischknecht
    • 1
  • Philippe Stolz
    • 1
  • Laura Tschümperlin
    • 1
  1. 1.treeze Ltd.UsterSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations