Comments on “Analysis of water–carbon–ecological footprints and resource–environment pressure in the Triangle of Central China” by Yizhong Chen, Hongwei Lu, Pengdong Yan, Yiyang Yange, Jing Li and Jun Xia [Ecological Indicators, 125, 107448]
In recent years, water footprint, carbon footprint and ecological footprint have become popular tools for environmental assessment. These footprint methodologies are part of the environmental footprint family but describe different types of environmental assessment. Water footprint methodology is, i...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/439db5b9494143488dac4b90fc5eb48a |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | In recent years, water footprint, carbon footprint and ecological footprint have become popular tools for environmental assessment. These footprint methodologies are part of the environmental footprint family but describe different types of environmental assessment. Water footprint methodology is, in most cases, analogous to ecological footprint methodology but deviates at some points. These two indicators are focused on the depletion of natural resources. The carbon footprint is focused on the impacts linked to GHGs emissions. The case study of the Triangle of Central China (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107448) uses all of these methodologies but the term “water footprint” is incorrectly used. This Letter to Editors would like to call attention to some important inaccuracies and ambiguities in the article. |
|---|