Advantages |
enables a comprehensive assessment of greenhouse gas emissions;
complies with economic and environmental reporting standards;
includes the emissions of all gases showing greenhouse potential;
the emission data obtained are comparable and available to most countries.
|
enables comparative analysis of human demand for renewable resources and expresses human needs related to the absorption of emissions and waste concerning the “supply” of nature;
enables aggregated assessment of various anthropogenic impacts on the ecosystem;
is easy to communicate and understand, and contains a strong message about the protection of natural goods;
identifies human impact on Earth’s ecosystem and biodiversity and measures its negative impact.
|
expresses the need for water resources on a micro (product, technology, enterprise) and macro (region, country, planet) scale;
extends traditional water intake measurements, shows the relationship between local consumption and the global distribution of freshwater;
integrates water use and pollution in the production chain.
|
Drawbacks |
focuses on only one category of environmental impact, omits other equally critical environmental aspects;
cannot follow the full range of human needs for the environment;
additional impact assessment models are needed to analyze the impact of climate change at national and subnational levels.
|
does not cover all aspects of sustainable development or all environmental issues; especially those for which there is no renewable potential;
shows which factors can lead to degradation of natural capital (e.g., reduced land quality or reduced biodiversity) but does not forecast such degradation;
is geographically ambiguous.
|
it only tracks human demand for freshwater;
relies on local data, often not available or difficult to obtain;
calculations for gray water are based on assumptions and estimations; depending on local water purity standards; calculations for gray water may be different for the same products or technologies in different regions.
|