of the multiple anthropogenic pressures on renewable natural resources. It is a tool that is easy to understand and communicate and brings with it a strong conservationist message. Negative Aspects The Ecological Footprint is unable to cover all aspects of sustainability or address all areas of environmental concern especially those areas where there is no regenerative capacity. It reveals the pressures that are leading to degradation of natural assets (like the impoverishment of soils, the reduction of biodiversity) but it is incapable of predicting future impacts. Another feature the footprint lacks is the ability to make a better definition of the impact in a specific geographic region.
Water Footprint Scientific Question Considering the natural capital/assets in terms of the fresh water (blue, green and grey)9 needed for human consumption, the main question that the water footprint attempts to answer is: what volume of water does an individual, community or business need to produce or consume goods and services? Principal Message The primary aim of the Water Footprint is to demonstrate the hidden connections between human consumption and the use of water and the hidden connections between global trade and water resource management. In the first situation the footprint is not limited to the water that an individual community or business consumes directly but also considers how much water is used in the production of goods and services, the water that is embedded in economic activities. To that end it defines the concept of virtual water, which is the water that is actually part of world trade, embedded in the products that are negotiated in world trade.
9 Blue Water, is fresh water coming from surface or underground springs. Green water refers to rain falling directly on the soil without running off or penetrating to replenish water tables. Grey water refers to the volume of fresh water needed to assimilate the pollutant load stemming from anthropic processes based on quality standards in effect.
Campo Grande Ecological Footprint p.
35