Footprints are one of the topics and frontiers which have gained tremendous popularity in sustainability science and ecological economics. The year of 2012 marked the 20th anniversary since the concept of ecological footprint was introduced to the global community for the first time. A suite of indicators analogous to the ecological footprint has been developed, which could serve as the basis for approaching an integrated family of footprint indicators. Our paper started from the idea of providing clarity on the common ground behind different footprints, where footprints are defined as a suite of indicators that measure the environmental impacts associated with resources consumed and waste discharged. A relatively comprehensive description of the concepts and research progresses was given for seven typical footprint indicators, namely the ecological footprint, the carbon footprint, the water footprint, the energy footprint, the chemical footprint, the nitrogen footprint, and the biodiversity footprint. Conceived in simple terms, footprint family is a form of indicator systems integrated by certain footprint indicators, in which the impacts of human activities in terms of resource consumption and waste emissions on the environment are to be estimated. The principal features of footprint family exist in its selective, open, systematic, and uncertain attributions. This paper made an attempt at establishing a theoretical framework for the generalized footprint family where it allowed for tracking the calculating process of footprint-style indicators in a common way. Based on a review of a large amount of original literature on footprint methodologies and applications over the past two decades, we evaluated the pros and cons of each of three key footprints, namely the ecological, carbon and water footprints, in a comparative sense by listing their characteristics in terms of conceptual origins, research questions, supporting methods, metric units, indicator components and policy relevance from the perspective of footprint family. Potential solutions were proposed to enhance the transparency, consistency and compatibility among the ecological, carbon and water footprints within the footprint family. In a policy context, the integrated pattern of the footprint family was explored on the policy relevance of the three footprints at a preliminary stage. More specifically, by testing each of the footprint indicators in correlation to twenty-seven environmental issues, the footprint family has been found able to offer policy makers a more complete picture of human pressure on the planet's environment. The remainder of this paper proposed some priorities for further improvement to develop more rigorous and scientific footprint studies. Depending on the diversity and complexity of environmental issues, the ongoing development of the footprint family should proceed with the recognition that the combination of footprint indicators is a systematic project that requires multidisciplinary perspectives and approaches as complementary. To that end, we argue for extensive communication and collaboration between communities of a variety of footprint indicators. Even though the footprint family concept suffers from limitations, we still believe that in the near future it will play an important role in guiding individuals towards more responsible behaviors, and in providing useful suggestions for environmental decision-making.