Ecological footprint of nations: Comparison of process analysis, and standard and hybrid multiregional input–output analysis

Weinzettel, Jan; Steen-Olsen, Kjartan; Hertwich, Edgar G.; Borucke, Michael; Galli, Alessandro

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.020

Cited by 116 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One way to try and minimize the risks of both approaches and exploit the strengths is to apply so--called hybrid environmentally--extended multi--regional input--output models, which trace the primary biomass products in physical units through environmental extensions (e.g. Weinzettel et al 2014). So far, more experiences with this approach have been made with material or carbon footprints (see e.g.…”

Section: Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs: Comparison Of Different Amentioning

confidence: 99%

The land footprint of the EU bioeconomy: Monitoring tools, gaps and needs

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bioeconomy is gaining growing attention as a perceived win--win strategy for environment and economy in the EU. However, the EU already has a disproportionately high global cropland footprint compared to the world average, and uses more cropland than domestically available to supply its demand for agricultural products. There is a risk that uncontrolled growth of the bioeconomy will increase land use pressures abroad. For that reason, a monitoring system is needed to account for the global land use of European consumption. The aim of this paper is to take a closer look at the tools needed to monitor global cropland footprints, as well as the targets needed to benchmark development. This paper reviews recent developments in land footprint accounting approaches and applies the method of global land use accounting to calculate the global cropland footprint of the EU--27 for the years between 2000 and 2011. It finds a slight decrease in per capita cropland footprints over the past decade (of around 1% annually, reaching 0.29 ha/cap in 2011) and advocates promoting a further decrease in per capita cropland requirements (of around 2% annually) to reach global land use targets for keeping consumption within the safe operating space of planetary boundaries by 2030. It argues that strategic land reduction targets may still go hand in hand with the growth of a smart, innovative and sustainable bioeconomy by reinforcing the need for policies that support greater efficiency across the life--cycle and reduce wasteful and excessive consumption practices. Recommendations for further improving land footprint accounting are given. Highlights• Research to account for land footprints has increased recently• Between 2000 and 2011, cropland area within the EU--27 decreased (by 6.6%)• Cropland requirements associated with imports and exports increased (by 2.9% & 10%)• The EU required 20 to 27% more cropland than domestically available to meet demand• Results are generally in the same order of magnitude as other studies

show abstract

Section: Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs: Comparison Of Different Amentioning

confidence: 99%

The land footprint of the EU bioeconomy: Monitoring tools, gaps and needs

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These methods deploy fundamentally different data-inventory methods, for example bottom-up life-cycle assessment versus top-down input-output analysis, and have used a range of measures to estimate impacts (Tukker et al, 2008). Investigators have also focused on different geographical areas, ranging from the local to the global and covering different pollutants and resources and various product clusters (EEA, 2005;Hertwich, 2005a;Tukker, 2006;Tukker et al, 2006;Weidema et al, 2005;Weinzettel et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive and negative spillover effects from electric car purchase to car use

Klöckner

Nayum

Mehmetoglu

2013

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

189

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The key advantage of hybrid approaches is that the applied detailed physical data allow compensating the problems of aggregation and economic allocation normally faced with input-output analysis. This especially enhances the assessment of the global flows of primary products and has been recommended for products with a low level of manufacturing (Feng et al, 2011;Schaffartzik et al, 2009;Schoer et al, 2012;Weinzettel et al, 2014;Wiedmann, 2011). Food products typically undergo only a few processing steps.…”

Section: Hybrid Accountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The EUREAPA model, so far applied to the cases of the ecological, water and carbon footprints (Ewing et al, 2012;Steen-Olsen et al, 2012;Weinzettel et al, 2014;Weinzettel et al, 2011) applies such a hybrid accounting approach by integrating detailed physical biomass and land accounts and input-output analysis.…”

Section: Non-food Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies apply input-output analysis to derive land intensity coefficients for highly processed products for complementing process-based physical land accounts (Meier and Christen, 2012;Meier et al, 2014). Others set up physical satellite accounts to model crop flows and related embodied land from agricultural production to the first use stage, for example, wheat flows from agriculture to food processing and livestock production, and track the remaining parts of the supply chains within monetary IO models (Ewing et al, 2012;Steen-Olsen et al, 2012;Weinzettel et al, 2013;Weinzettel et al, 2014;Weinzettel et al, 2011). Beyond that, there exist further options for hybrid accounting, not yet applied to land footprint calculations.…”

Section: Hybrid Accountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation