4.7 Article

Consumption-based material flow indicators - Comparing six ways of calculating the Austrian raw material consumption providing six results

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 128, 期 -, 页码 177-186

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.010

关键词

Raw material consumption; Material footprint; Material flow accounting; Input-output analysis; Sustainable resource use; Resource efficiency

资金

  1. Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management [BMLFUW-UW.1.4.18/0039-I/2/2014]
  2. EU FP7 DESIRE project [308552]
  3. DOC-team-fellowship of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (OAW) at the Institute of Social Ecology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the environmental implications of consumption and production depends on appropriate monitoring tools. Material flow accounting (MFA) is a method to monitor natural resource use by countries and has been widely used in research and policy. However, the increasing globalization requires the consideration of 'embodied' material use of traded products. The indicator raw material consumption (RMC) represents the material use - no matter where in the world it occurs - associated with domestic final demand. It provides a consumption-based perspective complementary to the MFA indicators that have a territorial focus. Several studies on RMC have been presented recently but with diverging results; hence, a better understanding of the underlying differences is needed. This article presents a comparison of Austrian RMC for the year 2007 calculated by six different approaches (3 multi-regional input-output (MRIO) and 3 hybrid life-cycle analysis-IO approaches). Five approaches result in an RMC higher than the domestic material consumption (DMC). One hybrid LCA-IO approach calculates RMC to be lower than DMC. For specific material categories, results diverge by 50% or more. Due to the policy relevance of the RMC and DMC indicators it is paramount that their robustness is enhanced, which needs both data and method harmonization. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据