From the same journal

From the same journal

A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade - MRIO versus PLUM

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade - MRIO versus PLUM. / Wiedmann, Thomas.

In: Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, No. 7, 15.05.2009, p. 1975-1990.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Wiedmann, T 2009, 'A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade - MRIO versus PLUM', Ecological Economics, vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 1975-1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.023

APA

Wiedmann, T. (2009). A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade - MRIO versus PLUM. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 1975-1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.023

Vancouver

Wiedmann T. A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade - MRIO versus PLUM. Ecological Economics. 2009 May 15;68(7):1975-1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.023

Author

Wiedmann, Thomas. / A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade - MRIO versus PLUM. In: Ecological Economics. 2009 ; Vol. 68, No. 7. pp. 1975-1990.

Bibtex - Download

@article{cab6d60929954b25a36550d250ecf458,
title = "A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade - MRIO versus PLUM",
abstract = "The Ecological Footprint as an indicator that accounts for human demand on global bioproductivity sets out to quantify the impacts associated with consumption in a given country, including the impacts associated with trade. The National Footprint Accounts (NFA) by Global Footprint Network (GFN) calculate trade-embodied Footprints by multiplying yield and embodied energy factors with mass volumes of traded goods in a {"}Product Land Use Matrix (PLUM){"}. This article compares energy Footprints embodied in trade from and to the United Kingdom in 2002 as calculated by the NFA-PLUM with the results from a recently developed multi-region input-output model (MRIO) for the UK. Although totals for imports and exports are comparable, breaking down the results by economic sectors reveals large differences and hardly any correlation between the two methods. The omission of trade in services (especially transport services) and upstream impacts of energy goods (fossil fuels) and the use of inappropriate embodied energy factors in the NFA-PLUM method are identified as the main reasons for these differences. In the light of the results it seems that a comprehensive Footprint account of trade can better be achieved with an input-output based approach. I conclude that MRIO models once fully developed - will be particularly suitable in the future to estimate the Ecological Footprints of imports and exports of nations with the possibility to track their origin via inter-industry linkages, international supply chains and multi-national trade flows. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "Ecological Footprint, National Footprint Accounts, Product Land Use Matrix, Multi-region input-output model, International trade, Embodied energy Footprint, UK, INPUT-OUTPUT APPROACH, REGIONAL CONSUMPTION ACTIVITIES, GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT, GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS, LIFE-CYCLE INVENTORY, INTERNATIONAL-TRADE, ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, CONSUMER RESPONSIBILITY, WATER FOOTPRINT, CO2 EMISSIONS",
author = "Thomas Wiedmann",
year = "2009",
month = "5",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.023",
language = "English",
volume = "68",
pages = "1975--1990",
journal = "Ecological Economics",
issn = "0921-8009",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "7",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade - MRIO versus PLUM

AU - Wiedmann, Thomas

PY - 2009/5/15

Y1 - 2009/5/15

N2 - The Ecological Footprint as an indicator that accounts for human demand on global bioproductivity sets out to quantify the impacts associated with consumption in a given country, including the impacts associated with trade. The National Footprint Accounts (NFA) by Global Footprint Network (GFN) calculate trade-embodied Footprints by multiplying yield and embodied energy factors with mass volumes of traded goods in a "Product Land Use Matrix (PLUM)". This article compares energy Footprints embodied in trade from and to the United Kingdom in 2002 as calculated by the NFA-PLUM with the results from a recently developed multi-region input-output model (MRIO) for the UK. Although totals for imports and exports are comparable, breaking down the results by economic sectors reveals large differences and hardly any correlation between the two methods. The omission of trade in services (especially transport services) and upstream impacts of energy goods (fossil fuels) and the use of inappropriate embodied energy factors in the NFA-PLUM method are identified as the main reasons for these differences. In the light of the results it seems that a comprehensive Footprint account of trade can better be achieved with an input-output based approach. I conclude that MRIO models once fully developed - will be particularly suitable in the future to estimate the Ecological Footprints of imports and exports of nations with the possibility to track their origin via inter-industry linkages, international supply chains and multi-national trade flows. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

AB - The Ecological Footprint as an indicator that accounts for human demand on global bioproductivity sets out to quantify the impacts associated with consumption in a given country, including the impacts associated with trade. The National Footprint Accounts (NFA) by Global Footprint Network (GFN) calculate trade-embodied Footprints by multiplying yield and embodied energy factors with mass volumes of traded goods in a "Product Land Use Matrix (PLUM)". This article compares energy Footprints embodied in trade from and to the United Kingdom in 2002 as calculated by the NFA-PLUM with the results from a recently developed multi-region input-output model (MRIO) for the UK. Although totals for imports and exports are comparable, breaking down the results by economic sectors reveals large differences and hardly any correlation between the two methods. The omission of trade in services (especially transport services) and upstream impacts of energy goods (fossil fuels) and the use of inappropriate embodied energy factors in the NFA-PLUM method are identified as the main reasons for these differences. In the light of the results it seems that a comprehensive Footprint account of trade can better be achieved with an input-output based approach. I conclude that MRIO models once fully developed - will be particularly suitable in the future to estimate the Ecological Footprints of imports and exports of nations with the possibility to track their origin via inter-industry linkages, international supply chains and multi-national trade flows. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

KW - Ecological Footprint

KW - National Footprint Accounts

KW - Product Land Use Matrix

KW - Multi-region input-output model

KW - International trade

KW - Embodied energy Footprint

KW - UK

KW - INPUT-OUTPUT APPROACH

KW - REGIONAL CONSUMPTION ACTIVITIES

KW - GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT

KW - GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS

KW - LIFE-CYCLE INVENTORY

KW - INTERNATIONAL-TRADE

KW - ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS

KW - CONSUMER RESPONSIBILITY

KW - WATER FOOTPRINT

KW - CO2 EMISSIONS

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67349280478&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.023

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.023

M3 - Article

VL - 68

SP - 1975

EP - 1990

JO - Ecological Economics

T2 - Ecological Economics

JF - Ecological Economics

SN - 0921-8009

IS - 7

ER -