Physical Input-output Tables Research Articles

Waste treatment in physical input–output analysis

When compared to monetary input–output tables (MIOTs), a distinctive feature of physical input–output tables (PIOTs) is that they include the generation of waste as part of a consistent accounting framework. As a consequence, however, physical input–output analysis thus requires that the treatment of waste is explicitly taken into account, because otherwise the results will be grossly underestimated. The treatment of waste has recently led to an interesting methodological debate. This paper reviews the discussion and introduces a new alternative. This alternative reconciles the existing methods and enables us to obtain additional information that cannot be derived from the other methods.

04/01582 The ecological footprint: a non-monetary metric of human consumption applied to North America: Senbel, M. et al. Global Environmental Change, 2003, 13, (2), 83–100

In the last few years some studies have been presented, which link land use accounting and input–output analysis (based on monetary input–output tables (MIOTs)) for the calculation of direct and indirect land appropriation of production and consumption activities. The compilation of the first comprehensive physical input–output tables (PIOTs) for some western European countries in the 1990s opened new possibilities for linking physical accounting and input–output analysis. Using a physical multiplier for this kind of calculation is more appropriate, as the most land intensive sectors are also the sectors with the highest amounts of material flows. Physical input–output analysis illustrates land appropriation in relation to material flows of each of the sectors, which is more appropriate from the point of view of environmental pressures than land appropriation in relation to monetary flows of a MIOT. Physical input–output analysis has so far not been applied for any land-related studies. Based on a physical input–output model of the EU-15, physical input–output analysis is applied in this paper, in order to calculate direct and indirect land requirements for the production of exports from EU-15 to the rest of the world.

Alternative Approaches of Physical Input–Output Analysis to Estimate Primary Material Inputs of Production and Consumption Activities

In the last few years, a number of studies have been presented that link material flow accounting and input–output analysis (based on monetary input–output tables) for the calculation of direct and indirect resource inputs for production and consumption activities. The compilation of the first physical input–output tables for some European countries in the 1990s opened new possibilities for linking physical accounting and input–output analysis. Physical input–output analysis has so far only been applied for selected materials, but it has not been used for comprehensive assessments of material requirements of economic activities. In this paper, possibilities and limits of this new input–output approach are clarified. We present and discuss a procedure similar to monetary input–output analysis and develop an alternative approach to account for primary inputs and waste otherwise not included in the analysis. Based on aggregated input–output tables for Germany, we present numerical examples intended to compare the alternative approaches of physical input–output analysis.

A note on the calculus for physical input–output analysis and its application to land appropriation of international trade activities

In a recent paper in this journal, embodied land appropriation in international trade activities was analysed using a physical input–output table (PIOT) (Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 137). The authors stated that there are significant differences between the physical and the monetary input–output tables in their results, which the authors argued to be due to the fact that the results from the monetary table are determined mainly by the monetary structure of final demand, while the structure of a physical table more closely resembles the ‘physical realities’ of an economy. In the present paper, it is argued that the methodological foundation that the authors based their analysis on is misleading and does not satisfy the overall material balance requirement. It is shown that the differences in the results between the monetary and physical tables presented by the authors have nothing to do with the resemblance to the physical realities. I also tried to further clarify a number of critical issues in applying physical input–output tables, related to double counting, treatment of wastes and the effect of closing the system toward direct material inputs. A number of consistent but different approaches to cope with these issues are presented, including their proofs. The embodied land appropriation of international trade activities is calculated and compared by applying those approaches. There are many advantages of using physical input–output tables, however, their superiority should not be exaggerated nor be regarded as absolute. Depending on how it is constructed and used, it is also possible that the results from a physical input–output table do not tell us more than that indeed some commodities are cheaper, or more costly, per unit of their mass.

An illustrative application of the CRITINC framework to the UK

This paper sets out an illustrative application to the UK of a new framework for identifying critical natural capital (CNC). This involves classifying the characteristics of natural capital and the environmental functions to which it gives rise, and then defining standards of environmental sustainability for these functions. The framework then relates these functions to the economic system, through physical input–output tables, in order to identify the pressures on the functions and hence the extent to which the functions are not being maintained at a sustainable level. The framework is worked though in some detail for water, with less detailed application of it to air, land and habitats. The methodology can be used to identify areas of environmental unsustainability and the processes to which this unsustainability is due, so that policies to more towards sustainability may be more easily identified.

Applying physical input–output analysis to estimate land appropriation (ecological footprints) of international trade activities

In the last few years some studies have been presented, which link land use accounting and input–output analysis (based on monetary input–output tables (MIOTs)) for the calculation of direct and indirect land appropriation of production and consumption activities. The compilation of the first comprehensive physical input–output tables (PIOTs) for some western European countries in the 1990s opened new possibilities for linking physical accounting and input–output analysis. Using a physical multiplier for this kind of calculation is more appropriate, as the most land intensive sectors are also the sectors with the highest amounts of material flows. Physical input–output analysis illustrates land appropriation in relation to material flows of each of the sectors, which is more appropriate from the point of view of environmental pressures than land appropriation in relation to monetary flows of a MIOT. Physical input–output analysis has so far not been applied for any land-related studies. Based on a physical input–output model of the EU-15, physical input–output analysis is applied in this paper, in order to calculate direct and indirect land requirements for the production of exports from EU-15 to the rest of the world.

Material flow analysis, TMR and the MIPS concept: a contribution to the development of indicators for measuring changes in consumption and production patterns

It is not the scarcity of resources that constitutes environmental problems, but their use, the physical throughput of our economies. Material flows are a proxy for the totality of the unspecific environmental risks from human activities. As a strategic goal, an increase of the life-cycle-wide resource productivity by a factor 10 is suggested, including the materials bought and sold and the not-valued materials: we have to take into account the product itself and its "ecological rucksack". Material flows are best measured at the input side of the economy, where their number as well as the number of entry gates is limited. Thus here regulation and economic incentives can work more efficiently and less bureaucratically than today. The material intensity of products and services can be expressed as MIPS, the material input per unit of service, and as TMR, the total material requirement on the macro level, an important element in physical input–output tables.

The derivation and comparison of employment multipliers and labour productivity indexes using monetary and physical input-output tables

There have been numerous attempts to measure total employment coefficients and productivity indexes since the early work ofLeontief(1944). These measurements have been based on the Leontief inverse ( I A ) -~ of recorded input-output tables. Examples of this are Bezdek's 1973 manpower analysis and the employment multiplier study of Diamond (1975). However, not much attention has been paid in these investigations to the derivation of coefficients of the A matrix, although at least two different procedures exist. Perhaps this is because the procedures lead to different input-output tables only when subsidiary production is present in the classification of industries and commodity groups. The objective of this paper is to show that the two input-output accounting schemes, recommended by the United Nations (1968) in the case of insufficient information about subsidiary production, generate two different measures of total factor requirements (Section 2). In the next section attention is focused on the case of pure joint production. Sraffa's interpretation of joint production and employment multipliers is summarized and a new concept of average labour content, or productivity, is compared. It is shown in Section 4 that the UN method for calculating total labour requirements per dollar of output value from input-output tables leads either to Sraffa's or the new interpretation of physical requirements, depending on how the A matrix is derived. Subsequent sections examine additional properties of these employment multiplier and productivity concepts. In sum, this paper demonstrates that it is unnecessary to reduce to simpler form the 'technological data' underlying the input-output accounting framework of the UN. Homogeneity of activity outputs (United Nations, 1973, p. 20) is not required for the proper calculation of total labour requirements measures.