IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/332733.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting framework to advance I-O and CGE integrated environmental-economic modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Obst, Carl
  • Eigenraam, Mark

Abstract

The data required for input-output (I-O) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) modelling at national and multi-regional levels is sourced primarily from national I-O tables. I-O tables themselves are compiled in line with the statistical standards used to compile the national accounts, i.e. the UN System of National Accounts (SNA). Recognising the importance of integrating data on environmental stocks and flows with the SNA, over the past 20 years there have been important advances in accounting for natural capital and environmental assets. These are encapsulated in the recent international standard, the UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) which uses national accounting principles for the organization and integration of environmental and economic data. In 2013, as part of the SEEA framework, an additional perspective was introduced to apply national accounting principles to the integration of information on ecosystem condition and ecosystem services. This advance is referred to as ecosystem accounting and is described in the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting. This paper articulates a conceptual approach by which data on ecosystem services and ecosystem assets can be integrated into standard I-O tables and hence underpin further advances in integrated environmental-economic modelling. The approach ensures that standard accounting identities (e.g. supply and use of products) are maintained and reflects a coherence between measurement boundaries for production and assets. The paper notes a series of conceptual and measurement issues, including those concerning the pricing of ecosystem services that remain to be further explored.

Suggested Citation

  • Obst, Carl & Eigenraam, Mark, 2016. "Using the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting framework to advance I-O and CGE integrated environmental-economic modelling," Conference papers 332733, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:332733
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/332733/files/7968.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    2. Ayres, Robert U & Kneese, Allen V, 1969. "Production , Consumption, and Externalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 282-297, June.
    3. Hannon, Bruce, 2001. "Ecological pricing and economic efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 19-30, January.
    4. Lenzen, Manfred, 2007. "Structural path analysis of ecosystem networks," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 200(3), pages 334-342.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, G.Q. & Chen, Z.M., 2011. "Greenhouse gas emissions and natural resources use by the world economy: Ecological input–output modeling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(14), pages 2362-2376.
    2. Carl Obst & Lars Hein & Bram Edens, 2016. "National Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Assets and Their Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(1), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Piñero, Pablo & Cazcarro, Ignacio & Arto, Iñaki & Mäenpää, Ilmo & Juutinen, Artti & Pongrácz, Eva, 2018. "Accounting for Raw Material Embodied in Imports by Multi-regional Input-Output Modelling and Life Cycle Assessment, Using Finland as a Study Case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 40-50.
    4. Gret-Regamey, Adrienne & Kytzia, Susanne, 2007. "Integrating the valuation of ecosystem services into the Input-Output economics of an Alpine region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 786-798, September.
    5. Jin, Di & Hoagland, Porter & Morin Dalton, Tracey, 2003. "Linking economic and ecological models for a marine ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 367-385, October.
    6. Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, 1999. "Materials, Capital, Direct/Indirect Substitution, and Mass Balance Production Functions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(4), pages 547-561.
    7. Atkinson, Scott E. & Tsionas, Mike G., 2021. "Generalized estimation of productivity with multiple bad outputs: The importance of materials balance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1165-1186.
    8. Jacopo Zotti & Andrea Bigano, 2019. "Write circular economy, read economy’s circularity. How to avoid going in circles," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 36(2), pages 629-652, July.
    9. Jun Nakatani & Tamon Maruyama & Kosuke Fukuchi & Yuichi Moriguchi, 2015. "A Practical Approach to Screening Potential Environmental Hotspots of Different Impact Categories in Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-15, August.
    10. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    11. Toman, Michael & Lile, Ronald D. & King, Dennis M., 1998. "Assessing Sustainability: Some Conceptual and Empirical Challenges," Discussion Papers 10756, Resources for the Future.
    12. Nasir, Mohammed Haneef Abdul & Genovese, Andrea & Acquaye, Adolf A. & Koh, S.C.L. & Yamoah, Fred, 2017. "Comparing linear and circular supply chains: A case study from the construction industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(PB), pages 443-457.
    13. Bu, Yan & Wang, Erda & Möst, Dominik & Lieberwirth, Martin, 2022. "How population migration affects carbon emissions in China: Factual and counterfactual scenario analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Jeanneaux, Philippe & Latruffe, Laure, 2016. "Modelling pollution-generating technologies in performance benchmarking: Recent developments, limits and future prospects in the nonparametric frameworkAuthor-Name: Dakpo, K. Hervé," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 347-359.
    15. Considine, Timothy J. & Larson, Donald F., 2006. "The environment as a factor of production," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 645-662, November.
    16. Yulei Xie & Ling Ji & Beibei Zhang & Gordon Huang, 2018. "Evolution of the Scientific Literature on Input–Output Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis of 1990–2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Schwabe, Kurt A., 2000. "Modeling state-level water quality management: the case of the Neuse River Basin," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 37-62, January.
    18. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    19. Fath, Brian D. & Halnes, Geir, 2007. "Cyclic energy pathways in ecological food webs," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 208(1), pages 17-24.
    20. Fenintsoa Andriamasinoro & Raphael Danino-Perraud, 2021. "Use of artificial intelligence to assess mineral substance criticality in the French market: the example of cobalt," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 34(1), pages 19-37, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:332733. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.