IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v57y2006i3p534-541.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physical and monetary input-output analysis: What makes the difference?

Author

Listed:
  • Weisz, Helga
  • Duchin, Faye

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Weisz, Helga & Duchin, Faye, 2006. "Physical and monetary input-output analysis: What makes the difference?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 534-541, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:57:y:2006:i:3:p:534-541
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(05)00248-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giljum, Stefan & Hubacek, Klaus & Sun, Laixiang, 2004. "Beyond the simple material balance: a reply to Sangwon Suh's note on physical input-output analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 19-22, January.
    2. Hubacek, Klaus & Giljum, Stefan, 2003. "Applying physical input-output analysis to estimate land appropriation (ecological footprints) of international trade activities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 137-151, February.
    3. Suh, Sangwon, 2004. "A note on the calculus for physical input-output analysis and its application to land appropriation of international trade activities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-17, January.
    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. Hoekstra, Rutger & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2006. "Constructing physical input-output tables for environmental modeling and accounting: Framework and illustrations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 375-393, September.
    2. Dietzenbacher, Erik, 2005. "Waste treatment in physical input-output analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 11-23, October.
    3. Anke Schaffartzik & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Nina Eisenmenger, 2015. "Raw Material Equivalents: The Challenges of Accounting for Sustainability in a Globalized World," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(5), pages 1-26, April.
    4. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago, 2008. "Consumer and producer environmental responsibility: Comparing two approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 533-546, June.
    5. Chengpeng Lu & Xiaoli Pan & Xingpeng Chen & Jinhuang Mao & Jiaxing Pang & Bing Xue, 2021. "Modeling of Waste Flow in Industrial Symbiosis System at City-Region Level: A Case Study of Jinchang, China," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2009. "Applying input-output analysis to scenario analysis of ecological footprints," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 345-354, December.
    7. Aleix Altimiras-Martin, 2012. "Basic analytical tool-kit for input-output tables with multiple related outputs: Applications to physical input-output tables with disposals to nature," 4CMR Working Paper Series 001, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy, Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research.
    8. Wiedmann, Thomas & Minx, Jan & Barrett, John & Wackernagel, Mathis, 2006. "Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input-output analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 28-48, January.
    9. Liz Wachs & Shweta Singh, 2018. "A modular bottom-up approach for constructing physical input–output tables (PIOTs) based on process engineering models," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 7(1), pages 1-24, December.
    10. Tramberend, Sylvia & Fischer, Günther & Bruckner, Martin & van Velthuizen, Harrij, 2019. "Our Common Cropland: Quantifying Global Agricultural Land Use from a Consumption Perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 332-341.
    11. Cazcarro, I. & Hoekstra, A.Y. & Sánchez Chóliz, J., 2014. "The water footprint of tourism in Spain," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 90-101.
    12. Liu, Lan-Cui & Wu, Gang, 2013. "Relating five bounded environmental problems to China's household consumption in 2011–2015," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 427-433.
    13. Fuyuan Wang & Kaiyong Wang, 2017. "Assessing the Effect of Eco-City Practices on Urban Sustainability Using an Extended Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    14. Wiedmann, Thomas, 2009. "A first empirical comparison of energy Footprints embodied in trade -- MRIO versus PLUM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1975-1990, May.
    15. Rutger Hoekstra & Marco Janssen, 2006. "Environmental responsibility and policy in a two-country dynamic input-output model," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 61-84.
    16. Kissinger, Meidad & Rees, William E., 2010. "An interregional ecological approach for modelling sustainability in a globalizing world—Reviewing existing approaches and emerging directions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(21), pages 2615-2623.
    17. White, Thomas J., 2007. "Sharing resources: The global distribution of the Ecological Footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 402-410, December.
    18. Bajmócy, Zoltán & Málovics, György, 2009. "A fenntarthatóság közgazdaságtani értelmezései [Economic interpretations of sustainability]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(5), pages 464-483.
    19. Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Rock, Joachim & Rüter, Sebastian & Weimar, Holger & Dieter, Matthias, 2017. "Costs and carbon sequestration potential of alternative forest management measures in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 88-97.
    20. Wood, Richard & Garnett, Stephen, 2009. "An assessment of environmental sustainability in Northern Australia using the ecological footprint and with reference to Indigenous populations and remoteness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1375-1384, March.

    More about this item

    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:eee:ecolec:v:57:y:2006:i:3:p:534-541. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.