IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gws/dpaper/21-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Globale Fußabdrücke der Umweltinanspruchnahme – aktuelle Methoden und Datensätze

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Meyer

    (GWS - Institute of Economic Structures Research)

  • Martin Distelkamp

    (GWS - Institute of Economic Structures Research)

  • Dr. Christian Lutz

    (GWS - Institute of Economic Structures Research)

Abstract

Zur Begutachtung der Entwicklung der deutschen Bioökonomie unter internationalen Nachhaltigkeitsaspekten wurden im Forschungskonsortium SYMOBIO verschiedene prototypische Methoden zur Berechnung sogenannter Fußabdruck-Indikatoren entwickelt. Die Anwendung dieser Methoden ermöglicht eine Berichterstattung über die global ausgelösten Umweltinanspruchnahmen durch Produktionsaktivitäten der deutsche Bioökonomie sowie durch die heimische Endnachfrage nach Erzeugnissen der Bioökonomie. Neben weiteren Forschungsoutputs des SYMOBIO-Konsortiums wurden erste Ergebnisse entsprechender Berechnungen veröffentlicht. Fußabdrücke werden für THG-Emissionen, Wasser, Landnutzung sowie für Wertschöpfung und Beschäftigung ausgewiesen. Für eine mögliche Verstetigung des Bioökonomie-Monitorings (BÖM) stellen sich Fragen nach der passenden Datenbasis ebenso wie nach einer möglichen Verbesserung der Methode der Fußabdruckberechnung. Die internationale Forschung zu Fußabdruckberechnungen der Bioökonomie befindet sich aktuell ebenso in einer dynamischen Entwicklung wie die multi-regionalen Input-Output(MRIO)-Datensätze, die die Basis dieser Berechnungen sind. Parallel zu den bisherigen Arbeiten in SYMOBIO haben sich die Umweltökonomische Gesamtrechnungen (UGR) des Statistischen Bundesamtes mit dem Thema der Auslandseffekte von Ernährungsgütern auseinandergesetzt und auch THG-Fußabdrücke berechnet. Im Folgenden werden diese Entwicklungen als Überblick aktuell verfügbarer Daten und Methoden zusammengefasst, um zukünftige Optionen für ein verstetigtes BÖM identifizieren zu können. Exemplarisch werden hierzu die methodischen Grundlagen und die in der Anwendung zu beachtenden statistischen Herausforderungen für folgende Fußabdruck-Indikatoren zusammengefasst: • Emissionen von Treibhausgasen, • Inanspruchnahme biotischer Rohstoffe, • Landnutzung für Ernährungsgüter. Die Vorgehensweise basiert dabei auf einer Gegenüberstellung der im SYMOBIO-Projekt entwickelten Methoden mit thematisch vergleichbaren Berichterstattungen. Hierzu werden zunächst die inhaltlichen, methodischen und empirischen Grundlagen der im Projekt SYMOBIO angewandten Berechnungsmethoden vorgestellt. Im Anschluss folgen aktuelle Entwicklungen bei den MRIO-Datensätzen und bei der Berechnung von Fußabdrücken sowie ein Überblick zu thematisch verwandten Berichterstattungsaktivitäten des Statistischen Bundesamts. Den Abschluss bildet eine Zusammenfassung möglicher Ansatzpunkte für eine Verzahnung der Arbeiten in Rahmen des Monitorings der Bioökonomie mit Arbeiten der UGR.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Meyer & Martin Distelkamp & Dr. Christian Lutz, 2021. "Globale Fußabdrücke der Umweltinanspruchnahme – aktuelle Methoden und Datensätze," GWS Discussion Paper Series 21-3, GWS - Institute of Economic Structures Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:gws:dpaper:21-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://papers.gws-os.com/gws-paper21-3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Bringezu & Martin Distelkamp & Christian Lutz & Florian Wimmer & Rüdiger Schaldach & Klaus Josef Hennenberg & Hannes Böttcher & Vincent Egenolf, 2021. "Environmental and socioeconomic footprints of the German bioeconomy," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(9), pages 775-783, September.
    2. Dr. Markus Flaute & Dr. Christian Lutz & Martin Distelkamp, 2017. "Der Einsatz von MRIO zur Berechnung der Fußabdrücke von Nationen – eine Anwendung der EXIOBASE-Datenbank," GWS Discussion Paper Series 17-7, GWS - Institute of Economic Structures Research.
    3. Bruckner, Martin & Wood, Richard & Moran, Daniel & Kuschnig, Nikolas & Wieland, Hanspeter & Maus, Victor & Börner, Jan, 2019. "FABIO - The Construction of the Food and Agriculture Biomass Input-Output Model," Ecological Economic Papers 27, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    4. Bram Edens & Rutger Hoekstra & Daan Zult & Oscar Lemmers & Harry Wilting & Ronghao Wu, 2015. "A Method To Create Carbon Footprint Estimates Consistent With National Accounts," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 440-457, December.
    5. Stefan Giljum & Martin Bruckner & Aldo Martinez, 2015. "Material Footprint Assessment in a Global Input-Output Framework," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(5), pages 792-804, October.
    6. Bruckner, Martin & Fischer, Günther & Tramberend, Sylvia & Giljum, Stefan, 2015. "Measuring telecouplings in the global land system: A review and comparative evaluation of land footprint accounting methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 11-21.
    7. Kutay Cingiz & Hugo Gonzalez-Hermoso & Wim Heijman & Justus H. H. Wesseler, 2021. "A Cross-Country Measurement of the EU Bioeconomy: An Input–Output Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-39, March.
    8. Vincent Egenolf & Stefan Bringezu, 2019. "Conceptualization of an Indicator System for Assessing the Sustainability of the Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, 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. Eivind Lekve Bjelle & Johannes Többen & Konstantin Stadler & Thomas Kastner & Michaela C. Theurl & Karl-Heinz Erb & Kjartan-Steen Olsen & Kirsten S. Wiebe & Richard Wood, 2020. "Adding country resolution to EXIOBASE: impacts on land use embodied in trade," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 9(1), pages 1-25, December.
    2. Asada, Raphael & Cardellini, Giuseppe & Mair-Bauernfeind, Claudia & Wenger, Julia & Haas, Verena & Holzer, Daniel & Stern, Tobias, 2020. "Effective bioeconomy? a MRIO-based socioeconomic and environmental impact assessment of generic sectoral innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    3. Liobikiene, Genovaite & Chen, Xueli & Streimikiene, Dalia & Balezentis, Tomas, 2020. "The trends in bioeconomy development in the European Union: Exploiting capacity and productivity measures based on the land footprint approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Kalt, Gerald & Kaufmann, Lisa & Kastner, Thomas & Krausmann, Fridolin, 2021. "Tracing Austria's biomass consumption to source countries: A product-level comparison between bioenergy, food and material," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Tévécia Ronzon & Susanne Iost & George Philippidis, 2022. "Has the European Union entered a bioeconomy transition? Combining an output-based approach with a shift-share analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8195-8217, June.
    6. Kan, Siyi & Chen, Bin & Chen, Guoqian, 2023. "Globalization of forest land use: Increasing threats on climate-vulnerable regions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    7. Ronzon, Tévécia & Iost, Susanne & Philippidis, George, 2022. "An output-based measurement of EU bioeconomy services: Marrying statistics with policy insight," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 290-301.
    8. Johannes Reinhard Többen & Martin Distelkamp & Britta Stöver & Saskia Reuschel & Lara Ahmann & Christian Lutz, 2022. "Global Land Use Impacts of Bioeconomy: An Econometric Input–Output Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-24, February.
    9. Eisenmenger, Nina & Wiedenhofer, Dominik & Schaffartzik, Anke & Giljum, Stefan & Bruckner, Martin & Schandl, Heinz & Wiedmann, Thomas O. & Lenzen, Manfred & Tukker, Arnold & Koning, Arjan, 2016. "Consumption-based material flow indicators — Comparing six ways of calculating the Austrian raw material consumption providing six results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 177-186.
    10. Raphael Asada & Tamás Krisztin & Fulvio di Fulvio & Florian Kraxner & Tobias Stern, 2020. "Bioeconomic transition?: Projecting consumption‐based biomass and fossil material flows to 2050," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(5), pages 1059-1073, October.
    11. Kucukvar, Murat & Haider, Muhammad Ali & Onat, Nuri Cihat, 2017. "Exploring the material footprints of national electricity production scenarios until 2050: The case for Turkey and UK," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 251-263.
    12. Philippidis, George & M'Barek, Robert & Urban-Boysen, Kirsten & Van Zeist, Willem-Jan, 2023. "Exploring economy-wide sustainable conditions for EU bio-chemical activities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    13. José M. Rueda-Cantuche & Tamas Revesz & Antonio F. Amores & Agustín Velázquez & Marian Mraz & Emanuele Ferrari & Alfredo J. Mainar-Causapé & Letizia Montinari & Bert Saveyn, 2020. "Improving the European input–output database for global trade analysis," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Bruckner, Martin & Giljum, Stefan & Fischer, Günther & Tramberend, Sylvia & Börner, Jan, 2018. "The global cropland footprint of the non-food bioeconomy," Discussion Papers 271062, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    15. Kim, Yeon-Su & Rodrigues, Marcos & Robinne, François-Nicolas, 2021. "Economic drivers of global fire activity: A critical review using the DPSIR framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    16. Cahen-Fourot, Louison & Magalhães, Nelo, 2020. "Matter and regulation: socio-metabolic and accumulation regimes of French capitalism since 1948," Ecological Economic Papers 34, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    17. Jiang, Meihui & An, Haizhong & Guan, Qing & Sun, Xiaoqi, 2018. "Global embodied mineral flow between industrial sectors: A network perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 192-201.
    18. Britz, Wolfgang & Li, Jingwen & Shang, Linmei, 2021. "Combining large-scale sensitivity analysis in Computable General Equilibrium models with Machine Learning: An Example Application to policy supporting the bio-economy," Conference papers 333285, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. Meghan Beck-O’Brien & Stefan Bringezu, 2021. "Biodiversity Monitoring in Long-Distance Food Supply Chains: Tools, Gaps and Needs to Meet Business Requirements and Sustainability Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, July.
    20. Bernhard Michel & Caroline Hambÿe & Bart Hertveldt, 2018. "The Role of Exporters and Domestic Producers in GVCs: Evidence for Belgium based on Extended National Supply-and-Use Tables Integrated into a Global Multiregional Input-Output Table," NBER Working Papers 25155, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sustainability; Bioeconomy; Environment and Trade; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Material Footprint; Input-Output Models;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C67 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Input-Output Models
    • C82 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Macroeconomic Data; Data Access
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gws:dpaper:21-3. 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: GWS mbH (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gwsosde.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.