IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v194y2022ics0921800921003967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new accounting framework for assessing forest footprint of nations

Author

Listed:
  • Arto, Iñaki
  • Cazcarro, Ignacio
  • Garmendia, Eneko
  • Ruiz, Itxaso
  • Sanz, María J.

Abstract

In a tele-coupled and globalized World, understanding the links between demand for wood products and land use is becoming challenging. World's economies are increasingly open and interconnected, and international trade flows of wood products are continuously growing. The increasing resource consumption of humanity is increasingly dependent on international trade. In this context, the study of forest products demand from a global-multi-regional perspective emerges as a critical issue to achieve the goal of sustainable consumption and production. In this paper, we introduce a novel accounting framework for assessing the forest footprint of nations. The method combines Multi-regional Input-Output techniques and detailed data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on production, consumption and bilateral trade of primary, intermediate and final wood products, advancing with respect to existing approaches with these practical distinctions for more accurate computations. The approach tracks resource flows along the global supply chain and provides detailed information on the production, transformation, international trade, and final use of 20 forest products in 223 countries, having also much wider coverage than most previous studies. We test this framework to analyse forest footprint of nations in the year 2014, showing that 22 Million hectares (Mha) of forest were harvested for the extraction of roundwood for global demand, being 9.1 Mha to satisfy the foreign demand of wood products (42% of the total forestland harvested area). Harvested forestland is concentrated in America (32%), Asia (29%) and Europe (28%), representing Africa (7%) and Oceania (4%). More than 50% of the reported forest area harvested worldwide is located in USA (15%), China (14%); Russia (11%) and Canada (8%). In terms of forest footprint, Asia shows the highest share of the total forest footprint (44%), followed by America (25%), Europe (21%), Africa (7%) and Oceania (2%). Country-wise, half is concentrated in China (24%), USA (16%), India (5%), and Russia (5%).

Suggested Citation

  • Arto, Iñaki & Cazcarro, Ignacio & Garmendia, Eneko & Ruiz, Itxaso & Sanz, María J., 2022. "A new accounting framework for assessing forest footprint of nations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:194:y:2022:i:c:s0921800921003967
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107337
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921003967
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107337?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Kastner, Thomas & Kastner, Michael & Nonhebel, Sanderine, 2011. "Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1032-1040, April.
    2. I�aki Arto & Jos� M. Rueda-Cantuche & Glen P. Peters, 2014. "Comparing The Gtap-Mrio And Wiod Databases For Carbon Footprint Analysis," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 327-353, September.
    3. Nelson B. Villoria & Thomas W. Hertel, 2011. "Geography Matters: International Trade Patterns and the Indirect Land Use Effects of Biofuels," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 919-935.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. O'Brien, Meghan & Bringezu, Stefan, 2018. "European Timber Consumption: Developing a Method to Account for Timber Flows and the EU's Global Forest Footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 322-332.
    7. Erb, Karl-Heinz & Krausmann, Fridolin & Lucht, Wolfgang & Haberl, Helmut, 2009. "Embodied HANPP: Mapping the spatial disconnect between global biomass production and consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 328-334, December.
    8. Erik Dietzenbacher & Bart Los & Robert Stehrer & Marcel Timmer & Gaaitzen de Vries, 2013. "The Construction Of World Input-Output Tables In The Wiod Project," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 71-98, March.
    9. Manfred Lenzen & Daniel Moran & Keiichiro Kanemoto & Arne Geschke, 2013. "Building Eora: A Global Multi-Region Input-Output Database At High Country And Sector Resolution," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 20-49, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Serhii Ostapchuk & Lyudmyla Drymanova & Yulia Baranenko, 2023. "E-Accounting for Wood Products of Forestry in Ukraine: Problems and Ways of Improvement," Oblik i finansi, Institute of Accounting and Finance, issue 4, pages 26-38, December.
    2. Brizga, Janis & Räty, Tarmo, 2024. "Production, consumption and trade-based forest land and resource footprints in the Nordic and Baltic countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Zhang, Qian & Cheng, Baodong & Diao, Gang & Tao, Chenlu & Wang, Can, 2023. "Does China's natural forest logging ban affect the stability of the timber import trade network?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    4. Grover, Isobella & O'Reilly-Wapstra, Julianne & Suitor, Shaun & Hatton MacDonald, Darla, 2023. "Not seeing the accounts for the forest: A systematic literature review of ecosystem accounting for forest resource management purposes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).

    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. Claudia Parra Paitan & Peter H. Verburg, 2019. "Methods to Assess the Impacts and Indirect Land Use Change Caused by Telecoupled Agricultural Supply Chains: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Brizga, Janis & Räty, Tarmo, 2024. "Production, consumption and trade-based forest land and resource footprints in the Nordic and Baltic countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    4. Anke Schaffartzik & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Nina Eisenmenger, 2015. "Raw Material Equivalents: The Challenges of Accounting for Sustainability in a Globalized World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-26, April.
    5. Kucukvar, Murat & Cansev, Bunyamin & Egilmez, Gokhan & Onat, Nuri C. & Samadi, Hamidreza, 2016. "Energy-climate-manufacturing nexus: New insights from the regional and global supply chains of manufacturing industries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 889-904.
    6. Godar, Javier & Persson, U. Martin & Tizado, E. Jorge & Meyfroidt, Patrick, 2015. "Towards more accurate and policy relevant footprint analyses: Tracing fine-scale socio-environmental impacts of production to consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 25-35.
    7. Karl Steininger & Pablo Munoz & Jonas Karstensen & Glen Peters & Rita Strohmaier & Erick Velazquez, 2017. "Austria’s Consumption-Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Identifying sectoral sources and destinations," EcoMod2017 10472, EcoMod.
    8. Wang, H. & Ang, B.W. & Su, Bin, 2017. "Assessing drivers of economy-wide energy use and emissions: IDA versus SDA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 585-599.
    9. 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).
    10. Roux, Nicolas & Kastner, Thomas & Erb, Karl-Heinz & Haberl, Helmut, 2021. "Does agricultural trade reduce pressure on land ecosystems? Decomposing drivers of the embodied human appropriation of net primary production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    11. Plank, Christina & Görg, Christoph & Kalt, Gerald & Kaufmann, Lisa & Dullinger, Stefan & Krausmann, Fridolin, 2023. "“Biomass from somewhere?” Governing the spatial mismatch of Viennese biomass consumption and its impact on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Daniel Moran & Richard Wood, 2014. "Convergence Between The Eora, Wiod, Exiobase, And Openeu'S Consumption-Based Carbon Accounts," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 245-261, September.
    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. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Wang, Hongxia & Zhang, Junfeng & Fang, Hong, 2017. "Electricity footprint of China’s industrial sectors and its socioeconomic drivers," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 98-106.
    18. Johanna Kramm & Melanie Pichler & Anke Schaffartzik & Martin Zimmermann, 2017. "Societal Relations to Nature in Times of Crisis—Social Ecology’s Contributions to Interdisciplinary Sustainability Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-12, June.
    19. Popescu, Ioana-Stefania & Gibon, Thomas & Hitaj, Claudia & Rubin, Mirco & Benetto, Enrico, 2023. "Are SRI funds financing carbon emissions? An input-output life cycle assessment of investment funds," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    20. 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.

    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:194:y:2022:i:c:s0921800921003967. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.