Accounting methods for international land-related leakage and distant deforestation drivers

Ecological Economics

Volumn 99, Issue , 2014, Pages 21-28

  Henders, Sabine ^a   Ostwald, Madelene ^a,b  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Carbon leakage; Consumption and production based accounting; Emissions embodied in trade

Indexed keywords

CARBON EMISSION; DEFORESTATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; INTERNATIONAL TRADE; LAND USE; LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS; TELECONNECTION; TRADE FLOW; TRADE-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS;

EID: 84893376126     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.01.005     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Al-Riffai P., et al. Global trade and environmental impact study of the EU biofuels mandate. Int. Food Policy Res. Inst. 2010, (Technical Report, 123 p.).
2. Arima E.Y., et al. Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 2011, 6:1-7.
3. Aukland L., et al. A conceptual framework and its application for addressing leakage: the case of avoided deforestation. Clim. Policy 2003, 3:123-136.
4. Bala G., et al. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104(16):6550-6555.
5. Barona E., et al. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 2010, 5(024002). (9 pp.).
6. Bicknell K.B., et al. New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 27:149-160.
7. Böhringer C., et al. Computable General Equilibrium Analysis: Opening a Black Box. Discussion Paper No. 03-56 2003, Zentrum fuer Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung, (38 pp.).
8. Böhringer C., et al. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). Energy Econ. 2012, 34:S97-S110.
9. 2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:5687-5692.
10. DeFries R.S., et al. Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nat. Geosci. 2010, 3:178-181.
11. Dumortier J., et al. Sensitivity of carbon emission estimates from indirect land-use change. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Pol. 2011, 33(3):428-448.
12. Erb K.H. Actual land demand of Austria 1926-2000: a variation on ecological footprint assessments. Land Use Policy 2004, 21:247-259.
13. Ewing B., et al. Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts 2010, Global Footprint Network, Oakland, (21 pp.). 2010 edition.
14. Fischer-Kowalski M., et al. Methodology and indicators of economy-wide material flow accounting. J. Ind. Ecol. 2011, 15(6):855-876.
15. Foley J.A., et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 2005, 309:570-574.
16. Fritsche U., Wiegmann K. Indirect land use change and biofuels. Report for the Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy 2011, European Parliament, Brussels, (57 pp.).
17. Galli A., et al. Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a "Footprint Family" of indicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 16:100-112.
18. Gao Y., et al. Assessing deforestation from biofuels: methodological challenges. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31:508-518.
19. Gavrilova O., et al. International trade and Austria's livestock system: direct and hidden carbon emission flows associated with production and consumption of products. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:920-929.
20. Geist H.J., Lambin E.F. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 143 2002, 52(2):143-150.
21. Gibbs H.K., et al. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107(38):16732-16737.
22. Global Footprint Network (Accessed 01.July 2013). http://www.footprintnetwork.org.
23. Harris N., et al. Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions. Science 2012, 336:1573-1575.
24. Havlik P., et al. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy 2011, 39(10):5690-5702.
25. Henders S., Ostwald M. Forest carbon leakage quantification methods and their suitability for assessing leakage in REDD. Forests 2012, 3(1):33-58.
26. Hertel T.W., et al. Effects of U.S. maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: estimating market-mediated responses. Bioscience 2010, 60(3):223-231.
27. Hertwich E.G., Peters G.P. Carbon footprints of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43:6414-6420.
28. Hiederer R., et al. Biofuels: A New Methodology to Estimate GHG Emissions from Global Land Use Change 2010, European Commission Joint Research Centre, (172 pp.). 10.2788/48910.
29. Hoekstra A.Y., Chapagain A. Water footprints of nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21(1):35-48.
30. Hosonuma N., et al. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7:044009.
31. Houghton R.A. Aboveground forest biomass and the global carbon balance. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2005, 11:945-958.
32. 2 from land-use change?. Tellus B 2010, 62:337-351.
33. Hubacek K., Giljum S. Applying physical input-output analysis to estimate land appropriation of international trade activities. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 44:137-151.
34. 2 emissions from Brazilian deforestation to consumers between 1990 and 2010. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8(24005). (7 pp.).
35. Kastner T., et al. Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 79:1032-1040.
36. Kastner T., et al. International wood trade and forest change: a global analysis. Global Environ. Change 2011, 21:947-956.
37. Kastner T., et al. Cropland area embodied in international trade: contradictory results from different approaches. Ecol. Econ. 2013, in press. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.003.
38. Kissinger M., Gottlieb D. Place oriented ecological footprint analysis-the case of Israel's grain supply. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1639-1645.
39. Kitzes J., et al. A research agenda for improving national ecological footprint accounts. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:1991-2007.
40. Lapola D.M., et al. Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107(8):3388-3393.
41. Lenzen M., Murray S.A. A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 37:229-255.
42. Lenzen M., et al. Shared producer and consumer responsibility-theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61:27-42.
43. Lenzen M., et al. Mapping the structure of the world economy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46(15):8374-8381.
44. Lugschitz B., et al. Europe's global land demand. Final Project Report 2011, Sustainable Europe Research Institute, Vienna, Austria, (36 pp. Available under: http://seri.at/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Europe_Global_Land_Demand_Oct11.pdf, accessed 2. May 2013).
45. McDonald G.W., Patterson M.G. Ecological footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 50:49-67.
46. Meyfroidt P., Lambin E.F. Forest transition in Vietnam and displacement of deforestation abroad. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106(38):16139-16144.
47. Meyfroidt P., et al. Forest transition, trade, and the global displacement of land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107(49):20917-20922.
48. Meyfroidt P., et al. Globalization of land use: distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5:1-7.
49. Monfreda C., et al. Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprints and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy 2004, 21:231-246.
50. Nassar A.M., et al. Biofuels and land-use changes: searching for the top model. Interface Focus 2011, 1:224-232.
51. Nepstad D.C., et al. Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: opportunities for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20(6):1595-1603.
52. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), 2010. Are models suitable for determining ILUC factors? Authors: Prins, A.G., et al. Den Haag, Netherlands. 12 pp.
53. Overmars K.P., et al. Indirect land use change emissions related to EU biofuel consumption: an analysis based on historical data. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2011, 14:248-257.
54. Peters G.P. Policy update: carbon leakage. Carbon Manage. 2010, 1(1):35-37.
55. 2 emissions after the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2011, 2:2-4.
56. Peters G.P., et al. Constructing a multi-regional input-output table using the GTAP database. Econ. Syst. Res. 2011, 23:131-152.
57. Peters G.P., et al. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108(21):8903-8908.
58. Peters G.P., Davis S.J., Andrew R. A synthesis of carbon in international trade. Biogeosciences 2012, 9:3247-3276.
59. Plevin R.J., et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels' indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44(21):8015-8021.
60. Rothmann D.S. Environmental Kuznets curves-real progress or passing the buck? A case for consumption-based approaches. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 25:177-194.
61. Rudel T.K., et al. Changing drivers of deforestation and new opportunities for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23:1396-1405.
62. Saikku L., et al. Attributing land-use change carbon emissions to exported biomass. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 37:47-54.
63. Searchinger T., et al. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions for land-use change. Science 2008, 319:1238-1240.
64. Steen-Olsen K., et al. Carbon, Land, and water footprint accounts for the European Union: consumption, production, and displacements through international trade. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46:10883-10891.
65. Tukker A., et al. EXIOPOL-development and illustrative analyses of a detailed global MR EE SUT/IOT. Econ. Syst. Res. 2013, 25:50-70.
66. Turner K., et al. Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities-part 1: a technical note on combining input-output and ecological footprint analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62:37-44.
67. Verburg R., et al. The effect of agricultural trade liberalisation on land-use related greenhouse gas emissions. Global Environ. Change 2009, 19(4):434-446.
68. Wackernagel M., Rees W. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth 1996, New Society Publishers, Canada, (160 pp.).
69. Wackernagel M., et al. Ecological footprint time series of Austria, the Philippines, and South Korea for 1961-1999: comparing the conventional approach to an actual land area approach. Land Use Policy 2004, 21:261-267.
70. Walker R. Deforestation and economic development. Can. J. Reg. Sci. 1993, XVI(3):481-497.
71. Weinzettel J., et al. Affluence drives the global displacement of land use. Global Environ. Change 2013, 23:433-438.
72. Wiedmann T., Barrett J. A review of the ecological footprint indicator-perceptions and methods. Sustainability 2010, 2:1645-1693.
73. Wiedmann T., et al. Quo Vadis MRIO? Methodological, data and institutional requirements for multi-region input-output analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:1937-1945.
74. Wilting H.C., Vringer K. Carbon and land use accounting from a producer's and a consumer's perspective-an empirical examination covering the world. Econ. Syst. Res. 2009, 21(3):291-310.
75. Wunder S. How should we deal with leakage?. Moving Ahead With REDD: Issues, Options and Implications 2008, 65-76. CIFOR, Indonesia. A. Angelsen (Ed.).
76. Würtenberger L., et al. Virtual land use and agricultural trade: estimating environmental and socio-economic impacts. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57:679-697.
77. WWF Living Planet Report 2012 2012, World Wide Fund for Nature International, Switzerland, (85 pp.). N. Oerlemans (Ed.).
78. Yu Y., Feng K., Hubacek K. Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use. Global Environ. Change 2013, 23:1178-1186.
79. Zaks D.P.M., et al. Producer and consumer responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production-a perspective from the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 2009, 4:044010.