Research

@article{Jiang2022,

title = {Different Material Footprint Trends between China and the World in 2007-2012 Explained by Construction- and Manufacturing-associated Investment},

author = {Meng Jiang and Paul Behrens and Yongheng Yang and Zhipeng Tang and Dingjiang Chen and Yadong Yu and Lin Liu and Pu Gong and Shengjun Zhu and Wenji Zhou and Bing Zhu and Arnold Tukker},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.011},

doi = {10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.011},

issn = {25903322},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-01},

journal = {One Earth},

volume = {5},

number = {1},

pages = {109–119},

publisher = {The Author(s)},

abstract = {Economic prosperity is vital to human development but relies heavily on material extraction, which causes environmental degradation. To successfully decouple growth from degradation, it is essential to identify the primary drivers of countries' material footprints (MFs). However, such understanding remains limited due to the complexities of investment- versus consumption-driven growth. Here, we focus on the MF of China between 2007 and 2012, which was responsible for 24%–30% of global material use. We adopt input-output models that consider trade and classify investment/consumption to estimate, at the province level, the relationship between MFs and the Human Development Index (HDI). Results show that during 2007–2012, China's per capita MF mirrored its HDI and increased by nearly 20%. This is especially prominent in poorer provinces. We further find that it was investments, particularly capital investments associated with construction and manufacturing, that dominated China's MF rather than a consumption-driven demand. Given vast infrastructure gaps in emerging economies and post-pandemic investment plans, these findings emphasize the need for a better understanding of the drivers of growth.},

keywords = {capital investment, China, circular economy, human development, Material footprint, resource efficiency},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Zhong2021ab,

title = {Global greenhouse gas emissions from residential and commercial building materials and mitigation strategies to 2060},

author = {Xiaoyang Zhong and Mingming Hu and Sebastiaan Deetman and Bernhard Steubing and Hai Xiang Lin and Glenn Aguilar Hernandez and Carina Harpprecht and Chunbo Zhang and Arnold Tukker and Paul Behrens},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112677 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123339 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107339 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127098 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sci},

doi = {10.1038/s41467-021-26212-z},

issn = {20411723},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-07-01},

journal = {Nature Communications},

volume = {12},

number = {1},

pages = {1–10},

publisher = {Elsevier Ltd},

address = {Copenhangen},

edition = {1},

abstract = {Building stock growth around the world drives extensive material consumption and environmental impacts. Future impacts will be dependent on the level and rate of socioeconomic development, along with material use and supply strategies. Here we evaluate material-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for residential and commercial buildings along with their reduction potentials in 26 global regions by 2060. For a middle-of-the-road baseline scenario, building material-related emissions see an increase of 3.5 to 4.6 Gt CO2eq yr-1 between 2020–2060. Low- and lower-middle-income regions see rapid emission increase from 750 Mt (22% globally) in 2020 and 2.4 Gt (51%) in 2060, while higher-income regions shrink in both absolute and relative terms. Implementing several material efficiency strategies together in a High Efficiency (HE) scenario could almost half the baseline emissions. Yet, even in this scenario, the building material sector would require double its current proportional share of emissions to meet a 1.5 °C-compatible target.},

keywords = {Acoustic measurements, adaptation measure, Animal husbandry, Beach sampling, Beach sediment, beach sediment citizen science, Benefits, biodiversity impacts, biodiversity loss, Black carbon, capital investment, Carbon emissions, Caribbean, China, china-us trade conflicts, circular economy, Citizen science, climate change, CO2 emissions, CO2emissions, Community, Complex terrain, Concentrated solar power, Consultation, Consumption structure, countryside species-area relationship, Cress (Lepidium sativum), Decomposition analysis, Decoupling analysis, Desulfurization technologies, Economic and social impacts, Electricity generation, Electricity sector, Electricity system, Emission projections, energy footprint, Energy models, Energy scenarios, Energy systems, Energy technology, Energy transition, energy use, energy water nexus, Energy-water nexus, Environmental, Environmental impact, environmental inequality, Environmental Justice, Environmentally extended multiregional input-outpu, EU countries, Europe, Exposure concentration, Extraction, Feed-in tariffs, Feedback and spillover effects, Flow curvature, food system, Historical drivers, Household carbon emissions, Household GHG footprints, human development, Hybrid input-output analysis, Hydraulic unbalanced forces, hydro-turbine governing system, Hydroelectric generating systems, Income inequality, Industrial CO2 emissions, industrial ecology, Input-output analysis, input–output analysis, international trade, Investment, Investment and opportunity costs, Land, Land degradation, land-use intensity, Learning curve, Lesser Antilles, Lidar observations, Lidars, Life cycle assessment, Low-carbon electricity technology, Material footprint, Mathematical model, Method standardization, Microplastics, Mineral resources, Mining, Modal interactions, MRIO model, Multi-regional input-output (MRIO) analysis, Multi-Regional Input-Output Analysis, Multi-regional input-output model, multiregional input-output analysis, Nano- and micron-sized plastics, Non-fossil electricity, Operational, Perceptions, Plastic pollution, Policy goals, Poverty, Power density, power generation, Power plants, Power transmission, Primary crops, Public transit, Rebound, Remote sensing, renewable energy policy, resource efficiency, Responsibility Sharing, Sectoral analysis, Sharing economy, SO2 emission reduction, Socio-economic impact, Sodar, Solar energy, Spatial decomposition analysis, Spatial impact, Spatially explicit, Standard operating procedure, Sublethal impacts, Subnational, Subsystem input-output model, Sustainable consumption, techno-economic evaluation, Terrestrial systems, thermal emissions, Urban-rural differences, Urbanization, Vascular plant, Vulnerable passengers, water basin, water consumption, Water footprint, Water scarcity, Wind, Wind energy},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{JuuditOttelinHaleCetinauy2020,

title = {Rebound effects may jeopardize the resource savings of circular consumption: evidence from household material footprints},

author = {Juudit Ottelin and Hale Cetinay and Paul Behrens},

doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/abaa78},

issn = {17489326},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-01-01},

journal = {Environmental Research Letters},

volume = {15},

number = {10},

abstract = {The circular economy model aims to reduce the consumption of virgin materials by increasing the time materials remain in use while transitioning economic activities to sectors with lower material intensities. Circular economy concepts have largely been focussed on the role of businesses and institutions, yet consumer changes can have a large impact. In a more circular economy consumers often become users—they purchase access to goods and services rather than physical products. Other consumer engagement includes purchasing renewable energy, recycling and using repair and maintenance services etc. However, there are few studies on whether consumers actually make these sorts of consumption choices at large scale, and what impacts arise from these choices on life-cycle material consumption. Here we examine what types of households exhibit circular consumption habits, and whether such habits are reflected in their material footprints. We link the Eurostat Household Budget Survey 2010 with a global input-output model and assess the material footprints of 189 800 households across 24 European countries, making the results highly generalizable in the European context. Our results reveal that different types of households (young, seniors, families etc) adopt different circular features in their consumption behaviour. Furthermore, we show that due to rebound effects, the circular consumption habits investigated have a weak connection to total material footprint. Our findings highlight the limitations of circular consumption in today's economic systems, and the need for stronger policy incentives, such as shifting taxation from renewable resources and labour to non-renewable resources.},

keywords = {circular economy, Material footprint, Rebound, Sharing economy, Sustainable consumption},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}