Identifying marginal supplying countries of wood products via trade network analysis

Abstract

Purpose

The consequential inventory modeling approach for life cycle assessment implies that an increase in the demand for a specific product is met by the marginal suppliers within the market. The identification of marginal suppliers is however complicated by difficulties in defining appropriate geographical market delimitations. In this study, an advanced system thinking approach is proposed to address this challenge in the identification of marginal supplying countries of wood products.

Methods

Groups of countries which represent geographical markets are identified from trade data by using a network analysis-based clustering technique. Within these markets, marginal supplying countries are selected based on positive historical increments. The analysis covers 12 different products and all countries in the world using trade data for the period 1998–2013.

Results and discussion

Global indices allow differentiating how product-specific trade networks are separated into communities and how interconnected these networks are. Large differences between products and minor differences between trade years are observed. Communities identified for each product tend to overlap with existing geographical regions and seem thus realistic. By combining this information with product-specific production increment rankings, marginal supplying countries of wood products were identified.

Conclusions

The identified geographical market delimitation is a key for proper consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) inventory modeling in areas such as timber-based construction and biomass-based energy production. The method can in principle be applied to any product for which trade network data are available and ideally should be accompanied by a detailed analysis of technological constrains within the identified supplying country.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Bergstrand JH (1985) The gravity equation in international trade: some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. Rev Econ Stat 67:474–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bodini A, Bondavalli C, Allesina S (2012) Cities as ecosystems: growth, development and implications for sustainability. Ecol Model 245:185–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G (2009) Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323:892–895

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Caberlotto L, Lauria M, Nguyen T-P, Scotti M (2013) The central role of AMP-kinase and energy homeostasis impairment in Alzheimer’s disease: a multifactor network analysis. PLoS One 8:e78919

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. CEPII (2016) BACI World trade database:2016

  6. Clauset A, Newman MEJ, Moore C (2004) Finding community structure in very large networks. Phys Rev E 70:66111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research

  8. Dale BE, Kim S (2014) Can the predictions of consequential life cycle assessment Be tested in the real world? Comment on “using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation...”. J Ind Ecol 18:466–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. De Benedictis L, Tajoli L (2011) The world trade network. World Econ 34:1417–1454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. De Rosa M, Schmidt J, Brandão M, Pizzol M (2016) A flexible parametric model for a balanced account of forest carbon fluxes. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1148-z

    Google Scholar 

  11. Deng Y, Tian Y (2015) Assessing the environmental impact of flax fibre reinforced polymer composite from a consequential life cycle assessment perspective. Sustainability 7:11462–11483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Enders W (2014) Applied econometric time series, 4th edition. Wiley

  14. Eshun JF, Potting J, Leemans R (2010) Inventory analysis of the timber industry in Ghana. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:715–725

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. FAOSTAT (2016) Website of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/

  16. Fath BD, Scharler UM, Ulanowicz RE, Hannon B (2007) Ecological network analysis: network construction. Ecol Model 208:49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fortunato S (2010) Community detection in graphs. Phys Rep 486:75–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grinde M (2011) Environmental assessment of scenarios for products and services based on forest resources in Norway. Institutt for energi- og prosessteknikk

  19. Hänninen R, Hetemäki L, Hurmekoski E (2014) European forest industry and forest bioenergy outlook up to 2050: A synthesis

  20. Hausmann R, Hidalgo CA (2011) The network structure of economic output. J Econ Growth 16:309–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Heijungs R (2012) Spatial differentiation, GIS-based regionalization, hyperregionalization, and the boundaries of LCA. In: Ioppolo G (ed) Environment and energy (editorial series of Italian commodity science academy and engineering Association of Messina). FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp. 165–176

    Google Scholar 

  22. Helin T, Sokka L, Soimakallio S et al (2012) Approaches for inclusion of forest carbon cycle in life cycle assessment—a review. GCB Bioenergy 5:475–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hetemäki L (2014) Future of the European forest-based sector: what science can tell us. Grano Oy

  24. Hidalgo CA, Hausmann R (2009) The building blocks of economic complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:10570–10575

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang J, Ulanowicz RE (2014) Ecological network analysis for economic systems: growth and development and implications for sustainable development. PLoS One 9:e100923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hurmekoski E (2016) Long-term outlook for wood construction in Europe. School of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland

  27. Jørgensen S, Hauschild M (2013) Need for relevant timescales when crediting temporary carbon storage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:747–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim H, Holme P (2015) Network theory integrated life cycle assessment for an electric power system. 7:10961–10975

  29. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M et al (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44:3169–3174

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lund H, Mathiesen B, Christensen P, Schmidt J (2010) Energy system analysis of marginal electricity supply in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:260–271

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mathiesen BV, Munster M, Fruergaard T et al (2009) Uncertainties related to the identification of the marginal energy technology in consequential life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 17:1331–1338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Navarrete-Gutiérrez T, Rugani B, Pigné Y et al (2015) On the complexity of life cycle inventory networks: role of life cycle processes with network analysis. J Ind Ecol 20:1094–1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Neupane B, Halog A, Dhungel S (2011) Attributional life cycle assessment of woodchips for bioethanol production. J Clean Prod 19:733–741

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Newman MEJ, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69:26113

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nguyen T-P, Scotti M, Morine MJ, Priami C (2011) Model-based clustering reveals vitamin D dependent multi-centrality hubs in a network of vitamin-related proteins model-based clustering reveals vitamin D dependent multi-centrality hubs in a network of vitamin-related proteins. BMC Syst Biol 5:1752–1509

    Google Scholar 

  36. Nuss P, Chen W-Q, Ohno H, Graedel TE (2016) Structural investigation of aluminum in the U.S. economy using network analysis. Environ Sci Technol 50:4091–4101

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pizzol M, Scotti M, Thomsen M (2013) Network analysis as a tool for assessing environmental sustainability: applying the ecosystem perspective to a Danish water management system. J Environ Manag 118:21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. R Core Team (2005) R: a language and environment for statistical computing

  39. Reichardt J, Bornholdt S (2006) Statistical mechanics of community detection. Phys Rev E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.74.016110

    Google Scholar 

  40. Reichardt J, Bornholdt S (2007) Clustering of sparse data via network communities—a prototype study of a large online market. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: An IOP and SISSA Journal. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2007/06/P06016

    Google Scholar 

  41. Reinhard J, Weidema B, Schmidt J (2010) Identifying the marginal supply of wood pulp. 2.-0 LCA Consultants, Aalborg

  42. Rodriguez MA, Pepe A (2008) On the relationship between the structural and socioacademic communities of a coauthorship network. J Informetr 2:195–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schaubroeck T, Staelens J, Verheyen K et al (2012) Improved ecological network analysis for environmental sustainability assessment; a case study on a forest ecosystem. Ecol Model 247:144–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schaubroeck T, Alvarenga RAF, Verheyen K et al (2013) Quantifying the environmental impact of an integrated human/industrial-natural system using life cycle assessment; a case study on a forest and wood processing chain. Environ Sci Technol 47:13578–13586

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Schmidt JH (2010) Comparative life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:183–197

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Schmidt JH (2015) Life cycle assessment of five vegetable oils. J Clean Prod 87:130–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Scott-Boyer MP, Lacroix S, Scotti M et al (2016) A network analysis of cofactor-protein interactions for analyzing associations between human nutrition and diseases. Sci Rep 6:19633

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Singh S, Bakshi BR (2011) Insights into sustainability from complexity analysis of life cycle networks: a case study on gasoline and bio-fuel networks. Proceedings of the 2011 I.E. International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology

  49. Tukker A, de Koning A, Wood R et al (2013) EXIOPOL—development and illustrative analyses of a detailed global MR EE SUT/IOT. Econ Syst Res 25:50–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wasserman S, Faust K (2016) Social network analysis—methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  51. Weidema B, Frees N, Nielsen A-M (1999) Marginal production technologies for life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:48–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Weidema B, Ekvall T, Heijungs R (2009) Guidelines for application of deepened and broadened LCA—Deliverable D18 of work package 5 of the CALCAS project. ENEA, The Italian National Agency on new Technologies, Energy and the Environment

  53. Wood R, Stadler K, Bulavskaya T et al (2015) Global sustainability accounting—developing EXIOBASE for multi-regional footprint analysis. Sustainability 7:138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R et al (2012) Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:904–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Matthias Buyle, Bo Weidema, and Stefano Merciai for providing insightful and useful comments on draft versions of this manuscript. We acknowledge three anonymous reviewers for the constructive suggestions and the stimulating discussion. This work was funded by the research grant no. 1305-00030B of the Danish Strategic Research Council.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Massimo Pizzol.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Yi Yang

Electronic supplementary material

SI 1:

The archive reports for all 38,400 networks under analysis (16 years * 12 products * cutoff yes/no * 100 iterations): total network weight, number of vertices, number of edges, percent of total network weight maintained after cutoff, modularity, weighted modularity, and density. Plots are provided as well, summarizing this information at a glance. (RAR 2429 kb)

SI 2:

The archive reports detailed results of the statistical testing: ANOVA statistics, group means, and Tukey HSD results for weighted modularity and modularity calculated on the mean and mode of the 100 iterations respectively. (RAR 38 kb)

SI 3:

The archive reports the composition of all communities identified in each of the 38,400 iterations, i.e. the countries included in each community. (RAR 4292 kb)

SI 4:

The archive reports 16 product-specific contingency tables. (RAR 409 kb)

SI 5:

The archive reports 16 product-specific production increment rankings. R scripts for reproducing the results can be retrieved at: https://github.com/massimopizzol?tab=repositories (RAR 83 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pizzol, M., Scotti, M. Identifying marginal supplying countries of wood products via trade network analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 1146–1158 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1222-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Consequential life cycle assessment
  • Network analysis
  • Network clustering
  • Network communities
  • Trade
  • Wood products