Physical Input-Output Analysis and Disposals to Nature

  • Erik Dietzenbacher
  • Stefan Giljum
  • Klaus Hubacek
  • Sangwon Suh
Part of the Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science book series (ECOE, volume 23)

The enormous increase in interest — in the last 2 decades — for environmental issues has led to a markedly upsurge in the collection of data. One of the new types of data sources that have become available is the physical input-output table (PIOT). The production sector in an economy distinguishes industries and the intermediate flows between the industries are measured in the same physical unit, such as billion tons (bt). This is in contrast to the usual monetary input-output tables (MIOTs) that measure the intermediate deliveries in money terms, such as billion dollars. Examples of published PIOTs can be found in Kratterl and Kratena (1990), Kratena et al. (1992), Konijn et al. (1997), Stahmer et al. (1997), Pedersen (1999), Nebbia (2000), Mäenpää (2002), and Hoekstra (2003).1

On the one hand, PIOTs can be regarded as a natural extension of the so-called hybrid input-output tables, as far as their numerical implementation is concerned.2


Waste Generation Intermediate Input Physical Unit Actual Land Usable Output 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. CEC/IMF/OECD/UN/WB (1993). System of national accounts 1993. Brussels/New York/Paris/ Washington, DC: CEC/IMF/OECD/UN/WB.Google Scholar
  2. Dietzenbacher, E. (2005). Waste treatment in physical input-output analysis.Ecological Economics,55, 11 – 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fisher, F. M. (1965). Choice of units, column sums, and stability in linear dynamic systems with nonnegative square matrices, Econometrica,33, 445 – 450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Giljum, S., & Hubacek, K. (2004). Alternative approaches of physical input-output analysis to estimate primary material inputs of production and consumption activities,Economic Systems Research, 16, 301 – 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giljum, S., Hubacek, K., & Sun, L. (2004). Beyond the simple material balance: A reply to Sangwon Suh's note on physical input-output analysis,Ecological Economics,48, 19 – 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoekstra, R. (2003). Structural change of the physical economy — decomposition analysis of physical and hybrid input-output tables. Free University of Amsterdam, Tinbergen Insitute Research Series, no. 315, Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
  7. Hubacek, K., & Giljum, S. (2003). Applying physical input-output analysis to estimate land appropriation (ecological footprints) of international trade activities, Ecological Economics, 44, 137 – 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Konijn, P. J. A., de Boer, S., & van Dalen, J. (1997). Input-Output analysis of material flows with application to iron, steel and zinc. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 8, 31 – 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kratena, K., Chovanec, A., & Konechy, R. (1992). Eine ö kologische volkswirtschaftliche Gesammtrechnung für Österreich. Die Umwelt Input Output Tabelle 1983. Wien, Institut für sozial-, wirtschafts- und umweltpolitische Forschung.Google Scholar
  10. Kratterl, A., & Kratena, K. (1990). Reale Input-Output Tabelle und ökologischer Kreislauf. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Mä enp ä ä, I. (2002). Physical input-output tables of Finland 1995 — solutions to some basic methodological problems. Paper presented at the Fourteenth International Conference on Input-Output Techniques, Montréal.Google Scholar
  12. Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (1985). Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Nebbia, G. (2000). Contabilitè monetaria e contabilita` ambientale. Economia Pubblica, 30(6), 5 – 33.Google Scholar
  14. Pedersen, O. G. (1999). Physical input-output tables for Denmark. products and materials 1990, air emissions 1990 – 92. Copenhagen: Statistics Denmark.Google Scholar
  15. Stahmer, C. (2000). The magic triangle of input-output tables. In: S. Simon & J. Proops (Eds.), Greening the accounts (pp. 123 – 154). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. Stahmer, C., Kuhn, M., & Braun, N. (1997). Physische Input-Output Tabellen, Beitr ä ge zu den Umweltökonomischen Gesamtrechnungen. Band 1 Stuttgart, Germany: Metzler-Poeschel Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Strassert, G. (2001). Interindustry linkages: The flow network of a physical input-output table (PIOT): Theory and application for Germany. In: M. L. Lahr & E. Dietzenbacher (Eds.), Inputoutput analysis: Frontiers and extensions (pp. 35–53). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  18. Suh, S. (2004). A note on the calculus for physical input-output analysis and its application to land appropriation of international trade activities. Ecological Economics, 48, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Dietzenbacher
    • 1
  • Stefan Giljum
    • 2
  • Klaus Hubacek
    • 3
  • Sangwon Suh
    1. 1.Economics and BusinessUniversity of GroningenThe Netherlands
    2. 2.Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI)ViennaAustria
    3. 3.Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and EnvironmentUniversity of LeedsUK

    Personalised recommendations