Monitoring Resource Efficiency Developments: Indicators, Data, and Trends

  • Florian FlacheneckerEmail author
  • Jun Rentschler
  • Willem de Kleuver


Monitoring resource efficiency developments is important for identifying efficiency potentials, researching the effects of improvements, and building or maintaining political momentum. To this end, this chapter provides an overview of existing indicators and data sources to measure resource use and resource efficiency. Furthermore, recent and historic trends in resource use, trade, prices, and efficiency from global and regional perspectives are shown and discussed, aiming to provide insights into the various resource indicators and what has been achieved so far. Overall, this chapter shows that resource efficiency has increased over time but only slowly and heterogeneously across regions. Crucially, this efficiency improvement has not resulted in a global decrease of resource use in absolute terms.


  1. Alcala F, Ciccone A (2004) Trade and productivity. Q J Econ 2:613–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahn-Walkowiak B, Steger S (2015) Resource targets in Europe and worldwide: an overview. Resources 4:597–620. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bleischwitz R (2010) International economics of resource productivity – relevance, measurement, empirical trends, innovation, resource policies. Int Econ Econ Policy 7:227–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BMUB (2015) Deutsches Ressourceneffizienzprogramm (ProgRess) II: Fortschrittsbericht 2012–2015. BMUB, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Bringezu S, Schütz H (2001) Total material requirement of the European Union. Technical report No 55. Wuppertal Institute. Wuppertal, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  6. Bringezu S, Schütz H, Moll S (2003) Rationale for and interpretation of economy-wide material flow analysis and derived indicators. J Ind Ecol 7:43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christ KL, Burritt RL (2015) Material flow cost accounting: a review and agenda for future research. J Clean Prod 108:1378–1389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleveland C, Ruth M (1998) Indicators of dematerialization and the materials intensity of use. J Ind Ecol 2:15–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costinot A, Donaldson D, Komunjer I (2012) What goods do countries trade? A quantitative exploration of Ricardo’s ideas. Rev Econ Stud 79:581–608. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Council of the European Union (2014) Council conclusions on greening the European semester and the Europe 2020 strategy – Mid-term review 2013:1–5Google Scholar
  11. Dahlstrom K, Ekins P (2005) Eco-efficiency trends in the UK steel and aluminum industries and resource productivity. J Ind Ecol 9:171–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EC (2001) Economy-wide material flow accounts and derived indicators. EC, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  13. EC (2016) EU Resource Efficiency Scoreboard 2015. EC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. EC (2017) Material flow accounts. EC, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  15. EEA (2011) Resource efficiency in Europe – policies and approaches in 31 EEA member and cooperating countries. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  16. EP (2015) Report on resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy – 2014/2208(INI). Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. EP, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. European Resource Efficiency Platform (2014) Manifesto & policy recommendations. EREP, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer-Kowalski M (1998) Society’s metabolism. J Ind Ecol 2:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Giljum S et al (2011) Methodology and indicators of economy-wide material flow accounting. J Ind Ecol 15:855–876. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hinterberger F, Giljum S, Hammer M (2003) Material flow accounting and analysis (MFA) – a valuable tool for analyses of society-nature interrelationships. SERI Background Paper. ViennaGoogle Scholar
  21. Huysman S, Sala S, Mancini L et al (2015) Toward a systematized framework for resource efficiency indicators. Resour Conserv Recycl 95:68–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. IMF (2017) Primary commodity price database. IMF, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Isaksson A (2009) The UNIDO world productivity database: an overview. Int Product Monit 18:38–50Google Scholar
  24. Lee FC, Tang J (2000) Productivity levels and international competitiveness between Canadian and US industries. Am Econ Rev 90:176–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moll S, Bringezu S, Schütz H (2005) Resource use in European Countries – an estimate of materials and waste streams in the community, including imports and exports using the instrument of material flow analysis. WuppertalGoogle Scholar
  26. OECD (2007) Measuring material flows and resource productivity – volume I: the OECD guide. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. OECD (2008) Measuring material flows and resource productivity – synthesis Report. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. OECD (2011) Towards green growth: monitoring progress – OECD indicators.
  29. OECD (2015) Material resources, productivity and the environment. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Reilly JM (2012) Green growth and the efficient use of natural resources. Energy Econ 34:S85–S93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. SERI (2013) Global material flow database – technical report. SERI, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  32. Steinberger JK, Krausmann F (2011) Material and energy productivity. Environ Sci Technol 45:1169–1176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P (2009) Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Comm Meas Econ Perform Soc Prog.
  34. Syverson C (2011) What determines productivity? J Econ Lit 49:326–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Talmon-Gros L (2013) Developments patterns of material productivity – convergence or divergence? HohenheimGoogle Scholar
  36. UN (2009) System of National Accounts 2008. UN, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development – United Nations sustainable development goals. UN, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. UNEP IRP (2010) Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production – priority products and materials. A Report of the Working Group on the Environmental Impacts of Products and Materials to the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management. HertwGoogle Scholar
  39. UNEP IRP (2011) Decoupling: natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. NairobiGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Der Voet E, Oers L, Nikolic I (2005) Dematerialization – not just a matter of weight. J Ind Ecol 8:121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wiedmann TO, Schandl H, Lenzen M, et al (2013a) Supporting information: the material footprint of nations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A:1–23Google Scholar
  42. Wiedmann TO, Schandl H, Lenzen M, et al (2013b) The material footprint of nations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A:1–6.
  43. World Resource Institute (2000) The weight of nations: material outflows from industrial economies, 2000. WRI, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Flachenecker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jun Rentschler
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Willem de Kleuver
    • 1
  1. 1.University College London, Institute for Sustainable ResourcesLondonUK
  2. 2.Oxford Institute for Energy StudiesOxfordUK
  3. 3.Colorado School of Mines, Payne Institute for Earth ResourcesDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations