Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2021, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (3): 430-436.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.03.012
• Resources and Sustainbility • Previous Articles
LI Jianquan1, YUAN Yue2,*(), LUO Shuzheng3
Received:
2020-07-27
Accepted:
2021-03-01
Online:
2021-05-30
Published:
2021-07-30
Contact:
YUAN Yue
Supported by:
LI Jianquan, YUAN Yue, LUO Shuzheng. Ecological Footprint Evaluation of Three Types of Wood Flooring in China based on Their Production Data from 2000 to 2018[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(3): 430-436.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.03.012
Wood flooring | Raw material | Demand coefficient (τ) |
---|---|---|
Solid wood flooring | Wood | 0.046 (m3 m-2) |
Paint per unit flooring | 0.00062 (MJ m-2) | |
Laminate flooring | Wood | 0.058 (m3 m-2) |
Paint per unit flooring | 0.00062 (MJ m-2) | |
Adhesive per unit flooring | 0.00126 (MJ m-2) | |
Engineered solid wood flooring | Wood | 0.081 (m3 m-2) |
Paint per unit flooring | 0.00062 (MJ m-2) | |
Adhesive per unit flooring | 0.00112 (MJ m-2) |
Table 1 Demand coefficient (τ) of the wood flooring for raw materials
Wood flooring | Raw material | Demand coefficient (τ) |
---|---|---|
Solid wood flooring | Wood | 0.046 (m3 m-2) |
Paint per unit flooring | 0.00062 (MJ m-2) | |
Laminate flooring | Wood | 0.058 (m3 m-2) |
Paint per unit flooring | 0.00062 (MJ m-2) | |
Adhesive per unit flooring | 0.00126 (MJ m-2) | |
Engineered solid wood flooring | Wood | 0.081 (m3 m-2) |
Paint per unit flooring | 0.00062 (MJ m-2) | |
Adhesive per unit flooring | 0.00112 (MJ m-2) |
Year | Equivalence factor of forest | Equivalence factor of CO2 absorption land (gha wha-1) | The production quantities of solid wood flooring (m2) | The production quantities of laminate flooring (m2) | The production quantities of engineered solid wood flooring (m2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2000 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 2.65´107 | 5.65´106 | - |
2001 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 2.98´107 | 4.28´106 | 5.92´106 |
2002 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 2.25´107 | 5.93´106 | 8.64´106 |
2003 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 5.65´107 | 6.52´106 | 1.32´107 |
2004 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 5.11´107 | 2.76´107 | 2.68´107 |
2005 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 7.74´107 | 1.28´107 | 5.13´107 |
2006 | b 1.24 | b 1.24 | 7.36´107 | 5.18´107 | 8.47´107 |
2007 | c 1.26 | c 1.26 | 7.78´107 | 1.13´108 | 9.49´107 |
2008 | c 1.26 | c 1.26 | 1.23´108 | 7.90´107 | 1.16´108 |
2009 | d 1.24 | d 1.24 | 8.14´107 | 1.18´108 | 1.27´108 |
2010 | e 1.26 | e 1.26 | 1.12´108 | 2.68´108 | - |
2011 | f 1.28 | f 1.28 | 1.22´108 | 3.57´108 | - |
2012 | f 1.28 | f 1.28 | 1.25´108 | 3.71´108 | - |
2013 | f 1.28 | f 1.28 | 1.31´108 | 2.58´108 | 1.70´108 |
2014 | f 1.28 | f 1.28 | 1.50´108 | 2.43´108 | 2.47´108 |
2015 | f 1.28 | f 1.28 | 1.30´108 | 2.42´108 | 2.90´108 |
2016 | g 1.25 | g 1.25 | 1.48´108 | 3.16´108 | 2.50´108 |
2017 | g 1.25 | g 1.25 | 1.29´108 | 3.61´108 | 2.10´108 |
2018 | g 1.29 | g 1.29 | 1.17´108 | 3.94´108 | 2.03´108 |
Table 2 Equivalence factors and production quantities of the three types of the wood flooring from 2000 to 2018
Year | Equivalence factor of forest | Equivalence factor of CO2 absorption land (gha wha-1) | The production quantities of solid wood flooring (m2) | The production quantities of laminate flooring (m2) | The production quantities of engineered solid wood flooring (m2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2000 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 2.65´107 | 5.65´106 | - |
2001 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 2.98´107 | 4.28´106 | 5.92´106 |
2002 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 2.25´107 | 5.93´106 | 8.64´106 |
2003 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 5.65´107 | 6.52´106 | 1.32´107 |
2004 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 5.11´107 | 2.76´107 | 2.68´107 |
2005 | a 1.25 | a 1.25 | 7.74´107 | 1.28´107 | 5.13´107 |
2006 | b 1.24 | b 1.24 | 7.36´107 | 5.18´107 | 8.47´107 |
2007 | c 1.26 | c 1.26 | 7.78´107 | 1.13´108 | 9.49´107 |
2008 | c 1.26 | c 1.26 | 1.23´108 | 7.90´107 | 1.16´108 |
2009 | d 1.24 | d 1.24 | 8.14´107 | 1.18´108 | 1.27´108 |
2010 | e 1.26 | e 1.26 | 1.12´108 | 2.68´108 | - |
2011 | f 1.28 | f 1.28 | 1.22´108 | 3.57´108 | - |
2012 | f 1.28 | f 1.28 | 1.25´108 | 3.71´108 | - |
2013 | f 1.28 | f 1.28 | 1.31´108 | 2.58´108 | 1.70´108 |
2014 | f 1.28 | f 1.28 | 1.50´108 | 2.43´108 | 2.47´108 |
2015 | f 1.28 | f 1.28 | 1.30´108 | 2.42´108 | 2.90´108 |
2016 | g 1.25 | g 1.25 | 1.48´108 | 3.16´108 | 2.50´108 |
2017 | g 1.25 | g 1.25 | 1.29´108 | 3.61´108 | 2.10´108 |
2018 | g 1.29 | g 1.29 | 1.17´108 | 3.94´108 | 2.03´108 |
1 |
Bicknell K B, Ball R J, Cullen R , et al. 1998. New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy. Ecological Economics, 27(2):149-160.
DOI URL |
2 |
Cerutti A K, Beccaro G L, Bagliani M , et al. 2013. Multifunctional ecological footprint analysis for assessing eco-efficiency: A case study of fruit production systems in Northern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40(3):108-117.
DOI URL |
3 | Christodoulou A, Kourantidou M . 2013. The ecological footprint and its economic dimension in terms of greek and international reality. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 22(7b):2124-2127. |
4 |
Duro J A, Teixidó-Figueras J . 2013. Ecological footprint inequality across countries: The role of environment intensity, income and interaction effects. Ecological Economics, 93(3):34-41.
DOI URL |
5 | Ewing B, Moore D, Goldfinger S . 2010. Ecological footprint atlas 2010. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79(10):971-979. |
6 |
Galli A, Wiedmann T, Ercin E , et al. 2012. Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “Footprint Family” of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological Indicators, 16(16):100-112.
DOI URL |
7 |
Huijbregts M A J, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R , et al. 2008. Ecological footprint accounting in the life cycle assessment of products. Ecological Economics, 64(4):798-807.
DOI URL |
8 | Jin H, Ling W . 2015. External wall structure of green rural houses in Daqing, China, based on life cycle and ecological footprint theories. Frontiers of Architecture and Research, 16(3):212-219. |
9 |
Kitzes J, Wackernagel M . 2009. Answers to common questions in Ecological Footprint accounting. Ecological Indicators, 9(4):812-817.
DOI URL |
10 | Lazarus E, Zokai G, Borucke M , et al. 2014. Working guidebook to the national footprint accounts 2014. Oakland, USA: Global Footprint Network. |
11 |
Lee Y J . 2015. Land, carbon and water footprints in Taiwan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54:1-8.
DOI URL |
12 |
Limnios E A M, Ghadouani A, Schilizzi S G M , et al. 2009. Giving the consumer the choice: A methodology for product ecological footprint calculation. Ecological Economics, 68(10):2525-2534.
DOI URL |
13 |
Limnios E M, Schilizzi S G, Burton M , et al. 2016. Willingness to pay for product ecological footprint: Organic vs non-organic consumers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111:338-348.
DOI URL |
14 | Lin D, Hanscom L, Martindill J , et al. 2019. Working guidebook to the national footprint and biocapacity accounts. Oakland, USA: Global Footprint Network. |
15 |
Niccolucci V, Galli A, Kitzes J , et al. 2008. Ecological footprint analysis applied to the production of two Italian wines. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 128(3):162-166.
DOI URL |
16 |
Pelletier N, Ibarburu M, Xin H . 2013. A carbon footprint analysis of egg production and processing supply chains in the Midwestern United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 54(9):108-114.
DOI URL |
17 |
Penela A C, Villasante C S . 2008. Applying physical input-output tables of energy to estimate the energy ecological footprint (EEF) of Galicia (NW Spain). Energy Policy, 36(3):1148-1163.
DOI URL |
18 |
Rees W E . 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2):121-130.
DOI URL |
19 |
Salvo G, Simas M S, Pacca S A , et al. 2015. Estimating the human appropriation of land in Brazil by means of an Input-output economic model and ecological footprint analysis. Ecological Indicators, 53:78-94.
DOI URL |
20 |
Saravia-Cortez A M, Herva M, García-Diéguez C , et al. 2013. Assessing environmental sustainability of particleboard production process by ecological footprint. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52:301-308.
DOI URL |
21 |
Scipioni A, Manzardo A, Mazzi A , et al. 2012. Monitoring the carbon footprint of products: A methodological proposal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 36(17):94-101.
DOI URL |
22 | Simmons C . 2001. The use of ecological footprint and biocapacity analyses as sustainability indicators for sub-national geographical areas: A recommended way forward. Rome, Italy: Ambiente Italia (ECIP). |
23 |
Wackernagel M, Rees W E . 1997. Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective. Ecological Economics, 20(1):3-24.
DOI URL |
24 | Xu J, Li M L, Chen B D . 2014. The situation, problems and solutions of China’s wood flooring exports. China Forestry Economy, ( 4):76-78. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||