Ecological Footprint Evaluation of Three Types of Wood Flooring in China based on Their Production Data from 2000 to 2018

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.03.012

Abstract

Abstract:

To encourage the environmental responsibility of consumers and manufacturers for forest management, it is necessary to evaluate the environmental influences of forest products. Ecological footprint (EF) is an internationally recognized indicator for estimating the natural capital consumption and environmental influences of various forest products. In this study, we developed an accounting model for the EF evaluation of wood flooring, which is a tertiary forest product, by the method of transformation. Next, we used that model to evaluate the EF of three types of wood flooring in China according to their production data from 2000 to 2018. We collected the necessary data by visiting typical enterprises in China and referring to the relevant literature. According to our results, the average EFs of solid wood flooring, engineered solid wood flooring and laminate flooring between 2000 to 2018 were 3.13×10 ⁶, 1.05×10 ⁷ and 5.07×10 ⁶gha, respectively. The total EFs of solid wood flooring, engineered solid wood flooring and laminate flooring from 2000 to 2018 were 5.95×10 ⁷, 1.99×10 ⁸and 9.64×10 ⁷gha, respectively. The coefficients of variation (CV) of the EFs for these three types of wood flooring were 0.45, 0.87 and 0.76, respectively. The average and total EFs of the engineered solid wood flooring were the largest among the three types of wood flooring. The per capita EF and unit EF for the engineered solid wood flooring were also the highest among the three types of wood flooring. The EFs showed an upward trend with irregular fluctuations from 2000 to 2018 for all three types of wood flooring. It is necessary to reduce the EF of the engineered solid wood flooring and use more environmentally friendly products, such as solid wood flooring, for environmental protection.

Key words: environmental impact assessment, ecological footprint, wood flooring, accounting model

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.

Figures/Tables 8

References 24

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.

Wood flooring	Raw material	Demand coefficient (τ)
Solid wood flooring	Wood	0.046 (m³m^-2)
Solid wood flooring	Paint per unit flooring	0.00062 (MJ m^-2)
Laminate flooring	Wood	0.058 (m³m^-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 (m³m^-2)
	Paint per unit flooring	0.00062 (MJ m^-2)
	Adhesive per unit flooring	0.00112 (MJ m^-2)

Wood flooring	Raw material	Demand coefficient (τ)
Solid wood flooring	Wood	0.046 (m³m^-2)
Solid wood flooring	Paint per unit flooring	0.00062 (MJ m^-2)
Laminate flooring	Wood	0.058 (m³m^-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 (m³m^-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	^a1.25	^a1.25	2.65´10⁷	5.65´10⁶	-
2001	^a 1.25	^a1.25	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	^b1.24	^b 1.24	7.36´10⁷	5.18´10⁷	8.47´10⁷
2007	^c1.26	^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	^d1.24	^d 1.24	8.14´10⁷	1.18´10⁸	1.27´10⁸
2010	^e1.26	^e 1.26	1.12´10⁸	2.68´10⁸	-
2011	^f1.28	^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	^g1.25	^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	^g1.29	^g 1.29	1.17´10⁸	3.94´10⁸	2.03´10⁸

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	^a1.25	^a1.25	2.65´10⁷	5.65´10⁶	-
2001	^a 1.25	^a1.25	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	^b1.24	^b 1.24	7.36´10⁷	5.18´10⁷	8.47´10⁷
2007	^c1.26	^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	^d1.24	^d 1.24	8.14´10⁷	1.18´10⁸	1.27´10⁸
2010	^e1.26	^e 1.26	1.12´10⁸	2.68´10⁸	-
2011	^f1.28	^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	^g1.25	^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	^g1.29	^g 1.29	1.17´10⁸	3.94´10⁸	2.03´10⁸

[1]	ZHEN Lin, XU Zengrang, ZHAO Yuan, WANG Jijun, HU Yunfeng, WANG Juanle. Ecological Carrying Capacity and Green Development in the “Belt and Road” Initiative Region [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(6): 569-573.
[2]	JIN Mingming, XU Zengrang. Characteristics of Agricultural and Livestock Products Trade Flows between China and the “Belt and Road” Initiative Region: From the Perspective of Biocapacity [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(6): 584-597.
[3]	ZOU Xiuping, SONG Dunjiang, CHEN Shaofeng. Ecological Carrying Capacity of Grasslands and Animal Husbandry Sustainability in Central Asia [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(6): 598-604.
[4]	LU Chunxia, MA Cong, ZHANG Yushu, XU Zengrang. Ecological Footprint of Hydropower Development in China and the Associated Reductions of Greenhouse Gas Emission [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2013, 4(4): 369-373.
[5]	HE Yiqing, CHE Ting, WANG Yun. Ecological Footprint and Endogenous Economic Growth in the Poyang Lake Area in China Based on Empirical Analysis of Panel Data Model [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2012, 3(4): 367-372.
[6]	JIAO Wenjun, MIN Qingwen, CHENG Shengkui, ZHANG Dan, SUN Yehong . The Emergy-based Ecological Footprint(EEF)of Traditional Agricultural Areas in China:A Case Study of Congjiang County, Guizhou Province [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2011, 2(1): 56-65.