A transition towards a low resource economy is unavoidable. This can be concluded from numerous initiatives which have been introduced recently. Methodologies and indicators are required in order to better assess the possibilities and challenges related to a transition towards a low resource economy. One of these is economy-wide material flow analysis (MFA). When MFA is connected to national economics accounts it enables the input-output analysis (IOA) of the economic structures causing material flows. In this study we used IO modelling and total flow analysis to identify industrial sectors with the highest material flows in Finland. The analysis exposed that in Finland most resource consumption is caused by the export industry, of which material intensity is low and does not produce significant value added, whereas the domestic construction sector, with notable resource flows, produces significant value added. A low resource economy requires significant and radical change in socio-technological systems and people’s mindsets. Due to the complexity of society and the diversity of the economy different types of measures are needed in order to achieve the change. We suggest some measures related to regulations, eco-design, material recycling and welfare for production, investments, services and individual consumption, for example. In the future, the transition towards a low resource economy needs radical changes, more innovations, policy support and actions on all societal levels.
References
[1]
European Commission. A Resource-Efficient Europe-Flagship Initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy; COM(2011)21. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/pdf/resource_efficient_europe_en.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2013).
[2]
Antikainen, R.; Mickwitz, P.; Sepp？l？, S.; Virkam？ki, V.; Lepp？nen, M.; Hujala, T.; Riala, M.; Nummelin, T.; Paavilainen, L.; Vihinen, H.; et al. Opportunities for Green Growth [In Finnish with English abstract]; Prime Minister’s Office Reports 4/2013: Helsinki, Finland, 2013.
[3]
Kowalski, M.; Swilling, M.; von Weizs？cker, E.U.; Ren, Y.; Moriguchi, Y.; Crane, W.; Krausmann, F.; Eisenmenger, N.; Giljum, S.; Hennicke, P.; et al. Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel.
[4]
Dittrich, M.; Giljum, S.; Lutter, S.; Polzin, C. Green Economies around the World? Implications of Resource Use for Development and Environment; Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI): Vienna, Austria, 2012.
[5]
The Factor 10 Institute. Available online: http://www.factor10-institute.org/ (accessed on 28 June 2013).
[6]
Robèrt, K.H.; Schmidt-Bleek, B.; Aloisi de Larderel, J.; Basile, G.; Jansen, J.L.; Kuehr, R.; Price Thomas, P.; Suzuki, M.; Hawken, P.; Wackernagel, M. Strategic sustainable development—Selection, design and synergies of applied tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 197–214, doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00061-0.
[7]
European Commission, Eurostat. Resource Productivity by Countries. 2009. Available online: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Resource_Productivity_by_countries,_2009_%28EUR_per_kg%29.png&filetimestamp=20120809145542 (accessed on 16 April 2013).
[8]
National Accounts, Gross Domestic Product by Industry (TOL 2008), %. Available online: http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_kansantalous_en.html (accessed on 9 April 2013).
[9]
Programme of Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen’s Government. Prime Minister’s Office: Helsinki, Finland, 22 June 2011. Available online: http://valtioneuvosto.fi/hallitus/hallitusohjelma/pdf/en334743.pdf (accessed 24 April 2013).
[10]
Bringezu, S.; Schütz, H.; Steger, S.; Baudisch, J. International comparison of resource use and its relation to economic growth. The development of total material requirement, direct material inputs and hidden flows and the structure of TMR. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 51, 97–124, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.04.010.
[11]
Hinterberger, F.; Schmidt-Bleek, F. Dematerialization, MIPS and Factor 10. Physical sustainability indicators as a social device. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 53–56, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00080-9.
[12]
Ritthoff, M.; Rohn, H.; Liedtke, C. Calculating MIPS. Resource Productivity of Products and Services. Wuppertal Spezial 27e; Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy: Wuppertal, Germany, 2002.
[13]
Economy Wide Material Flow Accounts and Derived Indicators (Edition 2000). A Methodological Guide; Eurostat, European Communities: Luxembourg, 2001.
[14]
Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounts (EW-MFA). Compilation Guide 2012; Eurostat, European Communities: Luxembourg, 2012.
[15]
Schoer, K.; Weinzettel, J.; Kovanda, J.; Giegrich, J.; Lauwigi, C. Raw material consumption of the European Union—Concept, calculation method, and results. Environ. Sci. Tech. 2012, 46, 8903–8909, doi:10.1021/es300434c.
[16]
Mancini, L.; Lettenmeier, M.; Rohn, H.; Liedtke, C. Application of the MIPS method for assessing the sustainability of production-consumption systems of food. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2012, 81, 779–793.
[17]
Suh, S. Handbook of Input-Output Economics in Industrial Ecology. 2nd Printing; Springer: Dordrecht, Germany, 2009.
[18]
Sepp？l？, J.; M？enp？？, I.; Koskela, S.; Mattila, T.; Nissinen, A.; Katajajuuri, J.M.; H？rm？, T.; Korhonen, M.R.; Saarinen, M.; Virtanen, Y. An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and material flows caused by the Finnish economy using the ENVIMAT model. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1833–1841, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.021.
[19]
Koskela, S.; M？enp？？, I.; Sepp？l？, J.; Mattila, T.; Korhonen, M.-R. EE-IO modeling of the environmental impacts of Finnish imports using different data sources. Ecol. Econom. 2011, 70, 2341–2349, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.012.
[20]
Eurostat Manual of Supply, Use and Input-Output Tables; Eurostat: Luxembourg, 2008.
[21]
Ecoinvent Database v.2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories; Ecoinvent. 2010. Available online: http://www.ecoinvent.org (accessed on 28 January 2013).
[22]
Faostat Web Page. Available online: http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed on 28 January 2013).
[23]
Timmer, M. The World Input-Output Database (WIOD): Contents, Sources and Methods. 2012. Available online: http://www.wiod.org/database/index.htm (accessed on 7 June 2013).
[24]
Lenzen, M. Errors in conventional and input-output-based life-cycle inventories. J. Ind. Ecol. 2001, 4, 127–148, doi:10.1162/10881980052541981.
[25]
Oosterhaven, J. On the Definition of Key Sectors and the Stability of Net versus Gross Multipliers. Research Report 04C01; University of Groningen: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2004.
[26]
Szyrmer, J.M. Measuring connectedness of input-output models: 2. Total flow concept. Environ. Plan. A 1986, 18, 107–121.
[27]
Wood, R.; Lenzen, M. Aggregate measures of complex economic structure and evolution. J. Ind. Ecology 2009, 13, 264–283, doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00113.x.
[28]
Lenzen, M. Environmentally important paths, linkages and key sectors in the Australian economy. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 2003, 14, 1–34, doi:10.1016/S0954-349X(02)00025-5.
[29]
Mattila, T. Any sustainable decoupling in the Finnish economy? A comparison of the pathways and sensitivities of GDP and ecological footprint 2002–2005. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 16, 128–134, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.010.
[30]
Material Intensity Factors, Overview on Materials, Fuels, Transport Services and Food. Available online: http://wupperinst.org/uploads/tx_wupperinst/MIT_2011.pdf (assessed on 25 April 2013).
[31]
Martens, P.; Rotmans, J. Transitions in a globalising world. Futures 2005, 37, 1133–1144, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.02.010.
[32]
Geels, F.W.; Kemp, R. Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies. Technol. Soc. 2007, 29, 441–445, doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.08.009.
[33]
Bergek, A.; Jacobsson, S.; Carlsson, B.; Lindmark, S.; Rickne, A. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 407–429, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003.
[34]
Meadows, D.H. Thinking in Systems. Chapter Six: Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System; Chelsea Green Publishing Company: White River Junction, VT, USA, 2008; pp. 145–165.
[35]
Europan Environment Agency. Survey of Resource Efficiency Policies in EEA Member and Cooperating Countries. Available online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/economy/resource-efficiency/germany-2014-resource-efficiency-policies (accessed on 27 June 2013).
[36]
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Environmental Management, Material Flow Cost Accounting, General Framework. ISO 14051:2011; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
[37]
Schnieders, J.; Hermelink, A. DEPHEUS results: Measurements and occupant’s satisfaction provide evidence for passive houses being an option for sustainable building. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 151–171, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.049.
[38]
Mont, O.; Plepys, A. Sustainable consumption progress: Should we be proud or alarmed? J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 531–537, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.01.009.
[39]
Hislop, H.; Hill, J. Reinventing the Wheel: A Circular Economy for Resource Security; Green Alliance: London, UK, 2011.
