2012 Using Mfa For SD

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec
Review
Using material/substance ow analysis to support sustainable development

assessment: A literature review and outlook
Chu-Long Huang a,b , Jonathan Vause a , Hwong-Wen Ma c , Chang-Ping Yu a,
a
b
c
Key Laboratory of Urban Environment and Health, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 1799, Jimei Road, Xiamen 361021, China
Department of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Quanzhou Normal University, 398, Donghai Street, Fengze, Quanzhou 362000, China
Graduate Institute of Environmental Engineering, National Taiwan University, 71, Chou-Shan Road, Taipei 10660, Taiwan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 6 January 2012
Received in revised form 19 July 2012
Accepted 28 August 2012
Keywords:
Material ow analysis
Substance ow analysis
Sustainable development
Sustainable development assessment
Sustainability indicators
a b s t r a c t
The essence of sustainable development (SD) is to deliver social and economic development without
compromising environmental quality. Material Flow Analysis or Substance Flow Analysis (M/SFA) is a
well-established method to assess the sustainability of socioeconomic development and environmental
change, particularly from the perspective of improving material/substance ow efciency. A material/substance ow chart or accounting table makes SD assessment results comprehensive, comparable
and veriable by (1) providing systematic information and indicators for SD assessment, (2) identifying critical pathways, links and key substances in the anthroposphere, and (3) allowing the dynamic
interaction between material ow and social, economic and/or environmental processes to be analyzed.
However, the role of M/SFA in SD assessment could be expanded by strengthening simultaneous analysis of various features of material/substance ows, integrating M/SFA with other assessment methods,
improving sustainability indicators, and further developing standardized methods for material classication, data acquisition and processing, and measuring indirect ows and unused ows. It is anticipated
that future improvements in monitoring material/substance ows in the anthroposphere will provide
more systematic information, allowing M/SFA to play an even greater role in SD assessment.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M/SFA: the state of the art relating to SD assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Theoretical studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Applied studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Functions of M/SFA in SD assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.
How M/SFA facilitates SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.
Main functions of M/SFA in SD assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1.
Using M/SFA to derive SD assessment indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2.
Using M/SFA to improve reliability of SD assessment results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Outlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.
Strengthening simultaneous analysis of various features of material/substance ows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.
Improved integration of M/SFA with other SD assessment methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1.
Integrated application of M/SFA with LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2.
Integrated application of M/SFA and risk estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.
Using M/SFA to improve SD assessment indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.
Developing new M/SFA application paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1.
Methodological development of measuring indirect ows and unused ows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.2.
Standardization issues of M/SFA for joint SD assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 592 6190768; fax: +86 592 6190768.
E-mail addresses: clhuang@iue.ac.cn (C.-L. Huang), cpyu@iue.ac.cn (C.-P. Yu).
0921-3449/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.08.012
105
105
105
106
106
106
106
106
108
109
109
109
109
110
110
111
111
111
5.
C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116
105
4.5.
Making M/SFA data more systematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A.
M/SFA results for SD assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B.
The integration of M/SFA with LCA for SD assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix C.
Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111
113
114
114
114
114
114
1. Introduction
2. M/SFA: the state of the art relating to SD assessment
The most often-quoted denition of sustainable development

(SD) is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs (World Commission on Environmental Development,
1987). This denition is complemented by the notion of the three
pillars of social, economic, and environmental sustainability (UN,
2002). Because the socioeconomic subsystem is embedded in the
environmental system (European Communities, 2001; European
Environment Agency, 2008), SD of the anthroposphere is dependent on environmental sustainability, and this implies that social
progress and economic growth must not compromise environmental sustainability (Bond et al., 2001; Huang et al., 2006;
Matthews et al., 2000). Environmental sustainability means maintaining or improving the integrity of the Earths life supporting
systems (Moldan et al., 2012), including (1) regeneration of renewable resources, (2) substitutability of non-renewable resources,
(3) environmental capacity to assimilate hazardous or polluting
substances, and (4) ability to avoid irreversible adverse effects
of human activities (OECD, 2008). Using these criteria, economically developed countries may perform worse than developing
countries in environmental sustainability. For instance, according to the Eco2 index ranking, many high-income countries
performed badly due to high ecological decits, while parts of
southwestern Africa and South America were among the best performers due to their large ecological surpluses (Sumaila, 2012).
Thus, sustainability assessment of any part of the socioeconomic subsystem (e.g. countries, regions, corporations) should
consider the sustainable supporting capacity of the environmental
system.
Sustainability of the environmental system depends on the
existence of a stable balance between various ows of matter,
information and energy. Because matter ows are the main vehicles carrying information and energy ows, matter ows play the
most important role in determining ecosystem stability, but can be
signicantly affected by resource extraction and waste emissions
from the socioeconomic subsystem. Material and/or substance ow
analysis (M/SFA), which focuses on tracking matter ows within the
socioeconomic system from extraction to disposal, should therefore be a key tool for SD assessment.
Material ow analysis encompasses product ow accounting, material balance, and total material ow accounting, while
substance ow analysis includes element and chemical ow
analysis (Bringezu et al., 1997). Analyzing the structure and processes of material and substance ows provides insights into
their impacts on society, the economy, the resource base, and
the environment. By applying M/SFA, a sustainability assessment can simultaneously be carried out for the socioeconomic
subsystem, resource use and the environmental system. While
attention has often been drawn to the relevance of M/SFA to SD
assessment (Behrens et al., 2007; Rodrguez et al., 2011; Seppl
et al., 2011; Yellishetty et al., 2010), in this paper we attempt a
comprehensive analysis of this relationship, and systematically discuss how M/SFA can be used to underpin sustainability and SD
assessment.
2.1. Theoretical studies

M/SFA is an analytical method used to systematically assess the
ow and stock of a material or substance through a given system (e.g. productive system, economic or social system), which
should be clearly dened in space and time (Bringezu et al., 1997;
Brunner and Rechberger, 2004). It uses the principle of mass balancing to analyze the relationships between material or substance
ows (including resources, energy and wastes), human activities,
and environmental changes (OECD, 2008). Every stage in the material or substance ow (including source, transport, transfer and fate
of a given material or substance) can be linked by an M/SFA system
model. The law of the conservation of matter then explains the
mass balance results. M/SFA has become a widely used policy decision support tool in many elds, including process control, resource
management, waste treatment, environmental management, product design, and life cycle assessment (Brunner and Rechberger,
2004; Udo de Haes et al., 1997). M/SFA can be classied either
by material type, analytical scope, chemical ingredient, or research
purpose (Table 1), providing the potential to assess SD from a variety of analytical perspectives.
The M/SFA process includes the following six basic steps
(Bringezu et al., 1997; Brunner and Rechberger, 2004):
(1) Denition of research objective and selection of monitoring
indicators;
(2) System denition including scope, boundaries, and time frame;
(3) Identication of relevant ows, processes, and stocks;
(4) Design of material or substance ow chart (Fig. A.1);
(5) Mass balancing; and
(6) Illustration and interpretation of results and conclusions.
The natural ecosystem can be disturbed by human exploitation of natural resources, and polluted by wastes discharge from
the socioeconomic system (Huang and Bi, 2006; Mao et al., 2008).
Based on mass accounting of natural resources or materials, the
exploitation and discharge can be traced by M/SFA. Then, the
ow characteristics and transformation efciency of materials
can be found, together with the direct sources of environmental pressure, and this enables the formulation of countermeasures
for regional SD (Bringezu, 1995, 2000; Chen et al., 2003; Huang
and Bi, 2006). In other words, M/SFA offers an improved basis
for sustainable environmental management by determining the
sources of ingredients used in products, providing a quantitative assessment of material ows within a socioeconomic system
(e.g. enterprise, industry, drainage basin, or city), and by calculating the quantities of wastes or emissions from the socioeconomic
system.
Recent M/SFA theoretical studies have provided a concept
denition (Bringezu, 2003; Brunner and Ma, 2008), research framework, formulation of procedure and indicators (Lassen and Hansen,
2000; Udo de Haes et al., 1997), classication methods (Kleijn and
van der Voet, 2001), model design (Bouman et al., 2000), and MFA
106
Table 1
Classication methods for M/SFA.
Classication based on
Categories
Explanation
Material typea
Substance ow analysis (SFA)
Monitoring ows of individual substances that raise particular concerns as regards the
environmental and health risks associated with their production and consumption.
Monitoring ows of selected raw materials or semi-nished products that raise particular
concerns as to the sustainability of their use, the security of their supply to major economic
activity sectors, and/or the environmental consequences of their production and consumption.
Monitoring ows of materials connected to the production and use of specic products, and
analyzing the material requirements and potential environmental pressures along the full life
cycle of the products.
Material system analysis (MSA)
Life cycle assessments (LCA)
Analytical scopea
Business level material ow

analysis (B-MFA)
Inputoutput analysis (IOA)
Economy-wide material ow
analysis (EW-MFA)
Monitoring material ows at various levels of detail for a company, a rm or a plant.

Monitoring material ows to, from and through the economy broken down by economic
activity and nal demand category or consumption function.
Monitoring ows of all materials entering or leaving the boundary of the national economy.
EW-MFA serves as a basis for deriving aggregated material ow and resource productivity
indicators.
Chemical ingredientb
Single substance analysis

Compound material analysis
Monitoring ows of individual element, molecule or compound.

Monitoring ows of materials or products made up of several kinds of elements or compounds.
Research purposeb
Environmental problem analysis
Monitoring ows of substances causing environmental problem, i.e. ecological poisoning,

eutrophication, greenhouse effect, degradation of environmental systems, etc.
Monitoring ows of compound materials, including energy carriers, timber, minerals, etc.
Monitoring ows of materials whose quantity and quality or ow characteristics can affect
regional sustainable development.
Environmental pressure analysis

Sustainability analysis
a
b
Modied from OECD (2008).

Modied from Bringezu et al. (1997).
software development (Cencic, 2006; Liu et al., 2009). These theoretical studies provide a sound basis for applying M/SFA to SD
assessment.
2.2. Applied studies
M/SFA application studies also provide a foundation for enlarging the role of M/SFA in SD assessment (Table 2). Firstly, the number
of materials and substances subjected to ow analysis is continually expanding as studies are carried out in many countries around
the world. Secondly, M/SFA applications continue to grow, and are
increasingly combined with other research methods to analyze the
increasingly complex material/substance ows which result from
socioeconomic development. Thirdly, many indicators have been
derived from M/SFA applications, and most of them can be used
to support SD assessment (see Appendix A). However, outstanding
issues include: (1) how to derive SD indicators from M/SFA which
fully reect the existence of a triple bottom line (Lee et al., 2012);
(2) how to derive comprehensive indicators from M/SFA results
which capture the whole spectrum of SD assessment; (3) how to
organize these indicators in a systematic way in order to conduct
SD assessment; and (4) how to apply these indicators in the SD
assessment process.
3. Functions of M/SFA in SD assessment
3.1. How M/SFA facilitates SD
Both the health and safety of the anthroposphere and the environmental carrying capacity must be considered in SD studies,
regardless of whether the focus is on sustainable environmental
planning, resources management, or socioeconomic development.
This means that the impacts of resource extraction in the upstream
material or substance ow, and the environmental pollution and
ecological damage due to waste emission across all material or
substance ow processes, must be analyzed. As a result, there is a
close relationship between material/substance ows and SD. Based
on material ow charts or accounts (see Fig. A.1 or Table B.1), the
connections between M/SFA and SD include:
(1) Building a systematic database or information pool to help formulate measures to improve the efciency of waste recycling and
reduce resources extraction and wastes emission (Table B.1).
(2) Determining critical links or pathways where losses or inefcient
use of resources occur, which are often ignored by traditional
economic monitoring systems (European Communities, 2001;
see Table B.1), and identifying key materials or products in
the anthroposphere for environmental policies formulation
and sustainable environmental planning and management. For
example, the key materials and products of the Irish concrete
industry have been identied by MFA (see Table 3).
(3) Deriving meaningful and simple indicators from material ow
analysis (Sendra et al., 2007), and establishing an indicators
bank. These indicators should not only be focused on increasing
recycling levels and minimizing the nal volume of disposed
wastes (Appendix A), but also on promoting wiser use of
resources (Yabar et al., 2012), thereby improving the sustainability of resource extraction and energy use (Recalde et al.,
2008).
(4) Optimizing material use and processing by modeling responses
of the socioeconomic system to different models of material or
substance ows. This may take the form of a dynamic material
ow analysis model (Mller, 2006) or a closed cycle industrial
model (Mnsson, 2009).
As a result, M/SFA has the potential to become one of the
most important tools in SD assessment. Achievements in material ow accounting to date are already challenging traditional
economic data for national policymaking in the context of SD
(Fischer-Kowalski et al., 2011), and M/SFA also facilitates the formulation of sound SD policies, including policies for economic,
trade and technology development, natural resource management,
and environmental protection (OECD, 2008).
3.2. Main functions of M/SFA in SD assessment
3.2.1. Using M/SFA to derive SD assessment indicators
The Chairmans conclusion at the OECD special session on Materials Flow Accounting (Paris, October 2000) underlined that one of
107
Table 2
Summary of M/SFA application studies.
Items
Subclass
M/SFA study areas
Matter analyzed by
M/SFAa
Substances
Biogenic or metallic elements (N, P, Al, Cr, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, etc.) and their compounds, toxic and
harmful substances including persistent organic pollutants (POPs), macromolecule synthetic
polymers, emerging contaminants, etc.
Biogenic or metallic mixtures, water, food, fuels, paper, plastic, chemical products, industrial
products, agricultural materials, building materials (cement, etc.), discarded electronic motor
products, total material ow through transport systems or economic or environmental systems of
city, region or nation, etc.
Materials
Types of M/SFA
applicationb
Independent application
Coupling application with other

methods
Indicators derived by
M/SFA c
Social indicators
Economic indicators
Environmental indicators
Analysis of pollutants source and fate based on material ow chart or accounting.b1

Status quo evaluation and trend forecast of material use and their pollutant emissions based on
relationship analysis between production and consumption, imports and exports, and loss status
analysis by indicators.b2
Discovering vulnerable spots of material ows in developing low carbon or recycling economy
using MFA indicators system.b3
Increasing resources or energy efciency (copper, steel, nuclear fuel, etc.).b4
Assessment of prefecture progress toward a circular society.b5
Development phase assessment of society and economy, optimization of sustainable industrial
processes, recycling scenarios optimization of industrial waste by MFA.b6
MFA coupled to: canonical correlation analysis to assess the effect of land use change on material
metabolism structureb7 ; ARDL to analyze the relationship between resources use and economic
increaseb8 ; social sciences modeling approaches and Structural Agent Analysis to understand the
impacts of economic policies and social structure on material ow and achieve sustainable
material ow management,b9 an environmentally extended inputoutput model based on
economic inputoutput tables to analyze the relationship between material ows, environmental
impacts and the economy in Finland.b10
Resource consumption demand, waste product per capita, material/resource use per capita, in-use
stock of resource per capita, material ow intensity per capita, saving potential of materials,
recycling levels, the nal disposal rate of wastes, etc.
Direct material input, total material input, total material requirement, total material consumption,
domestic material consumption, resource consumption, net additions to stock, domestic
extraction use, domestic processed output, total domestic output, direct material output, total
material output, circulation rate of materials, physical imports and exports, physical trade balance,
raw material equivalents, raw material extraction and consumption, product usage, amount of
waste, material/resources use intensity, intensity of resources input, material ow intensity per
economic yield, materials/resources efciencies, energy or material use, economic efciency,
transport and storage of materials, stock change, structure or scale of material ow,
self-sufciency rate of raw materials, the percentage of material loss, service life of materials,
resource productivity, etc.
Environmental efciency, environmental load, environmental pressure, pollutant emission ratio,
recovery ratio of waste, disposal ratio of dangerous waste, annual scrap generation, pollutant
emission and waste generation, CO2 emission, etc.
a
Baccini and Brunner (1991), Chang et al. (2009), Chang (2010), Cheah et al. (2009), Chen et al. (2008, 2010), Daigo et al. (2009, 2010), Dong et al. (2010), Guine et al.
(1999), Guo and Song (2008), Guo et al. (2010), Hatayama et al. (2009), He (2008), Huang and Bi (2006), Huang et al. (2007), Hung (2007), Kapur et al. (2003), Kapur et al.
(2008), Kawamura et al. (2000), Kuczenski and Geyer (2010), Kwonpongsagoon et al. (2007), Lassen and Hansen (2000), Ma and Huang (2008), Ma et al. (2007), Mnsson
(2009), Mao et al. (2008), Matsuno et al. (2012), Mathieux and Brissaud (2010), Michael and Reston (1999), Michaelis and Jackson (2000), Miyatake et al. (2004), Mutha
et al. (2006), Park et al. (2011a,b), Qiao et al. (2011), Tachibana et al. (2008), Wei and Zhu (2009), Wen et al. (2009), Woodward and Duffy (2011), Xia (2005), Xiao (2003),
Yellishetty et al. (2010), Yue et al. (2010), and Zhong (2010).
b1
Chang (2010), Chen (2004), He (2008), Hung (2007), and Lu et al. (2007).
b2
Chen et al. (2010), Dong et al. (2010), and Guo and Song (2008).
b3
Huang and Bi (2006) and Mao et al. (2008).
b4
Bader et al. (2011) and Park et al. (2011a,b).
b5
Tachibana et al. (2008).
b6
Lang et al. (2006) and Rodrguez et al. (2011).
b7
Ma and Huang (2008).
b8
Wang et al. (2011).
b9
Binder (2007a,b).
b10
Seppl et al. (2011).
c
Bader et al. (2011), Chen et al. (2010), European Communities (2001), Guo and Song (2008), Kovanda et al. (2009), Miyatake et al. (2004), Park et al. (2011a,b). Qiao et al.
(2011), Recalde et al. (2008), Rodrguez et al. (2011), Scasny et al. (2003), Tachibana et al. (2008), Woodward and Duffy (2011), Yabar et al. (2012), and Yue et al. (2010).
Table 3
Production and usage of concrete in Ireland in 2007.
Materials
Million metric tones
Concrete products
Crushed stone
Gravel
Sand
Water
Total
Cement
Concrete
11.06
7.49
4.44
5.25
28.23
4.57
32.80
Construction
Adapted from Woodward and Duffy (2011).
Non-construction
Total
Million metric tones

Ready-mix
Blocks/bricks
Precast/prefabricated
Tiles and agstones
Pipes
Statues, ornaments
18.08
13.00
0.73
0.63
0.28
0.09
32.80
108
Fig. 1. A simplied model of relationship between material or substance ows and SD assessment indicators. Note: This gure is based on European Communities (2001),
Matthews et al. (2000), Bond et al. (2001), Huang et al. (2006), Brunner and Rechberger (2004), Wallis et al. (2011). Light dashed circle refers to internal material/substance
ows in a single system, and heavy dashed circle refers to material/substance ows across two or three systems.
the main uses of M/SFA is the derivation of indicators, and that

the derivation of sustainability indicators is a promising application of M/SFA (European Communities, 2001). By using an M/SFA
inputoutput balance table, the material or substance ow through
the whole economic system can be understood. Based on this
understanding, more compact, detailed, and accurate indicators for
SD assessment can be obtained (Hinterberger et al., 1997; SchmidtBleek, 1994; Tachibana et al., 2008). Main functions of indicators
derived by M/SFA in SD assessment include:
(1) Widening the scope of SD assessment. Material ow indicators

can help in monitoring the material basis and material productivity of national economies and industries, the implications
of trade and globalization for material ows, the management
of selected resources and materials, and the environmental
impacts of material resource use (OECD, 2008). Material ow
indicators can contribute to management of resource use and
output emission ows from economic, environmental, and
broader sustainability perspectives (Kovanda et al., 2012).
(2) Making SD assessment results testable and veriable. Because
material ow indicators are based on mass units, they avoid the
accumulating error problem of attempting to compare monetary units in different areas at different times. The indicators
therefore make it possible to found SD assessment on a natural
science basis (Xia, 2005).
(3) Making SD assessment results comparable (Appendix A). M/SFA
provides a similar analyzing framework and identical units
(Figs. A.1 and A.2), and indicators derived from M/SFA are so
capable of being quantied, disaggregated, and aggregated that
they can link overall environmental pressure from material or
substance ow to concrete environmental impacts (Kovanda
et al., 2009). This makes it possible to compare assessment
results of a specic material/substance in a specic social
and/or economic subsystem with the assessment results of

the same material/substance in an entire environmental system in a specic area (Fig. 1). For example, the indicator of
material or substance recycling efciency can be derived from
the material or substance ow, which is composed of the
production, consumption, and recycling processes across the
social and economic subsystems. This indicator can also be
derived from any single material or substance ow cycle in
the environmental system. As a result, material or substance
recycling efciency can be used as a comparable indicator
when drawing a sustainability comparison between different
materials or substances ows in the same system or between
a given material or substance ow in different subsystems
(Fig. 1).
3.2.2. Using M/SFA to improve reliability of SD assessment results

Using M/SFA-related software, such as EMIS (Page and
Wohlgemuth, 2010), increasingly complex social, economic,
resource or environmental information can be compiled into a simpler uniformed form by M/SFA. As a result, M/SFA-related software
helps M/SFA provide more systematic information for SD assessment, and improve the reliability of SD assessment results.
In addition, the method design of M/SFA can itself boost the
quality of information by providing more detailed, intact and accurate data. For example, M/SFA allows hidden ows to be identied,
making the data series more intact and detailed. At present, different data sources have different statistical standards and rules
and/or different calculating methods, which can result in different
values for a same indicator. M/SFA mass balance allows the identication of a denite, consistent value for each indicator, that is, the
value which can meet the mass balance results of different ow processes/links of both upstream and downstream material/substance
ows.
4. Outlooks
4.1. Strengthening simultaneous analysis of various features of
material/substance ows
To enhance the functions of M/SFA in SD assessment, attention
should be paid to the following study elds.
(1) Simultaneous analysis of material/substance input and output
ows.
The human population and its lifestyle is the driving force
of material cycles (Mller, 2006), which means that consumption demand is the fundamental driver of environmental
exploitation, resource use, and waste generation. Simultaneous
assessment of the three SD intrinsic features requires analysis of the consumption structure and consumption levels, and
M/SFA provides a means to perform this analysis at the individual, community, city, and national levels by simultaneous
analysis of inputoutput ows. Based on inputoutput ows
accounting, M/SFA also makes it possible to assess the equity
and harmony of the consumption structure at different levels of
analysis in a given study area, and to assess whether the supply
of consumable materials will be able to continuously meet the
demands of the socioeconomic system. However, little research
has so far been conducted in this area.
(2) Simultaneous analysis of the socioeconomic benet and environmental impact of per unit material/substance ow (Van der
Voet et al., 2009).
The material needs of more than seven billion people
continue to drive loss and degradation of remaining natural habitats, and the challenge is to manage the trade-offs
between providing for immediate human needs and maintaining the capacity of the biosphere to provide goods and services
in the long-term (Balmford et al., 2002; Foley et al., 2005;
United States Census Bureau, 2012). Part of the solution to
the sustainability challenge is dematerialising the economy,
namely, lowering the environmental burden while providing
consumers with the same level of performance, by reducing
the material/substance ows in the production-consumption
chain (Mont, 2002). A necessary component of SD assessment
is therefore to simultaneously analyze the economic, environmental, and social consequences per unit material/substance
ow.
(3) Simultaneous analysis of the quantity and quality of materials
or substances ows.
It is generally accepted that reducing the amount of materials consumed by the anthroposphere will lead to less human
disturbance of the environment, making development more
sustainable (Huang et al., 2007). However, in addition to the
impacts caused by gross ow volumes, the properties and
quality of the material or substance ow also have environmental impacts. For example, although the volume of agricultural
water use in a watershed may be much greater than the urban
water use, agricultural water use may have less impact on the
natural water system if farm wastewater or runoff contains
fewer pollutants than urban sewage. The SD of the integrated
socioeconomicenvironmental system is therefore affected by
the properties and quality of material and substance ows,
and this should be reected in SD assessment. This can sometimes be achieved by coupling the application of M/SFA and
other SD assessment tools. For example, Van der Voet et al.
(2004) developed a method which combines aspects of material ow accounting (MFA) and life-cycle assessment (LCA) and
attempted to add a set of environmental weights to the ows
of the materials. Then, impacts per kilogram of a number of
extracted materials were calculated, and the analysis indicated
109
that the impact per mass unit of bulk materials was generally
lower than that of materials which were only used in small
quantities. However, most of the published M/SFA literature
focuses on quantitative analysis rather than material or substance properties and quality.
(4) Simultaneous analysis of material/substance ow intensity and
environmental capacity.
Environmental sustainability is not only impacted by the
environmental disturbance caused by material/substance ow
intensity, but also depends on the environmental capacity. Environmental capacity is impacted by biogeochemical
processes, self-organizing patterns within the ecosystem, environmental resilience, and the intensity of the interaction
between the executor and receiver of environmental impacts.
To estimate the extent to which environmental sustainability
is impacted by a particular material or substance ow process,
it is necessary to consider both the magnitude and intensity of
the material ow and the environmental capacity to absorb the
stress. According to the intermediate disturbance hypothesis
(Barnes et al., 2006; Shea et al., 2004), moderate disturbance
from the economic system will not impede or harm environmental sustainability as long as environmental capacity limits
and ecological thresholds are not exceeded. However, little
has been reported about M/SFA application in environmental
capacity studies.
4.2. Improved integration of M/SFA with other SD assessment
methods
Since all SD assessment methods have their merits and shortcomings, it is often necessary to employ several methods of SD
assessment at the same time, in order to meet the assessment
requirements of the multidimensional characteristics of SD objectives and targets (Bond et al., 2001), and the requirements of a
comprehensive sustainability policy-making process (Yabar et al.,
2012). M/SFA is an attractive SD assessment method as it is based
on the mass measure, which in classical physics is considered to be
immutable in time and space, can be measured using simple technical means, and requires very little explanation to comprehend.
In addition, M/SFA indicators can show environmental pressures
in terms of both mass ows per unit of time and mass ow quality (Fischer-Kowalski et al., 2011), although much less research has
been carried on the latter. These features make it convenient to
integrate M/SFA with other methods in SD assessment, and several
such studies have already been carried out (see Table 2).
4.2.1. Integrated application of M/SFA with LCA
LCA can be used to assess whether certain technical solutions
might lead to other environmental problems, and is complementary to using M/SFA models to identify problem-causing
mechanisms based on mass conservation (Bouman et al., 2000).
Although LCA fails to holistically recognize abiotic resource depletion as a potential problem of sustainability, by clearly addressing
a products life stages, it helps inform M/SFA process division
from raw material acquisition through manufacture, use, endof-life treatment, recycling, and nal disposal; In addition, LCA
is conducted in accordance with agreed international standards
(Yellishetty et al., 2011). Thus, combining LCA with dynamic M/SFA
contributes to the better design of sustainable resource use pathways (Hatayama et al., 2010), the achievement of more precise
M/SFA results (such as anthropogenic stocks estimation based on
dynamic MFA; see Mller, 2006), and the derivation of environmental burden allocation indicators (Weinzettel and Kovanda, 2009).
Environmental burden allocation indicators reect the uneven spatial allocation of the environmental burdens associated with all
inputs and outputs processes at every stage of the life cycle of a
110
product in those world regions from which the inputs are imported
(for resource depletion-related impact categories) and to which
the emissions are output (for emission-related impact categories)
(OECD, 2008; Raugei and Ulgiati, 2009). As a result, LCA can expand
the role of M/SFA in SD assessment by providing a means to assess
environmental equity.
However, integrated application of M/SFA with LCA should
go beyond the scope of current studies. For example, the ENVIMAT model, which is based on an environmental life-cycle impact
assessment and monetary inputoutput tables associated with
material ows, can improve data on production and consumption. That is, environmental impact information can be derived
by combining mass data from M/SFA (Table B.1) with greenhouse
gas emissions data from LCA (Table B.2), and then be used to
make environmental impact comparisons between different products or services, and assess environmental impact equity between
different industries or between imports and exports (Seppl
et al., 2011). However, integrated applications of M/SFA with
LCA still have limitations which require further study. For example, Economic InputOutput analysis (EIO)LCA analysis considers
the inter-industry effects of product/process decisions based on
standard national sector-based data sources, but is hampered by
limited disaggregation of the economy, depends on cost information, and omits environmental interventions associated with
capital goods. As a result, hybrid EIOLCA is used now, as it allows
for full interaction between a process-based LCA model and an
inputoutput model (Ferro and Nhambiu, 2009). However, an
additional limitation of EIOLCA is the temporal difference. Neither traditional LCA nor the static Leontief IO model (which is in fact
one type of M/SFA model) contains explicit temporal information
to describe how the production activity and its related impacts are
distributed over time. As a result, a Sequential Interindustry Model,
which describes how various direct and indirect inputs, outputs,
and associated impacts of such events are distributed in time, has
been proposed, and may provide a useful extension of the EIOLCA
methodology (Levine et al., 2009). In order to improve sustainability
comparisons between industries in different countries, it will be
necessary to gain a better understanding of the structural features
of industry and their impacts in each country, by nding methods
to integrate M/SFALCA with other models.
4.2.2. Integrated application of M/SFA and risk estimation
Ness et al. (2007) developed a framework for sustainability
assessment tools, and indicated that while risk analysis is a
prospective sustainability assessment tool, regional M/SFA is a
retrospective tool. As a result, while risk analysis is capable of integrating naturesociety systems into a single evaluation, M/SFA is
not. However, integrating M/SFA with risk estimation can facilitate
examination of the risks from all human activities in a systematic
way and provide a comprehensive understanding of risk generation and distribution corresponding to ows of substances in the
anthroposphere and the environment (Ma et al., 2007). The systematic risk examination of material/substance ows controlled by
human activities makes SD assessment results more holistic and
objective. However, the study of this eld is only just beginning.
4.3. Using M/SFA to improve SD assessment indicators
Indicators used in SD assessment should be reliable, clear, accurate, measurable, effective, comparable, universal, variable, and
understandable (Hk et al., 2007; Huang and Deng, 2008; Parris
and Kates, 2003; Sendra et al., 2007; United Nation Division for
Sustainable Development, 2001; Xia, 2005). M/SFA allows environmental, economic, and social indicators with these characteristics
to be derived (Fig. 1). However, improving the usefulness of M/SFA
indicators in SD assessment will require the following issues to be

addressed.
(1) Making SD assessment indicators more systematic.
The factors and data involved in SD assessment are becoming more and more complex as the natural environment is
disturbed more widely and deeply by the ongoing processes
of globalization, industrialization, and urbanization. Indicator
systems have proved to be practical tools for simplifying complex factors and data, and there is an extensive literature on
indicators research (Olsthon et al., 2001; Seager and Theis,
2004). However, the complexity of evaluation purposes, incomplete data and method limitations in building an indicator
system mean that the derived indicators are not yet sufciently systematic. M/SFA allows SD assessment indicators to be
systematically extracted from the material or substance ows
through the social, economic, and environmental systems (see
Fig. 1). The indicators can be derived not only from a single
material or substance ow through one of the three systems,
but also from the ows across two or three systems.
(2) Using M/SFA to improve the comprehensiveness of SD assessment indicators.
Many indicators derived by M/SFA are not comprehensive
enough to assess SD. For example, the sustainability of a
region is largely determined by the condition of the environment (Wallis et al., 2011), but the indicators derived from
M/SFA (see Table 2) mainly reect the sustainability of the
economic system, rather than the overall sustainability of the
socioeconomicenvironmental system. Thus, an important goal
for M/SFA is to extract or design comprehensive indicators
which can mirror the sustainability of both the socioeconomic
system and the environmental system, and some researchers
are currently active in this area. For example, Van der Voet
et al. (2009) have developed Environmental-weighed Materials
Consumption (EMC), an aggregated environmental impact indicator based on MFA which is linked to environmental impacts.
EMC is the most comprehensive indicator currently available,
which in principle shows environmental impacts and sideeffects, and is able to detect burden shifting abroad. However,
in its present shape it is insensitive to technological improvements, sometimes in non-obvious ways, and the main obstacle
to using EMC is the incompleteness of available MFA data (Van
der Voet et al., 2009).
(3) Using M/SFA to achieve a universal framework for SD assessment indicators.
A universal or general indicator would help to improve the
veriability and reliability of SD assessment results. There has
been some discussion on why and how a universal indicators system should be established in the SD assessment and
M/SFA literature. This includes, for example: a case study on
establishing an indicators system with a universal and operable framework for sustainability assessment of water resources
used in agriculture (Huang and Deng, 2008); a general comprehensive resource use indicators framework which can be
applied consistently from the micro level of products and companies up to the macro level of countries and world regions
(Giljum et al., 2011); and a product generational dematerialization indicator, intended to improve on the available
sustainability indicators which could not be used as a universal approach to solve substitution problems (Ziolkowska and
Ziolkowski, 2011). However, all indicators have limitations, and
no indicator has yet been put forward that has been generally accepted. Environmentally extended inputoutput analysis
may provide the best framework for a general M/SFA indicator,
but these are less suitable for more specic policy areas because
they presently include a very limited number of emissions,
sometimes suffer from lack of detail in the sector classication, and may make simplifying assumptions, for example that
foreign technology is identical to domestic technology (Van der
Voet et al., 2009).
Indicators easily lose universality (or generality) because
they may not be able to capture important burden shifting
processes. These include burden shifting to other parts of
the production-consumption chain (technical detail), burden shifting across impact categories (displacement between
impacts), and burden shifting to other geographical areas (geographical displacement) (Van der Voet et al., 2009). However,
M/SFA provides a framework to detect burden shifts to other
processes from both a chain and global perspective, by discovering different impact types along material/substance ows,
and by quantifying shifts in environmental pressure from one
region to another.
4.4. Developing new M/SFA application paths
4.4.1. Methodological development of measuring indirect ows
and unused ows
Economy-wide material ow accounting methods are now
mature, meaning that material ow indicators can now complement traditional economic and demographic information in
providing a basis for sustainable resource use policies (FischerKowalski et al., 2011). However, as far as the level of standardization
of measurement and estimation methods is concerned, only measurements of direct material inputs are mature enough to justify
input ow data being used to deliver reasonably reliable results in
time series for all countries of the world (Fischer-Kowalski et al.,
2011). In other words, much less effort has been invested in studies
of material outputs measurements than inputs measurements, and
further research is needed to increase methodological harmonization. In particular, a measurement method for indirect ows and
unused ows still needs to be improved in order to include indirect
material ows in M/SFA accounts (see Section 4.2.1).
4.4.2. Standardization issues of M/SFA for joint SD assessment
The core of SD thinking is to harmonize human-nature and
human-human relationships (Huang et al., 2005). The disturbance
caused by industrialization and urbanization has led to the readjustment of the receiving natural systems (atmosphere, biosphere,
hydrosphere, pedosphere, etc.) toward a new equilibrium at the
planetary scale, which inevitably causes local imbalances, including climate anomalies, ecosystem degradation, and shortage of
resources. Therefore, the objective should be to try to coordinate
humannature and humanhuman relationships so that humans
can successfully adapt when local imbalances occur. While social
scientists naturally emphasize harmonizing humanhuman relationships (Colantonio, 2011; Lufer, 2010), natural scientists focus
on how to adapt to local changes in the humannature relationships
(Li and Dovers, 2011). Because SD assessment needs to consider
both humanhuman and humannature relationships, it is necessary to formulate standardized M/SFA procedures, data format,
classication of various materials, and so on, to enable social and
natural scientists to jointly conduct SD assessment in different
countries.
For instance, consider the problem of how to establish
an industrial ecosystem which is similar to a natural ecosystem (Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989). If social and natural
scientists from different countries cooperated to establish standardized procedures to handle the different processes in the
productionconsumption chain, and standardized methods to
measure the different types of environmental impacts in different regions at different times, the industrial ecosystem designed
by these standardized procedures and methods would be able to
111
deliver the harmonization of humannature and humanhuman

relationships.
While there is an extensive literature on both industrial and
natural ecosystems, little has been written on how M/SFA can
inform adaptation to local changes (i.e. improved understanding
of the humannature relationship). While M/SFA accounting and
indicators have already been standardized to some extent (see
e.g. European Communities, 2001), future standardization efforts
should address mass data acquisition and processing, classication of various materials, and standardization of the measurement
of changes in the physical, chemical, and biological properties of
materials and substances during the course of their ow.
4.5. Making M/SFA data more systematic
Assessment of environmental sustainability requires systematic and comprehensive data, which can be acquired by analysis
of material and matter ows in both the environmental and socioeconomic systems. This data can be compiled into a consistent
model of material ows, based on resources input indicators and
wastes output indicators. For example, economically extended
M/SFA includes economic information, and reduces the shortcomings of a technically oriented MFA by including a description of
the inputs and outputs in money units, without changing the system structure. This enables e.g. a food production chain model to
be developed from data obtained from corporate information systems, market research institutes and national statistics, together
with assumptions based on primary energy consumption, land use,
material costs, other costs, and turnover indicators (Kytzia et al.,
2004).
However, not only there is low data availability and relatively high data uncertainty at present (Binder, 2007a), but most
countries also lack a national data-collection system for tracking
and monitoring material and substance ows, especially unused
ows (Kovanda et al., 2009). This may be due to the lack of a
general criterion or method for systematic mass data collection
by the relevant administrative department. The lack of systematic data, even in urban areas (Browne et al., 2011), is the biggest
obstacle to using M/SFA to assess SD. Physical inputoutput tables
(PIOTs) of material ow record all physical ows associated with
the economic activities dened in the System of National Accounts
(Commission of the European Communities et al., 1993), including
ows of physical products, extraction of raw materials, the supply and use of wastes and residuals, waste emissions and stock
change (Hoekstra and van den Bergh, 2006). However, PIOTs have
only been compiled for a few European countries (Hinterberger
et al., 2003), including the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Italy
and Finland (Hoekstra and van den Bergh, 2006), and mass data
for these tables are not based on directly tracking and monitoring
material or substance mass ows, but rather on indirect conversions from other data sources, including monetary inputoutput
tables. Nevertheless, M/SFA can be directly afliated to existing
economic accounting schemes by consistent and comprehensive
data organization (Weisz, 2000). Thus, in future attention should
be paid to further systematization and serialization of M/SFA data
obtained from existing economic accounting schemes. Looking further ahead, we anticipate the establishment of a monitoring system
to collect systematic and comprehensive mass data for material and
substance ows in other countries beyond the European Union.
To make M/SFA a more useful tool for SD assessment, and
to inform the optimization of patterns of production and consumption, improved materials use efciency, and the design of SD
scenarios (Bader et al., 2011; Bringezu and Moriguchi, 2002; Liu and
Chen, 2006; Matthews et al., 2000; Park BH et al., 2011; Park J et al.,
2011; Rodrguez et al., 2011; Tachibana et al., 2008), future research
should focus on: (1) quantication of environmental pressure
112
Import/Export
Concentrate
82
Refined Zinc
48
Semis
+57
Zinc
84
27
Scrap 16
Finished Products
120
200
Production
Ore
Refined Zinc
Mill,
7800
Smelter, 150
Refinery
Products
4650
Manufacturing
7210
Discards
Use
2320
6970
Waste
Management
stock
stock
490
360
Tailings
Fabrication &
Landfilled
Discards 660
770
Waste,
850
1030
Old Scrap
1,210
Dissipated
1660
330 Slag
Lithosphere -7800
Environment
Zinc
Scale, Gg Zn/y
100
+3,030
System Boundary: STAF world
280 - 794
2240 -6499
795 - 2239
100 - 279
6500
Fig. A.1. The contemporary global level zinc cycle. Note: This gure shows the critical links of zinc loss in the productionconsumption chain and therefore provides systematic
information of both used ows and unused ows for SD assessment.
Adapted from Graedel et al. (2005).
Import/Export
Concentrate
47
+320
300
Zinc
Refined Zinc
Finished Products
Scrap 20
84
Refined
Production
Ore
Zinc
Mill,
Smelter,
1290
Refinery
Tailings
940
Fabrication & Products Use

Manufacturing
840
stock
Discards
220
230
Landfilled
Waste,
120
Old Scrap
340
Dissipated
120
52 Slag
Lithosphere -1290
Waste
Management
130
stock
170
Discards
710
Environment
Zinc
+340
System Boundary: China, 1994-98 average

Scale, Gg Zn/y
10
10-30.9
31 - 99
100 - 309
310 - 999
1000
Fig. A.2. The contemporary country-level zinc cycle. Note: This gure shows that it has a similar analyzing framework comparing with Fig. A.1.
Adapted from Graedel et al. (2005).
113
Table B.1
M/SFA accounting table of the Finnish economy from domestic natural sources and aboard in 2002 and 2005. Unit: million tons.
2002
2005
DMI
Domestic extraction
Cultivated plants
Fodder plants
Wild shes and animals
Wood
Peat
Metal ores
Lime
Industry minerals
Construction stones
Gravel, sand
Other earth resources
Total domestic
Biotic
Abiotic
Imports
Agriculture products
Wood
Energy minerals and products
Coal
Crude oil
Natural gas
Coke
Rened oil
Nuclear fuel
Electricity
Metal concentrates
Iron
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Other metal
Other quarrying products
Products of forest industry
Products of chemical industry
Products of metal industry
Products of electric industry
Other manufactured products
Services
Total imports
Biotic
Abiotic
HF
4.5
10.4
0.2
51.8
9.2
3.2
3.7
10.8
0.7
90.0
7.8
192.3
66.9
125.4
2.3
12.0
26.9
5.8
11.7
3.1
0.5
5.7
0.0001
0.0
5.2
3.8
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
4.2
1.9
5.4
3.5
0.3
1.3
0.0
63.0
16.2
46.8
TMR
DMI
1.5
1.8
0.0
22.3
0.5
5.6
1.8
3.5
2.9
0.0
25.8
65.8
22.8
43
6.1
12.2
0.2
74.1
9.6
8.8
5.5
14.3
3.6
90.0
33.6
258.1
89.6
168.4
6.7
10.4
0.2
51.4
9.0
3.3
3.8
11.6
0.9
98.0
12.0
207.4
68.7
38.7
14.8
7.7
23.4
9.6
2.2
0.9
4.2
3.5
2.1
1.0
51.8
6.4
34.1
3.1
5.0
3.2
11.1
3.7
24.2
42.5
48.3
7.2
6.0
240.8
14.8
225.9
17.1
19.7
50.3
15.4
13.9
4.0
4.7
9.3
2.1
1.0
57.0
10.2
34.6
3.3
5.4
3.6
15.3
5.6
29.6
46.1
48.6
8.5
6.0
303.7
31.1
272.7
2.7
13.4
25.0
5.6
10.96
3.1
0.9
4.5
0.0002
0.0
5.7
4.2
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.4
4.1
3.3
5.6
4.0
0.3
1.7
0.0
65.8
22.3
43.5
HF
TMR
1.6
1.8
0.0
21.6
0.5
1.2
5.5
6.4
3.7
0.0
24.4
66.7
22.1
44.6
8.4
12.2
0.2
73
9.5
4.5
9.3
18.1
4.6
98.0
36.4
274.1
90.8
183.3
18.0
8.6
26.0
9.3
2.0
0.9
7.5
2.8
2.3
1.2
42.9
4.7
26.9
1.8
5.8
3.7
10.8
5.2
25.5
44.4
47.6
8.9
8.4
246.5
17.6
228.9
20.7
22.0
51.1
14.9
13.0
4.0
8.4
7.4
2.3
1.2
48.6
8.9
27.4
2.0
6.3
4.1
15.0
8.5
31.2
48.4
47.9
10.6
8.4
312.3
39.8
272.5
Adapted from Seppl et al. (2011).

Abbreviations: DMI, direct material input; HF, hidden ows; TMR, total material requirement.
shifting resulting from foreign trade; (2) bringing M/SFA indicators closer to environmental impacts; (3) integrated studies on the
optimization of material or substance ow pathways; and (4) analysis of the relationship between material/substance consumption
and SD, because consumption is the main driving force of resources
depletion and waste discharge.
5. Summary
This paper has presented a review of the current state of M/SFA
research, and has discussed how to use M/SFA to underpin SD and
its assessment. The literature review has indicated that M/SFA can
play a very important role in sustainability assessment, and the
recent theoretical and application studies of M/SFA form a sound
basis for using M/SFA to support SD assessment. However, M/SFA
could play a greater role in the environmental and social aspects
of SD assessment than at present. The extension of M/SFA applications will facilitate the derivation of better SD indicators, and
improve the functions of M/SFA in SD assessment. We propose
that the scope and role of M/SFA should be enlarged by emphasizing simultaneous analysis of features of material/substance
ows, integration of M/SFA with other SD assessment methods,
Table B.2
Finnish industry products and services with the greatest GHG emission intensity in 2002 identied by LCA. Unit: kg CO2 eq per D value of product.
Industry products
Services
Product group
kg CO2 eq/D
Service group
kg CO2 eq/D
Cement, lime and plaster

Products of animal farming
Fertilizers and nitrogen compound
Basic iron; and steel and ferro-alloys
Basic chemicals
13
4
3
3
3
Air transport services

Freight transportation services by road
Railway transportation services
Restaurant services
Business services
1.5
0.98
0.7
0.7
0.3
Adapted from Seppl et al. (2011).
114
improving the quality and function of indicators derived by M/SFA,

and developing new application paths of M/SFA. In addition, M/SFA
data collection and processing should be conducted in a more systematic way.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the CAS/SAFEA International Partnership Program for Creative Research Teams (KZCX2-YW-T08).
Authors would like to thank Eric Masanet and the three anonymous
reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments.
Appendix A. M/SFA results for SD assessment

Figs. A.1 and A.2 show the contemporary global and countrylevel zinc cycles by SFA (Graedel et al., 2005). Discard ows in
the multilevel cycle of anthropogenic zinc can be understood by
M/SFA (Graedel et al., 2005), allowing sustainability indicators,
including accumulation ratio, secondary input ratios, recycling percentage, utilization efciency, prompt scrap ratio, and so on, to be
derived. Using these indicators, it is possible to assess the retrievability of zinc that is discarded in various forms during the ow
process of productionfabrication and manufacturing-use-waste,
and the extraction requirements for zinc. The potential economic
and social drivers for zinc ows can also be explored. Thus, the
sustainability of zinc use can be assessed by comparing these indicators at different levels of the zinc cycle (such as at the global
level, as shown in Fig. A.1, and country level, as shown in Fig. A.2).
Because SD assessment follows the relativity principle (we can
never know whether the subject of the assessment is absolutely
sustainable, but we can denitely say that one subject is more
sustainable than another according to some designated terms in a
specic spacetime frame), the researcher can determine whether
zinc use in country A is more sustainable or efcient than in country B (assuming that other indicators do not show other differences
between these two countries).
Appendix B. The integration of M/SFA with LCA for SD

assessment
Many indicators derived by M/SFA are not sufcient in themselves for SD assessment. For example, relationships between total
material requirement (TMR) and greenhouse gas emissions vary
so much between different products and services that TMR should
not be used to make environmental impact comparisons between
products and services. According to the European Commission
(2001) calculation rules for direct material consumption (DMC),
DMC includes the indirect material input of exports, and does not
measure the direct material use of the domestic nal use of products. Thus, the results of the DMC as a measure of domestic material
consumption are too high, especially for the country with a strong
export industry using a signicant amount of natural resources.
However, a correction can be applied to DMC using the ENVIMAT model. The ENVIMAT model is an environmentally extended
inputoutput (EEIO) model based on an environmental life-cycle
impact assessment and monetary inputoutput tables associated
with material ows. Thus, the model can be used to analyze the
relationship between material ows, environmental impacts, and
the economy. The corrected domestic direct material consumption
for Finland was 32 tons per capita instead of 44 tons per capita in
2005. The correction improves the results of the DMC (an M/SFA
indicator) as a measure of domestic material consumption, making
the assessment results of environmental impacts resulting from
material ows more accurate. This provides one example of how
the integration of MFA with other SD assessment methods, in this

case LCA, can facilitate and improve assessment results.
Appendix C. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2012.08.012.
References
Baccini P, Brunner P. Metabolism of the anthroposphere. Germany: Springer Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg; 1991.
Bader HP, Scheidegger R, Wittmer D, Lichtensteiger T. Copper ows in buildings,
infrastructure and mobiles: a dynamic model and its application to Switzerland.
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 2011(13):87101.
Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green RE, et al. Economic
reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 2002;297(5583):9503.
Barnes B, Sidhu HS, Roxburgh SH. A model integrating patch dynamics, competing species and the intermediate disturbance hypothesis. Ecological Modelling
2006;194(4):41420.
Behrens A, Giljum S, Kovanda J, Niza S. The material basis of the global economy:
worldwide patterns of natural resource extraction and their implications for
sustainable resource use policies. Ecological Economics 2007;64(2):44453.
Binder CR. From material ow analysis to material ow management part I: social
sciences modeling approaches coupled to MFA. Journal of Cleaner Production
2007a(15):1596604.
Binder CR. From material ow analysis to material ow management part II: the role
of structural agent analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 2007b(15):160517.
Bond R, Curran J, Kirkpatrick C, Lee N, Francis P. Integrated impact assessment
for sustainable development: a case study approach. World Development
2001;29(6):101124.
Bouman M, Heijungs R, van der Voet E, van den Bergh J CJM, Huppes G. Material
ows and economic models: an analytical comparison of SFA, LCA and partial
equilibrium models. Ecological Economics 2000(32):195216.
Bringezu S, editor. Neue Ansaetze der Ummeltstatistik. Berlin, Germany:
Birkhaeuser Verlag; 1995. pp. 179.
Regional and national material ow accounting: from paradigm to practice of sustainability.Bringezu S, Fischer-Kowalski M, Kleijn R, Palm V, editors. Proceedings
of the ConAccount Workshop; 1997.
Bringezu S. Ressourcennutzung in Wirtschaftsraeumen. Berlin, Germany: SpringerVerlag; 2000. pp. 1329.
Bringezu S, Moriguchi Y. Material ow analysis. In: Robert UA, Leslie WA, editors. A
handbook of industrial ecology. Chelenham, UK/Northampton MA, USA: Edward
Elgar; 2002. pp. 7990.
Bringezu S. Industrial ecology and material ow analysis-basic concepts, policy relevance and some case studies. Germany: Greenleaf Publishing; 2003.
Browne D, ORegan B, Moles R. Material ow accounting in an Irish city-region
19922002. Journal of Cleaner Production 2011;19(910):96776.
Brunner P, Ma HW. Substance ow analysis an indispensable tool for goal-oriented
waste management. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2008;13(1):114.
Brunner P, Rechberger H. Practical handbook of material ow analysis. FL, USA: Lewis
Publishers; 2004.
Cencic DIO. STAN a tailored software for substance ow analysis. TU-Vienna,
Austria: Institute for Water Quality, Resources and Waste Management;
2006. pp. 112, http://www.mendeley.com/research/tailored-softwaresubstance-ow-analysis
Chang CH. Material ow analysis and environmental impact assessment. Taiwan,
China: Graduate Institute of Environmental Engineering of National Taiwan
University; 2010.
Chang TC, You SJ, Yu BS, Yao KF. A material ow of lithium batteries in Taiwan.
Journal of Hazardous Materials 2009;91(163):05.
Cheah L, Heywood J, Kirchain R. Aluminum stock and ows in U.S. passenger vehicles and implications for energy use. Journal of Industrial Ecology
2009;13(5):71834.
Chen M, Chen J, Sun F. Agricultural phosphorus ow and its environmental impacts
in China. Science of the Total Environment 2008;405(13):14052.
Chen PC. Study of MFA and Risk Assessment for Chromium in Taiwan. Taiwan, China:
Graduate Institute of Environmental Engineering, National Taiwan University;
2004.
Chen WQ, Shi L, Qian Y. Substance ow analysis of aluminium in mainland China for
2001, 2004 and 2007: exploring its initial sources, eventual sinks and the pathways linking them. Resources Conservation and Recycling 2010;54(9):55770.
Chen XQ, Zhao TT, Guo YQ, Song SY. Material input and output analysis of Chinese economy system. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinedsis
2003;39(4):53847.
Colantonio A. Social sustainability: exploring the linkages between research, policy and practice. In: Jaeger CC, et al., editors. European research on sustainable
development. European Union. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2011. p.
3557.
Commission of the European Communities, International Monetary Fund, OECD,
United Nations and World Bank. System of National Accounts 1993. Manufactured in United States of America, 1993.

Daigo I, Hashimoto S, Matsuno Y, Adachi Y. Material stocks and ows accounting for
copper and copper-based alloys in Japan. Resources Conservation and Recycling
2009;53(4):20817.
Daigo I, Matsuno Y, Adachi Y. Substance ow analysis of chromium and nickel in the
material ow of stainless steel in Japan. Resources Conservation and Recycling
2010;54(11):85163.
Dong H, Yu ZQ, Xiao SY, Du T, Cai JJ. Construction and application of water ow chart
in coking process. Iron and Steel 2010;45(7):8993.
European Communities. Economy-wide material ow accounts and derived indicators: a methodology guide. Luxembourg: Ofce for Ofcial Publications of the
European Communities; 2001.
European Environment Agency (EEA). Effectiveness of environmental taxes and
charges for managing sand, gravel and rock extraction in selected EU countries.
EEA; 2008.
Ferro P, Nhambiu J. A comparison between conventional LCA and hybrid EIOLCA:
analyzing crystal giftware contribution to global warming potential. In: Suh
S, editor. Handbook of inputoutput economics in industrial ecology. EcoEfciency in Industry and Science 23. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer
Science + Business Media B.V; 2009. p. 21930.
Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Giljum S, Lutter S, Mayer A, Bringezu S,
et al. Methodology and indicators of economy-wide material ow accounting: state of the art and reliability across sources. Journal of Industrial Ecology
2011;15(6):85576.
Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 2005;309(5734):5704.
Frosch RA, Gallopoulos N. Strategies for manufacturing. Scientic American
1989;261(3):14452.
Giljum S, Burger E, Hinterberger F, Lutter S, Bruckner M. A comprehensive set of
resource use indicators from the micro to the macro level. Resources Conservation and Recycling 2011;55(3):3008.
Graedel TE, van Beers D, Bertram M, Fuse K, Gordon RB, Gritsinin A, et al. The
multilevel cycle of anthropogenic zinc. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2005;9(3):
6790.
Guine JB, van den Bergh J CJM, Boelens J, Fraanje PJ, Huppes G, Kandelaars PPAAH,
et al. Evaluation of risks of metal ows and accumulation in economy and environment. Ecological Economics 1999;30:4765.
Guo XY, Song Y. Substance ow analysis of copper in China. Resources Conservation
and Recycling 2008;52(6):87482.
Guo XY, Zhong JY, Song Y, Tian QH. Substance ow analysis of zinc in China. Resources
Conservation and Recycling 2010;54(3):1717.
Hatayama H, Daigo I, Matsuno Y, Adachi Y. Assessment of the recycling potential of
aluminum in Japan, the United States, Europe and China. Materials Transactions
2009;50(3):6506.
Hatayama H, Daigo I, Matsuno Y, Adachi Y. Outlook of the world steel cycle
based on the stock and ow dynamics. Environmental Science and Technology
2010;44(16):645763.
Hk T, Moldan B, Dahl AL, editors. Sustainability indicators: a scientic assessment.
Washington, DC, USA: SCOPE, Island Press; 2007.
He YR. Health and ecological risk assessment for arsenic contaminated site in
Guandu. Taiwan, China: Graduate Institute of Environmental Engineering of
National Taiwan University; 2008.
Hinterberger F, Giljum S, Hammer M. Material ow accounting and analysis-a
valuable tool for analyses of societynature interrelationships. Vienna, Austria:
Sustainable Europe Research Institute; 2003.
Hinterberger F, Luks F, Schmidt-Bleek F. Material ow vs. natural capital What makes
an economy sustainable? Ecological Economics 1997;23(1):114.
Hoekstra R, van den Bergh J CJM. Constructing physical inputoutput tables for environmental modeling and accounting: framework and illustrations. Ecological
Economics 2006;59(3):37593.
Huang CL, Deng W. Establishment and application of indicators system for sustainability assessment of agricultural water resources use. Beijing, PR China: Chemical
Industry Press; 2008.
Huang CL, Deng W, Yang JF. Advances in studies of sustainable utilization of
agricultural water resources. System Sciences and Comprehensive Studies in
Agriculture 2005;21(2):1415.
Huang CL, Zhang GX, Yang JF. Indicators system for sustainability assessment of
water resources use in China. Resources Science 2006;28(2):3340.
Hung HL. Substance ow analysis for dioxins in Taiwan. Taiwan, China: Graduate
Institute of Environmental Engineering of National Taiwan University; 2007.
Huang HP, Bi J. Evaluating regional circular economy based on MFA: a case study in
Wujin distrit of Changzhou city. Resources Science 2006;28(6):207.
Huang HP, Bi J, Zhang B, Li XM, Yang J, Shi L. A critical review of material ow analysis.
Acta Ecologica Sinica 2007;27(1):36879.
Kapur A, Bertram M, Spatari S, Fuse K, Graedel TE. The contemporary copper cycle
of Asia. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 2003;5:14356.
Kapur A, Keoleian G, Kendall A, Kesler SE. Dynamic modeling of in-use cement stocks
in the United States. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2008;12(4):53956.
Kawamura M, Kakudate K, Suzuki T. Chlorine ow analysis in Japan. Journal of the
Mining and Materials Processing Institute of Japan 2000;116:1616.
Kleijn R, van der Voet E. The relation between bulk-MFA and SFA. Folkets Hus,
Stockholm, Sweden: Workshop of Economic Growth, Material Flows and Environmental Pressure; 2001.
Kovanda J, van de Sand I, Schtz H, Bringezu S. Economy-wide material ow indicators: overall framework, purposes and uses and comparison of material use and
resource intensity of the Czech Republic, Germany and the EU-15. Ecological
Indicators 2012;17:8898.
115
Kovanda J, Weinzettel J, Hk T. Analysis of regional material ows: the case of the

Czech Republic. Resources Conservation and Recycling 2009;53(5):24354.
Kuczenski B, Geyer R. Material ow analysis of polyethylene terephthalate in the
US: 19962007. Resources Conservation and Recycling 2010;54(12):11619.
Kwonpongsagoon S, Bader HP, Scheidegger R. Modelling cadmium ows in Australia
on the basis of a substance ow analysis. Clean Technologies and Environmental
Policy 2007;9(4):31323.
Kytzia S, Faist M, Baccini P. Economically extendedMFA: a material ow approach
for a better understanding of food production chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12(810):87789.
Lang DJ, Binder CR, Stauffacher M, Ziegler C, Schleiss K, Scholz RW. Material and
money ows as a means for industry analysis of recycling schemesA case
study of regional bio-waste management. Resources Conservation and Recycling
2006;49(2):15990.
Lassen C, Hansen E. Paradigm for substance ow analysis: guide for SFAs carried out
for the Danish EPA. Denmark: Danish Environmental Protection Agency; 2000.
Lufer M. Creating a sustainability culture-a (human resources), management perspective for sustainable pharmacy. In: Kmmerer K, Hempel M, editors. Green
and sustainable pharmacy. Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2010.
p. 6176.
Lee S, Geum YJ, Lee HY, Park YT. Dynamic and multidimensional measurement of
product-service system (PSS) sustainability: a triple bottom line (TBL)-based
system dynamics approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 2012;32:17382.
Levine SH, Gloria TP, Romanoff E. Application of the sequential interindustry model
(SIM) to life cycle assessment. In: Suh S, editor. Handbook of inputoutput
economics in industrial ecology. Eco-Efciency in Industry and Science 23.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.; 2009. p.
23146.
Li G, Dovers S. Integrated assessment of climate change impacts on urban
settlements: lessons from ve Australian cases. In: Ford JD, BerrangFord L, editors. Climate change adaptation in developed nations: from
theory to practice. Advances in global change research; 42 (part4).
Germany: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.; 2011. p. 289302,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0567-8 21.
Liu Y, Chen JN. Substance ow analysis of phosphorus cycle system in China. China
Environmental Science 2006;26(2):23842.
Liu Y, Gong XZ, Nie ZR, Zhang Q, Wang ZH. Design and development of material life
cycle assessment software system. Journal of Beijing University of Technology
2009;35(7):9916.
Lu LT, Chang IC, Hsiao TY, Yu YH, Ma HW. Identication of pollution source of cadmium in soil: application of material ow analysis and a case study in Taiwan.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 2007;14(1):4959.
Ma HW, Hung ML, Chen PC. A systemic health risk assessment for the chromium
cycle in Taiwan. Environment International 2007;33:20618.
Ma QF, Huang XJ. Responses of metabolism during the process of land use change.
Transactions of the CSAE 2008;24(Suppl.):611.
Mao YR, Shen P, Li YP, Sun QH. Research on strategy for low carbon economic
development based on material ow analysis. Modern Chemical Industry
2008;28(11):913.
Mathieux F, Brissaud D. End-of-life product-specic material ow analysis. Application to aluminum coming from end-of-life commercial vehicles in Europe.
Resources Conservation and Recycling 2010;55(2):92105.
Matsuno Y, Hur T, Fthenakis V. Dynamic modeling of cadmium substance ow
with zinc and steel demand in Japan. Resources Conservation and Recycling
2012;61:8390.
Matthews E, Amann C, Bringezu S, Fischer-Kowalski M, Httler W, Kleijn R, et al. The
weight of nations: material outows from industrial economies. Washington DC,
USA: World Resources Institute; 2000.
Mnsson N. Substance ow analysis of metals and organic compounds in an urban
environment the Stockholm example. Sweden: School of Pure and Applied
Natural Sciences, University of Kalmar; 2009.
Michael DF, Reston VA. Iron and steel recycling in the united states in 1998. U.S.
Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey; 1999.
Michaelis P, Jackson T. Material and energy ow through the UK iron and steel sector,
part 2:1992019. Resources Conservation and Recycling 2000;29(3):20930.
Miyatake F, Shiina T, Tasaka Y. Analysis of material ow on food industry in Ibaraki
prefecture based on ofcial statistics. System Agriculture 2004;20(2):18592.
Moldan B, Janouskov S, Hk T. How to understand and measure environmental
sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators 2012;17:413.
Mont OK. Clarifying the concept of productservice system. Journal of Cleaner Production 2002;10(3):23745.
Mutha NH, Patel M, Premnath V. Plastics materials ow analysis for India. Resources
Conservation and Recycling 2006;47(3):22244.
Mller DB. Stock dynamics for forecasting material ows case study for housing in
the Netherlands. Ecological Economics 2006;59(1):14256.
Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L. Categorizing tools for sustainability
assessment. Ecological Economics 2007;60(3):498508.
OECD. Measuring material ows and resource productivity. Volume I: the OECD
Guide. Paris, France: OECD; 2008.
Olsthon X, Tyteca D, Wehrmeyer W, Wagner M. Environmental indicators for business: a review of the literature and standardization methods. Journal of Cleaner
Production 2001;9(4):5363.
Page B, Wohlgemuth V. Advances in environmental informatics: integration of
discrete event simulation methodology with ecological material ow analysis for modelling eco-efcient systems. Procedia Environmental Sciences
2010;2:696705.
116
Park BH, Gao FX, Kwon EH, Ko WI. Comparative study of different nuclear
fuel cycle options: quantitative analysis on material ow. Energy Policy
2011a;39(11):691624.
Park J, Hong S, Kim I, Lee JY, Hur T. Dynamic material ow analysis of steel resources
in Korea. Resources Conservation and Recycling 2011b;55(4):45662.
Parris TM, Kates RW. Characterizing and measuring sustainable development.
Annual Review of Environment and Resource 2003;28:55986.
Qiao M, Zheng YM, Yong-Guan Zhu. Material ow analysis of phosphorus
through food consumption in two megacities in northern China. Chemosphere
2011;84(6):7738.
Raugei M, Ulgiati S. A novel approach to the problem of geographic allocation of environmental impact in life cycle assessment and material ow analysis. Ecological
Indicators 2009;9(6):125764.
Recalde K, Wang JL, Graedel TE. Aluminium in-use stocks in the state of Connecticut.
Rodrguez MTT, Andrade LC, Bugallo PMB, Long JJC. Combining LCT tools for the
optimization of an industrial process: material and energy ow analysis and best
available techniques. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2011;192(3):170519.
Scasny M, Kovanda J, Hk T. Material ow accounts, balances and derived
indicators for the Czech Republic during the 1990: results and recommendations for methodological improvements. Ecological Economics 2003;45(1):
4157.
Schmidt-Bleek F. Wieviel Umwelt Braucht der Mensch? MIPS das Mass Fuer
Oekologisches Wirtschaften. Berlin, Germany/Basel, Switzerland/Boston, USA:
Birkhaeuser Verlag; 1994.
Seager T, Theis T. A taxonomy of metrics for testing industrial ecology hypotheses
and application to design of freezer insulation. Journal of Cleaner Production
2004;12(8):6575.
Sendra C, Gabarrell X, Vicent T. Material ow analysis adapted to an industrial area.
Journal of Cleaner Production 2007(15):170615.
Seppl J, Menp I, Koskela S, Mattila T, Nissinen A, Katajajuuri JM, et al. An
assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and material ows caused by the
Finnish economy using the ENVIMAT model. Journal of Cleaner Production
2011;19(16):183341.
Shea K, Roxburgh SH, Rauschert ESJ. Moving from pattern to process: coexistence mechanisms under intermediate disturbance regimes. Ecology Letters
2004;7(6):491508.
Sumaila U. Rashid taking the earths pulse: scientists unveil a new economic and environmental index. In: Presentation at the Annual Meeting
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS);
2012., http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-earth-pulse-scientists-unveileconomic.html (20.02.12).
Tachibana J, Hirota K, Goto N, Fujie K. A method for regional-scale material ow
and decoupling analysis: a demonstration case study of Aichi prefecture, Japan.
Udo de Haes H, van der Voet E, Kleijn R. From quality to quantity: substance ow
analysis (SFA), an analytical tool for integrated chain management. In: Bringezu
S, Fischer-Kowalski M, Kleijn R, Palm V, editors. Regional and national material ow accounting: from paradigm to practice of sustainability. Leiden, the
Netherlands: The ConAccount Workshop; 1997. p. 3242.
UN. Report of the world summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg, South
Africa, 26 August4 September 2002. United Nations, New York, 2002.
United Nation Division for Sustainable Development. Environmental management

accounting principle and procedures. New York, USA: United Nations; 2001.
United States Census Bureau. U.S. & World Population Clocks; 2012,
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html (18.05.12).
Van der Voet E, van Oers L, De Bruyn S, de Jong F, Tukker A. Environmental impact
of the use of natural resources and products. Report commissioned by Eurostat
to support the Data Centres on Products and Natural Resources, Luxembourg,
Eurostat; 2009.
Van der Voet E, van Oers L, Nikolic I. Dematerialization: not just a matter of weight.
Journal of Industrial Ecology 2004;8(4):12137.
Wallis AM, Graymore MLM, Richards AJ. Signicance of environment in the assessment of sustainable development: the case for south west Victoria. Ecological
Economics 2011;70(4):595605.
Wang Y, Guo PK, Zhou J, Zhu XD, Lu GF. Relationship between resources use and
economic growth in Fujian province: an ARDL approach. China Environmental
Science 2011;31(1):15662.
Wei T, Zhu XD. Material ow analysis of Xiamen citys eco-economic system. Acta
Ecologica Sinica 2009;29(7):380010.
Weinzettel J, Kovanda J. Assessing socioeconomic metabolism through hybrid life
cycle assessment: the case of the Czech Republic. Journal of Industrial Ecology
2009;13(4):60721.
Weisz H. MFA und Umweltindikatoren. Verortung und Positionierung von Materialussanalysen (MFA) in der europischen Umweltindikatoren-Diskussion.
Wien: Interdisziplinres Institut fr Forschung und Fortbildung; 2000.
Wen ZG, Li RJ, Huang LY, Xu HL. Material metabolism in the Chinese highway trafc.
Journal of Tsinghua University(Science and Technology) 2009;49(9):847.
Woodward R, Duffy N. Cement and concrete ow analysis in a rapidly expanding economy: Ireland as a case study. Resources Conservation and Recycling
2011;55(4):44855.
World Commission on Environmental Development. Our common future. London,
UK: Oxford University Press; 1987.
Xia CY. Review on studies of economy-wide material ow analysis. Journal of Natural
Resources 2005;20(3):41521.
Xiao DY. A study on industrial ecology analyzing and modeling materials ows
for construction aggregates in Taiwan. Taiwan, China: Graduate Institute of
Environmental Engineering of National Taiwan University; 2003.
Yabar H, Hara K, Uwasu M. Comparative assessment of the co-evolution of environmental indicator systems in Japan and China. Resources Conservation and
Recycling 2012;61(4):4351.
Yellishetty M, Ranjith PG, Tharumarajah A. Iron ore and steel production trends and
material ows in the world: is this really sustainable? Resources Conservation
and Recycling 2010;54(12):108494.
Yellishetty M, Gavin Mudd M, Ranjith PG. The steel industry, abiotic resource depletion and life cycle assessment: a real or perceived issue? Journal of Cleaner
Production 2011;19(1):7890.
Yue Q, Wang HM, Lu ZW. Aluminum ow analysis based on average service life of aluminum products in China. Journal of Northeastern University (Natural Science)
2010;31(9):13048.
Zhong RY. Resources productivity and sustainable development in the EU-15
countries. European Study 2010(4):5670.
Ziolkowska J, Ziolkowski B. Product generational dematerialization indicator: a case
of crude oil in the global economy. Energy 2011;36(10):592534.

2012 Using Mfa For SD

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2012 Using Mfa For SD

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Using material/substance ow analysis to support sustainable development

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

2. M/SFA: the state of the art relating to SD assessment

The most often-quoted denition of sustainable development

2.1. Theoretical studies

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

Substance ow analysis (SFA)

Material system analysis (MSA)

Life cycle assessments (LCA)

Business level material ow

Monitoring material ows at various levels of detail for a company, a rm or a plant.

Single substance analysis

Monitoring ows of individual element, molecule or compound.

Environmental problem analysis

Monitoring ows of substances causing environmental problem, i.e. ecological poisoning,

Environmental pressure analysis

Modied from OECD (2008).

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

M/SFA study areas

Coupling application with other

Analysis of pollutants source and fate based on material ow chart or accounting.b1

Million metric tones

Adapted from Woodward and Duffy (2011).

Million metric tones

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

the main uses of M/SFA is the derivation of indicators, and that

(1) Widening the scope of SD assessment. Material ow indicators

and/or economic subsystem with the assessment results of

3.2.2. Using M/SFA to improve reliability of SD assessment results

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

indicators in SD assessment will require the following issues to be

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

deliver the harmonization of humannature and humanhuman

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

Fabrication & Products Use

System Boundary: China, 1994-98 average

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

Adapted from Seppl et al. (2011).

Cement, lime and plaster

Air transport services

Adapted from Seppl et al. (2011).

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

improving the quality and function of indicators derived by M/SFA,

Appendix A. M/SFA results for SD assessment

Appendix B. The integration of M/SFA with LCA for SD

the integration of MFA with other SD assessment methods, in this

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

Kovanda J, Weinzettel J, Hk T. Analysis of regional material ows: the case of the

C.-L. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68 (2012) 104116

United Nation Division for Sustainable Development. Environmental management

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen