SY820en TransportMIPS - Natural Resource Consumption of The Finnish Transport System - PDF (Attachment, Publication/brochure, 1790 KB)

T h e F i n n i s h E n v i r o n m e n t 820en
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Satu Lähteenoja - Michael Lettenmeier - Arto Saari
Transport MIPS
The natural resource consumption of
the Finnish transport system
..........................................................
M I N I S T RY O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T
THE FINNISH ENV I RO N M E N T 820en | 2006
Transport MIPS
The natural resource consumption of
the Finnish transport system
Satu Lähteenoja – Michael Lettenmeier – Arto Saari
Helsinki 2006
MINISTRY OF THE E N V I RO N M E N T
THE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT 820en | 2006
Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Protection Department
Layout: Marjatta Naukkarinen

Photo: Petri Kuokka
The publication is available in the internet:

www.environment.fi
ISBN 978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF)

ISSN 1796-1637 (online)
FOREWORD
Sustainable development calls for an improvement in eco-efficiency among human
society as a whole and in all its actions. The environmental impact of the different
forms of transport has traditionally been viewed and comparisons made from the
standpoint of emissions and energy consumption. The MIPS (Material Input per Unit
Service) indicator used in this study expands the perspective to the natural resource
consumption during an entire life cycle, thereby bringing a new slant to the discussion
on the environmental effects of transport and sustainable development.
This study has formed part of a larger, two-stage FIN-MIPS Transport research pro-
ject in which the natural resource consumption of the transport system and different
modes of transport over entire life cycles have been studied. Case studies were made
during the first stage of the project on maritime, air, rail, road and bicycle transport.
In the second phase of the project, a study on local transport has been made as an
adjunct to this study. In this study MIPS values were calculated for road, bicycle, rail,
air, maritime and local transport in Finland by generalising the case studies. For the
main part this report contains the same information as the report published in Finnish
(Suomen ympäristö/Finnish Environment 820). However, to make comprehension
easier, certain parts have either been added or omitted.
The main financial supporters of the FIN-MIPS Transport project have been the
Ministry of Transport and Communications and Ministry of the Environment. Furt-
her funds have been provided by the Finnish Road Administration, Finnish Mariti-
me Administration, Finnish Rail Administration, Civil Aviation Authority, and the
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. The Finnish Association for Nature
Conservation has been responsible for the carrying out and coordination of the stu-
dy. The project has been accomplished as part of the Ministry of the Environment’s
Finnish Environmental Cluster Research Programme.
Participants in the project’s steering group were Merja Saarnilehto, Mauri Heikko-
nen and Jarmo Muurman from the Ministry of the Environment, Saara Jääskeläinen,
Raija Merivirta and Outi Väkevä from the Ministry of Transport and Communications,
Arto Hovi from the Finnish Rail Administration, Niina Rusko and Mikko Viinikainen
from the Civil Aviation Authority, Olli Holm from the Finnish Maritime Administra-
tion, Tuula Säämänen and Anders Jansson from the Finnish Road Administration,
Otto Lehtipuu from VR Group, Pertti Pitkänen from Finnair, Maria Joki-Pesola from
the City of Helsinki, and Arto Saari and Michael Lettenmeier from the Finnish As-
sociation for Nature Conservation. The steering group has also acted as the support
group for this study.
The FIN-MIPS Traffic research project was headed by Dr. Arto Saari and coor-
dinated by eco-efficiency consultant Michael Lettenmeier. The calculations for the
study were carried out by Satu Lähteenoja. The techniques and research methods
used were planned by Satu Lähteenoja, Michael Lettenmeier and Arto Saari, who
also wrote the report.
In addition to the contributions of the members of the steering group, significant
support has been received from Senior expert Aarno Valkeisenmäki from the Fin-
nish Road Enterprise, aircraft engine specialist Janne Pallonen from Finnair, traffic
planning engineer Antero Naskila from the City of Helsinki’s Planning Department,
development manager Harri Ajomaa from the Finnish Post Corporation, Business
Excellence Manager Tuija Janakka from TNT Finland Oy, traffic coordinator Reijo
Prokkola from the Finnish Road Administration, assistant manager Kirsti Tarnanen-
Sariola from the Finnish Port Association, Ilmo Mäenpää from the Thule Institute,
and those carrying out the FIN-MIPS Transport project’s case studies, namely Elviira
Hakkarainen, Anni Nieminen, Kaisa Pusenius, Aino Rantanen, Suvi Talja and Leena
Vihermaa. The contribution to the implementation and success of the project of all
those mentioned has been considerable. In addition, valuable information for the
accomplishment of the case studies has been supplied by numerous individuals in
the employ of the Finnish Road Administration and the Finnish Road Enterprise.
We wish to thank all those who participated in the implementation of the project.
Hopefully, the study will help promote sustainable development within the transport
sector!
Helsinki, February 2006
Satu Lähteenoja Michael Lettenmeier Arto Saari
The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Background, purpose and design of the study........................................... 7
1.2 Finland’s transport system.............................................................................. 8
2 Material and methods . ........................................................................................ 16

2.1 Eco-efficiency and MIPS................................................................................ 16
2.1.1 Concept of eco-efficiency...................................................................... 16
2.1.2 Indicator of eco-efficiency: MIPS........................................................ 17
2.1.3 Reducing material flows....................................................................... 18
2.1.4 Criticism of the MIPS method............................................................. 19
2.1.5 Previous studies on the subject .......................................................... 19
2.2 Study material.................................................................................................. 20
2.3 Boundaries set for this study........................................................................ 20
2.4 Main assumptions........................................................................................... 21
2.4.1 Road transport....................................................................................... 22
2.4.2 Bicycle transport.................................................................................... 23
2.4.3 Rail transport ........................................................................................ 23
2.4.4 Air transport ......................................................................................... 23
2.4.5 Maritime transport................................................................................ 24
2.5 Infrastructure material input allocation to transport .............................25
2.5.1 Road transport....................................................................................... 26
2.5.2 Bicycle transport.................................................................................... 30
2.5.3 Rail transport......................................................................................... 33
2.5.4 Air transport.......................................................................................... 34
2.5.5 Maritime transport................................................................................ 35
2.6 Choice of allocation methods applied in the study ................................. 36
2.7 Calculation examples . ...................................................................................37
3 Results. ........................................................................................................................ 38
3.1 Natural resource consumption of road transport ....................................38
3.1.1 MI values for road transport................................................................ 38
3.1.2 Calculating natural resource consumption for a desired route..... 41
3.1.3 MIPS values for road transport by road and street category.......... 41
3.1.4 MIPS values on average for road transport in Finland.................... 43
3.2 Natural resource consumption by bicycle transport................................ 44
3.2.1 MI values for bicycle transport . ......................................................... 44
3.2.2 MIPS values and calculation of natural resource consumption
for a desired route ................................................................................ 45
3.3 Natural resource consumption by rail transport...................................... 45
3.3.1 MI values for rail transport . ............................................................... 45
3.3.2 Calculation of natural resource consumption for a desired route 46
3.3.3 MIPS values per track type.................................................................. 47
3.3.4 Average MIPS values............................................................................ 48

3.4 Natural resource consumption by air transport . ..................................... 49
3.4.1 MI values for air transport .................................................................. 49
3.4.2 Calculation of natural resource consumption for a desired route 50
3.4.3 Average MIPS values ........................................................................... 51
3.5 Natural resource consumption by maritime transport............................ 51
3.5.1 MI values for maritime transport ...................................................... 51
3.5.2 Average MIPS values ........................................................................... 52
3.6 Natural resource consumption by Finland’s transport system..............53
4 Calculation examples . .........................................................................................57

4.1 Calculation examples for passenger traffic ...............................................57
4.2 Calculation examples for freight traffic . ................................................... 67
5 Summary of results and conclusions.............................................................. 72

5.1 Basis of the study.............................................................................................72
5.2 Main observations . ........................................................................................73
5.2.1 MIPS figures for different modes of transport ................................ 73
5.2.2 Overall consumption of natural resources by the traffic system .. 76
5.3 Ways of reducing the material intensity of transport.............................. 76
5.4 Evaluation of reliability of results .............................................................. 82
5.5 MIPS as a measure of natural resource consumption by transport . ...83
5.6 Proposals for further study .......................................................................... 84
5.7 In conclusion ................................................................................................... 85
References......................................................................................................................... 87
Appendix 1 MIPS values for road transport....................................................... 91
Appendix 2 MIPS values for air transport..........................................................93
Appendix 3 Calculation of the natural resource consumption of
freight transport by the TNT concern: examples.................. 98
Documentation page. ................................................................................................ 101

1 Introduction
1.1
Background, purpose and design of the study
Traditionally, in environmental studies on transport the focus has been on emissions to

the air, water and soil, and on energy consumption and noise pollution. In this study
we have not concentrated on emissions, but on the natural resource consumption of
transport. The method used is the so-called MIPS method (Material Input per Service
Unit) developed by the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy in
the early 1990s. With this method it is possible to relate the natural resources consu-
med to the resulting service performance, and to thereby obtain eco-efficiency values,
for example, for different modes of transport, which allows for valid comparisons
to be made.
The study forms part of a more extensive FIN-MIPS Transport project. In this
project the natural resource consumption in Finland in relation to the passenger-
and tonne-kilometres transported has been calculated. The first phase of the study
focussed on five sub-areas of the transport system: road transport, rail transport, air
transport, maritime transport, and bicycle transport. These case studies have been
published in Finnish in separate reports in the Ministry of Transport and Communi-
cations’ series of publications in 2005 and, so far, partly in English (Vihermaa et al.
2006, Saari et al. 2007). The case study on the local transport network and the natural
resource consumption relating to its use was published in the same series in spring
2006. The FIN-MIPS Transport project results are needed for calculating MIPS values
for products or services, or when comparative data is required on the natural resource
consumption of different modes of transport during their life cycle.
The aim of this study is to:

• Generalise the case study results of the project on the consumption of natural
resources by different modes of transport for the whole of Finland.
• Produce calculation data and a method by means of which the natural resource
consumption of a desired route or journey in Finland could be calculated.
• Present different practical examples and through these compare the natural resour-
ce consumption of different modes of transport.
• Consider ways of reducing the material intensity of the transport system.
The report comprises five chapters. At the end of the first chapter (introduction) a
general review of Finland’s transport system is given. In the second chapter the re-
search material and methods are described. The third chapter deals with the results
obtained for each form of transport, as well as at the level of the entire transport
system. The method of calculation for calculating the MIPS values for each mode of

transport is also described. In the fourth chapter the results obtained are related to
genuine situations by means of some calculation examples. The fifth chapter brings
together the main conclusions, in addition to presenting some ideas as to how the
material intensity of transport could possibly be reduced.
In the MIPS study of the transport system it was necessary to make different as-
sumptions to carry out the calculations. For this reason, it is good to bear in mind
that the figures presented as results are not absolute truths, rather they describe well
the magnitude of natural resource consumption by the different modes of transport
in Finland. MIPS brings a completely new dimension to the discussion on the en-
vironmental impact of transport which broadens the perspective from its previous
dimensions but which is, however, only one method among others.
1.2
Finland’s transport system

Finland’s transport system consists of the transport infrastructure, the traffic using
this, and the norms and control measures (like taxes and laws) that control the tran-
sport sector. Road, rail, water and air transport form an integrated system which
makes it possible for people to move, and goods to be transported, in an effective
and purposeful manner (Finnish Road Administration 1999).
The transport system is one of society’s basic structures. Its development is control-
led by social policy objectives. The characteristics of the system are essentially affected
by how well the different components and different forms of transport combine. This
can be vastly influenced by developing the transport system through holistic coope-
ration between the different performers and not merely through isolated individual
plans (Ministry of Transport and Communications 2005).
The transport system is used to meet the requirements for moving both people
and goods. The total length of Finland’s traffic routes, which include public roads,
streets, private roads, railways, water routes, the metro (underground) and tramways,
is 470,000 kilometres (Ministry of Transport and Communications 2005).
The Ministry of Transport and Communications makes a comprehensive study
of travel habits in Finland at six-year intervals. The most recent passenger transport
study is from 1999 (Ministry of Transport and Communications 1999). The results of
the latest passenger transport study, material for which was collected in 2004–2005
(Uusnäkki 2005), were not yet available when this study was carried out. Partly
for this reason there are figures that deviate from each other in the statistical data
presented below. However, the magnitude of these reveals the situation in Finland
extremely well.

nationally important road
border crossing point

winter harbour
airport
travel centre
cargo terminal
Figure 1. Nationally important road, sea and air transport network

(Ministry of Transport and Communications 2000: 17).
Trends in traffic
Traffic in Finland grew vigorously between the 1960s and the 1990s. During the eco-
nomic depression growth momentarily slowed down but is now again in the region of
2–4 percent per annum. Figures 2 and 3 show the trends in performances in passenger
and freight transport in Finland over the last few decades.

Trends in passenger traffic in 1960-2004
70
Passenger car traffic
60 Bus/coach traffic
Rail traffic
50
Air traffic
billion person km
40 Maritime traffic
30
20
10
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
year
Figure 2. Trends in passenger traffic in 1960–2004 (Finnish Road Administration 2005a).
Trends in domestic traffic in 1960-2004
30
Road traffic *
25
Rail traffic
billion tonne km
20 Maritime traffic
15
10
5
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
year
Figure 3. Trends in domestic freight traffic in 1960–2004 (Finnish Road Administration 2005a).
* Road traffic comprises lorry and van traffic.
Transport today
In Finland around 4,900 million passenger transport journeys are made per year. The
total performance of passenger transport in 2004 was 68,545 million passenger-kilo-
metres, 94 percent of which consisted of road transport, the rest being spread over rail,
water and air transport. The freight transport performance in 2004 totalled 41.9 million
tonne-kilometres (Finnish Road Administration 2004a). Half of all passenger journeys
are less than six kilometres in length (Ministry of Transport and Communications
1999). The share of public transport in domestic passenger transport is approximately
16 percent (Ministry of Transport and Communications 2005). Two-thirds of freight
transport performances consist of road transport and one-quarter of rail transport.
10 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Vehicular transport
The vehicular transport infrastructure is divided into public roads maintained by
the Finnish Road Administration, and streets and private roads maintained by mu-
nicipalities and the private sector. Public road transport can be considered to mainly
consist of long-distance traffic and that on streets and private roads to constitute
local traffic.
The total length of Finland’s road network comes to around 454,000 kilometres, of
which approximately 78,000 kilometres, or 20 percent of the road network, consists
of public roads. Most of the public road network is located close to urban areas and
between urban areas. In this study public roads have been divided on the basis of a
functional road classification into five categories: motorways (which are actually part
of the class 1 main roads network), class 1 main roads (i.e. class 1 main roads other
than motorways), class 2 main roads, regional roads, and connecting roads. There
are some 653 kilometres of motorways in Finland (Finnish Road Administration
2004b).
Length of entire road network (km) Division of public roads
26,000
11 %
78,000 Municipal 6% Main roads,
streets 1st class
Main roads,
Public
2nd class
roads
17 % Regional
Private roads
roads
66 % Connecting
roads
350,000
Figure 4. Most of the road network consists of private and connecting roads which see comparatively little use.
Finland’s public roads on average are used by 1,200 vehicles per 24 hours (Table 1).
The overall transport performance on public roads in 2003 was 33 billion vehicle-
kilometres (Tiefakta 2004; Yleiset tiet 1.1.2004). Over 60 percent of the transport per-
formances on public roads take place on class 1 main roads (including motorways)
and class 2 main roads, and only 19 percent of transport performances take place on
connecting roads, the length of which accounts for 66 percent of the entire public road
network. Eighteen percent of transport performances take place on the motorways.
Table 1. Length, average daily traffic (ADT) and annual transport performance by road category
(Yleiset tiet 1.1.2004).
Motor- Class 1 Class 2 Regional Connect- All pub-

way main road main road road ing road lic roads
Length (km) 794 7,780 4,686 13,469 51,469 78,198
ADT 20,621 3,611 2,501 1,283 329 1,200
Transport per- 5,976 10,255 4,277 6,307 6,189 33,004
formance (mill.
vehicle-km/year)
Ministry of the Environment 11

Finland has some 2.3 million private passenger cars, and the number has been cons-
tantly growing. Altogether there are around 2.7 million cars (Fig. 5). Nowadays, over
two-thirds of households have a car, and 16 percent of them possess two or more cars
(Ojala 2000: 84).
Vehicles in 2003
2.6 %
0.6 %
9.6 %
0.4 % passenger cars 2,274,572
buses/coaches 10,358
vans 250,107
lorries 67,637
other vehicles 14,942

86.9 %
Figure 5. Number of vehicles registered in Finland in 2003 (Finnish Road Administration 2005a).
There are approximately 26,000 kilometres of municipal streets in Finland. Most of

the streets were constructed from the 1970s to the 1990s. The majority of streets lead
to residential properties, ensuring access to these by car. From these streets, traffic is
conducted to collector streets, which then conduct the traffic to main streets. Sixty-
nine percent of all municipal streets are streets leading to residential properties, 27
percent are collector streets, and 4 percent are main streets (Finnish Road Administra-
tion 2005b). Of the kilometres driven on these streets, around 70 percent are driven
on main streets, 17 percent on collector streets, and 13 percent on streets leading to
properties. The total transport performance on streets is approximately 15.8 million
road-kilometres a year (Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT 2005).
Seventy-seven percent of Finland’s road network, or some 350,000 kilometres,
constitutes private roads. Private roads have been constructed gradually according
to local transport requirements and they are managed by their users. (Finnish Road
Administration 2005b.) Despite the length of the road network, the transport perfor-
mance on private roads comes to only approximately one billion vehicle-kilometres
a year (Tiefakta 2004).
Bicycle transport
Statistics relating to cycling and the number of bicycles in Finland are not as precise
as they are on other forms of transport. However, several assessments of these are
available. According to the Ministry of Transport and Communications, 80 percent
of Finns have a bicycle (Ministry of Transport and Communications 2001: 8). In this
study the assessments used were made by the Association of Finnish Bicycle Manu-
facturers (2004), who estimated that there are some 3.1 million bicycles which are
ridden 1.3 billion kilometres a year (Hakkarainen et al. 2005: 26). Thus, one bicycle is
ridden approximately 420 kilometres a year.
According to the 1999 passenger transport study, one out of ten journeys is made
by bicycle, that is, the same number as made by public transport. Regional differences
are great. In Oulu, cycling accounts for as much as 20 percent of all journeys made.

The most cycling takes place in municipalities with a population of 8,000–50,000
(Ministry of Transport and Communications 2001: 4, 13). Of trips made by bicycle,
76 percent are less than three kilometres long. Twenty-eight percent of passenger car
journeys are also less than three kilometres. On short journeys the bicycle competes
well with the passenger car in terms of speed and the bicycle is highly suitable as a
means of transport on most such short trips. Men tend to use a passenger car more
than women, whereas women more often use a bicycle or walk (Ministry of Transport
and Communications 1999: 38-39, 48).
Shared-use paths allow both pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Finland has 12,000 kilo-
metres of shared-use paths where cycling is permitted (Hakkarainen et al. 2005: 27).
Of these, 4,730 kilometres are located alongside public roads, meaning that they are
the Finnish Road Administration’s responsibility, and the others are the responsibility
of municipalities (Finnish Road Administration 2005a).
A realistic target in cycling has been to raise the contribution of bicycle journeys to
a quarter of all journeys. To make cycling an attractive alternative, residences, work
places and services should be located close to each other. Additionally, an uninter-
rupted network of bicycle paths would be necessary. This does not, however, mean
specific lanes for cyclists in every place, because streets and roads are safe for cyclists
provided the speed of motorised traffic is low (Ojala 2000: 99).
Rail transport
Almost 60 million passenger-kilometres were covered on the railways in 2003. Rail
transport accounts for around one percent of all passenger transport journeys in
Finland. The passenger transport performance on the railways is 3,338 million passen-
ger-kilometres, or approximately 5 percent of passenger transport journeys overall.
Around one-quarter of Finland’s freight transportation takes place on the railways.
In 2003 a total of 43.5 million tonnes of goods were transported by rail (Finnish Rail
Administration 2004).
The length of Finland’s entire railway network (Fig. 6) is 5,851 kilometres, of which
5,643 kilometres consists of main track. Of the entire length of the railway network,
91.3 percent, or 5,344 kilometres, is single-track and 8.7 percent, or 507 kilometres, is
either double-track or multi-track. A total of 1,893 kilometres of single-track railway
has been electrified, while all the double- or multi-track lines have been electrified.
The entire line length, including sidings, is 8,707 kilometres (Finnish Rail Administra-
tion 2004: 8).

Figure 6. Finland’s rail network (Finnish Rail Administration 2004: 9, adapted).
Air transport
The proportion of air transport in domestic passenger transport performances in
2000 was about two percent, and that of freight transport performances was around
one percent. In international passenger transport the contribution of air transport
was appreciably higher than in domestic passenger transport; in 2000 air transport
accounted for 14 percent of Finland’s international passenger transport (Ministry of
Transport and Communications 2002). In 2003 over 13 million passengers travelled
by air in Finland, this being 50 percent more than 10 years previously (Civil Aviation
Authority 2004).
The state-owned Finavia maintains 25 airports in Finland. At these airports, 27 run-
ways are in use in winter and 33 in summer. The combined length of these runways
is around 75 kilometres (Ministry of the Environment 2003). In this study not only the
airports belonging to Finavia, but also those owned by the municipalities of Seinäjoki
and Mikkeli, which have regular air transport, are included (see Fig. 1).

Maritime transport
The majority of freight transport between Finland and other countries takes place by
sea. In 2003 around 88 million tonnes of goods were transported between Finland and
foreign destinations. The proportion of maritime transport in Finland’s exportation
and importation in 2002, measured in tonnes, came to over 77 percent.
In 2003 passenger traffic between Finland and foreign countries amounted to 15.6
million passengers. This figure includes both arriving and departing passengers.
Most of Finland’s passenger traffic taking place between Finland and places abroad
is destined for Sweden or Estonia (Finnish Maritime Administration 2005).
According to the Finnish Maritime Administration’s (2005) statistics, 636 vessels
measuring 15 metres at minimum were recorded in Finland’s registry of shipping in
2004. By law, vessels of this length and longer have to be recorded in Finland’s regional
register. This trade fleet was divided in 2001 into vessel types as follows: passenger
vessels made up 35 percent of the total number of vessels, dry cargo vessels made up
20 percent, tankers approximately 4 percent, and other vessels some 41 percent. The
proportion of Finnish vessels in the transportation performances of Finland’s mari-
time traffic, that is, tonne-kilometres, is approximately 20 percent (Finnish Maritime
Administration 2002).
Finland has over 50 ports handling foreign cargoes. Of these, 23 operate all year
round (see Fig. 1). However, cargo transportation is clearly concentrated at the larger
ports: in 2001 the ten largest ports handled 75 percent of all cargo traffic (Viitanen et
al. 2003, cit. Lindqvist et al. 2005: 14).
Finland’s water traffic shipping channels comprise marine channels, inland water
channels, and canals. The channels are maintained by the Finnish Maritime Admin-
istration. There are a total of 8,200 kilometres of coastal channels, of which cargo
shipping channels (of depth 4.0–15.3 metres) amount to 4,600 kilometres. The Finnish
Maritime Administration maintains 25,000 safety devices in the channels, including
lighthouses, buoys and channel markers. Public shipping utilities in Finland own
nine ice breakers (Vesiväylät 2005).

2 Material and methods
2.1
Eco-efficiency and MIPS
2.1.1
Concept of eco-efficiency
The concept of eco-efficiency has formed part of environmental discussions and stu-
dies for over a decade already. It means the efficiency of natural resource use, or in
other words, the relationship between the benefit derived from a product or service
and the natural resources consumed in achieving it. The basic concept can be conden-
sed into two words: more from less (Rissa 2001, p 10). The World Business Council
for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) opened up the concept to public discussion
at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992. The Council defined eco-efficiency as follows: ”Eco-efficiency is achieved by
the delivery of competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and
bring quality of life, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource
intensity throughout the life cycle to a level at least in line with the Earth’s estimated
carrying capacity”.
The eco-efficiency concept brings a new perspective to environmental protecti-
on. Traditionally, in environmental protection the accent has been almost entirely
on hazardous substances and emissions endangering human health. According to
Schmidt-Bleek (2002, p 67–70), this kind of traditional environmental policy which fo-
cuses on reducing proven hazardous substances cannot be efficient and preventative.
Alongside studies on the toxicity of individual substances we ought to pay attention
to the massive material flows used by and caused by mankind that are responsible,
for example, for the environmental impact of energy consumption. Studying material
flows initiated by mankind and reducing these is important because rapidly growing
material flows alter the world’s ecological balance. This may have consequences we
are not yet even aware of (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 23–26).
According to the eco-efficiency concept, securing sustainable development necessi-
tates a reduction in the material intensity of societies — known as dematerialisation.
This requires a change in production and consumption habits by improving the effi-
ciency of natural resource consumption. On a global scale, material flows need to be
cut by around one-half of their present level. In addition, as there is a wish to divide
prosperity evenly over the world, industrial countries must increase the efficiency of
their natural resource consumption tenfold over the next few decades. This goal is
called Factor Ten (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 177–190). This line of thought may also bring
a long-awaited connection between the economy and the environment: by improving

the efficiency of material consumption not only the environment, but also money will
be saved (Hoffrén 1999, p 13–14).
In order to assess and study material consumption, we must be able to measure it
reliably. As an indicator of eco-efficiency many alternatives have been put forward,
one of which is the MIPS indicator used in this study.
2.1.2
Indicator of eco-efficiency: MIPS

At the beginning of the 1990s, the Wuppertal Institute in Germany began to develop
an indicator with which it could be possible to reliably reflect the environmental
impact of products and services from the material flow perspective. This indicator
had to be clear and simple to use, it had to be suitable for processes, products and
even services, and, in addition, it had to be applicable locally, regionally, and globally
(Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 107).
The result was the MIPS indicator (Material Input per Service Unit), which me-
asures the eco-efficiency of a product throughout its life cycle, that is, the material
consumption in relation to the benefit obtained from the product.
The MIPS indicator is composed of an MI value (the material and energy consump-
tion of the product or service throughout its whole life cycle) and an S value (the ser-
vice unit of the product or service). MIPS is calculated by dividing the material input
MI by the total amount of service performance (Autio & Lettenmeier 2002, p 14).
MI Material Input
MIPS
S Service unit
Material input (MI)

MI is the sum of the natural resource use throughout the entire life cycle of a product
or service. The MI factor is a number embodying all the material amounts transferred
during the processing of the raw material per weight unit of the raw material in ques-
tion, including the material transfers required by the energy consumption involved.
It would thus also include, for example, material transferred during ore quarrying
and coal mining. The measurement unit is kg/kg, that is, kilograms material per
kilograms raw material. The unit of energy input, especially the unit of electricity
MI factors, is kg/kWh. To simplify calculation the Wuppertal Institute has already
specified MI factors for different raw materials and forms of energy. By multiplying
the amounts of materials in a product by the MI factor for each material the natural
resource input for each material can be obtained as a whole. In the same way, other
production inputs (e.g. electricity, heat, transportation) can be multiplied by the MI
factors belonging to these. By summing the MI results for different stages in the life
cycle of a product, the material demand for each product can be obtained. Thus, the
study extends to those components that the eye does not see, that is, it embraces the
raw material manufacturing of the product until the end of its life cycle.
According to the MIPS concept, material inputs are calculated separately in five
different categories: abiotic materials, biotic materials, water, air, and earth move-
ments in agriculture and forestry.
Abiotic materials are solid mineral raw materials such as stone and ores from
mines, quarries and smelting plants. Fossil fuels such as coal, crude oil and natural
gas are also considered to be abiotic materials, as are all mineral deposits which ha-
ve to be moved, for instance, in conjunction with quarrying, in addition to surplus
excavation materials associated with, for example, the construction of buildings and
roads (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 132–134).

Biotic materials include all plant biomass taken for human utilisation, that is, all
cultivated, uncultivated, picked, gathered or otherwise beneficial plants. Animals
also belong in this class, but in the case of animals reared by people the biomass of
the food eaten by the animals (e.g. grass consumed by a cow) enters the calculations.
Wild animals, fish and trees are also included among biotic materials (Schmidt-Bleek
2002, p 132–134).
Water is included when it is removed from nature by technical means. Dammed
water and rainwater, which are diverted from their original place as a consequence
of human activities, are included. For instance, when calculating material flows for
roads, all the rainwater falling on the asphalt is included, because it is prevented
from being absorbed by a natural surface. Water quantities used in agriculture are
also included in this category (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 132–134).
Air is included when people change it chemically or physically. Only that part of
the air which is changed is included in the calculations, for instance, the amount of
oxygen used in combustion processes. Mechanically moved air, as for example air
moved by a windmill or ventilator, is not taken into account (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p
132–134).
In agriculture and forestry, earth is moved through mechanical processes and ero-
sion. In practice, erosion is generally used as the indicator. Research on this category is
still continuing at the Wuppertal Institute, and MI factors have still to be announced,
for example, for many agricultural products (Ritthoff et al. 2002).
Service unit (S)

In the MIPS concept, products and materials are seen as providers of a certain service
or benefit: mankind does not need products merely for what they are, but for the ser-
vices they perform. ‘Service unit’ means the benefit obtained from a product or service
and it is always defined in each individual case. A service unit could be, for instance,
a single wearing of an item of clothing, when clothes are the subject, or a passenger-
or tonne-kilometre, when forms of transport are being looked at. When the material
input is divided by the service, beneficial products or systems produced by the same
services can be compared with each other. This requires the service performance to
be defined in the same way for all. Thus, for example, the consumption of natural
resources by different modes of transport can be compared, when consumption by all
forms of transport is correlated with passenger- or tonne-kilometres (Schmidt-Bleek
2002, p 113–119).
When defining the service unit one easily arrives at a situation in which a parti-
cular factor causing environmental loading or natural resource consumption has to
be divided among different benefits or recipients of benefits. In such a case one has
to resolve the problem of on what basis such division is to be carried out, that is, in
what way the adverse factor is to be allocated between the different solutions. In
this study the most significant allocation question is the allocation of infrastructure
material inputs between different types of users (see section 2.6).
2.1.3
Reducing material flows

The idea behind the MIPS method is to develop products and services ending in a
quality service using fewer natural resources than previously. The goal is attained by
either reducing the material input, MI, or by increasing the service performance, S.
The MIPS indicator can be used as a tool in industrial product design, as well as
in the planning of services, production plants, and infrastructure, and in ecological
evaluations. An advantage of the method is that the products producing the same

service become comparable when the material inputs are calculated for the same
service unit. In the future MIPS could be included in, for example, infrastructure
planning in the same way as other environmental impact assessments at the early
stages of planning. By using the MIPS approach one also can separate ecologically
beneficial recycling and other processes from those that are ecologically problemati-
cal. In addition, one can assess the acceptability of aid to developing countries and
technical projects (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 128).
A concept closely associated with the MIPS indicator is that of the ‘ecological ruck-
sack’. This means the mass of material transferred as a result of a product or service,
but the mass of the product is not included in the calculation as it is in MI values.
The ‘ecological footprint’, on the other hand, attempts to indicate the surface area
required for producing the product or service (e.g. Rissa 2001).
2.1.4
Criticism of the MIPS method

The indicators given as measures of eco-efficiency have attracted not only interest,
but also criticism. Before making use of the method one should understand what
MIPS is able to accomplish and what it cannot. Schmidt-Bleek (2002, p 127) stresses,
for example, that MIPS can only be defined for final products that generate services,
and not for raw materials or individual materials.
One inherent weakness of the method is that it does not differentiate between
different materials in terms of harmfulness and toxicity of material flows to the en-
vironment. MIPS has been criticised on the grounds that it is incapable of reflecting
the actual amount of environmental impact caused by a product, since it gives the
same weight to all the materials, irrespective of their differing environmental effects
(e.g. Koskinen 2001). On the other hand, it is not the purpose of MIPS calculations
to replace other methods of assessing environmental impact, rather it is intended to
supplement them from the materials intensity perspective (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p
129).
A further weakness of the method is its laboriousness and uncertainty. As with
other life-cycle calculations, calculating MIPS values for even a slightly complicated
service or product takes a lot of time and calls for numerous assumptions and esti-
mates. Even the MI factors published as a starting point by the Wuppertal Institute
(Wuppertal Institute 2005) are the results of many estimates and generalisations. It
is difficult to check the calculations behind the indicators, as the values have been
calculated by many parties and also include estimates. The Wuppertal Institute has
not published all the calculations behind its MI factors nor their reliability limits,
which means the user has only limited opportunity to assess the reliability of the
factors or to set limits to the results obtained through them. Depending on the target,
successful calculations of MIPS values may also require a considerable amount of
expert assistance.
2.1.5
Previous studies on the subject

MIPS is still a relatively young method. The studies relating to it are mostly those
published by the Wuppertal Institute. The Wuppertal Institute has published reports
on the transport sector, mainly on rail transport and shipping (e.g. Stiller 1995). Only
freight transport MI values have been published for road transport (Schmidt-Bleek
2002, p 66; Wuppertal Institute 2005). As far as we know, nowhere else in the world
has a MIPS study as broad as this one been made on transport.

In Finland the MIPS method was experimented with on a broad scale for the first
time in 2000–2002 in the “Factor X – Entering markets eco-efficiently” project. In this
project enterprises examined the natural resource consumption of their products and
services. Companies and professionals in the environmental sector were trained in
the application of the MIPS and Factor X concepts. As a consequence, MIPS values
corresponding to Finland’s conditions were obtained on, for instance, office furniture
and hip surgery (Autio & Lettenmeier 2002).
The City of Helsinki Public Works Department’s MateriaEuro project investigated
the natural resource consumption of street building and maintenance (Hänninen et al.
2005). Studies based on the MIPS method have been published in Finland as masters’
and diploma theses on both traffic (Lindqvist 2005; Nieminen 2005; Vihermaa 2005;
Pusenius 2004; Hellén 2004; Hänninen 2004) and other entities, including university
buildings (Sinivuori 2004) and the consequences of waste policy (Salo 2004).
In Finland the use of natural resources by the national economy as a whole is cal-
culated on an annual basis. Finland’s Total Material Requirement (TMR) calculations
also include material flows from transport (Mäenpää et al. 2000). Out of the five na-
tural resource categories which are calculated separately in the MIPS concept, TMR
includes the abiotic and biotic material inputs, together with erosion.
2.2
Study material
The bases for this study have been the previous FIN-MIPS project case studies on the
eco-efficiency of the different modes of transport (Hakkarainen et al. 2005; Lindqvist
et al. 2005; Nieminen et al. 2005; Pusenius et al. 2005; Talja et al. 2006; Vihermaa et
al. 2005). Basic data on material input, together with some case calculations, were
obtained from these studies, referred to below as the case studies. In addition to the
basic data obtained, a lot of other information on the different components of the
transport system had to be gathered. Owing to the nature of the work, the material
used has been extremely variable in terms of quality, and information was sought
from numerous different sources. Most of the written sources are publicly available
on the Internet. In addition, many statements and much information were obtained
from experts in many fields, both verbally and by email.
In the main, the calculations and generalisations were made on the basis of the
existing case studies. Thus, the MI factors used for the calculations are principally
those used in the case studies in the project.
2.3
Boundaries set for this study

The transport system is extensive and complex with many components which are
difficult to define precisely. Especially in conjunction with such broad material cal-
culations, however, the setting of limits has been unavoidable, due to the sheer la-
boriousness of the calculations. The availability of information has also affected the
extent of the studies.
Of the five different natural resource classes used in MIPS, only abiotic material,
water and air consumption are studied. In the case studies biotic material consump-
tion was also examined. However, as all forms of transport were found to have only
a slight impact in regard to the consumption of biotic materials, the latter were left
entirely out of this study.
Road traffic has been divided into three components: that on public roads, that in
municipal streets, and that on private roads. The vehicles were divided into six types.
Motor cycles, for instance, were left out. Privately built forest (logging) roads, and

other roads to forests or summer cottages in a drivable condition, were omitted from
the study, because forest roads were assumed to be mainly confined to forestry use,
and summer cottage roads to be very little used. Out of the total length of private
roads (350,000 km), 100,000 kilometres are thus included in this study. For municipal
streets, main streets, collector streets, and streets going to residential properties were
considered separately in relation to natural resource consumption (Pusenius et al.
2005, p 16–22; Talja et al. 2006). In regard to pedestrian and bicycle traffic, only bicycle
transport has been studied. The natural resource consumption of riding a bicycle
has not been calculated for anything other than for bicycle lanes (Hakkarainen et al.
2005, p 21).
It is a simple matter to sharply restrict Finland’s internal rail traffic since there are
fewer performers and rail classes than in road transport. Finland’s entire long-dis-
tance rail transport has been studied in conjunction with rail transport, as well as the
Helsinki Metropolitan Area’s local train, tram and metro (underground) transport.
In air transport the study has been restricted to commercial aviation in such way,
however, that the volume of military and general aviation traffic were taken into ac-
count when dividing the infrastructure material input between the different branches
of aviation. In addition to Finland’s internal air transport, the scope of the study also
includes air traffic leaving Finland for destinations abroad (Nieminen et al. 2005, p 11).
In the calculation of the material input of the entire air transport system (see section
2.4.4), only air transport taking place within Finland’s economic area has been taken
into consideration.
In the case of shipping, inland water transport has been left completely out of the
picture. The contribution of log floating to Finland’s freight transport is of the order
of one percent. Coastal shipping and recreational boating have also been omitted from
the maritime transport picture, and the study has concentrated only on commercial
transport going abroad. Among the harbours, only winter ones are included, while
the only shipping channels included are the ones leading to winter harbours. Four
types of vessels have been examined (Lindqvist et al. 2005, p 10, 16). For the calcula-
tion of maritime transport overall, only movement within Finland’s economic area
has been taken into account.
2.4
Main assumptions
In the FIN-MIPS Transport project case studies the eco-efficiency of Finland’s modes
of transport has been investigated on the basis of some examples. An effort was made
to select these examples to give as representative picture as possible of the main types
in each sector in Finland. The results of the examples were processed and supple-
mented so that the presumed average MIPS values for the modes of transport were
obtained, these reflecting Finland as a whole. The following sections present the main
assumptions on which the calculations are based.
In addition to setting limits to the transport system being investigated, numerous
assumptions also had to be made in the calculations, among them the service life of
the vehicles and their average ridership. Such assumptions were made in collabora-
tion with the road and other administrations to ensure they were based on the best
possible knowledge and expertise. However, no one can with any certainty be sure
of, for example, the actual service life of the infrastructure, which is such an impor-
tant factor from the standpoint of the results of the calculations. The most important
assumptions made are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The main assumptions concerning the use of infrastructure and means of transport.
Means of Lifespan of Capacity use of infra- Lifespan of Capacity use

transport infrastruc- structure means of trans-
ture port
(years)
Car 60 Average daily traffic 270,000 km 1.4 passengers
Bus 60 (ADT) of different road 1,000,000 km 13 passengers
and street categories, 26
Van 60 – 38,600 vehicles/day 400,000 km 1 pass. or 200 kg
Lorry 60 1,000,000 km 7, 14 or 21 tonnes
(approx. 50%)
Bicycle 60 ADT 300 bikes/day 20 yrs 1 person
Cargo train 100 0.5–3.0 mill. tonnes/yr 14,000,000 km 50%
Long distance 100 0.05–5.0 mill. pass. 14,000,000 km 20–60%, depending
train trips/yr on rail traffic
Local train 100 ADT 11,000 pass./km Based on long
Metro 100 ADT 52,500 pass./km distance trains Based on yearly
passenger
Tramway 60 ADT 3,800 pass./km
30 yrs ( depend- 53–89%,
Aircraft 100 ing on aircraft depending on the
Based on the real vol- type, 20–110 mill. route
ume of operations km)
Passenger 50 30 yrs, 2,000 pass. (pass.
vessel high-speed craft ferry)
15 yrs 300 pass. (high-
speed craft)
Cargo vessel 50 30 yrs 2,100–2,200 t
(RoRo vessel)
8,300 t (oil tanker)
For the purposes of this study, the MI factor adopted for electricity was Finland’s
average national electricity mix, as calculated by Nieminen et al. (2005, appendix C).
The abiotic MI factor for Finland’s average national electricity mix is 0.53 kg/kWh,
for water, 189 kg/kWh, and for air, 0.22 kg/kWh.
For the calculations in the study it was estimated that in Finland the precipitation
is approximately 600 millimetres a year (Finnish Meteorological Institute 2005).
2.4.1
Road transport
The studies of Pusenius et al. (2005) and Talja et al. (2006) were the bases for calcu-
lating the MIPS values for road transport. Pusenius et al. (2005, p 25–26) have from
the very outset taken note of the generalised nature of their results, despite the study
being based on actual cases. For the calculations in the report, Finland’s average traffic
data have been used instead of local traffic data. The total amount of earth and other
material moved has also been assessed on the basis of the national situation. The same
goes for the utilisation of surplus excavation materials from cuttíngs in different types
of roads. Talja et al. (2006) calculated the MIPS values for streets and private roads
directly at the level of Finland as a whole.
The MIPS values for road transport were calculated for a total of six road categories
and three street categories. Six kinds of vehicles figured in the case studies: passenger
car, van, bus/coach, light lorry, lorry with semi-trailer, and lorry with trailer. In this
study the MI values calculated by Pusenius (2005) were adopted and adapted.

2.4.2
Bicycle transport
In the study on the natural resource consumption of bicycle transport (Hakkarainen
et al. 2005) five different Helkama and Tunturi bicycle models were used. These
included both steel- and aluminium-framed bicycles. Based on the examples, for
generalisation purposes the natural resource consumption of the average Finnish
bicycle was calculated by determining the number of aluminium- and steel-framed
bicycles in Finland.
Pathways for bicycle and pedestrian traffic, or shared-use paths, form a part of
the material input of bicycle transport. Since these pathways are used by others in
addition to bicyclists, thought had to be given to the allocation of the material input
of the shared-use paths among the different users (see section 2.5.2.). The material
input for bicycle transport also included the lighting of the shared-use paths (Hak-
karainen et al. 2005, p 39).
2.4.3
Rail transport
Vihermaa et al. (2005) calculated the natural resource consumption for a one- and
two-track railway line. In regard to rail transport, one locomotive, one wagon (for
passengers) and one wagon (for freight) were studied. In the study the MIPS values
for rail transport for the whole of Finland were already available. A generalisation
had been made for each section of rail and the number of tracks and business category
had been taken into account (Table 3). Additionally, equivalent case study MI values
for those sections of rail used solely by freight trains had been used.
Table 3. Levels of business used for long-distance passenger and freight transport and the capacity
use associated with these (see Vihermaa et al. 2005, p 17).
Passenger transport Freight transport

Level of use Journeys/year Ridership % Net tonnes/year Capacity use %
Busy ≥ 5,000,000 60 ≥ 3,000,000 50

Average 500,000 35 1,500,000 50
Little used ≤ 50,000 20 ≤ 500,000 50
The figures published by Vihermaa et al. (2005) for rail traffic and its infrastructure
partially formed the basis for the calculations made by Talja et al. (2006) for local
train, metro, and tram transport. In this study the MIPS values calculated by Talja et
al. (2006) for local train, metro and tram transport were used directly.
2.4.4
Air transport
In this study, air transport has been divided into four parts: domestic, European,
holiday, and long haul. In addition, flights to places near to Finland were separated
from European flights in general. ”Nearby areas” in this instance means mainly St.
Petersburg and the Baltic states, together with Sweden’s eastern coast. The material
input of local air transport includes the natural resource consumption of the infra-
structure of airports, plus aircraft and their fuel consumption.
The basis used for the MIPS value calculations for air transport was the study by
Nieminen et al. (2005) on the natural resource consumption of air transport. The air-

ports of Helsinki–Vantaa and Jyväskylä were chosen for the study. Jyväskylä airport
represents well the average Finnish provincial airport (Viinikainen 2005a), so that
airports other than Helsinki–Vantaa were assessed on the basis of the one at Jyväskylä.
In the case of foreign airports these were assumed to be equivalent to Helsinki–Van-
taa airport (Nieminen et al. 2005, p 11). This is a rough generalisation, but studying
foreign airports would have been too laborious. In addition, the contribution of inf-
rastructure to the material input of air travel decreases with distance, so that even an
error in an assumption will decrease as the journeys increase.
Nieminen et al. (2005) studied six aircraft types, five of them being passenger airc-
raft. The natural resource consumption of aircargo transportation (kg/tonne-kilomet-
re) can be obtained fairly reliably by multiplying the figures per passenger-kilometre
by ten, since it is generally assumed that in air travel one cargo tonne is equivalent to
ten passengers with their baggage (Rusko 2005a). The natural resource consumption
of those aircraft types for which examples have not been calculated was estimated
by using the nearest equivalents among the cases recorded by Nieminen et al. (2005).
Finavia’s environmental planner Niina Rusko (2005a) assisted with the evaluations.
The following ridership percentages were used for air transport (Nieminen et al.
2005, p 44):
- Domestic: 53%
- European flights: 56.6%
- Intercontinental flights: 73.1%
- Holiday flights: 88.7%
Most of the material input components were obtained directly from the examples fur-
nished by Nieminen et al. (2005). Fuel consumption per passenger-kilometre changes
according to the length of the flight, so that it was calculated separately for the routes
used as examples. Janne Pallonen (2005), from Finnair, supplied information on the
fuel consumption and emissions of each aircraft. In the results the MIPS values for
the different routes and aircraft are given per passenger-kilometre and route.
Based on the examples, it has been calculated how much natural resources per pas-
senger-kilometre air transport consumed, on average, when flying from Helsinki to
Finland’s nearby areas, Europe, holiday destinations, and distant countries. Finland’s
average MIPS values take into account all types of aircraft and routes by weighting
the consumptions of different aircraft and routes with the number of operations. Since
the differences between foreign flights in terms of natural resource consumption per
passenger-kilometre are smaller, it has been possible to determine the average MIPS
values on the basis of sample routes.
2.4.5
Maritime transport
In the case of maritime transport only shipping destined for foreign ports has been
studied. In regard to the ports it was assumed, as in air transport, that a foreign port
is the same as the departure port in Finland.
In the maritime transport case study four different kinds of harbours, four different
kinds of vessels, and routes of different length, including ones from Finland to Tallinn
and New York, were investigated. In this study, due to a lack of source data and the
work involved in collecting such data, the average MIPS values for maritime transport
were calculated by adapting the results from Lindqvist’s (2005) case study.
For calculating the annual overall consumption of maritime transport, it was ne-
cessary to determine how much abiotic resources the harbours, channels and vessels
consume in Finland in total. In the case of ports, the study has been confined to win-
ter harbours. Routes that have been included are those leading to winter harbours,

which amount to some 2,200 kilometres (Holm 2005). The investigation of the natural
resource consumption of vessels was limited, as with air transport, to Finland’s eco-
nomic area. Information about the fuel consumption of vessels was obtained from the
Lipasto information system of the Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT 2005),
while other vessel consumption was assessed on the basis of such data and on the
studies by Lindqvist et al. (2005) and Stiller (1995, p 30).
2.5
Infrastructure material input allocation to transport
Allocation questions in life-cycle studies

The purpose of life-cycle studies is to indicate the environmental loading or consump-
tion of products or services in concrete numbers throughout the entire life cycle. In
such studies one often faces a situation in which a particular adverse factor causing
loading or consumption has to be divided up among different benefits or recipients
of benefits. In such a case one is obliged to resolve the problem of on what basis this
allocation is to be made, in other words in what way the adverse factor is to be allo-
cated between the different benefits or yields.
When the yields from a process are highly similar or comparable with each other,
allocation can be made extremely simply and easily. By contrast, with complicated
processes or systems the method of allocation may be particularly difficult, especially
when it is not possible to easily put the yields or the benefits derived from these on
a comparable basis.
In the MIPS concept, questions of allocation appear when, for example, functionally
or economically deviating results are obtained from certain processes, or when dif-
ferent service performances are obtained from a particular material input. A process
or product chain may produce main products or by-products, and the quantitative
and economic relationships may vary according to time, place or economic situation.
For example, the wood-processing chain produces, among other things, paper, wood,
particle board, heat, and logging residue. All of these have a use but allocating the
material flows of forest harvesting between the different products calls for careful
deliberation. The public infrastructure such as the streets of downtown Helsinki is
used by, for instance, lorries, buses, passenger cars, bicyclists, people going to work
or other pedestrians, as well as by people celebrating May Day. How, then, should the
material input of the streets be allocated between those mentioned and other users?
How can the material input due to water level regulation be allocated among such
widely differing entities as electricity generation, flood control, and the recreational
use of waterways?
The basic literature on the MIPS concept deals with allocation questions but it
is frequently unable to offer patent answers to them. For instance, recycling waste
materials in general conserves material compared to the use of virgin raw material.
Savings due to the recycling process are allocated in the MIPS concept to recycled
products, which, when used for manufacturing, reduce the consumption of virgin raw
materials (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 113–114). Savings brought about by the recycling
process, on the other hand, are not assigned to the product whose wastes have been
used to advantage. This allocation is defendable because the conservation of natural
resources arises from the wastes being used as a raw material for a new product. Mo-
reover, it would be difficult to predict in what quantity and form a durable product
(e.g. television set, house or road surface) in particular can be, or can be desired to
be, utilised as a raw material for another product. On the other hand, this method
of allocation does not give any rewards if the manufacturer anticipates the recycla-

bility of its product already at the product-design stage and, for this reason may, for
example, make use of a larger material input.
Thus, taking decisions on allocation methods for which there is more than one truth
is unavoidable. First, decisions have to be weighed up and then taken, and, finally,
documented as perfectly as possible. In this and the following section the allocation
options available to the different case studies within the FIN-MIPS Transport project
have been documented, as well as reasons given regarding how and why the decision
was taken on the final choice.
Alternatives considered in this study

In the FIN-MIPS Transport study the biggest allocation issues are those associated
with the apportioning of the MI of infrastructure among the different forms of tran-
sport. No single correct answer to these questions exists. For instance, passenger
traffic and freight traffic generally use the same roads and other infrastructure. The
heavier goods vehicles command more of the road structure, take up more space, and
are slower than passenger vehicles. At the same time, the lighter passenger vehicles,
because of the high number of them, may exceed the capacity of the roads, thereby
causing pressure for further road construction. Thus, in general, bases can be found
for different allocation methods which vastly affect the end result and differences
between the MIPS values for the forms of transport. The percentage of infrastructure
in MIPS values for forms of transport is extremely significant, amounting to up to 90
percent of the entire consumption of the abiotic natural resources. Hence, a matter
of paramount importance from the standpoint of the end result is what proportion
of the material input of the infrastructure should be allocated to passenger transport
and what to freight transport. Consequently, much thought was given to this aspect
and different options were sought and very carefully weighed up for each mode of
transport.
The comparisons of the effects of allocation methods on MIPS values presented in
this study were made on the basis of preliminary figures, or those obtained directly
from the case studies. Hence, they are not exactly equivalent to the final results. The
purpose of the comparisons is to bring out the importance of the selected allocation
method on the results.
2.5.1
Road transport
In road infrastructure allocation the problem is how large a part of the life-cycle
materials of a road can be apportioned to each of the different users, that is, light
transport and heavy transport. In the case study (Pusenius et al. 2005) this dilemma
was approached in three ways: the wear and tear on the road during its life cycle was
divided according to 1) road costs, 2) the gross weight of vehicles, and 3) average
daily (24 h) traffic (ADT). Road-cost allocation was based on road costs published by
the Finnish Road Administration. However, the expenditure is not evenly divided
over the roads in the same way as materials consumption, so that it is not a viable
allocation method and was thus deleted from the list of alternatives. As a third option,
two other allocation methods were studied: the division of the construction layers
of a road in a different way for the different forms of transport, and the weighting of
the ADT with a so-called passenger car equivalence factor.

Allocation according to road-layer consumption
In conjunction with road infrastructure allocation between light and heavy transport,
a study was made on how heavy transport actually affects the sizing of the construc-
tion layers of a road (Fig. 7). The notion was that those parts of the road structure
that are made thicker and stronger due to heavy transport should be allocated more
to heavy transport. The other components of the road would be allocated more to
passenger transport, because this is quantitatively superior and more roads are built
primarily because of the increase in the volume of traffic (e.g. Ojala 2000, p 86–87).
The study entailed perusing the instructions for road construction planning (e.g.
Tammirinne et al. 2002; Pihlajamäki 2001; Finnish Road Administration 2004c), and
also interviewing experts from the Finnish Road Administration and Finnish Road
Enterprise.
Based on this scrutiny, it was discovered that many factors influence the designing
of road structures and that these could not be unequivocally correlated with any
particular vehicle category. According to Lehtonen (2005), the supporting unbound
layer in connecting and regional roads is thickened by 50 millimetres when the volu-
me of heavy transport on the road rises 2.5 times. On class 1 main roads and class 2
main roads a similar increase in heavy transport calls only for thickening of the road
surface, which does not contribute very much to the overall cost of the materials. The
total thickness of the surface structure, in other words, the total amount of material
required for this, in practice is determined by the tendency of the ground to suffer
from frost damage and by the targets set for flatness: the higher the road quality, the
more level the road surface has to be (Tolla 2005).
AC, SMA, soft -AC

Wearing course , Reinforcements
bitumenous AC bearing , Bitumen and
composite stabilization
Gravel , Sand
Crushed rock
Unbound layers Industry by -products
Thermal insulation materials
Reinforcements
Road bed
Figure 7. Road construction layers, general depiction (Ehrola 1996, p 138).
According to Tolla (2005), the amount and quality of the foundations in Finland in
practice determine the objectives set for road-surface flatness, and not the weight of
traffic. In regard to the foundations, the most important factor determining the di-
mensions is the quality of the ground (strength and composition properties), together
with the location of the road in the terrain (height of embankment, depth of cutting,
land inclination, etc).
Based on the foregoing, it was decided to leave allocation based on road construc-
tion out of the allocation alternatives under scrutiny.

Allocation based on vehicle gross weight
Pusenius et al. (2005) have estimated the average weight of freight transport to be
1 tonne in the case of vans, 7 tonnes in the case of a light lorry, 14 tonnes in the case
of a lorry with a semi-trailer, and 21 tonnes in the case of a lorry with a trailer (Pu-
senius et al. 2005, p 30). In the case of vans, however, the figure given is not actually
true. Transport expert Tuomo Heinonen (2005) from Finnish Transport and Logistics
(SKAL ry) says that vans hardly ever travel with a full load as assumed in the case
study. With van transport, space is often more of a limiting factor than weight. Vans
are often used for courier-type goods distribution in which small volumes of goods
are transported and the load is equivalent to the number of calls that can be made in
a day. In practice, nowhere near the maximum loads are carried in vans in terms of
kilograms, rather the limiting factor is more often capacity than weight. Heinonen
estimated the average load of vans as 100–200 kilos. The Finnish Post Corporation’s
development manager, Harri Ajomaa (2005), roughly estimated that the corporation’s
vans carry an average of 400 kilograms of mail. The Finnish Post Corporation is one
of Finland’s main enterprises in regard to van loads. Vans in private use most likely
carry less in the way of loads than those owned by firms. Based on these assessments,
it has been assumed in this study that the average load for vans is 200 kilograms.
Gross vehicle weight (kerb weight of vehicle + weight carried) has thus been recal-
culated as follows: passenger car, 1.5 tonnes; bus/coach, 15.5 tonnes; van, 2.2 tonnes;
light lorry, 17 tonnes; lorry with semi-trailer, 30 tonnes; and lorry with trailer, 43
tonnes (see Pusenius et al. 2005, p 32). These figures, multiplied by the average daily
traffic (ADT) per road class, give the allocation division shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Allocation of road materials between vehicles according to gross weight.

Motorway Class 1 Class 2 Regional Connec-
main road main road road ting road
Pass. car 31.4% 33.9% 33.9% 35.5% 37.7%
Bus/coach 4.6% 5.0% 5.0% 5.2% 5.6%
Van 4.0% 4.3% 4.3% 4.5% 4.8%
Ll 9.3% 13.7% 13.7% 17.2% 18.8%
Ls 11.2% 17.7% 17.7% 19.4% 33.2%
Lt 39.6% 25.4% 25.4% 18.1% -
Pass. car = Passenger car, Ll = Light lorry, Ls = Lorry with semi-trailer, Lt = Lorry with trailer
Calculated in accordance with this allocation method, the contribution of passenger

transport to road material consumption comes to around 40 percent, and that of
freight traffic to around 60 percent. The allocation method sharply differs in relation
to its results from the other two options. Thus, there are no grounds for it with respect
to, for example, traffic planning. The RoadMIPS working group under the FIN-MIPS
Transport project found this method of allocation to be unsuitable, so that it is no
longer included in the final selection.

Allocation based on average daily traffic (ADT)
This allocation method is the same as in the public road case study. Table 5 shows
how road consumption is divided between the various vehicles when applying the
national average daily traffic data for the road types to be studied (Pusenius et al.
2005, p 32). The allocation to traffic on class 2 main roads was estimated as being the
same as on class 1 main roads, on which most of the traffic moves. The allocation
takes into account only the volume of traffic on the roads, not other characteristics
such as size and speed, as these are quite variable.
Table 5. Allocation of different road-class material inputs between vehicles according to average
daily traffic (ADT).
Motorway Class 1 Class 2 Regional Connecting
main road main road road road
Pass. car 84.1% 84.1% 84.1% 84.1% 84.1%
Bus/coach 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%
Van 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%
Ll 2.2% 3.0% 3.0% 3.6% 3.7%
Ls 1.5% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 3.7%
Lt 3.7% 2.2% 2.2% 1.5% -
Allocation according to ADT weighted by

passenger car equivalence factor
According to the handbook of the Association of Finnish Civil Engineers (RIL165-1
1987, p 144), traffic flows composed of a mix of different vehicles can be made com-
parable by converting the numbers in the different vehicle groups into passenger
car units using a certain equivalence factor. Heavy vehicles take up more space and,
especially when driving uphill, are slower than other traffic, so that their effect is the
same as adding a certain number of passenger cars to the traffic. Equivalence factors
commensurate with the norms of the Finnish Road Administration and Finnish Road
Enterprise for vehicles are as follows:
Passenger car 1.0
Coach and lorry with two axles 2.0
Lorry with several axles 3.0
Motorcycle 0.5
According to Prokkola (2005), this is an appropriate way of weighting heavy transport

in the ADT, despite its being used only rarely nowadays. In road planning the so-
called equivalence factor method is more often used for weighting heavy transport
when calculating traffic loading (Finnish Road Administration 2004c, p 24–25). In this
method the number of vehicles in the various heavy transport categories is weighted
with a factor according to how many times the vehicle exceeds the standard axle mass
(100 kN for a single two-wheeled axle). The load factor does not, however, express
heavy transport in terms of passenger cars, nor is there any factor for passenger
cars. The equivalence factor is mainly used on roads used by an exceptionally large
volume of heavy transport. Thus, the older, more simple passenger car equivalence
factor method, in which the factors are converted into passenger car units (Table 6),
is more suited to this study.

Table 6. Allocation of road material input between different vehicle categories according to ADT
weighted by a passenger car factor. In the allocation of lorries to the different road categories the
same values have been used as in the allocation alternative commensurate with the ADT. A van is
considered to be equivalent to a passenger car.
Motorway Class 1 Class 2 Regional Connecting

main road main road road road
Pass. car 73.9% 74.4% 74.4% 74.8% 74.9%
Bus/coach 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1%
Van 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5%
Ll 3.9% 5.3% 5.3% 6.4% 6.6%
Ls 4.0% 5.8% 5.8% 6.1% 9.9%
Lt 9.8% 5.8% 5.8% 4.0% -
This allocation method falls between two extremes, while, however, weighting pas-
senger car traffic considerably more than heavy transport. There are no significant
differences between these two allocation methods in the results for passenger car
traffic, but in freight transport the difference is significant (Fig. 8).
Passenger transport abiotic MIPS Goods transport abiotic MIPS
1.80
0.70
1.69 1.51 0.61
1.60 0.60 ADT
ADT weighted ADT
1.40 0.46
weighted ADT 0.50
kg/tonne km
1.20
0.36
kg/person km
0.40
1.00
0.30
0.26
0.80
0.20
0.60 0.20
0.40
0.34 0.14
0.21 0.10
0.20
0.00 0.00
passenger car bus/coach lorry lorry with semi- lorry with trailer
trailer
Figure 8. Differences due to allocation method in average abiotic MIPS values for traffic on public
roads.
2.5.2
Bicycle transport
In the MIPS study on bicycle traffic questions of allocation apply mainly to the inf-
rastructure, in other words the allocation of materials for shared-use paths between
bicycle transport, pedestrians and other users. MIPS values obtained by two different
allocation methods have been presented in the bicycle transport case study. These
two allocation methods are extremes among the possible alternatives. Here we give
a further, new allocation method, the results from which fall somewhere between the
results of those in the case study. Lighting of the path has been calculated according
to all the ridden kilometres in all the alternatives, even if the cycle lane is not entirely
allocated to bicycles.
Discussion about shared-use path allocation generated a great deal of debate re-
garding on whose terms cycle lanes have been constructed and are constructed. The
existence of cycle lanes is often defended on the grounds of safety for cyclists. The
reputation and popularity of separate cycle lanes as a safe thoroughfare is, however,
open to doubt in the light of accident statistics. According to numerous studies,

cycling is safest alongside motorised traffic in streets and roads, and least safe on
cycle lanes running alongside streets. Between these two extremes are cycle lanes
that are separated from the street network. Similar observations on the safety of cycle
lanes have been reported in Finland (Räsänen & Summala 1998) and North America
(Aultman-Hall & Hall 1998; Aultman-Hall & Kaltenecker 1999), as well as in Germany
(Monheim & Dandorfer-Monheim 1990).
From the standpoint of increasing bicycling, however, the feeling of safety is at least
as important as the actual safety. The Ministry of Transport and Communications’
bicycle policy programme (Ministry of Transport and Communications 2001) says
that more cycle lanes are needed. Bicycle lanes enhance the attraction of cycling and
at least the perception of safe cycling (Kallioinen 2002; Neuvonen 2002).
When considering allocation based on safety aspects, it was said that bicyclists’
safety could also be improved by reducing the speed of motorised traffic. In a built-
up area, for example, with speed limits of 30–40 kilometres per hour, cyclists could
ride alongside the traffic without the necessity for separate lanes. Outside such areas,
where the speed of motorised vehicles is clearly higher than that of cycles, there are
more solid grounds from the safety and comfort angles for the provision of separate
cycle lanes. In such areas cycle lanes are also frequently separated from roads, thereby
reducing accidents between bicyclists and motorists (Räsänen & Summala 1998). On
these bases, cycle lanes could be allocated differently in urban areas and less heavily
populated areas.
From the standpoint of the MIPS concept, it is simpler to allocate the infrastructure
to its actual users, irrespective of for what reason and on whose terms the infrastruc-
ture has been constructed. Otherwise, one is required to consider cause-and-effect
backgrounds for equivalent infrastructure use for other forms of transport, too, which
would undermine the objective of creating MIPS values as an aid to MIPS calculations
for other actions. Consequently, allocation methods based on safety concepts were
abandoned. In the final discussion, the choice was made between three allocation
methods. Of these, the third, in which cycle lanes are not allocated to cycles, was
included to show that the matter of allocation method had been approached from a
variety of different angles.
Allocation 1: Cycle lanes for cycles

In the first allocation method the material consumption of cycles, cycle lanes and ligh-
ting was included in the MIPS value (Hakkarainen et al. 2005, p 28). In this instance
’cycle lane’ means half a shared-use path, i.e. a lane divided equally between cyclists
and pedestrians.
In this method of allocation, which is also the case study’s first option, the inf-
rastructure is allocated to the entity that uses it. The starting point of the allocation
method is that cycle lanes are designed from the bicyclists’ perspective. Robust, high-
profile lanes give cycling the status of a genuine form of transport. Cycling along a
cycle lane is felt to be a safer form of travel than cycling alongside motorised traffic.
Many people, especially children, who are not overly familiar with road safety rules,
use cycle lanes. Behaviour and attitudes towards bicycling learnt as a child are easily
carried over into later stages of life (Neuvonen 2002, p 37, 48, 62).
Using this allocation method, MIPS values are calculated in the following way:
MI shared-use path-metre/year / 2 x 12,000 km +

MI bicycle/year x 3,100,000 bicycles

1,300,000,000 passenger-km

Allocation 2: Evenly among all users
According to an extensive national physical exercise study (Suuri kansallinen… 2002),
the network of bicycle and pedestrian pathways is the most popular place for phy-
sical exercise. These pathways are always open, and they are available to everyone.
Additionally, they are located close to residential areas, and no charge is made for
their use. According to the study, 26 percent of Finns use a shared-use path for taking
physical exercise. The second most popular place, used by 21 percent of Finns, is a
type of physical exercise facility such as a jogging track, ski trail or hiking trail.
According to a questionnaire study carried out in conjunction with the Ministry of
Transport and Communications’ Jaloin project (Jaloin 2005), walking is the most po-
pular form of travel. Approximately 33 percent of respondents jog or run, while some
27 percent use walking poles. Around 14 percent of respondents use in-line skates, or
push prams or children’s pushchairs. Approximately 23 percent of respondents ski.
Of the respondents in this study about 83 percent ride bicycles, at least sometimes. A
clear majority (around 59%) engage in purposeful cycling, for example, for shopping,
attending to affairs, or hobbies. Other important cyclist groups are those who cycle
to work (approximately 35%), those who cycle to keep fit (32%), and those going for
bike trips or otherwise cycle for recreational reasons (45%).
No statistics are available on how many people use shared-use paths for physical
exercise. People also frequently make use of these pathways in various ways in diffe-
rent seasons, for example, people commuting to work at least partly use the pathways
at different times of the day from walkers with walking poles. However, because the
shared-use paths form important facilities for keeping fit, the material input must
be divided among three different kinds of users. Based on the studies mentioned
above, a three-metre-wide shared-use path can roughly be divided into three parts:
one-third for walkers, one-third for cyclists, and one-third for others (exercisers and
other users).
In allocation method 2, MIPS values for bicycle transport are thus calculated in
the following way:
MI shared-use path-metre/year / 3 x 12,000 km +

MI bicycle/year x 3,100,000 bicycles

Allocation 3: Cycle lane construction allocated to motorised transport

This allocation method rests on the assumption that cycle lanes are constructed pri-
marily to improve smooth traffic flow of motorised traffic. Thus, cycle lanes can be
considered to belong to the material input caused by motorists and are not included
in cycle transport material input. No separate MIPS value has been calculated for
cycling taking place on roads intended for motorised transport, since cycling demands
so little room on normal roads.
Support for this allocation method is presented above. Because of the problems
caused by motorised traffic (noise, dust, etc), the forms of transport were separated
from each other as motorised vehicles became more common. Bicycling and wal-
king were then classed together, despite this being an entirely artificial division. The
reason for the construction of cycle lanes was thus to improve the speed and flow of
motorised traffic and not to ensure bicyclists’ safety. The system thus set up continues
to influence traffic planning. Cycle lanes continue to be constructed alongside roads
without any further thought being given to needs and traffic flow in cycling.

In the MIPS value for bicycle transport only the material inputs for cycles and
lane lighting have been taken into account; the material input of cycle lanes has not
been included. In this allocation method the MIPS for bicycle transport is calculated
as follows:
4% MI lighting / year + MI bicycle / year x 3,100,000 bicycles


Even before the final choice was made, this allocation method was felt to be an unsui-
table alternative because even cyclists require some sort of infrastructure and here no
share of the material input of the roads is calculated for them at all. Figure 9 shows
the effect of the allocation method on the abiotic MIPS value for bicycle transport.
Bicycle transport abiotic MIPS using different

allocation methods
0.60
0.55
0.50
allocation 1
0.38
kg/person km
0.40
allocation 2
0.30 allocation 3
0.20
0.10
0.05
0.00
Figure 9. Effect of allocation methods on the abiotic MIPS value for bicycle transport.
2.5.3
Rail transport
In rail transport, allocation questions are connected with the habit of dividing up
the railway network infrastructure between two different services — freight and
passenger transport. Vihermaa et al. (2005) studied four different allocation methods,
these being based on gross weight, as well as on train, wagon and rolling stock axle-
kilometres. For the purposes of the FIN-MIPS Transport study, however, allocation
based on wagon axle-kilometres was found by the RailwayMIPS working group to be
confusing and unwieldy, since there are both 2- and 4-axle freight wagons (Vihermaa
et al. 2005, p 43). The final decision on the choice of an allocation method was made
between the first three options. The results are well-founded and compatible with the
results for other modes of transport studied in the project.
Gross tonne-kilometre allocation was left out of the alternatives because the
other options were unit-based and unit-based allocation has been deemed to better
reflect actual users. Furthermore, the material intensity is primarily determined by
the thickness of the construction layers of a line, and this is affected mainly by frost
factors and not by the weight of the trains.
In train-kilometre allocation the railway network infrastructure is divided evenly
between the trains using it. Of the trains running in Finland, 65 percent are passenger
trains and 35 percent are freight trains (Vihermaa et al. 2005. p 16). The number of
trains constitutes a significant factor in particular on quiet sections of track and during

rush hour periods, because the rail capacity is limited and may restrict the volume of
rail traffic. However, the method does not take account of the fact that the trains are
of differing lengths and that their speed varies.
In wagon-kilometre allocation the infrastructure is divided evenly over the ki-
lometres covered by the rolling stock (wagons). In terms of the volume of travel, 32
percent is passenger-kilometres and 68 percent, freight-kilometres. In other words,
the ratio of goods (freight) transport to passenger transport is the reverse of what it
is when calculated according to the number of trains. Train and rolling stock material
allocations produce widely different results, especially in passenger transport (Fig.
10). Rolling stock kilometre allocation takes trains of differing length into account:
long freight and night trains are heavier and slower than other kinds of trains and they
take up more infrastructure than short, fast trains. In addition, the number of wagons
on longer passenger trains is dictated by the length of the platforms, and thus also by
the extent of the station infrastructure. This method of allocation, too, does not take
into account the fact that trains differing in their speed occupy the infrastructure for
periods of differing duration.
Passenger transport abiotic MIPS Goods transport abiotic MIPS using

using different allocation methods different allocation methods
5.00 train km
train km 1.00
wagon km wagon km
4.00 total tonne km 0.80
3.33 total tonne km
kg/ passenger km
0.54 0.52
kg/ tonne km
3.00 0.60
1.70 0.40
2.00 0.40
1.37
1.00 0.20
0.00 0.00
Figure 10. Effect of allocation method on average MIPS values for rail transport in passenger and
freight transport.
2.5.4
Air transport
Nieminen et al. (2005) sought three alternative methods for allocating the infrastruc-
ture of an air transport area between its users. MTOW-weighted (maximum take-off
weight, see Nieminen et al. 2005, p 40) allocation had previously, however, been
found to be an unsuitable alternative by the air transport working group of the FIN-
MIPS Transport study. MTOW-weighting has been developed from the standpoint of
collecting airport taxes and as it does not reflect the situation from the standpoint of
natural resource consumption, it was dropped from the list of possible alternatives.
The final selection of the allocation method to be used was made between operation
allocation and passenger allocation.
Operation allocation
In operation allocation the air transport area infrastructure is divided evenly between
all the operations (i.e. take-offs and landings). Thus, individual aircraft are considered
to be users of the infrastructure. Although this method of allocation is clear cut, it
does not take into account the wide variety of infrastructure construction require-

ments set by different aircraft, nor that the aircraft possibly occupy the infrastructure
for different lengths of time, or consume it in different ways. However, use of the
infrastructure is affected not only by the characteristics of an aircraft, but also by a
range of other factors, such as controlling the air traffic and ground traffic moving
in the air traffic area, and also the weather conditions. The infrastructure is always
constructed with all the traffic in mind, making allocation based on the characteristics
of an individual aircraft impossible. Additionally, fluctuations in demand are gene-
rally reacted to by changing the aircraft type, not by increasing or cancelling landing
permits (Pitkänen 2005).
Passenger allocation
In passenger allocation the infrastructure is divided evenly over the passengers
using it. A common form of equivalence is used in the aviation sector whereby one
passenger corresponds to one hundred kilos of air freight (Nieminen et al. 2005, p 39).
In this case, material input would be directly allocated according to the service unit,
that is, the passenger- or tonne-kilometre. This kind of allocation does not, however,
reflect the actual situation in the air transport area, in which machines are handled,
not passengers or freight. Figure 11 shows the effect of the allocation method on the
abiotic MIPS value on different routes.
Abiotic MIPS on different routes
0.6
0.53 0.52
0.44 operation allocation
0.5
0.43 passenger allocation
kg/ person km
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.12 0.13
0.1 0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04
0
Helsinki-Jyväskylä Helsinki-Jyväskylä Helsinki-Pariisi Helsinki-Las Helsinki-New York
(235 km), ATR 72 (235 km), MD-80 (1536 km), A320 Palmas (4691 km), (6602 km), MD-11
B757
Figure 11. Abiotic MIPS value on different routes and with different aircraft using both methods of
allocation (Nieminen et al. 2005).
2.5.5
Maritime transport
No significant allocation problems were experienced in the maritime transport case
study, so that the questions were already resolved at that stage (Lindqvist et al. 2005).
The port infrastructure was apportioned directly to vessel visits because it was felt
that each vessel requires port operations for a certain period of time, despite ports
being designed for large ships. This allocation is equivalent to operation allocation
for air transport.
Allocation of the port infrastructure based on visits by vessels gives a higher mate-
rial intensity for trips made by high-speed passenger craft than passenger allocation.
The high-speed craft spends a relatively shorter time at sea, so that it pays more visits
to the port. On the other hand, the majority of vessels plying the Helsinki-Tallinn route
(all the high-speed passenger craft and most of the passenger-car ferries) spend the

night in harbour, so that the port capacity has to be designed according to the number
of vessels that use it. In the relationship of vessel length to the length of the harbour,
more attention ought to have been paid to differences in vessel size. However, calcu-
lations made on this basis would have proved extremely complicated. Besides, they
would only have reflected the situation at the present time. Further, entering and
leaving the harbour is confined to one vessel at a time, which may affect the allocation
of the port capacity during busy periods.
Another issue affecting allocation in maritime transport has been the construction
of passenger-car ferries and RoPax (RoRo passenger) vessels, that is, freighters which
also carry passengers, because the allocation of material inputs arising from the use of
the port must be divided between the passengers and freight carried by such vessels.
These problems were resolved earlier at the case study stage by allocating 20 percent
of the infrastructure used to the freight carried by passenger-car ferries, and 80 per-
cent to the passengers (Lindqvist et al. 2005, p 40). Material inputs for which RoPax
vessels were responsible were allocated in total to freight, because the increase due
to passengers in the present situation can be regarded as insignificant. However, it
should be borne in mind that the situation in both cases could change, for instance,
due to market changes, in which case the allocation methods used now would have
to be revised.
2.6
Choice of allocation methods applied in the study

The final choice of allocation methods was made at an ’allocation workshop’ to which
all the researchers participating in the FIN-MIPS Transport project were invited, in
addition to members of the steering group and working groups. The workshop took
the form of a sort of card game: each option was written on a playing card to which
the characteristics of that particular allocation method and its effect on the results were
added. As the discussion progressed, the unsuitable alternatives dropped out of the
’game’ until only the ’winning alternatives’ for each mode of transport remained.
Based on the discussion, the participants in the workshop decided to adopt opera-
tion allocation for air transport. This best reflects the actual situation in air transport,
while also being fairly equivalent to the allocation used for maritime transport, in
which the port infrastructure is directly divided by the number of vessel visits. Air
and maritime transport are similar in the sense that their infrastructure is spot-like
and one operation occupies the infrastructure for a certain length of time, irrespective
of the size of the transport.
According to Viinikainen (2005b), the allocation methods equivalent to operation
allocation in road transport would be ADT allocation and in rail transport, train-ki-
lometre allocation. However, in the discussion it was maintained that the different
transport systems are not fully comparable to each other. The participants in the
workshop stated that those allocation methods reflecting the special features of each
mode of transport as closely as possible were desirable, but, at the same time, it had
to be possible to compare one with another.
Following a lengthy debate, the participants opted for weighted ADT-type alloca-
tion in the case of road transport, and wagon-kilometre allocation for rail traffic, this
being best fitted to the particular situation in each case. As with operation allocation,
these allocation methods are unit-based. However, they do take account of the space
requirements and other capacity use features of different vehicles or wagons.
Bicycle transport differs from other forms of transport in that the database on
the use of shared-use paths is rudimentary and no official statistics are available. Se-
condly, the allocation issues are different because the infrastructure is used by several
different groups of users. Naskila (2005) says that a shared-use path is used by many

more people than just pedestrians and cyclists. For bicycle transport the workshop
decided to select an allocation method in which one-third of the pathway is allocated
to cyclists. This method of allocation was stated to also take into account the winter
period, when there is less cycle traffic.
The results of this study are expressed from now on according to the chosen allo-
cation methods referred to in this chapter. When examining the results, one should
bear in mind that the effects of the allocation method applied are strongly reflected in
them. Therefore, these results should not be thought of as the absolute truth, despite
their indicating the order of magnitude of the natural resource consumption rather
well. The variations in the results using the different allocation methods studied are
shown in the case studies.
2.7
Calculation examples
Based on the results obtained, the natural resource consumption by different mo-
des of transport on different routes was calculated. The purpose of the calculation
examples is to indicate, using examples close to actual situations, how MIPS values
are calculated and used, and to seek the most appropriate means of transport from
the eco-efficiency perspective for the different routes. For some of the calculations on
long-distance transport, published information on the distances between cities was
used, ignoring precise departure and arrival points. Carrying out calculations at this
level is fairly easy and information on distances is readily available. Slightly more time
and effort are required for more precise, so-called door-to-door, calculations, which
also include journeys by local transport. For short trips, which account for most of
the journeys made by Finns, some typical journeys in densely populated and sparsely
populated areas are presented. Some of the most typical journeys are made to work
or school, as well as for shopping and leisure purposes (Ministry of Transport and
Communications 1999).
In the passenger transport calculations (section 4.1), the classification of streets
and roads, the volume of traffic on railway lines and the number of tracks, the air
route used on a journey, and the length of a route used by a ship, were all taken into
account. When the type of route, or specific route factor, was not available or could not
be determined, an average factor was used for the mode of transport in question.
The calculation examples for freight traffic (section 4.2) were made in cooperation
with the Finnish Post Corporation and TNT Suomi Oy. In the post examples, the
amount of natural resources consumed by sending an average letter was calculated.
The natural resource consumption of TNT consignments was quantified using four
examples.

3 Results
Sections 3.1–3.5 present the results by mode of transport in four different ways:
• Firstly, the MI values for the different components of the mode of transport are given
collectively. In the same connection the total natural resource consumption of the mode of
transport per year is given.
• Secondly, the method of calculation is presented by which the natural resource consumption
of the desired route for a certain form of travel can be calculated.
• Thirdly, the calculated consumption for different route categories or routes is given in table
form.
• Finally, the average consumption of the mode of transport in Finland per passenger- and
tonne-kilometre is given.
3.1
Natural resource consumption of road transport
3.1.1
MI values for road transport

Road transport applies to roads, streets and private roads. The consumption of six
vehicle types has been studied for all kinds of roads. The MI values for vehicles and
roads are shown in the following table.
Table 7. MIPS values for the vehicles studied per kilometre without infrastructure
(Pusenius et al. 2005).
Natural resource consumption of vehicles per driven km
Vehicle type Abiotic (kg) Water (kg) Air (kg)
Passenger car 0.14 1.97 0.18
Bus/Coach 0.45 5.43 0.72
Van 0.18 2.47 0.26
Lorry 0.31 3.87 0.46
Lorry with semi-trailer 0.67 7.43 1.11
Lorry with trailer 0.77 8.65 1.17

Table 8. Natural resource consumption of different road types per kilometre per year
without traffic. To arrive at the consumption of a road-kilometre over the entire life
cycle of the road the figures have to be multiplied by 60 years. (Sources: streets and
private roads, Talja et al. 2006; main roads, own calculations based on Pusenius et
al. 2005; others, Pusenius et al. 2005).
Natural resource consumption of roads per km per year
Road class Abiotic (t) Water (t) Air (t)
Connecting road 591 4,358 6
Regional road 939 5,258 8
Class 2 main road 2,586 12,215 19
Class 1 main road 2,586 12,215 19
Motorway 11,630 19,519 37
Street to residences 278 7,852 7
Collector street 501 12,485 17
Main street 1,092 15,285 21
Private road 109 2,400 1
The following table gives the MI values per kilometre of average road types. These
have been calculated on the basis of the previous table by weighting the average with
the total length of the road types.
Table 9. MI values for average road types without transport.

MI values of average roads without traffic, per year
Road class MI abiotic (t) MI water (t) MI air (t)
Average public road 1,067 5,918 9
Average street 370 9,442 10
Average private road 109 2,400 1
Average route 500 5,540 5
Road transport in Finland, which includes the public road, private road and street
infrastructure, consumes a total of 113 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources
a year, amounting to approximately 22 tonnes per person (according to Statistics
Finland (2005), Finland’s population in 2003 was 5,220,000). A total of 1049 million
tonnes of water a year is consumed, or 201 tonnes per person per year. Equivalent
figures for air are 12.1 tonnes a year and 2.3 tonnes per inhabitant per year. The major
contributor to abiotic natural resource consumption is infrastructure. In the case of
air the largest proportion is consumed by the traffic (Fig. 12). Section 3.6 gives the
consumption of road transport in terms of each road category.
Based on the selected method of allocation, the overall consumption by road tran-
sport is 77 percent for passenger transport and 23 percent for freight transport. In this
division vans have been classified solely as freight transport.

Roads (construction and
abiotic maintenance)
Vehicle manufacturing
and removal
water
Vehicle use
air
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Figure 12. Distribution of natural resource consumption by road transport between infrastructure

and traffic.
Private roads and streets are not included in the previous figure, but the relationships
as a whole would not change, even if these were to be included.
Ninety-eight percent of the consumption of abiotic natural resources by private
roads and 76 percent of the abiotic consumption by streets is due to the infrastructure.
The greater the traffic contribution to abiotic natural resource consumption, the more
traffic there is on the road. Eighty percent of the water consumption includes the inf-
rastructure fraction and of this the greatest proportion is rainwater diverted from the
original thoroughfare. The water consumption reveals the relationship between the
total surface area of the infrastructure and the traffic using it. Ninety-nine percent of
the water consumption by transport on private roads includes the road contribution,
whereas 89 percent of the consumption by street transport is due to the infrastructure
(Talja et al. 2006). Most of the air consumption is due to vehicle fuel consumption.
Natural resource consumption by road transport can also be examined in terms
of road category (Fig. 13).
Roads (construction and

abiotic maintenance)
Vehicle manufacturing
and removal
water
Vehicle use
air
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Figure 13. Distribution of natural resource consumption by road transport. Includes both infra-
structure and traffic.

The contribution of road categories to natural resource consumption can be compared
to the road category lengths and journey data in the introduction (Figures 4 and 5). By
comparing data one can conclude that the consumption of abiotic natural resources
reveals not only the number of road kilometres travelled in the road category, but also
the bulkiness of the road structure. For example, motorways, while amounting to only
0.4 percent of the total roads and streets included in the study, consume, however,
approximately 10 percent of the abiotic materials. Private roads of light construction,
accounting for around one-half of the roads and streets in the study, overall consume
only slightly more abiotic natural resources than motorways as a whole.
Water consumption by road transport reveals the relationship between the surface
areas of the route categories. Connecting roads and private roads consume the most
water because they have the most surface area, in other words a lot of rainwater runs
off them. Air consumption, on the other hand, reveals the relationships between the
volumes of traffic using the different road types: main streets carry the most vehicles,
so that their air consumption is highest. Similarly, a lot of air is consumed by busy
motorways and class 1 main roads.
3.1.2
Calculating natural resource consumption for a desired route
Natural resource consumption per passenger is calculated as follows:
MI vehicle ( kg / vehicle km)

MIPS for particular route = length of route ×
number of passengers or transporte d mass
Passenger-kilometres can be obtained from vehicle-kilometres by dividing them

by the number of passengers. Tonne-kilometre figures can be obtained in an equi-
valent fashion by dividing vehicle-kilometres by the mass transported (in tonnes).
Depending on the level of accuracy desired, either the average figures or the ones
for each road type given in Appendix 1 can be used. The ridership of the vehicle has
a fundamental impact on the MIPS value. When calculating consumption for a bus
or coach the figures per kilometre can be used as they are, but even then taking into
account the ridership of the vehicle radically affects the figures. Similarly, in MIPS
calculations for freight transport, factors based on the average vehicle ridership can
be used. Such factors are calculated either according to the type of route (Sec. 3.1.3),
or as national averages (Sec. 3.1.4).
In Section 4 some examples are presented of the consumption of natural resources
along different roads by different forms of transport.
3.1.3
MIPS values for road transport by road and street category

Figures 14 and 15 give some examples showing how abiotic MIPS values can vary on
different roads in passenger and freight transport. Precise MIPS values for each kind
of route, including water and air consumption, as well as for all kinds of vehicles are
given in Appendix 1.

Abiotic natural resource consumption for different road categories
by passenger traffic
8.00
7.19
7.00 Passenger car
Bus/coach
6.00
5.00
kg/passenger-km
4.00
3.23
3.00
2.00 1.89 1.65

1.56 1.58 1.44
1.38 1.34
0.71 1.07
1.00
0.31 0.42 0.30 0.24 0.16 0.35 0.37 0.32
0.05
0.00
connecting regional class 2 class 1 motorwaymain street collector street to private average
road road main road main road street residences road road
Figure 14. Abiotic MIPS values in the different road categories calculated per passenger-kilometre.
Abiotic natural resource consumption in different road categories

by freight traffic
3.50
Lorry
2.89
3.00
2.50
2.00
kg/tonne-km
1.50
1.30
1.00
0.76
0.55 0.54 0.63 0.66 0.58
0.43
0.50
0.07
0.00
connecting regional class 2 class 1 motorwaymain street collector street to private average
road road main road main road street residences road road
Figure 15. Abiotic natural resource MIPS values for a lorry without trailer in different road catego-
ries calculated per tonne-kilometre.
These figures show the fluctuation interval and size of the average abiotic MIPS values
for road transport compared to the figures for each route category. The average MIPS
values have been calculated by weighting the MIPS value for each type of road with
the volume of traffic.
In both passenger and freight transport, driving on private roads and connecting
roads consumes the most abiotic natural resources. The least abiotic natural resources
are consumed per kilometre when driving along main streets and motorways.

3.1.4
MIPS values on average for road transport in Finland

The average MIPS values for road transport can be generalised for roads, private
roads and streets by weighting the average MIPS values for the route categories with
the journeys for the categories. Figures obtained by generalising in this way can be
used, for example, when one desires to know the amount of natural resources con-
sumed by a journey when travelling or transporting goods, irrespective of the road
category. The results for passenger transport are given as vehicle- and passenger-
kilometres (Table 10). In freight transport the results are given as vehicle- and tonne-
kilometres (Table 11). For calculating passenger-kilometres, data from the 1998–1999
passenger transport study have been used, according to which there are an average
of 1.4 passengers in passenger cars and 13 passengers in buses and coaches (Ministry
of Transport and Communications 1999). When calculating tonne-kilometres it has
been assumed that, on average, a van transports 200 kilograms of goods, a lorry, 7
tonnes, a lorry with a semi-trailer, 14 tonnes, and a lorry with a trailer, 21 tonnes
(Pusenius et al. 2005, p 30).
Table 10. Average natural resource consumption in passenger transport.

Vehicle MIPS kg/vehicle-km MIPS kg/passenger-km
abiotic water air abiotic water air
(kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)
Passenger 2.02 20.33 0.19 1.44 14.52 0.14
car
Bus/coach 4.22 42.05 0.76 0.32 3.23 0.06
Van 2.16 22.70 0.28 2.16 22.70 0.28
Table 11. Average natural resource consumption in freight transport.

Vehicle MIPS kg/vehicle-km MIPS kg/tonne-km
abiotic water air abiotic water air (kg)
(kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)
Van 2.16 22.70 0.28 10.78 113.51 1.39
Lorry 4.08 43.29 0.50 0.58 6.18 0.07
Lorry with 6.32 79.64 1.17 0.45 5.69 0.08
semi-trai-
ler
Lorry with 4.88 31.97 1.20 0.23 1.52 0.06
trailer
In the figures obtained for each type of vehicle the average MIPS values for a lorry
with a trailer is lower than for one with a semi-trailer because the number of lorries
with trailers on connecting roads, private roads and streets leading to properties has
been estimated as zero.
In freight transport when vans are included an average of 0.52 kilograms of abiotic
natural resources, 6.3 kilograms of water, and 0.09 kilograms of air are consumed
per tonne-kilometre. Taking vans into account raises the figure for freight transport
because a van has been estimated as transporting on average only 200 kilograms of
goods. Without vans, freight transport would consume on average only 0.37 kilo-
grams of abiotic natural resources, 4.2 kilograms of water, and 0.07 kilograms of air
per tonne-kilometre.

3.2
Natural resource consumption by bicycle transport
3.2.1
MI values for bicycle transport

Table 12 gives the generalised MI values for a bicycle, cycle lanes, and cycle lane ligh-
ting in Finland (see Hakkarainen et al. 2005). If information is desired on the natural
resource consumption of a bicycle over its entire life cycle, the consumption calculated
below for one bicycle should be multiplied by 20 years. If the total consumption of
natural resources in one year is desired, the consumption calculated for one bicycle
year should be multiplied by the number of bicycles, that is, 3.1 million.
Table 12. MI values for bicycle transport.

Consumption by cycle lane in metres per year
Abiotic Water Air (kg)
(kg) (kg)
Cycle lane 36 597 0
Lighting 0.5 244 0.2
Total 36.5 841 0.2
Consumption of average bicycle

Abiotic Water Air (kg)
(kg) (kg)
Consumption of bicycle per 19 1,805 5.7
year
Consumption of bicycle per 0.05 4.30 0.01
passenger-km
Bicycle transport in Finland, which takes into account both bicycles and cycle lanes,
consumes a total of 0.5 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources per year. This is
equivalent to 95 kilograms per person per year. In one year, 15.7 million tonnes of wa-
ter is consumed, which is 3 tonnes per person. Air consumption totals 20,194 tonnes
per year and 4 kilograms per person per year. Almost 90 percent of abiotic natural
resource consumption is due to bicycle lanes (Fig. 16).
abiotic 434,760 59,458
Roads (cycle lane

and lighting)
water 10,095,960 5,594,570
Manufacturing and
disposal of bicycles
air 2,400 17,794
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Figure 16. Natural resource consumption in tonnes per year for bicycle transport as a whole, and
the division of consumption between bicycle lanes and bicycles.

3.2.2
MIPS values and calculation of natural resource

consumption for a desired route
Cycle transport in Finland consumes an average of 0.38 kilograms of abiotic natural
resources, 12.1 kilograms of water, and 0.02 kilograms of air per cycle-kilometre. The
consumption for a particular journey can be calculated by multiplying these figures
by the length of the route. If there are two persons on a bicycle, for example a child
in a seat, the figures for the bicycle should be divided by the number of passengers
to obtain the actual consumption per person.
As with all forms of transport, the number of kilometres ridden on a bicycle funda-
mentally affects the MIPS value. The volume of bicycle traffic for Finland as a whole is
only an estimate. In actual fact, the MIPS values for bicycle transport vary enormously
in different areas. According to Talja et al. (2006), the average abiotic MIPS value for
cycling in Helsinki is around half of Finland’s average figure, the figure for water
decreases by 40 percent, and that for air remains almost the same. The average figures
given here should be approached with caution, in the same way as the average figures
given under the other modes of transport, because they are indicative.
3.3
Natural resource consumption by rail transport
3.3.1
MI values for rail transport

In this section the MIPS values for long distance and local transport on the railways
are presented. Local transport includes tram and metro transport, in addition to the
Helsinki Metropolitan Area’s local train transport (based on Talja et al. 2006). The
annual natural resource consumption of rolling stock of various types, and of track
sections, has been calculated on the basis of the average mix of electricity produced
in Finland.
Table 13. Railway rolling stock MI values. The consumption of towing energy by a locomotive is
applied to rolling stock consumption (Vihermaa et al. 2005, Appendix 10).
Natural resource consumption of locomotive and rolling stock per driven kilo-
metre
Loco/rolling stock type MI abiotic (kg) MI water (kg) MI air
(kg)
Sr2 locomotive 0.2 10.6 0.01
Ed-wagon 1.2 418.9 0.46
Habinss freight wagon 1.0 340.7 0.40
Table 14. MI values for track types .

Natural resource consumption by rail type per kilometre per year
Rail type MI abiotic (kg) MI water (kg) MI air
(kg)
Single track 601 8,112 13
Double track 2,781 15,941 21

Rail transport in Finland, which includes long-distance and local transport railways
and trains, consumes a total of 5.3 tonnes of abiotic natural resources per year. This
means one tonne per person per year. In one year 286 million tonnes of water are
consumed, or 55 tonnes per person. Air consumption by rail transport totals 349,000
tonnes per year, or 67 kilograms per person per year. When assessed by the selected
allocation method, 32 percent of the consumption is due to passenger rail transport
and 68 percent to freight transport.
Helsinki’s tram and metro transport consumes a total of 161 tonnes of abiotic na-
tural resources, 22 tonnes of water, and 31,000 tonnes of air (Talja et al. 2006).
Railway line and other

Abiotic infrastructure
Rolling stock
Water manufacturing and
maintenance
Use of rolling stock

Air
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Figure 17. Distribution of natural resource consumption by rail transport between traffic and
infrastructure.
3.3.2
Calculation of natural resource consumption for a desired route

Figure 18 gives the MIPS values for Finland’s long-distance rail transport in passen-
ger- and tonne-kilometres for each rail section. These figures are based on calculations
by Vihermaa and others (2005) and on the division of rail sections into three cate-
gories based on the volume of traffic on each section. The average natural resource
consumption of a particular route can be calculated by applying the MIPS values for
each kilometre.
The average natural resource consumption by local transport along a particular
route can be calculated by multiplying the MIPS values for each passenger-kilometre
(Table 15) by the length of the route.

Figure 18. Differences in rail sections with reference to the consumption of abiotic natural resources
by rail transport (figure by Satu Lähteenoja).
3.3.3
MIPS values per track type

Vihermaa and others (2005) have calculated the natural resource consumption of
rail transport on 1- and 2-track railway lines at various levels of transport density. In
passenger transport, on a little-used track there are 50,000 passenger-transport jour-
neys per year on average, on an average-used track, 500,000 passenger journeys per
year on average, and on a busy track, 5 million passenger-transport journeys a year
on average. In freight transport, on a little-used track there are 500,000 net tonnes of
goods carried per year on average, on an average-used track, 1,500,000 net tonnes
of goods per year on average, and on a busy track, 3 million net tonnes of goods per
year on average. The following table shows the MIPS values based on the level of use.
More precise information on the assumptions used in the calculations can be found
in the case study by Vihermaa and others (2005).

Table 15. MIPS values for rail transport (based on Vihermaa et al. 2005, p 99-
100; Talja et al. 2006).
Passenger transport MIPS values
Abiotic (kg/ Water (kg/pass.- Air
pass.-km) km) (kg/pass.-km)
1-track
Little used 3.22 59.48 0.09
Average 0.34 14.13 0.02
Busy 0.05 6.23 0.01
2-track
Little used 14.74 101.91 0.13
Average 1.49 18.43 0.02
Busy 0.17 6.58 0.01
Local transport MIPS values
Local train 0.53 28.01 0.03
Metro 0.29 29.42 0.04
Tram 0.36 48.08 0.07
Freight transport MIPS values
Abiotic Water Air
(kg/t-km) (kg/t-km) (kg/t-km)
1-track
Little used 0.91 20.93 0.03
Average 0.32 12.68 0.02
Busy 0.17 10.69 0.01
2-track
Little used 4.11 32.39 0.04
Average 1.39 16.56 0.02
Busy 0.71 12.53 0.02
1-track line for freight transport only
Little used 1.22 25.28 0.04
Average 0.43 14.12 0.02
Busy 0.23 11.46 0.01
3.3.4
Average MIPS values

In railway transport, based on the MIPS values for each section of rail, the average
MIPS values for passenger and freight transport were calculated. The average figu-
res were obtained by weighting the MIPS values for each rail type by its length. Rail
sections serving solely freight transport were not included in the MIPS values for
passenger transport. The figures do not include metro or tram transport.
In passenger transport on average 1.2 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 29
kilograms of water, and 0.04 kilograms of air are consumed per passenger-kilometre
(Table 16). In freight transport on average 0.54 kilograms of abiotic natural resources,
15.26 kilograms of water, and 0.02 kilograms of air are consumed per tonne-kilomet-
re.
These figures can be used, for example, when making a rough comparison at the
national level or when calculating MI values for products when the average transport
distance is known but not the precise routes. Because the location where the transpor-
tation is taking place vastly influences the results, this average may not necessarily
tell us very much about the consumption of a route under scrutiny.

Table 16. Average MIPS values for passenger rail transport
Average MIPS figures for rail traffic (kg/pass.-km)
Abiotic Water Air
Long-distance rail traffic 1.37 29.25 0.04
Local rail traffic 0.53 28.01 0.03
Average 1.20 28.99 0.04
3.4
Natural resource consumption by air transport
3.4.1
MI values for air transport

For calculating the MIPS values for air transport, the natural resource consumption of
all of Finland’s airports per year was calculated, both as a whole and per operation.
Section 2.4.4 describes how the calculations were made. Natural resource consump-
tion by aircraft manufacturing is shown in the following table. Take-off consumes
more fuel compared to other flight activity and on short journeys the contribution of
take-off is emphasised, so that it is not possible to offer any factors for fuel consump-
tion based directly on distance.
Table 17. MI values for the manufacturing of certain types of aircraft

(Nieminen et al. 2005, p 49).
Aircraft MI kg/flight-km
Abiotic Water Air
ATR-72 0.06 0.52 0.01
MD-80 0.12 1.22 0.01
A320 0.10 0.96 0.01
B757 0.09 0.85 0.01
MD-11 0.13 1.17 0.01
Commercial aviation taking place within Finland’s economic area consumes a total of
1.2 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources a year. This amounts to 240 kilograms
per person per year. Seventy million tonnes of water is consumed per year, amounting
to 13 tonnes per person. The total consumption of air is 867,800 tonnes per year, or
166 kilograms per person per year. These figures include all the infrastructure used
by civil aviation in Finland, consumption by aircraft manufacturing according to
flight-kilometre, and fuel consumption by domestic air transport. The distribution of
natural resource consumption between the infrastructure and air transport is shown
in Figure 19. Approximately 92 percent of the consumption is due to passenger tran-
sport and 8 percent to air cargo (goods) transport.
By examining only air transport limited to Finland’s economic area we exclude
most of the air transport serving Finland. If we wish to calculate natural resource
consumption by all the air transport serving Finland, we need to know the total fuel
consumption of aircraft departing from, and arriving in, Finland. Half of the material
input to this fuel consumption would be Finland’s and half that of the country at the
other end of the route. However, this kind of data is not available for airlines other
than Finnair.

By making use of Finnair’s data, one can arrive at a rough estimate of the amount of
fuel consumption remaining outside the study. In 2003 Finnair aircraft were engaged
in a total of 94,000 operations: in conjunction with these a total of 547,000 tonnes of
fuel was consumed, but this does not include the division referred to in the previous
paragraph (Finnair 2005). If the air consumption is calculated by applying the MI
values of diesel on the fuel consumption of the aircraft, 1.76 million tonnes of air, or
340 kilograms per capita per year, were consumed by Finnair’s air transport. In one
year, 744,000 tonnes of abiotic natural resources were consumed, or 143 kilograms
per capita. Similarly, 5.3 million tonnes of water, or 1016 kilograms, were consumed.
Air consumption due to Finnair’s fuel consumption is thus almost double, the con-
sumption of abiotic natural resources is 60 percent, and water consumption, 8 percent,
compared to consumption by air transport within Finland’s economic area.
Abiotic
Airports
Water Aircraft manufacturing
Aviation fuel
Air consumption
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Figure 19. Distribution of natural resource consumption by domestic air transport.
The largest contributor to abiotic natural resource consumption by air transport is

the airport infrastructure. In the case of water consumption the highest contribution
is due to rainwater falling on tarmacked airfields. Aircraft manufacturing uses up
so few natural resources in comparison to the overall consumption for air transport
that it does not even appear in the figure. Most of the air consumption is related to
aircraft fuel consumption.
3.4.2
Calculation of natural resource consumption for a desired route

Natural resource consumption for a particular route can be calculated for different
aircraft in a slightly different way. The difference appears in particular in the MIPS
values for air consumption: most of the air consumption is due to fuel consumption,
the amount per passenger-kilometre depending on the aircraft type and the travel
time. Thus, it is not possible to offer as simple a chart for calculating MIPS values as
with other forms of transport.
The natural resource consumption of air transport has already been calculated for
the different routes along which Finnair flies from Helsinki. MIPS values per passen-
ger-kilometre and route with different aircraft have been calculated in Appendix 2.
The aircraft used may change periodically and here there was a desire to portray
differences occurring on the same route when operating different aircraft types. Not
all of the examples are actual ones: for example, not all types of aircraft, either pro-
peller turbine types or jets, are in use in Finland. Moreover, the aircraft types used on
these routes do not have the same flying time as is assumed for some of the calcula-
tions. Consequently, actual flying times have not been obtained for all the calculated

routes. If a desired route cannot be found in the table, either the MIPS values for a
route of equivalent length, or average MIPS values for air transport, can be used. The
latter are given in the next section.
3.4.3
Average MIPS values

Domestic flying in Finland on average consumes 0.56 kilograms of abiotic natural
resources, 26.6 kilograms of water and 0.28 of air per passenger-kilometre (Table 18).
These figures have been obtained by weighting the MIPS values for each route by the
number of aircraft types and the number of operators (Rusko 2005b). For the study
purposes, the aircraft types chosen were ATR72 propeller turbine aircraft and MD80
jets. Almost the same result is obtained by dividing the infrastructure material input
evenly among the operators and weighting the aircraft and fuel consumption with
the number of operators on the routes.
On flights from Finland to Europe, on average 0.11 kilograms of abiotic natural
resources, 3.4 kilograms of water and 0.14 kilograms of air are consumed per passen-
ger-kilometre. Average MIPS values for holiday and long-haul flights are shown in the
following table, as are the figures for air cargo transport, which have been calculated
by multiplying the figures for passenger transport by ten. MIPS values for specific
flights are given in Appendix 2. The average MIPS figures to nearby areas have been
calculated from the figures in Appendix 2. They are based on an equal proportion
of propeller turbine and jet aircraft. In practice, the proportion may differ from this.
However, the figures can still be used for rough comparisons.
Table 18. Average MIPS values for air transport on different flights.
Passenger traffic (kg/pass-km) Air cargo traffic (kg/tonne-
km)
Where to (from Abiotic Water Air Abiotic Water Air
Helsinki)
Domestic 0.56 26.6 0.28 5.6 266 2.8
Nearby areas 0.47 18.9 0.34 4.7 189 3.4
Europe 0.11 3.4 0.14 1.1 34 1.4
Holiday flight 0.04 1.1 0.07 0.4 11 0.7
Long-haul flight 0.06 0.9 0.13 0.6 9 1.3
3.5
Natural resource consumption by maritime transport
3.5.1
MI values for maritime transport

Natural resource consumption by maritime transport is attributable to harbours, ship-
ping channels and vessels. Harbours consume around 8.3 million tonnes of abiotic
natural resources, 26.6 million tonnes of water, and 291,000 tonnes of air per year.
Shipping channels leading to winter harbours consume a total of 288,000 tonnes of
abiotic natural resources, 200,000 tonnes of water, and 13,000 tonnes of air per year.
Vessels plying routes within Finland’s economic area consume around 1.6 million
tonnes of abiotic natural resources, 12 million tonnes of water, and 2.6 million tonnes
of air per year.

Maritime transport within Finland’s economic area consumes approximately 10
million tonnes of abiotic natural resources a year. This amounts to some 2 tonnes per
person per year. A total of 40.8 million tonnes of water is consumed, equivalent to
7,800 kilograms per person. The air consumption comes to 3 million tonnes per year,
or 570 kilograms per capita per year. The distribution of the natural resource con-
sumption between the infrastructure and the maritime transport is shown in Figure
20. The allocation of natural resource consumption between passenger and cargo
transport has been roughly assessed based on the vessels arriving at the ports (Finnish
Port Association 2005). An estimated 30 percent of maritime transport consumption
is due to passenger transport and 70 percent to cargo transport.
According to the MEERI database of the Technical Research Centre of Finland
(VTT), 802,280 tonnes of fuel a year is consumed. This includes consumption by both
domestic and foreign vessels. According to Mäenpää (2005), the vessels of Finnish
shipyards consume approximately 1.28 million tonnes of fuel a year. Thus, limiting
the calculations to Finland’s economic area leaves at least 40 percent of the fuel con-
sumption by Finnish vessels outside the calculation. The use of vessels belonging to
Finnish shipyards accounts for around 1.84 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources,
13.4 million tonnes of water, and 4 million tonnes of air per year.
Abiotic
Harbours and
Water channels
Shipbuilding
Air Use of vessels
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Figure 20. Distribution of natural resource consumption by maritime transport in Finland’s econo-

mic area.
In maritime transport the infrastructure, that is, harbours and shipping channels, con-
sumes most of the abiotic natural resources and water. Fuel consumption consumes
the highest amount of air. Vessel manufacturing consumes energy in particular.
3.5.2
Average MIPS values

The generalisation of the data obtained by the case study (Lindqvist et al. 2005) was
made by such a rough calculation that no actual calculation data for consumption by
a desired route emerged. As with other forms of transport, average MIPS values can
also be used here at a general level.
In passenger transport going from Finland to places abroad, on average 0.26 kilo-
grams of abiotic natural resources, 2.42 kilograms of water, and 0.31 kilograms of air
are consumed per passenger-kilometre. In cargo transport on routes in areas close
to Finland, an average of 0.75 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 3.13 kilograms
of water, and 0.1 kilograms of air are consumed per tonne-kilometre. On European
routes on average 0.12 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 0.71 kilograms of water,

and 0.1 kilograms of air are consumed per tonne-kilometre. Similarly, on inter-conti-
nental routes 0.08 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 0.6 kilograms of water, and
0.1 kilograms of air are consumed per tonne-kilometre (Table 19).
The average figures for European cargo transport take account of both oil tankers
and RoRo vessels, whose consumption is very different. The following table also
shows the average consumption of oil tankers and RoRo vessels (based on Lindqvist
et al. 2005, p 67).
Table 19. Average MIPS values for maritime cargo transport.

Average MIPS figures for cargo traffic in kg/tonne-km
Vessel Destination Abiotic Water Air
RoRo vessel all 0.14 0.8 0.1
Oil tanker all 0.04 0.3 0.02
Average Nearby areas 0.75 3.13 0.1
Europe 0.12 0.71 0.1
other continents 0.08 0.6 0.1
3.6
Natural resource consumption by

Finland’s transport system
Within the confines of this study, the transport system consumes per year approxima-
tely 130 million tonnes of abiotic natural resources, 1.46 billion tonnes of water, and
16.3 million tonnes of air. This amounts to 25 tonnes of abiotic natural resources, 280
tonnes of water, and 3 tonnes of air per person per year (Tables 20-22).
Based on the allocation methods used in this study, 72 percent of the consumption
of abiotic natural resources by the transport system is due to passenger transport and
28 percent to freight transport.
According to Mäenpää and others (2000, p 15), the total consumption of natural
resources by Finland in 1997 amounted to some 500 million tonnes. Based on this,
the abiotic material consumption of the transport system would account for around
25 percent of Finland’s total material requirement (TMR). So large a percentage is
influenced by the fact that in this study the material input of previously constructed
infrastructure has been divided evenly over the whole life span of the infrastructure.
Nowadays, not a large amount of infrastructure construction takes place. Thus, the
present proportion of infrastructure construction in Finland’s TMR is lower than 25
percent.
In the calculations of the total consumption of natural resources arrived at by
Mäenpää and others (2000), civil engineering has in no year since 1970 consumed
as much as the result obtained by this study. Approximately 75 percent of Finland’s
public roads were, however, already in existence in the 1950s, and by the start of the
1970s over 90 percent of the public roads had been constructed (National Road Ad-
ministration 2004b). The natural resource consumption due to the building of these
roads is included in this study, so that in fact no conflict emerges between this study
and that carried out by Mäenpää and others (2000).

Table 20. Abiotic natural resource consumption by the transport system in one year.
Abiotic natural resource consumption in one year
Infra- % Traffic % Total Per capi- %
struct. (mill. t) (mill. t) ta (t)
(mill. t)
Public roads 84.52 71 5.70 51 90.22 17.3 69
Private roads 10.93 9 0.16 1 11.09 2.1 9
Streets 9.18 8 2.78 25 11.96 2.3 9
Cycling 0.43 0 0.06 1 0.49 0.1 0
Rail transport 4.62 4 0.67 6 5.29 1.0 4
Air transport 0.91 1 0.34 3 1.24 0.2 1
Maritime tran- 8.56 7 1.56 14 10.11 1.9 8
sport
TOTAL 119 100 11 100 130 25,0 100
Table 21. Water consumption by the transport system in one year.

Water consumption in one year
(mill. t)
Public roads 462.85 42 77.12 21 540.0 103.4 37
Private roads 244.38 22 2.18 1 246.6 47.2 17
Streets 234.19 21 27.93 8 262.1 50.2 18
Cycling 10.10 1 5.59 2 15.7 3.0 1
Rail transport 51.43 5 234.37 65 285.8 54.8 20
Air transport 67.60 6 2.43 1 70.0 13.4 5
Maritime tran- 28.85 3 11.97 3 40.8 7.8 3
sport
TOTAL 1,099 100 362 100 1,461 279.8 100
Table 22. Air consumption by the transport system in one year.

Air consumption in one year
(mill. t)
Public roads 0.71 46 7.50 51 8.21 1.6 50
Private roads 0.11 7 0.21 1 0.32 0.1 2
Streets 0.26 17 3.33 23 3.59 0.7 22
Cycling 0.002 0 0.02 0 0.02 0.00 0
Rail transport 0.08 5 0.27 2 0.35 0.1 2
Air transport 0.07 4 0.80 5 0.87 0.2 5
Maritime tran- 0.30 20 2.66 18 2.97 0.6 18
sport
TOTAL 1.5 100 15 100 16.3 3.1 100
Figures 21 and 22 show the distribution of the total consumption of natural resources
between traffic and infrastructure, as well as for the different forms of transport.

Natural resource consumption by traffic, million tonnes
Abiotic 119 11
Infrastructure
Water 1,005 362 Traffic
Air 2 15
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Figure 21. Distribution of natural resource consumption between infrastructure and traffic.
Abiotic
4% 8%
1%
0%
9%
9%
69 %
Water
5% 3%
Public roads
Private roads
21 %
40 % Streets
Cycle traffic
Rail traffic
1% Air traffic
Maritime traffic
12 %
18 %
Air
18 %
5%
2% 51 %
0%
22 %
2%
Figure 22. Distribution of natural resource consumption between different forms of transport

When the distribution of natural resource consumption is compared to the division
of passenger and freight transport performance (Fig. 2 and 3), the results can be con-
sidered logical. Ninety-four percent of passenger-transport journeys and 68 percent
of freight-transport journeys include road transport, which consumes 90 percent of
the abiotic natural resources.
The consumption of abiotic natural resources first and foremost reveals the inf-
rastructure mass demanded by the particular mode of transport, this mass being
determined by surface area and thickness. Thus, for instance, harbours, which are
of massive construction, consume more abiotic natural resources than private roads,
despite the latter having a larger surface area.
Similarly, while airports have larger surface areas than harbours, their abiotic na-
tural resource consumption is markedly less than that of harbours.
The distribution of water consumption (Fig. 22) is primarily associated with the
surface area required by the mode of transport, since an appreciable fraction of water
consumption is due to rainwater diverging from its original route. The contribution of
private roads to water consumption is greater than the contribution of maritime tran-
sport. The use of water by rail transport, on the other hand, is linked to the utilisation
of water for electricity generation. Consequently, the contribution of rail transport
towards water consumption by the transport system is greater than its surface area
contribution. Air consumption is in almost direct relationship to journeys, since it is
primarily based on the use of fuel. Here, rail transport forms an exception. The cont-
ribution of rail transport to the volume of transport is greater than the contribution
of rail transport to air consumption. This is influenced by, firstly, the energy efficiency
of rail transport and, secondly, the proportion of electricity generated by means other
than combustion in relation to the overall electricity consumed by rail transport.

4 Calculation examples
This chapter shows how the MIPS values calculated in the study can be used in prac-
tice. Natural resource consumption has been calculated for different domestic routes
using different modes of transport. In the calculation examples for passenger traffic
the results were applied to practical situations of making a choice, so that at the same
time it can be seen what mode of transport for a journey is the most eco-efficient. The
calculation examples for freight traffic demonstrate how enterprises can benefit from
the results of the study.
4.1
Calculation examples for passenger traffic

In the long-distance transport calculations, mainly the MIPS values for public roads
have been used for vehicular traffic. Many journeys involve walking, which has not
been taken into account. Almost all journeys generally include urban area transport
at the start and end of the trip, but on longer journeys short trips along streets or pri-
vate roads hardly affect the overall consumption. In some examples the consumption
‘from door to door’ has been calculated, while in others the consumption has been
calculated only on a road map scale. The results of the calculations are given here.
Example 1. One person’s journey from the centre of Helsinki to the centre of Hämeen-
linna, Tampere, Oulu or Rovaniemi
Options are passenger car, coach and train, and in all cases, except to Hämeenlinna,
aeroplane. In this example the road sections have been studied only at the GT road
map series scale of 1:200 000. The results are given in Figures 23-26.
From the perspective of abiotic natural resource consumption, the passenger car
is the worst option on all journeys. The vast difference between the passenger car
and the other modes of transport is partially based on the fact that the passenger car
consumption has been calculated per vehicle-kilometre, that is, it has been assumed
that only one person is travelling. When travelling from Helsinki to Tampere, the train
and coach are markedly more eco-efficient than the aeroplane. When going to Oulu
or Rovaniemi, only the passenger car is obviously a worse option than the others in
terms of its abiotic natural resource consumption.
Concerning water consumption, the coach is the best alternative on all journeys.
From the air consumption perspective the train is the best form of transport of all. But
the amount of electricity used by the train, which was estimated based on Finland’s
average national electricity production mix, must take into account high levels of
water consumption, because of the large share of regulated hydropower in electricity
production. For similar reasons, little air is consumed by a train in comparison to the
other means of transport.

160 152 800 20 18
711
140 700
kg/person per route
kg/person per route
kg/person per route

120 600 15
100 429
500
80 400 10
60 6
24 300
40 200 5
18 78
20 100 1
0
0 0
Abiotic
Water Air
abioottinen
passenger car coach train
Figure 23. Consumption of natural resources per person on the Helsinki–Hämeenlinna route.
300 5,000 60
250
kg/person per route
kg/person per route 4,000 50
kg/person per route

200 40
3,000
150 30
100 2,000
20
50 1,000 10
0
0 0
Abiotic
Water Air
passenger car coach
train prob. turbine
Figure 24. Consumption of natural resources per person on the Helsinki–Tampere route.
1,200 12,000 180

160
1,000 10,000
kg/person per route
kg/person per route
kg/person per route
140
800 8,000 120
600 100
6,000
80
400 4,000 60
200 40
2,000
20
0
0 0
Abiotic
Water Air
passenger car coach train jet
Figure 25. Consumption of natural resources per person on the Helsinki–Oulu route.
1,800 18,000 250

1,600 16,000
kg/person per route
1,400 14,000 200

kg/person per route
kg/person per route
1,200 12,000
1,000 150
10,000
800 8,000
600 100
6,000
400
4,000 50
200
2,000
0
0 0
Abiotic
Water Air
passenger car
coach
train
jet
Figure 26. Consumption of natural resources per person on the Helsinki–Rovaniemi route.

Example 2. Journey from Kurhila village (in Asikkala, 35 km north-west of Lahti) to
the University of Oulu, calculated ‘from door to door’
Here calculations were made for four different modes of travel or combinations:
1. Train: Coach from Kurhila to Hämeenlinna  by train to Oulu  bus to the University

of Oulu
2.Aeroplane: Taxi from Kurhila to Vääksy  coach to Helsinki–Vantaa Airport  flight to
Oulu  bus to the university
3. Coach: Coach/bus all the way
4. Passenger car: One person by passenger car the whole way
Abiotic
kg
933
1,000
800
600
400
215 263 148
200
0
train aircraft bus/coach passenger
car
Water
kg
10,838
12,000
10,000
8,000 7,687
6,000 4,989
4,000
2,000 824
0
car
Air
kg
178
200
160
120
95
80
40 18 31
0
car
Figure 27. Natural resource consumption per person on a journey from
Asikkala to Oulu. The alternatives are designated according to the primary
mode of travel involved.
On this trip the best option in regard to the consumption of abiotic natural resources
and water would be to go by coach. From the air consumption standpoint the best al-
ternative would be the train. A passenger car consumes over three times more abiotic
natural resources than the other options. The flight alternative consumes markedly
more water and air than the others.

Example 3. Passenger journey from the University of Vaasa to the University of
Joensuu’s geography department, calculated from ‘door to door’
In this example, calculations were made for five different modes of travel or combi-
nations:
1. By train the whole way, the universities being within walking distance of the railway
stations
2. By coach the whole way
3. By bus to Vaasa airport  flight from Vaasa to Helsinki  flight from Helsinki to Joensuu
 bus to the university
4. By passenger car, one person alone
5. By passenger car, with the driver and one passenger in the vehicle
Figure 28 shows the natural resource consumption per person for the route using five
different modes of travel.
Abiotic
kg
1,200
1,046
1,000
705
800
600 457 523
400
200 195
0
train bus/coach aircraft alone in car with 2 in car
Water
kg
25,000 21,358
20,000 15,771
15,000
10,000
5,639 2,819
5,000 1,082
0
train bus/coach aircraft alone in with 2 in
car car
Air
kg
200
169
160
120
93
80
23 35 47
40
0
train bus/coach aircraft alone in car with 2 in car
Figure 28. Natural resource consumption per person on the Vaasa–Joensuu route

using different travel options.
From the standpoint of the consumption of abiotic natural resources and water the
best method of travel on this journey is the coach. Since the final section of the rail
journey, Pieksämäki to Joensuu, has been categorised as a little-used section, travel-
ling by train consumes more natural resources than making the trip in a car with two

passengers. From the air consumption perspective, the train and coach are the most
eco-efficient alternatives, the aeroplane the least efficient. The mode of travel also
greatly affects the length of the journey: by car the trip is 490 kilometres, when flying
via Helsinki, 730 kilometres.
Example 4. From Helsinki to Tallinn (Estonia)
In this example, a trip from Helsinki to Tallinn has been calculated using three dif-
ferent options:
1. High-speed passenger craft

2. Passenger car ferry
3. Flight by propeller turbine aircraft
The calculations include only the journeys by ship and aircraft, and not, for example,
the journeys to the harbour or airport. Figure 29 shows the natural resource consump-
tion of the options.
120 4,000 100

3656 90
96 90
100 80
kg/person per route
3,000 kg/person per route

kg/person per route
80 78 70
60
60 2,000 50
40
40 25
802 30
14 1,000 17
20 20
131 10
0
0 0
Abiotic
Water Air
high-speed pass. craft
passenger car ferry
prob. turbine aicraft
Figure 29. Natural resource consumption per person on the Helsinki–Tallinn route using different
modes of travel.
On this trip, the passenger car ferry is the best alternative in regard to natural resource
consumption. A high-speed passenger craft consumes more abiotic natural resour-
ces and markedly more air than an aeroplane. The consumption of abiotic natural
resources and water for the most part is due to the infrastructure, that is, harbours and
airports, which are assumed to be the same in Tallinn as in Helsinki. Air consumption
is mainly a consequence of fuel consumption.

Example 5. A trip by one person from Helsinki to St. Petersburg, calculations on a
road map scale
The figures in this example were calculated based on Finland’s conditions. Possible
differences between these and conditions in Russia were not taken into account.
Although in rail traffic there may be different performances on the Russian side,
the infrastructure there is roughly similar to that in Finland. There may be sharper
differences in road infrastructure and traffic performances. However, the example
provides an insight into the differences between modes of travel.
In this example, the natural resource consumption of the route has been calculated
using five different travel options:

1. Coach
2. Train
3. Passenger car (one passenger)
4. Passenger car ferry
5. Jet
Figure 30 shows the natural resource consumption of the route using different modes
of travel. For the coach calculations the MI values for an average road have been
used. The length of the route by passenger car is 393 kilometres and by coach, 400
kilometres. By air the journey is 412 kilometres. The length of the train route is 430
kilometres. The train journey was calculated on the basis of the actual capacity use
from Helsinki to Vainikkala, and on the Russian side on the average MIPS values.
The length of the route by passenger ferry was estimated as 370 kilometres. The
calculations do not include journeys between the harbour, airport or railway station
and the city centre.
kg Abiotic
1,000
794
800
568
600
400
200 128 96 111
0
coach train passenger car passenger car jet
ferry
kg Water
12,000
8,089 7,990
8,000
4,000
2,662
1,116 895
0
ferry
kg Air
200
177
160
115
120
75
80
40 24
10
0
ferry
Figure 30. Natural resource consumption per person on the Helsinki to St. Petersburg route.

From the standpoint of the consumption of abiotic natural resources and water on this
journey the best alternative is the passenger car ferry. The coach consumes almost as
little, but in terms of air consumption the coach is an appreciably better option than
the passenger car ferry. The train uses the least amount of air, but from the water
consumption standpoint the train is the worst alternative. From an overall point of
view, the best option would appear, based on this calculation, to be the coach.
Example 6. Work trip from Matinkylä (Espoo) to Kumpula (Helsinki), calculated

from ‘door to door’
In this example a work trip was examined within the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, with
a length of approximately 15–19 kilometres, depending on the mode of transport.
Six modes of travel or combinations were calculated for the route:
1. Alone in a car 19 km

2. By bus 18 km
3. By bicycle 15 km
4. By bus 12 km  by metro 4 km  by bus 2 km
5. By bus 12 km  by tram 7 km
6. Theoretical alternative: by metro 19 km (Matinkylä to Sörnäinen)  by bus 2 km

Abiotic
kg
30
25.5
25
20
15
10
3.2 2.7 4.2 5.4 5.6
5
0
passenger bus bicycle bus + metro bus + tram western
car metro
Water
kg
600 560
450
346
228
300
111 128
150
13
0
car metro
Air
kg
4 3.6
3
2
1.1 1.2 0.9
1.0
1
0.2
0
car metro
Figure 31. Natural resource consumption per person for a work trip (Espoo to Helsinki), using
different modes of transport.
As a sixth alternative, the MIPS values for the natural resource consumption by the
present metro were used for the so-called western metro that so far is in the planning
stage. Figure 31 shows the results of this study. The different means of travel are na-
med according to the most common form of transport on the journey.
On this trip the bicycle is the best option in terms of abiotic resource and air con-
sumption. From the water consumption perspective, the best alternative is the bus.
Water consumption is affected mainly by diverted rainwater and by the use of elect-
ricity. Electricity for the metro, as also the tram, has been calculated according to the
average national electricity mix, thereby emphasising the contribution of hydropower.
From the standpoint of abiotic natural resource and air consumption the passenger
car is far and away the worst alternative.
Work trip MIPS values may appear small, but since the trip is made twice a day, 220
days a year, the figures and their differences are noteworthy. Work trips made by the
passenger car in the example consume 11.2 tonnes of abiotic natural resources a year.
Travelling by bus uses up 1,400 kilograms of abiotic natural resources a year. Accor-

ding to Mäenpää and others (2000), the overall consumption of natural resources by
households in 1995 came to well over 15 tonnes per capita (without the infrastructure
contribution). A work trip of sufficient length, especially one made by passenger car,
may well double a citizen’s total natural resource consumption.
Example 7. A child’s 4-kilometre school journey in a rural and an urban area
In this example, the natural resource consumption of a child’s 4-kilometre school

trip one way in an urban area and in a sparsely populated part of the countryside is
considered.
The school journey in a sparsely populated area includes 1 kilometre of private road,
1 kilometre of connecting road, and 2 kilometres of regional roads. In a built-up
area the school trip covers a total of 1 kilometre of residential streets, 1 kilometre of
connecting streets, and 2 kilometres of main street. For both, the consumption of a
school journey was calculated using four different travel variations:
1. By bicycle
2. Taken by car, one child aboard
3. Taken by car, three children aboard with 1.5 kilometres of extra driving to fetch
the other children
4. Bus/coach 3 kilometres
There are no cycle lanes along private and connecting roads, so that for the sparsely
populated area the consumption of resources by cycling along 2 kilometres of cycle
lane has been included. Similarly, roads going to properties generally lack a cycle
lane. Consequently, the consumption of cycling in the urban area has been calculated
based on a 3-kilometre cycle trip.
For car travel, the length of the journey in both directions has been calculated. In
this case the service applies to the passengers, that is, the driver has not been taken
into account in the total number of people being transported. Thus, the consumption
due to transporting one child has been calculated on the basis of the vehicle-kilomet-
res of the passenger car. With three children on board, 1.5 kilometres of extra driving
at the start of the trip has been calculated and the vehicle-kilometres have then been
divided by three. The results are shown in Figures 32 and 33. To make comparison
easier, the scales in the figures are identical.

40.0 37 2.0
564 1.7
600
kg/person per route
kg/person per route
kg/person per route

30.0 1.5
450
20.0 19 286 0.8
1.0
300
10.0
150 0.5
0.9 1.3 37 9 0.2
0.0 0.1
0 0.0
Abiotic Water
bicycle Air
by car, abioottinen
1 child
by car, 3 children
coach
Figure 32. Natural resource consumption per passenger of a child’s school journey using different
modes of transport in a rural area.
40.0 2.0
600 1.6
1.6
kg/person per route
30.0
kg/person per route
kg/person per route

450
1.2
20.0 0.8
252
300 0.8
9.9 142
10.0
5.5 150 0.4
1.2 43 0.2
0.5 10 0.1
0.0 0 0.0
Abiotic Water Air
bicycle
by car, 1 child
by car, 3 children
coach
Figure 33. Natural resource consumption per passenger of a child’s school journey using different
modes of transport in an urban area.
The figures show how this kind of travel in urban areas consumes less natural resour-
ces than in rural areas. This is because there are more people in an urban area using
the same infrastructure. Air consumption is roughly the same in rural areas and urban
areas. When comparing modes of travel, it can be said that the bicycle and coach/bus
are appreciably more eco-efficient alternatives than the passenger car, even with seve-
ral children on board. Walking could also have been an option. However, the natural
resource consumption of walking has not been calculated.
In an urban area the coach/bus appears to be more eco-efficient than the bicycle,
because average cycling figures have been used for calculating the consumption of a
bicycle. MIPS values for cycling have only been calculated for Finland on average and
for Helsinki. If separate MIPS values for cycling along main streets had been calcula-
ted, they would probably have been either lower, or of the same order of magnitude,
as the MIPS values for a coach/bus on main streets.
Leaving out the infrastructure required for bicycling wherever there is no cycle
lane is problematic from the perspective of the MIPS method. In this study the cont-
ribution of no infrastructure other than cycle lanes has been calculated for cycling.
Nevertheless, cyclists are one kind of road user benefiting from and using the roads,
so that one should also calculate some sort of contribution towards road consumption
from cyclists.
This kind of thinking can also be taken further. If a schoolboy or girl walks a
distance of one kilometre along a private road to a bus stop instead of being driven
there, what amount of natural resources in actual fact are spared? At least the fuel
consumption of the passenger car; but what about the infrastructure? It is easy to
maintain that the road is, in any case, there, having once been built, so that the natu-
ral resource consumption due to the road does not need to be calculated in addition
to the consumption by a car. However, there is no such thing as free infrastructure,

so that it would be best to allocate the consumption of the road to all types of users,
where feasible.
The kind of thinking directed towards the infrastructure could also be applied to
public transport: for example, since the bus/coach is going to pass that way anyway,
then I will not increase the consumption by travelling on it. However, in the long term,
the bus/coach will not run at all, if I and others do not make use of it, and from the
standpoint of the entire concept, thinking along these lines is unsustainable.
There is also the same problem with the journey to school as with the journey to
work: the MIPS values may look small but when the trip is made twice a day, 180
days a year, the figures and their differences begin to acquire more significance. For
instance, transporting one child to school, as in this example, by passenger car in a
rural area consumes 13.3 tonnes of abiotic natural resources a year. By contrast, the
bus/coach consumes 470 kilograms of such resources over the same period of time.
4.2
Calculation examples for freight traffic

Example 8. Natural resource consumption caused by sending a letter
Based on the results of this study it was calculated how much sending a letter in
Finland on average consumes natural resources. The basic data were supplied by the
Finnish Post Corporation (Suomen Posti Oyj); development manager Harri Ajomaa
(2006) assisted with the calculations.
Most of Finland’s ‘letter-kilometres’ take place by passenger car. The contribution
of bicycles or postal workers’ delivery carts is not taken into account in this calcu-
lation. Approximately one-half of the post office’s 7000 delivery routes are covered
by bicycle or on foot. Journeys between sorting offices are made by lorry. The most
urgent long-distance mail goes by air, while vans are used mainly for deliveries to
companies and for emptying public mail boxes, so that the contribution of these to
the overall transportation is minimal.
For calculating the MIPS values of transporting a letter, the average MIPS values
for the vehicles were used. These figures are not, however, entirely commensurate
with the actual situation, as the post office in practice uses all routes along which
there is inhabitation. Town and city centres and densely populated urban areas form
an exception to this, because in these areas postal deliveries take place by bicycle
and on foot.
The calculations also take note of the buildings used by the postal services. The
surface area of all the buildings was divided by the annual number of letters to give
the surface area per letter. For the MIPS values of buildings, the data on the Viikki
Infokeskus (Sinivuori & Saari 2006) were used.
On average, transporting a letter consumes 190 grams of abiotic natural resources,
7.8 kilograms of water, and 34 grams of air. Around 77 percent of the consumption of
abiotic natural resources, 29 percent of the water consumption, and 74 percent of the
air consumption was attributable to vehicles. Most of the water consumption was due
to the hydropower needed for the electricity supply to the buildings (Fig. 34).
The results were compared to the Finnish Post Corporation’s calculation of carbon
dioxide consumption per transported letter. According to the post office, transporting
a letter consumes approximately 35 grams of carbon dioxide (Postin ympäristökats-
saus 2004, p 8). The MIPS values result of 34 grams of air is equivalent to 47 grams of
carbon dioxide per letter. The difference between the calculations is due to the fact
that this study also takes account of the infrastructure in addition to the consumpti-
on of fuel by vehicles. Similarly, the buildings themselves have also been taken into
consideration, and not only their energy consumption.

Break -down of abiotic natural Break -down of water consumption
resource consumption
2% 0% 10 %
23 % 5%
van van
pass. car 12 % pass.car
44 % lorry lorry
9% aircraft aircraft
properties properties
73 %
22 %
Break -down of air consumption
1%
27 % 23 %
van
pass.car
lorry
aircraft
properties
23 %
26 %
Figure 34. Break-down of the consumption of natural resources by a mailed letter.
The example indicates that sending a letter in Finland is equivalent, from the stand-
point of its abiotic natural resource consumption, to a journey of well over 100 metres
by passenger car. Transporting a letter to a letter box by passenger car multiples the
consumption of natural resources several-fold. Thus, the fewer the trips made by car
to post letters, the less natural resources are consumed by the sending of letters.
Keeping the collection network for letters sufficiently dense therefore conserves
natural resources. Equivalent phenomena have also been observed in the energy
consumption of infrastructure changes in the retail trade (Kasanen and Savolainen
1992). Consumers’ journeys by passenger car are a more significant factor than trade
logistics lorries, so that the increased passenger car journeys by consumers when a
shop closes down clearly exceed the savings made by the cooperative business by
closing the shop.
Example 9: TNT’s transportation service operating in Finland and abroad
TNT Suomi Oy forms part of the Express division of the TNT concern. Founded in
Australia, the division now operates in over 200 countries. TNT Express transports
some 3.3 million consignments a week, maintains a network of more than 900 of its
own distribution points, runs 18,000 vehicles, and has 42 of its own aircraft (TNT
2006).
The results of the study were applied to the calculation of natural resource con-
sumption by TNT’s transport operations with the aid of a few examples. Quality
manager Tuija Janakka (Janakka 2006) assisted in making the calculations. The follo-
wing paragraphs describe the main points of the calculations and the results. Further
details of the calculations can be found in Appendix 3. To make it possible to compare
the natural resource consumption of different routes and consignments of varying
sizes, the MIPS values were also converted to make them equivalent to consumption
per tonne-kilometre.

Deliveries in Finland
In the case of transportation within Finland an attempt was made to determine the
actual routes used by TNT’s vehicles when making deliveries. Information on how
full the lorries were was known for almost all routes. Reliable estimates were made
where information was missing. The actual number of kilometres driven was divi-
ded by the total load for each section of the route. From this the consumption of the
consignment being studied was calculated. For the purpose of the calculations only
transportation was taken into account and not, for example, TNT’s buildings, as in
example 8.
Turku to Rauma: 4.4 kg, delivered the next day at 12.00
In this example, the natural resource consumption was calculated for a 4.4 kilogram
consignment from Turku to Rauma. The package was transported by van from the
centre of Turku to TNT’s facility at Turku airport, and from the airport to Rauma by
lorry carrying a total of 411 kilograms of goods. The return trip from Rauma to Turku,
plus diversions en route, were also included in the route, making the total length of
the journey 350 kilometres.
For taking the consignment on this journey approximately 14 kilograms of abiotic
natural resources, 83 kilograms of water, and 1.8 kilograms of air were used. Calcula-
ted per tonne-kilometre, around 9 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 54 kilograms
of water, and 1.3 kilograms of air were consumed.
Tuusula to Nurmes: 80 kg, delivered the next day at 15.00
A second example of a delivery made from Tuusula to Nurmes, in Finland, was cal-
culated on the same principle as the previous example. The total length of the route
was 860 kilometres and the consignment to be carried weighed 80 kilograms. Detailed
information was not available on the route section from Kuopio to Nurmes, so that on-
ly the direct, one-way journey from Kuopio to Nurmes was used for the calculations.
Consequently, the calculations are slightly lower than they would be in reality.
Taking the consignment from Tuusula to Nurmes consumed around 48 kilograms
of abiotic natural resources, 449 kilograms of water, and 6.3 kilograms of air. In ton-
ne-kilometres, this came to 700 grams of abiotic natural resources, 6.5 kilograms of
water, and 90 grams of air.
Transportation abroad
The sample consignments transported abroad both went from Finland to Germany,
one being sent by air, the other by road. On the foreign routes, the long-distance routes
are direct transportation from depot to depot, that is, there are no deviations from the
set route. Concerning the distribution, the situation is as in Finland, that is, the route
followed depends on the day’s load. Information on the distribution contribution
was not as precise as with deliveries in Finland, so that distribution was calculated
only as a one-way direct journey to the recipient. This to some extent reduces the
actual MIPS values.
MIPS values from this study were used for foreign route sections in Sweden, and
German values (Schmidt-Bleek 2002, p 66) for route sections in Denmark and Ger-
many.

Järvenpää to Mannheim: 0.1 kg, delivered on the next working day
An express delivery was taken from Järvenpää to Mannheim by air in one night. There
were two flights on the route, the first from Helsinki to Liège with one stop-off at
Stockholm, the second from Liège to Mannheim. For calculating the natural resource
consumption of this route the actual extent to which the aircraft were full and the
MIPS values for domestic flights were used. The length of the route was estimated
as 2,100 kilometres.
Transporting a consignment by air from Järvenpää to Mannheim consumed around
220 grams of abiotic natural resources, 10 kilograms of water and 110 grams of air.
Per tonne-kilometre these worked out at 1.1 kilograms of abiotic natural resources,
40 kilograms of water, and 500 grams of air.
Kotka to Bremen: 114 kg, delivered within three days
A consignment from Kotka to Bremen was taken by road, mainly using a lorry with a
semi-trailer. The route ran through Sweden and the sea voyage took place on a RoRo
vessel. The length of the direct route was estimated as 1,800 kilometres.
Transporting the consignment by road from Kotka to Bremen consumed around
32.8 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 172 kilograms of water, and 4.6 kilograms
of air. Per tonne-kilometre, 0.2 kilograms of abiotic natural resources, 840 grams of
water, and 20 grams of air were consumed.
Evaluation of the results
When the results were examined, it was found that the degree to which vehicles are
filled vastly affects the consumption of natural resources. On a main route with depot
to depot transportation the vehicles are generally fuller. When calculating consump-
tion at the degree to which the vehicles are loaded it is important to know the actual
length of the route, if the calculations are to be reliable. In Finland, the consumption
calculated per delivery along the route depends a lot on how many goods or how
much cargo is being carried altogether. The main route sections where large amounts
of goods are transported from depot to depot in full vehicles do not raise the material
input in the overall transportation, and they reduce the material input of the delivery
in relation to the tonne-kilometres.
The calculation examples differ radically from each other in regard to what com-
ponent of the delivery consumed the most natural resources (Figures 35 and 36). The
results calculated per tonne-kilometre in the examples supported the results of the
study regarding the level of the average MIPS values, even though the fluctuating
capacity use, at the same time, indicated that there may be appreciable differences in
the eco-efficiency between individual cases.
Among the domestic consignments the Tuusula to Nurmes route would appear to
be the more eco-efficient one. The difference is primarily due to the fact that the Turku
to Rauma route does not include any main route depot to depot transportation, but
is composed solely of collection and distribution journeys in vehicles which are not
as full as those used for main route transportation. In the case of the Turku to Rauma
consignment a lorry was used for distributing and collecting only 417 kilograms of
goods, which raises the material input per tonne-kilometre. Besides, the calculated
route in the Nurmes consignment is shorter than in reality.

Division of consumption of abiotic natural resources on different
routes
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Turku-Rauma
collection
Tuusula-Nurmes
main route
delivery
Järvenpää-
Mannheim
Kotka-Bremen
Figure 35. Distribution of abiotic natural resource consumption of the sample consignments.
There is no main route depot to depot transportation on the Turku–Rauma route. On the Järven-
pää–Mannheim route the main route transportation was by air.
Division of air consumption on different routes
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Turku-Rauma
collection
Tuusula-Nurmes
main route
Järvenpää- delivery
Mannheim
Kotka-Bremen
Figure 36. Distribution of air consumption of the sample consignments. There is no main route de-
pot to depot transportation at all on the Turku–Rauma route. On the Järvenpää–Mannheim route
the main route transportation was by air.
Particularly with respect to the transportation abroad it was observed that speed also
costs in terms of natural resources. When comparing the results per tonne-kilometre
of the two sample consignments, it was observed that in regard to the consumption
of abiotic natural resources, transportation by land is over 5 times more eco-efficient
than air transport (factor 5). In terms of water consumption the difference between
the two examples is over 50 times (factor 58) and in the case of air consumption the
factor is almost 17. An interesting observation on the Kotka to Bremen route was
the fact that almost 90 percent of the abiotic natural resources consumption of the
consignment was due to transportation by van from Kotka to Vantaa. This is partly
because average tonne-kilometre MIPS values have been used for calculating the
natural resource consumption on the German part of the route, and this may distort
the relationships. By making the Kotka to Vantaa route section more effective the
eco-efficiency of the consignment could, however, be considerably improved, and the
difference between air and land transportation would then still increase.

5 Summary of results and conclusions
5.1
Basis of the study

The purpose of this study was to give an impression of the natural resource consump-
tion of Finland’s traffic system throughout its life cycle, both in terms of the different
modes of transport and as a whole. The study formed part of the FIN-MIPS Traffic
research project. Conducted mainly in 2004-2005, the project was financed by the
Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Finnish
Road Administration, Finnish Rail Administration, Finnish Maritime Administration,
Finnish Civil Aviation Authority, and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation.
The project was accomplished by the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation.
The study built on a sub-study on local traffic (Talja et al. 2006) and sub-studies based
on case studies on the consumption of natural resources by road, bicycle, rail, air and
maritime traffic (Pusenius et al. 2005, Hakkarainen et al. 2005, Vihermaa et al. 2005,
Nieminen et al. 2005, Lindqvist et al. 2005).
By generalising the findings of the case studies, MIPS figures (material input per
unit service) were calculated for three natural resource categories:
1. abiotic (nonrenewable) natural resources,

2. water (all water diverted from its natural route)
3. air (basically oxygen combustion).
For each mode of transport average MIPS figures were obtained for passenger and
goods traffic; these figures are presented in a summarised form in section 5.2.1. In
addition, MIPS figures for different types of routes were determined (see section 3).
The natural resource consumption by the traffic system is summarised in section 5.2.2
and dealt with in more detail in section 3.6.
The infrastructure makes a large contribution to the MIPS figures for the con-
sumption of abiotic natural resources and water by transport. Consequently, the
assumptions for the use of the infrastructure and vehicles, and the infrastructure’s
material input division, shared principally between passenger and goods traffic, are
appreciable. Section 2.5 offers possible input allocation methods for different forms of
transport and their impact on the results and section 2.6 the final selection decision of
the allocation methods by the project’s steering group and the reasons for this choice.
The main assumptions used in the study in relation to natural resource consumption
by the infrastructure and modes of transport are given in section 2.4, as well as in the
aforementioned case studies.
The MIPS figures calculated in the study can be used for comparing different mo-
des of transport, and for making decisions on (the use of) these, as well as for MIPS
calculations on products and services, e.g. in enterprises. The report demonstrates

differences between different modes of transport and routes (sections 3.1 - 3.6) and
the use of the resulted MIPS figures on different routes in passenger and goods traffic
using calculation examples (Chapter 4). In section 5.2 methods of reducing the mate-
rial intensity and natural resource consumption of traffic are evaluated.
5.2
Main observations
5.2.1
MIPS figures for different modes of transport

When comparing Finland’s internal MIPS figures for passenger traffic it can be seen
that from the standpoint of the consumption of abiotic natural resources the bus/co-
ach, bicycle and metro are the most eco-efficient modes of transport (table 23). From
the water consumption standpoint travelling by bus/coach is clearly the most eco-
efficient option. In regard to air consumption cycling is the best alternative (table 23,
figures 37-39).
Table 23. Average MIPS figures for passenger traffic in Finland.

Average MIPS figures for passenger traffic in Finland (kg/passen-
ger-km)
Means of transport Abiotic Water Air
Passenger car 1.44 14.5 0.14
Bus/coach 0.32 3.2 0.06
Van 2.16 22.7 0.28
Bicycle 0.38 12.1 0.02
Train 1.20 29.0 0.04
Metro 0.29 29.4 0.04
Tram 0.66 48.1 0.07
Aicraft 0.56 26.6 0.28
Consumption of abiotic natural resources by different modes of

passenger traffic
1.60 1.44
1.40
1.20
1.20
1.00
kg/pass.km
0.80
0.60 0.56
0.32 0.38
0.40
0.26
0.20
0.00
Passenger car Bus/coach Bicycle Train Domestic Ship to foreign
aircraft port
Figure 37. Comparison of average MIPS figures for abiotic natural resource consumption of pas-
senger traffic.

Consumption of water by different modes of passenger traffic
35.0
29.0
30.0
26.6
25.0
kg/pass.km 20.0 14.5
15.0 12.1
10.0
3.2 2.4
5.0
0.0
aircraft port
Fig. 38. Comparison of average MIPS figures for water consumption.
Consumption of air by different modes of passenger traffic
0.35 0.31
0.28
0.30
0.25
kg/pass.km
0.20
0.14
0.15
0.10
0.06 0.04
0.05 0.02
0.00
aircraft port
Fig. 39. Comparision of average MIPS figures for air consumption.
The average MIPS figures for travelling from Finland to other countries in Europe
are not entirely comparable. The MIPS figures for flights to Europe do not include
Finland’s nearby areas (Stockholm, St. Petersburg and the Baltic states). Flying to these
destinations consumes appreciably more natural resources per kilometre than other
European flights (table 24). Passengers do not generally travel by ship to anywhere
except nearby areas, so that the MIPS figures for travelling to Europe by sea have not
been separately calculated (table 24). On a rough basis, when travelling to areas close
to Finland the ship is more eco-efficient than the aeroplane. On longer haul flights,
the MIPS figures decrease.

Table 24. Average MIPS figures for passenger traffic from Finland to places abroad. ”Nearby are-
as” means Stockholm, St. Petersburg and the Baltic states.
Average MIPS figures for passenger traffic from Finland to abroad (kg/pass.-km)
Mode of Destination Abiotic Water Air
transport
Ship Nearby areas 0.26 2.42 0.31
Aicraft Nearby areas 0.47 18.90 0.34
Aicraft Central and southern Europe 0.11 3.36 0.14
Aicraft Distant lands 0.06 0.91 0.13
In goods traffic the most eco-efficient form of transport per tonne kilometre from the
abiotic natural resources consumption perspective is the lorry with a trailer (table 25).
In regard to air consumption the best alternative is the train. Calculated per tonne
kilometre the van is the least eco-efficient mode owing to its average load being so
small.
Table 25. Average MIPS figures for goods traffic in Finland.
Average MIPS figures for goods traffic in Finland

(kg/tonne-km)
Mode of transport Abiotic Air
Water
Van 10.78 113.5 1.39
Lorry 0.58 6.2 0.07
Lorry with semi-trailer 0.44 5.7 0.07
Lorry with trailer 0.23 1.5 0.04
On average in road traffic 0.52 6.3 0.09
On average in road traffic without van 0.37 4.2 0.07
Train 0.54 15.3 0.02
Aircraft 5.60 266.5 2.80
In international goods traffic the ship is a markedly more eco-efficient form of tran-
sport than the aeroplane because of its low fuel consumption (table 26).
Table 26. Average MIPS figures for goods traffic from Finland to places abroad. ”Nearby areas”
means the Baltic states, Sweden’s eastern coast, and north-western Russia.
Average MIPS figures for goods traffic from Finland to abroad

(kg/tonne-km)
Mode of Destination Abiotic Water Air
transport
Aircraft Nearby areas 4.70 189.0 3.4
Aircraft Central and southern Europe 1.10 33.6 1.4
Aircraft Distant lands 0.60 9.1 1.3
Ship Nearby areas 0.75 3.1 0.1
Ship Central and southern Europe 0.12 0.7 0.1
Ship Distant lands 0.08 0.6 0.1
The method of allocating infrastructure material input is of fundamental significance

to the results of the study (see section 2.5). Among the allocation methods finally
selected (see section 2.6), the operation based allocation methods used for air and
maritime transport differ somewhat from the unit-based allocation used for road
and rail traffic. In road and rail transport the amount of goods traffic affects the MIPS

figures for passenger traffic: with more goods traffic, in the infrastructure’s unit-based
allocation the MIPS figures for passenger traffic decrease. In road and rail transpor-
tation it is not possible to relate passengers to goods as simply as in air transport,
because goods and passengers are rarely transported in the same vehicle or train.
However, the methods chosen reflect each form of transport in question as faithfully
as possible, which can be considered more important than a general uniformity in
the selected allocation methods.
5.2.2
Overall consumption of natural resources by the traffic system

The traffic system within the constraints of this study consumes a total of appro-
ximately 130 million tons of abiotic natural resources, 1.46 billion tonnes of water,
and 16.3 million tonnes of air, a year. Per capita this amounts to 25 tonnes of abiotic
natural resources, 280 tonnes of water, and 3 tons of air, per year (tables 20, 21 and
22). Based on the allocation methods used in the study, around 73% of the abiotic
natural resource consumption by the traffic system is due to passenger traffic and
28% to goods traffic.
A significant percentage of abiotic natural resource consumption by the traffic
system comes from infrastructure provision. The contribution of the infrastructure to
the abiotic MIPS figures of transport varied between 73% in the case of domestic air
traffic and 99% in the case of private roads. The abiotic natural resource consumption
primarily reveals the amount of earthworks and construction undertaken on behalf
of the traffic.
The abiotic natural resource consumption is equivalent to around 25% of Finland’s
Total Material Requirement (TMR). In the study by Mäenpää et al. (2000) the contri-
bution of transport to the total consumption of natural resources is appreciably smal-
ler. The high figure obtained in this study is influenced by the fact that the previously
constructed infrastructure is evenly applied across all the years of use. The amount
of traffic infrastructure construction nowadays is, however, less than one might think
from the average figures calculated in this study.
The most important factors regarding water consumption are rainwater diverted
from its normal route, and electricity consumption. With air consumption approxi-
mately 90% was due (with the exception of bicycle traffic) to energy consumption.
Air consumption by traffic reflects carbon dioxide emissions fairly well.

5.3
Ways of reducing the material intensity of transport

The vast amount of soil moved is an important new perspective which material input
calculation brings to the discussion on the environmental impact of transport. In this
respect, the abiotic, or non-renewable, natural resource category can be considered the
most significant and interesting of the MIPS figures produced by this study. The share
of infrastructure to the overall natural resource consumption by traffic, especially of
abiotic natural resources, was indeed found to be extremely high (see section 3.6).
The upkeep of old roads consumes appreciably lower amounts of natural resources
than the construction of whole new roads, so that the amount of further construction
is fundamental to natural resource consumption by the transport system.
From the relatively low MIPS figures for busy routes (see section 3.1.3), one might
gain the impression that by increasing the amount of traffic on existing routes we
could increase their eco-efficiency. When the traffic, i.e. the service unit, increases
on existing traffic routes, the MIPS figures decline (see section 2.1.3). This does not,

however, mean a reduction in natural resource consumption as a whole. From the
environmental aspect, it is the total consumption and not the size of the relative MIPS
figures that is of relevance. This should be kept in mind when talking of the material
intensity of transport. Higher eco-efficiency, in other words a lower MIPS figure, is
not the same as less consumption of natural resources. This study therefore reinforces
the viewpoint that in addition to eco-efficiency we must also aim for sufficiency (e.g.
Schmidt-Bleek 2002: 109-111). Eco-efficiency is increased by e.g. the choice of vehicle
based on the MIPS figures, and an increase in the capacity use of the vehicle or the
infrastructure. In both cases, the natural resource consumption in relation to the per-
formance falls. Sufficiency is promoted by endeavours to reduce the transport perfor-
mance, when the consequence is a reduction in the overall consumption as well.
Travelling by public transport in general consumes smaller amounts of natural
resources per passenger kilometre than travelling by private car (table 10, table 23,
and section 4.1). The eco-efficiency of the transport system thus improves when the
public transport contribution to the overall traffic performance grows. In public
transport as well the ridership of vehicles is important, because the MIPS figures
rise as the ridership falls (see Vihermaa et al. 2005: 21). Through their daily choices
everybody can promote a reduction in natural resource consumption by opting for
the most eco-efficient alternative among the available means of travel and by keeping
the travel performance as small as possible.
Also by making the use of passenger cars more effective and by planning journey
chains, we can improve eco-efficiency. If two people travel to work in the same car
instead of both using their own, in principle the consumption of natural resources by
the journey is halved. If travelling together leads to extra driving, the savings are redu-
ced, although they will most likely not entirely disappear (see figures 32 and 33).
Reducing the total consumption of natural resources by transport is only pos-
sible if the growth in traffic performances ceases. Predictions on traffic performance
growth increase the pressure to construct new roads, which increases abiotic natural
resource and water consumption, as well as the traffic performance when new and
better roads are introduced. According to Tapio (2002), there is a self-perpetuating
connection between traffic predictions and performances which is difficult to break
without effective policy instruments.
Numerous results of this study indicate that speeding up traffic increases natural
resource consumption in the form of energy consumption and/or infrastructure ma-
terial inputs. For example, the straight road and rail lines demanded by fast transport
connections, with their cuttings, do not leave much chance of avoiding terrain that is
unfavourable from the construction standpoint, so that natural resource consumption
per route kilometre rises (e.g. motorway in table 8 and modern double-track railway in
table 14). Additionally, speed easily increases travelling and/or the length of journeys
and thus the traffic and its natural resource consumption as a whole. In Finland, for
instance, it is not possible to make weekend shopping visits to Central Europe by car,
but it is possible by air and this is becoming increasingly popular. Air transport inc-
reases natural resource consumption in the form of increasing performances, despite
being relatively eco-efficient per passenger kilometre in mode of transport compari-
sons (see tables 23 and 24). In air transport, the propeller turbine aircraft, thanks to its
lower fuel consumption, has lower MIPS figures for air consumption than the faster
jet aircraft. The MIPS figures for abiotic natural resource and water consumption are,
however, higher in the propeller aircraft (see appendix 2), due to the allocation met-
hod used here. In operation allocation the natural resource consumption of airports
is shared equally among the operators, so that the higher passenger-capacity jets are
allocated less infrastructure per passenger.
In goods transport fast transportation by air is much more consumptive than other
modes of transport (tables 25 and 26, example 9 in section 4.2). In maritime transport

the express boat consumes considerably more natural resources than the slower pas-
senger car ferry (see fig. 29), this being a result of the higher fuel consumption due
to the increase in speed, among other factors. (Lindqvist et al. 2005: 71).
Within the constraints of the financing for this study, it was not possible to compre-
hensively estimate the relationships with material intensity of measures for reducing
the environmental loading due to traffic. However, a few methods that have emer-
ged in public forum are examined below from the natural resource consumption
perspective.
Measures associated with material input (MI) of infrastructure

Benefiting from waste material in earthworks constructions: The share of the inf-
rastructure in abiotic natural resource consumption by different modes of transport
is appreciable (see figures 12, 16, 17, 19, and 21). The use of material from quarrying
or excavating in road construction reduces the need for importing soil and stone
materials for construction purposes. Another way of enhancing the eco-efficiency of
road construction is to replace new building materials by waste raw materials, or by
surplus materials, imported from elsewhere, for e.g. stones from the mining industry,
coal and peat ash, metallurgical crushed slag, blast furnace sand and crushed concrete
(Mäkelä & Höynälä 2000). There is at the moment little use of waste for making road
foundations (see Hänninen et al. 2005: 11). In accordance with the MIPS method, in re-
lation to the material input attributable to imported waste raw materials and surplus
materials only the possible handling and transportation of the material is taken into
account, the MI figure for the material itself being zero (Schmidt-Bleek et al. 1998: 39).
Similarly, the soil and stone materials removed from the construction site are calcula-
ted only once, so that their use as a construction material no longer affects the MIPS
figures. The Ministry of the Environment in 2006 launched a development programme
called “New materials technology for infrastructure construction” (UUMA). The aim
of this programme is to increase the use of recycled materials and to reduce the use
of natural resources and waste formation in civil engineering (Infrarakentamisen…
2006). Already in use in the other Nordic countries, the imposition of an excavation
tax may help to promote the use of waste materials in earthworks, and thereby the
eco-efficiency of infrastructure.
Improving the capacity of traffic routes using methods other than construction:
The contribution of infrastructure to the consumption of abiotic natural resources and
water by the traffic system is considerable (see fig. 21). Most of the natural resource
consumption by infrastructure is due to their construction, with just a small contri-
bution coming from their upkeep (e.g. Hänninen et al. 2005: 55-56; Vihermaa et al.
2005: 29). On this basis the construction of new infrastructure increases the overall
consumption of natural resources far more than does the maintenance of existing
infrastructure. New roads tend to increase, rather than decrease, the amount of traffic
(e.g. Tapio 2002), which again raises the total use of natural resources. Rather than
building new roads, the capacity of existing ones can be uprated by ways of improve-
ment having lower materials intensity. These ways could include, for instance, deve-
loping traffic arrangements at road junctions, constructing or designating overtaking
lanes, diverting traffic to a parallel road, or investing in traffic control systems.
Measures associated with material input (MI) to traffic

Promoting the introduction of fuel-conserving motor vehicles: For promoting the
introduction of energy efficient motor vehicles, one suggestion is to shift the emphasis
of car taxation to a levy on carbon dioxide emissions, with a reduction in purchase tax.
Once this has been accomplished, the lifespan of existing vehicles would be reduced

and the total fuel consumption would fall. The contributions of car manufacturing
and car fuel consumption to vehicle abiotic natural resource consumption are both
around five percent. In terms of air consumption, on the other hand, fuel consumption
is the governing factor (fig. 12). Shortening the lifespan of vehicles would enlarge the
relative and absolute contribution of vehicle manufacturing and reduce the proporti-
on of the natural resource consumption due to the use of the vehicles. Reducing fuel
consumption would decrease air consumption directly. On the other hand, shortening
the lifespan of individual vehicles by, e.g., 20% would call for a fuel consumption
reduction in the equivalent size class to prevent the consumption of abiotic natural
resources from increasing. According to the Wuppertal Institute’s study, replacing a
passenger car with a steel chassis by a car with an aluminium (alloy) chassis and con-
sequently lower fuel consumption would require the vehicle to be driven over 500,000
km, for the increased manufacturing materials’ abiotic natural resource consumption
to compensate for the lowered fuel consumption (Schmidt-Bleek 2002: 83-85). The
lifespan of a bus/coach is appreciably longer than 500,000 km (see table 2), so that in
this instance the increased use of aluminium can more easily be defended.
Other innovations affecting vehicles: Various development trends are apparent
in existing cars and on the car markets. A Smart-type small 2-person car in terms of
its capacity answers an appreciable proportion of peoples’ travel needs (the average
ridership in Finland is 1.4 passengers; see table 2). Thanks to its compact size, this
type of car requires a somewhat smaller infrastructure and less parking space, at
least in urban areas. However, the trend appears to be precisely the opposite: an
increase in large vehicles (space wagons or people carriers, city 4X4s) is increasing
natural resource consumption in the form of higher fuel consumption. Moreover, the
space requirement of this kind of vehicle, both in traffic and when parked, is higher
than average, thereby increasing the infrastructure requirement. The hybrid car (a
combination of combustion engine and electric motor) saves fuel but requires fitting
with an electric motor containing a lot of copper (which has a high MI value). While
it is fair to assume a decline in air consumption by this kind of engine, owing to the
increased use of copper the overall abiotic natural resource consumption is unlikely
to decrease.
Increases in the use of biofuels in vehicular traffic : The contribution of fuel
consumption to abiotic natural resource consumption as a whole is of the order of
five percent (see fig. 12). By using biofuels, we could lower this proportion. However,
if the biomass for biofuels had to be cultivated for fuel use, it would also become
necessary to examine biotic natural resource use (which is beyond the range of the
present study). Not only that, but the abiotic material inputs in biomass cultivation
would also have to be considered. Using biogas generated from wastes as a fuel
would not have to include natural resource consumption due to cultivation, because
with a raw material made from wastes only the natural resources for processing are
taken into account (Schmidt-Bleek et al. 1998:39). With the use of biofuel, however,
air consumption would remain at the same level, since oxygen is also used up when
biofuel is burned. In the MIPS concept, air consumption does not change if renewable
resources are used. Thus, this is not equivalent to the general practice of carbon dio-
xide emission calculation taking into account the carbon dioxide bound up in growth
(closed carbon cycle).
Measures associated with service performance (S)

State support for unprofitable public transport: The running of public transport
vehicles is not eco-efficient if they are empty because the MIPS figures rise as the ri-
dership falls (e.g. Vihermaa et al. 2005: 21). When public transport is examined in the
network, maintaining schedules on some little-used runs through state funding can,

however, promote the use of the entire network. If public transport support reduces
private car use, it promotes dematerialisation, because passenger car transport is the
most highly consumptive form of passenger traffic (see table 23).
Organised shared trips, taxis, and car sharing: Shared trips (see Pölkki 2005)
reduce the consumption of natural resources in direct proportion to the number of
people sharing. They lessen the amount of both fuel and vehicles, as well as the inf-
rastructure requirement and thus provide one means of lowering the MIPS figures
in all the sub-areas. Car sharing not only reduces use of the infrastructure but also
the number of cars and private car performances (see Meijkamp 1998). It thus brings
down the MIPS figures in all the sub-areas.
Development of logistics in goods transport: The examples of section 4.2 (figures
34-36)
demonstrate how in long haul transportation a significant proportion of natural
resources are consumed at the start and end of journeys with goods collection and
delivery. Frequently, smaller vehicles have to be used for this chore whose full ca-
pacity is lower than with vehicles on the main depot to depot routes. It is therefore
best to devote special attention to improving the efficiency of goods collection and
delivery journeys.
System level solutions connected with several

material intensity perspectives
Concentration of human community structure: It is generally assumed that by con-
centrating the human community traffic can be reduced compared to a situation whe-
re an equivalent amount of construction takes place outside the existing community
structure (e.g. Ojala 2000). If concentrating the community structure increases the use
of the existing traffic routes without the need for constructing new ones, it reduces the
MIPS values of transport (see section 2.1.3). Concentrating the community structure
can also reduce the overall natural resource consumption if it can be used to decrease
traffic performances, and if it promotes the use and profitability of more eco-efficient
modes of transport (see table 23). If, however, the community structure is intensified
by constructing on weak soils, the material intensity of the infrastructure increases.
In particular the consumption of abiotic natural resources may rise compared to a si-
tuation where construction takes place on sturdy, but more distantly located, ground.
The “profitability” limit, especially from the abiotic natural resource consumption
perspective, needs to be calculated in each case. The figures produced by this study
permit such examinations to be made.
Telecommuting: One purpose of telecommuting is the reduction of journeys bet-
ween home and work place. Cutting down the number of journeys directly reduces
natural resource consumption. Lessening the amount of journeys during the rush
hour also reduces the pressure for bolstering up the infrastructure. However, if tele-
commuting increases the readiness to move to places a long way away and/or which
require the use of a passenger car, then the increased travel cancels out at least part of
the savings in natural resource consumption achieved by the telecommuting.
Carfree zones: A carfree zone can reduce infrastructure materials input in two
ways. The number of streets is less than normal, since the number of streets leading
to properties decreases. Streets leading directly to residential properties are lighter
in construction and materials intensity, but they are numerically greater (Talja et al.
2006). Secondly, devehicularisation makes the construction of narrower and lighter
traffic routes than normal possible, for example within residential areas based on
apartment buildings. In addition, devehicularisation may promote the use of other
forms of transport to the passenger car, which consumes the most natural resources
(see table 23). For example, in Austria the arrangement of parking outside apartment

block areas has been found to improve the profitability of public transport and to
reduce traffic performance, i.e. journey length and quantity (Knoflacher 1995).
Retention and development of local services: Example 8 (section 4.2) on natural
resource consumption by posting a letter (fig. 34) demonstrates that sending a letter
in Finland is equivalent to the natural resource consumption of a passenger car trip of
well over a hundred metres (see table 10). Taking a letter to a post box by passenger
car would multiply the natural resource consumption of the delivery severalfold.
Thus, the total use of natural resources remains the smaller the fewer letters are taken
for posting by different vehicle journeys. Keeping the letter collection network at an
adequate density conserves natural resources. An equivalent phenomenon has been
observed in a study on the energy consumption which changes to the structure of the
retail trade have led to (Kasanen and Savolainen 1992): The passenger car driver’s
trips are a more important factor than trade logistics’ lorry trips and the extra journeys
for consumers caused by the closing down of shops appreciably exceed the savings
gained by the central cooperative. Ways of shopping and distribution (e.g. e-com-
merce and home delivery) that reduce the consumers’ need to drive thus promote
dematerialisation.
Favouring of locally grown food and other products produced in the vicinity:
The use of products produced locally in principle lowers the product transportation
intensity and in that respect also the materials intensity. However, there are various
kinds of preconditions associated with this. The transport chain’s eco-efficiency is
radically affected by the collection and delivery journeys at the start and end of each
transportation (fig. 34-36). If, for example, procuring or consuming locally grown food
increases the passenger car or van journeys, with their high materials intensity (see
tables 11 and 23), the extra performances may increase the materials intensity of the
products. Secondly, food transported from afar is more favourable in terms of its ma-
terials intensity to locally grown food, if the latter, owing to local growing conditions,
requires extra material inputs like the heating of greenhouses (see Schmidt-Bleek 2002:
172-173). The MIPS value for long haul shipping between continents is relatively low
(table 26), so that foodstuffs grown in Finland in less favourable conditions may be
less eco-efficient, despite the shorter journey.
Replacing the modes of transport by a more eco-efficient alternative: Replacing
road and air transport by rail and water transport has been put forward as a means
of, for example, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The effect of replacing modes of
transport is here considered from the natural resource consumption angle:
- Passenger transport by vehicle consumes more abiotic natural resources and air
than rail transport (table 23 and examples 1,2 5 and 6 in section 4.1), even though
exceptions do turn up when specific road categories are examined (see appendix
1). Rail transport uses more water than vehicular traffic, because regulated hyd-
ropower plays an important part in Finland’s electricity generation. A change in the
method of generating electricity may radically affect the MIPS figures for rail traffic,
especially in terms of water consumption (see Vihermaa et al. 2005: 19). Travel-
ling by bus/coach uses up abiotic resources and water to a far less extent than
rail traffic: air consumption is, however, higher (table 23). When there are several
passengers in a car, the latter’s eco-efficiency improves (see fig. 28). If increasing
rail traffic calls for additional construction to the rail infrastructure, the abiotic
natural resource consumption may not necessarily decrease, because modern
two-track lines are material intensive (table 14). If, however, road investments of
equivalent capacity are avoided, lower amounts of natural resources will be
consumed by the rail investment.
- A domestic flight consumes on average less abiotic natural resources and more
air than a train journey (table 23). The differences between travelling by air and

by passenger car are less pronounced. When travelling to nearby areas (Stock-
holm, St. Petersburg, Baltic states) the ship is slightly more eco-efficient than the
aeroplane (table 24). On the Helsinki – Tallinn route the aeroplane consumes,
however, less abiotic natural resources and air than the express boat (fig. 29).
- The relationships between the MIPS figures of different modes of transport are
different in goods traffic. Lorry transport consumes on average slightly less abio-
tic natural resources and appreciably less water than goods train transport, but
goods train transport consumes less air (table 25).
- In goods traffic air transport is generally a less eco-efficient option (tables 25 and
26, figures 35 and 36). Domestic maritime cargo deliveries were not studied in
the FIN-MIPS Transport project due to their low level of significance (Lindqvist
et al. 2005: 10). If Finland’s coastal traffic is considered similar to cargo ship traf-
fic going to areas close to Finland, the MIPS figures for its abiotic natural resour-
ce and air consumption are higher than in road and rail transport, while the
figure for water is of the same order of magnitude as in road transport, but
lower than in rail transport (tables 25 and 26). Hence, transferring domestic
goods transport to the sea within the current system framework would not
conserve much natural resources.
The aforementioned comparisons indicate that there are differences between modes
of transport and it is thus possible to achieve savings in natural resource consumption
by choosing the best means available. However, there are no fundamental bases from
the natural resource consumption standpoint for replacing vehicle and air transport
by rail and maritime transport.
5.4
Evaluation of reliability of results

The purpose of this study was to formulate MIPS figures applying to the whole
of Finland. The source data came from FIN-MIPS research project case studies on
the different modes of transport, which vary from the standpoint of their level of
examination, so that the level of scrutiny for Finland as a whole also varies. As with
life cycle studies in general, in the different parts and stages of this study it has been
necessary to make numerous generalisations and assumptions affecting the results.
Below, the most important generalised figures for factors possibly affecting results
reliability are given.
In the first stage of the research, the natural resource consumption of the different
modes of transport and route categories have been assessed using case studies. Ge-
neralisations for e.g. road transport were made based on sample subjects for each
road category. An effort has been made to choose the sample roads from the National
Road Administration’s register so that they are as representative as possible. In addi-
tion, in the calculations national average data was used, for example for foundation
construction, so that the generalised results can be assumed to be approximately
correct. In the rail transport case studies two sections of track were analysed and the
consumption of the rail network was calculated on the basis of these. Generalisations
at an equivalent level were also made for air and maritime transport. The results of
the case studies for streets and private roads were directly generalised for the level of
Finland as a whole. While the average figures obtained as results primarily portray
the rough dimensions of resource consumption, the study assists us in forming an
impression and an understanding of the composition of the natural resource con-
sumption of Finland’s traffic system.
The aim of the study was to generate results on different modes of transport which
could be compared. Different kinds of transport systems are partially limited in diffe-
rent ways. However, with each mode of transport an effort was made to pinpoint the

factors significantly affecting consumption and to concentrate on these. For example,
calculations dot not have to be made for service stations. The same goes for car parks
which, however, are taken into account in air traffic calculations. In air traffic these
were assumed to be factors significantly affecting abiotic natural resources, but in
road traffic they were considered to be of almost no importance whatsoever.
To test the assumption mentioned in the preceding paragraph a swift evaluation
was made of the abiotic natural resource consumption of service stations and car
parks. If one assumes there are 2000 service stations in Finland and that each of them
in terms of its consumption is equivalent to the railway station (with the exception of
railings and lifts) on which Vihermaa et al. (2005) made their calculations, the service
stations would together consume around one million tons of abiotic natural resources
a year. This is most likely too high a figure, because the majority of service stations
are of the self-service type, which is of far lighter construction than a railway station.
In relation to car parks it was assumed, most probably also going to the extreme,
that each passenger car also requires two parking spaces, one of which is on the
owner’s property (not included in the calculation) or parked on the street outside, in
which case they contribute towards street or road consumption. Thus, two million
parking spaces at most remain to be considered. If the area of one parking space is
12 m2 and the natural resource consumption for a street (43 kg/m2/a) is used as the
MI value, the parking spaces also consume a total of around one million tonnes of
abiotic natural resources a year. If two million tonnes are divided by the vehicular
traffic performance (approx. 50 billion passenger kilometres a year), then the abiotic
natural resource consumption per passenger kilometre would rise by about three
percent (around 40 g more). Thus, the change in the MIPS figures would be slight.
Equivalent rough calculations have been made in other modes of transport in order
to discover what is significant and what not. The results can therefore be assumed
to be comparable.
One important factor from the interpretation standpoint is the lifespan chosen
for the infrastructure for the various modes of transport. These vary from 50 years
in the case of harbours and marine channels to 100 years with airports and railway
lines (table 2). Various lifespan estimates were tested in the sensitivity examinations
of the case studies forming part of the FIN-MIPS Transport project and it was found
that the lifespan selected radically affected the results. No-one can be sure of the
actual lifespan of an infrastructure in advance. Hence, it is only possible to arrive at
estimates. The assumed lifespans in the study are based on evaluations by experts in
the various transport infrastructure administrations, so that they can be considered
the best possible assessments.
5.5
MIPS as a measure of natural resource

consumption by transport
Applying the MIPS method to the transport system brings a new perspective to the
discussion on the environmental impact and eco-efficiency of traffic. The most impor-
tant new aspect concerns taking abiotic natural resource consumption into account.
A strongpoint of the MIPS method is its simplicity: products and services differing
from each other can be made comparable by changing their natural resource con-
sumption into kilos using a value designed for the purpose. At its best, the method can
be applied to simple, easily limited product or service chain modelling, for example
for comparing different consumer goods. However, the traffic system is anything but
simple and easily limited. Not all the statistics and other data needed for calculations
were available, making it necessary to use estimates as well.

In this study, the natural resource consumption has been calculated in three out of
the five natural resources categories. Two categories, biotic natural resources and ero-
sion, were omitted from the appraisal, since they were shown to be of little significance
where transport was concerned. Despite the results not being directly equivalent to
those obtained using the traditional environmental indicators, the consumption of
abiotic natural resources, water, and air demonstrates the significant scale on which
mankind interferes with the functioning of nature and makes its own use of natural
resources.
In the study, passenger kilometres or tonne kilometres have been used as the
service unit for the MIPS figures. Even though these service units provides the best
possible comparability between different modes of transport, we must remember that
different modes of transport always differ from each other and are thus not entirely
comparable. For example, an aeroplane goes directly from one place to another, whe-
reas a train, bus or coach, passenger car or lorry can offer stop-offs and the serving of
intermediate municipalities (to differing extents). Secondly, the speed and travelling
time are fundamental service viewpoints from the mode of transport aspect which it
was impossible to take into account when choosing the service performance for this
study. On the other hand, calculating materials input based on passenger kilometre
and tonne kilometre makes it possible to compare performances where we can then,
as an extra criterion, take into consideration matters other than the time required
for the journey or the transportation. For example, in the calculation examples for
passenger traffic (section 4.1) the journey time is easily combined with the results
presentation and in example 9 for goods traffic (section 4.2 and appendix 3) the speed
of transportation forms part of the comparison.
Results obtained with the MIPS method can frequently be compared with cost
effectiveness calculations. The costs and improvements in material intensity do not
directly correlate but, for example, efficiency improvement measures instead of new
road construction would also reduce costs.
5.6
Proposals for further study

In this study the overall consumption of natural resources by the transport system
has been calculated by restricting the system in certain respects. Part of the system
remained outside the scope of the study. In the future it would be interesting to
determine how much the traffic components - such as the motorcycle or helicopter
- remaining outside the scope of the present study consume natural resources. In as-
sociation with water traffic domestic traffic and inland water traffic remained beyond
the scope of the project. For inland water traffic, especially in connection with log
floating and barge transportation, as also in relation to forest roads (logging roads),
it would be interesting to study in a more general way the materials inputs required
by transportation in the wood processing sector and to relate these to other materials
input to the wood processing industry.
The results obtained by this study may be modified when the amount of traffic or
the relationships between vehicles change. MIPS values for transport require perio-
dical updating in relation to these basic data if they are to remain up-to-date.
In the FIN-MIPS Transport project some thought has been given to how MIPS could
be applied as a part of planning and where its place on the planning side would be.
This study, however, as such generates basic and background data on the treatment
of the subject, and a great deal of extra research is therefore still needed. At the same
time it would be interesting to study the effect of community structure on materials
intensity. Especially in large cities, a lot is talked about the dispersal of the commu-
nity structure and in scattered communities the amount of traffic is also growing.

An attempt is being made to intensify the community structure by constructing new
residential areas between the existing ones, which may reduce the material intensity
of traffic but at the same time increase the use of natural resources for construction,
if it becomes necessary to build on areas with poor foundations.
One interesting area of further study would be to compare the results of this study
with other methods for measuring natural resource intensity, such as the ecological
footprint. The ecological footprint is a measure reflecting the land surface area de-
mand of consumption either directly or as carbon dioxide emission compensation.
In this study it was observed that the use of water by traffic is closely correlated with
the traffic’s surface area requirement, while air consumption is closely correlated
with the carbon dioxide emissions produced. By converting the results obtained
here into surface area based, firstly, based on the water consumption of the mode of
transport and, secondly, based on the compensation of carbon dioxide emission due
to air consumption, it would be possible to obtain data on the ecological footprint
of Finland’s traffic which could be used in comparisons. It would be interesting
to compare the results with the ecological footprints for traffic used by the Global
Footprint Network.
Within the framework of the FIN-MIPS Transport project, the transport system
and different modes of transport have been studied thoroughly. Natural resource
consumption by transport can be considered high from the standpoint of both the
national economy and, for instance, the overall consumption of natural resources by
households. It really would be interesting to obtain comprehensive materials flow
data from other sectors of consumption. Then we could give some thought to the
possibilities of dematerialising consumption and to angles of approach and the policy
instruments required for dematerialisation.
5.7
In conclusion
In the light of the results of the study, natural resource consumption by traffic is ap-
preciable, for example in relation to Finland’s Total Material Requirement (see section
3.5). Reducing the overall consumption would require a reduction in the amount of
traffic performance. This could, in the present situation, be regarded as a challenge,
since transport performance has almost constantly risen over the last few decades
(see figures 2 and 3). A material intensive traffic system can be considered one cause
of a way of life and a society headed in an unsustainable direction, or at least as an
underlying factor. On the other hand, material intensive traffic can also be considered
a consequence of an unsustainable way of life and society, since traffic is not a purpose
in itself, rather it is one kind of community “support activity”.
Even if a material intensive traffic system is regarded as merely the result of a way
of life and society, the situation can be considered disturbing. Since the abiotic natural
resource consumption of the community’s “support activity” is responsible for one
quarter of the total consumption of natural resources, it may be that our society is on
the way towards “The tower of Babel” (Van Dieren 2005), at which the society will
suffocate and collapse in the constantly escalating need for resources called for by
growth maintenance. Van Dieren (2005) sees a large dematerialisation (factor 10) as
an opportunity for achieving a sustainable society and way of life. In such a case the
transport system must also be vastly dematerialised from its present level. According
to Gudmundsson and Nielsen (1999), the consumption of solid (equivalent to abiotic)
materials during a passenger car’s life cycle in Denmark could at best be reduced by
71% (factor 3.6) by 2050 and the carbon dioxide emissions (equivalent in principle to
air consumption) by 88% (factor 8,3).

Even if a traffic system is nothing more than a community support activity, its active
dematerialisation can be considered an objective from the sustainable development
perspective. The aim of this project has been to study and analyse the natural resource
consumption of the traffic system and to provide basic data for endeavours to steer
the traffic system in a more sustainable direction. The accomplishment of this change
will be left to future practioners.

R e f e re nces
Ajomaa, Harri (2005). Finnish Post Corporation. Email communication 21.6.2005.
Ajomaa, Harri (2006). Finnish Post Corporation, development manager. Verbal communication
10.1.2006.
Association of Finnish Bicycle Manufacturers (2004). Polkupyöräalan taskutieto 2004. (The bicycle sector’s
pocket book 2004, in Finnish.) 10 pp. Available in pdf-format: <http://www.teknologiateollisuus.
fi/files/5884_Taskutieto2004.pdf>
Aultman-Hall, Lisa & Hall, Fred L. (1998). Ottava-Carleton commuter Cyclist on- and off-road incident
rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention 30 (1998), 29-43.
Aultman-Hall, Lisa. & Kaltenecker, M.Georgina (1999). Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates. Accident
Analysis and Prevention 31 (1999), 675–686.
Autio, Sakari & Michael Lettenmeier (2002): Ekotehokkuus – Business as Future. (An eco-efficiency guide
for business, in Finnish.) Dipoli-raportit/Dipoli-reports C, environmental education. 80 pp. Univer-
sity of Technology, TKK Dipoli, Espoo 2002.
Civil Aviation Authority (2004): Ilmailulaitoksen lentoliikennetilasto 2003. (Civil Aviation Authority air
transport statistics, in Finnish.) Available in pdf-format: <http://www.ilmailulaitos.fi/files/fcaa/lii-
kennetilastot_pdf/Lentoliiikennetilasto2003.pdf>
Ehrola, Esko (1996). Liikenneväylien rakennesuunnittelun perusteet. (Basics of planning of traffic route
construction, in Finnish.) 365 pp. Rakennustieto (Building Information), Tampere.
Finnair Oyj (2005). Ympäristöraportti 2004. (Environment report 2004, in Finnish). 13.12.2005. <http://
www.finnairgroup.com/konserni/konserni_10_3_1.html>
Finnish Maritime Administration (2002). Meriliikenne Suomen ja ulkomaiden välillä 2001. (Marine traffic
between Finland and foreign countries 2001, in Finnish.) Merenkulkulaitoksen tilastoja 4/2002.
Statistics of the Finnish Maritime Administration.111 pp. Helsinki.
Finnish Maritime Administration (2005). Tilastoja (Statistics, in Finnish). <http://www.fma.fi/palvelut/
tietopalvelut/tilastot/index.php> 28.8.2005.
Finnish Meteorological Institute (2005). Ilmastollinen vertailukausi 1970-2000. (Climatic comparison
period 1970-2000, in Finnish.) <http://www.fmi.fi/saa/tilastot_100.html#6> 29.6.2005.
Finnish Port Association (2005). Website. <www.satamaliitto.fi>. 31.10.2005.
Finnish Rail Administration (2004): Suomen rautatietilasto 2004. (Finland’s Rail Statistics 2004, in Finnish.)
Finnish Rail Administration, Helsinki. 53 pp.
Finnish Road Administration (1999). Tietoa teistä ja tieliikenteestä. (Information on roads and road tran-
sport, in Finnish.) 78 pp. Helsinki.
Finnish Road Administration (2004a).Tieliikenteen liikenne- ja henkilösuoritteet 1998-2003. (Road transport
and passenger performances 1998-2003, in Finnish.) Tiedote (Memo) 11.2.2004. 5 pp. Finnish Road
Administration, Helsinki.
Finnish Road Administration (2004b). Yleiset tiet vuosina 1940-2004. (Public roads in 1940-2004, leaflet, in
Finnish.) Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki.
Finnish Road Administration (2004c). Tierakenteen suunnittelu. (Road construction planning, in Finnish.)
74 pp. Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki.
Finnish Road Administration (2005a). Tilastoja (Statistics, in Finnish). <http://www.tiehallinto.fi/serv-
let/page?_pageid=68&_dad=julia&_schema=PORTAL30&kieli=fi&menu=597&_pageid=71&linkki=
884&julkaisu=461&kieli=fi> 3.11.2005.
Finnish Road Administration (2005b). Yksityisten teiden kunnossapito. (Private road maintenance, in Fin-
nish.) 60 pp. Finnra. Helsinki. <http://www.tiehallinto.fi/pls/wwwedit/docs/6090.pdf> 11.8.2005.
Gudmundsson, Henrik ja Thomas S. Nielsen (1999). Extended Summary of Reduction of Environmental
Pressure from Car Transport – case study of eco-efficiency in the Danish transport sector. In: Factor
4 and 10 in the Nordic Countries – The Transport Sector – The Forest Sector – The Building and Real Estate
Sector – The Food Supply Chain. TemaNord 1999: 528. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Avai-
lable from: <www.mst.dk/udgiv/Publications/1999/87-7909-237-3/html/default_eng.htm>
Hakkarainen, Elviira, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (2005). Polkupyöräliikenteenaiheuttama luonnon-
varojen kulutus Suomessa (PyöräMIPS). [Bicycle MIPS – Natural Resource Consumption in Finnish
Bicycle Traffic, in Finnish] Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 55/2005. Ministry of Transport
and Communications, Helsinki, Finland. Available from: <http://www.mintc.fi/julkaisut>
Hänninen, Salla (2005). Luonnonvarojen käyttö katurakentamisessa. (Consumption of natural resources in
street construction, in Finnish.) Diploma thesis. Helsinki University of Technology, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Espoo.
Hänninen, S., Hellén, S., Lettenmeier, M. & Autio, S. (2005). MateriaEuro – Luonnonvarojen käyttö Helsin-
gin katujen rakentamisessa ja ylläpidossa. [MateriaEuro –Natural Resource Use in Street Construction
and Maintenance in Helsinki, in Finnish]. Helsingin kaupungin rakennusviraston julkaisuja 1/2005.
City of Helsinki Public Works Department, Finland. Available from: <http://www.hkr.hel.fi/julkai-
sut/julkaisut2005.html>
Heinonen, Tuomo (2005). Finnish Transport and Logistics SKAL ry, Technical department. Verbal com-
munication. 30.6.2005.
Hellén, Sanna (2004). Katujen ylläpidon luonnonvarojen kulutus. (Natural resource consumption of street
maintenance, in Finnish.) Master’s thesis. University of Helsinki, Department of Economics, Helsin-
ki. 82 pp.

Hoffrén, Jukka (1999). Talous hyvinvoinnin ja ympäristöhaittojen tuottajana – Suomen ekotehokkuuden mittaa-
minen. (The Economy as a generator of prosperity and environmental harm – measuring Finland’s
eco-efficiency, in Finnish.) Tilastokeskus tutkimuksia / Statistics Finland, studies 226. Yliopistopaino,
Helsinki. 153 pp.
Holm, Olli (2005). Finnish Maritime Administration. Email communications 26.5.2005 and 7.11.2005.
Infrarakentamisen uusi materiaaliteknologia – UUMA (2006). Ministry of the Environment. <www.ymparis-
to.fi/default.asp?contentid=162418&lan=FI> 28.1.2006.
Jaloin (2005). Kevyen liikenteen edistäminen Suomessa. (Promotion of light traffic in Finland, in Finn-
ish.) <http://www.tieliikelatos.fi/jaloin> 20.8.2005.
Janakka, Tuija (2006). TNT Suomi Oy. Email communications 13.1.2006 and 16.1.2006
Kallioinen, Johanna (2002): Pyöräilyn institutionaalinen asema liikennesuunnittelussa. VATT-keskustelu-
aloitteita 267.(Institutional status of cycling in traffic planning. VATT discussion initiatives 267, in
Finnish.) The Government Institute for Economic Research (VATT). 163 pp.
Kasanen, P. & Savolainen, M. (1992). Jakelujärjestelmän ja kuluttajan roolin muutosten vaikutus energian
kulutukseen. [Influence on the energy consumption of changes in the distribution system and in
the role of consumers, in Finnish.] University of Helsinki Department of Social Psychology, energy
publications 7/1992.
Knoflacher, Hermann (1995). Kaupungin ja liikenteen harmonia. Vapaus autolla ajamisen pakosta. (Harmony
between the city and traffic. Freedom from driving a car, in Finnish.) Liikenneturva, Liikennesuun-
nittelun Seura ry. 120 pp.
Koskinen, Heli (2001): MIPS ja ekologinen selkäreppu tuotteiden potentiaalisten ympäristövaikutusten vertailun
menetelmänä – ongelmakohtien tarkastelu. (MIPS and the ecological rucksack as a method of comparing
the potential environmental impact of products – an examination of the problematic aspects, in Fin-
nish.) Pro gradu –tutkielma (Master’s thesis). 95 pp. University of Helsinki Department of Limnolo-
gy and Environmental protection science, Helsinki.
Lehtonen, Kari (2005). Finnish Road Enterprise. Email communication 20.6.2005.
Lindqvist, Aino (2005). MIPS-laskennan käyttökelpoisuus Suomen meriliikenteen ekotehokkuuden määrittämi-
sessä. (Applicability of MIPS calculations for determining the eco-efficiency of Finland’s maritime
transport, in Finnish.) Pro gradu-tutkielma (Master’s thesis). University of Helsinki Department of
Geography, Helsinki.
Lindqvist, Aino, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (2005): Meriliikenteen aiheuttama luonnonvarojen
kulutus (MeriMIPS). [Natural resource consumption by maritime transport (MeriMIPS), in Finnish].
Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 58/2005. Ministry of Transport and Communications,
Helsinki. Available in pdf-format: <http://www.mintc.fi/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService%253Dlvm/
cm/pub/showdoc.p?docid=1971&menuid=97&channelitemid=12000>
Mäenpää Ilmo, Artti Juutinen, Kauko Puustinen, Jari Rintala, Helmi Risku-Norja, Sami Veijalainen &
Mikko Viitanen (2000). Luonnonvarojen kokonaiskäyttö Suomessa. (Total material requirement in Fin-
land, in Finnish.) Suomen ympäristö 428, Helsinki.
Mäenpää, Ilmo (2005). Thule-institute, Helsinki. Information given in email message. 16.12.2005.
Mäkelä, Harri ja Harri Höynälä (2000). Sivutuotteet ja uusiomateriaalit maarakenteissa. Materiaalit ja käyttö-
kohteet. (Side-products and recycled materials in earthworks. Materials and applications, in Finnish.)
TEKESin teknologiakatsaus 91/2000. TEKES, Helsinki 2000.
Meijkamp, Rens. (1998). Changing consumer behaviour through eco-efficient services: an empirical
study of car sharing in the Netherlands. Business Strategy and the Environment 7 (1998): 234-244.
Ministry of the Environment (2003). Lentoasemien ympäristölupien erityispiirteet. Työryhmän mietintö.
(Special aspects of airport environmental permits. Working group report, in Finnish.) Ministry of the
Environment report no.118, Helsinki.
Ministry of Transport and Communications (1999): Henkilöliikennetutkimus 1998-1999. (Passenger tran-
sport study 1998-1999, in Finnish.) Ministry of Transport and Communications 43/99, Helsinki.
Ministry of Transport and Communications (2000). Kohti älykästä ja kestävää liikennettä 2025. (Towards
intelligent and sustainable transport 2025, in Finnish.) Ministry of Transport and Communications
47 pp. Helsinki.
Ministry of Transport and Communications (2001): Uutta pontta pyöräilyyn – ehdotus pyöräilypoliittisek-
si ohjelmaksi. (New stimulus for cycling – a proposal for a cycling policy programme, in Finnish.)
Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 5/2001. Ministry of Transport and Communications.
Helsinki.
Ministry of Transport and Communicaticons (2002). Väylät 2030. Väestön ja elinkeinoelämän haasteet
liikenneväylien pidolle. Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön ohjelmia ja strategioita 1/2002. (Roads 2030.
Road maintenance challenges for the populace and the business sector. Ministry of Transport and
Communications programmes and strategies 1/2002, in Finnish.) Ministry of Transport and Commu-
nications. Available in pdf-format: <http://www.mintc.fi/www/sivut/dokumentit/julkaisu/strate-
giat/2002/vaylat2030.pdf>
Ministry of Transport and Communications (2005). Ministry of Transport and Communications web-
site, in Finnish. <http://www.lvm.fi/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService%253Dlvm/cm/pub/showdoc.
p?docid=2098&menuid=176> 29.4.2005.
Monheim, Heiner & Rita Dandorfer-Monheim (1991). Straßen für alle – Analysen und Konzepte zum Stadt-
verkehr der Zukunft. Trier: Archiv für Stadt- und Verkehrsplanung an der Universität Trier.
Naskila, Antero (2005). City of Helsinki Planning Department. Verbal communication 6.9.2005.

Neuvonen, Samuli (2002). Kevyen liikenteen käyttöön vaikuttavat tekijät. (Factors affecting the use of light
transport, in Finnish.) Master’s thesis. University of Helsinki Department of Limnology and Envi-
ronmental Protection, Helsinki.
Nieminen, Anni (2005). Luonnonvarojen kulutus Suomen lentoliikenteessä. (Natural resource consumption
by Finland’s air transport, in Finnish.) 116 pp. Diploma thesis. Helsinki University of Technology.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Espoo.
Nieminen, Anni, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (2005): Luonnonvarojen kulutus Suomen lentoliikentees-
sä (LentoMIPS). [Natural resource consumption by Finland’s air transport (LentoMIPS), in Finnish.]
Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 57/2005. Ministry of Transport and Communications.
130 pp. Edita, Helsinki. Available in pdf-format : <http://www.mintc.fi/scripts/cgiip.exe/
WService%253Dlvm/cm/pub/showdoc.p?docid=1971&menuid=97&channelitemid=11999>
Ojala, Kari (2000). Kestävän yhdyskunnan käsikirja.(The sustainable community handbook, in Finnish.)
224 pp. Jyväskylä.
Pallonen, Janne (2005). Finnair Oyj. Email communication. 29.8.2005.
Pihlajamäki, Jari (2001). Liikennerasituksen laskeminen. TPPT menetelmäkuvaus. (Calculating traffic stress.
Description of the TPPT method, in Finnish.) 21 pp. Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT,
Building and built environment.
Pitkänen, Pertti (2005). Finnair Oyj. Verbal communication.15.8.2005.
Pölkki, Minna (2005). Organisoitu kimppamatka maksaisi 3 euroa. (Organised car sharing would cost 3
euros, in Finnish.) Helsingin Sanomat newspaper 27.11.2005, A13.
Postin ympäristökatsaus (2004). (Finnish Post Corporation’s environmental review.) 16 pp.
Prokkola, Reijo (2005). Finnish Road Administration. Verbal communication. 24.5.2005.
Pusenius, Kaisa (2004): Suomen yleisten teiden ja tieliikenteen luonnonvarojen kulutus – tutkimusmenetelmä-
nä MIPS. (Natural resource consumption of Finland’s public roads and road transport – MIPS as a
study method, in Finnish.) 96 pp.+ appendices. Master’s thesis. University of Helsinki, Department
of Geography, Helsinki.
Pusenius Kaisa, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (2005): Luonnonvarojen kulutus Suomen tieliiken-
teessä (TieMIPS). [Natural resource consumption by Finland’s road transport (TieMIPS), in Finnish.]
Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 54/2005. Minstry of Transport and Communications.
122 pp. Edita, Helsinki. Available in pdf-format : <http://www.mintc.fi/scripts/cgiip.exe/
WService%253Dlvm/cm/pub/showdoc.p?docid=1971&menuid=97&channelitemid=11995>
Räsänen, Mikko & Heikki Summala (1998). Attention and expectation problems in bicycle-car collisions:
an in-depth study. Accident Analysis and Prevention 30 (1998), 657-666.
RIL165-1 Liikenne ja väylät I (1987). (Transport and roads, in Finnish.) Association of Finnish Civil Engin-
eers (RIL). 333 pp. Helsinki.
Rissa, Kari (2001). Ekotehokkuus – enemmän vähemmästä. (Eco-efficiency – more out of less, in Finnish.)
Ministry of the Environment. 208 pp. Edita, Helsinki.
Ritthoff, M., Rohn, H., Liedtke, C. & Merten, T. (2002). Calculating MIPS. Resource
productivity of products and services. Wuppertal Special 27e. Available from: <www.mips-online.info>
Rusko, Niina (2005a). Civil Aviation Authority. Verbal communication 14.10.2005.
Rusko, Niina (2005b). Civil Aviation Authority. Email communications 14.10.2005 and 20.10.2005.
Saari, Arto, Michael Lettenmeier, Kaisa Pusenius & Elviira Hakkarainen (2007). Influence of vehicle
type and road category on natural resource consumption in road transport, Transportation Research
Part D, 12 (1), 23-32.
Salo, Ville (2004). Jätepolitiikan vaihtoehtojen luonnonvarojen kulutus pääkaupunkiseudulla. (Natural resource
consumption of waste policy alternatives in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, in Finnish.) Master’s
thesis. University of Helsinki, Department of Economics, Helsinki.
Schmidt-Bleek Friedrich, Stefan Bringezu, Fritz Hinterberger, Christa Liedtke, Joachim Spangenberg,
Hartmut Stiller & Maria J. Welfens (1998). MAIA. Einführung in die Material-Intensitäts-Analyse nach
dem MIPS-Konzept. Berlin, Basel, Boston: Birkhäuser.
Schmidt-Bleek, Friedrich (2002). Translated into Finnish and edited by Michael Lettenmeier. Luonnon uu-
si laskuoppi – ekotehokkuuden mittari MIPS. (Nature’s new accountancy – eco-efficiency measurement
MIPS, in Finnish.) 311 pp. Gaudeamus, Helsinki.
Sinivuori, Paula (2004). Kahden Helsingin yliopiston rakennuksen luonnonvarojen kulutuksen selvittäminen
MIPS-laskennan avulla. (Determination of natural resource consumption by two buildings at the
University of Helsinki using MIPS-calculations, in Finnish.) Master’s thesis. 91 pp. University of
Helsinki, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Helsinki.
Sinivuori, Paula ja Arto Saari (2006): MIPS analysis of natural resource consumption in two university
buildings. Building and environment 41(5), 657-668.
Statistics Finland (2005). Vuoden 2003 tiedotteet. (Press releases of 2003, in Finnish.) <http://www.stat.
fi/ajk/tiedotteet/v2003/275vrms.html> 9.10.2005
Stiller, Hartmut (1995). Materialintensitätsanalysen von Transportleistungen (1). Seeschiffahrt. Wuppertal
Papers 40/1995. Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie. 48 pp.
Suuri kansallinen liikuntatutkimus (2002). [Finnish National Sports Study, in Finnish. ] . SLU:n julka-
isuja 5/02. Finnish Sports Federation. 52 pp.
Talja, S., Lettenmeier, M. & Saari, A. (2006). Luonnonvarojen kulutus paikallisessa liikenteessä – Menetelmänä
MIPS [Natural Resource Consumption of Local Transport According to the MIPS Concept]. Liiken-
ne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 14/2006. Ministry of Transport and Communications, Helsinki,
Finland. Available from: <http://www.mintc.fi/julkaisut>

Tammirinne, Markku, Aarno Valkeisenmäki & Esko Ehrola (2002). Tierakenteiden tutkimusohjelma 1994-
2001. Yhteenvetoraportti. (Road structure research programme 1994-2001. Summarised report, in
Finnish.)Tiehallinnon selvityksiä 36/2002. 112 pp. Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki.
Tapio, Petri (2002). The Limits to Traffic Volume Growth. The Content and Procedure of Administrative Futures
Studies on Finnish Transport CO2 Policy. Acta future fennica no. 8. Finland Futures Research Centre,
Turku, Finland.
Tiefakta 2004 (2004). (Road facts 2004, in Finnish.) 48. pp. Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki.
TNT (2006). TNT Suomi Oy.< http://www.tnt.com/country/fi_fi.html> 27.1.2006.
Tolla, Panu (2005). Finnish Road Enterprise. Personal email message 15.6.2005.
Uusnäkki, Harri (2005). Ministry of Transport and Communications. Email communication 20.5.2005.
Van Dieren, Wouter (2005). The Limits to Growth and the Tower of Babel or How arts can tell a scientific story
better. Powerpoint presentation. Factor 10 –Symposium 25.11.2005. House of Design, Hällefors,
Sweden.
Vesiväylät (2005). Vesiväylät – osa kuljetusketjua. (Water routes – part of the transport chain, in Finnish.)
Finnish Maritime Administration. Edita, Helsinki. Available in pdf-format: <http://www.fma.fi/pal-
velut/tietopalvelut/esitteet/vesivaylat_esite_fi.pdf> 19.8.2005.
Vihermaa, Leena (2005). Suomen raideliikenteen ekotehokkuus MIPS-laskentaa hyödyntäen. (Eco-efficiency of
Finland’s rain transport making use of the MIPS concept, in Finnish.) Master’s thesis. University of
Helsinki Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Helsinki.
Vihermaa, Leena, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (2005). Luonnonvarojen kulutus Suomen rautatieliiken-
teessä (RautatieMIPS). (Natural resource consumption in Finnish railway transport [Railway MIPS],
in Finnish.). Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja 56/2005. Ministry of Transport and Commu-
nications, Helsinki, Finland. Available in pdf-format: <http://www.mintc.fi/julkaisut>
Vihermaa, Leena, Michael Lettenmeier & Arto Saari (2006). Natural resource consumption in rail tran-
sport: A note analysing of two Finnish railway lines. Transportation Research Part D 11 (3), 227-232.
Viinikainen, Mikko (2005a). Civil Aviation Authority. Verbal communication 23.5.2005.
Viinikainen, Mikko (2005b). Civil Aviation Authority. Verbal communication 6.9.2005.
Viitanen, Mikko, Tapio Karvonen, Johanna Vaiste & Hannu Hernesniemi (2003). Suomen meriklusteri.
(Finland’s maritime cluster, in Finnish.) Teknologiakatsaus 140/2003. 191 pp. TEKES, Helsinki.
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (2005). LIPASTO-tietojärjestelmä. (LIPASTO database, in
Finnish.) <http://lipasto.vtt.fi> 9.10.2005.
Wuppertal Institute (2005). <http://www.mips-online.com> 5.6.2005.
Yleiset tiet 1.1.2004. Public roads in Finland 1.1.2004 (2004). Tiehallinnon tilastoja - Finnra Statistics
2/2004. 49 pp. Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki.

Appendixes
MIPS values for road transport. Appendix 1
Passenger car MIPS values
MI/vehicle-km MI/passenger-km
abiotic (kg) water (kg) air (kg) abiotic (kg) water (kg) air (kg)
Connecting road 4.52 34.29 0.22 3.23 24.49 0.16
Regional road 1.93 11.96 0.19 1.38 8.54 0.14
Class 2 main road 2.65 13.82 0.19 1.89 9.87 0.14
Class 1 main road 1.88 10.18 0.19 1.34 7.27 0.13
Motorway 1.50 4.25 0.18 1.07 3.04 0.13
Main street 0.22 3.26 0.17 0.16 2.33 0.12
Collector street 2.19 54.78 0.24 1.56 39.13 0.17
Street to residences 2.31 64.83 0.23 1.65 46.31 0.16
Private road 10.07 223.96 0.27 7.19 159.97 0.19
Average road 2.02 20.33 0.19 1.44 14.52 0.14
Bus or coach
MI/vehicle-km MI/passenger-km
Connecting road 9.21 70.07 0.82 0.71 5.39 0.06
Regional road 4.02 25.41 0.76 0.31 1.95 0.06
Class 2 main road 5.46 29.12 0.76 0.42 2.24 0.06
Class 1 main road 3.92 21.84 0.75 0.30 1.68 0.06
Motorway 3.16 9.99 0.73 0.24 0.77 0.06
Main street 0.62 8.02 0.72 0.05 0.62 0.06
Private road 20.60 456.06 0.92 1.58 35.08 0.07
Average road 4.22 42.05 0.76 0.32 3.23 0.06
Van
MI/vehicle-km MI/tonne-km
Connecting road 4.56 34.79 0.30 22.78 173.94 1.52
Regional road 1.96 12.46 0.27 9.80 62.30 1.37
Class 2 main road 2.68 14.31 0.28 13.41 71.57 1.38
Class 1 main road 1.91 10.67 0.27 9.56 53.37 1.35
Motorway 1.53 4.75 0.26 7.67 23.75 1.31
Main street 0.26 3.76 0.26 1.32 18.81 1.31
Private road 15.01 334.05 0.41 75.03 1,670.25 2.04
Average road 2.16 22.70 0.28 10.78 113.51 1.39
Light lorry
Connecting road 9.07 68.51 0.56 1.30 9.79 0.08
Regional road 3.88 23.85 0.50 0.55 3.41 0.07
Class 2 main road 5.33 27.56 0.50 0.76 3.94 0.07
Class 1 main road 3.78 20.28 0.49 0.54 2.90 0.07
Motorway 3.03 8.43 0.47 0.43 1.20 0.07
Main street 0.48 6.45 0.46 0.07 0.92 0.07
Private road 20.23 449.28 0.66 2.89 64.18 0.09
Average road 4.08 43.29 0.50 0.58 6.18 0.07

MIPS values
Lorry with semi-trailer
Connecting road 13.81 104.38 1.25 0.99 7.46 0.09
Regional road 6.03 37.40 1.15 0.43 2.67 0.08
Class 2 main road 8.19 42.96 1.16 0.59 3.07 0.08
Class 1 main road 5.88 32.04 1.14 0.42 2.29 0.08
Motorway 4.75 14.27 1.12 0.34 1.02 0.08
Main street 0.93 11.31 1.11 0.07 0.81 0.08
Private road 30.55 675.55 1.41 2.18 48.25 0.10
Average road 6.32 79.64 1.17 0.45 5.69 0.08
Lorry with trailer
Connecting road * - - - - - -
Regional road 6.12 38.62 1.22 0.29 1.84 0.06
Class 2 main road 8.29 44.17 1.23 0.39 2.10 0.06
Class 1 main road 5.98 33.25 1.21 0.28 1.58 0.06
Motorway 4.84 15.48 1.18 0.23 0.74 0.06
Main street 1.02 12.52 1.18 0.05 0.60 0.06
Street to residences* - - - - - -
Private road * - - - - - -
Average road 4.88 31.97 1.20 0.23 1.52 0.06
Freight transport on average
Incl. vans - - - 0.52 6.3 0.09
Without vans - - - 0.37 4.2 0.07
* MIPS values for a lorry with a trailer were not calculated in this study for connecting roads, streets to residences and private
roads because it was considered that a vehicle of this kind does not use such road classes.

MIPS for flights by ATR72 aircraft on different routes in Finland. ATR airdraft are
not used on all routes at present. Thus, not all the flying times given are real ones.
From To Distance Flying time h MIPS kg/passenger-km MI kg/person per route

Helsinki Enontekiö 895 km 1.58 2.65 29.98 0.17 2,373 26,832 149
Helsinki Ivalo 922 km 1.67 0.70 29.57 0.16 645 27,261 143
Helsinki Joensuu 359 km 1.08 0.65 29.76 0.22 235 10,684 80
Helsinki Jyväskylä 235 km 0.83 0.54 29.83 0.26 127 7,010 60
Helsinki Kajaani 463 km 1.33 0.76 29.76 0.22 353 13,778 100
Helsinki Kemi/Tornio 608 km 1.25 0.69 29.61 0.17 422 18,003 103
Helsinki Kittilä 820 km 1.50 0.53 29.54 0.16 434 24,219 128
Helsinki Kokkola/Pietarsaari 391 km 1.17 0.59 29.74 0.22 229 11,629 87
Appendix 2 MIPS values for air transport
Helsinki Kuopio 336 km 1.08 0.54 29.77 0.23 182 10,003 79

Helsinki Kuusamo 647 km 1.33 0.73 29.62 0.17 475 19,163 110
Helsinki Lappeenranta 191 km 0.67 0.86 29.90 0.26 164 5,711 49
Helsinki Maarianhamina 287 km 0.92 0.67 29.80 0.24 191 8,552 68
Helsinki Mikkeli 194 km 0.67 0.95 29.91 0.26 184 5,802 50
Helsinki Oulu 515 km 1.08 0.44 29.57 0.17 227 15,226 88
Helsinki Pori 214 km 0.67 0.55 29.77 0.23 118 6,371 50
Helsinki Rovaniemi 695 km 1.33 0.43 29.53 0.16 298 20,523 111
Helsinki Savonlinna 297 km 0.83 0.91 29.79 0.22 270 8,847 64
Helsinki Seinäjoki 300 km 0.83 0.62 29.72 0.21 187 8,916 64
Helsinki Tampere 145 km 0.67 0.54 30.02 0.32 79 4,353 46
Helsinki Turku 151 km 0.67 0.58 29.99 0.31 87 4,529 47
Helsinki Vaasa 349 km 1.08 0.50 29.74 0.23 173 10,380 80
Helsinki Varkaus 275 km 0.83 1.04 29.85 0.23 285 8,209 63

93
94
MIPS for flights by MD80 aircraft on different routes in Finland. MD80 airdraft are not used
on all routes at present. Thus, not all the flying times given are real ones.

Helsinki Enontekiö 895 km 1.58 1.41 19.97 0.27 1,265 17,877 241
Helsinki Ivalo 922 km 1.67 0.46 19.78 0.27 424 18,237 246

Helsinki Joensuu 359 km 0.92 0.48 20.15 0.39 171 7,233 140
Helsinki Jyväskylä 235 km 0.67 0.44 20.34 0.46 104 4,780 108
Helsinki Kajaani 463 km 1.08 0.51 20.04 0.35 238 9,279 163
Helsinki Kemi/Tornio 608 km 1.25 0.47 19.90 0.31 287 12,101 187
Helsinki Kittilä 820 km 1.50 0.38 19.78 0.27 310 16,219 223
Helsinki Kokkola/Pietarsaari 391 km 0.92 0.43 20.06 0.36 169 7,842 142
Helsinki Kuopio 336 km 0.92 0.43 20.21 0.41 144 6,789 139
Helsinki Kuusamo 647 km 1.33 0.49 19.90 0.31 317 12,876 198
Helsinki Lappeenranta 191 km 0.67 0.64 20.66 0.56 122 3,947 106
Helsinki Maarianhamina 287 km 0.92 0.52 20.41 0.48 148 5,857 137
Helsinki Mikkeli 194 km 0.67 0.68 20.65 0.55 132 4,006 106
Helsinki Oulu 515 km 1.08 0.35 19.92 0.32 181 10,256 165
Helsinki Pori 214 km 0.67 0.47 20.47 0.50 101 4,380 107
Helsinki Rovaniemi 695 km 1.33 0.33 19.81 0.29 233 13,771 199
Helsinki Savonlinna 297 km 0.83 0.62 20.30 0.43 184 6,030 129
Helsinki Seinäjoki 300 km 0.83 0.48 20.26 0.43 143 6,078 129
Helsinki Tampere 145 km 0.67 0.54 21.12 0.72 78 3,062 104
Helsinki Turku 151 km 0.67 0.55 21.04 0.69 83 3,177 104
Helsinki Vaasa 349 km 0.92 0.40 20.16 0.40 140 7,036 140
Helsinki Varkaus 275 km 0.83 0.69 20.41 0.47 190 5,612 128
MIPS for flights from Finland to nearby areas by ATR72 and MD-80 aircraft.
From To Distance Flying time h Aircraft MIPS kg/passenger-km MI kg/person per route
km abiotic water air abiotic water air

Helsinki Tallinn 97 0.5 ATR 72 0.81 37.69 0.26 78 3,656 25
Helsinki Tallinn 97 0.5 MD-80 0.70 27.91 0.47 68 2,708 45
Helsinki St. Petersburg 412 1 ATR 72 0.27 10.97 0.21 110 4,519 85
Helsinki St. Petersburg 412 1 MD-80 0.27 6.46 0.43 112 2,660 176
Helsinki Riga 381 1.17 ATR 72 0.28 11.64 0.21 107 4,434 79
Helsinki Riga 381 1.17 MD-80 0.36 10.81 0.44 137 4,119 166
Helsinki Stockholm 470 1.25 ATR 72 0.25 9.95 0.20 116 4,677 96
Helsinki Stockholm 470 1 MD-80 0.78 31.44 0.47 365 14,778 223
Helsinki Vilnius 666 1.33 ATR 72 0.20 7.83 0.20 135 5,214 134
Helsinki Vilnius 666 1.33 MD-80 0.83 33.93 0.48 550 22,600 319

95
96
MIPS for flights by A320 aircraft on different routes in Europe.

km

Helsinki Amsterdam 1,521 2.50 0.11 3.36 0.14 161 5,113 217
Helsinki Barcelona 2,627 3.83 0.10 3.32 0.13 262 8,716 336
Helsinki Berlin 1,123 1.92 0.11 3.38 0.15 121 3,790 165
Helsinki Brussels 1,648 2.58 0.10 3.34 0.14 170 5,509 225
Helsinki Budapest 1,479 2.33 0.10 3.34 0.14 153 4,947 203
Helsinki Dublin 2,175 3.17 0.10 3.32 0.13 217 7,213 277
Helsinki Düsseldorf 1,509 2.33 0.10 3.34 0.13 155 5,036 203
Helsinki Frankfurt 1,538 2.67 0.11 3.38 0.15 168 5,205 231
Helsinki Hamburg 1,168 2.00 0.11 3.38 0.15 126 3,944 172
Helsinki London 1,825 3.17 0.11 3.39 0.15 199 6,179 275
Helsinki Madrid 2,949 5.50 0.11 3.42 0.16 337 10,087 478
Helsinki Milano 1,940 3.08 0.10 3.35 0.14 202 6,498 269
Helsinki Moscow 909 1.75 0.12 3.43 0.16 105 3,116 150
Helsinki Paris 1,913 3.08 0.10 3.36 0.14 201 6,418 268
Helsinki Rome 2,230 3.33 0.10 3.33 0.13 225 7,418 292
Helsinki Warsaw 940 1.67 0.11 3.39 0.15 103 3,187 143
Helsinki Vienna 1,459 2.50 0.11 3.38 0.15 158 4,930 216
Helsinki Zürich 1,779 2.75 0.10 3.34 0.13 183 5,938 240
MIPS for flights by B757 aircraft on different leisure flight routes.
km
Helsinki Athens 2,993 3.58 0.04 1.05 0.07 114 3,149 197
Helsinki Dubai 4,840 5.92 0.04 1.06 0.07 190 5,133 333
Helsinki Hania 2,980 3.75 0.04 1.06 0.07 118 3,166 207
Helsinki Kos 2,960 3.58 0.04 1.05 0.07 114 3,121 197
Helsinki Las Palmas 4,700 6.17 0.04 1.08 0.07 194 5,055 346
Helsinki Malta 3,150 4.17 0.04 1.07 0.07 129 3,383 230
Helsinki Miami 8,335 12.67 0.05 1.11 0.09 389 9,281 720
Helsinki Murcia 3,092 4.42 0.04 1.09 0.08 135 3,375 244
Helsinki Nice 2,198 3.33 0.05 1.10 0.08 99 2,423 181
Helsinki Toronto 6,600 8.83 0.04 1.08 0.08 279 7,141 501
Helsinki Verona 2,240 2.92 0.04 1.07 0.07 90 2,388 158
MIPS for flights by MD11 aircraft on different intercontinental routes.


Helsinki Bangkok 8,188 10.08 0.06 0.91 0.13 497 7,439 1,063
Helsinki Hong Kong 7,816 9.83 0.06 0.92 0.13 484 7,171 1,038
Helsinki Kanton 7,680 9.58 0.06 0.91 0.13 473 7,026 1,013
Helsinki New York 6,608 8.58 0.06 0.93 0.14 424 6,172 914
Helsinki Osaka 7,735 9.42 0.06 0.91 0.13 466 7,006 997
Helsinki Beijing 6,825 7.75 0.06 0.88 0.12 391 6,040 832
Helsinki Shanghai 7,400 8.92 0.06 0.90 0.13 443 6,684 947
Helsinki Singapore 10,300 13.67 0.06 0.93 0.14 658 9,597 1,416
Helsinki Tokyo 7,831 9.58 0.06 0.91 0.13 474 7,105 1,013

97
Turku-Rauma 4.35 kg

98
MI kg/vehicle-km MI kg/consignment

Route Vehicle Road class Route km Load kg Abiotic Water Air Abiotic Water Air
concern: examples.
Turku-Airport (both van average 31 216 2.16 22.70 0.28 1.35 14.17 0.17
ways)
Airport-Rauma-Airport light lorry class 1 main 320 411 3.78 20.28 0.49 12.82 68.68 1.66
(whole route) road

TOTAL 351 14.2 82.8 1.8
Total kg / consignment
tonne-km 1.53 9.28 54.26 1.20
Total kg / tonne-km

Tuusula-Nurmes 80 kg


Tuusula-Vantaa (whole van average 100 751 2.16 22.70 0.28 22.97 241.81 2.97
route)
Vantaa-Turku lorry with semi- class 1 main 92 28,000 5.88 32.04 1.14 1.55 8.42 0.30
trailer road
motorway 84 28,000 4.75 14.27 1.12 1.14 3.42 0.27
Turku-Kuopio light lorry class 1 main 441 16,800 3.78 20.28 0.49 7.95 42.58 1.03
road
Kuopio-Nurmes light lorry average 146 3,300 4.08 43.29 0.50 14.43 153.22 1.77
TOTAL 863 48.03 449.46 6.34
Appendix 3 Calculation of the natural resource consumption of freight transport by the TNT
tonne-km 69.04 0.70 6.51 0.09

Total kg / tonne-km
Järvenpää-Mannheim 0.1 kg


Järvenpää-Vantaa (both van average 40 751 2.16 22.70 0.28 0.01 0.12 0.00
ways)
Vantaa-Stockholm aircraft average in Fin- 470 12,900 27.6 1309 13.8 0.10 4.77 0.05
land
Stockholm-Liège aircraft average in Fin- 1,300 38,700 27.6 1309 13.8 0.09 4.40 0.05
land
Liège-Mannheim aircraft average in Fin- 250 43,000 27.6 1309 13.8 0.02 0.76 0.01
land
Load t kg/tonnne-km
Mannheim van average 2 0.0001 0.98 7.07 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 2062 0.22 10.05 0.11
tonne-km 0.21 1.07 48.73 0.51
Total kg / tonne-km


99
Kotka-Bremen 114 kg


Kotka-Vantaa light lorry class 1 main 120 1,800 3.78 20.28 0.49 28.77 154.11 3.71
road
Vantaa-Turku Harbour lorry with semi- class 1 main 95 28,000 5.88 32.04 1.14 2.27 12.39 0.44
trailer road
motorway 84 28,000 4.75 14.27 1.12 1.62 4.88 0.38
Load t kg/tonne-km
Naantali-Kapelskär ferry 213 0.114 0.21 1.30 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.00
Kapelskär-Helsingborg lorry with semi- average (Fin- 560 0.114 0.45 5.69 0.08 0.03 0.36 0.01
trailer land)
Helsingborg-Hannover lorry with semi- average (Ger- 560 0.114 0.98 7.07 0.23 0.06 0.45 0.01
trailer many)
Hannover-Bremen lorry with semi- average 120 0.114 0.98 7.07 0.23 0.01 0.10 0.00
trailer
Bremen-Destination van average 52 0.114 0.98 7.07 0.23 0.01 0.04 0.00
TOTAL 1,814 32.77 172.36 4.57
tonne-km 206.80 0.16 0.84 0.02
Total kg / tonne-km

D OCUMENTATION PAGE
Publisher Ministry of the Environment Date

2006
Author(s) Satu Lähteenoja, Michael Lettenmeier, Arto Saari
Title of publication Transport MIPS – Natural resource consumption of the Finnish transport system
Publication series The Finnish Environment 820en

and number
Theme of publication Environmental Protection
Parts of publication/ The publication series of the ministry of transport and communication (www.mintc.fi/julkaisut) contains the case
other project studies of the FIN-MIPS Transport project (all in Finnish language): Road MIPS (54/2005), Bicycle MIPS (55/2005),
publications RailwayMIPS (56/2005), Flying MIPS (57/2005), MaritimeMIPS (58/2005) and Local Transport MIPS (14/2006).
Abstract This publication is a summary of the results of the FIN-MIPS Transport research project conducted mainly in 2004-
05. Funding for the project was provided by the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Transport and Com-
munications, the Finnish Public Road Administration, the Finnish Rail Administration, the Finnish Marine Admin-
istration, the Finnish Civil Aviation Administration and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. Overall
responsibility for the project lay with the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation.
For the main part this report contains the same information as the Finnish version. However, to make comprehen-
sion easier, certain parts have either been added or omitted.
The study calculated the MIPS values (material input per unit service) of the Finnish transport system including
road, rail, air, maritime and local traffic. This was achieved by generalising the case studies made during the project.
The MIPS values were calculated in three input categories: abiotic resources, water and air; according to the dif-
fering infrastructure classes or routes. Average figures for the whole of Finland were also calculated. The average
MIPS values per domestic passenger kilometre varied between 0.29 kg for metro and 2.16 kg for van for abiotic
resources, between 2.8 kg by bus and 48.1 kg for tram for water, and 0.02 kg for cycling and 0.28 kg by plane for
air. The respective values per ton kilometre in domestic freight transport for abiotic resources ranged between
0.23 kg for a full trailer truck and 10.8 kg by van, for water between 1.68 kg for a full trailer truck and 266 kg by
plane, and for air between 0.02 kg for train and 2.8 kg by plane. Calculations were also made for international air
transport as well as maritime transport.
Infrastructure share in the MIPS values for abiotic resources and water consumption proved significant, illustrating
the relevance of allocation of material inputs between passenger and freight transport. The report demonstrates
possible allocation methods for the different transport modes and their influence on the results. The decision on
the final allocation methods made by the steering group of the project is presented and explained.
The MIPS values given in this study are useful in comparing different modes of transport in a situation where a
decision is required and for calculating MIPS values of products and services, e.g. in companies. The report provid-
ed calculation examples to illustrate the differences between alternative modes of transport and the use of MIPS
figures for certain routes for passenger and freight transport.
Total annual resource consumption by the Finnish transport system per capita comes to 130 million tons of abiotic
resources, 1367 million tons of water, and 17 million tons of air. The share of street and road transport for the
entire transport system is 87 % of the abiotic resources, 70 % of water and 76 % of air.
The final part of the report considers the means for decreasing the material intensity and resource consumption
of transport. Relevant means are constructing less and resource-efficient infrastructure, decreasing the amount of
traffic, increasing the ridership of vehicles and making choices between alternative means of transport.
Keywords Eco-efficiency, natural resources, consumption, life-cycle, MIPS, traffic, transport, transport system
Financier/ Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Finnish Public Road Administration,
commissioner Finnish Rail Administration, Finnish Marine Administration, Finnish Civil Aviation Administration, Finnish Association
for Nature Conservation.
ISBN ISBN ISSN ISSN
(pbk.) 978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF) (print) (online)
No. of pages Language Restrictions Price (incl. tax 8 %)
104 English For public use
Financier Ministry of the Environment
of publication

K U VAILULEHTI
Julkaisija Ympäristöministeriö Julkaisuaika

2006
Tekijä(t) Satu Lähteenoja, Michael Lettenmeier, Arto Saari
Julkaisun nimi LiikenneMIPS – Suomen liikennejärjestelmän luonnonvarojen kulutus
Julkaisusarjan Suomen ympäristö 820en

nimi ja numero
Julkaisun teema Ympäristönsuojelu
Julkaisun osat/ Sarjassa Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja (www.mintc.fi/julkaisut) on julkaistu FIN-MIPS Liikenne -hank-
muut saman projektin keen osatutkimukset TieMIPS (54/2005), PyöräMIPS (55/2005), RautatieMIPS (56/2005), LentoMIPS (57/2005),
tuottamat julkaisut MeriMIPS (58/2005) ja Paikallisen liikenteen MIPS (14/2006).
Tiivistelmä Julkaisussa esitellään yhteenveto FIN-MIPS Liikenne -tutkimushankkeen tuloksista. Pääosin vuosina 2004-2005
toteutetun hankkeen rahoittajat olivat ympäristöministeriö, liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, Tiehallinto, Ratahal-
lintokeskus, Merenkulkulaitos, Ilmailulaitos ja Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto. Hankkeen toteutti Suomen luonnon-
suojeluliitto.
Tämä raportti on pääosin saman sisältöinen kuin suomenkielinen julkaisu. Joitain muutoksia on kuitenkin tehty
ymmärtämisen helpottamiseksi.
Tässä tutkimuksessa laskettiin Suomen liikennejärjestelmän eli maantie-, rautatie-, lento-, meri- ja paikallisen
liikenteen MIPS-luvut (material input per unit service, luonnonvarojen kulutus suhteessa hyötyyn) hankkeen
case-tutkimuksista yleistäen. MIPS-luvut laskettiin kolmessa luonnonvaraluokassa (abioottiset luonnonvarat, vesi
ja ilma) väyläluokka- tai reittikohtaisesti sekä maata kattavina keskiarvoina. Suomen sisäisen henkilöliikenteen
keskimääräiset MIPS-luvut henkilökilometriä kohden vaihtelevat abioottisissa luonnonvaroissa metron 0,29 ja
pakettiauton 2,16 kg:n välillä, veden kulutuksessa linja-auton 2,8 ja raitiovaunun 48,1 kg:n välillä ja ilman kulu-
tuksessa polkupyörän 0,02 ja pakettiauton ja lentokoneen 0,28 kg:n välillä. Suomen sisäisen tavaraliikenteen
vaihteluvälit ovat tonnikilometriä kohden laskettuna 0,23 (täysperävaunurekka) - 10,8 (pakettiauto) kg abioottisia
luonnonvaroja, 1,68 (täysperävaunurekka) - 266 (lentokone) kg vettä ja 0,02 (juna) - 2,8 (lentokone) ilmaa. MIPS-
lukuja laskettiin lisäksi kansainvälisestä lento- ja laivaliikenteestä.
Väyläinfrastruktuurin osuus liikenteen abioottisten luonnonvarojen ja veden kulutuksen MIPS-luvuista on suuri.

Tämän vuoksi infrastruktuurin materiaalipanosten allokointi lähinnä henkilö- ja tavaraliikenteen kesken on
merkittävä kysymys. Raportti esittelee eri liikennemuodoille mahdolliset panosallokointitavat, niiden vaikutukset
tuloksiin ja hankkeen ohjausryhmän tekemän allokointitapojen lopullisen valintapäätöksen perusteluineen.
Tutkimuksen tuottamia MIPS-lukuja voidaan käyttää eri liikennemuotojen vertailuun valintatilanteissa sekä tuot-
teiden ja palvelujen MIPS-laskentaan esimerkiksi yrityksissä. Raportti havainnollistaa liikennemuotojen välisiä
eroja ja MIPS-lukujen käyttöä erilaisilla reiteillä henkilö- ja tavaraliikenteessä esimerkkilaskelmien avulla.
Suomen liikennejärjestelmän aiheuttama luonnonvarojen kokonaiskäyttö on vuotta kohden laskettuna 130

miljoonaa tonnia abioottisia luonnonvaroja, 1367 miljoonaa tonnia vettä ja 17 miljoonaa tonnia ilmaa. Ajoneu-
voliikenteen osuus luonnonvarojen kokonaiskäytöstä on abioottisten luonnonvarojen kulutuksessa 87 %, veden
käytössä 70 % ja ilman kulutuksessa 76 %.
Raportin loppuosassa pohditaan keinoja liikenteen materiaali-intensiteetin ja luonnonvarojen kulutuksen pienen-

tämiseksi.Merkittäviä keinoja ovat infrastruktuurin vähäinen ja luonnonvaroja säästävä rakentaminen, liikennesuo-
ritteiden pienentäminen, liikennevälineiden täyttöasteen nostaminen ja liikennevälineiden valinta.
Asiasanat Ekotehokkuus, luonnonvara, kulutus, elinkaari, MIPS, liikenne, kuljetus, liikennejärjestelmä
Rahoittaja/ Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto,Ympäristöministeriö, Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, Tiehallinto, Ratahallintokeskus,

toimeksiantaja Merenkulkulaitos, Ilmailulaitos.
ISBN ISBN ISSN ISSN
(nid.) 978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF) (pain.) (verkkoj.)
Sivuja Kieli Luottamuksellisuus Hinta (sis.alv 8 %)
104 Suomi Julkinen
Julkaisun kustantaja Ympäristöministeriö

P RESENTATIONSBLAD
Utgivare Miljöministeriet Datum

2006
Författare Satu Lähteenoja, Michael Lettenmeier, Arto Saari
Publikationens titel Trafik-MIPS – förbrukningen av naturtillgångar i Finlands trafikssystem

(LiikenneMIPS – Suomen liikennejärjestelmän luonnonvarojen kulutus)
Publikationsserie Miljön i Finland Nr 820en
Publikationens tema Miljövård
Publikationens delar/ Delundersökningarna i projektet FIN-MIPS Trafik har publicerats i serien Kommunikationsministeriets publika-
andra publikationer tioner (www.mintc.fi/julkaisut):Väg-MIPS (54/2005), Cykel-MIPS (55/2005), Järnväg-MIPS (56/2005), Flygplans-MIPS
inom samma projekt (57/2005), Fartygs-MIPS (58/2005) och Lokaltrafikens MIPS (14/2006).
Sammandrag I undersökningen beräknades användningen av naturtillgångar i Finlands hela trafiksystem per transportpresta-
tion, d.v.s. serviceenhet (Material Input per Service Unit, MIPS). Utifrån delundersökningarna i projektet FIN-MIPS
Trafik beräknades skilt för vägtrafiken, tågtrafiken, luftfarten, sjöfarten och den lokala trafiken användning av icke-
förnybara naturtillgångar, vatten och luft efter farledsklass eller linje samt genomsnittet för hela landet. Dessutom
beräknades MIPS-värden för den internationell flyg- och sjöfarten.
Innehållet i denna rapport motsvarar i huvudsak den finskspråkiga versionen.Vissa ändringar har emellertid gjorts
för att förbättra läsbarheten.
Trafikledernas och den övriga infrastrukturens andel av trafikens användning av naturtillgångar är stor. Därför är
det av stor betydelse för slutresultatet hur till exempel insatserna av naturtillgångar för infrastrukturen förde-
las mellan olika användare. I rapporten presenteras därför hur dessa materialinsatser i de olika trafikslagen kan
fördelas mellan person- och godstrafik och hur de slutligen fördelades. I rapporten presenteras också andra bak-
grundsuppgifter för MIPS-värdena.
De MIPS-värden som togs fram i undersökningen kan användas vid jämförelse av olika trafikslag samt för beräkn-
ing av ekoeffektiviteten för produkter och tjänster till exempel i företag. I rapporten åskådliggörs skillnaderna
mellan trafikslagen och användningen av MIPS-värden på olika rutter i person- och godstrafiken med hjälp av
exempel.
Finlands trafiksystem använder i genomsnitt per år och invånare 25 ton icke-förnybara naturtillgångar, 262 ton
vatten och 3 ton luft. Huvuddelen används av fordonstrafiken.
Till slut dryftas medel att minska trafikens materialintensitet och förbrukningen av naturtillgångar.Viktiga medel är
att bygga mindre infrastruktur, att spara naturtillgångar vid byggandet, att minska mängden trafikprestationer, att
öka trafikmedlens fyllnadsgrad och att välja rätt trafikmedel.
Nyckelord Ekoeffektivitet, naturresurser, konsumtion, livslängd, MIPS, ekologisk ryggsäck, trafik, transport, trafiksystem,
materialeffektivitet
Finlands naturskyddsförbund, miljöministeriet, kommunikationsministeriet,Vägförvaltningen,
Finansiär/
Banförvaltningscentralen, Sjöfartsverket och Luftfartsverket.
uppdragsgivare
ISBN ISBN ISSN ISSN

(hft.) 978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF) (print) (online)
Sidantal Språk Offentlighet Pris (inneh. moms 8 %)
104 Finska Offentlig
Förläggare Miljöministeriet

820en
T h e F i n n i s h E n v i r o n m e n t
Transport MIPS - Natural resource consumption of the Finnish transport system

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Transport MIPS
The natural resource consumption of the Finnish transport
system
This report highlights the amount of natural resources which transport consumes in
Finland. MIPS values (Material Input per Unit Service, i.e. life-cycle scale natural
resource consumption in relation to the benefit achieved) have been calculated in
three resource classes (abiotic natural resources, water and air) for specific infra-
structure types and routes and as average figures for the whole of Finland. MIPS
values are also given for international maritime and air transport.
The report also explains the background and calculation procedures of the values
given. For example, the allocation of the material input of the transport infrastruc-
ture between passenger and goods traffic is a relevant issue because the contributi-
on of infrastructure to the MIPS values of transport is appreciable.
The MIPS values given can be used for comparing different modes of transport to
support choices made by consumers or companies. FIN-MIPS Transport project
results can be used by companies when calculating MIPS values for their products
or services. The report illustrates the use of the values given in various calculation
examples for passenger and goods transport.
On average, the Finnish transport system uses 25 tonnes of non-renewable natural

resources, 262 tonnes of water, and 3 tonnes of air, per capita per year.
The FIN-MIPS Transport research project was carried out, mainly in 2004-2005, by
the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. The main financial supporters of
the project have been the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Trans-
port and Communications. Further funds have been provided by the Finnish Road
Administration, Finnish Maritime Administration, Finnish Rail Administration,
Civil Aviation Authority, and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation.
The publication is available in the Internet:

www.ymparisto.fi
ISBN 978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF)

ISSN 1796-1637
.....................................................
MINISTR Y OF THE ENVIRONMENT PL 35, 00023 VALTIONEUVOSTO

SY820en TransportMIPS - Natural Resource Consumption of The Finnish Transport System - PDF (Attachment, Publication/brochure, 1790 KB)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SY820en TransportMIPS - Natural Resource Consumption of The Finnish Transport System - PDF (Attachment, Publication/brochure, 1790 KB)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T h e F i n n i s h E n v i r o n m e n t 820en

Satu Lähteenoja - Michael Lettenmeier - Arto Saari

Satu Lähteenoja – Michael Lettenmeier – Arto Saari

Layout: Marjatta Naukkarinen

The publication is available in the internet:

ISBN 978-952-11-2994-0 (PDF)

Helsinki, February 2006

Satu Lähteenoja Michael Lettenmeier Arto Saari

 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

2 Material and methods . ........................................................................................ 16

Ministry of the Environment 

4 Calculation examples . .........................................................................................57

5 Summary of results and conclusions.............................................................. 72

 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Background, purpose and design of the study

Traditionally, in environmental studies on transport the focus has been on emissions to

The aim of this study is to:

Ministry of the Environment 

Finland’s transport system

 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

border crossing point

Figure 1. Nationally important road, sea and air transport network

Ministry of the Environment 

Figure 2. Trends in passenger traffic in 1960–2004 (Finnish Road Administration 2005a).

Trends in domestic traffic in 1960-2004

10 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Length of entire road network (km) Division of public roads

Motor- Class 1 Class 2 Regional Connect- All pub-

Ministry of the Environment 11

other vehicles 14,942

There are approximately 26,000 kilometres of municipal streets in Finland. Most of

12 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Ministry of the Environment 13

14 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Ministry of the Environment 15

Eco-efficiency and MIPS

16 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Indicator of eco-efficiency: MIPS

Material input (MI)

Ministry of the Environment 17

Service unit (S)

Reducing material flows

18 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Criticism of the MIPS method

Previous studies on the subject

Ministry of the Environment 19

Boundaries set for this study

20 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Ministry of the Environment 21

Means of Lifespan of Capacity use of infra- Lifespan of Capacity use

22 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Passenger transport Freight transport

Busy ≥ 5,000,000 60 ≥ 3,000,000 50

Ministry of the Environment 23

24 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Infrastructure material input allocation to transport

Allocation questions in life-cycle studies

Ministry of the Environment 25

Alternatives considered in this study

26 The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

AC, SMA, soft -AC

Thermal insulation materials

Figure 7. Road construction layers, general depiction (Ehrola 1996, p 138).

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Ministry of the Environment

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Ministry of the Environment

The Finnish Environment 820en | 2006

Ministry of the Environment