Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94 (2015) 99–109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Physical input-output accounting of the wood and paper flow in

Germany
Matthias Bösch ∗ , Dominik Jochem, Holger Weimar, Matthias Dieter
Thünen Institute of International Forestry and Forest Economics, Leuschnerstrasse 91, D-21031 Hamburg, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a physical input-output table (PIOT) that shows the complete wood and paper flow
Received 7 July 2014 through the economic system of Germany. The PIOT illustrates the wood and paper flow between different
Received in revised form 29 October 2014 sectors and to different types of final use. It can be used both as a monitoring instrument and for scenario
Accepted 22 November 2014
analysis. The hypothetical extraction method is applied in order to assess inter-industry linkages and
single out key industries. Despite the wide variety of wood-based products and the versatile use of wood,
Keywords:
it turns out that there is a surprisingly linear organization of the production system when it comes to the
Physical input-output table
flow of wood and paper through Germany (“throughput economy”).
Forest sector
Hypothetical extraction method © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Inter-industry linkages
Germany

1. Introduction information is much less vulnerable to shocks and variation as

On a macroeconomic level, there are several methods of physical
accounting that are directly linked to existing economic account-
ing schemes, primarily the System of National Accounts (SNA). For
example, economy-wide material flow accounting (MFA) is a very
powerful tool with which material inputs and outputs of a national
economy can be quantified. However, the concept of economy-
wide MFA regards an economy as a black box (Giljum and Hubacek,
2009). Therefore, it can neither be used to analyze inter-industry
flows of materials nor to distinguish material inputs used for pro-
duction processes from those delivered to final demand. This is
where physical input-output tables (PIOTs) come into play.
In the last twenty years, PIOTs have become an important tool in
input-output analysis, especially in fields like environmental and
energy economics. A PIOT encompasses the material flows from
nature to the economy, the transformation within the economy
and the material flows back to nature. As opposed to monetary
input-output tables (MIOTs) that record all transactions in mone-
tary units, PIOTs exclusively use physical units, in most cases metric
tons. Analyses based on a PIOT allow a much more accurate approx-
imation to physical flows in an economy than analyses based on a
monetary table (Hubacek and Giljum, 2003). Moreover, especially
for long time series or for international comparison, the physical
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 40 73962 327; fax: +49 40 73962 399.
E-mail address: matthias.boesch@ti.bund.de (M. Bösch).
the monetary structure of an economy with changing prices and
interest rates (Giljum and Hubacek, 2004).
While the groundwork for PIOTs was already laid in the 1970s
with the application of the material balance approach to economics
by Kneese et al. (1970), it was not until the 1990s that the first com-
prehensive input-output table in physical terms was calculated for
Austria (Kratterl and Kratena, 1990; Kratena et al., 1992). Later,
full PIOTs were published for Germany (Stahmer et al., 1997), as
well as for Denmark (Pedersen, 1999). These national PIOTs encom-
pass several material categories. Recently, there have also been a
number of publications on PIOTs based on specific materials. For
example, Konijn et al. (1997) compiled a PIOT that describes the
production processes in the Netherlands for products that contain
iron/steel and zinc using the material balances for these metals.
Bailey et al. (2004) developed a PIOT that shows the flows of six met-
als (i.e. aluminum, lead, magnesium, zinc, chromium and nickel)
through the economic system in the United States. Usually, these
specific tables have the advantage that they provide a very detailed
description of the entire production chain, by differentiating pri-
mary raw materials, such as iron ore, from materials that have been
physically transformed into secondary production materials, such
as iron (Giljum and Hubacek, 2009).
This study focuses on wood as it is widely considered the most
important renewable resource. Wood is a highly versatile prod-
uct and is increasingly used for energy production. Moreover, it
plays an important role in the climate change discussion as the
use of wood products can contribute to the mitigation of climate

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.014
0921-3449/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
100 M. Bösch et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94 (2015) 99–109
change in several ways.1 In the forest-based sector, the application
of input-output techniques has a long tradition (e.g. McGregor and
McNicoll, 1992; Eder, 2000; Dieter, 2008; Dhubháin et al., 2009;
Dieter and Seintsch, 2012). However, all forest-related studies so
far have exclusively used input-output tables in monetary units
for their analyses. To the best of our knowledge no publication has
depicted the flow of wood in any country or region with the help of a
PIOT, even though the compilation of an input-output table in phys-
ical units for Germany was already suggested by Moog (1987). The
purpose of this study is therefore to close this gap. We will present
a physical input-output table that depicts the complete wood and
paper flow through the economic system of Germany. By doing so,
this study opens up a black box and provides a greater understand-
ing of the wide variety of wood-based products and the numerous
flows of reused or recycled wood and paper. The table can be used
both as a monitoring instrument and for scenario analysis.
The emphasis of the study is on providing detailed information
about inter-industry linkages and the final demand of materials,
especially those flows that are hard to trace in official statistics,
like packaging material and furniture. We therefore employ the
so-called hypothetical extraction method (Strassert, 1968) in order
to identify key industries. This method accounts for the relative
importance of final demand in each sector and the relative effect of
a sector on overall output. Information on inter-industry linkages is
essential for understanding the structure of an economy, which is
in turn important when it comes to formulating industrial policies
(see Section 2.2 for more details).
Our PIOT only accounts for the wood and paper flow, or more
precisely the wood-based fiber flow. Hence, other raw materials
and utilities which are either necessary for the production process
or are non-wood parts of a product should not be considered, for
example, the use of chemicals in the production of pulp or the use
of adhesives in wood-based panels. Moreover, different water con-
tents of wood and paper products have to be taken into account.
Therefore, we use the wood fiber equivalent as the unit of measure-
ment. The wood fiber equivalent describes the equivalent volume
of the wood or wood-based fibers in a product (see Section 2.3 for
more details).
The analysis is executed for the reference year 2010. This year
was chosen because various studies with a specific focus on the
supply and use of wood raw materials were carried out for 2010
(Döring and Mantau, 2012; Mantau, 2012a, 2012b; Weimar et al.,
2012; Mantau et al., 2012a, 2012b). These reports deal with differ-
ent aspects of the saw mill industry, the wood-based panel industry
and the recovered wood industry in Germany that are not cov-
ered by the official statistics. Moreover, the studies provide detailed
information on the use of wood for energy production.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section
2 presents the methodological framework. In Section 3, we dis-
cuss the data basis for the PIOT. Section 4 presents the empirical
results, while Section 5 discusses the main findings and concludes
the paper.
2. Methodical foundations
2.1. The basic physical input-output table
Generally, a PIOT is a tabular scheme in which n production
sectors (or industries) are represented by both their material
inputs and outputs in physical units (Strassert, 2001). The inputs
1
First, wood products act as carbon pools during their lifetime. Second, wood
products can substitute for more energy-intense products made out of non-wooden
materials. Third, they can substitute for fossil fuels (e.g. Werner et al., 2010;
Höglmeier et al., 2013).
are disaggregated by origin categories in the columns and the
outputs are disaggregated by destination categories in the rows.
Table 1 shows a simplified PIOT.
The inter-industry or transformation matrix (Z) in the first quad-
rant visualizes the flows of intermediate products between the
different industries (1, . . ., n). In addition to product inputs from
other sectors (so-called secondary or processed inputs), a sector
can extract primary materials from natural sources.2 In our case,
this is primarily roundwood. To be complete in terms of mate-
rial balances, it is also necessary to include recycled materials (i.e.
recovered wood and recovered paper) on the input side (Moog,
1987; Pedersen, 1999). A sector can also receive competitive phys-
ical imports from other countries (r). Sectoral outputs can either
serve as input to other sectors (thus included in the inter-industry
matrix) or be produced for final demand (y), consisting of domestic
consumption (d), changes in stocks (s) and exports (e).
Residuals (w) have to be considered in total output (x) in order
to be complete in terms of material balances. In Germany, there is
a strict landfill ban on untreated municipal solid waste including
wood. Moreover, the relevant industries produce nearly no wood
waste that cannot be further used. Therefore, residuals are, in our
case, exclusively wood fibers that are burnt to generate power and
heat.
Like in a MIOT, the second quadrant encompassing final demand
and residuals is balanced with the third quadrant of primary and
recycled inputs. However, it is important to note that there is no
simple conversion between a MIOT and a PIOT, i.e. a PIOT cannot be
derived by simply dividing a MIOT with a vector of prices for each
sector.3
2.2. Measurement of inter-industry linkages
When assessing inter-industry linkages and singling out key sec-
tors under the input-output framework, analysts have been using
the so-called hypothetical extraction method (e.g. Dietzenbacher
et al., 1993; Song et al., 2006; Guerra and Sancho, 2010;
Temurshoev, 2010). Initially, the hypothetical extraction method
(HEM) was introduced by Strassert (1968) and further developed,
among others, by Schultz (1976) and Cella (1984). The idea of the
HEM is to eliminate a sector hypothetically from an economic sys-
tem and examine the influence of this extraction on other sectors
in the economy. The output loss that would follow such a hypo-
thetical elimination quantifies the underlying network of linkages
and thus provides a measure of the sector’s “keyness” (Guerra and
Sancho, 2010). Because the HEM accounts for the relative impor-
tance of final demand in each sector and the relative effect of a
sector on overall output, it is argued that the HEM is more appro-
priate to analyze inter-industry linkages than other methods (Song
et al., 2006). The level and the direction of those inter-industry link-
ages show the potential capacity of each sector to stimulate other
sectors. The sector with the highest linkages should be the one with
the largest potential of spreading growth impulses throughout the
economy (Cella, 1984; Cai and Leung, 2004). In our case, the HEM
is useful to obtain information about potential target sectors for
policies that aim at an increased use of wood and products made
out of wood fibers.4 Generally, the results of the HEM are more reli-
able if the data are in physical rather than in monetary units. This
2
In a sense the distinction between primary materials and secondary materials is
arbitrary: it depends on what is seen as a physical transformation process (cf. Konijn
et al., 1997).
3
This is mainly due to aggregation of non-homogenous products/sectors and dif-
ferences in prices for different consumers of the products (Hubacek and Giljum,
2003).
4
A German example is the so-called “Charter for Wood” program of the Fed-
eral Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Forests. This program aims at considerably
 M. Bösch et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94 (2015) 99–109 101

Table 1
A simplified physical input-output table (based on Giljum and Hubacek, 2004).

Use

Final demand (y)

Supply Sectors (1, . . ., n) Domestic consumption Exports Stock changes Residuals Total output
Sectors (1, . . ., n) Z d e s w x

Primary and recycled inputs (domestic extraction and imports) r

Total input x

is because inter-industry linkages depend predominantly on the Table 2

Factors for converting different wood-based products into wood fiber equivalents
physical working conditions of the production system (Strassert,
(2010).
2001).
Mathematically, the HEM requires that the corresponding row Product Unit Conversion factor
and column of a sector are deleted from the matrix A, i.e. the direct Chemical pulp t 2.13
requirements matrix or matrix of input coefficients with aij = xij /xj . Mechanical pulp t 2.22
Therefore, in order to be able to compare across sectors, n sepa- Medium-density fiberboard (MDF) m3 1.39
Particle board (incl. oriented strand board) m3 1.25
rate matrices have to be computed. Each sector’s impact is then
Roundwood m3 1.00
calculated by comparing the A matrix without the respective sec- Sawnwood (not dried) m3 1.00
tor to the original matrix of input coefficients, both weighted by
final demand to obtain differences in output. A simpler calcula-
tion method (Strassert, 2001) uses the original Leontief inverse fibers or wood-based fibers at the fiber saturation point that are
(I − A)−1 to get to the same result: The extraction effect eij , indi- contained in the product (Weimar, 2011).5 It is therefore compa-
cating how much production of sector i will be reduced if sector j rable to similar definitions chosen by Müller and Becker (1987)
were removed from the production system, is simply calculated by and Mellinghoff and Becker (1998). For every wood-based product
dividing each element of a column in the Leontief inverse (dij ) by (e.g. fiber board, plywood, pulp) a specific conversion factor has to
its diagonal element djj and multiplying with the total production be calculated (see Table 2 for an overview of the main products).
xj of the extracted sector: According to Weimar (2011), a specific conversion factor for a
product can be derived as follows. First, one has to determine the
dij mass of wood fibers mW :
eij = · xj (1)
djj

n
mW = mT − mH2 O − mNWi (2)
2.3. Reference unit
i=1

In the relevant industries, there are many diverse processing where mT is the mass of the total production of the particular wood-
steps for wood, and consequently a huge variety of wood-based based product, mH2 O stands for the mass of water and mNW for
products exist. Main products are sawnwood, wood-based panels the mass of the i non-wood components (e.g. chemicals, glue) that
(e.g. particle board, fiber board, plywood and veneer), processed are contained in the particular wood-based product. Then, one can
wood products (e.g. coat hangers, brooms and brushes), as well derive the volume VW of the wood fibers at the fiber saturation
as pulp, paper, paperboard and printed matter. Therefore, it does point:
not make much sense to employ commonly used units such as 
n
˛j · mW
cubic meters (m3 ) or metric tons (t) for our PIOT. If these common VW = (3)
units were used, other materials such as adhesives in panels j
j=1
or additives in paper products would also affect the material
flow. In addition, wood swelling and wood shrinkage and the where ˛j is the share of the wood type j (i.e. hardwood, softwood)
related volume changes that occur when roundwood is processed and j stands for the density of the wood type j. The factor ϑ for con-
would not be accounted for. Other measurements that have been verting a wood-based product into wood fiber equivalent is then
used in literature do not seem adequate for the purpose of this calculated as the relation of the volume VW to the total production
investigation. For example, the conversion of wood products in (measured either in mass or volume units):
so-called roundwood equivalents (m3 (r)) has a long tradition VW VW
ϑm = or ϑV = (4)
in forest-related literature (e.g. Endres, 1905; Köstler, 1936; mT VT
Wiebecke, 1961; UNECE, 2005, 2011). This unit of volume specifies
Table 3 illustrates the derivation of the conversion factor for
the amount of roundwood input that is used in the manufacture
medium-density fiber boards (MDF) in 2010. It is important to note
of a specific wood-based product. In the case of sawnwood, for
that the conversion factors can vary slightly from year to year due
example, the roundwood equivalent contains sawmill by-products
to changes in the wood types used.
that accrue during the production process and are available for
other purposes afterwards. However, with this conversion factor
3. Data sources
there is no possibility to attribute the wood flow resulting from
one process to different downstream uses. Thus, we decided to use
The extended forest-based sector definition of the European Par-
the wood fiber equivalent defined by Weimar (2011) as reference
liament serves as a basis for depicting the wood and paper flow
unit. The wood fiber equivalent (abbreviated m3 (f)) is a unit of
volume which is defined as the equivalent volume of the wood
5
The fiber saturation point is a concept used in wood mechanics to denote the
point in the drying process at which only the bound water within the cell walls
increasing the per capita consumption of domestically produced wood (BMELV, is present. The fiber saturation point varies between 22 and 35 percent moisture
2004). content (Kollmann, 1951).
102 M. Bösch et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94 (2015) 99–109

Table 3
Exemplary derivation of the conversion factor for medium-density fiber boards (MDF) into wood fiber equivalent (data taken from Rivela et al., 2007; Wilson, 2010; Mantau,
2012b).

Item Variable Unit Amount

(A) Volume of total production VT m3 2,255,993

(B) Product density  kg/m3 730
(C) = (A)/(B) Mass of total production mT kg 1,646,874,742

(D) Mass of glue (9%) mNW1 kg 148,218,727

(E) Mass of water (8.26%) mH2 O kg 135,980,483
(F) = (C) − (D) − (E) Mass of wood fibers mW kg 1,362,675,532

(G) Softwood density 1 kg/m3 405

(H) Hardwood density 2 kg/m3 573
(I) Share of softwood ˛1 % 76.8
(J) Share of hardwood ˛2 % 23.2
(K) = (F) × (I)/(G) + (F) × (J)/(H) Volume of wood fibers VW kg/m3 3,139,426

(L) = (K)/(A) Wood fiber equivalent ϑV m3 (f) 1.39

Table 4
Overview of the relevant industries for the wood and paper flow in Germany.

Classification No. Sector WZ 2008

code(s)a

Primary sector/recycling 1 Forestry 02.10.0/02.20.0/02.30.0

2 Producers of landscape care wood –
3 Retailers of wood processing residues –
4 Recovered wood industry –
5 Recovered paper industry –

Wood-working industry 6 Saw mill industry 16.10.0

7 Wood-based panel industry 16.21.0

Wood processing industry 8 Furniture industry 31.01.1/31.01.2/31.02.0/

31.09.1/31.09.9/95.24.0
9 Wood packing industry 16.24.0
10 Wood pellet and briquette industry 16.29.0
11 Other wood processing industries 16.29.0/32.91.0

Construction industry 12 Wood in the construction industry 43.91.2/43.32.0/41.20.2

Pulp and paper 13 Pulp industry 17.11.0

14 Paper industry 17.12.0/17.21.0/17.22.0/
17.23.0/17.24.0/17.29.0

Printing and publishing 15 Printing and publishing industry 58.11.0/58.12.0/58.13.0/

58.14.0/58.19.0/18.11.0/
18.12.0/18.13.0/18.14.0

Other 16 Other industries –

a
Classification of Economic Activities (Edition 2008) of the Federal Statistical Office Germany (based on NACE).

through Germany (Dieter and Thoroe, 2003). According to this def-
inition, the forest-based sector encompasses the primary sector (i.e.
forestry), the recycling industry (i.e. the recovered wood indus-
try and the recovered paper industry), the wood-working industry
(i.e. saw mill industry and wood-based panel industry), the wood
processing industry, the construction industry, the pulp and paper
industry, as well as the printing and publishing industry. The forest-
based sector is responsible for the vast majority of the wood and
paper flow in Germany. However, outside of the forest-based sec-
tor, many new innovative products made out of wood fibers are
beginning to have market relevance. For example, wood as raw
material in the chemical and food industry has been increasing in
significance in recent years (Kamm et al., 2006; Mantau et al., 2010).
In the textile industry cellulose is increasingly used as regenerated
cellulose fibers (viscose) to produce functional textiles. Moreover,
wood-plastic composites (WPCs) already have significant market
shares in specific markets (e.g. terrace boards). There are no reli-
able empirical studies dealing with these new markets, probably
because today’s raw material consumption of this field amounts to
only a couple of thousand m3 (f). In our PIOT, the flows of these
new products are aggregated as “other industries”. In addition, we
include the production of landscape care wood (i.e. wood from
urban and highway trees, hedges and gardens) as well as the retail-
ers of wood processing residues (i.e. sawmill by-products and other
industrial restwood) in the primary sector to account for every pos-
sible wood fiber in Germany and to make both supply and use of
residues clearly visible.6 As a result, the inter-industry matrix Z for
the investigation includes the 16 sectors depicted in Table 4.7
The compilation of our input-output table required a large
body of data. Different official statistics that are published by the
Federal Statistical Office of Germany were used as the main source
of information for the PIOT and thus for the modeling of the wood
and paper flow. These statistics are the foreign trade statistics
(StBA, 2010a) with information on imported and exported quan-
tities, the production statistics (StBA, 2010c) with information
on produced quantities and the wood working statistics (StBA,
2010d) with information on stock changes of the wood processing
6
As opposed to other countries, in Germany sawmill by-products and other indus-
trial restwood are often separated from each other. However, due to lack of data we
merge these two in our investigation.
7
Due to lack of data, the wholesale of wood (WZ 46.73.2/46.73.3) is not included
in the inter-industry matrix.
 M. Bösch et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94 (2015) 99–109
industry. Quantitative information in these official statistics is
given in different units (i.e. metric tons and cubic meters). Thus, a
conversion was made to the reference unit wood fiber equivalent.
All the statistics are published annually and are based on compre-
hensive surveys with cut-off thresholds. Possible non-responses
are supplemented with estimates by the Federal Statistical Office
of Germany. The cut-off thresholds of the production statistics and
the wood working statistics amount to 20 employees. For sawmills,
there is a special cut-off threshold of 10 employees. All enterprises
whose 2010 cross-border trade exceeded the amount of 400,000
Euros in each direction were required to give information to the
foreign trade statistics.8 The magnitude of this threshold holds for
the trade within the European Union (so-called intra-trade). The
trade with non-EU countries (so-called extra-trade) does not have
such a threshold.
Some aspects relevant to the wood and paper flow are not, or are
only insufficiently, covered by the official statistics. Here, we had to
use supplementary data. For instance, some associations that can be
assigned to the forest-based sector produce their own statistics. In
most cases these statistics are based on member surveys with addi-
tional estimates if necessary. For this paper we used data published
by the German Pulp and Paper Association (VDP, 2012) and the Ger-
man Fuelwood and Pellet Association (DEPV, 2010). The statistics
from these associations provide a helpful complement to the offi-
cial statistics of the Federal Statistical Office. The yearly reports
of the German Pulp and Paper Association include comprehensive
information on production, foreign trade, raw material inputs and
energy consumption of the German pulp and paper industry. The
German Fuelwood and Pellet Association publishes data on domes-
tic wood pellets production and trade on their website.
Another important source of information is a series of reports
entitled “Wood Resource Monitoring” that deals with identifying
production capacities and material demand of the German wood
working industry and the use of wood for energy production. Based
on these reports, estimates were made which supplemented the
official statistics in order to account for the wood use and pro-
duction of wood and paper products below the cut-off thresholds.
These reports deal with the state of the German sawmill industry
in the year 2010, by reporting the production of sawnwood and the
production of wood processing residues, all disaggregated by soft-
wood and hardwood (Döring and Mantau, 2012). Another report by
Mantau (2012b) delineates the German wood-based panel indus-
try, i.e. the producers of particle board and fiber board. Weimar
et al. (2012), Mantau (2012a) and Mantau et al. (2012a) describe
the wood-derived energy supply in private households and biomass
power plants. Mantau et al. (2012b) deal with the recovered wood
sector in Germany. Recovered wood is defined as wooden mate-
rial that is retrieved from its original application for the purpose of
subsequent use (it is therefore also called “post-consumer wood”).
Recovered wood mainly comprises packaging materials, demoli-
tion wood, timber from building sites, and fractions of used wood
from industrial and commercial activities. Trade of recovered wood
is only partly reported in the foreign trade statistics but is fully cap-
tured by the Federal Environment Agency of Germany (UBA, 2012)
as part of their statistics on trade with waste that is subject to a prior
written notification and consent procedure (Basel Convention).
For some aspects of the PIOT, older studies or reports that do
not explicitly cover the year 2010 had to be considered and the
data extrapolated to 2010. For example, Mantau and Hartig (2003),
Mantau and Sörgel (2005) and Frings et al. (2005) provide impor-
tant information on the utilization of wood processing residues.
Mantau and Bilitewski (2010) give information on the distribution
8
There are estimates by the Federal Statistical Office in order to account for trade
below this threshold.
103
of semi-finished products to the furniture industry, the wood pack-
ing industry and other wood processing industries. Finally, wood in
the construction industry is dealt with in detail in the study edited
by Weimar and Jochem (2013). No information could be gathered
concerning the domestic supply of landscape care wood. Therefore,
the supply of landscape care wood had to be derived from its use in
the respective industries. To the best of our knowledge, landscape
care wood is not traded internationally.
4. Empirical results
4.1. General points concerning the construction of the PIOT
The physical input-output table of the wood and paper flow in
Germany is depicted in Table 5. For all industries, input equals out-
put or, in other words, the total of a row equals the corresponding
total of a column. The first 16 rows of Table 5 show each of the 16
sectors’ physical output in million m3 (f), i.e. how much wood fiber
was supplied by the sector to the other sectors and to final use
in 2010. Row 17 provides the corresponding information for the
16 sectors collectively. Row 18 contains the volume of the wood-
based products that were imported into Germany in 2010. Row 19
and Row 20 contain the volume of roundwood and landscape care
wood that was extracted from nature and brought into the German
economy. Rows 21 and 22 show the volume of the materials which
were reused (i.e. recovered wood and recovered paper). Row 23
contains total primary and recycled inputs. Finally, Row 24 shows
total primary and recycled as well as total intermediate inputs. The
figures in this row show the total volume of inputs that go to into
the German economic system.
The columns are divided into three categories: input into other
sectors (intermediate input), input into final demand and residu-
als. The columns for input into other sectors show, for each of the
16 sectors, the volume of the wood-based products, raw materials
from nature, recovered wood and recovered paper that are received
by the relevant sector. The columns for final demand show the
corresponding volume of wood fiber which goes into the relevant
category of final demand, i.e. domestic consumption (d), changes
in stocks (s) and export (e). The column for residuals (w) shows the
amount of wood fiber that is burnt in order to generate energy.
4.2. Input, output and physical trade balance
Table 5 shows that in 2010 the total flow of wood fibers from the
environment to the German economy amounted to 82.4 million m3
(f), i.e. 76.6 million m3 (f) of roundwood (saw logs, pulpwood and
fuelwood) and 5.8 million m3 (f) of landscape care wood.
The paper industry was the greatest consumer of intermediate
products with 38.3 million m3 (f) or a share of 22 percent, closely
followed by the sawmill industry with 37.3 million m3 (f). Of the
38.3 million m3 (f) consumed by the paper industry, 13.1 million m3
(f) were supplied by the pulp industry and 25.1 million m3 (f) were
in the form of recycling (i.e. recovered paper). German forestry was
the greatest supplier of intermediate products with 52.5 million m3
(f) or a share of 30 percent.
Commodities supplied for final use had a total volume of almost
188 million m3 (f). The bulk of 46.6 million m3 (f), or 25 percent,
were materials supplied by the paper industry, mainly graphic
papers, paper and board for packaging and sanitary paper. The
paper industry also had the most significant exports in terms of
volume with 21.7 million m3 (f) or 36 percent of the total export
volume. Wood fibers burnt for energy production had a total vol-
ume of almost 70 million m3 (f). Of that, German forestry provided
28.3 million m3 (f) or more than 40 percent (i.e. fuelwood in private
households and biomass power and heat plants).
 104
Table 5
Physical input-output table depicting the wood and paper flow through the German economic system in the year 2010.

million m3 (f) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Intermediate

output

1 Forestry – – – – – 37.273 7.644 – – 0.799 – – 6.780 – – – 52.497

2 Producers of landscape care wood – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.000
3 Retailers of wood proc. residues – – – – – – 6.761 – – 3.961 – – 3.781 – – 0.146 14.649
4 Recovered wood industry – – – – – – 2.269 – – – – – – – – – 2.269
5 Recovered paper industry – – – – – – – – – – – – – 25.140 – 0.038 25.178
6 Saw mill industry – – 15.008 – – – – 1.898 5.471 – 0.710 12.539 – – – – 35.625
7 Wood-based panel industry – – 2.689 – – – – 5.537 0.769 – 0.362 4.689 – – – – 14.047
8 Furniture industry – – 2.689 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2.689
9 Wood packing industry – – 0.331 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.331
10 Pellet and briquette industry – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.000

M. Bösch et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94 (2015) 99–109

11 Other wood processing industries – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.000
12 Construction industry – – 2.950 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2.950
13 Pulp industry – – – – – – – – – – – – – 13.121 – 0.767 13.888
14 Paper industry – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 8.979 – 8.979
15 Printing and publishing industry – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.000
16 Other industries – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.000

17 Intermediate input 0.000 0.000 23.667 0.000 0.000 37.273 16.674 7.435 6.239 4.760 1.072 17.228 10.562 38.261 8.979 0.951 173.102

18 Imports 8.071 – 1.368 1.841 6.135 5.753 5.230 4.128 1.950 3.019 1.269 0.754 8.926 17.322 1.259 – 67.024
19 Roundwood 76.626 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 76.627
20 Landscape care wood – 5.787 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 5.787
21 Recovered wood – – – 14.503 – – – – – – – – – – – – 14.503
22 Recovered paper – – – – 24.040 – – – – – – – – – – – 24.040

23 Primary and recycled input 84.698 5.787 1.368 16.344 30.175 5.753 5.230 4.128 1.950 3.019 1.269 0.754 8.926 17.322 1.259 0.000 187.981

24 Total input 84.698 5.787 25.036 16.344 30.175 43.026 21.904 11.563 8.189 7.780 2.341 17.981 19.487 55.583 10.237 0.951 361.083

million m3 (f) d e s w Total final use Total output

1 Forestry – 3.859 – 28.343 32.202 84.698

2 Producers of landscape care wood – – – 5.787 5.787 5.787
3 Retailers of wood proc. residues – 2.714 – 7.673 10.532 25.036
4 Recovered wood industry – 0.194 – 13.880 14.074 16.344
5 Recovered paper industry – 4.997 – – 5.035 30.175
6 Saw mill industry – 7.268 0.132 – 7.401 43.026
7 Wood-based panel industry – 8.488 −0.631 – 7.857 21.904
8 Furniture industry 6.347 2.528 – – 8.875 11.563
9 Wood packing industry 6.856 1.001 – – 7.858 8.189
10 Pellet and briquette industry – 1.695 – 6.085 7.780 7.780
11 Other wood processing industries 1.592 0.750 – – 2.341 2.341
12 Construction industry 13.544 1.005 – 0.482 15.031 17.981
13 Pulp industry – 1.128 – 4.471 6.366 19.487
14 Paper industry 22.336 21.694 – 2.574 46.604 55.583
15 Printing and publishing industry 7.143 3.095 – – 10.237 10.237
16 Other industries 0.951 – – – 0.951 0.951

17 Total 58.769 60.415 −0.499 69.295 187.981 361.083

d, domestic consumption; e, export; s, changes in stocks; w, residuals (i.e. wood fiber that is burnt).
 M. Bösch et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94 (2015) 99–109 105

Table 5 reveals that Germany has a physical trade deficit when it

0.511

0.332

0.237

0.036

0.039
0.807
0.007
0.040

0.070

0.004
0.000

0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000

1.000
comes to wood fibers: the flow of the wood fibers to Germany had

16
a volume of 67.0 million m3 (f), while the exports of wood fibers
amounted to 60.4 million m3 (f), or about 10 percent lower than the

0.397

0.877
0.102

0.043

0.031

0.207
0.001

0.009
0.005
0.001
0.000

0.000

0.005
0.000

1.000

0.000
volume of the imported wood fibers. It is primarily the recovered

15
wood industry, the recovered paper industry, the wood processing
industry and the pulp industry that contributes to the trade deficit,
whereas other industries such as the wood-working industry (i.e.

0.116

0.452
0.049

0.035

0.236
0.001

0.010
0.005
0.001

0.006
0.000

0.000
0.000

1.000
0.000

0.000
the saw mill and wood-based panel industry) and the paper indus-

14
try have a physical trade surplus, i.e. their exports are higher than
their imports.

0.492

0.149
0.208

0.044
0.022

0.024
0.005

0.003
0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000

1.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
13
4.3. Circuits, material recycling and inter-industry linkages

0.755

0.759
0.279
0.086

0.029

0.009
0.001

1.010
0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
In practice, the structure of every input-output table ranges

12
between two extremes – the total linear case, on the one hand,
and the complete circuit case, on the other, while it is often argued
that a certain degree of linearity is a necessary precondition for a

0.352

0.051

0.017

0.340
0.165
0.005
0.001

0.006
0.000

0.000

0.000
1.000

0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
production system to work (Strassert, 2001). An inspection of the

11
Leontief inverse (I − A)−1 depicted in Table 6 shows immediately
that its diagonal elements are equal or close to unity. This simply

0.481

0.545

0.012

0.390
0.115
0.059

0.064
0.007
0.000

0.000

1.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
means that the German economic system has a strong tendency

10
toward the linear case when it comes to the flow of wood and paper.
In other words, circuits tends to be absent with the exception of the

0.633

0.031

0.690
0.010

0.100
0.003

0.004
0.000

0.000

1.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
backward flows from the sawmill industry, the wood-based panel
industry, the furniture industry, the wood packing industry and the

9
construction industry to the retailers of wood processing residues
visible in the transaction matrix in Table 5.

0.592

0.223

0.392
0.723
0.075

1.024

0.026
0.003
0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
Alternatively, we can also calculate the so-called “degree of
8
linearity” (Strassert, 2001). For that, the PIOT has to be triangu-
larized. Triangularization is a systematic re-arranging of the i = j 0.578

0.111

0.236
0.330

0.035

0.039
1.070

0.004
0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
sectors, so that the number of the nonzero values above the main
7

diagonal is maximized and below the main diagonal is minimized.

For an inter-industry matrix Z = (zij ), the degree of linearity  (as a
0.866
0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
measure of success for triangularization) is defined as:

6

Zij
Leontief inverse (I − A)−1 of the 15 sector PIOT in Table 4 (million cubic meters wood fiber equivalent).

=  i<j (5)
Z
/ j ij
0.000
0.000

0.000

0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
i=
5

where it is assumed that the matrix is already ordered optimally.

The complementary “degree of interdependence” (or circularity)
0.000
0.000

0.000

1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
is defined as:
4

ı = 2(1 − ) (6)

For our PIOT, the degree of linearity is  = 89.91/89.91 = 1.00 and

0.742

0.765
0.227
0.115

0.126
0.023

0.014
1.070
0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
the degree of interdependence is ı = 2(1 − 1) = 0. Thus, we do
3

have a very pronounced case of linearity and a strong downward

dominance when it comes to the flow of wood and paper through
0.000
1.000

0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000

the economic system of Germany. The derived linearity is even

2

higher than that for the full German PIOT of 1990: Strassert (2001)
observed a highly linear organization of the whole production
1.000
0.000

0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000

system (“throughput economy”) with a calculated  of 0.94.

In order to investigate the inter-industry linkages in somewhat
1

more depth, we apply the hypothetical extraction method (HEM).

As elaborated in Section 2, the hypothetical sector extraction effects
Pellet and briquette industry
Wood-based panel industry
Producers of landscape care

can be calculated directly from the Leontief inverse: the extraction

Recovered paper industry
Recovered wood industry

Printing and publishing

Wood packing industry

Other wood processing

Retailers of wood proc.

matrix E = (eij ) is derived using the simple formula eij = (dij /djj )xj .
Construction industry

For better understanding, matrix E is written as a table (Table 7).

Furniture industry
Saw mill industry

Other industries

A particular element of the matrix indicates the amount by which

Paper industry
million m3 (f)

Pulp industry

the row sector’s output will be reduced, if the column sector is

industries

hypothetically extracted from the production system. For exam-

industry
residues
Forestry

wood

ple, if we examine column 15 (printing and publishing industry),

we observe that we should expect an absolute decrease in the out-
put of all other sectors with the exception of Sector 2 (producers
Table 6

of landscape care wood), Sector 10 (pellet and briquette industry),

11

12
13
14
15

16
10
1
2

4
5
6
7
8
9

Sector 11 (other wood processing industries) and Sector 16 (other

 106
Table 7
Reduction of production by hypothetical sector extraction (gross production in million cubic meters wood fiber equivalent that sector i loses if sector j is extracted (matrix E)).

million m3 (f) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 Forestry 84.698 0.000 17.367 0.000 0.000 37.273 11.834 6.681 5.182 3.739 0.824 13.437 9.586 6.455 1.043 0.486
2 Producers of landscape care 0.000 5.787 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
wood
3 Retailers of wood proc. 0.000 0.000 25.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.761 2.522 0.254 4.238 0.120 1.533 4.046 2.724 0.440 0.315
residues
4 Recovered wood industry 0.000 0.000 0.550 16.344 0.000 0.000 2.269 0.846 0.085 0.093 0.040 0.515 0.089 0.060 0.010 0.007
5 Recovered paper industry 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30.175 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 25.140 4.061 0.038
6 Saw mill industry 0.000 0.000 17.910 0.000 0.000 43.026 4.836 4.421 5.650 3.032 0.796 13.510 2.894 1.949 0.315 0.226
7 Wood-based panel industry 0.000 0.000 5.308 0.000 0.000 0.000 21.904 8.170 0.823 0.899 0.387 4.967 0.858 0.577 0.093 0.067
8 Furniture industry 0.000 0.000 2.689 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.726 11.563 0.027 0.455 0.013 0.165 0.435 0.293 0.047 0.034
9 Wood packing industry 0.000 0.000 0.331 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.089 0.033 8.189 0.056 0.002 0.020 0.053 0.036 0.006 0.004
10 Pellet and briquette industry 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.780 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
11 Other wood processing 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.341 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

M. Bösch et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94 (2015) 99–109

industries
12 Construction industry 0.000 0.000 2.950 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.797 0.297 0.030 0.499 0.014 17.981 0.477 0.321 0.052 0.037
13 Pulp industry 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 19.487 13.121 2.120 0.767
14 Paper industry 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.583 8.979 0.000
15 Printing and publishing 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.237 0.000
industry
16 Other industries 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.951

17 Total 84.698 5.787 72.140 16.344 30.175 80.299 49.217 34.534 20.240 20.792 4.536 52.127 37.925 106.258 27.402 2.932

Table 8
Extraction effects in relative terms (percentage of gross production that sector i loses if sector j is extracted (matrix P)).

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 Forestry 100.000 0.000 69.368 0.000 0.000 86.629 54.026 57.780 63.279 48.060 35.213 74.727 49.194 11.613 10.186 51.071
2 Producers of landscape care wood 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
3 Retailers of wood proc. residues 0.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30.867 21.809 3.100 54.477 5.107 8.526 20.761 4.901 4.299 33.172
4 Recovered wood industry 0.000 0.000 2.196 100.000 0.000 0.000 10.359 7.319 1.040 1.196 1.714 2.861 0.456 0.108 0.094 0.728
5 Recovered paper industry 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.230 39.671 3.996
6 Saw mill industry 0.000 0.000 71.535 0.000 0.000 100.000 22.080 38.235 69.000 38.970 33.982 75.133 14.852 3.506 3.075 23.729
7 Wood-based panel industry 0.000 0.000 21.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.000 70.655 10.044 11.549 16.546 27.623 4.401 1.039 0.911 7.032
8 Furniture industry 0.000 0.000 10.741 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.315 100.000 0.333 5.851 0.549 0.916 2.230 0.526 0.462 3.563
9 Wood packing industry 0.000 0.000 1.322 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.408 0.288 100.000 0.720 0.068 0.113 0.274 0.065 0.057 0.439
10 Pellet and briquette industry 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
11 Other wood processing industries 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12 Construction industry 0.000 0.000 11.783 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.637 2.570 0.365 6.419 0.602 100.000 2.446 0.577 0.507 3.909
13 Pulp industry 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.000 23.606 20.705 80.652
14 Paper industry 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.000 87.711 0.000
15 Printing and publishing industry 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.000 0.000
16 Other industries 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.000
 M. Bösch et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94 (2015) 99–109
industries) if the printing and publishing sector stopped producing.
The most important sector in terms of its effect on the magnitude of
material flows in the production system is Sector 14 (paper indus-
try), while the least important is Sector 16 (other industries). This
result is not surprising considering the prominent role the paper
industry has in the consumption of intermediate products, i.e. pulp
and recovered paper (see Section 4.2).
In order to get a more precise impression of the importance of
material recycling it is useful to take a closer look at the matrix
E. If we convert this matrix into relative terms by dividing the j-
elements of a row by the diagonal element of the row sector i and
multiply by 100, we can investigate the potential influence (pij )
that each sector could exert upon the 15 others. This conversion is
as follows:
eij eij
pij = · 100 = · 100 (7)
xj ejj
The corresponding matrix P (depicted as Table 8) shows for each
of the 16 row sectors the possible maximum percentage of gross
production that it could lose if a sector j stops producing com-
pletely. Inspection of the Columns 3 (retailers of wood processing
residues), 4 (recovered wood industry) and 5 (recovered paper
industry), which are of special interest in the context of recycling,
reveals that Sectors 4 and 5 have a much lower potential effect on
other sectors than the potential effect of Sector 3. Should all the
external linkages of Sectors 4 and 5 be deleted, we would observe
their output level shrink by 100 percent, while those of the remain-
ing sectors would not vary. This result is not surprising, since the
recovered wood industry and the recovered paper industry con-
stitute the main input suppliers within the recycling block. They
are down-the-line in the value chain and, as a consequence, their
role as purchasers of intermediate inputs is very limited. On the
other hand, when the methodology is applied to the retailers of
wood processing residues, relative output losses are much more
widely distributed among the whole economy. The potential effects
are especially high for the German sawmill industry with an out-
put decrease of 71.5%. This emphasizes the prominent role that the
retailers of wood processing residues have in the wood fiber value
chain, both as purchasers of inputs and sellers of outputs.
5. Discussion and conclusions
The objective of this study has been to illustrate the wood and
paper flow in Germany with the help of a physical input-output
table. The emphasis of the investigation has been kept on provid-
ing detailed information about the relevant inter-industry linkages
and the final consumption of wood. The method resulted in a 16-
sector PIOT for 2010 showing the flow of the wood fiber among
the relevant industries on the one hand and between the rele-
vant industries and final use on the other. Moreover, the materials
that are imported, extracted from nature and recycled are shown
explicitly in the table.
Our PIOT made it possible to explicitly depict streams of differ-
ent wood-based products and material recycling flows through the
economic system of Germany. For example, the investigation has
revealed that the German paper industry is the greatest purchaser
of intermediate products (mainly pulp and recovered paper), even
outperforming the saw mill industry by about 1 million m3 (f). The
paper industry is also leading in Germany when it comes to the
amount of wood fibers supplied for final use and exports. Moreover,
the PIOT gives detailed information on wood fibers that are prefab-
ricated and distributed to other industries to produce innovative
wooden products, such as wood-plastic composites.
It must be emphasized that the quality of the presented results
is first of all subject to the quality of the underlying data. The
model calculations are largely based on official data sources
107
and the “Wood Resource Monitoring” reports; and, even though
we thoroughly followed the method delineated in Section 2.3,
some uncertainties are introduced when different data sources
do not completely match and when quantitative information is
converted to wood fiber equivalents. The main reason is that
the properties of the different wood-based products (e.g. den-
sities, mass of glue) are mostly estimated averages. Moreover,
we assumed that imported wood-based products have essentially
the same properties and thus the same conversion factors as
domestically produced commodities. Even though this assump-
tion is probably not completely correct, it seems acceptable and
we used this estimate simply because no exact information was
available on properties of wood-based products in other coun-
tries.
For the paper industry the calculations introduced other uncer-
tainties as well. One of the most important assumptions that we
had to make is whether a paper product will go on to the print-
ing and publishing industry for further processing or be used as a
final product right away. Fortunately, for most paper products it
is straightforward to see for which purposes they are produced.
For example, paper and board for packaging are assumed to go to
final consumption whereas newsprint paper is assumed to go on to
the printing industry. Things are not as clear in the category “other
paper”. In order to reduce these uncertainties, we double-checked
the data for the printing and publishing industry by using the cen-
sus on incoming materials and goods of the Federal Statistical Office
(StBA, 2010b). In the end, constructing our PIOT involved compil-
ing data which were to some extent inconsistent. Thus, we had to
reconcile various sources of information in order to construct a con-
sistent material balance, taking into account all information in the
most efficient manner possible.
Recent interest in forest economics has also focused on
non-timber aspects, especially non-market commodities such as
biodiversity conservation and carbon-fixing (e.g. Ciccarese et al.,
2011; Bösch and Moog, 2013). Physical input-output analysis is not
very well suited as a technique to tackle these issues (Thomson
and Psaltopoulos, 1996). However, certain aspects can at least be
addressed; for example, the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored
in harvested wood products can be relatively easily derived from
our PIOT. For that, one has to subtract the amount of recovered
wood (14.5 million m3 (f)) and recovered paper (24.0 million m3
(f)) from domestic consumption (58.8 million m3 (f)). The result-
ing 20.2 million m3 (f) correspond to a gain of 18.6 million t CO2
in harvested wood products in the year 2010 (assuming that 1 m3
of wood contains 250 kg C, which corresponds to 917.5 kg CO2 ).
These results are in line with calculations by Rüter (2011) who esti-
mated a yearly average of 17.9 million t CO2 that have been stored
in harvested wood products between 2005 and 2009 in Germany.
This paper has shown that it is possible to depict the complete
wood and paper flow through the economic system of Germany. It
could be demonstrated that the concept of physical input-output
tables gives a convenient framework for combining official infor-
mation from the Federal Statistical Office with additional data from
other studies whenever necessary. However, it must be pointed
out that our PIOT, like every input-output table, only describes the
state of the economy and not the transition from one state of the
economy to another. Changes like material substitution, efficiency
gains or other technological changes usually take a very long time
to become effective. Thus, in order to use the PIOT as a monitor-
ing instrument, we will need additional PIOTs on a regular basis
(every three or four years) over a long time horizon. For that rea-
son, it is highly desirable to compile updated PIOTs in the future
as soon as the relevant data are available. However, our PIOT can
already now be used for scenario analysis, e.g. to assess the impact
of changes in final demand on output. Moreover, the PIOT can be
combined with a MIOT that uses the same classification schemes
108 M. Bösch et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94 (2015) 99–109
to conduct environmental-economic analysis and policy modeling
at the national level.
References
Bailey R, Allen JK, Bras B. Applying ecological input-output flow analysis to material
flows in industrial systems. Part I: tracing flows. Part II: flow metrics. J Ind Ecol
2004;8:45–91.
BMELV (Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft)
[Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Forests]. Verstärkte Holznutzung –
Zugunsten von Klima, Lebensqualität, Innovationen und Arbeitsplätzen (Charta
für Holz). Berlin: BMELV; 2004.
Bösch M, Moog M. The rotation problem and tropical deforestation in forest eco-
nomic textbooks: a comparative review. J Sustain Forest 2013;32:512–26.
Cai J, Leung P. Linkage measures: a revisit and a suggested alternative. Econ Syst Res
2004;16:63–83.
Cella G. The input-output measurement of inter-industry linkages. Oxford Bull Econ
Stat 1984;46:73–84.
Ciccarese L, Elsasser P, Horattas A, Pettenella D, Valatin G. Innovative market oppor-
tunities related to carbon sequestration in European forests? In: Weiss G,
Pettenella D, Ollonqvist P, Slee B, editors. Innovation in forestry – territorial
and value chain relationships. Wallingford, Oxon: CAB International; 2011. p.
131–53.
DEPV (Deutscher Energieholz- und Pellet-Verband) [German Pulp and Paper
Association]. Development of the pellet production in Germany. 2010.
http://www.depv.de/de/home/marktdaten/entwicklung pelletproduktion
Dhubháin AN, Fléchard M-C, Moloney R, O’Connor D. Assessing the value of
forestry to the Irish economy – an input-output approach. Forest Policy Econ
2009;11:50–5.
Dieter M. Analyse der Wertschöpfung durch Holznutzung aus
gesamtwirtschaftlicher Perspektive [Analysis of added value through the
use of wood from an economic perspective]. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung
2008;179:202–7.
Dieter M, Seintsch B. Änderung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Holz- und Papier-
wirtschaft in Deutschland auf Grund zunehmender Knappheit an Nadelholz
[Changes in the competitiveness of the German wood and paper industries
due to increasing shortage of coniferous roundwood]. Allgemeine Forst- und
Jagdzeitung 2012;183:116–28.
Dieter M, Thoroe C. Forst- und Holzwirtschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
nach neuer europäischer Sektorenabgrenzung [Forestry and forest industry sec-
tor in the Federal Republic of Germany according to the new European-wide
sector definition]. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt 2003;122:138–51.
Dietzenbacher E, van der Linden JA, Steenge AE. The regional extraction method: EC
input-output comparisons. Econ Syst Res 1993;5:185–206.
Döring P, Mantau U. Holzrohstoffmonitoring – Sägeindustrie – Einschnitt und
Sägenebenprodukte 2010. Hamburg: University of Hamburg, Centre of Wood
Science and Technology, Department of Economics; 2012.
Eder AH. Holzströme in der österreichischen Volkswirtschaft [Wood flows in the Aus-
trian economy]. Vienna: Universität für Bodenkultur, Schriftenreihe des Instituts
für Sozioökonomik der Forst- und Holzwirtschaft (Band 41); 2000.
Endres M. Handbuch der Forstpolitik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Geset-
zgebung und Statistik. Berlin: Springer; 1905.
Frings G, Mantau U, Sörgel S. Restholzanfall des Möbel produzierenden Gewerbes.
Hamburg: University of Hamburg, Centre of Wood Science and Technology,
Department of Economics; 2005.
Giljum S, Hubacek K. Alternative approaches of physical input-output analysis to
estimate primary material inputs of production and consumption activities.
Econ Syst Res 2004;16:301–10.
Giljum S, Hubacek K. Conceptual foundations and applications of physical input-
output tables. In: Suh S, editor. Handbook of input-output economics in
industrial ecology. Dordrecht: Springer; 2009. p. 61–76.
Guerra A-I, Sancho F. Measuring linkages with the hypothetical extraction method
– an application to Spain. Energy Econ 2010;32:831–7.
Höglmeier K, Weber-Blaschke G, Richter K. Potentials for cascading of recovered
wood from building deconstruction – a case study for south-east Germany.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2013;78:81–91.
Hubacek K, Giljum S. Applying physical input-output analysis to estimate land
appropriation (ecological footprints) of international trade activities. Ecol Econ
2003;44:137–51.
Kamm B, Kamm M, Gruber P, Kromus S. Biorefinery systems – an overview. In: Kamm
B, Gruber P, Kamm M, editors. Biorefineries – industrial processes and products.
Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2006. p. 3–40.
Kneese AV, Ayres RU, d’Arge RC. Economics and the environment. A materials bal-
ance approach. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins Press; 1970.
Kollmann F. Technologie des Holzes und der Holzwerkstoffe. Berlin: Springer; 1951.
Konijn P, de Boer S, van Dalen J. Input-output analysis of material flows with appli-
cation to iron, steel and zinc. Struct Change Econ Dynam 1997;8:129–53.
Köstler J. Der Stand der deutschen Holzbilanz. Forstarchiv 1936;12:17–32.
Kratena K, Chovanec A, Konechy R. Eine ökologische volkswirtschaftliche
Gesamtrechnung für Österreich – Die Umwelt-Input-Output-Tabelle 1983.
Vienna: Institut für sozial-, wirtschafts- und umweltpolitische Forschung; 1992.
Kratterl A, Kratena K. Reale Input-Output Tabelle und ökologischer Kreislauf. Hei-
delberg: Physica-Verlag; 1990.
Mantau U. Holzrohstoffmonitoring – Energieholzverwendung in privaten Haushal-
ten. Marktvolumen und verwendete Holzsortimente. Hamburg: University of
Hamburg, Centre of Wood Science and Technology, Department of Economics;
2012a.
Mantau U. Holzrohstoffmonitoring – Holzwerkstoffindustrie. Kapazitätsentwick-
lung und Holzrohstoffnutzung im Jahr 2010. Hamburg: University of Hamburg,
Centre of Wood Science and Technology, Department of Economics; 2012b.
Mantau U, Bilitewski B. Stoffstrom-Modell-HOLZ 2007. Rohstoffströme und
CO2-Speicherung in der Holzverwendung. Celle: Forschungsbericht für das
Kuratorium für Forschung und Technik des Verbandes der Deutschen Papier-
fabriken e.V. (VDP); 2010.
Mantau U, Hartig A. Standorte der Holzwirtschaft – Aufkommen und Verwendung
von Industrierestholz. Hamburg: University of Hamburg, Centre of Wood Sci-
ence and Technology, Department of Economics; 2003.
Mantau U, Möller B, Jochem D. Holzrohstoffmonitoring – Die energetische Nutzung
von Holz in Biomasseanalgen unter 1 MW im Jahr 2010. Hamburg: University of
Hamburg, Centre of Wood Science and Technology, Department of Economics;
2012a.
Mantau U, Saal U, Prins K, Steierer F, Lindner M, Verkerk H, Eggers J, Leek N, Olden-
burger J, Asikainen A, Anttila P. EUwood – Real potential for changes in growth
and use of EU forests. Final report, Hamburg; 2010.
Mantau U, Sörgel S. Locations of the timber industry – origin and utilization of wood
processing residues. Hamburg: University of Hamburg, Centre of Wood Science
and Technology, Department of Economics; 2005.
Mantau U, Weimar H, Kloock T. Holzrohstoffmonitoring – Altholz im Entsorgungs-
markt. Aufkommens- und Vertriebsstruktur 2010. Hamburg: University of
Hamburg, Centre of Wood Science and Technology, Department of Economics;
2012b.
McGregor PG, McNicoll IH. The impact of forestry on output in the UK and its member
countries. Reg Stud 1992;26:69–79.
Mellinghoff S, Becker M. Distribution des Holzes in der Bundesrepublik Deutsch-
land 1995 (Holz-Distributionsanalyse). Bonn: Centrale Marketinggesellschaft
der deutschen Agrarwirtschaft; 1998.
Moog M. Die Eignung quantitativer und qualitativer Input-Output-Modelle zur
Beurteilung wirtschaftlicher Konsequenzen der Waldschäden. Göttingen:
University of Göttingen, Berichte des Forschungszentrums Waldökoys-
teme/Waldsterben; 1987.
Müller H, Becker M. Distribution des Holzes in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
1984. Bonn: Centrale Marketinggesellschaft der deutschen Agrarwirtschaft;
1987.
Pedersen OG. Physical input-output tables for Denmark. Products and materials
1990, air emissions 1990–92. Copenhagen: Statistics Denmark; 1999.
Rivela B, Moreira M, Feijoo G. Life cycle inventory of medium density fibreboard. Int
J Life Cycle Assess 2007;12:143–50.
Rüter S. Welchen Beitrag leisten Holzprodukte zur CO2 -Bilanz? AFZ-DerWald
2011;15:15–8.
Schultz S. Intersectoral comparisons as an approach to the identification of key
sectors. In: Polenske KR, Skolka JV, editors. Advances in input-output analysis.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company; 1976. p. 137–59.
Song Y, Liu C, Langston C. Linkage measures of the construction sector using the
hypothetical extraction method. Constr Manage Econ 2006;24:579–89.
Stahmer C, Kuhn M, Braun N. Physische Input-Output-Tabellen 1990. Wiesbaden:
Statistisches Bundesamt; 1997.
StBA (Statistisches Bundesamt) [Federal Statistical Office]. Außenhandel nach
Waren und Ländern [Foreign trade statistics]. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bunde-
samt (Fachserie 7, Reihe 2); 2010a.
StBA (Statistisches Bundesamt) [Federal Statistical Office]. Material- und Warenein-
gangserhebung [Census on incoming materials and goods]. Wiesbaden:
Statistisches Bundesamt (Fachserie 4, Reihe 4.2.4); 2010b.
StBA (Statistisches Bundesamt) [Federal Statistical Office]. Produktion im Pro-
duzierenden Gewerbe [Production statistics]. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bunde-
samt (Fachserie 4, Reihe 3.1); 2010c.
StBA (Statistisches Bundesamt) [Federal Statistical Office]. Rohholz und Holzhalb-
waren. Arbeitsunterlage [Wood working statistics]. Wiesbaden: Statistisches
Bundesamt; 2010d.
Strassert G. Zur Bestimmung strategischer Sektoren mit Hilfe von Input–Output-
Modellen. Jahrbücher fur Nationalökonomie und Statistik 1968;182:
211–5.
Strassert G. Interindustry linkages: the flow network of a physical input-output
table (PIOT): theory and application for Germany. In: Lahr ML, Dietzenbacher
E, editors. Input-output analysis: frontier and extensions. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan; 2001. p. 35–53.
Temurshoev U. Identifying optimal sector groupings with the hypothetical extrac-
tion method. J Regional Sci 2010;50:872–90.
Thomson KJ, Psaltopoulos D. Methodological issues in forestry input-output mod-
elling. In: Midmore P, Harrison-Mayfield L, editors. Rural economic modelling:
an input-output approach. Wallingford, Oxon: CAB International; 1996. p.
45–52.
UBA (Umweltbundesamt) [Federal Environment Agency]. Grenzüberschreitende
Verbringung von zustimmungspflichtigen Abfällen [Transfrontier shipment of
wastes]. Dessau: Umweltbundesamt; 2012.
UNECE. The European forest sector outlook study. 1960–2000–2020. Main report.
Geneva: United Nations; 2005.
UNECE. The European forest sector outlook study II: 2010–2030. Geneva: United
Nations; 2011.
VDP (Verband Deutscher Papierfabriken) [German Pulp and Paper Association].
Papier 2012: Ein Leistungsbericht [Paper 2012: Annual report]. Bonn: Verband
Deutscher Papierfabriken; 2012.
 M. Bösch et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94 (2015) 99–109
Weimar H. Der Holzfluss in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2009 – Methode und
Ergebnis der Modellierung des Stoffflusses von Holz. Hamburg: Johann Hein-
rich von Thünen-Institut, Institut für Ökonomie der Forst- und Holzwirtschaft,
Arbeitsbericht (06/2011); 2011.
Weimar H, Döring P, Mantau U. Holzrohstoffmonitoring – Einsatz von Holz in
Biomasse-Großfeuerungsanlagen 2011. Hamburg: University of Hamburg, Cen-
tre of Wood Science and Technology, Department of Economics; 2012.
Weimar H, Jochem D. Holzverwendung im Bauwesen – Eine Marktstudie im Rahmen
der “Charta für Holz”. Hamburg: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Thünen
Report 9; 2013.
109
Werner F, Taverna R, Hofer P, Thürig E, Kaufmann E. National and global
greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood
use scenarios: a model-based assessment. Environ Sci Policy 2010;13:
72–85.
Wiebecke C. Die Entwicklung der westdeutschen Holzbilanz. Der Forst- und
Holzwirt 1961;16:493–9.
Wilson J. Life-cycle inventory of medium density fiberboard in terms of
resources, emissions, energy and carbon. Wood Fiber Sci 2010;42:
107–24.