ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Applying physical inputoutput tables of energy to estimate the energy

ecological footprint (EEF) of Galicia (NW Spain)
Adolfo Carballo Penela, Carlos Sebastian Villasante
Fisheries Economics and Natural Resources Research Group, Department of Applied Economics, University of Santiago de Compostela,
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Avenida Burgo das Nacions s/n. CP. 15782 Santiago de Compostela, A Coruna Galicia, Spain
Received 31 July 2007; accepted 31 October 2007
Available online 10 January 2008

Abstract
Nowadays, the achievement of sustainable development constitutes an important constraint in the design of energy policies, being
necessary the development of reliable indicators to obtain helpful information about the use of energy resources.
The ecological footprint (EF) provides a referential framework for the analysis of human demand for bioproductivity, including
energy issues. In this article, the theoretical bases of the footprint analysis are described by applying inputoutput tables of energy to
estimate the Galician energy ecological footprint (EEF).
It is concluded that the location of highly polluting industries in Galicia makes the Galician EEF quite higher than more developed
regions of Spain. The relevance of the outer component of the Galician EEF is also studied. First, available information seems to indicate
that the energy incorporated to the trading of manufactured goods would notably increase the Galician consumption of energy.
On the other hand, the inclusion of electricity trade in the EEF analysis, including an adjustment, following the same philosophy as
with manufactured goods is proposed. This adjustment would substantially reduce the Galician EEF, as the exported electricity widely
exceeds the imported one.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ecological footprint; Energy

1. Introduction
The conguration of a global energy system, based on a
bad management of natural resources and that which
intensively uses energy obtained from nonrenewable
sources, has undoubtedly contributed to global environmental degradation.
The management of energy resources must be addressed
from a perspective where sustainability constitutes a
restriction in the decision-making process, rejecting those
strategies only and exclusively focused on the pursuit of
economic growth. In this way, energy ecological footprint
(EEF) provides relevant information that can be used to
make decisions regarding energy resources.
This article presents an EEF case study for the Galician
(NW Spain) economy. First, the ecological footprint (EF)
Tel.: +34 981563100x11649; fax: +34 981547036.

E-mail address: acpacp@usc.es (A. Carballo Penela).

0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.034

framework, which points out some relevant issues with

regard to the methodology and the main characteristics of
the indicator (Section 2), is briey introduced.
Second, the applied methodology and statistical sources
(Section 3) are described. Section 4 shows the results of
the study, introducing some reections regarding the role
of trading in the Galician EEF (Section 4.3). Finally,
Section 5 presents the conclusions of the research.
2. Ecological footprint (EF)
2.1. Concept
Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees formulated an
indicator that attempts to measure the human use of
natural capital (Wackernagel and Silverstein, 2000). This
formulation was led both by their observation of the
human dependence on ecosphere and by their consideration that the basic issue for the analysis of sustainability is

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

the examination of how much nature is there in comparison with the amount used (Chambers et al., 2000). This
idea is not new, and as Wackernagel and Rees acknowledge, Vitousek et al. (1986) had already tried to determine
the human appropriation of net primary productivity.
Unlike Vitousek, the analysis now proposed focuses on the
human use of the land because: (1) land area captures
planet Earth niteness, (2) it is a good proxy for numerous essential life-support functions, and (3) it supports
photosynthesis, the energy conduit for the web of life
(Wackernagel and Rees, 1996).1
In this way, the EF was born, as an indicator of the
carrying capacity of regions, nations, and the globe,
and sometimes extended as an indicator of sustainability
(Chen et al., 2007). Developed in the early 1990s, the EF
was initially promoted as a planning tool (Wackernagel
et al., 1999; Wackernagel and Silverstein, 2000) to estimate
the magnitude of human consumption, which is currently
exceeding biospheres regenerative capacity (Wackernagel,
1999).
EF is dened as the total area of productive land and
water required on a continuous basis to produce the
resources that the population consumes and to assimilate
the wastes that the population produces, wherever on earth
the relevant land and water are located (Wackernagel and
Rees, 1996; Rees, 2000) its starting point is the assumption
that both consumption of resources and waste generation
can be converted into the biologically productive land that
is necessary to maintain those consumption levels, that is,
the EF. According to Wackernagel and Rees (1996, 1997),
(un)sustainability is assessed by examining the available
and the needed surfaces, assuming that populations with a
larger EF than their domestic land base are unsustainable
(Lenzen et al., 2003).
Nevertheless, along the time, the objectives present in the
initial formulation of this indicator, which emphasized the
efciency of the EF as a sustainability indicator and
planning tool (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996), have been
focused and redirected toward more specic and maybe
less ambitious issues than the initial one. Probably
inuenced by the numerous criticisms received (see Section
2.5.3), the EF now stresses the accounting of natural
capital and the documentation of the ecological overshoot
(Wackernagel et al., 2004).
Without changing the essence of the concept and the
calculation method, the present formulation focuses on the
study of how much regenerative capacity of the biosphere
[y] is required to renew the resource throughput of a
dened population in a given year with the prevailing
technology and resource management of that year (Monfreda et al., 2004). The authors themselves insist on this
change, stating that the EF is a baseline measure of
unsustainable overshoot and not a measure of ecological
sustainability (Wackernagel et al., 2004).

Understood as terrestrial and maritime surface.

1149

2.2. Applications
A remarkable nding also is the amount of research
generated around this concept and specically around its
application to other realities that are not necessarily related
to populations or economies, which were the main
objectives of this indicator. In this sense, in the last years,
the analysis of the EF has been used to realities so different
as companies and organizations (e.g., Domenech, 2006 or
Wiedmann et al., 2007), products (e.g., Lewis et al., 2000 or
Sibylle et al., 2006), different activities of varied nature
(e.g., Gossling et al., 2002; Jenerette et al., 2006; Krivtsov
et al., 2004; Patterson et al., 2007 or Stoeglehner and
Narodoslawsky, 2007), or even issues related to climate
(e.g., Santamouris et al., 2007).
2.3. Calculation method
As Bicknell et al. (1998) point out, the calculation
procedure proposed by Wackernagel and his colleagues
involves using consumption and population statistics to
calculate the average persons annual consumption. Therefore, the EF is obtained from the estimate of the relation
between the per head consumption made by the inhabitants
of the population studied and the average yearly productivity of the surface where the goods and services consumed
are produced as is shown in Eqs. (1) and (2).
X
EFp:h:
C i =Pi ,
(1)
i1

EF Pop

EFp:h:  Pop;

(2)

where EF p.h. is the EF per head, Ci the consumption per

head of the product i, Pi the productivity per hectare of the
product i, and Pop the population of the studied area.
Even though this is basically the original idea of this
calculation method, Wackernagel and colleagues have
introduced some improvements in the EF methodology
(see, e.g., Wackernagel (1998, 1999) or Wackernagel et al.
(2004)). As Ferng (2001) states, these improvements
initially included, among other aspects, the introduction
of equivalence factors to consider the difference in
biocapacity among land categories; yield factors to reect
the differences between local and world average biocapacity and leaving some space for wildlife ora and fauna.2
Later, new improvements to the EF methodology were
introduced. These are related to issues such as the
differentiation between primary and secondary products
2
An anonymous reviewer states that EF as dened in Eq. (1) is the one
using the land use metric, as dened and used by Bicknell et al. (1998),
Patterson (2002), and McDonald and Patterson (2003). It is also argued
that Eqs. (1) and (2) do not reect the method introduced by Rees and
Wackernagel, because the latter use the so-called yield and equivalence
factors for converting land use in actual hectares into hypothetical
hectares at global average conditions. However, the aim of both equations
is to reect the original idea of Wackernagel and Rees (1996, pp. 6566),
excluding later improvements in the original methodology.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1150

A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

in the EF of renewable resources; the inclusion in the EEF

of the CO2 absorption capacity of the oceans; the
introduction of yield factors in the EF of the built-up
area; the regard of the primary production requirements
(PPR) and the trophic levels of the captured species in the
sheries EF; or the redenition of concepts such as
ecological decit and ecological overshoot. Furthermore,
there are advances related to the application of equivalence
and yield factors, making the objective of the indicator
according to global, local or constant yields clearer
(Monfreda et al., 2004; Wackernagel et al., 2004).
Besides this methodology, the component-based approach (see Simmons et al. (2000)) estimates the EF of a
series of activities (e.g., car travel) that are considered
relevant in terms of resources consumption, estimating the
EF for each one of its components (e.g., fuel consumption,
manufacturing and maintenance energy, distance traveled,
etc.) using data of the life cycle.3
Finally, there is at least another alternative in calculating
the EF, and Bicknell et al.s (1998) proposal applies
inputoutput analysis to footprint analysis (Ferng, 2001).
This approach provides a new understanding of the EF
framework that considers the links between the production
of goods and services of a studied economy and its nal
demand. As inputoutput coefcients (see, e.g. Leontieff,
1973) reect the direct and indirect requirements of each
economic sector to provide for a certain level of nal
consumption, their conversion into land terms enables the
calculation of the total land required for each sector for its
current level of domestic nal demand.
As Bicknell et al. (1998) point out, this analysis facilitates
a deeper appreciation of land requirements for industries
that do not initially appear to be particularly land
intensive. Other authors like Lenzen and Murray (2001),
Lenzen at al. (2003), or Ferng (2002) also point out its
potentiality for correcting some aws of the original
approach in regional analysis, the disturbance of land
and the energy footprint.4
2.4. The energy ecological footprint (EEF)
The footprint associated to energy (EEF) presents
several particularities, as it tries to collect energy consumptions of the economy under study to be compared
with the amount of energy that can be supplied yearly
by an ecologically productive hectare (Wackernagel and
Rees, 1996).
3
According to Monfreda et al. (2004), the accuracy of the nal result
depends on the completeness of the list and the existence of precise
information regarding their life cycle, normally existing problems of
double counting in case of complex information chains with lots of
primary products and subproducts.
4
To obtain more information on the use of this methodology also refer,
for example, to Hubacek and Giljum (2003); McDonald and Patterson
(2003), Wiedmann et al. (2006, 2007), or Ferng (2002) who proposes a new
analysis framework to estimate the energy EF applying inputoutput
analysis.

The methodology proposed by Wackernagel and Rees

(1996) differentiates between the energy obtained from
fossil fuel combustion, nuclear power, and hydroelectric,
wind, and solar energies.
2.4.1. Fossil fuel combustion
In the rst case, the chosen methodology estimates the
area of forests that is needed to absorb the CO2 emissions
released in fossil fuel combustions. Most studies start from
data on primary energy consumption per inhabitant, to
which a determined CO2 emission factor is applied and a
carbon absorption rate per forest hectare. In that sense, the
6.6 MTCO2/ha/year absorption rate suggested by Wackernagel and Rees (1996) or the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) proposal of 5.21 MTCO2/ha/year
is commonly accepted (see Domenech, 2006). Monfreda
et al. (2004) introduce the ocean absorption capacity in the
methodology, in a way that emissions to be absorbed by
forests, and consequently the sequestration area, are
reduced by applying a fraction that collects the ocean
absorption capacity.
In the same way, Monfreda et al. (2004) seem to
consolidate one of the existing methodological alternatives,
offering the possibility of estimating the footprint of fossil
fuels by measuring the area needed to replace them with
their energy equivalent in fuelwood (biomass substitution
approach). Nevertheless, most studies still use the method
based on the forests absorption capacity.5
2.4.2. Nuclear power
The inclusion of nuclear energy in the footprint analysis
presents a special problem. On the one hand, the high
density of the fuels used favors that the demand of
biological productivity be very low in relation to the
quantity of energy produced (Wackernagel and Monfreda,
2004). On the other hand, the capacity to assimilate
radioactive materials present in the biosphere is minimal,
as the problem of waste storage is still pending. In the same
way, the truly devastating effects on the territory in case of
an accident would substantially increase the EF of this
energy source.
In the face of this situation, there are doubts whether to
include or not this type of energy in the analysis, and in
case of doing so, which methodology to use. Regarding the
rst issue, a possibility would be to exclude nuclear energy,
as it happens with other toxic substances, like the PCBs.
This argument is based on the acceptance that humans
should not use nuclear energy anymore, due to the risks it
implies for health and environment. However, this exclusion could also be misinterpreted as a higher ecological
performance of countries with nuclear power (Monfreda
5
Besides the waste assimilation method and the biomass substitution
approach, also known as renewable substitution method, the fossil carrier
regeneration approach (Wackernagel and Monfreda, 2004) treats fossil
fuels as renewable resources, by estimating the area that is needed to
continue with their consumption indenitely.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

et al., 2004). Hence, it has been decided to include it, as in

most studies dealing with nuclear power as a fossil fuel,6
even though nuclear power and fossil fuels have substantially different impacts and risks (McDonald and Patterson, 2003). From this perspective, it is estimated the CO2
needed an area to absorb the quantity of energy from
nuclear origin, as if that energy would have been produced
with fossil fuels.
Other methods are conceivable too and some authors
include the risk of a nuclear accident in the EEF, raising
the footprint in accordance with the affected surface in a
hypothetical disaster.7
2.4.3. Renewable energy sources
Hydroelectric, wind, and solar energies have in common
a higher productivity by hectare than that from fossil fuels
(Wackernagel and Rees, 1996), although there are important differences among them.8 Their EF includes both
the surface occupied by the facilities intended for electricity
production (area inundated by the reservoir created by the
dam, wind mills, and photovoltaic panels, respectively9),
the energy embodied in this infrastructure, and the loss of
productivity due to the use of the surface for energy
production. As Wackernagel and Monfreda (2004) indicate, the signicance of the energy incorporated to the
infrastructure needed to produce renewable energy is the
most important component of the footprint corresponding
to renewable energies, on the contrary than in case of fossil
fuels, where the energy needed for the extraction, transport, and combustion is the most important component.10
2.4.4. Energy embodied in trade
Besides the addition of the surfaces needed by each type
of energy, the EEF calculation also requires adjustments to
include the energy incorporated in the net imports/exports
of manufactured and industrial goods, so that the EEF
6

This is the alternative chosen by Wackernagel and colleagues

(Wackernagel and Rees, 1996; Monfreda et al., 2004).
7
Mayor et al. (2003) includes the risk of a nuclear accident in the EEF.
In this way, the author considers an area of 282,743 ha, this having been
the exclusion area established after the Chernobyl accident in 1986. It also
could be argued that as EF documents the actual bioproductive area
occupied at a given point of time, the footprint of a nuclear accident
should be incorporated when it occurs. (Monfreda et al., 2004).
8
Moreover, the productivity of certain energy source greatly varies
depending on the infrastructure characteristics, location, and other
atmospheric and environmental conditions. For example, the productivity
of 24 hydropower dams in the United States varies between 15 and
11,000 Gj/ha/year (Wackernagel and Monfreda, 2004).
9
These surfaces are often included in the built-up surface section and
not in the energy section. Besides, as Domenech (2006) states, some
Wackernagel studies impute the hydroelectric energy footprint to pastures.
Domenech (2006) himself assigns the surface occupied by wind parks and
solar energy production facilities to crops surface.
10
As for hydroelectricity, it must be emphasized that Monfreda et al.
(2004) introduce a constant factor for converting the consumption of this
type of energy in hectares, besides applying a constant equivalence factor
of 1.0 (gha/ha), as the productivity of land inundated by hydropower
reservoirs substantially varies, without enough data being available to
document its distribution.

1151

reects the energy consumption made by people living in

an area and not what is produced in it.
As part of the energy consumed in a studied economy is
used to produce goods to be exported, those consumptions
should be excluded from the footprint, as people from
other areas enjoy them. In the same way, consumptions
associated to the production of imported goods should be
included in the EEF.
This adjustment requires the knowledge of physical
imports and exports of manufactured goods, converting
the net importations of every product category into energy
with a consumption factor that shows the energy of each
product lifecycle (see Wackernagel (1998), Relea and Prat
(1998) or Ibanez (2001)), even though the different
technical characteristics of the productive processes signicantly inuence the energy consumption associated to
its preparation.
On the other hand, Ibanez (2001) and Mayor et al.
(2003) point out this adjustment could cause the paradox
that a region could manage to reduce its EEF-exporting
goods produced by means of low-energy efciency
processes and importing those goods with a lower energy
content.11
2.5. Debate
In spite of the fact that the EF is a relatively new
indicator, it has attained notable popularity indeed, both
within the scientic community and among decision
makers as well as consumers.
However, it is difcult for any single indicator to
efciently collect all the different issues related to sustainability, and, to improve its accuracy, EF should be used in
conjunction with other economical, social, or environmental indicators (Wackernagel et al., 1999; Rees 2000).
That is why the knowledge of the strengths and
weaknesses of the EF is very important for both to
guarantee its use and also to decide about other indicators
that supply additional relevant information. As for the EF,
next its strengths, weaknesses, and received criticisms are
summarized.
2.5.1. EF strengths
The strengths of this indicator are related rstly to its
adequate aim of trying to measure the surface transformation made by humans. In this sense, Vitousek et al. (1997)
detail how human alterations in land use (understanding
land in a broader sense that includes the land itself and the
oceans) are affecting the functioning of the planet
ecosystems, thus endangering its maintenance and the ow
of goods and services they provide to humanity.12 The EF
measures how much of the natural capital is used and
11
Studies such as Hong et al. (2007) make clear the importance of the
embodied energy in international trade, in this case in China.
12
Vitousek et al. (1997) point out two main effects from these
alterations: the climate change and irreversible biodiversity losses.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1152

A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

therefore transformed by humans to satisfy their needs,

and quanties how much of the ecosystems has been
modied (Wackernagel et al., 1999).
More precisely, considering the theoretical assumptions
implicit in the concept, the EF incorporates four basic
aspects related with sustainable development: it considers
the complementarity between the human and natural
capital, it is consistent with the thermodynamic laws, and
it includes the social dimension of sustainable development, considering ecological limits. Another of its more
important strengths is its capacity to convey results: its
clearness, conceptual simplicity, and intuitive appeal (Rees,
2000) favor both the decision-making process and this
concept popularity.
Finally, another strength found in this indicator is that
as the different categories for consumption and appropriated surface are established, the EF also identies
different demands on productivity from different elds,
allowing the implementation of measures according to the
necessities of each one of those elds.
2.5.2. Weaknesses
EF excludes some issues such as certain important
ecological impact, the consumption of water and natural
resources, as well as some kinds of pollution. In addition, it
is assumed that each kind of surface only has a single
use (Van den Bergh and Verbruggen, 1999a), including
only land that is ecologically productive. However,
unproductive land can be, directly or indirectly, useful
for human purposes (Lenzen and Murray, 2001; Lenzen
et al., 2003).
Second, the methodology used for the measurement of
the energy impact is exclusively focused on CO2, excluding
other greenhouse gases. Similarly, the EF considers a single
way of compensating those emissions: the absorption
capacity of forests and oceans.
Third, another important limitation refers to the
nondifferentiation of the sustainable and unsustainable
use of land. Thereby, to increase productivity on the long
term, the EF could eventually encourage unsustainable
methods (Herendeen, 2000).
Even though these limitations are accepted by the
defendants of the EF, they consider the EF as a conservative indicator or, in other words, the human demand on
bioproductivity is even higher than EF shows.
On the other hand, some of these aws are being taken
into consideration. The inclusion in the footprint analysis
of methane and other greenhouse gases (Lenzen and
Murray, 2001; Walsh et al., 2007) or the distinction
between sustainable and unsustainable use of land (Lenzen
and Murray, 2001; Lenzen et al., 2003) make the footprint
analysis a bit stronger. With the aim of overcoming the
limitations inherent to a static analysis, the analysis of
temporal series referred both to countries and to the
whole world contributes to reduce certain typical distortions of the studies referred to a single year (Wackernagel
et al., 2004).

2.5.3. Received criticisms

In spite of the popularity of the EF concept, it is true
that it has also received criticisms by different authors, who
question some of its general assumptions. Some negatively
assessed aspects are (1) the role trade plays in the EF
(Herendeen, 2000; Lenzen and Murray, 2001; Van den
Bergh and Verbruggen, 1999a), (2) the use of world average
instead of local productivity (Bicknell et al., 1998; Lenzen
and Murray, 2001), (3) the use of the political and articial
frontiers (Van den Bergh and Verbruggen, 1999a, b),
(4) the fact that according to this indicator some highly
industrialized regions or countries cannot be sustainable
(Van den Bergh and Verbruggen, 1999a), or (5) the
application of the carrying capacity idea to human
populations (McDonald and Patterson, 2003). As Costanza (2000) states, the controversy comes when one moves
from simply stating the results of an EF calculation to
interpreting it as an indicator of something else.
Consequently, there is an interesting debate about the
interpretation of the EF still pending to be solved (see,
for example, Ferguson, 1999; Loh, 2000; Rees, 2000;
Wackernagel, 1999; Wackernagel and Silverstein, 2000;
Wackernagel et al., 2004 or Woods, 2004). In spite of this,
the reformulation of objectives made by Wackernagel and
colleagues, as well as changes in the interpretation of
certain issues derived from the analysis (e.g., the meaning
of ecological decit (see Wackernagel et al. (2004) or
Monfreda et al. (2004)), has contributed to an increase in
the level of acceptance of this indicator within the scientic
community.
Beyond this controversy, EF contribution to (un)sustainability debate is based on:




It clearly shows the human dependence on life-support

ecosystems (Chen et al., 2007).
It measures this dependence considering natural capital
requirements of a dened economy or population
(Wackernagel and Rees, 1997), providing one criterion
for documenting overshoot.
It links this concern to socioeconomic variables such
as demographic trends, economic expansion, changes in
resources efciency, and economic prosperity (Wackernagel
et al., 2004).

3. Description of the methodology used in the calculation

The present article focuses on studying the Galician
EEF, following the initial proposal by Wackernagel and
Rees as for the differentiation among the three big types
of energy sources, although there is no nuclear power in
Galicia.
Nevertheless, insofar as energy-specic inputoutput
tables are available, the 2000 Galician InputOutput Tables
of Energy Flows (TIOEGAL2000), the determination of
consumptions was based on this statistical source and not
on energy balances, thus proposing a calculation scheme

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

Production perspective

Consumption perspective

ELECTRICITY
PRIMARY
ENERGY
SOURCES

1153

ENERGY
PRODUCERS
FUELS

Energy consumption
+EEF

ECONOMIC SECTORS
HOUSEHOLDS
PUBLIC SECTOR

ECONOMIC SECTORS
HOUSEHOLDS
PUBLIC SECTOR

Energy consumption
+EEF

EXPORTS

-EEF

+EEF

IMPORTS

Fig. 1. Suggested calculation method for the Galician EEF.

different from the initially proposed, as described in

Section 2.4 of this article.
Second, as this analysis is focused on energy, the EEF, in
terms of both gigajoules (Gj) and CO2 emissions associated
to the consumption of fossil fuel combustions in Galicia,
are mainly expressed.
To this purpose, the principal information source has
been the TIOEGAL2000, which provides information
about the production and the consumption of energy
products in Galicia expressed in oil equivalent tons (TOE)
for year 2000.
The TIOEGAL2000 are not conventional inputoutput
tables, as they include only two tables, origin and
destination. The rst describes the origin of the energy
produced in Galicia, offering information about the
production for each productive sector. The destination
table collects the average consumption of the 50 Galician
economic sectors, providing not only information about
the intermediate demand but also detailed information
about the energy nal demand.13
As there is available information concerning consumptions in physical terms made by the different economic
sectors, including energy producers, domestic economies,
and public administrations, EEF estimates the EF of the
CO2 emissions in Galicia, from the energy consumptions
made by energy producers, adding the additional footprints that are generated as the energy produced is
consumed by the different users, as reected in Fig. 1.
With regard to the footprints caused by wind and
hydroelectric energy production, they have been excluded
from the EEF, as it is considered more appropriate to
13

In Appendix A we briey explain the TIOEGAL2000 structure.

include them in the EF section relative to built-up surface.

However, an estimate has been made for those surfaces, as
shown in Table 2 (Section 4.2).
As for the electrical energy produced from carbon and
derivatives, the research collects fuel consumptions in
power stations and their corresponding emissions.
Biomass consumption is excluded from the EEF, as
available data are not accurate enough. On the contrary,
fossil fuels consumptions made to produce electricity from
biomass in the single plant of this kind in Galicia are
included, as collected in TIOEGAL2000.14
It is important to mention the fact that from the EEF
point of view, electricity can be approached from a double
perspective. On the one hand, for energy producers, this is
an output produced from primary sources and in that sense
the EEF collects the energy consumptions made in
electricity production, as a product that needs energy to
be obtained is dealt with. On the other hand, for productive
sectors and domestic economies, electricity is a nonmodied input, without the mere electricity consumption
generating an additional EF.
Thus, to the extent that electricity is produced to satisfy
its demand by economic sectors and nal consumers, it is
interesting to see what would happen if the EEF from the
14
The total biomass consumption is not directly estimated in the
TIOEGAL2000, but this is done in terms of mean values for the whole
Spanish population. As far as there are important differences as for
temperatures, rainfalls, and forest surfaces among the different Spanish
regions, the gure collected in the TIOEGAL for Galicia may be
substantially different to the real one. Nevertheless, as the fuelwood
consumption for heating may have certain importance in some Galician
areas, Galician EF is estimated based on the data available (see footnotes
20 and 23).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1154

A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

electrical sector is divided among the different electricity

users according to their consumption, observing interesting
changes in the sector distribution (see Section 4.2).
With regard to fossil fuel consumption sorted by
activities different from electrical production, all consumptions made from the obtaining of fuels themselves in the
only renery in Galicia, up to those made by nal
consumers are collected. In this way, the study includes
the total consumption of fossil fuels in Galicia for all the
possible uses (all kinds of transport, heat generation,
besides the different uses made in each one of the industrial
sectors).
It is also important to point out the fact that in this study
the correction derived from foreign trade has not been
included. The difference of energy incorporated to goods
imports and exports has not been considered, because
unfortunately, the existing information with regard to
commercial ows in Galicia makes it not possible to
obtain, at the moment, an acceptable estimate of this
adjustment magnitude.15
It is true that there are adequate statistics regarding
Galician trading outside Spain, but there is little information relative to commercial ows in physical terms between
Galicia and the other Spanish Autonomous Communities,
which are important in the Galician trade balance.
In this way, the EEF here calculated would be associated
to production of energy in Galicia and not to the Galician
energy consumption. This apparent problem has its
positive side, as the footprint calculated in such a way
collects the magnitude of emissions created, which could
avoid variations in the EEF due to imports and exports,
hiding the true pollution suffered by Galicia and Galician
people.
Nevertheless, with regard to the trade adjustment, a
clearly related aspect is highlighted in Section 4.3. As the
generation of electricity requires energy, electricity exports
and imports should be part of the foreign trade correction,
according to the EF methodology.
Finally, with regard to the conversion from TOE to Gj
and the associated CO2 emissions, the following steps
should be noted:

European Union (EU) members, sorted by fuel and

country. Although values valid for Spain are not necessarily adequate for Galicia, they are considered to be more
appropriate than guide values from the IPPC, to be used in
the absence of another more adequate source.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Precedents in Galicia

where MTCO2C i is the CO2 tons of Ci fuel, No:TOE C i is the

number of consumed TOEs of Ci, 0.41868 is the number of
terajoules by TOE, and CO2C i EF is the CO2 emission
factor for Ci.
The used CO2 emission factors are those provided by
Herold (2003),16 where emission factors are given for the

Previous to the preparation of this study, researchers of

the A Coruna University (see Mart n (2004)) studied the
EF in Galicia, including the EEF calculation. These
authors estimate the EF in Galicia at 7.01 ha/inhabitant,
from which 2.18 ha/inhabitant are due to the EEF
(Table 1).
The effort to estimate the inuence of trade in the EEF,
especially in what relates to the trading between Galicia
and the rest of Spain, is remarkable. In this case, the
Galician economy inputoutput tables of 199817 were used,
to comparatively estimate the volume of the Galician
trading with the other Spanish regions and the trade
volume of Galicia with the rest of the world. As The
General Customs Directorate (Direccion General de
Aduanas) provides detailed information sorted by tariff
categories, the application of the previous coefcient based
on these data allows to obtain the information relative to
the trading with the other Spanish Autonomous Communities. Although this method implies the assumption that
the proportion obtained from the Galician inputoutput
tables of 1998 is the same in monetary terms as in weight,
this is the only way to approach this adjustment, taking the
available information into account.
The results of this research show that trading greatly
increases the Galician EEF, as the energy that is
incorporated in net imports from the rest of the world
involves an increase of 1.54 ha/inhabitant, while the
incorporated in net imports from the rest of Spain is
0.23 ha/inhabitant. Nevertheless, the authors themselves
point out the fact that a large part of the imports coming
from the rest of the word is carbon meant for electricity
production and crude oil to be distilled. If these two
nonmanufactured products are disregarded, net imports
from the rest of the world would raise the EF to 0.31 ha/
inhabitant.
In that case, the Galician EEF would rise to 0.96 ha/
inhabitant, from which 0.41 ha/inhabitant (42.7%) would
correspond to the footprint of the inland part of Galicia,
0.31 ha/inhabitant (32.2%) to net imports coming from the

15
As indicated in Section 3, Mart n (2004) tackled this adjustment in the
only viable way in the authors opinion.
16
This study was commissioned by the European Topic Centre on Air
and Climate Change organisation, which gathers different European
institutes hired by the European Environmental Agency. The applied
emission factors are the following: brown lignite: 117.40 KgCO2/Gj; subbituminous coal: 99.60 KgCO2/Gj; gas oil: 73.60 KgCO2/Gj; fuel oil:
76.60 KgCO2/Gj; LPG: 66.20 KgCO2/Gj; petrol: 72.00 KgCO2/Gj; coal:

(footnote continued)
99.80 KgCO2/Gj; renery gas: 60.00KgCO2/Gj; oil coke: 97.50 KgCO2/
Gj; natural gas: 56.60 KgCO2/Gj; gas oil for renery: 73.60 KgCO2/Gj;
kerosene: 73.70 KgCO2/Gj; others: 73.33 KgCO2/Gj.
17
These tables were constructed by the Statistic Galician Institute (IGE),
the only existing ones for the Galician economy. They are inputoutput
tables that keep a traditional structure, expressing the transaction among
sectors in monetary terms.

MTCO2C i No:TOE C i  0:041868 Tj  CO2C i EF ,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

1155

Table 1
EF comparisoncarrying capacity in Galicia (ha/inhabitant)

Table 2
Footprint for energy production in Galicia

Type of surface

EF in
Galicia

Carrying
capacity

Ecological
decit

Energy type

Croplands
Pastures
Forest
Occupied land
Energy
Sea
Total without biodiversity
Biodiversity (12%)
Total (including biodiversity)

0.25
1.94
0.39
0.07
2.18
1.43
6.26
0.75
7.01

0.14
0.16
0.35
0.07
0.00
0.39
1.11
0.13
1.25

0.11
1.78
0.04
0.00
2.18
1.04
5.15
0.62
5.76

EEF
Gj

Source: Own elaboration base on Mart n (2004).

rest of the world, and 0.23 ha/inhabitant (25.1%) to the

trade with the rest of Spain.
4.2. Results obtained
The results of the study (Table 2 and following) show
that the total amount of fossil fuels consumed in Galicia in
year 2000 totals 8,437,350 TOE, with an energy consumption of 353.254.970 Gj (129.31 Gj/inhabitant). In terms of
CO2 emissions, it means 30,668,351 MT, or what is the
same, 11.23 MTCO2/inhabitant, widely exceeding the total
Spanish emissions (7.6 MT/inhabitant in year 2000).
Hence, in Galicia, CO2 emission levels are found similar
to those from more developed countries, such as Germany
(10.4 MTCO2/inhabitant), Belgium (12.3 MTCO2/inhabitant), Finland (12.0 MTCO2/inhabitant) or Ireland
(11.6 MTCO2/inhabitant (Varela, 2004)).
Taking this into account and considering an absorption
rate of 6.6 MTCO2 ha/inhabitant, the EEF in Galicia
would rise to 1.70 ha/inhabitant.18 To this, an additional
0.006 ha/inhabitant should be added corresponding to the
surface appropriation to produce hydroelectric and wind
energy,19 which must be reckoned in the section for builtup surface.20
18
In the Galician case, there is a lack of sufciently complete and precise
studies on the absorption capacity of its forests, and indirect studies show
a wide range of estimates varying from 7.22 MTCO2/ha/year (Rodr guez
Murillo, 1999) to 25 MTCO2/ha/year for Galician eucalyptus (Eucalyptus
globules) forests Oliveros Garc a et al. (2004). Using the absorption rates
that Valentini et al. (2000) observed in forests located at similar latitude as
Galician forests, the absorption rate would be around 18.3 MTCO2/ha/
year.
19
Area occupied by dams and wind mills in Galicia in 2000.
20
With regard to the emissions derived from the biomass consumption
made by domestic economies, mainly fuelwood, the TIOEGAL2000
reects a consumption of 225,466 TOE or 9,439,810 GJ (3.46 Gj/
inhabitant). Considering an emission factor of 112 kgCO2/Gj (IPCC,
2006), the CO2 emissions derived from this consumption would amount to
1,057,259 MTCO2 (0.39 MTCO2/inhabitant). Applying an absorption rate
of 6.6 MTCO2 ha/inhabitant, the EF would stand at 0.06 ha/inhabitant.
Although the reliability of the data on biomass consumption is lower than
that for other fuels, it is still true that according to the available
information its EF reaches a remarkable signicance, being the ninth most

Built-up surface
MTCO2

Ha/inhabitant Ha/inhabitant

Fossil fuels
353,254,970 30,668,351 1.701
Hydroelectric
Wind

0.005
0.000

Source: Own elaboration based on Garc a-Negro (2003).

It is worth noting the fact that the EEF obtained is

notably higher than the production footprint estimated by
Mart n (2004), the difference being mainly due to the use of
different statistical sources to estimate energy consumptions: the use of energy-specic inputoutput tables offers a
new view of the Galician energy map.
As we had already advanced, it is more interesting to
express results in terms of energy, thus avoiding problems
related to the use of any of the emission absorption rates.
On the contrary, estimations are made for the absorption
capacity that Galician forests should have to assimilate
emissions produced in Galicia.21
Starting with the detailed analysis of the results, data are
offered of the footprint for the different fuels and economic
sectors of the Galician economy. Per capita values are used
to facilitate to the reader the comparison with results from
other countries.
Regarding the footprint corresponding to each one of
the consumed fuels, attention must be paid to the fact that
77.19% of energy consumptions (80.96% in terms of CO2
emissions) come from only four fuels: brown lignite, subbituminous coal, gas oils, and fuel oils (Table 3).
In this way, the exaggerated importance that sectors
related to the electrical energy production have on the
Galician EEF must be emphasized. Only two fuels, brown
lignite and sub-bituminous coal, which are exclusively used
in the thermoelectrical energy production, generate 37.43%
of the consumption of energy, originating more than 14
million MTCO2, (46.76% of CO2 emissions).
Consumption of gas oil in its different modalities reaches
32.95 Gj/inhabitant, the highest value in terms of energy.
However, as combustion of coal produces the highest
emissions of CO2/Gj, gas oil is the third most contributing
fuel to the Galician EEF in terms of CO2 emissions,
reaching 2.43 tons of CO2/inhabitant, which means 21.61%
of Galician emissions.
As for fuel oil (14.28% of energy consumption and
12.60% of the emissions), this is mainly used for heat
(footnote continued)
important fuel in terms of energy and the seventh if CO2 emissions are
considered.
21
See Required absorption rate columns in Tables 35. One is aware
of the fact that CO2 emissions are not only absorbed by forests, although
the calculation makes sense taking into account the hypotheses accepted in
the EF methodology.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1156

A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

Table 3
The Galician EEF: contribution of each type of fuel
Fossil fuels

Gj/inhabitant

MTCO2/
inhabitant

Required absorption rate

Gj/ha.

Brown lignite
Sub-bituminous coal
Gas oil
Fuel oil
LPG
Petrol
Coal
Renery gas
Oil coke
Natural gas
Gas oil for renery
Kerosene
Other
Total

24.05
24.35
32.95
18.46
7.72
7.09
3.37
3.70
2.01
2.98
1.42
1.19
0.01

18.60
18.83
25.48
14.28
5.97
5.48
2.61
2.86
1.55
2.31
1.10
0.92
0.01

2.82
2.43
2.43
1.41
0.51
0.51
0.34
0.22
0.20
0.17
0.10
0.09
0.00

129.31

100.00

11.23

25.15
21.61
21.60
12.60
4.55
4.55
3.00
1.98
1.74
1.50
0.93
0.78
0.01
100

MTCO2/ha.

46.75
47.34
64.05
35.89
15.00
13.78
6.56
7.19
3.90
5.80
2.76
2.31
0.02

5.49
4.71
4.71
2.75
0.99
0.99
0.65
0.43
0.38
0.33
0.20
0.17
0.00

251.346

21.82

Source: Own elaboration based on Garc a-Negro (2003).

Table 4
Sector distribution of the Galician EEF
Economic sectors

Agriculture, shing, and aquaculture

Mining
Industry
Energy sector
Transport
Services
Domestic economies
Public administration
Total

Gj/
inhabitant

8.00
0.82
17.65
64.40
25.54
3.81
3.76
5.32
129.31

6.19
0.64
13.65
49.80
19.75
2.95
2.91
4.11
100

MTCO2/
inhabitant

0.59
0.06
1.32
6.50
1.87
0.28
0.25
0.36
11.23

5.25
0.57
11.72
57.88
16.65
2.48
2.27
3.18
100

Required absorption rate

Gj/ha.

MTCO2/ha.

15.55
1.60
34.31
125.17
49.65
7.41
7.31
10.34

1.15
0.12
2.56
12.63
3.63
0.54
0.49
0.69

251.35

21.82

Source: Own elaboration based on Garc a-Negro (2003).

generation, as fuel in machineries for several industries and

also to produce electricity by means of cogeneration
processes.
It is also interesting to see the contribution of each type
of fuel and also to verify the contribution of the different
economic sectors. Table 4 shows the sector distribution of
the Galician EEF, making a distinction among eight
important sectors. Three of themthe energy sector,
transport, and industryshare 83.21% of the consumption
of energy and 86.25% of CO2 emissions.
At this stage, it is not surprising that the emissions
caused by the energy sector generate 49.8% of the Galician
consumption of energy and 57.88% of the CO2 emissions,
undoubtedly occupying the rst place in the sector ranking.
Moreover, it is important to call attention to the 25.54 Gj/
inhabitant and more than 5 tons of CO2/inhabitant,
respectively, the 19.75% and 16.65% of the total, needed
by the transport sector emissions in their different

modalities (road, train, maritime, and aerial), as well as

the industrial sectors importance, which with an EEF of
more than 17 Gj/inhabitant and 1.32 tons of CO2/inhabitant, concentrate 13.65% and 11.72% of the total Galician
EEF.
Within transport activities, the road modality is the
clearly dominating one, with more than 94% of both
energy consumption and CO2 emissions. At a considerable
distance from road transport, it was found for both aerial
and maritime transport, without reaching 2.5% of energy
and emissions in any case.
As for industrial sectors (Table 5), it is important to
mention the impact of two specic sectors, the oil rening
and the nonferrous-product-manufacturing sector, which
with a consumption of energy of 7.30 and 5.30 Gj/
inhabitant, respectively, represent 71.37% of the energy
consumption by industrial sectors. In terms of CO2, their
importance reaches 71.76% of total emissions.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

1157

Table 5
Distribution of the footprint originated from industrial activities: main sectors depending on their EEF
Industries

1. Oil rening
2. Nonferrous products manufacturing
3. Pottery and glass
4. Wood-base industry
5. Manufacture of cement, lime, and plaster
6. Canneries and new processed foods
7. Paper and board
8. Vehicle manufacturing
9. Metallic products (except machinery)
manufacturing
10. Textile, confectioning, and footwear

Gj/inhabitant

MTCO2/
inhabitant

Required absorption rate

Gj/ha.

MTCO2/ha.

7.30
5.30
1.17
0.69
0.62
0.42
0.36
0.35
0.26

41.33
30.03
6.64
3.92
3.50
2.38
2.03
1.99
1.48

0.54
0.40
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02

41.22
30.54
6.79
3.60
4.53
2.41
1.85
1.54
1.34

14.18
10.31
2.28
1.34
1.20
0.82
0.70
0.68
0.51

1.05
0.78
0.17
0.09
0.12
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03

0.21

1.17

0.01

1.08

0.40

0.03

Source: Own elaboration based on Garc a-Negro (2003).

With regard to oil rening, in Galicia there is a renery

belonging to the REPSOL group located in A Coruna, with
an approximate distillation capacity of 6.5 million MT of
crude oil. Consumption of energy and emissions principally
originate during the distillation phase, where different fuels
are used to heat crude oil to temperatures that make it
possible to separate its different components, later on
resulting in different hydrocarbons and waste products.
The importance of the manufacturing of nonferrous
products is principally due to activities related to aluminum
production, activities developed in Galicia by the ALCOA
multinational company, which has two factories in Galicia.
One of them, Alumina-Aluminio, located in San Cibrao,
Lugo, has such a production capacity and this factory
ranks among the biggest in Europe, having a production
capacity exceeding 1,100,000 tons/year. The fuels involved
in its productive processes are above all fuel oil and LPG
used to generate heat in processes for the obtaining of
alumina and aluminum.
Other important sectors in terms of energy and CO2
emissions are pottery and glass manufacturing (6.64% and
6.79%, respectively), cement manufacturing (3.50% and
4.53%), and industries intended for wood manufacturing
(3.92% and 3.60%).
4.2.1. Energy sector redistribution
Having pointed out the importance of the energy sector,
it is also interesting to see the changes if EEF is imputed to
other economic sectors. It is true that the energy sector
generates a great deal of pollution, but its energy
production is consumed by economic sectors from Galicia
and out of Galicia.
Table 6 shows this new scenario. The TIOEGAL2000
reects the electricity consumption of each economic sector
and the redistribution of the emissions from the energy
sector has been made considering this variable. As the
available data make it possible to determine the origin of
the electricity handed over to the power distribution

network, it is possible to determine the portion of

electricity consumption made by each sector by means of
fossil fuel combustion, imputing the electrical sector
emissions to each sector according to the level of these
consumptions.
In this new situation, industrial sectors, services and
domestic economies have a remarkable growth, the
importance of both the exports of electricity and the
electricity distribution losses also being visible.
The industrial sectors conrm their importance, reaching
29.30% of the consumption of energy and 29.90% of CO2
emissions. As seen in Table 7, the main changes are related
with the growth of nonferrous manufacturing sector,
whose intensive electricity consumption22 increases its
EEF considerably (up to more than 18 Gj/inhabitant and
1.71 tons of CO2/inhabitant), reaching 48.26% of the
consumption of energy of the industrial sectors and
51.00% in terms of their CO2 emissions.
This fact reduces the relative relevance of oil rening
sector, whose consumptions and emissions are kept at a
similar level, as the come mainly from fossil fuel sources,
without signicant electricity consumption. Other industrial sectors, like machinery manufacturing and chemical
and pharmaceutical sectors, appear now in the top 10
ranking of industrial sectors.
With regard to services and domestic economies, they
increase their importance almost threefold in terms of both
Gj and CO2 emissions, each one reaching almost 8% of the
EEF.23
22
The aluminum production process is intensive in what refers to
electrical energy demand. The electricity consumption corresponding to
the Alumina-Aluminio factory doubles that from Galician domestic
economies.
23
In the case of the domestic economies, its EF would still rise if
emissions from the biomass consumption are considered. In this case, its
energy consumption would rise to 13.41 Gj/inhabitant, with emissions of
1.27 MTCO2/inhabitant, being only exceeded by the industrial sectors,
transport sector, and electricity exports.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

1158

Table 6
Sector distribution of the Galician EEF: energy sectors redistribution
Economic sectors

Initial assignation
Gj/inhabitant

Agriculture, shing, and aquaculture

Mining
Industry
Building sector
Energy sector
Transport
Services
Domestic economies
Public administration
Electricity exports
Distribution losses
Total

Redistribution
MTCO2/inhabitant

Gj/inhabitant

8.00
0.82
17.65
0.00
64.40
25.54
3.81
3.76
5.32
0.00
0.00

0.59
0.06
1.32
0.00
6.50
1.87
0.28
0.25
0.36
0.00
0.00

8.40
1.50
37.88
0.23
0.01
25.59
9.66
9.95
6.49
23.96
5.65

129.31

11.23

129.31

%
6.49
1.16
29.30
0.17
0.01
19.79
7.47
7.69
5.02
18.53
4.37
100

MTCO2/inhabitant
0.63
0.13
3.36
0.02
0.00
1.87
0.87
0.88
0.48
2.42
0.57

%
5.61
1.18
29.90
0.20
0.01
16.69
7.73
7.83
4.23
21.54
5.08

11.23

100

Source: Own elaboration based on Garc a-Negro (2003).

Table 7
Distribution of the footprint originated from industrial activities: main sectors according to their EEF considering the energy sector redistribution
Industries

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Nonferrous products manufacturing

Oil rening
Iron products manufacturing
Manufacture of cement, lime, and plaster
Pottery and glass
Wood-base industry
Vehicle manufacturing
Metallic products (except machinery) manufacturing
Chemical and pharmaceutical
Canneries and new processed foods
Machinery manufacturing

Initial assignation

Redistribution

Gj/inhabitant

MTCO2/
inhabitant

Gj/inhabitant

MTCO2/
inhabitant

5.30
7.30
0.16
1.17
0.62
0.69
0.35
0.26
0.42
0.15
0.09

0.40
0.54
0.01
0.06
0.09
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.01

18.23
7.32
3.26
1.37
1.15
1.13
0.81
0.71
0.63
0.59
0.42

48.26
19.39
8.62
3.62
3.06
2.98
2.14
1.87
1.68
1.57
1.12

1.71
0.55
0.32
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04

51.00
16.29
9.61
3.26
3.40
2.73
1.99
1.87
1.59
1.68
1.18

Source: Own elaboration based on Garc a-Negro (2003).

Finally, it is remarkable that the amount of electricity

generated in Galicia but consumed in other Spanish
territories produces more than 2.42 tons of CO2/inhabitant
in Galicia, which means a consumption of almost 24 Gj/
inhabitant. On the other hand, emissions associated to
distribution losses of electricity reach 0.57 tons of CO2/
inhabitant, with a consumption of 5.65 Gj/inhabitant.24
The conguration of the Spanish energy system, where
Galicia concentrates a great part of the electric energy
production that is consumed in other regions, such as
Madrid, explains the importance of electricity exports to
other Spanish territories. Likewise, this concentration in its
production causes the Galician EEF to be higher than that
from other Spanish Autonomous Communities.
As Table 8 shows, although in general, those countries
with the highest EF are the wealthiest in GDP terms, this
24
These losses are mainly caused by the bad conditions of the Galician
power grid.

logic does not work when comparing the Galician EEF

with that corresponding to other autonomous communities
(Table 9).25
Even though there are no EF studies for all the Spanish
Autonomous Communities, it is true that with a GDP per
head representing 77.7% of the Spanish average GDP per
head, Galicia has a noticeable EEF compared with other
Autonomous Communities, such as Catalonia, Navarre,
and even the Basque Country, whose GDPs widely exceed
the Spanish average (Table 10).26
This fact is especially signicant, if the Galician EF is
considered, unlike the other included in Table 9, as it does
25
As results from these studies are expressed in ha, this unit of measure
is used to compare them with results obtained in our study.
26
It is known that the comparison among results from different studies,
which do not always refer to the same year and use not fully coincident
methodologies, must be cautiously considered. Table 9 simply tries to
approximately establish the Galician EFF in relation to other Spanish
territories.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163
Table 8
EEF and groups of countries according to their incomes (ha./inhabitant)
Groups of countries

EF

EEF

Biocapacity

Ecological
decit

Countries with high

incomes
Countries with average
incomes
Countries with low
incomes
World

6.4

4.0

3.3

3.1

1.9

0.9

2.1

0.1

0.8

0.2

0.7

0.1

2.2

1.11

1.8

0.5

Source: WWF ADENA (2006).

Table 9
Comparison with other EEF

Navarre
Andalusia
Galicia
Catalonia
The Basque Country
Spain

EEF ha./inhab

GDPper head
2000 (h)

Spanish
index 100

1.23
1.55
1.70
1.81
2.17
1.88

19,927
11,538
12,163
19,072
19,182
15,653

127.3
73.7
77.7
121.8
122.5
100

Source: Own elaboration based on Basque Government (2005); Calvo and

Sancho (1998); Garc a-Negro (2003); Ibanez (2001); INE (2005); Navarre
Government (2000); Mayor et al. (2003) and WWF ADENA (2002).

Table 10
Latitude and absorption rates in forests located at a similar latitude as
Galician forests
Studied forest

Latitude

MTC/ha/year

MTCO2/ha/year

1. Italy2
2. Italy1
2a. Italy1
3. France2
Galicia

411450
411520
411520
441050
431470 411480

6.6
6.6
4.7
4.3
5

24.2
24.2
17.23
15.76
18.3

Source: Valentini et al. (2000).

not include the effect of trading. Although the available

information does not makes it possible to make a very
accurate estimate of this adjustment, in view of the research
of Mart n (2004), it can be concluded that trading raises the
Galician EFF, although the increase magnitude could
differ from the obtained ones in the afore-mentioned study.
However, considering the distance existing between the
Galician EEF without trading and the Catalonian (6.4%
higher) and the Basque (27.6% higher) EEFs, it is possible
that the Galician EFF is situated, at least, at levels similar
to those of the Spanish regions with the highest GDPs,
if the energy incorporated to imports and exports
was included.

1159

4.3. Methodological considerations with regard to the

importexport adjustment in the Galician EEF from the
perspective of consumption
Insofar as this study has been elaborated from what
could be called an EF production perspective, no correction
has been made in the function of the energy incorporated
to goods imports and exports in Galicia.
Thus, it is appropriate to state a fact that would be
relevant during this correction. The mentioned trade
adjustment is only referred to manufactured goods.
Nevertheless, it is possible to nd goods that are not
manufactured in the literal sense of the term, but still need
energy to be produced. Electricity is a good example of that
kind of goods.
As we have advanced, electricity consumers receive
this product already elaborated, and like with manufactured goods, energy has been needed for its obtaining,
although the simple electrical consumption does not
add EF.
Part of the electric energy is consumed within the
territory where it has been produced, either by the different
economic sectors, which use it to produce goods and
services, some of those goods being later exported, and by
nal consumers. In spite of that, another part of the electric
energy is exported to territories different from the place
where it was produced and if necessary, imports are used to
satisfy the existing demand.
It must be assumed that those impacts derived from
electricity exports and imports must be taken into account,
an adjustment being necessary, following the same
philosophy as with manufactured goods. That is, the
energy incorporated to the exported electricity must be
subtracted from the EEF, while that incorporated to
imports would cause a positive adjustment, as in the case of
goods imports (see Fig. 2 for a better understanding of the
scheme).
Insofar as Galicia is one of the main Spanish electricity
producers and the TIOEGAL2000 reects an important
difference between the exported and the imported electrical
energy, it is found adequate to go into detail with this
example to explain this adjustment and its importance in
the Galicia case.
A very important part of the electricity produced in
Galicia is whether it is consumed outside the territory or lost
in the power distribution network, as reected in Table 6.
On the other hand, electricity imports are not relevant for
the Galician economy.27 The adjustment is simple in the rst
case, as the consumption of energy and emissions associated
to exports (65,465,816 Gj and 6,605,037 MTCO2) and losses
(15,438,564 Gj and 1,557,642 MTCO2) is known, a negative
adjustment being necessary in the EEF.

27

According to Garc a-Negro (2003), the addition of the exported

electricity and that lost in the power grid is equivalent to 40.27% of the
total energy produced in Galicia. Imports of electricity only reach 3.19%.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

1160

Coal and
other fuels

Electricity
Producers

DIFFERENT USES AND TRADE ADJUSTMENT OF ELECTRICIY

Electricity
produced in
Galicia

Energy
consumption

+EEF

Final Consumption:
Households
Public Administration

Intermediate consumption:
economic sectors

Imported
electricity

Goods
production

+EEF

Goods
exports

Electricity
exports

Distribution
Losses

-EEF

-EEF

Services

Domestic
Consumption

Goods
imports

-EEF

+EEF

--- --- ----- ----- Power distribution network

Fig. 2. Framework for the complete inclusion of the electricity in the EEF analysis.

Table 11
Galician EEF including the electricity trade adjustment
2000 Galician EEF

Production perspective

Trading of goods adjustment

Electricity trade adjustment

Consumption perspective

Gj
Gj/inhabitant
MTCO2
MTCO2/inhab.

353,254,970
129.31
30,668,351
11.23

(74,880,943)
(27.41)
(7,554,957)
(2.76)

278,324,027
101.90
23,113,394
8.47

Source: Own elaboration.

In case of electricity imports, these rise to 81,139 TOE,

although in this case the origin is not known. However, to
make a calculation, which roughly allows making this
positive adjustment, the assumption that the imported
electricity is developed according to the same proportions
existing in Galician production28 can be accepted as a
working hypothesis. With this, one would conclude that
the electricity releasing CO2 rises to 51.979 TOE, with an
energy consumption of 6,823,436 Gj and emissions of
607,772 MTCO2.29
Considering the joint effect of imports, exports, and
losses (Table 11), the adjustment proposed would cause a
reduction in the Galician EEF of 74,880,943 Gj and
7,554,957 MTCO2, standing at 278,324,027 Gj and
28
That is, 57.05% thermal, 30.63% hydraulic, 5.30% wind origin,
6.85% correspond to cogeneration, and 0.17% to biomass.
29
This calculation implies the acceptance of some values obtained from
the TIOEGAL. For each TOE of electricity imported, 2.77 TOE of fossil
fuels is needed, besides applying an average CO2 emission factor of
100.79 kg CO2/GJ.

23,113,394 MTCO2. This gure, although high for a

territory with the development of Galicia, is notably lower
than the initial estimate, as this adjustment involves a
reduction in the footprint of 21.2% in terms of energy and
24.7% in terms of CO2 emissions.
5. Conclusions
Even though the calculation of one single EF component
is a true limit to the scope of the results obtained from the
study of the Galician EEF, interesting conclusions can be
reached.
First, the availability of energy-specic inputoutput
tables allows estimating the Galician EEF adding the other
footprints that are generated from energy production to
nal energy consumption, differentiating both the consumption of the main economic sectors in the Galician
economy and the importance of each one of the fuels used.
Results show that the Galician EEF exceeds what would
be expected according to its economic development.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

However, there are several important nuances to be taken

into account and this situation is principally caused by a
specic sector within the Galician economy, to which the
different measures to attain a sustainable development
must be targeted.
The importance of the energy sector in the EEF is very
high that it overshadows other economic sectors, but this
does not mean that one should not pay attention to other
activities, especially to transport and industrial sectors,
whose impact is kept overlapped by the magnitude of the
footprint caused by energy production. For this reason, it
is interesting to analyze the EEF considering the redistribution of the emissions from the energy sector.
By doing so, it is found that the electric energy
consumption of some industrial sectors, namely the
nonferrous-product-manufacturing sector, increases the
importance of the EEF of industrial sectors up to almost
30% of the total EEF.
The importance of the electricity trade and distribution
losses should be noted also. In both cases, it would be
possible to make a negative adjustment in the same way as
it is proposed for manufactured goods, which are produced
in Galicia but consumed outside the region. By doing so, it
is noticed that the adjustment derived from losses and
electricity net exports would substantially reduce the
Galician EEF, as the exported electricity widely exceeds
the imported one.
On the other hand, the available information seems to
indicate that the energy incorporated to the trading of
manufactured goods would notably increase the EEF.
Therefore, the two adjustments seem to have different
signs. To accurately determine the outer component of the
Galician EEF, it is important to go into detail in this
adjustment, this task being the next objective of the
research.
Likewise, strategies for sustainable development must
address environmental problems acting on their origin,
without being the greater of minor capacity of ecosystems
to palliate certain effects a valid excuse in order to avoid
making the needed decisions.

1161

Table A1
Simplied output table
Uses

Activity Rest of
branches the
world

Final
Gross
consumption capital
formation

Total

(1)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

Products
(1)
Added value (2)
components
Total
(3)

Table A2
Simplied input table
Uses

Products
Total

Activity branches

Rest of the world

Total

(1)

(2)

(3)

(1)
(2)

The output table shows the uses of the different energy

products sorted by productive branch or nal demand
sector. Besides knowing the losses generated in the
production or distribution of each energy product and
the nal uses in the form of domestic consumption, public
consumption, or exports, by using this table the number of
uses corresponding to each energy product by each
productive activity, in which they have an intermediate
consumption meaning, is known (see Table A1).
In the input table, the supply of goods and services
organized by product and supplier sector can be seen,
making a differentiation between the production from
Galician activity branches and imports (see Table A2).
As for the sector classication included in the tables, the
subdivision of sectors and subsectors is in agreement with
the identication of the different sectors present and
important in the Galician economy. This is based on an
adequacy criterion between the classication and the
relative importance for the Galician GDP, as well as the
reection of those subsectors with the highest energy
consumption.

Appendix A. TIOEGAL2000 structure and content

The TIOEGAL2000 was born with the idea of collecting
the network of energy relations among the different
Galician productive sectors by means of physical data.
The references for preparing them are the inputoutput
methodology collected in the European System of Integrated Accounts (SEC-95) and the extended TIO prepared
by Victor (1972). However, because this methodology
designed for an exclusively monetary treatment poses
difculties, in some cases it even makes it impossible to
calculate some magnitudes included in the SEC-95. Hence,
this methodology has been adapted to the specic
objectives, obtaining the preparation of two main tables:
output and input.

References
Basque Government, 2005. Huella Ecologica de la Comunidad Autonoma
del Pa s Vasco. Available from /http://www.euskadi.netS (accessed
July 24, 2007).
Bicknell, K.B., Ball, R.J., Cullen, R., Bigsby, H.R., 1998. New
methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the
New Zealand economy. Ecological Economics 27, 149160.
Calvo Salazar, M., Sancho Royo, F., 1998. Estimacion de la Huella
Ecologica de Andaluc a y su aplicacion a la aglomeracion de Sevilla.
Available from /http://www.cucsur.udg.mx/S (accessed October 01,
2006).
Chambers, N., Simmons, C., Wackernagel, M., 2000. Sharing Natures
Interest. Ecological footprints as an indicator of sustainability.
Earthscan, London.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1162

A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163

Chen, B., Chen, G.Q., Yang, Z.F., Jiang, M.M., 2007. Ecological
footprint accounting for energy and resource in China. Energy Policy
35, 15991609.
Costanza, R., 2000. The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept.
Ecological Economics 32, 341345.
Domenech, J.L., 2006. Gu a metodologica para el calculo de la huella
ecologica corporativa. Tercer encuentro internacional sobre desarrollo
sostenible y poblacion, 624 July, Malaga (Spain) (Proceedings on
CD-ROM).
Ferguson, A.R.B., 1999. The essence of ecological footprints. Ecological
Economics 31, 318319.
Ferng, J.-J., 2001. Using composition of land multiplier to estimate
ecological footprints associated with production activity. Ecological
Economics 37, 159172.
Ferng, J.-J., 2002. Toward a scenario analysis framework for energy
footprints. Ecological Economics 40, 5369.
Garc a-Negro, M.C. (dir), 2003. Taboa InputOutput 2000 (Realidade
f sica) de Galiza, unpublished.
Gossling, S., Borgstrom Hansson, C., Horstmeier, O., Saggel, S., 2002.
Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability.
Ecological Economics 43, 199211.
Herendeen, R.A., 2000. Ecological footprint is a vivid indicator of indirect
effects. Ecological Economics 32, 357358.
Herold, A., 2003. Comparison of CO2 emission factors for fuels used in
greenhouse gas inventories and consequences for monitoring and
reporting under the EC emissions trading scheme. Available from
/http://air-climate.eionet.eu.intS (accessed March 10, 2005).
Hong, L., Dong, Z.P., Chunyu, H., Gang, W., 2007. Evaluating the effects
of embodied energy in international trade on ecological footprint in
China. Ecological Economics 62, 136148.
Hubacek, K., Giljum, S., 2003. Applying physical input/output analysis to
estimate land appropriation (ecological footprints) of international
trade activities. Ecological Economics 44, 137151.
Ibanez Etxeburua, N., 2001. La huella ecologica de Donostia-San
Sebastian. Available from /http://www.agenda21donostia.com/cas/
corporativa/docs/huellaeco.pdfS (accessed September 1, 2006).
INE, National Statisitics Institute, 2005. Contabilidad regional de Espana
Base 2000. Available from /http://www.ine.esS (accessed January 25,
2006).
IPCC, International Panel on climate Change, 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (vol. 2). Available from
/http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_
2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdfS (accessed September 18, 2007).
Jenerette, G.D., Marussich, W.A., Newell, J.P., 2006. Linking ecological
footprints with ecosystem valuation in the provisioning of urban
freshwater. Ecological Economics 59, 3847.
Krivtsov, V., Wager, P.A., Dacombe, P., Gilgen, P.W., Heaven, S.,
Hilty, L.M., Banks, C.J., 2004. Analysis of energy footprints
associated with recycling of glass and plasticcase studies for
industrial ecology. Ecological Modelling 174, 175189.
Lenzen, M., Murray, S., 2001. A modied ecological footprint method
and its application to Australia. Ecological Economics 37, 229255.
Lenzen, M., Lundie, S., Bransgrove, G., Charet, L., Sack, F., 2003.
Assessing the ecological footprint of a large metropolitan water
supplier: lessons for water management and planning towards
sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
46, 113141.
Leontieff, W., 1973. Analisis Economico InputOutput. Ariel, Barcelona.
Lewis, K., Simmons, C., Chambers, N., 2000. An Ecological Footprint
Analysis of Different Packaging Systems. Available from /http://
www.bestfootforward.com/downloads/Publications/bottles%20and%
20cans.PDFS (accessed September 15, 2007).
Loh, J. (Ed.), 2000. Living Planet Report 2000. WWFWorld Fund For
Nature, Gland, Switzerland.
Mart n P.F. (Ed.), 2004. Desarrollo sostenible y huella ecologica, Ed.
Netliblo S.L, A Coruna.
Mayor Farguell, X., Quintana Gozalo, V., Belmonte Zamora, R., 2003.
Aproximacion a la huella ecologica de Cataluna. Available from

/http://www.cat-sostenible.org/pdf/DdR_7_Huella_Ecologica.pdfS
(accessed June 20, 2006).
McDonald, G., Patterson, M., 2003. Ecological Footprints of New
Zealand and its Regions. Avaliable from /http://www.mfe.govt.nz/
publications/ser/eco-footprint-sep03/index.htmlS (accessed January
24, 2007).
Monfreda, Ch., Wackernagel, M., Deumling, D., 2004. Establishing
national natural capital accounts based on detailed Ecological
Footprint and biological capacity assessment. Land Use Policy 21,
231246.
Navarre Government, 2000. Huella ecologica y sostenibilidad. Available
from /http://www.navarra.esS (accessed June 27, 2007).
Oliveros Garcia, A., Lopez de Sancho Collado, A., Hernandez Mor, M.,
2004. Bosques y cambio climatico: la funcion de los bosques como
sumideros de carbono y su contribucion al cumplimiento del protocolo
de Kioto por parte de Espana. In: VII Congreso Nacional de Medio
Ambiente, 2022 November 2004 (Proceedings on CD-ROM).
Patterson, M.G., 2002. Ecological production based pricing of biosphere
processes. Ecological Economics 41, 457478.
Patterson, T., Niccolucci, V., Marchettini, N., 2007. Adaptive environmental management of tourism in the Province of Siena, Italy using the
ecological footprint. Ecological Economics 62, 747756.
Rees, W.E., 2000. Eco-footprint analysis: merits and brickbats. Ecological
Economics 32, 371374.
Relea Gines, F., Prat Noguer, A., 1998. Aproximacion a la huella
ecologica de Barcelona. Available from /http://www.mediambient.
bcn.es/cas/down/masu6_1.pdfS (accessed November 21, 2005).
Rodr guez Murillo, J.C., 1999. El ciclo mundial del carbono. Metodo de
calculo por cambios de uso de la tierra. Balance de carbono en los
bosques espanoles. In: Hernandez Alvarez, F. (coord.), El calentamiento global en Espana, CSIC, Madrid, pp. 97139.
Santamouris, M., Paraponiaris, K., Mihalakakou, G., 2007. Estimating
the ecological footprint of the heat island effect over Athens, Greece.
Climatic Change 80, 265276.
Sibylle, D.F., David, J.H., Eric, H.B., 2006. Ecological footprint analysis
applied to mobile phones. Journal of Industrial Ecology 10, 199216.
Simmons, C., Lewis, K., Barret, J., 2000. Two feettwo approaches: a
component-based model of ecological footprinting. Ecological Economics 32, 375380.
Stoeglehner, G., Narodoslawsky, M., 2007. Applying ecological footprinting in decision making processes on future local and regional energy
supplies. In: Paper prepared for the International Ecological Footprint
Conference, 810 May 2007, Cardiff, UK. Available from /http://
brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/fullpapers/Stoeglehner_Narodoslawsky_P27.
pdfS (accessed September 14, 2007).
Valentini, R., Matteucci, G., Dolman, A.J., Schulze, E-D., Rebmann, C.,
Moors, E.J., Granier, A., Gross, P., Jensen, N.O., Pilegaard, K.,
Lindroth, A., Grelle, A., Bernhofer, C., Grunwald, T., Aubinet, M.,
Ceulemans, R., Kowalski, A.S., Vesala, T., Rannik, U., Berbigier, P.,
Loustau, D., Guomundsson, J., Thorgeirsson, H., Ibrom, A.,
Morgenstern, K., Clement, R., Moncrieff, J., Montagani, L., Minerbi,
S., Jarvis, P.G., 2000. Respiration as the main determinant of carbon
balance in European forests. Nature 404, 861865.
Van Den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Verbruggen, H., 1999a. Spatial sustainability,
trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ecological footprint.
Ecological Economics 29, 6172.
Van Den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Verbruggen, H., 1999b. An evaluation of the
ecological footprint: reply to Wackernagel and Ferguson. Ecological
Economics 31, 319321.
Varela, D.R., 2004. Contaminacion atmosferica en Galiza. Ba a Edicions,
A Coruna.
Victor, P.A., 1972. Econom a de la polucion. Colecion McMillan-VicensVives, Barcelona.
Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., Matson, P.A., 1986. Human
appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience 36,
368373.
Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, J.L., Melillo, J.M., 1997. Human domination of
earths ecosystems. Science 277, 494499.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Carballo Penela, C. Sebastian Villasante / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 11481163
Wackernagel, M., 1998. The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile.
Local Environment 3, 725.
Wackernagel, M., 1999. An evaluation of the ecological footprint.
Ecological Economics 31, 317318.
Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, Ch., 2004. Ecological footprints and energy.
Encyclopedia of energy 2, 111.
Wackernagel, M., Rees, W.E., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing
Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia.
Wackernagel, M., Rees, W., 1997. Perceptual and structural barriers to
investing in natural capital: economics from an ecological footprint
perspective. Ecological Economics 20, 324.
Wackernagel, M., Silverstein, J., 2000. Big things rst: focusing on the
scale imperative with the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics
32, 391394.
Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Callejas Linares, A., Lopez Falfan,
I.S., Mendez Garc a, J., Suarez Guerrero, A.I., Suarez Guerrero,
M.G., 1999. National natural capital accounting with the ecological
footprint concept. Ecological Economics 29, 375390.
Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, Ch., Schulz, N.B., Erb, K.H., Haberl, H.,
Kausseman, F., 2004. Calculating national and global ecological

1163

footprint time series: resolving conceptual challenges. Land Use Policy

21, 271278.
Walsh, C., Regan, O.B., Moles, R., 2007. Incorporating Methane into
Ecological Footprint Analysis. In: Paper prepared for the International Ecological Footprint Conference, 810 May 2007, Cardiff, UK.
Available from /http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/Walsh_M64.pdfS
(accessed July 12, 2007).
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., Barret, J., Wackernagel, M., 2006. Allocating
ecological footprints to nal consumption categories with input
output analysis. Ecological Economics 58, 2848.
Wiedmann, T., Barret, J., Lenzen, M., 2007. Companies on the scale:
comparing and benchmarking the footprints of businesses. In: Paper
prepared for the International Ecological Footprint Conference, 810
May 2007, Cardiff, UK. Available from /http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/
uploads/Wiedmann_et_al_P36.pdfS (accessed September 12, 2007).
Woods, P., 2004. Ecological Footprint: North Sydney. Stage 1. Assesment of
its Use as Sustainability Measure for North Sydney Council Available from
/http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/partnershipS (accessed March 3, 2004).
WWF ADENA, 2002, 2006. Living Planet Report 2002, 2006, Available
from /http://www.panda.orgS (accessed April 11, 2007).