Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorUsubiaga-Liaño, A.
dc.contributor.authorArto, I.
dc.contributor.authorAcosta-Fernández, J.
dc.date2023-05-01
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-31T10:31:56Z
dc.date.available2022-01-31T10:31:56Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationENERGY: 222 (2021)es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/55215
dc.description.abstractThe number of input-output assessments focused on energy has grown considerably in the last years. Many of these assessments combine data from multi-regional input-output (MRIO) databases with energy extensions that completely or partially depict the different stages through which energy products are supplied or used in the economy. The improper use of some energy extensions can lead to double accounting of some energy flows, but the frequency with which this happens and the potential impact on the results are unknown. Based on a literature review, we estimate that around a quarter of the MRIO-based energy assessments reviewed incurred into double accounting. Using the EXIOBASE MRIO database, we also analyse the effects of double accounting in the absolute values and rankings of different countries and products energy footprints. Building on the insights provided by our analysis, we offer a set of key recommendations to MRIO users to avoid the double accounting problem in the future. Likewise, we conclude that the harmonisation of the energy data across MRIO databases led by experts could simplify the choices of the data users until the provision of official energy extensions by statistical offices becomes a widespread practice. © 2021 Elsevier Ltdes_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipIA thanks the support of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities , through the project MALCON , RTI 2018-099858-A-I00 , the Spanish State Research Agency through María de Maeztu Excellence Unit accreditation 2018–2022 (Ref. MDM-2017-0714 ), the Basque Government BERC Programme, and the EU H2020 project LOCOMOTION (GA no 821105 )es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherENERGYes_ES
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/821105es_ES
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MCIU/RTI2018-099858-A-I00es_ES
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MINECO/MDM-2017-0714es_ES
dc.relationES/1PE/MDM-2017-0714es_ES
dc.relationEUS/BERC/BERC.2018-2021es_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectinput-output analysises_ES
dc.subjectMRIOes_ES
dc.subjectenergy footprintes_ES
dc.subjectenergy extensionses_ES
dc.subjectdouble accountinges_ES
dc.subjectenergy usees_ES
dc.titleDouble accounting in energy footprint and related assessments: How common is it and what are the consequences?es_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.holder© 2021 Elsevier Ltdes_ES
dc.rights.holderAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 España*
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.119891es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.energy.2021.119891
dc.contributor.funderEuropean Commission


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2021 Elsevier Ltd
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2021 Elsevier Ltd