ArticleJournal of cleaner production2019
Environmental impacts of household consumption in Europe: Comparing process-based LCA and environmentally extended input-output analysis.
Article in Journal of cleaner production, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental Impact of Machinery and Equipment: A Comparison between EXIOBASE, National Environmentally Extended Input-Output Models, and Ecoinvent.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
- Assessing Environmental Hotspots and Sustainable Development Goal Alignment in Food Production in India.Food science & nutrition · 2025Article
- Environmental impacts of household appliances in Europe and scenarios for their impact reduction.Journal of cleaner production · 2020Article
- Environmental sustainability of European production and consumption assessed against planetary boundaries.Journal of environmental management · 2020Article
- The consumer footprint: Monitoring sustainable development goal 12 with process-based life cycle assessment.Journal of cleaner production · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The environmental impacts generated by household consumption are generally calculated through footprints, allocating the supply-chain impacts to the final consumers. This study compares the result of the Consumer Footprint indicator, aimed at assessing the impacts of household consumption in Europe, calculated with the two standard approaches usually implemented for footprint calculations: (i) a bottom-up approach, based on process-Life cycle assessment of a set of products and services representing household consumption, and (ii) a top-down approach, based on environmentally extended input-output tables (EXIOBASE 3). Environmental impacts are calculated considering 14 environmental impact categories out of the 16 included in the EF2017 impact assessment method. Both footprints show similar total values regarding climate change, freshwater eutrophication and fossil resource use, but in the meantime very large differences (more than a factor 2) regarding particulate matter, photochemical ozone formation, land use and mineral resource use. The exclusion of services in the bottom-up approach can explain only to some extent these differences. However, the two approaches converge in identifying food as the main driver of impact in most of the impact categories considered (with a generally lower contribution in top-down compared to bottom-up). Housing and mobility are relevant as well for some impact categories (e.g. particulate matter and fossil resource depletion). Some substances are identified as hotspot by both approaches, e.g. the emission of NH
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.