ScholarGate
Asistents

Salīdzināt metodes

Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.

Ekoloģiskās pēdas uzskaites metodika×Materiālu plūsmas analīze (MFA)×
NozareIlgtspējaIlgtspēja
SaimeProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Izcelsmes gads19962004
AutorsMathis Wackernagel & William ReesBrunner & Rechberger
TipsEnvironmental accounting indicatorQuantitative systems accounting method
PirmavotsWackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers. ISBN: 978-0-86571-312-3Brunner, P. H., & Rechberger, H. (2004). Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis. Lewis Publishers. ISBN: 978-1-56670-604-9
Citi nosaukumiEFA, Ecological Footprint Analysis, Biocapacity Accounting, Ekolojik Ayak İziSubstance Flow Analysis, Bulk-MFA, Material Flux Analysis, Malzeme Akış Analizi
Saistītās23
KopsavilkumsEcological Footprint Accounting (EFA) is a resource accounting framework that measures how much biologically productive land and water area a human population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb the waste it generates. Introduced by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees in 1996, it compares human demand on nature against Earth's regenerative capacity, expressed in standardized global hectares (gha).Material Flow Analysis (MFA) is a systematic method for quantifying the flows and stocks of materials within a defined system boundary over a specified time period. Introduced comprehensively by Paul H. Brunner and Helmut Rechberger in their 2004 handbook, MFA applies mass-balance principles to track how raw materials, products, wastes, and emissions move through industrial, urban, or national metabolisms, enabling evidence-based resource management and waste policy.
ScholarGateDatu kopa
  1. v1
  2. 1 Avoti
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 1 Avoti
  3. PUBLISHED

Doties uz meklēšanu Lejupielādēt slaidus

ScholarGateSalīdzināt metodes: Ecological Footprint · Material Flow Analysis. Izgūts 2026-06-18 no https://scholargate.app/lv/compare