1 Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Burapha University, Chonburi, 20131, Thailand

2 Department of Human resource management, Faculty of Management and Tourism, Burapha University, Chonburi, 20131, Thailand

3 Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Burapha University, Chonburi, 20131, Thailand

4 Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Burapha University, Chonburi, 20131, Thailand


This research aims to apply a model to the study and analysis of environmental and natural resource costs created in supply chains of goods and services produced in Thailand, and propose indicators for environmental problem management, caused by goods and services production, based on concepts of sustainable production and consumer behavior. The research showed that the highest environmental cost in terms of Natural Resource Materials was from pipelines and gas distribution, while the lowest was for farming coconuts. The highest environmental cost in terms of Energy and Transportation was for iron and steel. The highest environmental cost in the category of Fertilizer and Pesticides was for oil palm. For Sanitation Services, the highest environmental cost was movie theaters. Overall, the lowest environmental cost for all categories, except Natural Resource Materials, was for petroleum and refineries. Based on the cost index, coconut farming gained the highest Real Benefit to the farm owner, while pipelines and gas distribution had the lowest Real Benefit. If Thailand were to use a similar environmental problem indicator, it could be applied to formulate efficient policy and strategy for the country in three areas, namely social, economic, and environmental development.


Adams, W.M., (2009). Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World (2nd ed.). New York: Rutledge.
Asian Development Bank (ADB), (1997). Emerging Asia and Challenges. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Asian Development Bank (ADB), (2014). Environment, Climate Change, and Disaster Risk Management. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Bailey, R.; Bras, B.; Allen, J.K., (2004). Applying ecological input–output flow analysis to material flows in industrial systems: Part I: Tracing flows. J. Ind. Ecol. 2004a, 8(1): 45–68 (24 pages).
Benoit, (2009). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. UNEP-SETAC, G. Guillén-Gosálbez.
Bodini, A., (2002). Building a systemic environmental monitoring and indicators for sustainability: What has the ecological network approach to offer? Ecol. Indic. 2012, 15: 140-148 (9 pages).
Bodini, A.; Bondavalli, C., (2002). Towards a sustainable use of water resources: A whole-ecosystem approach using network analysis. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2002, 18 (5): 463-485 (23 pages).
Bojarski, J.; Laínez, A.; Espuña, L.; Puigjaner., (2009). Incorporating environmental impact and regulations in a holistic supply chains modeling. An LCA approach, Comput. Chem. Eng., 33 (10) 1747-1759 (13 pages).
Brent, C.; Labuschagne C., (2006). Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Int. J. Life Cycle Assessment, 11 (1): 3-15 (13 pages).
Brunner P.H, (2007). PH. Reshaping urban metabolism. J. Ind Ecol 2007, 11 (2): 11–13 (3 pages).
Chen, D.J., (2003). Analysis, integration and complexity study of industrial ecosystems. Doctoral dissertation, Beijing, Tsinghua University.
Chen, ZM.; Chen, GQ.;  Zhou, JB.; Jiang, MM.; Chen, B., (2010). Ecological input–output modeling for embodied resources and emissions in Chinese economy 2005. Commun Nonlinear SciNumer Simul 2010, 15 (7): 1942–1965 (24 pages).
Duchin, F., (2008). Input–output economics and material flows. In: Suh S, editor. Handbook of input–output economics in industrial ecology. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing. Ltd.
Duque, J.; Barbosa-Povoa, APFD; Novais, A.Q., (2010). Design and planning of sustainable industrial networks: Application to a recovery network of residual products. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 49 (9): 4230-4248 (19 pages).
Espinosa, A.; Walker, J., (2011). A Complexity Approach to Sustainability: Theory and Application. London, Imperial College Press.
Goedkoop, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.; Schryver, A.D.; Struijs, J.; Van Zelm, R., (2009). A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonized category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. The Hague, Ministry of VROM. ReCiPe., First edition
Grossmann I.E., (2009). Optimal design and planning of sustainable chemical supply chains under uncertainty. American Institute of Chemical Engineers J., 55 (1): 99- 121 (23 pages).
Hammond A.; Adriaanse A.; Rodenburg E.; Bryant D.; Woodward R., (1995). Environmental indicators: A systematic approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development. World resources institute.
Harwick, J.J.; Olewiler, N.D., (1998). The Economics of Natural Resource Use. Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley.
Huang, SL.; Hsu, WL., (2003). Materials flow analysis and energy evaluation of Taipei's urban construction. Landsc Urban Plan, 63 (2): 61-74 (14 pages).
Hugo, A.; Pistikopoulos E.N., (2005). Environmentally conscious long-range planning and design of supply chain networks. J. of Cleaner Production, 13 (15): 1471-1491 (21 pages).
Karna, A., Engstrom, J., (1994). Life-Cycle Analysis of Newsprint: European Scenarios. Paperi ja Puu, 76 (4): 232-237 (6 pages).
Kennedy, C.; Cuddihy, J.; Engel-Yan, J., (2007). The changing metabolism of cities. J Ind Ecol, 11 (2): 43–59 (17 pages).
Lave, L.B.; Cobas-flores, E.; Hendrickson, C.T.; McMichael, F.C., (1995). Using Input-Output Analysis to Estimate Economy-wide Discharges. Environmental Science and Technolog, 29 (9): 420A-426A  (7 pages).
Lee, C.L.; Huang, S.L.; Chan, S.L., (2009). Synthesis and spatial dynamics of socio-economic metabolism and land use change of Taipei Metropolitan Region. Ecol Model, 220 (21): 2940-2959 (20 pages).
Lenzen, M., (1998). Primary energy and greenhouse gases embodied in Australian final consumption: An input–output analysis. Energy Policy, 26 (6): 495–506 (12 pages).
Leontief, W.W., (1936). Quantitative input and Output Relation in the Economic System of the United State. Review of Economics and Statistics, 18 (3): 105-125 (21 pages).
Leontief, W.W., (1986). Input-Output Economics (2nd ed.). New York, Oxford University Press.
Li, S.S.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Z.F.; Liu, H; Zhang, J.Y.; (2012). Ecological relationship analysis of the urban metabolic system of Beijing, China. Environ Pollut, 170: 169–176 (8 pages).
Li, Y.; Chen, B.; Yang, Z.F., (2009). Ecological network analysis for water use systems: a case study of the Yellow River Basin. Ecol Model, 220 (22): 3163-3173 (11 pages).
Liang, S.; Zhang, T., (2011). Urban metabolism in China: achieving dematerialization and decarbonization in Suzhou. J Ind Ecol, 15 (3): 420-434 (15 pages).
Marull, J.; Pino, J.; Tello, E.; Cordobilla, M.J., (2010). Social metabolism, landscape change and land-use planning in the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land Use Policy, 27 (2); 497-510 (13 pages).
McMullan, C.; (2013). Indicators of urban ecosystem health. Retrieved from
Ness, E.; Urbel-Piirsalu, S.; Anderberg, L.; Olsson, (2007). Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60 (3): 498-508 (11 pages).
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board., (2015). National Income of Thailand, 2015. Bangkok: NESDB.
Office of the Prime Minister., (2007). Budget Document: Expenditure Budget for Fiscal Year Ministry of Public Health. Vol. 3. Bangkok: Bureau of the Budget.
Pantavisid, S., (2012). Natural Resource and Environmental Costs of Good and Service Production via Sustainable Consumption and Production Approach towards Prioritizing the Environmental Management in Thailand. Doctoral dissertation, Social Development and Environmental Management, School of Social and Environmental Development, National Institute of Development Administration.
Pigou;  Arthur C., (1960) “The Economics of Welfare,” 4th ed,  London: Macmillan.
Pinto-Varela, A. P.; Barbosa-Póvoa, A.; Novais., (2011). Bi-objective optimization approach to the design and planning of supply chains: Economic versus environmental performances. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 35 (8): 1454-1468 (15 pages).
Salema, M.I.G. ; Barbosa-Povoa, A.P.; Novais A.Q., (2010). Simultaneous design and planning of supply chains with reverse flows: A generic modelling framework. European J. of Operational Research, 203 (2): 336-349 (14 pages).
Sa-nguanwongthong, N., (2013). Study of Environmental Costs for the Evaluation of Industrial Development in Thailand. Doctoral dissertation, Social Development and Environmental Management, School of Social and Environmental Development, National Institute of Development Administration.
Simpson, D.R.; Bradford, R.L., (1996). Taxing Variable Cost: Environmental Regulation as Industrial policy. J. of Environmental Economics and Management, 30 (30): 282-300 (19 pages).
Su M.R.; Yang Z.F.; Chen B.; Ulgiati S., (2009). Urban ecosystem health assessment based on energy and set pair analysis—a comparative study of typical Chinese cities. Ecol Model, 220 (18): 2341–2348 (8 pages).
Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)., (2006). Prioritizing Issues in Natural Resources and Environmental Management. Final report prepared the Thailand Health Fund. Bangkok.
Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)., (2007). Prioritizing Environmental Problems with Environmental Costs. Final report prepared the Thailand Health Fund. Bangkok.
Ukaga, O.; Maser, C.; Reichenbach, M., (2010). Sustainable Development: Principle, Frameworks and Case Studies. London, CRC Press Taylor and Frances Group.
Xu, M., (2010). Development of the physical input monetary output model for understanding material flows within ecological–economic systems. J Res Ecol, 2 (1): 123-134 (12 pages).
Yigitcanlar, T.; Dur, D.; Dizdaroglu, D., (2015). Towards prosperous sustainable cities: a multiscalar urban sustainability assessment approach, Habitat Int., 45 (1): 36-46 (11 pages).
Yigitcanlar, T.; Dizdaroglu, D., (2015). Ecological approaches in planning for sustainable cities: A review of the literature. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 1 (2): 159-188 (30 pages).
Yu, Y.J., (2008). Syndromic city illnesses diagnosis and urban ecosystem health assessment. Acta Ecol Sin, 28 (4): 1736-1747 (12 pages).
Zhang, Y., (2013). Urban metabolism: A review of research methodologies. Environ Pollut 2013, 178: 463–473 (11 pages).
Zhang, Y.; Li, S.S., Fath, B.D.; Yang, Z.F.; Yang, N.J., (2011). Analysis of an urban energy metabolic system: comparison of simple and complex model results. Ecol Model2011a, 22 (1): 14–19 (6 pages).
Zhang, Y.; Liu H.; Li Y.;  Yang Z.F.; Li, S.S.; Yang, N.J., (2012). Ecological network analysis of China's societal metabolism. J Environ Manage, 93 (1): 254-263 (10 pages).
Zhang, Y.; Yang, Z.F.; Fath, B.D., (2010). Ecological network analysis of an urban water metabolic system: model development and a case study for Beijing. Sci Total Environ 2010a, 408 (20): 4702-4711 (10 pages).
Zhang, Y.; Yang, Z.F.; Fath, B.D.; Li, S.S., (2010a). Ecological network analysis of an urban energy metabolic system: model development, and a case study of four Chinese cities. Ecol Model 2010b, 221 (16): 1865-1879 (24 pages).
Zhang, Y.; Zhao, Y.W.; Yang, Z.F.; Chen, B.; Chen, G.Q., (2009). Measurement and evaluation of the metabolic capacity of an urban ecosystem. Common Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 2009c, 14 (4): 1758-1765 (8 pages). 

Letters to Editor

GJESM Journal welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in GJESM should be sent to the editorial office of GJESM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.
[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.
[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.
[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.
[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.
[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.
[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.