Carbon footprints of the horticultural products strawberries, asparagus, roses and orchids in Germany

Soode, Eveli; Lampert, Paul; Weber‐Blaschke, Gabriele; Richter, Klaus

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.035

Cited by 48 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results for climate change impacts are below 2 kg CO2 eq per kg of produce sold, which is within the variability range reported in other studies for similar supply chains (i.e. Europe as geographical scope, distribution by truck, system boundaries including post-harvest stages) of strawberries and asparagus (Soode et al, 2015;Stoessel et al, 2012;Michalský and Hooda, 2015), but higher compared to studies on similar fruits (Cerutti et al, 2011). For peaches and grapes, the results are approximately 4 to 8 times higher compared to studies assessing only the production stage (Vinyes et al, 2015;Villanueva-Rey et al, 2014), highlighting the need for considering impacts stemming from postharvest stages of supply chains.…”

Section: Overview Of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Results For Conventsupporting

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving environmental performance of post-harvest supply chains of fruits and vegetables in Europe: Potential contribution from ultrasonic humidification

Fabbri

Olsen

Owsianiak

2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Results For Conventsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…where farming is found to be major driver of impacts (Canals et al, 2008;Cellura et al, 2012;Soode et al, 2015). However, other authors report significant contributions of transport to different impact categories (Hospido et al, 2009;Sim et al, 2007;Payen et al, 2014).…”

Section: Process Contribution For the Conventional And Humidificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving environmental performance of post-harvest supply chains of fruits and vegetables in Europe: Potential contribution from ultrasonic humidification

Fabbri

Olsen

Owsianiak

2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Para las comparaciones se ha hecho especial énfasis en el país vecino de Colombia, por ser este el segundo productor mundial de rosas y la principal competencia comercial de rosas de Ecuador, al manejar el mismo nicho de mercado. En tercer lugar, se contrastaron los resultados con las huellas de carbono de cultivos de rosas en otros países como Alemania, Holanda, Kenia y Etiopía, considerando como base el estudio de Soode et al (2015). Este utilizó la metodología PAS 2050 y estableció como unidad funcional kgCO2eq/10 tallos de rosas cortadas, diferente a la del presente estudio.…”

Section: Comparación Con La Huella De Carbono Del Cultivo De Rosas Enunclassified

Huella de carbono del cultivo de rosas en Ecuador comparando dos metodologías: GHG Protocol vs. PAS 2050/ Carbon footprint of the cultivation of roses in Ecuador comparing two methodologies: GHG Protocol vs. PAS 2050

Constante

Baile

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecuador es el tercer exportador de rosas a nivel mundial. Un factor clave para la competitividad internacional es calcular y reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI). Por ello, se calculó la huella de carbono (HC) del cultivo de rosas en Ecuador, tomando como caso de estudio la Empresa Ecoroses S.A. en el año 2015. La empresa está ubicada en el cantón Mejía, provincia de Pichincha y dedica el 100% de su producción a las rosas. La HC se calculó mediante dos metodologías: GHG Protocol y PAS 2050, considerando los límites del sistema “de la cuna a la puerta”. Los factores de emisión fueron recopilados de bases de datos internacionales como IPCC y Ecoinvent v2.2. El resultado de la HC fue de 3,75 kg CO2eq/kg de rosa exportada. Las tres fuentes de emisión de GEI que más afectan son: los productos agrícolas (37,7%), la energía eléctrica (13,3%) y el uso de combustibles fósiles (10,95%). Esta HC duplica a la del cacao seco y es más de 8 veces mayor que la del banano nacional. Por ello, se propone implementar buenas prácticas ambientales para reducir los GEI, en concreto, fertilizantes orgánicos, ahorro energético y biocombustibles. Abstract Ecuador is the third largest exporter of roses worldwide. A key factor for the international competitiveness is to calculate and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG). For this reason, we calculated the carbon footprint (CF) of the cultivation of roses in Ecuador, taking as a case study the Company Ecoroses S.A. in the year 2015. The company is located in the canton Mejia, province of Pichincha, and dedicates 100% of its production to roses. The CF was calculated using two methodologies, GHG Protocol and PAS 2050, considering the limits of the system “from the cradle to the door”. The emission factors were compiled from international databases such as IPCC and Ecoinvent v2.2. The result of the CF was 3,75 kg CO2eq/kg of rose exported. The three sources of emission of GHG that most affect are: agricultural products (37,7%), electrical energy (13,3%), and the use of fossil fuels (10,95%). This CF doubles that of dry cocoa, and is more than 8 times higher than that of domestic bananas. Therefore, the implementation of good environmental practices is proposed to reduce GHG, specifically, organic fertilizers, energy saving, and biofuels.

show abstract

“…Indeed, it is often the consumer who leads the transition to a low fossil carbon society through buying behaviour and product choice. Both producers and consumers have a significant influence on the product carbon footprint (PCF), in particular for food products (Lampert & Menrad, ; Soode, Lampert, Weber‐Blaschke, & Richter, ). The PCF is defined as the balance of greenhouse gas emissions throughout the entire life cycle of a product in a defined application and based on a defined functional unit (Grießhammer, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon information on vegetables: How does it affect the buying process?

Lampert

Menrad

Emberger‐Klein

2017

Int J Consumer Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information on the climate impact of a food product has practically not been communicated in Germany, even though it could provide important acknowledgement of producers' actions in lowcarbon production. So far, carbon labelling has predominantly been discussed without taking into account German consumers' opinions (proven by empirical data) on this issue, even though involving the consumer in the considerations of a Carbon Label is essential for its success. Especially the question, if information on the product carbon footprint is a considerable factor within the search process of a purchase decision, was of special interest in this work. To answer these questions, we analysed consumers' information-seeking behaviour using an information display matrix (IDM) experiment with 232 participants. The IDM is a process tracing technique which allows to track the information search in a buying process. Our results show that basically the place of origin is the most important criterion for the purchase decision, followed by price and production method (conventional/organic). In contrast, the sustainability information (i.e., carbon footprint and water consumption) are at a low level of importance. Comparing two locally produced products with the help of a multinominal logistic regression-model, it seems that the group of consumers preferring organic products is influenced in the purchase decision by the carbon footprint information. In summary it can be stated that although some people may be basically interested in carbon labelling of fresh food, the purchase decision would probably be hardly influenced by a carbon label on vegetables at present. The majority of people are more concerned about factors like origin and price so that Carbon Labelling would only be a viable option for a small group of consumers. K E Y W O R D S carbon footprint, consumer behavior, sustainable consumption

show abstract

Carbon footprints of the horticultural products strawberries, asparagus, roses and orchids in Germany

Cited by 48 publications

References 18 publications

Improving environmental performance of post-harvest supply chains of fruits and vegetables in Europe: Potential contribution from ultrasonic humidification

Improving environmental performance of post-harvest supply chains of fruits and vegetables in Europe: Potential contribution from ultrasonic humidification

Huella de carbono del cultivo de rosas en Ecuador comparando dos metodologías: GHG Protocol vs. PAS 2050/ Carbon footprint of the cultivation of roses in Ecuador comparing two methodologies: GHG Protocol vs. PAS 2050

Carbon information on vegetables: How does it affect the buying process?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About